A Tricky Lowball Raise

An advanced play came up, one in which I was able to violate a good guiding principle of lowball. I raised after the draw with what for most players - and equally for me in most situations - is only a calling hand.

Robert, a fairly live player, killed the pot from middle position. This was in a Northern California straight $20-limit game. In most pots, bets both before and after the draw are in increments of $20, as opposed to Southern California's double-limit games, in which bets are at one level before the draw and twice that level after the draw. A double-limit lowball game's betting has a similar structure to that of flop-type games, except that in place of two rounds at each level, lowball games have only one round at each level. In the $20 single-limit game, if a player likes his first two cards, he can put $20 in the pot after seeing only those first two cards, and kill the pot. This doubles the stakes to $40 for that one hand, with betting in increments of $40 before and after the draw. Killing - also known as overblinding - is not like posting in other games. Before the draw, the player who killed the pot does not act in order. The play would start to the left of the big blind. If the overblinder had killed from a middle position, the action would temporarily skip him. Players would act in turn up to the button. After the button acted, the small blind and the big blind would act. Only then would the action finally return to the overblinder. If anyone raised, players would come back in in the same order they had originally come in. When the action got to the overblinder, it would cost him $20 less to call than anyone else, because he already had $20 in the pot. This acting last before the draw is cleverly called last action, and is the reason why action players like to kill pots when their first two cards are good. They get to see what everyone else does, and then, if they end up with four or even five good cards, can raise after everyone else has acted. Of course, what often happens is that the overblinder gets only one more good card, and usually puts in the extra $20 to draw two cards, since he's getting good odds on that extra half a bet. But he still ends up putting in $40 on a hand he might not have put in $20 with had he seen all five of his cards first. That's the downside of killing. The upside is that the pots are bigger and the overblinder has that last action advantage. When a player is on a rush and he kills lots of pots, his stack can grow quickly.

You don't need to know all of the information in these two paragraphs to appreciate what happened in this particular pot, but the information might be useful to you if you're contemplating jumping into your first lowball game, or even if you have already picked up a few hands, particularly if those few hands were in a club that does not have the look-at-two-and-kill-it option. Of the two major clubs in Northern California that have lowball, one (San Jose's Garden City Casino) has overblinding after looking at two cards, while the other (Oaks Card Club in Emeryville) does not. Both clubs, however, require a player either to come in on the blind if he has not yet received a hand or if he missed the blinds, or to kill it to get a hand early. This is a situation of overblinding without seeing one's first two cards. If the player just sat down, it's usually referred to as killing to get a hand. If the player missed the blinds, it's called a re-entry blind.

Back to the hand.

John, who had $85, opened from the first position - that is, just to the left of the big blind. I knew that John often comes in light, even in killed pots, and even from early positions. The others folded in turn to me.

I was on the button with 10-7-6-2-joker, and raised. I didn't want any of the blinds getting in cheaply. I probably had the best hand, but it was a hand that played best against only one opponent. If John drew two cards, I planned to stand pat on the 10. If he drew one, I would probably draw one myself. If he stood pat, I definitely would draw one, even though a slight possibility existed that he had a pat 10, also. If he did, mine was undoubtedly better, but even John likely would not open from first position in a killed pot with a pat 10, so I would want to give myself a chance. I'd feel mighty silly standing pat on a 10 and have John show down a straight 9. Since most of the time John would be drawing in this situation, and since he would open with any 8 or better to draw to, my hand, considered a draw, should be better than his more often than not, thus warranting my raise. My raise was also protected, in that if he had me beat, I could lose only another $5 to him. Furthermore, I wanted to freeze Robert out. Even though he had killed the pot, he would not come in cold for two bets to draw two cards without the joker - and I had the joker.

As I hoped, the two blinds folded. This added $15 of dead money to the pot, improving my expected value (EV). Robert called, by adding $60 to the pot. John called the raise, leaving himself one $5 chip. Had Robert folded, my EV would have gone up still more by virtue of the extra $20 of dead money. His coming in, though, did not worry me too much. If he was pat, he would have reraised. He might get tricky and just call with a pat 8 or 9, but with anything better, he certainly would have reraised. Most likely, he was drawing one card. He might be drawing better than I, but I still had position on him, plus a now semiprotected bet-after-the-draw situation. That is, Robert would be less likely to bluff after the draw, because he knew he probably couldn't get a player with only $5 left to throw away his hand, and he wouldn't risk a bluff with a hand that couldn't win the main pot. Also, as far as he knew, I was drawing to a good hand and was very likely either to call or raise. I could bluff, though, if Robert passed and I missed my hand, because I might be risking only $5. If John paired and passed, he might not even call his last $5 if I bet. And if I bluffed and John called and Robert didn't, that would be an inexpensive bit of advertising. All sorts of possibilities existed.

I was actually surprised John didn't throw his last $5 in before the draw. If Robert was going to call an extra $60, he certainly would also call $65. That is, an extra $5 wouldn't frighten Robert off, like an extra $40 would. Slow-playing could possibly make sense if John had at least one full bet left, but not just one chip. Adding that chip to the pot would be the best way for John to get action on his last $5. Why not get maximum action on all of his chips? I've never understood why players in this situation hang on to that last chip, but that can be the subject of another column.

Everyone drew one card.

After the draw, John bet his $5 chip.

Robert thought for a while, and finally said, "I complete." This meant that he brought the bet up to the full $40. Because of the sevens rule, if Robert just called the $5 with a 7 or better, and I overcalled with a worse hand, I would get my $5 back - as long as John didn't have the best hand. And if I raised (that is, completed the bet myself) with a worse hand than Robert's, I would get all of my bet back. If Robert had just called the $5, I certainly would complete the bet with a smooth 8, and if Robert had just called the $5 (instead of himself completing the bet) with a 7 or better, he would lose all the action.

Here's some sevens rule stuff: For the reasons I just gave, in such a situation, a player must always complete the bet, no matter how tempting it would be just to call with a good hand, hoping to trap the player behind. The sevens rule applies here, something that some lowball players, even those who have been playing for years, are not aware of. So, as an aside, take heed, lowball beginners. If someone bets all in with fewer chips than constitute a full bet after the draw and you have made a 7 or better, always complete the bet - or risk not getting all you're entitled to. Of course, if you're worried you might be beat, or don't want to risk two full bets, you can always just call. Doing so is the equivalent play to passing a 7 or better after the draw (in other situations, those that do not involve anyone being all in) with the intention of giving back the other player his money if he bets with a worse hand. Fearful lowball players sometimes do this when there is a lot of action before the draw, pass with the intention of calling if the other bets, but that's another of those things I don't understand. If you're convinced you're beat, you should pass and fold! And since you rarely know that, you should bet. Then, if you're raised, you can decide what to do. Here's another aside: If you are capable of knowing that your 7 is beat, how can you justify having stayed in the pot as long as you did? That's just a rhetorical question, but I can assert that I don't want to be in any game in which players are routinely (and correctly) throwing away sevens after the draw for raises.

Anyway, back to Robert's completion bet. I knew that if he had a very good hand - that is, a 7 or better - he would not have thought before completing the bet. He would have done so automatically. Robert knows how the sevens rule works in this situation. His (relatively) long pause to think told me that he had about an 8, and thus had to work out all the ramifications before completing the bet.

I caught an ace to my hand, giving me 7-6-3-2-A. I knew my hand was as good as gold. I raised. Robert had been chagrined a few hands back when he passed after the draw, I bet, and he folded. He showed that he had caught a king, and I showed that I had paired sevens. I knew he would remember that. He also knew that I was capable of raising here with a pair to win the side pot, even if I had no chance for the main pot, and that I might raise with about a jack or 10, thinking that the hand wouldn't beat Robert but might be good for the whole pot if Robert folded and John's bet had been a desperation play on his last $5.

Robert called. I showed my hand, and he unhappily showed his 8-6. He had exactly what I thought.

John showed that he had caught a queen, and I won the whole pot. He had bet hoping that we both had made worse hands, because he knew he'd call his $5 if anyone bet, and because he didn't want to have just one chip left. I was happy about winning the whole pot, but I was even happier about the extra $40 I had made by raising Robert's completion bet. Not many other players would have raised in that situation. They would have called Robert's $40 completion bet and been pleased when their hands stood up. After all, a rough 7 is not normally a raising hand after the draw, particularly in a killed pot that has been raised before the draw.

Here's another aside: A rough 7 is hardly ever a raising hand after the draw. When most players bet into you after the draw, all you can do is call with a 7-6. If you raise and are reraised, you have lost three bets on a hand that normally should have cost you only one. Generally, the only time your raise will be called is when you are beat, and you run the risk of getting raised. You're basically laying 2-to-1 that the bettor has worse than your hand. Since many players don't even bet eights after the draw, that's not a very good proposition. And here's an aside to the aside: You may think, "If I will get called only by a hand that has me beat, why then shouldn't I raise whenever I miss my hand?" The trouble with that reasoning is that most of the time the hand that bets into you does have you beat, and does call the raise, albeit reluctantly. And as soon as he sees that you were bluffing, he will thereafter call you all the more often. He will also pass eights and nines and call your bets. Those two things make bluffing more than dictated by game theory a losing proposition. So, back to the original premise. For lowball beginners, a rough 7 is hardly ever a raising hand after the draw. Raising with the hand is an advanced play. When you do bluff-raise, it should be with hands that cannot possibly win in a showdown. Betting or raising with anything better than such hands is betting for value. And most of the time, raising with a rough 7 after the draw has little value.