Playing a Middle Pair

One of the toughest limit hold'em hands to play is the middle pair, particularly when an opponent has shown strength and may have a higher overpair, putting you in a precarious position in which you suspect you may need to make a set or better to win. When you have an underpair to an opponent's overpair, the chips you place in the pot have a low value of return unless there is significant player volume and/or a cheap entry price.

I was playing $30-$60 hold'em and had $20 posted in the small blind. A better-than-average, but not great, player opened the pot from third position with a raise and was called by a player who was struggling to play his best, but who didn't really understand hold'em strategies or general starting-hand guidelines. I held 9-9. Sometimes I reraise with medium wired pairs, partially to shut out players from coming in behind me who would be correct in calling if they had two overcards. But the play has large downside risks. When you are beat preflop or your opponent flops a higher pair, you are faced with a tough situation to play correctly, with the potential to lose a lot of money. Oftentimes when you try to pre-empt those situations, you run the danger of folding a winning hand.

In this particular spot, I did not give much thought to a preflop reraise. The only player I had the potential to shut out was the big blind, and he wouldn't necessarily call or have overcards, anyway. Also, I don't like getting a lot of money in when out of position with a medium-strength hand. (As I have often said before, having the worst hand in the worst position sucks.) I tossed in four chips, calling the $60 wager. The big blind folded.

The flop came down 10-8-6 rainbow, giving me an underpair to top pair (or to an overpair) and a gutshot-straight draw. I had the option of leading or checking. If I led, the opener would likely raise with either an overpair or possibly an A-K/A-Q type of hand, and I would still be unsure of his holding. I also could get trapped in the hand if the caller in between us had hit the flop and three-bet. If I checked, I could make a decision based on a higher level of information when the action got back to me. If the opener bet and the caller raised, I would be able to get away from my hand. Also, the opener could very easily have an A-K, A-Q, or K-Q type of hand, and if I checked and he led, either folding or trapping the in-between player, I could raise and put him in a much tougher position. His response to a raise would also give me higher-quality information on which to base my subsequent decisions than his response to a bet would.

I checked. As expected, the opener bet. The in-between player called. I check-raised, believing it was the best play. The fact that the in-between player had called made it less likely that I would be played back at by Mr. Better-Than-Average if he held high cards, thus erasing the possibility of him putting me in a tough spot. Plus, I wanted to take the lead and charge them if my hand was good.

My hand grew tremendously in quality when they both flat-called my raise. If Mr. Better-Than-Average had an overpair, he was a good enough player to three-bet the pot in order to shut out the player behind him. The fact that he didn't reraise defined his hand as one that was very likely beaten by my holding. I thought it likely that the caller also had overcards, as my observations of his previous play indicated that he would read a preflop raiser for A-K, and raise him with a pair but flat-call with overcards.

The turn card was the 7, putting four different suits on the board and giving me a straight. My situation was such that while I wanted my opponents to call, I did not read either of them for having a hand with which he could call. If my opponents had hands that were drawing dead to mine (which was highly likely), and they would fold those hands to a bet, a bet on my part had no value. I wanted my opponents to put some dead money into the pot – my pot! I checked, hoping that perhaps one of them would take a stab at bluffing, or if they checked behind me, catch a card on the river that would induce them to give me some action.

The play had risks. As I've said before, a free card is like a free lunch, a bargain at twice the price. A 9 could come and cost me a split, or the entire pot if someone held a jack. Weighing those risks against the possibility of picking up anywhere from one to four possibly dead bets, and knowing my opponents held nothing they could reasonably call with, I checked, hoping one of them would bet. (Understand that the bets your opponents contribute when drawing dead or near dead are much more valuable than those bets in which they still have ways to win.)

Both of my opponents disappointed me and checked. However, the river card was a thing of beauty, an ace. I was almost positive that it hit Mr. Better-Than-Average, and maybe both of them. Even if Mr. B-T-A held a hand like K-Q suited, he would likely take a stab at a bluff, representing the ace, if I checked. If I bet and he had an ace, he would call. If I bet and he had K-Q suited, he would fold. Thus, if I bet, I stood to win a bet from him if he held an ace, but not if he held a non-ace high-card hand. Or, I could check-raise, and win the same or greater number of bets if he held an ace and have a good chance of also winning a bet even if the ace had missed him.

Furthermore, if I checked, it also created the possibility of winning a bet from the third player, who might hold an ace (regardless of whether Mr. Better-Than-Average did). Thus, I stood to make an extra bet from the guy in between, or even two by letting Mr. B-T-A take the lead. I checked, believing it was clearly the better play.

Mr. Better-Than-Average slipped $60 forward. To my delight, the in-between fellow called. I check-raised. Mr. Better-Than-Average thought for a moment and then tossed his hand into the muck. I think he did have an ace with a high kicker and made a good laydown. The caller hemmed and hawed for a bit, and with a defeated attitude written all over his face, he dropped six chips into the pot, calling my bet. I showed my hand and he turned over A-J.

By checking the turn, I had taken the risk of losing the whole pot or part of the pot. But, the reward more than justified the risk. The fact that I held two of my danger cards (the nines) hugely improved the richness of the situation, as the likelihood of a 9 coming was less than if I had a different holding. I gained three bets after the turn card came, versus the none I likely would have won if I'd bet (although in retrospect, the player in between might have put a call in on the turn with his gutshot draw, and another on the river when the ace came). The only better result would have been Mr. B-T-A paying off my check-raise for an additional bet. These situations will not always work out so beneficially, but I believed I had made the plays that were conceptually correct, had the greatest expectation, and put good numbers into my positive edge column regardless of the actual result.

Playing poker well requires reading situations and calculating edge. Then, you need to make the play that gives you the biggest overall edge. Always try to think in terms of the hand as a whole, not just the independent wagers. And most important of all, maintain a good relationship with the poker gods!

Roy Cooke played winning professional poker for more than 16 years. He is a successful real estate broker/salesperson in Las Vegas. If you would like to ask Roy poker-related questions, you may do so online at www.UnitedPokerForum.com. His longtime collaborator John Bond is a freelance writer in South Florida.