More Bad Play by Florida John: Drawing to Overcards

My association with www.PlanetPoker.com, the Internet cardroom, allows me access to an incredible database of hands. Approximately 12 million hands have been played there, close to eight times more than I have played in my lifetime. Among many other things, it's my job to investigate anytime a player makes an accusation of the appearance of impropriety or dishonesty, so I have the ability to look at hands after they have been played in order to help preserve the integrity of the game. This is very good for Internet poker, as it provides a degree of policing and protection of players that's not possible in live cardrooms.

It's also a lot of fun to have access to such information. I can track players' wins/losses and the swings they take, and can analyze any player's play. No one can embellish how they are doing; everything is recorded. It has been an interesting learning experience for me.

John, my best friend and worst poker student, has taken to occasionally playing the site. Predictably, he is losing his posterior. John's sense of intellectual superiority (he's a member of Mensa) tends to destroy him in poker. He assumes that if he is smarter than people (often he is, although not as often as he thinks he is), he can automatically beat them in poker. Such is not the case. Intelligence is definitely a factor, however, other qualities such as discipline, emotional control, and strategy knowledge are much more important. Those who have played with John know that he is lacking in some of these qualities. After 12 years of playing, he still plays as if significant brainpower automatically means that he will overpower the opposition, notwithstanding that his results would indicate otherwise. Someday, maybe it will sink in, although I am not holding my breath.

After listening to him tell me how well he was playing, I decided to investigate his play. I am always surprised by how such a highly intelligent man with whom I have discussed poker for endless hours can play so badly! It's just totally mind-boggling to me. Of course, his game is great material for columns – regarding what not to do!

I examined the first hand John played. Holding K-10 offsuit, he raised on the button with no players having entered the pot before him. So far, so good. Both players in the blinds called him. The flop came down 8-5-5 rainbow. The small blind led into the field while holding the K 8. The big blind folded and John called the bet, thinking he had two overcards. The turn card was the 9. The small blind bet once again, and John called again with his two overcards. The river brought the 10. John's only out was catching one of the three remaining tens on the river. The small blind bet again, and John called with his tens up and took down the pot. There's no doubt in my mind that he patted himself on the back for making the correct decisions against his opponent as he pulled in the pot.

Baaarrrrffff! John's play sucked. How could he play the hand this way? Of course, having the kind of friendship that we do, I didn't hesitate telling him what I thought. When I asked him about the hand over the phone, he replied, "I didn't think the guy had a 5 since he led and did not check-raise me, so I assumed that my overcards were good if they hit. Also, the hand might have been good unimproved!"

Calling with overcards can be correct; however, the circumstances have to be right. You are around 6.5-1 to make a pair when drawing one card to overcards. However, if the pot is laying you 7-1, that still does not make a call with overcards correct, because you can make a pair and still lose the pot. This is particularly true if the flop is coordinated, creating a situation in which some of your pair cards will fill a straight or flush for another player. Also, a player may already have a better hand than one pair, or may hold a pair with one of your overcards as a kicker. The likelihood of an opponent holding a kicker that's the same as one of your overcards goes up dramatically if one of your overcards is an ace, due to the fact that players are much more likely to play an A-X suited or offsuit than they are a K-X suited or offsuit. Another consideration in making a call with overcards is the likelihood of a player raising behind you after you have called. The greater the likelihood of a raise, the tighter you must play, and the less likely it is correct to chase your overcards.

In John's case, the pot was small and his opponent easily could have had a 5, or a straight on the turn, in which case John was drawing dead. As it was, his opponent had a king kicker, nullifying one of John's overcards. When the 9 came, it filled some of the hands with which a player is likely to bluff. John's call was horrible, but that won't surprise anyone who knows him.

The conceptual factors that I apply to the decision-making process of when to fold and when to call are: The pot is sizable, giving me an overlay, including the possibility that I may make my hand and still lose; my opponents are few (the likelihood of my hand being good if I hit is higher); my opponent(s) is/are likely to pay me off if I make my hand, thereby increasing my price to draw; whether or not I have additional outs, such as a gutshot or backdoor-flush draw, that will increase my chances of winning; how likely I am to get raised behind me; and the extent to which I can possibly outplay my opponent(s) later in the hand. I am more likely to call if one of my overcards is not an ace. I wonder if I can ever get John to go through that thought process?

Ever since I undertook tutoring John some about poker, he has been intellectually honest with me about his results and his failings – but he hasn't been honest enough with himself. Now that I'm looking over his shoulder, he's going to have to confront reality a little more closely.

Editor's note: Roy Cooke played winning professional poker for 16 years. He is a successful real estate broker/salesperson in Las Vegas – please see his ad below.