Learn Texas Holdem

There is lots of information for beginners on how to learn how to play Texas Holdem. The problem is though, is that there isn't much info on how to get better and take your game to the next level after you've progressed to an intermediate player. The following tip is something that I've been thinking about for a while but I haven't been able to really formalize it into a rule per se. See there are a lot of ways of looking at a game of cards -- the numbers/odds, the player types, hand strength relative to position, the amount of players, etc -- but this concept isn't justified by any of those traditional ways, and in some cases it actually contradicts some of the other concepts; part of the reason why I've had a hard time putting this one into words. I've come to the conclusion that many aspects of cards, especially at higher levels/limits, may contradict another earlier concept you may have learned -- especially odds. A move may not be correct if you were to try and justify it by odds only, yet it has unforeseen value. Numbers are not the only measurement of a specific action's value. The evolution of a poker player begins with the book reading, hand groupings and odds. As one progresses, other things come into play. I was trapped for many years playing what I now consider a weak tight game, in which my only measurement for a play was the odds. Obviously since then I've progressed past that level yet I still couldn't put my finger on a rule for exactly why I was doing what I was doing. Many plays you make at bigger games are done based on feel; I don't really buy "feel" though. There has to be some underlying reason for doing what you are doing, even if you can't finger exactly what it is, hence my new rule.

The rule I'm about to list is generalized and now that I have it in words, I can see how powerful its application is. So here it is: It is better to lose a little more and preserve a chance of winning, than it is to lose less and guarantee losing. What the heck does that mean? Let's do a little compare and contrast example between the odds perspective and the new rule -- what's worse? -- perspective. You have KK heads up in a limit game. You raise, have one caller, and you bet to the river and on the river is an Ace. Your opponent bets. The pot isn't that large so odds would say that even though you are getting a fair return on your call and you don't have to be right that often for it to make sense, you still should fold. The other way of thinking is, what is worse, for me to lay down the winner here and lose the whole pot or is it worse that the guy beats me out of one more big bet and I might still win the hand? Clearly, the lesser of the evils is that you call him down. This example may seem pretty obvious and useless, but just wait... Let's look at some other applications and we'll see how pervasive it is:

* Tournaments. Many of the questions I get on this site are geared towards tourney play. Of those questions, a common one is, "I often get to the final table or final few players and then I don't have enough chips to play." Part of the problem here is that the style of play that got these players to the end was a more cautious safe one, based largely on odds and other poker book smarts. Many of the top tournament players have more of a crash and burn style, which is consistent with our new rule. What is worse, for me to implement a style that is almost surely going to fail (unless you get hit by the deck, meaning you get fantastic cards -- very unlikely), or to play a little more recklessly and give myself an opportunity to win?

And before I go on, let me qualify this rule, namely, I'm not talking about playing like an idiot and just relying on luck; obviously that won't work. What I'm saying is that there is something beyond the odds. By playing a few more hands and playing them well, you are opening a door that would not have been there otherwise. And you aren't losing anything really. Remember, in the tournament you are going to lose either way. This is analogous to being a person in a death camp in Nazi Germany. There is a very small chance that if you do what the Nazis say, you'll survive. On the other hand if you struggle or try to create some escape plan, you most likely will die too, but at least you have a glimmer of hope. And in both situations, a worthwhile byproduct is the fact that you regain some of the control; your destiny isn't in just in the hands of the allies and Nazis, or in whether or not the cards are working for you that day. You are going to make things happen. (That probably is too heavy of an analogy to be appropriate, but I think it is an apt one. And this takes nothing away from people who didn't struggle, there were lots of other factors.)

* Loose games. One of the hardest, and most frustrating things, is when you start out playing cards at a low limit table where everyone is doing the exact opposite of what your new poker book espoused, and yet you can't beat them. Even though I don't play much low limit holdem anymore, it still fascinates me to try and think what the best approach is for beat those games. I don't think the best way, beating them for the most money, is to play a super tight game. I think a better approach, one that is consistent with this new rule, is to play more hands and give up some equity preflop, only to play better post flop.

This is just pure speculation but what if you were to take the approach that stated, "I'm going to play as many cards and as bad as everyone else preflop, but postflop I'll play a tight good game." That is taking it a little far but it still could be winning play. I mean really, why do you need KQ or AK to win when a weak kicker like K5s would beat the guy as well? So again, what is worse, for you to play only very select hands and get run down on most of them, or to open up some and give yourself a chance to play more hands against the opponents.

The more edge you have over your opponents, the more hands you want to play against them so you can exact this edge. Another application for loose games is how you play your specific hands. What is worse, in a big pot to fold your AK when you miss the flop and turn, or see one more card on the river, paying one more big bet and potentially take down the entire thing? Again, you'll most likely lose in both spots but by paying that one extra bet, you keep a bit of hope alive that can turn out well sometimes. Maybe this isn't in total contrast of the numbers either if we take a bird's eye view. Say in a limit holdem game in 10 pots you have AK and everytime you miss the flop. You pay to see the turn in all of them, either by betting the flop or by calling. If you were to fold after missing the turn card, your outcome is guaranteed: losing.

After the 10 hands, you would lose a minimum of 30 small bets (2 preflop after you raised and then one on the flop). If you were to pay to see the river by calling the turn bet, it would cost you an additional 20 small bets. By the odds, the A or K would hit on the river about 12% of the time. That means out of your 10 tries, it would hit around once, and in a loose game, that one pot could be substantial. So the outcomes are that you either guarantee a loss of 30 small bets, or you gamble a little and potentially make back a lot of the money by call the turn bet. Now granted, this is a very simplistic example and it doesn't take into account reverse implied odds (when you hit your A or K and still lose), but it does illustrate the rule of what is worse. I would prefer to gamble a little and preserve a chance of winning to just losing by folding. And again, this isn't advice to go play every hand to the river, even AK, it is just an example.

* Heads Up/Shorthanded Play. Many of the concepts in poker are greatest seen in games where there are fewer opponents. This is what poker is really all about. Instead of numbers you are playing against a an opponent and the opponents style. Much of what you do is do try and exploit whatever weakness is in your opponents style. If the chink in the armor is folding too much post flop, then betting more is correct. If your opponent calls too much, you value bet more. If your opponent is too loose preflop with calls, you raise more. If your opponent pays off to many hands postflop, you can make much looser calls preflop since the upside is so big. Let's play a typical hand through for heads up limit holdem game where the opponent is a typical tough one, representative of bigger stakes. You have 88 on the button.

Most hands are raised preflop from the button so this one is no different. You raise and the opponent reraises, like he will normally do with most hands that hold an Ace, good King, etc. Instead of calling, you reraise. What is worse, for you to not get that extra bet in now when you probably have the best hand, or to play it safe and see if the flop looks scary before you wager more? You cap it. The flop comes back well for your hand, the only overcard being a Jack, which is about as much as you can hope for with the 88. The opponent checks and you bet. He calls. The turn is another blank, lower than the 88. He checks again and you bet, now he check raises you. The first betting round where we capped was pretty straight forward, even for tight players. Now we have a decision to make. There are some other factors that can play into what is the correct move, but generally I think a reraise is the best move in this spot, for this game and this opponent.

What is worse, for us to miss out on a chance to make more from this player when you actually have a pair, and a decent one too, or that we lose a couple extra bets if we are beat? I think it is a greater sin to play to tentatively and not get value on your good hands than it is to end up playing a little too recklessly and losing more than you had to. Remember, we aren't even considering folding here. Either way we are going to show the hand down. The question is whether or not we want to potentially risk some more and potentially gain some more, or just back off and play cautiously. Next, there are many situations in holdem where you are fairly sure you are beat, but you have so much invested already that you shouldn't fold. What should be going through your head is, "dang it, his raise on the river most likely means his flush got there...good for him...he's going to get one more bet out of me then."

I read before a saying that stated you don't make money by making great laydowns on the river in limit holdem. What that means is that you are already so invested in the pot that it could be a catastrophic error to fold the winner, so you are just going to have to pay the guy off. No limit holdem is a little different since the river bets can be greater relative to the pot, yet the same applies: when the pot is large, that should weigh heavily on your calling -- even with what you can assume is the worst hand. Likewise, before showdown nothing changes; you would prefer to lose a little more when you lose and preserve a chance of winning everything to folding to early and guaranteeing a loss.

These are just a few of the applications; this rule can apply to much more. And again, don't go out and switch up your style based on this and become some loose maniac, calling every hand to the river; that isn't at all what I mean. If you are a very new player, it is probably better that you don't even worry about this yet. This is just a way of thinking that you can add to your decision making process.