Too loose?

Noted Poker Authority has a nice blog. It is a useful one for all levels of play at NLHE. I found it when he got pressured by Sklansky et al to take down his advice as it was affecting book sales. That’s a novel approach by ‘industry leaders’ in the publishing game where they talked about it affecting their huge investment in books.  Great way to send me and others to the site.

So, his last two posts have been about games that are ‘too loose’ and we’ve all been there and done that. His example is holding AK and popping it with 4 callers. He like the situation. I threw it in a poker calculator against 4 random hands and got:

Monte carlo simulation results from Poker Calculator 1.1.4.1

Texas Hold’em, 100000 combinations tested.

Hand | AcKs | xx | xx | xx | xx |

——+————+————+————+————+————+

Win | 31339 | 16047 | 16142 | 15854 | 16050 |

Draw | 1994 | 2050 | 2025 | 2015 | 2048 |

Lose | 66667 | 81903 | 81833 | 82131 | 81902 |

——+————+————+————+————+————+

Win% | 32.24% | 16.97% | 17.05% | 16.76% | 16.97% |

——+————+————+————+————+————+

AcKs:

High Card win: 146 draw: 12 lose: 19474

Pair win: 11673 draw: 385 lose: 33503

Two Pair win: 11495 draw: 616 lose: 10660

Three of a Kind win: 2544 draw: 39 lose: 1817

Straight win: 1996 draw: 561 lose: 773

Flush win: 1675 draw: 38 lose: 255

Full House win: 1676 draw: 327 lose: 185

Quads win: 123 draw: 16 lose: 0

Straight Flush win: 11 draw: 0 lose: 0

xx:

High Card win: 0 draw: 4 lose: 17286

Pair win: 1887 draw: 161 lose: 41356

Two Pair win: 5191 draw: 479 lose: 17922

Three of a Kind win: 2403 draw: 105 lose: 2294

Straight win: 2916 draw: 980 lose: 1215

Flush win: 1669 draw: 38 lose: 1217

Full House win: 1805 draw: 277 lose: 588

Quads win: 149 draw: 6 lose: 25

Straight Flush win: 27 draw: 0 lose: 0

xx:

High Card win: 0 draw: 1 lose: 17233

Pair win: 1932 draw: 174 lose: 41460

Two Pair win: 5140 draw: 501 lose: 17684

Three of a Kind win: 2457 draw: 107 lose: 2340

Straight win: 2893 draw: 940 lose: 1231

Flush win: 1768 draw: 38 lose: 1282

Full House win: 1785 draw: 259 lose: 575

Quads win: 140 draw: 5 lose: 27

Straight Flush win: 27 draw: 0 lose: 1

xx:

High Card win: 0 draw: 4 lose: 17322

Pair win: 1859 draw: 186 lose: 41416

Two Pair win: 5116 draw: 489 lose: 17875

Three of a Kind win: 2464 draw: 96 lose: 2435

Straight win: 2872 draw: 943 lose: 1282

Flush win: 1687 draw: 38 lose: 1232

Full House win: 1673 draw: 253 lose: 544

Quads win: 149 draw: 6 lose: 25

Straight Flush win: 34 draw: 0 lose: 0

xx:

High Card win: 0 draw: 3 lose: 17276

Pair win: 1920 draw: 189 lose: 41494

Two Pair win: 5102 draw: 509 lose: 17746

Three of a Kind win: 2401 draw: 111 lose: 2330

Straight win: 2890 draw: 951 lose: 1225

Flush win: 1760 draw: 38 lose: 1258

Full House win: 1801 draw: 240 lose: 549

Quads win: 143 draw: 7 lose: 24

Straight Flush win: 33 draw: 0 lose: 0

OK, he is ahead preflop but not by a huge amount. How the hand then plays out is anybody’s guess. The pot in his example is $100 with his $20 bet happening in a $1-2 game. He’s certainly right in describing the table as loose. We’re looking at a 10x bet with 4 callers. Is he going to make the $50 continuation bet if he misses. He talks about starting with a $300 stack and that’d put $70 at risk. OK, one raises his obvious continuation bet on a rat board. What’s his move? The pot has $150 and he needs $50 to call for very nice 3:1 odds. But, he doesn’t have a hand and is looking at 6 out for roughly 4:1 odds here.

Of course he might have hit the flop and be nicely ahead. That was the hope with the nice starting hand. But, the conversation is about loose. His approach is the standard one of promoting big hands. He recognizes implied odds and seems to discount it because he’s ‘only’ play with $300. But, that is 150 BB. That gives implied odds to a lot of folks. I can think of Fuel55 being in such a hand with his old friend 55. Noted Poker Authority’s example actually panders to good ol’ Fuel with the following:

Furthermore, you can look at the flop and gauge the danger factor. If the flop is K T 9 , then sure, worry about your top pair. But if it’s K 8 5 , you are a solid favorite to be ahead of four opponents with junk hands.

He has made the classic boner, IMO. He’s playing aggressor at a table of them. That’s another good players hope. A loose table isn’t necessarily one where you are the one solid player. The guy sitting with 20 in the pot and a speculative hand possibly doesn’t have the pot odds to call but he does have the implied odd to see a flop. NPA think that last flop a weak situation for his opponents. Well, you just can’t look at it that way. If it was a ratty pot from a min-raise or just call, he’d have been in great shape. Here, it is fraught with danger of his own making. That may be a hand that is an easy win as a modest pot. Here you’ve got implied odds coming out your ears – even with what he has behind him.

I won’t argue that he didn’t have a decent hand. But, with the table playing the way it is, he’s pressing a small advantage to the extreme. It is like the old saw about AA. “You either win an average pot or lose a big one.” He built the pot. And that’s a double edged sword.

My tendency is to play low ball at a table of loose players. They are going to build the pot without much interference on my part. It seems the lucrative way to play such a table. Even then TPTK isn’t god. But, the pot size lets you live on without yelling for the chip runner. Too loose can show up when we look in the mirror

ADDENDUM:

It appears that Congress – instead of our Lord – is our savior. The bail out rolls on. The following quote is from what Congress believes will lead us to the promise land:

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

That is a lot like playing poker with a super user account. Except the other guy knows your hand too. We are ready to put 700-mil on the table. It will be used to buy up all those junk mortgage packages. But, there are smart folks out there beside our Secretary. And, believe it or not, there is a similar amount out there in the private sector willing to buy up mortgage packages. The problem is the sellers know that the value currently offered on many isn’t even close to the actual value. This is a lot like some of the junk bond attacks in the past. You’re looking for hidden value. Look folks, you have to trust the markets to not only tank from stupidity but get righted by intelligence. It has always been thus. Bubbles pop and the distressed good get picked up as value buys.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 23rd, 2008 at 5:43 pm and is filed under Ring Play.