|
A few months ago I wrote about why to play tighter in early position in terms of the decision-making disadvantage. That positional issue extends beyond just starting hand selection into concerns about how you play the hands you enter out of position. I realized the need to really pound home this kind of framework for thinking about positional issues when I was filming The Best Damn Poker Show Period for Fox Sports. A couple of the better players on the show made the same big mistake in playing a middle pair out of position, and I realized that if these successful and skilled players make these kinds of mistakes then the situation warrants shedding light on it to plug what could be a hole in many players' games.
So what was the mistake? In both cases the players held a middle pair; in the fi rst it was 9-9 and in the second it was 10-10. In both cases the players were in the small blind. And in both cases they were against an early-position opener in a six-handed sit-n- go. Facing an early-position raise, there are a few options here. Certainly they don’t want to fold, so we can throw that one out. The other three choices are to fl at call, raise small, or raise big (meaning the pot). Both players chose to raise small … the worst choice of the three. Why is that the worst choice? Because of the positional disadvantage in the hand.
Here is the problem: You are out of position with a hand that will fl op an overcard to your pair more than fi fty percent of the time. By raising small, you are making two errors. The fi rst is that the original opener is obligated to call because he is priced in. Remember that when you choose to put money in the pot, the money needs to serve a purpose. When you raise with your middle pair out of position, there must be a purpose for putting money in above and beyond the fl at call. Raising minimum serves no purpose: You aren’t protecting your hand, because the other player has no fold. You aren’t getting any new information from the other player since any hand he initially raised with he will call with as well. So you have not narrowed his range with the raise. Basically, by raising the minimum, you are accomplishing the same thing as if you had just called — except you are committing more money to a pot for which you have a big positional disadvantage. Whether you call or raise the minimum, you learn the same amount about the other player’s hand (nothing new), so why make that minimum raise? Just to play a bigger pot when your opponent has the advantage?
The second problem with the minimum raise is that you are opening the action back up to your opponent. If you are going to open the action back up, then the extra money you put in the pot better damn well be accomplishing something — either giving you some strong folding equity so you can win the pot right there without seeing a fl op, or at least telling you something new about your opponent’s hand when he does call. The minimum raise accomplishes neither of these two things. The only thing the minimum raise does is open you up to a move in and possibly causing you to fold the best hand.
Obviously the better choices are either just to fl at call and play the pot small, not giving anything away about your hand and keeping the pot small when you are at a disadvantage; or raising big to pick up the folding equity and learn a lot about your opponent’s hand when he does call. Raising big actually allows you to take a nice lead on the pot. Since there are valid arguments for both calling and raising big, I would never fault anyone for taking either of these choices — both are fine.
So what happened to our heroes who raised the minimum with 9-9 and 10-10? Well, the player with 9-9 got moved in on by A-J and folded, demonstrating quite nicely why opening the action up to your opponent might not be such a good thing. The player with 10-10 was called pre-flop by A-6 and then got bluffed off his hand after the flop, demonstrating why juicing up the pot when you are at a positional disadvantage might also not be a good thing.
The lesson here is that when you are out of position, you must make a clear choice: Choose to play a small pot when you are at a big disadvantage or play the hand strong enough to get your opponent to fold. Do not make the non– choice — the completely noncommittal play of raising but not raising enough to accomplish anything except the possibility of you being bluffed.
|
