I Manipulated My Opponent Into Winning

Casinos earn their money by taking bets with which they have an edge. This "house advantage" varies in size, but over the long haul, it inevitably creates a win for the casino.

Poker players need to do the same thing. They must strive to avoid negative expectation bets, while maximizing their return when the odds are favorable. Unfortunately, in poker, uncertainty reigns. You can rarely know for sure that you have the edge and must rely on your judgment to determine what that edge might be. Most importantly, merely creating an edge does not guarantee that you will win.

I was watching a TV poker hand recently. One player held Q-Q and the other player held J-7 suited. The flop came Q-J-J, giving the player with pocket queens a nearly unbeatable full house. Unknowingly drawing to one out in the deck, the player holding J-7 bet and was called. The turn produced a jack, proving disastrous for the player who had flopped queens full. He eventually paid off a large bet. Whether the player could have gotten away from his queens after the turn was problematical, but the analyst stated that perhaps he could have avoided this situation by raising significantly more before the flop.

This commentary struck me as silly. Sure, he could have raised more and won immediately, but why should he? He got to play Q-Q heads up against J-7 (an 83 percent favorite), and after the flop he was likely to win a huge pot more than 95 percent of the time. Sometimes in poker, bad things happen to people who make good plays, but that does not mean they should avoid the situation.

Heads up with a trickster: I played a hand recently that exemplified this principle. I posted the big blind and was dealt the K J. From the small blind, an aggressive, active, and very tricky player raised after everyone had folded. From previous play, this meant he had something better than pure trash, but the range of possible hands was still very large. I reraised with my excellent heads-up hand and position.

The flop came K 3 3, and he checked. Of course, I might have been behind if he had A-A, K-K, A-K, or K-Q (or something with a 3), but I thought I was probably far ahead. In fact, if I bet, I should win the pot immediately most of the time. While I like winning pots as much as the next guy, I also thought that if I checked, he would probably bet any hand he held, trying to bluff me out. So, I checked to give him a chance to bluff off some money to me.

The turn was the 10, making all sorts of draws possible. Sure enough, he bet, and I had to determine whether to raise or just call. I decided there were three possibilities:

• He had the best hand

• He had picked up a draw

• He was flat-out bluffing

If he was ahead, calling would be far better than raising. If he was on a draw, I should probably raise, and if he was bluffing, I should clearly call.

So, calling seemed better than raising, but there was an even more compelling reason to call. Since the board looked like many draws had developed, my opponent would probably interpret my call as meaning I had picked up a draw. If he thought that, he would probably bluff on the river with all of his pure bluffs and most of his missed semibluffs, hoping that I had missed my draw and would fold. Clearly, I was not about to fold, so I would frequently pick up an extra big bet on the river, as well as the one I had just picked up on the turn.

The river was a good news-bad news J, making the board K 3 3 10 J. I had two pair, but all sorts of straight and flush draws had helped. Again, he bet, and I called. He turned over the Q 9 for the straight and took the pot.

How should I have felt? Obviously, I had lost a pot that I easily could have won just by betting the flop. I had lured my opponent into betting and eventually making the best hand. So, did I make a significant error?

Let's look at the math: Before we discuss the general case, let's look at the specific situation in which my opponent holds the Q 9.

He almost certainly would have folded if I had bet on the flop, so I always would win the three big bets in the pot. Assuming we played this situation 15 times (for reasons that will be clear soon), I would be +45 big bets by betting the flop.

After I checked and the 10 came, my opponent bet. Notice that he put a full big bet into a pot that contained only three bets when the odds against making his hand were just under 14-1. He needed a jack to beat me, and I had one, so there were three left in the deck out of 44 unknown cards. Thus, he was a

41-3 dog, which is close to 14-1.

In other words, by checking the flop, I convinced him as a 14-1 dog to put a full bet into a three-bet pot. Since I know I will call, he is taking 4-1 odds on a 14-1 event. Let's see how that turns out.

If we play the hand 15 times in this situation, he will win five big bets one time (I will always pay him off on the river), and lose at least one big bet 14 times. Assuming he never bluffs on the river when he misses, I win four bets 14 times (56 bets) and lose five bets once, for a net total of 51 bets, compared to the 45 I would win if I bet on the flop. My check nets six more bets over 15 hands. Moreover, if he bluffs half the times when he misses (and I expect him to bluff more than that), I win another seven big bets on top of that! That makes an additional 13 bets in all that I will win.

So, by offering him the chance to overpay greatly for his draw, I earn almost a full bet on every single hand when he holds exactly what he held.

I also gain if I am behind, because I get to the showdown as cheaply as possible (given that I will not lay down a hand this good to a player this tricky, whether he raises me or not). And when I induce a pure bluff on the turn (and perhaps another on the river), I gain a bet for every bet he puts in, since he is drawing dead.

Conclusion: Overall, I am very pleased with the way I played the hand. Certainly, I lost a pot I might have won, but I put my opponent into a position where he gave up significant expected value.

Passive play is not very popular these days in the poker literature. Most of the hands we see and the advice we get emphasize only aggression. Having a complete and balanced game, though, requires that you passively invite your opponent into trouble sometimes, even if he occasionally squirms out of it.

A casino does not win money by offering terrible odds. To keep people coming back, it must offer odds attractive enough that the customers sometimes win. Casino owners do not feel bad when a customer makes six passes at craps or hits a number on roulette. In fact, if a customer wins enough, they put his picture on a billboard in front of the building. These owners know that in the long run, a series of positive expected value bets will make them wealthy.

This works in poker, as well. If you can get your opponent to make bets (or call them) with the odds against him, you will make money, even if once in a while you lose a hand you might have won.

Barry Tanenbaum offers private lessons and consultations specific to your game.