The Poker Teacher

In the spring of 1996, I made a big change in my life by moving back to my home state of Michigan after a 16-year absence. The reason was, I needed to take care of my dad, who was getting up in years and had taken the 1995 death of my mother very hard. I was able to play live-action poker for a while, as Soaring Eagle Casino had a nice pot-limit game. But the next year, they declined to spread the game anymore, and my playing stopped except for an occasional tournament. To fill the gap, I did a lot of writing, and began to offer poker lessons. I now have a lot of experience teaching the game of poker, and would like to share my thoughts with you on the subject.

To teach, you have to explain both what to do and why to do it. Explanations lead to rules, because players don't want advice that is a one-shot deal. They want stuff that can be applied to future situations. I am sure it is this way in teaching most subjects. Rules establish linkage between situations that make things more understandable.

There is a problem with rules; most of them do not work every single time – especially in poker. If a "rule" does not work all the time, is it a rule? We could regard this as a semantic problem and call it a "guideline." But whatever we call it, there are likely to be exceptions. This is particularly so in poker, where the specific opponent or type of opponent has a great influence on many decisions. Nevertheless, I believe it is a cop-out to keep answering poker questions with, "It depends." It is possible to offer advice that will work in most situations, the normal and typical ones, and help the recipient of the advice, even though your pearls are not meant to be taken as if carved into a commandment. When up against a drunk, a maniac, a genius, or an idiot, it should be understood that normal play may not be apropos.

The players who seek poker advice from me form a wide spectrum, from the neophyte to the pro. But most of them are pretty good players already, and are eager to move up a notch or two. When giving poker advice, it helps to know your audience. Frankly, it is not unusual for a top player to think some of your advice is inferior, failing to realize he is not the one the advice is intended for. Here is a concrete example of this:

In a recent column, I stated (in too strong a fashion) that open-limping in tournament no-limit hold'em with an ante in the pot is an inferior strategy, and you should not do it. The truth is that limping is part of the arsenal of most good players, albeit a small part. I have even done it myself on rare occasions. It may be done with a big pair to set a trap for an overly aggressive player in the game, and to set the trap, you may need to limp in a time or two before you get the hand and situation that you want. It may be done with an intermediate pair like two sevens, hoping to flop a set, and taking advantage of a table where the tempo of the game is featuring much less big preflop raising than normal. A top player knows when to do this – and does it very sparingly.

What about the newcomer, or even the average player? Chances are, he would be better off never open-limping than trying to guess when it is OK. One of the biggest leaks in no-limit hold'em tournament play with an ante is frittering away chips in an effort to see the flop cheaply. The pot odds make a call very attractive. In fact, those odds are so attractive that another player in the game usually decides you are getting much too good a bargain. What normally happens is someone then tries to steal the pot with a big preflop raise, often figuring that if he can get through the opener (you), he can get by the rest of the players and pick up the pot. (I note that in pot-limit hold'em, these giant preflop raises are not allowed – but I have never seen a pot-limit hold'em game played with an ante.) Of course, you also may simply be running into a good hand. Maybe a player who has a big rep in no-limit tournament play can get away with limping, since he does it so seldom, and people know he may be loaded for bear. But Mr. Average Guy is going to look like a juicy meal to the thieves. So, I may be justly accused of oversimplifying things a little, but not of offering bad advice to the typical tournament player.

Here is another area where some advice I have given has received criticism: A lot of good poker play is making good laydowns, getting away from hands when it looks like you are beat. After all, poker success in a pot comes more from how you match up against the opponent than where your hand ranks on an objective scale of values. And you gauge how you match up mostly by your opponent's betting. But these laydowns are based on being up against the typical player. They would not be as successful against top players, or even if facing the same crew of decent but not exceptional players over and over. It is quite probable that such knowledgeable opponents will try to take advantage of your caution. Even so, this does not mean the advice given is bad. In my new book, Middle Limit Holdem Poker, I am quite clear about this, explaining early on that you must vary your game instead of handling the same situation in the same way each time it arises. So, it should be all right to tell you how to play against the typical player or a stranger. Do I have to say in every problem that the answer given is not to be followed blindly all the time? I should be able to give this advice generically at the start, and not have to repeat it in problem after problem after problem (as is done by some others).

The poker teacher needs to set boundaries on hands for a particular course of action. Deciding where to put a boundary is risky business for us poker writers. Here is an example: In limit hold'em, you are in the small blind and the button open-raises. One thing you need to teach people is to play back at a button-raiser when they are fortunate enough to pick up something decent. How much hand do you need? If I set up a problem for this betting sequence in which you hold an A-K, none of the poker pundits who like to criticize are going to say I have made a mistake. On the other hand, how much have I taught? I may as well use two queens or two kings as an example, the course of action is so obvious. But if I use an A-J or an A-10, the reader might have learned something. Of course, when I do this, I run into another type of poker pundit who says, "With this light a hand, you have to be careful whom you reraise." Duh, no kidding. Most of my readers and students understand that even if I tell them reraising with an A-10 is an OK thing to do, perhaps they should not do it against some octogenarian who hasn't raised a pot since he arrived in the game. I would appreciate it if you "it all depends" critics would give our readers credit for some poker sense. After all, they are constantly reading Card Player trying to improve their game.

Editor's note: Bob Ciaffone's new book, Middle Limit Holdem Poker, co-authored with Jim Brier, is available now (332 pages, $25 plus $5 shipping and handling). This work and his other poker books, Pot-limit and No-limit Poker, Improve Your Poker, and Omaha Holdem Poker, can be ordered through Card Player. Ciaffone is available for poker lessons. E-mail [email protected] or call (989) 792-0884. His website is www.diamondcs.net/~thecoach, where you can download Robert's Rules of Poker for free.