« And I Was Just About To Start Bitching | Home | The Secret Of Poker »
05.18.06
The Suicide Pact, Part I: Mutual Assured Destruction
posted by Absinthe | 11:31 PM
“A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.”
– Wargames
How could you make that call?
We’ve all thought it. Those of us with a little less self-control have said it over and over again, often with our own little twist (”NICE call, donkey,” “”Keep calling, genius,” or my personal favorite, “u r gong to loose all your moneys”). But the fact of the matter is that a lot of us make those calls because the amped-up aggression of the game demands it - against an opponent you know will threebet the flop with air you’re forced to choose between (and switch quickly from) the roles of maniac, calling station, or total wuss.
I usually play a straight game simply because that’s what works for me. (Usually.) At low limits, tricky plays go unrewarded, so it’s ABC poker, with a few minor deviations into D, E and F to keep me in action or maximize value against an overaggressive player. Check-call a few middle pairs with suited connectors (because, one, they might be good, and two, showing down a medium-strength hand makes the right kind of impression), then pound away with TPTK or better, pick up a few orphan pots when my image is good. This works very well when you’re running ok, great when you’re running great, and absolutely atrociously when you’re running bad.
Hold’Em is a game of aggression, but selective aggression. It is necessary to at least take down some pots where nobody makes a hand to make money. It’s necessary to make value bets with marginal hands. And at the lower limits, it is necessary - this is a key concept here, and its meaning is far greater than its self-evidence would suggest - it is necessary to show down winning hands.
And it is a game where fear will get you killed. Unfortunately, the same holds true for your opponents. Unfortunately, a lot of people know this.
Abdul’s quote, “Your opponent cannot fold if you do not bet or raise,” has a perilous corollary: If your opponent always bets, you can (almost) never fold. If the limit of your opponent’s aggression approaches infinity, then once you’ve determined the range of cards your opponent will play, you’re obligated to call him down with any two cards that compare favorably with that range, adjusted slightly for the value of the blinds. Theoretically. In a limit game, if you think your hand has a forty percent chance of winning a heads-up pot, you’re obligated to at least call turn and river bets; since the automatic position flop bet has lost all meaning, unless you’re in with a speculative hand that missed completely, you’re going to have to call that too.
And therein lies the rub. The steady hangers in the games have to be as fearless as you do. This results, in games where heads-up pots are the norm and the betting options are limited, in a sort of rotating combination of Mexican standoff and Russian roulette. Often the decision to go to the river is made on the flop, when someone holding ace high decides their opponent missed the flop just as badly. Given the default aggression factor of your average opponent, most of whom are willing to bet the flop, turn, and frequently the river with absolutely nothing, and exhibit a willingness to call a turn checkraise and river follow-up with as little as king-high, you’re going to have to show down hands. And you have to take the same role with position or you’re going to get run over - if you don’t put your aggressive opponents to the test they will quickly begin to do it to you, forcing you into difficult decisions with marginal hands and unable to do the same to them. If they’re not going to fold, and you are, you’ll have to make up in value bets what you lose in lost pots, which isn’t easy to do.
The problem with this strategy is that it breaks down, as nearly all “systems” do. In the long run, the cards break even, and so if two opponents are playing this way forever, the house is the only winner. It’s mutual assured destruction. Played to its logical conclusion, once you’ve decided to play your cards, you might well be capping every street in the dark. You’re not playing your opponent, and you’re not really playing your cards - your cards are playing you.
So, then, the question: if you accept my premise, what’s the solution? I have some thoughts which we’ll get to in part II (and, heaven forfend, part III), but as always, I’m open to suggestions.
Popularity: 25% [?]
Topics: Poker |
May 19, 2006 at 3:54 AM
I think I’m missing the point.
Against an infinitely aggressive player, it is true that you have to show down more hands because their hand range is so wide. But that doesn’t mean you have to show down every hand. The whole point of poker is to gain more value than your opponent, and that’s achieved by deciding when to fold and when to raise.
You can get more value than the maniac by laying down hands where you have a high probability of losing and raising those hands that have a good chance of winning.
That’s obvious, though, so I don’t think it’s the answer you’re looking for.
May 19, 2006 at 5:48 AM
I would very much like to read this part II of which ye speak.
I struggle mightily with what you mention in very short games, with 1-3 opponents, especially if one is very, very aggressive. I sometimes exit those games with the nagging feeling that all my cogitating and plotting and trickiness was less successful than if I had simply picked a hand to play and capped every street in the dark.
May 19, 2006 at 10:28 PM
I would very much like to read *any* promised part II.
Your friend,
glyphic
May 22, 2006 at 10:14 AM
Count me in as awaiting for a part II.
Your comments have helped my tournament game greatly. Thanks again for your help man
May 23, 2006 at 5:41 AM
Excellent post!
June 6, 2006 at 9:22 AM
[…] Absinthetics ยป The Suicide Pact, Part I: Mutual Assured Destruction […]
June 7, 2006 at 8:42 AM
October 10, 2006 at 3:08 AM