Smash Vegas

Small Stakes Hold’em

David Sklansky, Ed Miller, Mason Malmuth

This book on small stakes should not be mistaken for a beginners book.  Although it focusses on the smaller stakes where beginners tend to dwell the concepts and analysis are applicable to any game with loose players - this makes it one of the best books available for improving your online play.

Content

Small Stakes Hold’em (SSH) begins with a discussion of gambling concepts such as expectation, pot odds and pot equity.  It’s a well written introduction which I thoroughly approve of because I (like the authors) believe that every poker decision boils down to “which choice maximises my expected value?”.  As you’d expect with Sklansky on board the authors do a great job of explaining these concepts in simple terms and detailing why they are important.

The next chapters cover the theory behind playing each of the streets (preflop, flop, turn, river) with an emphasis on recognizing the type of hand you hold and comparing your odds to the pot odds.  Hand types and the strategy for playing them are discussed for each street - e.g. play speculative preflop hands like low suited connectors or pocket pairs if they can see the flop cheaply, try to win straight away on the flop by protecting made hands that are good but not great, etc…

The advice is good and general, emphasising the critical importance of pot odds.  There is also some discussion of awareness of the game structure.  For instance the authors argue that because of the minimum bet increase in many games on the turn and river it is sometimes useful to forego betting on the flop to reduce the pot odds being offered to an opponent on the turn.  This is thought provoking stuff and the many sections like this (along with the lack of a basic “these are the rules of poker” chapter) ensure this is definitely not a beginners book and would be useful to a wide range of players.

The last part of the book is an extensive test yourself chapter, with questions covering all the topics discussed in the book.  It is one of the largest question and answer sections I’ve seen in a poker book and is very comprehensive.

If I had to sum up the theme of the book it would be to play tight and aggressive in a loose game, being constantly aware of the pot odds.  The authors argue (correctly in my view) that in a loose game where players will call with rags the correct attitude is not to become defensive because of “bad beats” but instead to punish the opponents for their constant weak calls.

Presentation

The book is generally well laid out, although some of the tables could be a little clearer.

There is some discussion of poker mathematics which does not go into too much depth but may put off some readers with the display of equations.

The writing style is good and the book is a quick read despite its length (over 350 pages).

The test yourself sections are a useful way of absorbing the theory by practical examples.

Summary

I like SSH and regularly recommend it to friends wanting to improve their online play.  I think it does a good job of teaching players to rely on playing a solid “by the numbers” game of poker instead of fancy hollywood poker plays.  There’s a lot here even for advanced players who are perhaps not as familiar with the lower stakes and the book does a good job of explaining not only the differences in strategy at this level but the reasons for the differences.

To win at poker you need to think in the correct terms. Here are some concepts you should be familiar with.

Fundamental Theorem of Poker

The fundamental theorem of poker (as stated by David Sklansky) says that you gain whenever you play your hand the way you would if you could see your opponents’ cards or your opponent plays his cards differently from the way he would if he could see your cards.

Deception

There are really only two types of deception in poker - playing a strong hand weakly or a weak hand strongly.  Both may be tried on a single betting round (e.g. check-raise) or over several (e.g. slowplaying).  In either case you are attempting to make your opponent(s) commit an error under the fundamental theorem.

Pot Odds

Pot odds are the ratio of the amount of money in the pot to the size of bet required to stay in the pot. It is only rational to call a bet if your chance of winning is better than your pot odds. Put simply, would you pay $1 for a 50/50 chance to win $1? Of course not. How about for a 50/50 chance to win $10? Yes please. It would be rational to play that game as soon as the prize is greater than $2.

A skilled player will manipulate the pot odds to induce mistakes in opponents.  Say you think your opponent has a 25% chance of making a flush, by betting an amount which forces him to contribute more than a quarter of the final pot you put him in a difficult situation.  If he calls then he is in error and if he folds then you benefit.

[Read more]

I think pokerbots are a natural source of curiosity for anyone interested in the mathematics of gambling.  However they are also a source of much contention in the online poker world.  One side argues that bots will destroy the game - even if they never reach expert play they will populate the low stakes world and kill off new players.  The other side argues that online poker is already in a process of change and is inherently unfair.  They argue that pokerbots are not a black and white issue - how do you classify the advanced player who uses an odds calculator and pokertracker with a collaborative database to aid his identification of player weaknesses?  They see pokerbots as a simple continuation along this path.

Whatever your viewpoint, I think it’s very interesting to see what pokerbots can / can’t do.  I have some experience with them so I feel able to give you a pretty fair breakdown of what’s going on in the world of bots.  (I should note here that I am refering to pokerbots which play ring games and are not designed solely to play heads up.)

When I say “pokerbot” your first thought is probably a program which checks through a list of actions under specified circumstances eg:

I have pocket aces and no one has bet yet and I’m in late position so …

I’ve flopped top pair but there’s a flush draw on the board with a raise in front of me so…

etc…

While pokerbots like this do exist and can be successful it is incredibly difficult to make sure you cover every eventuality.  They are known as “static” bots and are usually people’s first attempts.

[Read more]

So what got me thinking about writing again was some research into short stack strategies in Texas Hold’em.

A short stack strategy (SSS) is a strategy for playing when you don’t have many chips.  There are many variations but the basic theme is “hold out for really good pocket hands then go all in”.  This might seem a simplistic tactic but it can be surprisingly effective.

Jim Rose once reported in Bluff Magazine that Chris Ferguson turned $1 into $20,000 over five months with a very simple SSS which Rose had invented.  Buy in for the minimum amount at each table.  Wait for AA, KK, QQ or AK and then go all in.  If you double up you leave the table and go to another and sit down for the minimum buyin.  If you lose then reload to the minimum.

Others (like Ed Miller) recommend a SSS where you bet preflop with top hands, going all in if you are raised, otherwise waiting until the flop and going all in if you think you have the best hand.  Miller recommends the system as way of getting your feet wet if you’re new to a particular game - the complexity of the game is reduced by only having to worry about 2 rounds instead of 4.

So is there any theory to back this up?  Does it work?

Actually there are quite a few theoretical reasons for it being effective.  As you are essentially playing the top hands, other players should treat you with caution.  Some of them won’t though.  Many people see short stacks as “someone to take out” (I even recommended this viewpoint in a previous post).  This makes them underestimate the short stacked player and hence make mistakes.

It’s hard to play correctly against a short stack if they simply get their money in the pot early when they have the best of it.  Implied pot odds (pot odds taking into account the money you can expect to make in later rounds) are destroyed as the short stack has no more money to put in.  You can’t outplay him postflop.  The short stack has only one thing to worry about - is he +EV when he pushes all in?

If more than one person calls his all in push then he’s in even better shape.  The deeper stacks are in a prisoner’s dilemma situation.  Their best play is to have a gentleman’s agreement to not bet against each other.  This does not often happen.  As soon as they play against each other the short stack benefits, for if either folds then the short stack benefits from an increase in pot equity (chance of winning * pot size) for free.  In fact Koelman showed in The Mathematics of Short Stack Play that if one considers an extreme case where one player is ultra short stacked (has a one big blind stack) then he has an unexploitable strategy which will result in a positive payout as soon as the other stacks battle amongst themselves.

So where does that leave us?  Be wary of a very tight short stack. Playing against them profitably may not be as easy as you (or I) thought.

While writing the last post about bankroll management I remembered a good tip for those of you who play poker online. Look out for players who have a tiny bankroll for the stakes.

What comes to mind was a game I was playing at pacific poker, $0.5/$1 limit texas hold ‘em, pretty low stakes I know but I was using it to record some player data (that’s another story). When playing I like to have at least 100 times the big blind, not just to avoid risk of ruin but also as I find it can have an intimidatory effect. Of course in a way it’s artificial because you decide how much of your bankroll to bring to the table, but it’s often the case that people bring a set amount to the table to remind them to stop if they lose that much.

I was hopping around tables to collect data from as many different players as possible when I came to a table with 3 players who had a bank balance below $5. I figured on at least one of the three being a sucker. One of them took me to showdown on a small pot and I beat him. Next hand I have pocket tens and preflop raise to a table of limpers. Everyone folds till the guy I just beat who re-raises. Something tells me he’s smarting over the last hand and thinks I’m throwing my weight around with a big stack so I call him. A ten and two low cards on the flop convinces me I have the best hand and I figure the guy’s either got a set too or is just throwing away his last few chips. Turns out the latter as he had king-9 and just couldn’t let it go. He hit a king on the river, by which time he was already all in and I cleaned up nicely.

I guess the moral of the story is that if you know how to play them right these “last ditch” players can be very profitable for you. It’s a fairly common trait for a player coming to the end of his bankroll to go on tilt in a last blaze of glory. Even if they win a few chips off you they just don’t have the bankroll to survive the downswings. The thing to worry about is someone else on the table taking the chips off them first.