Believe in Lucky Cards

For me it’s the two of hearts. You can see how a hand like two of hearts, seven of clubs instantly looks so much more powerful. I'd certainly not pass up the chance of betting on it. Raising... well, not so much really.

Let's get more sensible. Such cards may act as random signals to bluff and as such should not be pooh-poohed. Players use combinations too. Any five and ten is a popular one on the basis that all straights contain one of these cards. So, you're going to hit your opponents with a not-so-well disguised straight.

And then there's that old perennial favourite: ace and... ace. Ha! Don’t make me laugh. The number of times that's failed?

Call a LAG Only with a Great Hand

Despite your lack of notes, you’ve identified the guy who’s in every hand and who bets every flop. Time at least mentally to give him the LAG label. Loose-aggressive. You’ve got his number. And you’ve finally got a good hand, better than top pair anyway. Call him all the way to the river, or the end of your stack, whichever is sooner. He'll not beat you this time.

Trouble is: LAGs have a tendency only to stick around when they do have a chance of winning or if they can bully you out of the pot. If you start picking and choosing the hands to stand on, they'll out-guess you every time.

THEY'RE NOT STUPID.

But it’s so much easier to believe that they are.

Texas Hold'em Isn't Proper Poker

So seek out draw or stud games. They'll be easier to come by if you insist on sticking to cash but much harder in tournaments. You may be twiddling your thumbs a while there. Frustrating – always a bad start.

You can overcome this by mixing your games – a dash of draw here, some stud there, a few hands of hold'em in between. Nothing like switching methods and mindset to obscure the basics of poker, which you are still trying to learn, right?

Texas hold'em tournaments – how dull, for an inquiring mind, so make sure they're long ones that require hours of concentration. (You know sit'n'gos make sense really.)

Play Cash Games

Let's assume no-limit hold’em here. You can take a certain wodge of your bankroll to the table and replenish it from time to time. Unlike a tournament (barring the rebuy variety, which is a whole other snake’s nest), there's no limit to what you can lose.

Uh, yes there is: your bankroll is the limit and you really don't want to lose that.

Maybe you have iron discipline and can pull out of tables that are bleeding you dry. Even so, consider who it is that may be sucking your lifeblood away. The pro’s don't bother with tournaments. They grind away day after day on the cash tables. They keep on doing it.

They’re not sadists. They're making a profit, albeit a slow, steady one. They're making a profit. Out of... who?

You.

Semi-Bluff Reraising: A Winning Poker Play?

For fun, I've incorporated strict suited connectors (down to 54s) to my starting repertoire, which has increased the flops giving me four to a flush or straight. I have no problem semi-bluff betting them when I’m first to act, even if I've been sucked into calling a pre-flop raise. As far as I know, the board hasn't hit my opponents and I may as well bet for information at least or to steal the pot at best.

It’s less fun responding to another player’s post-flop bet. I’m not sure that reraising is working. For a start, I already have information: that my oppo likes his hand, unless he's continuation betting. So, the only motivation for reraising must be to steal the pot. And players are fighting back by re-reraising, damn their eyes. Then not only have I failed in my steal but I’m getting shite odds to call. And to call with a fair proportion of my remaining stack, indeed maybe committing all of it to the hand – not what I had in mind with marginal starting cards.

What if my opponent merely calls my raise? Do I continue the semi-bluff on the turn? Again at far greater cost than my budget for the hand? Basically, I’m getting into scary territory.

I think that floating is the answer. Call the bettor despite the lousy odds, even the implied odds, on the draw. There's still a chance to win the pot on the turn if he gives up the lead. I don't have to worry about distinguishing continuation bets either; I can treat them all the same.

The float doesn't work well against serial bettors, so it’s important to read them. It’s not good against multiple opponents either although, with a draw, they may generate good pot odds by calling. Really, it’s just any old excuse to stay in the hand and chase down a beautiful thing. The hard maths would determine the effectiveness of reraising versus floating but for now I’m going on instinct.

So much for a cash game. The situation in a tournament is different. In the name of pushing on, fast, early doors I'd reraise, even put my entire stack at jeopardy. A 2-1 chance to double up? Ease the next few levels? Be the table bully? Against spending an hour or two struggling to some grisly end, probably against the same odds?

In fact, I’m tending also to play one-gap suited connectors early in tournaments, which increases the reraising dilemma. But it’s a damn sight more fun than waiting for monster hole cards, especially when they’re overtaken to knock you out anyway.

Holdem Poker Strategy: Protecting Top Pair

When playing poker, top pair on the flop is not enough to win the hand. For a start you must bet to protect it. At this stage in no-limit hold ’em it’s the accepted philosophy to bet around the size of the pot. This offers any opponent odds of 2-1. If he is drawing to a flush, he has a worse than 4-1 chance of hitting it on the turn. This is a good deal for you, ignoring the added complexities of later rounds of betting and cards. The bet also prices out opponents who are drawing to a flush with an overcard, when they have a 3-1 chance of making the flush or a pair better than yours.

If the flop has cards of three different suits, no flush is yet possible. Now an open-ended straight is the only danger and you don't need to commit so many chips. A bet of half the pot offers an opponent 3-1 against his slightly better than 5-1 chance of completing the straight. Again, it also prices out a hand drawing with an overcard.

Why would you want to bet less? Well, every bet is risky. You may be facing a hand with two pair or a set, both very hard to see but your opponent will probably raise you. Now you have to judge how full of shit he is. Does he really have the goods? Remember: you only have top pair, a hand unlikely to improve, and the default course must be to let it and your chips go. So, it’s as well to be efficient with bet sizing. Over the course of time it all adds up.

Note that a flop with two suited cards matching one of the suits in your hand reduces the chance of an opponent completing a possible flush. In fact it too becomes a slightly better than 5-1 chance and you can bet half the pot. The great thing here is that you know it and your opponent doesn’t! Now your efficient bet sizing can suck him in to a gamble that is not profitable for him and this translates into profits for you.

Incidentally, betting more than the pot becomes a game of diminishing returns. You can never put enough money in to offer evens and betting twice the pot only offers 3-2. If an opponent has a hand strong enough to call 2-1, 3-2 isn't going to make a huge difference, especially when the implied odds of future betting rounds swamp this small margin.

Hopeless Poker Strategy: Shoving Under the Gun

I think I've answered my dilemma about being the poker tournament short stack.

Wait. Bleed to death if necessary. Just don't blow all the hard work by shoving any two the hand before the blinds hit, where you need either everyone to fold, or luck. Given the loose tables I play, the former is unlikely, so why not trust to the luck of cards to come? I did just this in my latest tournament.

I was down to three big blinds but, under the gun, let a trash hand go. My reward? AQ as the big blind with one raiser and a caller. I couldn't have been happier. My hand made, I trebled up and kept the same policy right into second place. I know this is just one instance but I've done it before and seen others do it often enough that it looks almost +EV (i.e. in the long run it will win money).

I'd got to this parlous state after breaking one of my cardinal rules. I'd hit the ignorant end of a straight on the flop and bet out. I got one caller. An innocuous card on the turn prompted another bet and another call. Then, disaster. The river made possible a higher straight.

I'd worked out a while back that it always pays either to bet on or check and call. An opponent chasing that straight could never make it pay long-term, even if they took all your chips on the river. The stacks in a tournament aren’t big enough. Therefore, if you’ve not given them the odds each time, you're +EV to commit everything on the river. And when you add the possibility of a bluff into the equation, you're well quids in.

I checked. He shoved. I folded. He showed AK and my straight had been good. I felt sick. He may truly have thought he had the better hand but basically I'd been suckered. The only reason I'd folded was my previous dismal run. I didn't want yet another early loss. That's the way fear works in this game.

Birds & Poker Web-site Links

I figured I'd share a few of these plus the reasons why I like 'em.

• Fatbirder: you mean you don't know about the premier wild birds site?


• PokerNews is a good overview of both poker tournaments and strategy.


• Birdingpal finds local birders to guide you round a new patch.


• The RSPB has a good bird identification tool.


• Surfbirds allows you to compare your bird lists with others.


• And talking of listing, Wildlife Computing sells the computer software I use.


• The BTO sponsors the more scientific study of British birds.


• BirdForum: well, it does what it says on the tin.


• A great site for finding and identifying British birds can be found at BirdGuides; but you do have to sign up for most of their services.

Tournament Poker Doldrums

Since the previous euphoria at changing my sit’n’go poker strategy along the lines of Mr Moshman, my bankroll is now only recovering by degrees. In fact, another recent run of six losses has left me pretty much at the level of my last post. Along the way I did manage another milestone – two first places on the bounce. The game truly is a yo-yo.

I’m running some post-game analysis with a thirty-day free trial of SitNGo Wizard. It’s told me two things. Shoving under-the-gun, even when about to be blinded out (as both Moshman and Snyder advise), is a money-loser. Of course, I understand that bleeding slowly to death is also a money-loser. Perhaps the message here is that you're truly fucked with a stack of only five or six big blinds. Exit in a blaze of glory; or drag your bloody corpse the closest you can to the bubble? It’s all the same.

Second, I don't push enough heads-up from the small blind or when I have the big stack. Well, at least I can cure these. It just takes a little more balls.

Balls? Yo-yos? What game am I playing here?