Hold'em Isn't Stud

A reasonably proficient seven-card stud player with very little hold'em experience sat in our $30-$60 hold'em game. There are many concepts that are equally applicable to both seven-card stud and hold'em. However, there are also many major differences that a player with experience in one game can easily miss in the other. The same concept is true when pot-limit or no-limit players sit in a limit game, and vice versa.

I watched this player over several hours. Like many seven-card stud players playing hold'em, he dramatically overvalued his pairs, raising with all off them before the flop and taking them to the river regardless of the flop. He also seemed to undervalue his big high-card starting hands, always just calling with A-K and A-Q holdings. He was attaching value to his hands similar to the way a seven-card stud player would attach value to his starting hands. Unbeknownst to him, that is not a good hold'em strategy.

The seven-card stud player opened the pot from middle position, shooting it up with a raise. I was immediately behind him and was holding an A-K. Generally, in most situations, I would reraise with this hand. I recognize that a player in his position would often hold a wired pair, but sometimes he would have a holding that possessed an ace or a king. When he had a hand that contained an ace or a king, he would be in a situation in which he was a huge underdog to make the best hand. If he held a wired pair of queens or lower in that spot, I would be a slight dog to win the hand, but my hand would "play better" than his. Also, the blinds, should they fold, would provide me with additional overlay. By playing better, I mean that my hand would be more likely to win extra bets than his if I hit it. That can be true either because of the texture of my hand or the texture of my opponent's, or a combination of both.

But in this situation, I knew that he didn't have a no-pair hand that contained an ace or a king; otherwise, he would not have raised. Therefore, he held a pair, any pair. There was some chance (11-1) that he held A-A or K-K, putting me in a very bad spot, but his most likely holding was a wired pair of queens or lower. (There are 13 pairs; my holding of A-K, however, removed various combinations of A-A or K-K.)

Reraising was still a legitimate option. I had position, and playing fast might have additional value in the play of the hand down the road. However, since I was going to have to make a hand in order to win the pot, I believed that flat-calling would be a better play. If I hit my ace or king, any other opponent not holding a pair would have to hit his hand at least twice in order to beat me, and I held one of the cards leaving that opponent only four flop cards with which to make two pair or trips with his hand. If by flat-calling I induced any player to call with an ace or a king, he would be making a very poor call, increasing the value of my hand. If he had a wired pair, the call would not be correct unless at least another two players called the flop. Also, since my opponent would bet any flop, I was in a position to reduce the price that my opponents would receive to draw at my hand by raising the flop. I flat-called the preflop raise.

The game was tight and no other players called the raise. The flop came J-7-5 with two hearts. I held the K. As expected, my opponent led into me. He was not one to make a lot of fancy plays or raises. If he held a pair smaller than jacks that didn't flop a set, I believed he would check to me on the turn if I raised. So, I raised, planning on checking the turn and taking a free card, getting two cards for the price of two small bets. The price was close for this play; however, I added value since I was confident that my opponent would call my bets if I hit an ace or a king.

Alas, like many of my plans in life, things didn't work out exactly as planned. My opponent reraised me. That shed a whole new light on the situation. Inasmuch as he was not a very aggressive player or much of a bluffer (particularly for three bets), I knew that he could beat a pair of jacks. If he held a pair of jacks or better, with his preflop holdings defined, he held either a set, Q-Q, K-K, or A-A. If he held Q-Q, I was receiving an overlay on the call. If he held K-K, it would also be correct to call if I spiked an ace and he paid me off. For all of the other possible hands that my opponent could hold, I was drawing dead (except for the fact that I could catch K-K if my opponent held A-A). Not wanting to catch a card that would just get me into more trouble than I was already in, I tossed my hand into the muck.

"How do they know?" my opponent asked, and showed three fives. I smiled and told him that his mustache twitched (he didn't have a mustache). This hand speaks to varying your play based on your opponents' tendencies and holdings. I played the hand very unconventionally. Just calling preflop with "big slick" is against conventional wisdom. The raise on the flop had value in building a bigger pot if I hit an ace or a king on the turn, and giving me a free card if I didn't. The raise defined my opponent's hand and provided me with information that prevented me from making a poor percentage play later in the hand.

I lost $120 on the hand, but my decisions stopped me from losing more. The value in all of my plays was there, even though the results weren't particularly to my liking. However, I know that if I just keep making good decisions, over the course of time the chips will come to me – and that is to my liking!

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.