ASCENT AFTER DEATH IN THE GRAECO-ROMAN WORLD

The topic of pot control mainly deals with a vulnerable hand that "rates" to be good if the pot is small, but as soon as the pot increases (relative to stacks) your hand no longer figures to be the best hand at showdown. Generally, this concept applies to the turn, where if you were the initiator in a hand (The preflop raiser or the person who took the lead on the flop in a limped pot by betting or raising) and it's checked to you (or you are out of position and can decide whether to bet again or not) the pot is manageable at the moment. For example, in a pot played between 2 players with 100bb effective stacks, it may be 3.5xbb each preflop, so ~8 on flop, and with a

~pot bet, a pot with roughly less than 24bb on the turn. Relative to stacks, this is a comfortable size; however, the decision to play a big pot can be made by simply betting the turn. If you bet, say 20, and get called, the pot will be 64 with about a pot bet behind (~68 or so). What does this mean? A bet dictates that you may be playing for your stack on the river!

Taking the street off leads to a small pot, where you won’t have to make a stack size decision, unless something crazy happens on the river. (Such as you get checkraised all in, or they lead and you push on them) The normal way of thinking is you want to play big pots with big hands (so bet the turn) and small pots with hands that can't take as much heat (so check the turn). You have to go a little bit beyond, however! The deeper thinking is that everything in poker is relative!

It’s worth noting here, before getting into turn specifics, that we somewhat examined this idea when we went over how to balance the flop. We checked marginal hands which wanted to

play a medium sized pot in order to get one step closer to showing down. The gist behind pot control is to minimize losses vs. “big” hands and maximize vs. bluffs and worse made hands.

A good time for pot control, (I'll start with this example, then go into a quiz, followed by guidelines), is more along the lines of – You have KJo and raised it pf and got a caller. The flop comes K 5 4r and they check-call your ½ pot cbet. He now checks the turn I'd lean towards checking it back. There are not many draws present on the flop (really just 67 as a prominent draw, something like 87 or 86 is a pretty weak draw but possible) - so the hands either break down into a dominated king, a weird mid pair (like A5 or A4) or 45/set... You want to minimize losses vs. a set or 2 pair, and maximize vs. king/underpair/midpair hand. The second group of hands, if you check, is less likely to believe YOU have a king, setting you up for either a value bet on the river or snapping your opponent making a river value bet of their own. A free card really doesn't hurt much.

The concept of “Protection or Free Equity” will play into your decision to bet or check.

The cost of protection (we deem, with KQo) can easily be made up by bigger value betting or snapping off bluffs later on the river, so surrendering a free equity share by checking the turn is worth the risk. In fact, the worse the kicker of my king became, the more I’d opt towards not building a pot, because we start sliding our hand down a bit in relative value.

If I had reason to believe my opponents are chasing with mid pair or bottom pair and exhibited more passive tendencies, so that we could drain out more value with a turn bet, I’ll bet1/2 pot again and likely pot control an underpair, like 66-QQ. If I believe they are somewhat

nitty, and a flop check call is scary, I may even pot control a hand as powerful as KQ/AK/AA in these spots.

"Only better hands call and worse hands fold to a bet here". What does this mean, and is this a bad thing? Clarification, because this is the underlying identity of when you want to play a big pot and when you want to play a small pot... Quite often you’re in a somewhat perplexing position in which case you have a decent marginal hand, but if you bet you have turned your hand into a bad bluff. Many people to a random opponent would claim that betting KJo in the example above fits the bill. Try to lend some validity to this statement or refute it.

Example, limped pot:If I have K8o from the BB, and see a flop 4way, the flop comes 8 6 2r. We flopped TP2K on a type 1 board. We have a hand which would prefer to play heads up, and our options are going to be to checkraise if there is a late position limper who leads at a lot of flops when checked to, or simply lead out. Here we opt to lead for 2bb and get a call from a limper.

This doesn’t mean a lot in isolation, so we weight their range to any pair, possibly a slowplay, and possibly a gutshot or open-ended straight draw. Turn comes a J, and the pot has 8bb in there and roughly 95bb behind. If I bet again and my opponent is average; sometimes this is a case where people would say nothing better folds (and they’d generally be right, as A8+ are not dumping their hand) and it’s fairly difficult to extract more value from various top pair hands on the flop, as in 78s etc. Thus, we’ve turned our hand into a bet with no apparent value or bluff potential. So, does that mean the initial bet is a bad thing, because this is a situation where better hands call (or raise) and worse hands fold?

How I feel about that blanket statement:

This saying is sometimes OK. However, there's more to it than examining any of these situations in a vacuum... Like in limit, oftentimes a bet is proper even when you cannot protect your hand, just because the alternative (a check for a free draw) is worse.

Limit vs. No-Limit philosophy, showdown or no showdown? In no-limit, the reason for a bet is slightly different! Oftentimes the bet is correct even when worse hands will fold and you trap

yourself with better hands because, yes, checking and allowing a free redraw typically will not make up the % you lose the pot there to when you can collect more on the river. As in, we bet to protect our equity in the pot, so giving up that equity (literally surrendering a % of the pot) should be ignored, and rather chance that they do not have that "better" hand. That is basically the limit thoughts in a nutshell. However, n NL, it's much more expensive to call down.

Therefore, putting the bet out there also gathers information, allowing you to play more

optimally in a larger pot. (Where calling down would be an error) In limit, calling down the turn and river is often a ~2 BB mistake. In NL, if he pots the turn after you check, villain is really threatening that pot bet plus another future bet! Or, he's really threatening 32bb, not just 8bb.

(For a 8 bb pot) Of course, some people bet less, some bet more, but it's important to understand the ability to showdown marginal hands is less possible, therefore remaining on the aggressive side (where we can still gather information that would lead to being able to ditch the hand before the river) is the superior option.

Coming back to our A8 hand, we can opt to pot control and check. Or, and the route I’d typically take, I’d bet 2/3 pot (roughly 6bb here) which is my standard bet on that texture, and

likely fold to a raise. If called, I’d check call some rivers, possibly value bet some, and check fold others. Most of the time when you make a bet, it's a form of protection. You rarely have such a lock you want all the action in the world and hopefully we make enough “real” hands that we’re not constantly bluffing. Constantly think on the turn, as it applies to pot control, “am I more concerned with showing down or should I protect my equity?” THAT will decide whether you play a big or small pot (along with inherent hand strength!).

If I have AQs on a Qh Jh 5d 4d and the pot has 100bb.... If someone even has XXd they have ~20% equity, so if I check allowing them a free river, I "lose" that share of the pot. If I move in, they’d either fold (So my cards, interestingly, don’t matter in that scenario!) or call getting incorrect odds. Really then, if I am going to lose an amount = to that vs. a better hand (or not recoup the 20bb "lost" by giving a free card!) moving in is the superior play to checking.

Oftentimes stacks and board texture will dictate that we must stack off with a non-nut hand in order to protect it. This may seem bad, as in letting villains make the correct decision (calling with KK+, all hands that you are drawing very slim against) and folding draws / weaker one pair etc, but winning whatever is in there is more important than protecting your losses against a better hand.

With that in mind, here's a quiz. It will lead to guidelines which will direct a potential turn play.

In all hands, the game is 1$/2$ no-limit, with effective stack 202$. The game is 7-handed.

1. You raise 2 limpers to 10 with AQo from the cutoff. One calls. ~25 in the middle on the flop.

Qh Jh 2s. He checks, you bet the pot (25) and he calls. Turn is a blank, the 4c and the pot is 75.

He checks. Your read is he plays a few too many hands but is middle of the line passive and aggressive. Should we bet, and if so, how much is optimal? Remember, we have 167$ left before taking any action.

2a. You raise 1 early position limper with AJs in the cutoff to 10, and the blinds call along with the limper. So, there is 40$ in on the flop, which comes Jd 5d 3s. They check to you, and on this type 3 we’d normally bet ¾ the pot, but since it is 4way decide to bet an even 33. The BB calls, everyone else folds. 106$ in the pot for the turn, and the effective stack is 159$. The turn is an offsuit T, and he checks. What is your move?

2b. Turn comes the Jc. What is your move?

3. You have Q4s, you attack the blind from CO with an open of 8$ and the button and BB calls.

25$ in pot. Flop comes T 3 2r with 1 spade, and the BB checks to you. You bet 14, which is somewhat debatable because we have complete fluff in a 3handed pot, but I’d still bet here. The button folds, and the BB calls. Lucky for us, a Q filling the rainbow comes along, so there is 53$

in pot, he checks, we have 180$ behind, so what is your move?

4a. You have black AA in early position, and you open to 7, the button who plays a lot of pots and has a monster stack calls, and the blinds fold. 17$ in the pot, and the flop is Kh 7h 4s. You bet 13 and he calls, so there is 43$ in the pot with 182$ behind. The turn is the Th, what is your move?

4b. Now, we have position, and villain checks to us on the turn. (We’ll say he called from the blinds) What is your move?

Quiz Answers:

1. I would bet roughly 45$. (Slightly less than 2/3 the pot) Why is this good? If you check and a blank falls, you're somewhat stuck about value betting. If a free card rolls off that hits a draw and he bets, you probably will "pay off because you induced it". I would assume 9 to as many as ~14 outs are against me if I have the best hand. Lots of bad cards can come off. (Too many to check and keep pot small)

If villain is tricky and would c/r with AK or JTh etc. it changes the situation, but given his player description, it's too weird for a draw OOP to come alive on a blank turn. So I'd bet a lot, which may seem like I’m pot committing myself to the pot, but would fold to an all in. If he calls and the river blanks and he bets the rest, I'd call. If a draw hits and he moves in I’d fold. If a blank rolls off, and he checks, it’s dependent upon whether villain would take a king or worse this far, but I’d normally shove for value.

2a . I do not like these situations much although I don’t altogether mind them. Push is the

"correct" answer, here, or a pot committing bet. (Whichever is more likely to allow them to make a mistake) The reasoning is that a flat call on the flop w/ such a big pot is more likely to be a draw then a made hand.

-If he does have made hand (same J as you) the best way is to get the money in on the turn, because if he calls some bet now he is pot committed to call the rest of it; nothing wrong with putting it in now before letting anything fall on the river which could get him off the hook.

-If he has a low or mid set (very possible, given call out of positino) you unfortunately pay it off!

-The problem (or luxury) is given so much money went in preflop, and the flop was good for your hand, you must protect it!

2b. It’s still a push! This is a slight trick question, as a lot of people are tempted to slow down once they improve, but in terms of relative hand strength values, your hand is the same. Except you're less likely to be up against a jack but you have some equity against a set. (Whereas you're dead in 2a)

3. I like checking here. The board is dry, and a check behind is a sign of weakness. This could cause him to bluff or value bet river with a weaker hand and keeps the pot small in case I am way behind - classic reasons to control the pot. As well, the cold call on flop is a smaller range of hands then the previous boards, and no reason a stronger hand would play faster... A bet on the turn escalates the pot size and allows a ten / odd pair off easily, so you win a little more by checking behind and save a full turn bet for when you get c/red.

4a. This situation flat out is horrible. But it's good to know how to deal with it! Basically, how do we deal with scare cards when we’re out of position? I wouldn't be so concerned about showing this hand down. Many people say, "Well, he could have flush, but he could have tons of other hands... Lets showdown, see who wins. Check!" That’s the wrong approach here. I don’t want to think, "He can outplay me if I bet here, lets limit his ability to force a mistake on me!"

Unfortunately, we will not be able to allow him to make a mistake. (Him putting money into the pot when shouldn’t or not putting money into the pot when he should)

If someone is tough enough to get you to lay down by utilizing this bluff card, kudos to them for making a very good, but risky, play. Fact is, when a tricky player has position on us, life will not be easy. But in this example, I'd bet roughly 30$. Simply, he's loose to have a lone heart, and although the turn is bad, it doesn't mean your hand is dead; checking here allows a free draw v.

hands that would fold to turn bet but otherwise win pot.

4b. The same answer, except we now know villain checked to us. We still want to bet 30$, but we provide some protection, because if we get check/called on the turn, and they check to us on the river, we can take the free showdown.

Guidelines for Pot Control:

When dealing with a scare card… Vs. a non tricky opponent, I’d bet. Id pick a bet size I'd feel comfortable calling on river and apply it to the turn - That is key. If I'd pick off a 35$ bet, (when I could be dead on river) I’d rather put it in on the turn. This allows me the free showdown normally anyway (unless for example a heart peels off and he leads into you, well, you fold there, but you made money off what is likely a bad call by him) It's basically putting the same money into the hand one street earlier; charging worse hands and extracting value. Vs. a very ABC player, (out of position) oftentimes we can check-fold, because they’ll bet when we’re dead and check when we’re not, giving us the key behind what he’s holding.

If you bet and are called OOP, normally I check and fold to a bet on the river. It would take a very advanced bluff play to call the flop, then just call the turn when the scare card hits, then push on the river when I check. Our one pair hand is not winning when the action goes like that

all too often. Of course, player dependant though. Most of the time, it's a scared / misplayed made hand that will give you what you want (free showdown) and sometimes it's a floater hand that picked up a draw then didn’t have the heart to push on the river.

When dealing with a blank… With a fairly draw heavy board, and when pot size = stacks, or close (think ratio that is 2:1 or so) I say gun it in. (As the quiz questions above exemplified) With a draw less board and pot stacks that are close, the decision is far more player dependant, but I probably check and then call the river.

SOMETHING TO THING ABOUT: on less draw heavy boards, the more money that goes in with

one pair, the worse your hand rates to be! Also, that is why on draw heavy boards playing your sets/flopped straights/big hands faster generates so much more action, because your hand range is so wide you're liable to be paid off from a wide range of hands.