Poker, Chess, and Bridge

In a recent column, I discussed how some backgammon ideas applied to poker. The linkage is unsurprising, since both are gambling games. In this column, I would like to talk about how a couple of other games that I play also use ideas that are applicable to poker. Chess and bridge are not normally thought of as being gambling games (though they often become so when I play them), but they still have a lot of common ground with poker.

Something that's applicable to all game-playing is that you are more apt to get a good result when you feel your best. This means being rested, and having your mind focused on the game instead of preoccupied with things in the real world. The Romans had an expression, "A sound mind in a sound body," recognizing the interconnection of body and brain. The best chess players in the world undergo rigorous physical training in preparation for an important event. I am not so sure top poker players do this, but they ought to.

Just as any game player must know when the best time is to start playing, he also must know when to quit. Long sessions are tiring. Intense concentration takes its toll. Bad luck warps the judgment. If you can't give a game your best, and you are not locked into playing, don't be afraid to pack it in. There will be another chance to play when you can once again make your optimum effort.

One of the most important principles of good game-playing is that you mustn't play the same way irrespective of your opponent's actions. Don't stick rigidly to one way of doing things that you believe is the best; take advantage when your opponent departs from sound play. In chess, if an opponent makes a bunch of pawn moves and lags behind in piece development, start an attack sooner than usual to massacre his army while they are still in their barracks. In a long bridge match, if your opponents are prone to go leaping about in the bidding on bad suits, change your system so that some of your bids that are normally takeout doubles become penalty doubles that punish this brashness.

Translated into poker terms, you make an adjustment in the type and quality of hand you need for an action, based upon how an opponent is playing. For example, if you are up against an unsound hold'em player who likes to do a lot of raising, feel free to reraise with hands that are not normally worth such an action. It is nice to have queens or better, but sometimes you are supposed to play jacks, tens, or nines as though you have two queens, and isolate on a wild player. Be flexible, not rigid.

A principle common to nearly all games is the high value of initiative. In chess, the world's greatest chess player, Gary Kasparov, has changed our opinion of how to play with the black pieces. Since white has the first move, it is normal for white to attack and black to defend. The idea with black was usually to defend for a while, then look for a place to turn the tide. But Kasparov plays black openings such that both sides strive for the attack, not conceding the initiative. In bridge, it is interesting to see how the values needed to open the bidding have steadily shrunk since the days of Charles Goren 50 years ago. More and more, players are straining to enter the bidding, steal a hand from opponents, or at least interrupt opponents' lines of communication. First come, first served.

A good hold'em poker player is extremely conscious of the value of initiative. If I were to give what I think to be the most important concept of hold'em, it is that an unpaired hand is about a 2-to-1 underdog to be improved on the flop. The way to exploit this simple mathematical fact is by portraying to the opponent that he is the one who needs to improve in order to stay in contention. We do this mainly by means of a preflop raise or reraise, and by betting or raising on the flop. Every good hold'em player wants to put the burden of improving on the opponent, and win the pots that fail to get help. It is usually worth risking an extra bet to do this. In my opinion, the biggest change in poker strategy over the last two decades is the way even average players now appreciate the value of taking the initiative in the betting. (Believe me, despite what you may read in the articles of some writers, the new generation did not invent the idea that initiative is extremely important in poker; they only popularized it.)

In all games, deception has a role. Fooling the opponent is both highly enjoyable and good strategy. Of course, the need for deception is most pronounced in poker, where it is an indispensable tool. But deception is used in chess and bridge, as well. In chess, you may bring a rook to one side of the board to draw enemy pieces to defend that area, then strike with an attack on the other side of the board. In bridge, you sometimes play a suit that you have no interest in (such as a long suit in the dummy that you do not have help for in your hand), to get your opponents to break a new suit for you when it may cost them a trick to do so. Or, you fake like you want to trump a side suit in the dummy to get the defenders to break the trump suit for you.

In any game, it is helpful to know who your opponents are. In chess, we have the help of a rating system that is pretty reliable. A chess player gains rating points when he wins, but he also loses rating points when he does poorly. So, you almost always know what caliber of player you are facing. A cumulative rating system like the one used for bridge is far less accurate. In bridge, it is not that unusual to play against some old geezer with a zillion master points who can barely follow suit. A rating system that pretends to be accurate cannot look at just the number of hits and ignore the number of at-bats, or the caliber of opposition.

In poker, our "ratings" are only cumulative, and measure only tournament performances. You have to use other means to evaluate the skill of your opponents, because otherwise, you will make unnecessary mistakes. If you are a good player and play a pot against someone who you know is a good player, you can make a reasonable guess regarding what he would have done with a certain holding. But with weaker players, don't be too analytical. The mistake of the bright but inexperienced player is to ask himself, "What would I have done with this holding?" and then find that he was up against a complete dolt who did something very stupid – and fooled him by his unbelievable idiocy. When that happens, he has to wonder who was the real idiot.

Now, you have advice from other games that is perhaps even more applicable to poker. Play when you can do your best; be flexible in strategy; value initiative; use deception; know your opponents. Finally, be a gracious winner.

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.