Andy Bloch

When you raise pre-flop in a game of No-Limit Hold ‘em and are called, you’re faced with a decision when the flop hits the board. Should you put out a continuation bet on the flop or should you check and let the turn come off for free? Of course, there are a variety of factors that will effect any decision in a hand of poker, but if I was the one who raised pre-flop, I’ll put out a continuation bet on the flop a large proportion of the time.

I can afford to put out a lot of continuation bets, whether I hit or not, because my post-flop bets are usually pretty small – about half the size of the pot. Pre-flop, I normally raise to three times the big blind, then on the flop, I’ll put out a bet of the same amount. When I bet these relatively small sums, I don’t put a whole lot at risk. If I get check-raised on a flop that I missed, I can fold without having lost a whole lot of chips. Most of the time, however, my opponents will have missed the flop, so my small bet will win me the pot right there.

While I prefer to put out continuation bets on most flops, there are some situations where checking is the right play. For example, say I raised with K-T and was called by the big blind. The flop of A-J-2 gives me a gutshot straight draw. I know my opponent in the hand likes to check-raise on top pair. When he checks to me on the flop, I’m happy to check behind and have the free draw to the nuts. If my opponent hit something like two-pair, I could double up if the Queen comes on the turn.

I also like to check the flop in hands where I’m either very far ahead or very behind. Say I raise pre-flop in late position with pocket Kings. The flop comes A-J-3. Here, my pair of Kings is either very far ahead (if he missed completely or has something like pocket 5s) or is very far behind (if he hit an Ace). In a spot like this, I don’t want to get check-raised and I don’t want to just give up, so I’ll often check the flop and then call a bet on the turn. I can then try to get a read on my opponent if he bets the river. The worst thing I can do in this sort of situation is to put out a big bet on the flop and then call an all-in check-raise.

As with every aspect of poker, it’s vital that your continuation bets don’t become predictable. If you check every time you miss and bet every time you make top pair or better, then you’re opponents will know exactly how to play against you. They’ll be able to bet any pair with total confidence. So occasionally, you’ll want to check when you hit top pair on the flop. Your hand will be disguised and you’ll stand to win a big pot if you hit trips on the turn. Showing that you can sometimes check a good hand will keep your opponents off balance.

It’s a good idea to put out frequent continuation bets, but also be sure to look for spots where a check may be to your advantage. If you’ve got a draw or hold a hand that will be difficult to play for a raise, a flop check may be your best play. Also be sure to mix up your play – being unpredictable is vital to playing winning poker.

Lee Watkinson

It’s amazing the difference that two cards can make. As opposed to Hold ‘em where players have two hole cards at the start of each hand, Omaha starts each player off with four cards, which makes both pre- and post-flop play much more challenging, especially for those who are new to the game.

In fact, Pot-Limit Omaha can be so complicated that when playing it in a ring game, I think your best move is to buy in for the minimum – especially if you’re not as experienced as the other players at the table. Even if you’re a really good player, it’s an advantage to buy in short because it will be a lot easier to make a move when you get dealt a big hand.

Let’s say you get Aces before the flop. If you’ve bought in for the minimum, you’ll often be able to get most of your chips into the pot pre-flop, which should always be your goal when you know you have the best hand. Once you get your chips in, your opponents won’t be able to push you off your hand. You will be able to see all five cards on the board while they’ll be trying to bet each other out of the pot. If you’re a beginning player, you’re not going to get trapped or outplayed because you’re already all-in.

Or let’s say you flop a set. Once again, if you’re short you’re going to be able to get all your money into the pot and if a scare card comes – for example, one that could give your opponent a straight – you won’t have to figure out what to do with your hand. If you had a big stack in this situation and were playing against a very aggressive player, he might bet the pot on the turn and you wouldn’t be able to call.

Conversely, let’s say you’ve got a strong draw and it’s a multi-way pot. If you’ve bought in for the minimum, you can stick everything into the pot and you’ve got a good chance of tripling or even quadrupling up. Your opponents won’t be able to bet you out of the hand because you’ll have already shoved all your chips into the pot.

There are some advantages to buying in for the maximum, but only if you’re a strong player who can put your opponents on a hand and you’re really confident in your ability to outplay them. Then, when a scare card hits the board, you can be the one forcing your opponents off their hands by making a huge bet. You’d also be wise to buy in for the maximum when there’s a really weak player with a big stack sitting at your table. In that situation you’d want as big a stack as possible so you could take advantage of the weaker player.

Your position at the table is also an important factor when deciding how much to buy in for. If there’s a weak player with a big stack on your right, then you might want to buy in for a lot of chips. But if there’s a tough player with a big stack sitting behind you, even if you think you’re a better player than he is, you’d still be better off buying in short.

When playing Pot-Limit Omaha in a ring game, my philosophy has always been to buy in short. I suggest you do the same, especially if you’re new to the game.

Michael Craig

I played the World Series of Poker* Main Event for the first time in 2006 and like all rookies, I was involved in endless discussions of “The Hypothetical.” You know, it’s the first hand and you’re in the big blind. Five players move all-in. You look down at pocket Aces. What do you do?

Some first-timers insist they will fold, and plenty more at least entertain the idea. Chances are that no one has to face The Hypothetical, but what about the more plausible nightmares at the beginning of a deep-stack tournament? What if you raise with Aces and get four callers? What if you have Queens in the big blind after a raise and re-raise? The early stages of a big tournament can be mortal terror for a neophyte.

Experienced players make fun of the rookies’ discomfort, but they ignore the underlying issue at their peril: with a giant stack and a lot of action, a premium hand like pocket Aces can quickly lead to trouble.

This is why I think there are a lot of times when pocket 5s are better than pocket Aces. In fact, when I get pocket 5s, I may want to be against pocket Aces. This idea synthesizes advice I received from three of my expert collaborators onThe Full Tilt Poker Strategy Guide: Tournament Edition.

• Andy Bloch “In his chapter on pre-flop No-Limit Hold ‘em, Andy explains how your goal with A-A is to get all your chips committed when you’re a huge favorite or are playing against a single opponent. The deeper the stacks, the less likely you are to accomplish these objectives.

• Chris Ferguson “Chris’ philosophy is to minimize the number of difficult decisions you have to make during a hand, and maximize the number of difficult decisions your opponents have to make. With enough chips for betting throughout the hand, a player with an over-pair faces decisions that get more difficult on each successive street.

• Richard Brodie “In his chapter about online No-Limit Hold ‘em tournaments, Richard explains how tournaments have two phases: the “implied-odds” phase and the “showdown-value” phase. When stacks are deep, you want to accumulate chips with hands that offer the best implied odds ” hands that can make the nuts and/or out-flop an opponent willing to double you up with a “superior” starting hand.

Playing Aces can be dangerous when you and your opponents have deep stacks. In contrast, a small pocket pair like 5-5 can’t get you in much trouble. Given that you’re going to flop a set approximately 1 time in 8, how do you know when it’s worth playing small pairs if you only have a 12% chance of making a strong hand?

For the answer, you should consider the following factors:

• Stack size ” If it costs more than 12% of your stack to see the flop, you’re not getting the right implied odds. Adding in the times when you make a set but don’t get a big payoff, you need at least 15 times the size of the raise (probably 50 times the big blind) to achieve the risk/reward ratio that lets you call with small pocket pairs. (In these calculations, the relevant stack size is the smaller of your stack or your opponent’s.)

• Pre-flop position ” The best situation is being in late position, calling the raise of a tight player in early position. Ol’ Tighty probably has the kind of hand that will pay you off if you hit. In late position, you can even possibly call a re-raise with a small pocket pair. You need more than 8 times the cost of the call, but not much more ” the re-raise suggests a hand that will pay you off. (You have to consider, however, that anyone left to act may push all-in before the flop.) In early position, there’s a temptation to limp with a small pocket pair so you can call a late-position raise. That’s a mistake for several reasons. You give away information about how you play (both in this hand and in the hands where you don’t open-limp), create a limper-friendly hand that is unlikely to win you a big pot, and make it easy for Mr. Aces in late position to make a giant re-raise to chase you (and other limpers) out.

• Post-flop play ” All streets after the flop are Easy Street. If you miss, you have an easy decision to fold. If you hit, you have an easy decision to play fast and get that over-pair or top-pair/top-kicker to try to push you out (especially if the flop suggests you might be moving with a drawing hand). With small pocket pairs, post-flop position isn’t that important, and that’s rare in No-Limit Hold ‘em. If you join me in taking the advice of these outstanding poker pros, you can be causing, rather than suffering from, nightmares in the early stages of a tournament, whether it’s online at Full Tilt Poker or at the WSOP* Main Event.

If you join me in taking the advice of these outstanding poker pros, you can be causing, rather than suffering from, nightmares in the early stages of a tournament, whether it’s online at Full Tilt Poker or at the WSOP* Main Event.

Chris Ferguson

“Should I quit my job and play professionally?”

“Should I drop out of school and just play poker full time?”

I get these questions all the time and I always give the same answer: “Unequivocally, absolutely not. No way.”

Clear enough?

If you want to explore being a professional poker player, you have to start out doing it part time. Spend your off hours thinking about poker and studying the game. Read and play and learn.

Before you even think about quitting your job to play full time, you should be making more money at poker than you are in your current employment. Don’t think that one big tournament win provides all the evidence you need that you’re ready to play professionally. You should be showing consistent profit over a period of at least six- months. Only at that point should you even entertain the idea of becoming a full-time pro.

Even then, you should be wary about taking such a step. Poker is a great pastime, and playing it casually is a lot of fun when you love the game. But when you become a pro, you have to play poker five or six days a week. In time, playing cards will start to feel a lot like a job. I happen to love every occasion I get to play, but for many people, it can become a grind.

On the tournament circuit, you can play well and still go months – or even years – without a big cash. In ring games, the hours can be brutal. When you’re a cash-game pro, you want to be playing when the other players are off their game. This means you should start late, when people are getting tired and gambling a little more than they should. So you might play from 11PM through the morning, and sleep most of the afternoon. Keeping these kinds of hours can be difficult for those who want to maintain a more traditional social life.

Another risk is that you may not play enough. It can take a lot of self-discipline to put in enough hours at the table. With no boss on your tail, you might find it tough to put in the hours that you need at the times that are most profitable.

Before you make drastic changes to your life – before you even ask the questions posed at the start of this article – you should know that poker will work for you. You should have long, profitable periods that serve as evidence of your abilities. You should have put in enough hours to know that you can really enjoy the game, even when it becomes the center of your professional life. You should know that you can endure some long, tough, unlucky stretches.

If you’re really sure you’ve got what it takes and poker does become your career, I look forward to meeting you at the table.

Howard Lederer

In split-pot games, beginners are often cautioned against playing hands that have them drawing to half the pot. But in Seven-Card Stud Hi/Lo, a situation sometimes arises where drawing with a modest chance at the whole pot and an even smaller chance at half the pot is clearly the correct play.

Say you’re playing eight-handed, $4/$8 Stud Hi/Lo, with a $1 ante and a $1 low card bring in. You’re dealt 2s-5d-5c and, with the low card showing, you bring it in for $1. It’s folded to a player showing a King, who completes to $4. Everyone else folds; you call and head to Fourth Street.

Both you and your opponent pick up a 7. He bets $4 and you call. On Fifth Street, you pick up a Jack and he gets a 4. You have [2s]-[5d]-5c-7h-Jc and your opponent shows [x]-[x]-Kd-7s-4c. At this point, you’re pretty convinced that your opponent has a pair of Kings. You look at your hand and see that you don’t have much, a low pair and three to a low. You might be tempted to fold if your opponent bets, but that would be a mistake.

The action so far has already created a significant pot. There’s $8 in antes, and another $16 from the betting on Third and Fourth Streets. You’ll need to call bets of $8 on Fifth and Sixth Street to try to make your hand, so it will cost you $16. If you manage to make two pair and it holds up, you’d win about $50. That’s a pretty good price.

The odds here are so compelling that even if you were playing Seven-Card Stud Hi only, you’d have to consider calling your opponent down. You’d have a 30 percent chance of cracking the Kings, which isn’t quite enough to justify calling against an over-pair. However, if there was a chance that your opponent was bluffing, then calling would be okay.

However, Stud-Hi/Lo gives you an additional way of getting money out of the pot. You’ll go runner-runner to a low often enough so that your pot equity increases to about 37 percent. Those odds are way too good to consider folding.

Stud-Hi/Lo is a complex game that presents players with decisions that they’re not going to encounter in Hold ‘em or in any other high-only game. If you’re looking to improve your Stud-Hi/Lo game, play some hands online, and then try running some computer simulations to see if you’re making the best mathematical decisions.

Rafe Furst

Most players know what pot odds and implied pot odds (aka implied odds) are, and how to calculate them. Just about every poker book or website has a section on the topic. Still, I often see people making mistakes in calculating implied odds – especially when playing online. Too often, implied odds are invoked as a reason for a play when “wishful thinking” would be the more accurate description of the situation.

A perfect example came up in a recent tournament on Full Tilt Poker. The table was short-handed and playing rather loose pre-flop, but tight after the flop. The blinds were getting high, and a hand developed where we got to see a showdown between a loose player who I’ll call “Loosey” and a player I’ll call “Impy.”

Impy had no pair and only an inside straight draw on the flop, yet he called a pot-sized bet from Loosey. Impy hit his straight on the turn, but was only able to extract a small amount from his opponent and ended up checking down the river. Impy’s fuzzy logic on the flop was that, although he was behind, if he hit his hand he’d get paid off at greater odds than it required to chase his four-outer. As we saw in the hand, he got part of what he wanted (the straight), but failed to extract enough from his opponent to make his call on the flop reasonable. Furthermore, Loosey was short-stacked, had top-pair with a weak kicker, and was unlikely to have paid off much more than he did.

So, what can Impy do to improve his game? Here are some guidelines for using implied odds to greater advantage:

Only Play Against Big Stacks

When two players are contesting a pot, their maximum implied odds are exactly the same: the size of the shorter stack. If you and your opponent both have large stacks relative to the blinds and antes, your implied odds are much better than if one of you is sitting on a smaller stack, simply because there are more chips that can be committed to the pot during the hand. Players who are short-stacked tend to play tighter and are less likely to try to pick off a possible bluff because they don’t have any extra chips to spare, unlike a tall stack.

Don’t Play Short-Handed

The more opponents there are at your table, the greater the likelihood that one or more of them will pick up a good hand, be in on the flop, and ultimately pay you off when you hit your draw. In short-handed or heads-up situations, you have to get very lucky: first you have to hit your hand, then you have to hope your opponent has a good enough hand to pay you off. My advice is, unless you have a really good read on your opponents in the hand, don’t even consider implied odds unless you are at a full 9- or 10-handed table.

Play Against Tight-Aggressive Players

Implied odds are greatest against tight-aggressive players. Why? Because these are the players who are likely to have strong hands after the flop, and are likely to commit a lot of chips to defend their good hands. Tight-aggressive players are also going to be involved in smaller pots on the flop, and will check-raise more often than loose players when out of position. This gives you free-card opportunities, which improve your implied odds. Psychologically, once involved in a hand, tight players may have a harder time letting go after the flop than loose players who are always in action. Over time, those loose players are going to have a harder time finding a reason to play with you after the flop.

The key to playing against tight-aggressive players after the flop is to keep the pot as small as possible until you hit your draw. If they put a lot of pressure on you, you’re better off folding your draw and waiting for a better situation. Not every hand can be played profitably after the flop.

Incorporate Bluffs and Semi-Bluffs

If you are drawing on the flop, you should be betting and raising instead of passively checking and calling to hit your hand. This gives you two ways to win by:

1. Forcing your opponents to fold, or
2. Hitting your draw

This is called a semi-bluff. The only time you should play passively is if you think a free card will help your situation more than getting your opponent to fold.

Another thing to remember is that you are definitely going to miss your draws more often than not. In these cases, you should sometimes be bluffing, but the question is, how much and how frequently?

Let’s say the pot has $100 in it and you have $100 left, and you are deciding whether to bluff on the river. You’re giving your opponent 2-1 odds to call you, which is exactly how often you should bluff in that situation (two times for every one that you don’t).

How do you choose the right balance between keeping the pot small after the flop and playing aggressively as I am advocating here? That’s the art, and it requires lots of practice and a good read on your opponents. You may want to pick up Sklansky’s Theory of Poker to learn more about optimal bluffing frequency and semi-bluffs. By employing these techniques correctly, you can vastly increase your implied odds and positive expectation.

Gavin Smith

I talk a lot at the table. I like meeting people, and poker tournaments give me the opportunity to chat with a lot of nice folks. The conversations I have between hands are not just pleasant – they can also be informative. What a player shares about himself will often determine how I’ll play against him down the line.

For example, say I’m playing in a $10,000 tournament. I ask the young person to my left how he bought into the tournament and he tells me that he won a $30 satellite. Based on that piece of information, I can make some assumptions. He’s probably not especially experienced. Most active players don’t bother with low buy-in tournaments. He likely doesn’t have a huge bankroll, so he’d probably be perfectly happy to cash in the event; he doesn’t need to win to feel he had a successful tournament.

Against this player, I’m probably going to run some bluffs when I think he’s only got a moderate hand. I’m also going to be willing to make some pretty big lay-downs against this guy. I seriously doubt he’s going to put in a lot chips without a very strong hand.

Now imagine that I ask a man at my table how he got into the tournament and he tells me he bought in directly. I ask him what he does for a living, and he says he’s a bookmaker in Dallas.

I’ve got to assume that this guy’s willing to gamble. He’s probably not afraid of a big bluff or a big call. Against him, I’m going to have to call more liberally and avoid making any of my own big bluffs. I may even check some reasonably big hands to avoid getting raised off my hand.

These are just two examples of what you can learn by drawing your opponents out and listening carefully to what they have to say. Every piece of information you gain at the table is something you can use to your advantage.

Chris Ferguson

I’m almost a year into an experiment on Full Tilt Poker. I’m attempting to turn $0 into a $10,000 bankroll. With no money to start with, I had no choice but to start out playing Freerolls. Starting out, I’d often manage to win a dollar or two, but I’d quickly get busted and have to start over again. It took some time but, after awhile, I was eventually able to graduate to games that required an actual buy-in.

Even today, people don’t believe it’s really me when I sit down at Full Tilt’s small stakes games. They ask what I’m doing down here, and often tell me stories about how they turned $5 into $500 or $100 into $1,000. Usually, these stories end with the person telling me that they went broke. There’s no surprise there. These folks tried to quickly build a bankroll by gambling. They’d play in a game that was beyond their bankroll and, if they happened to win, they’d move up to a higher limit and risk it all one more time. Inevitably, they’d lose a few big hands and go broke.

For me, this experiment isn’t about the money. It’s about showing how, with proper bankroll management, you can start from nothing and move up to the point where you’re playing in some pretty big games. I know it’s possible because I did it once before, turning $1 into $20,000.

To ensure that I keep my bankroll intact, I’ve adopted some key rules:

• I’ll never buy into a cash game or a Sit & Go with more than 5 percent of my total bankroll (there is an exception for the lowest limits: I’m allowed to buy into any game with a buy-in of $2.50 or less).
• I won’t buy into a multi-table tournament for more than 2 percent of my total bankroll and I’m allowed to buy into any multi-table tournament that costs $1.
• If at any time during a No-Limit or Pot-Limit cash-game session the money on the table represents more than 10 percent of my total bankroll, I must leave the game when the blinds reach me.

I think a lot of players would do well to apply these rules. One great benefit from this approach to bankroll management is that it ensures you’ll be playing in games you can afford. You’ll never play for very long in a game that’s over your head because, when you’re losing, you’ll have no choice but to drop down to a smaller game. You can continue to sharpen your game at that lower limit until your bankroll allows you to move up and take another shot. These rules also prevent you from being completely decimated by a bad run of cards.

Dropping down and playing lower limits is difficult for a lot of players. They view it as a failure and their egos get in the way. Many want to remain at the level they’d been playing and win back their losses. But this can lead to some pretty severe tilt – and that can go through a bankroll in a hurry. I know that dropping down was difficult for me in my run from $1 to $20,000. When I first played in the $25/$50 game, I lost. Sticking to my rules, I dropped down to the $10/$25 game. I had a losing streak there and had to go down to $5/$10. That was tough. After playing $25/$50, a $5/$10 game was boring to me.

But I had the discipline to stick to my rules, and that motivated me to play better at the lower levels. I really didn’t want to lose any more because I knew the consequences: I’d have to play even lower and work even harder to get back to where I’d been, which could take as long as a month. If you ever find yourself bored or frustrated playing at the lower limits, you’re obviously not playing well. Take a break from the game. Often, stepping away can give you a fresh perspective and heightened motivation to play well when you return.

There are a couple of more tips I’d like to share regarding bankroll management. First, you should never play in a game that is beyond your bankroll simply because the game seems to be soft that day. It’s never soft enough to risk money that puts your bankroll in jeopardy. The other point is that you should avoid playing in games that are at the top of your bankroll limits, when a lower game offers more opportunity for profit.

I’m confident that by sticking to these sound bankroll management rules, I’ll make it to my $10,000 goal. These rules are sure to help you as well, as you pursue your own poker ambitions.

Karina Jett

The next time you come to Vegas or login to Full Tilt Poker and sit into a low or mid-stakes game, you might find me or my husband Chip at the table. When I play live, I do so for some pretty low stakes. I’ve got no problem playing $2-$5 No-Limit Hold ‘em. Chip prefers mixed games, but you won’t find him in the $50/$100 game. Middle stakes are more his speed.

Some people I play with in the $2-$5 games ask me why I bother with the low stakes. I’m a professional poker player and have been for some time, so why not play higher? The answer I give is simple. I’m looking to maximize my profits and play in a game where I have a huge skill advantage and am certain to be a big favorite.

That’s not to say that I haven’t played higher. When we first met, Chip and I were traveling the tournament circuit, living out of hotels and playing the biggest games our bankrolls would allow. I played mostly Limit Hold ‘em, and would sit in games where I could easily win or lose a few thousand a night.

Then a couple of years ago, Chip and I started a family. As you’d expect, things changed. We settled in Vegas and kept our travel to a minimum. The change in circumstances also effected our game selection. We needed to play in games where the income was pretty steady and the swings weren’t so dramatic.

For a family-oriented poker player like myself, $2-$5 No-Limit is just fine. I can make the money I need without putting a whole lot at risk. These games may not have the same drama as the larger stakes games where the amount won and lost in individual pots could pay for a nice luxury car, but they provide plenty of entertainment and excitement just the same. What’s more, by playing at lower levels than your bankroll allows, you can easily absorb the occasional bad beat or bad night.

Playing low-limit poker doesn’t mean you’re sitting in action-free games either. In fact, these games can provide even more action than you’ll find at the higher limits because they attract many more casual players who are just out for an evening of fun and are looking to “gamble” a little more at the table. For these people, losing a buy-in or two is the price of a night out.

There’s no shame playing for lower stakes than you think you can afford. If playing high causes you stress or is taking money away from other priorities in your life, then try dropping down the ladder and playing at levels where your skill advantage will help you build a more comfortable bankroll for the future.

Ben Roberts

If you’ve ever sat at a poker table, you’ve invariably heard the questions asked in the title of this article. While all serious players believe poker is a game of skill, they don’t always agree on how skilful a game it really is. Some people believe the skill to luck ratio falls at somewhere around 70% – 30%, while others argue that the ratio is closer to 90% – 10%. If you ask me, however, I’ll tell you something you won’t hear from almost anybody else. Poker is 100% skilful.

Now, I know many of you are already skeptical about how I can make this kind of claim. What about bad beats? Or the times you’re out-drawn on the river? How can I not figure these kinds of situations into my thinking? The fact is, I already have. Variance is part of poker and it would be highly unusual if bad beats didn’t occasionally happen or if two-outers didn’t sometimes hit on the river, as this would defy the laws of probability. The fact is, these kinds of events should have less of an impact on your overall results the more you play.

If you only play a few hands or a few hours of poker at a time, luck will undoubtedly play a bigger factor in your results than if you play regularly. For example, let’s look at a player who puts in eight hours a day, five days a week, for 50 weeks per year, which is equivalent to 2,000 hours at the table. Assuming this is a solid, smart player who doesn’t vary his or her stakes throughout the course of the year, I believe their talent will outweigh the effect of luck to ensure that they produce positive results year after year. That’s not to say this player won’t run into the occasional rough patch or have losing sessions, but by sticking to their game plan, these occasional down-turns shouldn’t adversely affect their bottom line.

In effect, all players get paid for every good decision that they make and penalized for their bad ones. By continuously making high-quality decisions over the course of so many hours, skilful players should make more good decisions than bad, and see their bankrolls grow as a result. I have done this for more than 33 years, and know many other professional players who have produced similar results for many years. What this shows me is that, over the long haul, luck is not only insignificant when it comes to your results – it’s non-existent.