Backstage

I was sitting beside one of my "advanced" poker students at a $10-$20 Omaha high-low table in Atlantic City. She was watching me trying to pump as many chips as possible into a pot in which I held A-2-6-9 and the flop, 8-7-5, had given me the nut straight and the nut low.

I continued firing into fiveway action after a 3 hit the turn. There were three callers, and the other A-2 raised; I reraised. The pot was huge.

There were two clubs on the board. The river card was the 2, the "deuce of death" – one of the two cards (the other being the A) that shipped both of my locks down the drain.

As I watched the two huge half-pots being pushed toward the club flush and the A-4, I said my usual, "Nice hand" to the winners. My student whispered to me, "How can you stand it?!"

I told her that there is not only a correct way to play every hand, there's also a correct way to act and react after a hand is over. That way is simply to congratulate the winner(s) and go on to the next hand. That's what I usually do, but some players resort to other options.

"Like what?" she asked.

"Well, not all good players take what we'll call the 'stoical' approach. There are some good players who prefer to play various psychological games. For example, there are those who act like they're going on tilt.

"Try to picture this. Suppose I was one of those emotive players who is inclined to put on a show (some seem to be trying for an Academy Award). First, as soon as the winning hands were seen, I might throw my hand faceup on the table so that everyone could see the two former locka-locka cards. Then, I might say something either rude or sarcastic (or both) to the winner(s). Then, I might signal to the cocktail waitress that I need another drink. But note that I might not really be drinking. I might be ordering Bloody Mary mix without vodka, or tonic without gin, and so on. Then, I might play one of the first marginal hands that comes along, and show it with great pride. And I might even put in an extra aggressive raise before or on the flop."

She interrupted, "But what does all of this accomplish?"

I said, "Well, disguising your play is even more fruitful in Omaha than in hold'em." I reminded her of the basic principle that in loose Omaha games, it is better to be loved than feared. That is, you make more money by getting extra callers than by stealing default pots. (Note that this does not apply to hold'em, in which it is usually better to be feared than loved.)

So, since one likes to get more callers in Omaha, it is actually profitable to adopt various deceptive strategies, the overall purpose of which is to get more players into your pots.

Then, she perceptively asked, "So, is all of this considered ethical?"

"Of course," I responded. "In poker, deception is considered part of the game. You might think of it as simply a variation of the grand old poker stratagem of luring in players who think they are playing against a weak opponent. Back in the old days of Mississippi riverboats, it was not uncommon for certain "professional gamblers" to act drunk so that "tourists" would think they were easy marks.

"Well, then, if this is ethical and also advantageous, why don't you do it?"

"Just call it personal preference," I answered. My beliefs on this subject are probably influenced by years of playing tournament bridge, in which "coffeehousing" is considered unethical.

Then I conceded, "I've tried it a few times – and it seems to work. But what about you? Are you interested in the performing arts?"

She smiled sweetly and said, "Why do you think I always have lots of chips in front of me?"