A Few Misconceptions in Big-Bet Poker

Sometime ago, I wrote a series of columns titled "A Few Misconceptions in Poker" and also a separate column titled "A Few Misconceptions in Omaha." In this column, I will discuss a few common mistakes in big-bet poker that even relatively good and experienced players make sometimes.



A Few Misconceptions in No-Limit Hold'em:
Just because you have a good starting hand, it doesn't mean you should always make a big raise. Also, when you catch a fairly good but also rather dangerous flop, there's no need to always raise or even continue with something like top pair/top kicker or an overpair. If you think that you are beat, or if you're in a situation in which you're a small favorite or a big dog, it might be correct to simply wait for one more safe card – or even throw your hand away.


Quite a few people who are new to no-limit hold'em, having stepped up from limit play, think that just because they have a big starting hand, they should automatically raise. But no-limit hold'em is not like limit hold'em. While you will raise in limit hold'em with your A-K at least seven or eight times out of 10, in no-limit, there is something to be said for keeping the strength of your hand hidden in order to make a move later. Now, this is not always the best way to play your hand, but it is the way you should sometimes play in order not to become too predictable. However, quite a few people who are relatively new to big-bet play don't seem to understand this. They think that the person who wins the pot with a 6-5 offsuit, having called a raise from their A-K, is simply playing badly and was just lucky to outdraw the best hand. While this may be true sometimes, it is also possible that the person with the 6-5 has taken advantage of the tendencies and/or predictability of his opponent. People who think they should always raise whenever they get two big cards are playing limit-style poker. They may raise anytime the flop gives them something like top pair/top kicker, because they are used to doing this in limit hold'em. However, people who play like this in no-limit are the bread and butter of the more experienced players, who are able to look beyond their own hand, are capable of making plays based on the person they are up against, and are able to lure their opponents into making the wrong decisions – call or even raise when they should have folded, or fold when they should have called. This is especially true if the money is rather deep, and therefore the good players get more chances to make moves or to outplay their less-skilled opponents.



A Few Misconceptions in Pot-limit Omaha (and Other Big-bet Games, as Well)

When everybody checks to you on the river, and you think that you probably hold the best hand, you should oftentimes bet big to get a call out of someone who thinks you are bluffing, or simply check. Don't make a small bet for value with a lot less than the nuts in order to milk your opponents for a tiny bit of extra money. You are opening yourself up to a large check-raise that you may very well have to pay off. This is because the possibility exists that your opponent may have decided to check-raise because he smelled weakness in you (possibly because of your small bet on the end). If you are not very good at analyzing whether or not this person is making a move on you, or has raised because he has you beat, it might be best to just check it back on the end rather than try to make a bit of extra money while risking a lot. It is especially important to refrain from making this type of bet when you are up against either a very good player or someone you cannot read very well.



I will illustrate this with a pot-limit Omaha hand I played recently. In an unraised pot, I was in the $10 big blind with 9-8-7-3, suits irrelevant, and six people saw the flop of 9-8-5 rainbow. I bet the minimum, $10 (something I do quite often; I will discuss the reasons for this in an upcoming column), and the player on my immediate left raised to $30. The amount of his raise had given me a fairly good indication of the strength and content of his hand. Knowing his play, he probably would have raised the maximum with a straight, and with a big draw, he would have either flat-called or made a pot-sized raise. So, it seemed that he didn't have either one of these hands, and probably held a relatively weak hand – something like bottom set or two pair with perhaps a straight potential. Anyway, one or two people called the raise, as did I.



The turn was an offsuit jack, and both the small blind and I checked to the flopraiser. He hesitated and bet $50, once again, a bet that screamed: "I am weak, but I want to appear to be strong." The small blind called and it was up to me. I was fairly certain that none of my opponents had a straight – much less the nut straight – but I also knew the caller in the middle well enough to know that he didn't like to release his hand once he had some money invested, and therefore I judged a big check-raise to be too risky. Because my hand had quite a bit of straight and full house potential (both non-nut) and because both players were rather predictable, I decided to simply call again and let my gut feelings dictate the best course of action on the river. The last card was a 9, giving me a non-nut full house. The small blind checked, I checked, and the player on my left bet $100, which made the small blind fold. It was now up to me. What should I do?



Well, usually with a boat that's anything less than the top full house, all you have in this game is a bluff catcher, and sometimes you don't even have that; in quite a few cases, a small full house is a clear fold. Rarely if ever do I raise for value on the end with a non-nut full house, and a check-raise on the end with this type of hand is even more unusual for me. However, in this case, this is exactly what I did. I check-raised to $500 and got called, and my hand proved to be good. My reasoning was simple: My opponent had basically given away the content of his hand by his betting actions, and especially by the betting amounts. On the flop, I gave him credit for something like 5-5, 9-8, 9-5, or 8-5, with a little extra, perhaps. His betting action on the turn, and also his body language, clearly suggested that the jack had not helped him, so I ruled out the possibility of him having top three pair. In my opinion, the most likely hands for him to hold after the turn were 5-5, 9-8, or 9-5 with possibly a gutshot or even open-end straight draw. Now, when the river paired nines and my opponent bet $100, it seemed clear that he thought he had the best hand and was betting for value. But the way the betting had gone, there was no way he could have me beat. He could have either a smaller full house than mine or exactly the same hand. From the betting on the turn, and also from his general demeanor on both the turn and river, it certainly didn't appear that I was up against a J-9 or J-J. What's more, I knew that my check-raise on the river might well be perceived as an attempt to steal the pot, so I was pretty certain that even with a worse hand than mine, my opponent still might pay me off. This indeed happened. He called me with 5-5-X-X for a smaller full house and I won a rather big pot with a fairly marginal hand.



There are two lessons to be learned here:

1. Always make sure that the size of your bets doesn't give away the strength and/or exact content of your hand. In big-bet play, this is very important – especially when the money is relatively deep.



2. On the river, don't make a small bet for value, as you are opening yourself up to a large check-raise. As in this case, don't try to milk a good player for $100 when you will have to pay off – or feel that you may have to pay off – a large raise. You should either bet big to get a call out of someone who thinks you are bluffing, but then fold if you get raised, or simply check and show down your hand (which will more often than not be good). Putting your entire stack at risk in order to milk your opponent for a small amount is not only bad mathematics – it is bad poker.