Getting Played Off a Hand

My friend Sir Lance, a professional poker player, played a hand in a $30-$60 limit hold'em game that actualized itself quite differently from his intentions. A very aggressive player opened with a raise from the button. He was called by the small blind, an old retired guy who played his hands in a very weak, predictable manner. Sir Lance called from the big blind with K-Q offsuit. They took the flop threehanded.



The flop came Q-9-5 rainbow. Mr. Predictable in the small blind checked to Sir Lance, who fired $30 into the pot. I questioned Lance if he thought leading was the right play. I thought it might be a better move if he checked. A check-raise was highly likely to succeed, as Mr. Aggressive on the button was almost 100 percent certain to bet. Sir Lance responded to me that he led in an effort to induce a raise from Mr. Aggressive and protect his one-pair hand from being outdrawn by the small blind, figuring that the small blind was less likely to draw if it were two bets to him. Lance would then get three bets in against Mr. Aggressive, heads up.



Playing it as Lance did and playing for the check-raise both have merit. Which play has higher value depends upon the likelihood of the button raising the flop bet. Rarely do I run into players who predominately raise in that spot, but they do exist. That said, I was not there, and Sir Lance's judgment about his opponent might very well be correct.



Most often, in Sir Lance's position, I will check and take the almost guaranteed two bets, with the potential for even greater gains if my opponent reraises. By playing it in that manner, I am also more likely to trap Mr. Predictable for multiple bets when he is likely to be incorrect in calling.



That said, you must mix up your play and occasionally lead, even in situations in which it is correct to check-raise in an effort to confuse observant opponents – which Mr. Aggressive was – who are trying to read your play. When your opponents expect you to check-raise and you lead into them, they have a greater propensity to move on you, as they likely read you for having a weak hand.



To Lance's surprise and dismay, Mr. Aggressive didn't hit him back. Instead, he and Mr. Predictable both called the $30. Was Mr. Aggressive taking a cheap card – which was unlike him – or trapping with a big mitt? Or, was he just trying to confuse Lance?



The turn brought an offsuit 5. No flush draws were present. Mr. Predictable checked once again. Sir Lance checked, intent on check-raising Mr. Aggressive. This is a risky play after leading on the flop, as you run the risk of giving two opponents a free card. Lance, however, reading the style of Mr. Aggressive, was almost certain he would bet if checked to. And Lance was right! A good thing happened: Mr. Aggressive bet, Mr. Predictable called, and Sir Lance raised.



Then, a bad thing happened: Mr. Aggressive reraised Sir Lance. Mr. Predictable called the three bets, and now Sir Lance had a tough decision to make. What was Mr. Predictable doing in the pot for three bets on the turn? Was two queens with a king kicker any good? Was Sir Lance even drawing live? What should Sir Lance do?



Mr. Predictable always led with his made hands and check-called with his draws. The manner in which he played this particular hand pretty much defined him as having some kind of draw. He was not the type to call three turn bets with a gutshot draw, and no flush draws were present, so his hand was fairly well-defined to be J-10, the only legitimate draw possible. While that was good news in that he did not have Sir Lance beat, it was bad news in that if a king came and gave Sir Lance two pair, the pot would go to Mr. Predictable. So, if Mr. Aggressive had top pair, top kicker or better, Sir Lance would be drawing dead or pretty slim.



When deciding between calling or folding, not only must you weigh the chances that your hand is good at the time, but you must also factor in the chances of your hand winning if an opponent holds a hand that is beating yours.



So, Sir Lance was pretty sure he had Mr. Predictable beat, but what about Mr. Aggressive? Would he three-bet the turn against two players as a bluff? Even very aggressive players seldom do that! Would he three-bet an inferior holding to K-Q, thinking it to be good? When reading opponents' hands, you should try to determine what plays they are capable of making. Accurately assessing that comes only from experience and focus at the table.



Sir Lance didn't think Mr. Aggressive would three-bet as a bluff or reraise him without having K-Q beat. Feeling he might be drawing very weak at best, Sir Lance tossed his hand into the muck.



The river blanked off with a 7. Mr. Predictable checked, and Mr. Aggressive checked behind him and turned over A-K, nut no-pair. Mr. Predictable mucked his hand. Sir Lance had thrown away the winner.



Did Sir Lance play his hand correctly? In hindsight, it appears not. Was the laydown on the turn correct? Just because Sir Lance's hand was good does not mean it was a bad decision. If you never lay down a winning hand, you are calling way too loose!



First, let me address the laydown. Obviously, Sir Lance misread the guy when he stated to me that he didn't think Mr. Aggressive would three-bet bluff two opponents in that spot. But, is it a reasonable thought? Yes, I think it is. It is rare to find an opponent who will make that particular play in that particular spot against two opponents. That said, the hand that people most tend to overplay is an A-K that has missed, and some consideration to that holding should be given in situations such as this one. Nonetheless, Sir Lance's judgment based on his past poker experience that Mr. Aggressive could beat K-Q in that spot is reasonable and sound.



When I go back over my decisions after a hand and believe that my judgment was sound and reasonable, I do not beat myself up over the decision, even if it was wrong. As I have said before, it is far better over time to do the wrong thing for the right reason than the right thing for the wrong reason, regardless of the short-term impact on your stack.



The question arises, however, could Sir Lance have played his hand differently? Could he have gotten value from different decisions that would not have put him in a position to be outplayed? I think so.



Once he'd led on the flop, I rather like Lance's play of checking the turn and trapping the drawing hand for two or more bets. I like getting aggressive players to bet, and trapping them for extra bets. But, when your opponents are capable of creativity, you need to be sure you are not setting yourself up to get outplayed. Also, if you have any doubt whatsoever about where you stand with a medium-strength hand against a player who's capable of moving on you, it is usually best to make plays on the turn that let you see the river. Mr. Aggressive's flat-call on the flop perhaps should have warned Sir Lance to tread cautiously.



If Sir Lance is going to lay down for three bets and his opponent is capable of moving with an inferior hand, the considerable value lost when he folds the best hand is hard to make up for in extra bets. The larger the pot, the more critical this concept. This concept is particularly strong in no-limit games, where opening yourself up to getting moved off a pot can be disastrous. (Note that in most smaller games up to $10-$20, making plays such as Mr. Aggressive's has little value; he's getting called, regardless!)



If you're in an unclear situation, consider making the play that gets you to the river, even if you lose the equity of an extra bet(s).



When thinking about making a creative play to gain an extra bet(s), consider whether or not you are opening yourself up to scenarios in which you might get played off the pot, and weigh that value into the equation. Most players have a good idea when to add value; far fewer know when to subtract it. Of course, value can never be exactly analyzed and is subjective, but knowing when to subtract value will help you analyze the value of a play more effectively.

Correction: In a recent column, I said the Kahnawake Reservation is in Ontario; it is in Quebec. Also, contrary to my statement, several states apparently have taken the position that playing online poker is illegal; to my knowledge there have been no arrests.

Roy Cooke played winning professional poker for more than 16 years. He is a successful real estate broker/salesperson in Las Vegas. His books are available at www.conjelco.com. His longtime collaborator, John Bond, is a free-lance writer in South Florida.