The X Factor

There is a very simple test in chess that is a good indicator of natural talent for the game. It can be taken by anyone who knows how the pieces move, and it is particularly interesting to see how players of various abilities cope with it. Essentially, you have to maneuver a knight around the board, visiting various squares while avoiding certain other squares. It is not easy. The test is timed, and anyone who can do it in less than 10 minutes has great potential as a chess player. If you fancy your chances on the 64 squares rather than with 52 cards, have a look at www.jlevitt.dircon.co.uk/talent.



I would like to propose a similar, albeit somewhat cruder, test for limit hold'em. Unfortunately, this is not a test that can be taken by complete beginners, but when someone has reasonable experience playing the game, I think it may be relevant in assessing his potential. The idea is as follows:



Your test victim is given the hand 10 9 and is in the big blind in a normal limit hold'em game. Everyone folds to the small blind, and you will play the small-blind hand. It is important to give a reasonable profile of you (the small blind), which is: You are marked out as a decent, tricky player who plays well but is not outstanding. You are reasonably aggressive and capable of making plays, but you are not a maniac. You won't chase hopeless situations and are not a calling station. Obviously, this hand will be played heads up, and you have a track record as a decent heads-up player, but no more than that. Your perspective on your opponent is that he plays at the same level as you, and with a similar style. The big blind (your test victim) must be told all of this.



I am not going to reveal your hand until later, but I will tell you how to play the hand in response to the play of the big blind. Your play will all be quite logical.



First of all, you limp in. The big blind can now either check or raise. In response to a raise, you will call and play will move on to the flop. The flop comes down J 8 6. Regardless of the preflop play, you will now bet. If the big blind calls, play moves on to the turn. If the big blind raises, you will just call.



The turn brings the A. Again, regardless of the earlier play, you will now bet. The big blind may call, in which case we move on to the river. If he decides to raise, you will just call.

The river brings the 2, for a board of J 8 6 A 2. At this point, what you do as the small blind depends upon the previous play. If the play on the turn went bet, raise, call, you will now check and fold to a bet. If the play went bet, call, you will now bet. If the big blind raises, you will fold.



So, what hand do you think you (the small blind) are holding? You have exactly the same hand as the big blind, but in spades – the 10 9. No one has anything, but the stronger bettor will win the pot. The pot should be split only if both players are very weak.



The point of the hand is that if the big blind plays with a decent amount of aggression, he will win. If he plays too passively, he will lose. This hand tests his ability to be naturally aggressive in appropriate situations. I would suggest that the correct plays are as follows:



1. Preflop. The 10 9 is a decent enough holding when playing heads up with position, and the big blind should raise. Although the high-card strength is poor, in many ways this hand actually plays better than something stronger, such as A-3, for a couple of reasons:



(a) It's hard to win much money with A-3. If an ace comes on the flop, your opponent will "expect" you to have an ace because of your preflop raise (or at least consider it very possible), and is unlikely to give you much action.



(b) Your opponent is tricky, so if you miss the flop and get heat, you might want to stick around. Now, with the 10 9, you almost certainly will have more outs than with A-3. For example, if the flop is Q-8-4, you could have up to 10 outs if your opponent has made a pair. With A-3, you have a maximum of three.



2. The Flop. Raising is again correct. The big blind has position and an excellent draw, with a minimum of eight outs to the straight and quite possibly more by pairing. The flop is reasonably coordinated and features a two-flush, and it is perfectly possible that the small blind also has some sort of draw. It is not that likely that the small blind holds a jack, as playing for a check-raise would be more natural with such a strong holding for heads-up play.



3. The Turn. There are two ways that the turn can be analyzed. Let's consider each case:



(a) The big blind just called on the flop. This is a reasonable play if it is made with the intention of raising on the turn. When the small blind bets out, the ace is a great scare card, and raising is a good play. We know that the small blind is a decent, tricky player, and could well be on a weak draw. The big blind's preflop raise showed strength, and it is quite plausible that the ace has helped. The small blind might now very well fold with a low pair.



(b) The big blind raised the flop, but now the small blind has bet out on the ace, anyway. This is suspicious. If the small blind held an ace, it is most likely that he would have raised preflop, but he only limped and then showed strength with a board of middling cards. How can this ace possibly help unless he has a hand such as A-6 or A-8? Furthermore, with a hand that strong, it would be very tempting to go for a check-raise. It instead looks as though the small blind is using the ace as a scare card (as indeed he is), but he does not hold a monopoly on that particular tactic. When the scare tactics come from the big blind, he should be more convincing and more frightening. A raise here is an excellent play, which maximizes the big blind's potential.



If all else fails, the big blind still has eight good outs on the river.



4. The River. Again, there are two ways to analyze the river.



(a) The big blind just called on the turn. Now, when the small blind bets the river, the only sensible play is to give up and fold. Of course, as the cards stand, the big blind can win by bluff-raising, but this is – in principle – a very odd way to play the hand. The 2 appears utterly harmless. Why should this encourage a raise on the river? The small blind should now call with more or less anything – and certainly any pair.



(b) The big blind raised the turn. Now, the small blind will check, the big blind should bet, and the small blind will fold. The big blind is rewarded for good aggressive handling of his draw.



Of course, I realize that there are some problems here. It will favor players who are more comfortable with shorthanded play, and will also favor players who are more aggressive. Nevertheless, I believe it has some validity. The ability to visualize complex knight maneuvers around a chessboard demonstrates potential chess skill; the ability to be naturally aggressive in an appropriate situation demonstrates potential poker skill.



So, try this out on your friends and see if they can win the pot. I would be interested to hear of anyone's results.

Byron Jacobs is the author of How Good is Your Limit Hold Em? with Jim Brier. It is available through bookshops and http://www.dandbpoker.com/. Byron may be contacted at [email protected].