By: The Monster Stack (Guest Blogger)
Hello,
Who am I to argue with an 11 time world champion and Hall of Famer Phil Hellmuth? I'm not exactly near his level and despite what I think of the way he acts at the table - he needs to stop crying about be re-raised when he has nothing - he has proven for nearly two decades that he is the best No Limit Hold 'Em tournament player. His results tell quite the story.
Before I get to the hand in question I want to prefix it with a little tidbit on Hellmuth's game. He likes to play small pots with marginal hands and get it all-in with the nuts. When he has what he believes to be the best hand, but not the best possible hand, he throws out a small bet. On the flop. On the turn. And then on the river. If he wins, he wins a reasonably sized pot. If he loses, he berates his opponent's play but only loses a relatively small pot. If he gets re-raised along the way he has the awesome ability to throw away a monster, albeit with quite the tantrum. He likes to trap a lot and does it masterfully. He also seems to know the exact right time to throw in a bluff.
I do, however, have a bone to pick with Hellmuth on the way in which he played this particular hand during the 2007 World Series of Poker Main Event. I don't know what the blinds and antes were at the time but the action went something like this (according to Phil as the ESPN cameras came to the table). Phil limped with Ah-Ks in late position, a typical trap by the 11 time bracelet winner. He got raised by either the button or by the player to his right (who had apparently also limped) and Phil re-raised to $3,000. Both players called with the button holding 4s-4c and the middle position player holding 3h-3d.
The flop came down 7s Kc 7h, a perfect flop for Hellmuth's hand. There was $12,400 in the pot and it was checked to Hellmuth who bet out $2,000. I believe that this is mistake number one for Hellmuth. What is the purpose of a bet this size? Is he trying to take down the pot? If he is $2,000 is probably not going to do it. With so much in the pot he is likely to get a caller being that the bet is so small. His opponents are getting more than 7-1 on the call. Now I know Hellmuth likes to keep the pot small but he re-raised pre-flop and got two callers. The time for small pots has passed. On top of that, the pot size represents nearly all of Hellmuth's stack. He can almost double up without a showdown by taking down this pot. If he intended to play a small pot he should not have put in a re-raise pre-flop. One of the reasons to do that, in addition to taking it down right there, is to build a pot with a big hand.
The turn was the Js. Now this is where Hellmuth simply gave the hand away. He checked. What can he possibly be trying to accomplish with this check? Is he going for the check-raise all-in? That is not very likely to work anyway since his opponent would have to be on a stone cold bluff to fold with so few chips left. Or, his opponent would have to have the exact type of hand he happened to have, however it is extremely unlikely that he would bet that on the turn anyway. There is absolutely no benefit to checking here. Hellmuth had less than less than $11,000 chips left with over $16,000 in the pot. He absolutely must bet the turn here. It is pretty hard for him to be beat here.
The river brings the absolute worst card for Hellmuth and a beautiful card for his opponent, the 4d, giving him fours full of sevens. Now Hellmuth decides to bet. He bets $3,000 into a $16,000 pot. With what hand could his opponent have that would call the flop, check the turn, and then call the river? My best guess is that Hellmuth put his opponent on a medium pair and was hoping that the guy would look him up because the pot was so big. This has to be the worst value bet ever, particularly since he had the worst hand. He essential gave his opponent two free cards to draw out. After betting the river Hellmuth was moved all-in at which point he bemoans his back luck, berates all the players at the table, complains that he never gets any cards and folds, leaving himself with just about $5,000 in chips.
Had Hellmuth bet bigger on the flop, or even made a sizable bet on the turn he would have doubled up and proclaimed his greatness for a few more hands, or maybe all the way to the final table. Big hands are meant to be played strongly. Slow playing only gets one into trouble and, although his opponent had just two outs to win, Hellmuth allowed his opponent to get there and has only himself to blame. He simply outplayed himself on this hand and attempted to get too fancy at the wrong time. He created a big pot, something which he does not like to do, and did not protect his hand with so much at stake. I believe that he played this hand wrong on every street from the flop onward.
So remember to respect your big hands and treat as they should be treated. Like a rare commodity. They don't come along often so you need to make the most of them when they do.
See you on the felt,
The Monster Stack
Amazon Contextual Product Ads
Showing newest posts with label live. Show older posts
Showing newest posts with label live. Show older posts
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Monday, August 20, 2007
Big Hand During Live Action $5-$10 No Limit Hold 'Em
By: The Monster Stack (Guest Blogger)
Hello,
A few nights ago I was playing at a local card room in a $5-$10 No Limit Hold 'Em (NLHE) game. The game was full of action right from the start and the stacks at the table quickly became very big. At one point there was a double straddle on making the game $5-$10-$20-$40 (even going to $80 on one hand!), so you can only imagine how loose this game was. Just the way a tight-aggressive player like me likes it.
I bought in for $1,000 and by the time the following hand came up I had about $2,700 in front of me. To get to that point I hit a two outer on the river with jacks against aces, but that's a story for another time. I held 7-7 in middle position and there was one limper in front of me. He was a very loose-aggressive player (LAG) with a stack that covered mine so I limped right behind him so as to avoid being re-raised out of the pot. I hoped to flop big and win a nice pot from him. The small and big blinds folded and the two straddles saw the flop.
The flop came down 9s-6d-7s giving me a set. It was checked over to the $40 straddle who led out with a bet of $100. The LAG called and I called as well. I didn't raise here for two reasons. One, if the LAG held anything worth while, even a draw, he would have raised. I felt he was weak and didn't want to bet him out of the pot. I figured if the pot got big enough he would bluff at it and I could come over the top and take down a nice pot. The original bettor was a very straight-forward (weak) player who would not have led out without a big hand. I had seen him play two draws earlier and he classically check-called and folded when he missed. I put him on either a made straight or two pair, as I felt he certainly would have raised with an overpair pre-flop. The $20 straddle folded and three of us took the turn.
The turn was the 2c and the the straddle, who now had about $500 behind, checked. This was an odd move and inconsistent with his earlier play. Perhaps he was hoping to check-raise the turn with a made straight or had actually tried to bluff at the pot on the flop and was now slowing down. When the LAG checked I had a strong feeling that I had the best hand. I checked as well, which would normally be a terrible play but if the right card fell on the river I knew that the LAG would have no choice but to bluff at the pot. In almost any other situation I would have bet out here but I risked letting him catch something on me to win a bigger pot. If the river was a scare card, for example a spade or card making a four card straight on the board, I could get away from it. Risk to reward, I decided checking to exude weakness was the better option.
The river was the beautiful 6s giving me sevens-full and putting the flush on the board. The straddler instantly declared himself all-in and counted for about $500. The LAG thought for about 5 seconds and proceeded to declare himself all-in, which, in reality, put me all-in for more than $2,500. Normally this would be an instacall as this is one of the cards I was looking for since the flop. I paused and studied the board to make sure I wasn't missing anything. I was not worried about the straddle because if he had me beat and I had the LAG beat, I would profit anyway.
What beats me? The board reads 9s-6d-7s-2c-6s. 10s-8s, pocket sixes and pocket nines. I ruled out the latter two because there is no way he would not have raised pre-flop with either of those hands. If he had the straight flush he would have probably raised on the flop with a big draw like that. Why else does one play 10s-8s? After deciding that I had the best hand (and if I'm beat by either of those hands then so be it) I called and rolled over my sevens. The straddle showed 9-6 for sixes full of nines and the LAG showed me only a six and mucked.
The table then spent the next half and hour wondering why I took so long (30 seconds) to think about the call. But let them wonder. No matter how much of a lock a hand may seem to be I always take the extra second or two to run through my opponents' possible holdings. As soon as the six fell on the river I had thought to myself that there is no way I am going to lay this one down. All I could think about was how much I was going to get paid. But when I was faced with such a large bet I had to stop and think. His huge overbet took me out of the driver's seat and caused me to call him down. I had expected to be the one raising here but suddenly, things changed. So after taking the time to quickly study the situation I realized that I certainly had the best hand and made the correct decision.
When playing a hand I like to think a few moves ahead. This way, when a opponent does something differently from the way that I had planned on playing the hand I can see his move more clearly. Now I have a train of thought which allows me to counter his move by asking myself why he decided to do that instead of what I had thought he was going to do. I adjust accordingly and allow myself to see the hand from multiple perspectives thereby making better decisions. Those who instacall what is technically the fourth nuts need to rethink their playing strategy. You can call the fourth or fifth or tenth nut hand, as long as it is thought out and you have come to the conclusion that your hand is indeed the first nuts, even if it's queen high.
See you on the felt,
The Monster Stack
Hello,
A few nights ago I was playing at a local card room in a $5-$10 No Limit Hold 'Em (NLHE) game. The game was full of action right from the start and the stacks at the table quickly became very big. At one point there was a double straddle on making the game $5-$10-$20-$40 (even going to $80 on one hand!), so you can only imagine how loose this game was. Just the way a tight-aggressive player like me likes it.
I bought in for $1,000 and by the time the following hand came up I had about $2,700 in front of me. To get to that point I hit a two outer on the river with jacks against aces, but that's a story for another time. I held 7-7 in middle position and there was one limper in front of me. He was a very loose-aggressive player (LAG) with a stack that covered mine so I limped right behind him so as to avoid being re-raised out of the pot. I hoped to flop big and win a nice pot from him. The small and big blinds folded and the two straddles saw the flop.
The flop came down 9s-6d-7s giving me a set. It was checked over to the $40 straddle who led out with a bet of $100. The LAG called and I called as well. I didn't raise here for two reasons. One, if the LAG held anything worth while, even a draw, he would have raised. I felt he was weak and didn't want to bet him out of the pot. I figured if the pot got big enough he would bluff at it and I could come over the top and take down a nice pot. The original bettor was a very straight-forward (weak) player who would not have led out without a big hand. I had seen him play two draws earlier and he classically check-called and folded when he missed. I put him on either a made straight or two pair, as I felt he certainly would have raised with an overpair pre-flop. The $20 straddle folded and three of us took the turn.
The turn was the 2c and the the straddle, who now had about $500 behind, checked. This was an odd move and inconsistent with his earlier play. Perhaps he was hoping to check-raise the turn with a made straight or had actually tried to bluff at the pot on the flop and was now slowing down. When the LAG checked I had a strong feeling that I had the best hand. I checked as well, which would normally be a terrible play but if the right card fell on the river I knew that the LAG would have no choice but to bluff at the pot. In almost any other situation I would have bet out here but I risked letting him catch something on me to win a bigger pot. If the river was a scare card, for example a spade or card making a four card straight on the board, I could get away from it. Risk to reward, I decided checking to exude weakness was the better option.
The river was the beautiful 6s giving me sevens-full and putting the flush on the board. The straddler instantly declared himself all-in and counted for about $500. The LAG thought for about 5 seconds and proceeded to declare himself all-in, which, in reality, put me all-in for more than $2,500. Normally this would be an instacall as this is one of the cards I was looking for since the flop. I paused and studied the board to make sure I wasn't missing anything. I was not worried about the straddle because if he had me beat and I had the LAG beat, I would profit anyway.
What beats me? The board reads 9s-6d-7s-2c-6s. 10s-8s, pocket sixes and pocket nines. I ruled out the latter two because there is no way he would not have raised pre-flop with either of those hands. If he had the straight flush he would have probably raised on the flop with a big draw like that. Why else does one play 10s-8s? After deciding that I had the best hand (and if I'm beat by either of those hands then so be it) I called and rolled over my sevens. The straddle showed 9-6 for sixes full of nines and the LAG showed me only a six and mucked.
The table then spent the next half and hour wondering why I took so long (30 seconds) to think about the call. But let them wonder. No matter how much of a lock a hand may seem to be I always take the extra second or two to run through my opponents' possible holdings. As soon as the six fell on the river I had thought to myself that there is no way I am going to lay this one down. All I could think about was how much I was going to get paid. But when I was faced with such a large bet I had to stop and think. His huge overbet took me out of the driver's seat and caused me to call him down. I had expected to be the one raising here but suddenly, things changed. So after taking the time to quickly study the situation I realized that I certainly had the best hand and made the correct decision.
When playing a hand I like to think a few moves ahead. This way, when a opponent does something differently from the way that I had planned on playing the hand I can see his move more clearly. Now I have a train of thought which allows me to counter his move by asking myself why he decided to do that instead of what I had thought he was going to do. I adjust accordingly and allow myself to see the hand from multiple perspectives thereby making better decisions. Those who instacall what is technically the fourth nuts need to rethink their playing strategy. You can call the fourth or fifth or tenth nut hand, as long as it is thought out and you have come to the conclusion that your hand is indeed the first nuts, even if it's queen high.
See you on the felt,
The Monster Stack
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)