Scaring the Best Hand

Poker players and writers routinely disagree among themselves – which hands to play, how to play them, and so forth. Personally, I consider this a fine thing. Consider the world of science, where brilliant men and women argue passionately for their own beliefs regarding the origin (and demise) of the dinosaurs, the physics of the atomic world, and so on. It is these very arguments that inspire further thought, research, and, in some cases, resolution of the core disagreement.

While acknowledging that poker is perhaps less vital than a robust unified field theory, I'd like to suggest that arguments among people who think about poker have advanced, and continue to advance, the game and our understanding of it. This brings me to a point upon which most poker authorities actually seem to agree: You don't want to play too many hands, but when you do play a hand, you want to play it assertively (or even aggressively).

There is an interesting side effect of this kind of behavior that I'd like to discuss: You often terrify a player who's holding a hand that's better than yours. This is because, particularly at the lower limits, players tend to be less assertive; they become truly aggressive only when they're holding a monster. If they model your play as being somewhat like theirs (another common mistake), your aggression appears to be a sign of a huge hand.

So, do they fold? Of course not; they call.

Thus, our first conclusion is this: If you hold a hand of any reasonable value, you can almost never terrify somebody into folding a better one. But, you may cause him to check and call rather than bet and raise. This is generally good for you, as it enables you to adjust your investment in the pot. If you continue to believe that you're ahead (and other factors justify it), you bet. But if you're not sure that you want more money in the pot, you can often get free cards, or simply show down hands with which you'd rather not call.

Another feature of your aggression against passive players is that it gives you excellent information when they do land on a huge hand. For instance, suppose that you have a single opponent who is fairly passive. You have A-K and raised before the flop; your opponent had the big blind and called. The flop came A-7-4, he bet, you raised, and he called. The turn was a deuce. He checked, you bet, and he called. Now, a seemingly uninteresting 10 falls on the river and your opponent bets! You're getting 7-to-1 to call here, but against many passive opponents, you are worse than a 7-to-1 dog. That 10 hit him (or he was slow-playing something else), and your top pair, nut kicker is no good. I'm not suggesting that you lay down A-K every time in this situation, but your aggression was clear – you put more money into the pot at every opportunity. Now, that passive opponent suddenly comes to life and bets? Think carefully before you throw those last chips out there.

And finally, don't make the mistake that I ascribed to your opponents above: Model your opponents as they play – not as you do. You have read the books and know not to turn passive in most instances. So, when an opponent turns passive, you tend to put him on a weak hand or a draw. You push a marginal hand for value, he meekly calls on the river, and then turns over a hand that's better – sometimes substantially better – than yours. Your check-raise on the flop (for instance) scared him into passivity, but he ended up winning more money from you because you pushed the issue, not he.

I still stand firm with those who argue for aggression in the few hands that you do play, but be aware that your aggression may scare a player with a better hand into playing passively. If you have a marginal hand, look for a way to avoid the last bet going in; for example, he may welcome your check on the river if you have to act first – he didn't want to bet that single pair, anyway. Of course, you would (correctly) bet if the board was Q-7-5-6-5 and you had A-Q, but he might not, and that will save you a bet if you have Q-J.

Against players who call way too much, your Q-J deserves a bet for value on the end. But if your opponent scares easily, consider the possibility that he is meekly calling with a hand that's better than yours.

As I said, these decisions are rarely easy, and others may (and probably will) disagree with me. So be it – read and learn. Like competition in the product and service marketplace, the information consumer is the true beneficiary of intellectual disagreement.

Thanks for reading my point of view.