How Would You Play These Hands?

A reader living in upstate New York who plays at Turning Stone Casino asked me to comment on two hands. One was played in a cash game, the other in a tournament. The issues are interesting in and of themselves, and help point out some of the major differences between tournament and cash-game play.

Situation No. 1: "In a $10-$20 Texas hold'em cash game, I was dealt pocket nines and considered raising, but because I was in early-middle position, I decided to call instead. No one raised, and five players saw the flop, which was 4-4-2 of mixed suits.

"The player in the small blind came out betting. I was considering whether to raise or call when an opponent to the small blind's left beat me to the punch and raised. I knew the small blind frequently overplays his hands and likes to come out betting – or even raising – with mediocre holdings, or sometimes with nothing at all.

"The raiser fancies himself to be a very strong player and is certain he can always put each of his opponents on a hand, but he's not nearly as strong a player as he thinks he is. He has a weakness for suited cards, and will usually play almost any suited hand.

"While I'm fairly certain that my pair of nines is better than the small blind's hand, I'm not sure about the raiser, since it's difficult for me to put him on a hand. He could have a pair of queens, jacks, or tens and not raised before the flop. He also might have a hand like K-4 suited, or he might even be raising on a draw with A-3 or A-5. A pair of sixes, sevens, or eights, or even A-K, are all possibilities.

"There are two players to act after me, and I believe one of them will cold-call the raise and the other will release his hand. Moreover, I expect the small blind to either call or reraise. Thinking I have only two outs and may not win even if I catch another 9, I decide to fold my hand. Was this the correct play, based on my analysis of the other players?"

My Response: This appears to be one of those situations in which raising or folding is far superior to calling. A call doesn't help you much, and might even attract additional callers who probably would throw their hands away if you raised. Moreover, calling does not help you define the hands held by the two players who have already acted.

Since the small blind plays any two cards under most circumstances, he's more likely to hold nothing at all than he is one of the two remaining fours. If the second player does hold a 4, he'll just call if you reraise, planning to check-raise the turn – when the betting limits double.

But if you three-bet him on the flop and he checks the turn, you have some options at your disposal. You can bet if you believe neither of them has a 4 or an overpair bigger than your pair of nines, or you can check behind them and save a bet if, in fact, you're beaten. If you're not beaten, checking the turn might even induce a bluff on the river, which you can easily snap off with your pair of nines.

The key to your decision is the trickier player who acts immediately before you do. I would assume he'd have raised before the flop with A-K, or with a pair of aces, kings, queens, or jacks, so I'd discount the chances that he has any of those hands. A pair of tens is a possibility, and so is a 4 that's suited to an ace or king. He might also have a pair of eights, sevens, sixes, or even fives. Since your hand is probably better than most of his potential holdings, my inclination, if I were in your shoes, would be to raise – although folding is not a bad decision, either. After all, the small blind, whom we cannot put on a hand because he could have anything, just might have a real hand this time. Because it's more difficult to beat two opponents than just one, folding is a good option, too.

Situation No. 2: "I'm in a limit hold'em tournament with 20-minute rounds and blinds that double each round. We're fivehanded at the final table, and I have the second-highest stack when I'm dealt A Q under the gun. I raise, and everyone but the small blind, who is the chip leader – although not by much – calls. The flop contains a jack and two small hearts. The small blind bets out on the flop, and I read him as having a jack. I call, since I have two overcards that can make a bigger pair, as well as a draw to the best possible flush. But the turn is no help, and neither is the river. We both check, and he wins the pot with K-J.

"In retrospect, I think I should have folded to his bet on the flop. With only two of us, and each chip so vitally important, this did not seem to be the best time to continue with a draw."

My Response: If this were a cash game, it clearly would be correct to call with your hand. But this was a tournament, and since you were in second chip position, it was a hand that you did not have to play. If you had a substantial chip lead over the player who was third in chip count, it might have been correct to call the flop, in hope of making your flush and having two additional betting rounds to punish your opponent. But once he bet the turn, you should have released your hand. At that point, your chances for improvement were reduced, and you had less opportunity to punish him if you were lucky enough to make your hand.

In a no-limit tournament, you might have raised him all in on the flop if you thought there was some chance that he would have released his hand. Because you raised before the flop, a good player might read you for an overpair and not want to jeopardize his chip lead. But in a limit tournament, you probably won't induce a fold by raising, unless your opponent holds A-K and is willing to fold in the face of a raise.

But all of this is speculative and conjecture. The key issue here is that you did not have to play this hand in the first place, and could have released it with a minimal loss in chips once your opponent bet the flop.

Conventional wisdom is to attack the small stacks and avoid the big ones. Of course, if you flopped an unbeatable hand, you'd welcome an opportunity to reduce the chip leader's stack to rubble, but in this case, you were the fox, not the hound.

In retrospect, you would have been better off waiting for opportunities to punish the small stacks. If this hand were played against a small stack, you would have been justified in raising him all in. After all, you couldn't have gotten hurt by bets on the turn and river, and with nine outs to a flush and three queens and three aces that would presumably vault you into the lead, it's a play worth making – particularly when you realize that each additional player eliminated guarantees you a higher rung on the pay ladder.

Lou Krieger is the author of Poker for Dummies, Hold'em Excellence: From Beginner to Winner, and More Hold'em Excellence: A Winner for Life. All of his books are available at www.loukrieger.com, as well as at major bookstores and online outlets everywhere. His next book, Gambling for Dummies, will be published soon.