My Apologies

Nearly all the time when I write a poker column, it is confined to one subject. But every once in a while, a bunch of things pile up that do not require enough commentary for a full-length column, but still should be addressed. So, the time has come for a group of unrelated topics.

First, an apology. In writing about how the events of Sept. 11 had impacted poker, I compared the present attitude of some Americans toward certain Middle Eastern people with the events of 1979, when the Shah was deposed, Americans were held hostage, and many westernized Iranians fled the Khomeini regime and came to America. The common thread was that a whole group was being tarred with a brush that should have been applied to only a segment within it. In that column, I referred to those Iranians as "Arabs." Wrong, wrong, wrong. The first person I heard from on this subject was my good friend Bob Walker, who had worked in Iran for a while. "Persians are not Arabs," said Bob, "and they do not speak Arabic. They speak Farsi." Some of my other friends also informed me of my error. Sorry.

Next, I would like to tell you about a poker invention that should be considered right up there with the playover box as a quality addition to poker hardware. It is the "poker drop-box cover." The purpose of the canvas and vinyl covers is to protect the soft from the hard. What is soft is the knee of a poker player. What is hard is a steel drop-box. There has been many a time that I have cracked my patella against one, and I've never come out on the plus side yet. I, on occasion, have affectionately referred to the security people who collect drop-boxes as "the knee-crackers." If cardroom managers are astute enough to contact the Tempe, Arizona, company T.E.P. ll that makes the drop-box cover, their collectors will receive a much friendlier reception at the poker table from the player in the seat on the dealer's right.

OK, it's time to talk a little poker strategy. Why do you raise a pot? To get opponents to either put in more money or fold. (Yes, there can be other reasons, also.) Suppose that your chances of inducing a fold approach zero. Is it still OK to raise, or should you now just call? I am an old-fashioned guy in certain respects. If I think my hand has a better chance of winning the pot than the hands held by my opponents, I like to get more money out there. For example, in a hold'em game in which there are eight limpers and I am on the button with pocket aces, I raise – and so would every other poker player who is not crazy and is trying to win money in the game. Only a lunatic would argue against a raise in that scenario.

Well, suppose that you do not have that much of a hand. Maybe you have a "mere" A-K offsuit. Should you raise? Here are the arguments I have heard against raising. First, you can't get anyone out. We just discussed that one. It assumes the fallacious principle that if an action cannot accomplish all of your aims, you should not do it. Does this mean that if your opponent has one out and will not fold, you shouldn't pop him? Of course not. You're the favorite; raise the pot and win more money.

The second argument against raising is that an A-K offsuit does not want too many opponents. Maybe it doesn't, although I don't know how "too many" is defined. I will let the slide-rule guys tell you the optimum number of opponents for the A-K. But so what? Does this mean that when an arena has a 1 percent uphill grade against you instead of being level, you should refuse to fight? And what if you have a gun and the other guy has a penknife? With the garbage people come into the pot with when there are many callers, why would you not want to raise? Because there are five or six opponents instead of three or four? How do you think the hands of the extra one or two who got the pot to sixhanded compare to your own?

If you wait for perfect situations to raise, you are far from optimizing opportunities, and are cutting your winnings by being a perfectionist. This same type of answer is what I gave one of my students who was in the big blind with Q-Q when the under-the-gun player raised, and four players called. He wanted to know if he should three-bet the pot with so many opponents. I told him to go ahead and pop it. He didn't have two aces, but it's not a perfect world.

Here is a situation that I think has similarities to the ones I just discussed. In a limit hold'em game, you are on the button with an A-5 offsuit. Everyone folds to you. What should you do, assuming there are a couple of strangers in the blinds? Should you fold against random hands? Don't be ridiculous. Should you just call? There's no such play; this is a raise-or-fold situation. Yes, we all know that the right play is to raise the pot.

Now, let's change this problem a little bit. Instead of a stranger in the big blind, the game's sheriff resides there. What now? If you have been following the theme of my arguments, you know what my answer is. You should raise the sheriff. The chance of his folding is zero; so what? You have the button. You have an ace. This means that you are very likely to have the best hand. In heads-up situations, the person who starts with the best hand is the favorite to wind up with the best hand. The opponent has to hit, and you do not. He is only about even money to improve even if he stays for all five boardcards. He would win only about half the time even if you never improved. Of course, you will sometimes improve, making you a big favorite over him, something on the order of 3-to-2 against most hands. That's if he stays in all the way. So, raise the sheriff, and let him come. Don't wait for a perfect place or hand to pop the pot, even if you know that you are going to get called. It's OK to gamble higher when you have the best of it.

The moral here is obvious: A poker player who wants to optimize has to be a gambler. No, not the kind of gambler who is willing to risk all on the turn of the card, or a thrill-seeker who loves a game of chance for high stakes. A gambler, as the term is used here, is one who is not afraid to risk money when he thinks he has the best of it. Notice that I did not use the expression "way the best of it." All you need is an edge. Don't wait for overkill.