How do you approach PL games?

PL (Pot Limit) poker is an extremely interesting breed. In order to master it strategically, first you need to make sure you understand the rules 100%. While Fixed Limit and No Limit betting are fairly easy to master, Pot Limit betting is quite a bit trickier. You need to be able to calculate pot size bets on the go and you have to pay much more attention to the money going into the pot.
From a strategic perspective, PL Holdem is somewhere between NL Holdem and FL Holdem.
While fixed limit Texas Holdem is mostly a pot odds based game where putting pressure on the opposition in the sense of tinkering with their pot odds, is rather limited, NL Holdem is a game based on personal reads on opponents rather than on pot odds, one where the implied odds take over the lead on the importance-scale.
In PL Holdem, much like in NL, you’ll be able to ruin your opponents’ pot odds, and you’ll be able to exert pressure through the sheer size of your stack. That means you’ll have to master the implied odds side of the game, but you’ll also have to be adept at the pot odds based play characteristic of FL Holdem.

With that in mind, I reckon we can affirm that the PL betting structure is the one that requires the most amount of prowess and skill of all. In order to be a good PL player, you need to be a good FL player and a good NL one as well, plus you need to learn to adapt your style.
I’m sure you’ve read or heard about the $1 million online challenge Tom Dwan (known online as ‘durrrr’) has issued about a month or so ago. The challenge is about him playing 50,000 PL Omaha hands against any comers for some pretty hefty stakes. Now why do you reckon Dwan has picked PL Omaha for his challenge? First, probably because of the fact that it takes a complete poker player to master the PL betting structure. Any and all cracks and shortcomings in one’s game can and will be exploited by Dwan.
Secondly, he probably chose Omaha because it is a poker variant where the luck factor is dwarfed by the skill required. In Omaha, good players enjoy overwhelming edges against beginners.

One of the key elements of PL strategy is finding the right sort of balance between the pot odds you give your opponents and the implied odds part of the game. This is achieved through pot control. Through pot control, you’ll be able to exploit the mistakes your opponents make pot odds wise, while also making sure that you do not compensate for the edge gained through the implied odds.
In pot control, small bets take on an entirely new meaning. If you are on the flop of an X-size pot, and you are the first to act, you have a whole bunch of ways to influence eventual pot size. If you merely check, your opponent will only be able to fire an X-size bet at you. If you make a small raise (like X/2) though, you’ll give your opponent the possibility to shove much more money in.
The bottom line is, in PL play, every little contribution to the pot has far further reaching implications than in FL or NL, and that, considering how important pot control is in PL, will indeed mean a whole lot.
While accurately gauging your bet-sizes is important in maintaining control over the pot, it is also important in building a large pot when you have a monster. You ability to directly build the pot is somewhat limited due to the PL nature of the game, but you can always open the door for your opponent by firing out a small bet which will give him the possibility to bet a much larger amount on one hand and will betray weakness on the other.

Remember that the fact that betting is limited will make players more likely to call and bet. They no longer carry the fear of being felted in a single hand, and therefore they’ll act with more courage.

A more than perfect hand

The perfect hand is one of the few situations which present a direct contradiction between the fundamental theorem of winning poker – as formulated by David Sklansky in his ‘The Theory of Poker” – and the actual way the involved parties play their hands.
The fundamental theorem of winning poker says that a poker player commits a mistake (gives up value) whenever he plays a hand otherwise than he would if he could see his opponent’s hole cards. He gains value every time he plays the same way he would if he could see the hole-cards he’s up against.

Now then, take a look at the following hand,

and let me know who made the mistake there. The two players (Boeken and Marek) who went all in on the weaker hands? According to Sklansky’s theorem, they were the one making the mistake. The outcome of the hand suggests the same conclusion: they both took huge hits to their stacks, and I’m pretty sure they would’ve thrown their hands away had they known what Jethro was hiding in his pocket.
Picking up a pair of Ks against pocket rockets does happen rather often. If you take a look at the hand histories of any major live poker tournaments you’re bound to find at least a couple of hands like that in every event. This hand is much more interesting though from the perspective of two players both picking up pocket kings against the third guy’s pocket Aces. How often does that happen?
Despite the fact that the two players on K,K both commit a mistake here, they just cannot fold – as the commentator himself remarks. There’s no way you can throw a K,K away preflop, simply on account of the fact that there’s just one possible pocket hand that can beat you, and apparently – despite the adverse odds – one hand which can tie you. If you make a habit of folding pocket Ks when faced with a preflop raise, you’re probably going to let go of a whole lot of value in the long-run.
This is exactly why hands like this one are called perfect hands. They will make money for the player with the marginally stronger hand taking advantage of the fact that it is contrary to the principles of EV+ exploitation for the victim to fold.

Now then, this hand here is more than a simple perfect hand situation. On a perfect hand, the eventual winner usually only manages to trap a single opponent all-in, which makes this setup a guarantee for a double-up. In this YouTube hand though, the winner triples up pulling of a double perfect hand setup.
What sort of defense is there against such perfect hand situations? I’m afraid none. It’s just one of the peculiarities of poker that sometimes you will get felted while making the best possible decision from your point of view. Not the even the best of poker professionals can do a whole lot about getting stuck on the lower end of a perfect hand.
Daniel Negreanu, one of the best readers in the game, couldn’t do a whole lot about Gus Hansen outdrawing him with four 5s to three 6s. I suppose it’s safe to say someone who lacks Negreanu’s skills doesn’t even stand that much of a chance for spotting the freight train headed for his stack.
The thought process of the victim in perfect hand situations gives him all the reasons he needs to make the call and to possibly risk his tournament life. Out of a relatively wide range of hands he places his opponent on, only a tiny fraction has him beat, which means the positive Expected Value is not just obviously there, it comes with a rather large margin too.
The question that comes to my mind about the perfect hand situation is the following though: how does it affect your balance of Sklansky dollars? Can you consider that you just bagged a nice pot or should you jot down a loss?

I mean going all-in on K,K against a random hand will certainly win you Sklansky dollars all the time, but going all-in on it against A,A won’t…

« Previous Page