A Standard Stacking

I played a hand today that seemed pretty straightforward, but I wound up thinking about it quite a bit later and thought it was actually quite interesting and demonstrative of some pretty crucial cash game concepts.

It was $10-20 no limit hold em, which is basically the only game I've played in the last year. I honestly don't remember how many players were at the table because I was playing three tables and a couple of them were very shorthanded. I know this table had more than four players, but don't recall how full it was. In any case, I raised from early position to $70 with pocket jacks. $70 is what I almost always open-raise to, mostly because it is convenient to press the "bet pot" button. A player named Thumper called from the big blind with QcTc. Thumper is fairly tight and one of the better regulars I play against. He certainly has some game but usually plays pretty straighforward. His call here is quite standard, whether shorthanded or not. It's probably the right play, although folding this hand heads up out of position against a player of my caliber wouldn't be a bad decision either.

The flop came J-x-2 with two clubs. The x was somewhere between 5 and 8, again I'm not sure what exactly. Thumper checked and I made a normal continuation bet, something like $100 into the pot of $150. 2/3 pot is a very typical continuation bet for me. I'm not sure how closely Thumper watches my play, but if he did he would know that I continuation bet far less often than most players. I probably continuation bet (both in and out of position) less often than 90% of regulars at the $10-20 level. However, on a board like this heads up and in position, I will very often bet with nothing. For example, if I had the 6-3 of hearts or T-9 of spades, which I will have far more often than top set, I would almost always bet this flop.

Thumper had a pretty powerful hand on this flop, a flush draw with an overcard as well as some backdoor straight possibilities. He elected to check and call, another sort of standard move that I would have done in his shoes. Many players would checkraise with this draw, which wouldn't be a bad move but would leave him in an awkward spot if I didn't fold to the raise.

When Thumper calls it tells me he has something. There is the occasional player who could conceivably check-call here with absolutely nothing or ace high, but Thumper is not one of those players. His call doesn't tell me too much though. He could have top pair, a pair of 8s or something, a slowplayed set (but obviously not jacks), or a flush draw.

The turn card is where this hand gets interesting. It was a low club. Again I don't remember what it was exactly, but I think it provided minimum straight possibilities. So at this point the board was roughly Jc7s2c5c. There was about $350 in the pot and Thumper made a slightly unusual play of betting out about 2/3 pot with his made flush. I love this part of the hand by Thumper and do it pretty routinely myself when I make a draw on the turn. Checking made draws out of position is one of the more common mistakes I see at the $10-20 level. Far too many players always check in this situation and minimize their profits. This allows their opponent to check behind, control the pot, and possibly outdraw on the river. It does allow their opponent to bluff the turn or bet a worse hand, but most players get scared when a flush draw hits and stop betting, whether they have anything or not.

So Thumper bet out 2/3 pot and I had a decision. Folding is unreasonable, even if I think it's likely he has a flush. I didn't know if he had a flush, a lower set, a weird two pair, a pair and a (perhaps nut) flush draw, or top pair. Anything else would be pretty unlikely but not inconceivable. Raising is an option for me, but I believe that is the worst possible thing I could do. I called the bet, which I believe is both the standard play and the best one in this situation.

The river paired the deuce, making a final board of roughly Jc7s2c5c2d. I was very happy to see the board pair, of course, as now the only hand that would beat me was pocket deuces (quads).

Thumper bet out the pot on the river, which was something like $720. It did cross my mind that he might actually have quads here, but that was a minor concern. I thought he probably had a flush, maybe the nut flush. I had about $1600 left in my stack on the river, and knew right away that I would be moving all-in. I let the time bank go down for a while, pretending to be thinking about the hand, then moved all-in for about $850 more than Thumper's bet. I knew Thumper would be getting great pot odds here and would likely call with whatever strong hand he had. However, I thought he might actually fold a flush despite the great odds because I would be so unlikely to be bluffing in this spot.

He called quickly though, and I won the $4000 pot.

A lot of players would simply write this hand off as a cooler and try to forget about it. I believe that hands like this are why I am one of the top $10-20 NLHE players out there and why my ego has grown to the point where I make statements like this. I am so much better than my competitors at minimizing losses on big hands gone awry and also at squeezing value out of less powerful hands.

Thumper's final call of $850 was only 1/4 of the pot, but it was also for 42 big blinds. Thumper could fold every hand for the next 28 orbits and lose less money than he did by calling the final bet during that hand. He was getting 4 to 1 on the call, but I believe that his hand will be the best far less than one out of four times in that situation. What he especially has to understand is the power of his own bet on the river. When he bets the pot on the river, I am basically always going to assume he has a very strong hand. It's possible that he could be making an interesting play with something like 99. But even if I do think he might be bluffing, it is very very hard for me to raise my last $850 all in on the river with nothing. I would be far more likely to call, as it is likely I have at least a pair since I bet the flop and then called a good-sized bet on the turn. Thumper bet the pot for value on the river, hoping I would call with a worse hand. He needs to understand that when I small-raise a bet of that size on the river, I am almost never bluffing. Further, I will never be value-raising with a worse hand. On a paired board to that action, I would never consider raising with a worse flush. In fact, I would probably just call his pot bet with an ace-high flush.

So what was Thumper supposed to do on the river? Betting out pot and then folding to my raise is one way to play it. Betting 2/3 of the pot and then folding to a raise would be a solid option as well. Checking and calling wouldn't be too bad either, as I might actually have just the ace of clubs or something and bluff. Also, this minimizes damage in case I just made a full house. The point though, really, is that playing out of position against good players is very unprofitable. It must be avoided at all costs. There are some great players who manage to do this pretty well, but even for them it is far less efficient than playing in position. It leads to ugly situations, as Thumper learned the hard way on this hand.

My last few sessions, I have sprinkled in more bluffing in medium-sized pots than in the past and had great results doing it. But in spots like this, in the pots worth over 100 BBs, I almost always have the goods. I probably shouldn't even be writing this as some of my competitors will surely read it and get a better understanding of how I play. Time after time though, my opponents pay me off.

My greatest strength in no limit hold em is folding hands like Thumper's in situations like his (I actually made one of the greatest folds in the history of the game, ask me about it sometime if you don't know the story, I can never talk enough about it). I am constantly getting into arguments with my friends where I describe a particular fold I made and they can't believe it and think it was a mistake. I do make more incorrect laydowns than anyone else, but a high enough percentage of the big laydowns are accurate to make them profitable overall. While there are exceptions, I actually believe that the big folds are where the top players make most of their money - not the big bluffs and calls. This is especially true at the $10-20 level, which is as interesting, competitive, enjoyable, and profitable for me as it has been at any time in the last 26 months.