Leaky Faucet: The Quick Leap

Welcome to the Leaky Faucet series! A new series emphasizing the myriad leaks in my game. I'm starting with a flaw that I call the Quick Leap. This term is meant to identify the scenario where you overemphasize reads on a player based on a small sample of hands. This flaw comes most frequently into play when, early on against a villain with whom you have limited or no history, you see that villain make a non-standard play - maybe he gets caught making a big bluff, or he makes a really loose call or some otherwise donkiful play. Then, shortly thereafter, when playing a hand against this opponent, you reference your limited history and jump quickly to the conclusion that he is making a similarly bad play.

Here's a recent example:

This villain on the button has just joined the table within the last orbit...

Full Tilt Poker, $0.10/$0.25 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 4 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
SB: 105.24 BB
Hero (BB): 126.32 BB
UTG: 91.40 BB
BTN: 41.28 BB
Pre-Flop: T 7 dealt to Hero (BB)
UTG folds, BTN raises to 2BB, SB folds, Hero calls 1BB

Flop: (4.4BB) 7 J 9 (2 Players)
Hero checks, BTN bets 4.4BB, Hero calls 4.4BB

Turn: (13.2BB) 7 J 9 [ 4 ] (2 Players)
Hero bets 9BB, BTN calls 9BB

Not a standard move for me (leading the turn after c/c the flop), but one that I expect to be read as pretty strong. I have enough outs to try something tricky like this, and against a new opponent, I expect to get respect a lot of the time.

River: (31.2BB) 7 J 9 4 [ K ] (2 Players)
Hero bets 28BB, BTN calls 25.88BB and is All-In

I can either give up here or carry through with my semibluff-turned-bluff. I elect to carry through, and my opponent makes a thin call...

Results: 82.96BB Pot (4.12BB Rake)
Hero showed T 7 (a pair of Sevens) and LOST (-41.28BB NET)
BTN showed 5 9 (a pair of Nines) and WON 78.84BB (+37.56BB NET)

So I immediately label his as a donk (although maybe I look like one here too?). And a few orbits later, the next hand goes down...

Full Tilt Poker, $0.10/$0.25 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 4 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
UTG: 100 BB
Hero (BTN): 100 BB
SB: 93.76 BB
BB: 84.36 BB
Pre-Flop: J A dealt to Hero (BTN)
UTG folds, Hero raises to 3.4BB, SB folds, BB calls 2.4BB

Flop: (7.2BB) T A 8 (2 Players)
BB checks, Hero bets 5.6BB, BB calls 5.6BB

Good flop, and I expect to get value from a bad opponent playing a range including a lot of worse As, as well as a lot of 8s and 10s.

Turn: (18.4BB) T A 8 [ 4 ] (2 Players)
BB checks, Hero bets 13BB, BB raises to 44BB, Hero raises to 91BB and is All-In, BB calls 31.36BB and is All-In

I fire again on a blank turn and get raised. My Quick Leap read of this guy as a donk tells me that he could be making a crazy bluff, or possibly even thinking he can get value from worse A, so I push and he snap-calls. Uh oh.

River: (169.12BB) T A 8 4 [ T ] (2 Players - 1 is All-In)

Results: 169.12BB Pot (8BB Rake)
Hero showed J A (two pair, Aces and Tens) and LOST (-84.36BB NET)
BB showed 4 4 (a full house, Fours full of Tens) and WON 161.12BB (+76.76BB NET)

So I was right...he was making a donk play - on the flop. But the turn raise was for value, and I misread his play and stacked off with TPGK. Against a solid opponent, I can lay this down pretty easily on the turn. Also, against a solid opponent, I will sometimes check the blank turn for pot control and to elicit bluffs/get value on the river.

The second example here comes against an opponent that I have a lot of history against. He tends to give my continuation bets little credit and has successfully bluffed me more times that I'd like to recount...

Full Tilt Poker, $0.25/$0.50 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 6 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
CO: 100 BB
BTN: 35.50 BB
Hero (SB): 100 BB
BB: 71.70 BB
UTG: 89.10 BB
MP: 102.60 BB
Pre-Flop: Q A dealt to Hero (SB)
UTG calls 1BB, 3 folds, Hero raises to 4BB, UTG calls 3BB

Flop: (9BB) K Q 6 (2 Players)
Hero bets 5.8BB, UTG calls 5.8BB

He gives my C-bets so little credit in general that I can fire here to get value from 77-JJ, plus QJ-Q9.
Turn: (20.6BB) K Q 6 [ J ] (2 Players)
Hero checks, UTG bets 11BB, Hero calls 11BB

I check for control, and know that he reads me as weak a lot here, so I can call his bet pretty lightly.
River: (42.6BB) K Q 6 J [ K ] (2 Players)
Hero checks, UTG bets 25BB, Hero folds

The river K makes his holding a K less likely, but his bet certainly represents one. I give him credit for that or a monster and fold.

Results: 42.6BB Pot (2.1BB Rake)
UTG showed 5 6 (two pair, Kings and Sixes) and LOST (-20.8BB NET)

And he shows a dirty bluff. I can't recall many occasions where I've seen him 2-barrel bluff like this. We are friends so this is some playful jabbing, but I file it away at the front of my memory, ready to whip it back out when the next hand comes along. Same villain is the UTG player.

Full Tilt Poker, $0.25/$0.50 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 6 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
CO: 104.80 BB
BTN: 34 BB
Hero (SB): 100 BB
BB: 93.90 BB
UTG: 111 BB <- Villain from previous hand
MP: 99 BB
Pre-Flop: Q J dealt to Hero (SB)
UTG calls 1BB, 3 folds, Hero calls 0.5BB, BB checks

Flop: (3BB) Q 4 8 (3 Players)
Hero checks, BB checks, UTG checks

I check this flop because I think I can get more value and less credit for a Q on later streets if rags continue to fall. I plan to check-call any flop bet but it checks through.

Turn: (3BB) Q 4 8 [ 9 ] (3 Players)
Hero bets 2BB, BB folds, UTG raises to 9BB, Hero calls 7BB

The turn is a 9, which is a good card to bet because I could be given credit for a turned 9 or a turned OESD (10-7, 6-7). I expect any Q to have been bet on the flop.


This raise would normally be pretty scary, representing 2-pair or better. But villain just got in my head with a bluff on our last hand together, so I add air or some kind of draw to his range and make the call.

River: (21BB) Q 4 8 9 [ J ] (2 Players)
Hero checks, UTG bets 9BB, Hero calls 9BB

River gives me top 2, putting me ahead of Q9, Q8, and 89, a significant part of his range when he raises the turn. I should probably bet here to set the price and to ensure that worse 2-pair hands down check behind. When he fires small, I call in case he is trying to get value with 2-pair or follow through with his bluff.

Results: 39BB Pot (1.9BB Rake)
Hero mucked Q J (two pair, Queens and Jacks) and LOST (-19BB NET)
UTG showed J T (a straight, Queen high) and WON 37.1BB (+18.1BB NET)

Villain raised on the turn with the nuts, and I am normally tossing top-pair weak kicker away. But I allowed our immediate hand history to have a strong influence on my decision. Since he had just bluffed me, perhaps he was trying again, and I wasn't going to let that happen.

There are two major flaws with my reasoning:

1) It's dangerous to make conclusive reads from such a small sample space of hands. An opponent that bluffs once does not necessarily bluffs with great frequency. And an opponent who makes a loose call may just be feeling out the table, with little intention of playing so loosely for the rest of the game. They may even be intentionally working to foster a loose image, although this is quite rare at low levels since it is a sophisticated gambit.

2) Once an opponent makes a non-standard move, they will often become immediately aware of their newly perceived image, and adjust to compensate for it. Therefore, you will rarely see someone who shows a bold bluff turn around and try the same move shortly thereafter, since they will usually understand that players will be expecting them to.

Perhaps the most important factor in both of the above situations is this - both times, in the hand in which I was applying my read, I was facing a raise. And both times, in the first hand, the villains did not make a raise. So I made the mistake of not respecting raises. I assumed that there was an equivalent weakness between the first and second hands in both cases, ignoring the fact that I was only raised on the 2nd hand both times. Not respecting raises is another major leak in my game (2 leaks for the price of one entry!) that probably deserves it's own discussion. Combine it with the Quick Leap flaw, and you have some mighty leaky poker! Stay tuned for the next in what is sure to be a long and endless series.