Implied Threat vs. Implied Odds

Very few poker writers explicitly discuss the implied threat, but I think it is one of the most crucial bluffing concepts in poker. It's so important that I devoted an entire chapter to it in my Book of Bluffs.



Unfortunately, the concept of implied odds almost always gets a lot more attention. If you're not familiar with the term, "implied odds" refers to the money you stand to make with a drawing hand should you manage to hit it. Let's say you have the 7 6, and the flop comes K 8 4. You have a gutshot-straight draw, and you're faced with calling a $10 bet into a $70 pot. Based on your current 7-to-1 pot odds, you are not getting the correct price to try to hit a 5 on the turn (and we'll assume that you would correctly fold on the turn if you didn't immediately make your straight).



But, if you should happen to get lucky and catch a 5 right away, you can expect to get paid off on the turn and river, and that extra money helps comprise the implied odds that make a call the correct play. If you are on a draw and examining your implied odds, any potential further betting works in your favor.



On the other hand …

The implied threat is basically the flip side of that coin. Simply put, it refers to the times that you have a marginal hand – one that you think could be the best hand – but there are still more betting rounds left. For example, you have a low pocket pair, but the board contains two overcards. If you were at the river and had to call only one bet, you probably would do it. At that point, you'd simply compare the size of the pot to the size of the bet you're facing, and you would decide that there is a good enough chance that you have the best hand to make calling the correct play.



But instead, you're either on the flop or the turn, and you know that it's not just a matter of calling one bet. You could be facing additional bets later on, and you have a hand that stands very little chance of improving. It's the implied threat of those future bets that deters you from calling the original one. As the player facing an implied threat, any potential further betting works against you.


As a bluffer, I love to confront people with bets that carry an implied threat. When I bluff at a flop, I want there to be no doubt that I'm ready to keep firing. And since my opponents know that I'm fully prepared to put pressure on throughout the hand, it makes them think twice before getting involved without a strong holding.



A simple example
Andy was in the middle stages of a limit hold'em tournament with an above-average stack of $10,000. The blinds were $300-$600. One of his opponents, with about $6,000, limped in from early position. After playing against that opponent for a few hours, Andy had observed that whenever he limped in preflop instead of raising, he usually had a small or medium pocket pair. It was folded to Andy on the button, and even though he looked down to find rags, he raised to $1,200. Everyone folded around to the pocket pair opponent, who called.



The flop came K 10 8. Mr. Pocket Pair checked. Andy bet $600. His opponent looked back at his hand and then laid it down. Andy looked back at his hand and smiled as he took down the pot with his garbage hand.



This bluff succeeded rather easily, but it wasn't due solely to Andy's $600 bet on the flop. There was already $3,300 in the pot before the flop. Looking strictly at the $600 flop bet, his opponent was getting more than 6-to-1 odds to call. Certainly he had to believe that his pocket pair, no matter how small, had better than a 6-to-1 chance of being the best hand after the flop. After all, Andy certainly could have raised with something like A-Q or A-J. From that perspective, a keep-Andy-honest call would seem to be the correct play.



But the reason he folded, and the reason this bluff worked, is that it was early in the hand. Andy's opponent knew that he had to call not only the $600 flop bet, but probably $1,200 bets on the turn and river, as well. The implied threat of those bets discouraged the flop call. His $600 flop call would have become a $3,000 investment if he decided to keep Andy honest to the end, and at that point, he obviously would not have been getting anywhere near a 6-to-1 return on his money.



The great equalizer: being all in

Let's say that Andy's opponent had started the hand with only $1,800 instead of $6,000. In that case, he could have put himself all in by calling on the flop, and thus removed the implied threat of future betting. Sure, Andy then could have gotten lucky and drawn out, but his goal was to take the pot without having to produce the best hand. The implied threat of future betting was the primary reason he could do it. So, if Andy saw that his opponent was nearly all in, he would have been better off abandoning his bluff attempt, as it would have been destined to fail.



As long as both you and your opponent are not close to going all in, and you've put your opponent on a hand that has very little chance of improving (such as a pocket pair), an implied-threat bluff can often work beautifully. But don't take my word for it. Look for a good situation to try it out, and then see if you can make it work for you, too.

Matt Lessinger is the author of The Book of Bluffs: How to Bluff and Win at Poker, which is available online at www.CardPlayer.com. You also can visit Matt at his new website, http://www.mattlessinger.com/, to learn more about him.