I Disagree With Jim Brier

"I say black, you say white"



Not everything in this world is black and white. Oh, our politicians are fond of painting things that way because it tends to polarize groups and get their supporters rabid. They see "good" and "evil" and "our way" and "their way" and so on. But the truth of life (and indeed, poker) is that most times, things are not as cut and dried as we would wish them to be.



I wanted to make that preface to this column because I'm fixing to disagree with Jim Brier, who I believe usually gives good advice about playing middle-limit hold'em. I'm going to tell you why I think he's wrong. You, the reader, now have a job: to think about what you've read and decide if (1) Jim's right, or (2) Lee's right. Well, in fact, there's a third option; we'll get to that in a minute.



Here's the scenario that Jim laid out in a recent column: Our hero, Adam, was in the small blind of a $20-$40 hold'em game. Ward limped in first from the cutoff (Jim said that Ward plays poorly preflop but better after the flop), the button folded, and Adam (correctly) raised with the A 10. The big blind, Carl, who is loose and passive, called, as did Ward. The flop came 10-8-6 rainbow, with one of Adam's hearts. Jim said Adam should bet. I agree, and I agree with Jim's reasoning. He raised before the flop, and the flop hit him. Does he expect to check, and have somebody bet for him? I think not. So, he bets, and Carl calls, but now Ward raises. Jim said, "Reraise!" and I wholeheartedly agree. He's supposed to have the best hand, and Ward might easily have something like J-10 or 10-9. Furthermore, the extra raise puts tough pressure on Carl – and Adam would just as soon see Carl gone from the hand.



Unfortunately, Carl calls two bets cold, and now Ward makes it four bets. That's two bad things. Adam calls (both Jim and I agree with this play), as does Carl.



The turn is the 3. Adam checks (as would Jim and I), Carl checks, and Ward bets.



This is where Jim and I say goodbye to each other on this particular walk in the woods. Jim said, "Fold. Only if Ward has two pair not including a 10 would a call be justified. In this case, Adam would have five outs, which is an 8-to-1 shot, and his pot odds are better than that. But in all other cases, he has either three outs or no outs. Overall, it is a losing play to be calling."



Here's what I say: "That's monsters under the bed, Jim." Adam has flopped top pair with an ace kicker. There is no flush possible, and for Ward to have a straight, he has to have exactly 9-7. Here's how I see the hand playing out: I'm going to call, as is Carl. The river is going to be a brick. Carl and I will check, Ward will bet, I will call, and Carl will fold because his gutshot straight (or J-8, or whatever) didn't get there. So, I will be paying two more big bets in an attempt to win 11. In short, the pot is offering me 5.5-1 to grit my teeth and see a showdown.



Do I think I'm going to win the pot? No. I think he's probably going to show me 10-8 or something like that. But that doesn't matter. What matters is whether I think I'm going to win the pot more than two out of 13 times (the frequency I need to make calling twice correct). And I think that's almost a certainty. If nothing else, I don't want to give up top pair/top kicker with a nonscary board just because somebody has the temerity to put a fourth bet in on the flop. Frankly, I don't make a hand better than that too often; if they can move me off something that big with just an extra ounce of push, I'm afraid I'll be in people's cross hairs.



So, I'm going to turn quiet, and check and call twice. Now, if Carl suddenly wakes up and check-raises the turn, I'm done. If a 7 comes on the river and Carl bets (after I check), I'm done. I mean, I can read a little, too. But I think I'm going to be shown J-9, J-10, K-10, or 10-9 plenty often enough to make calling twice correct. And again, it may keep people from doing that to me all the time; I just don't need head games like that, particularly when I'm out of position.



Now, at the beginning of the column, I said that you had to decide who is right: Jim or me. And I said there's a third option. Here it is: "It doesn't matter." In the third edition of my book, Winning Low Limit Hold'em, I coined a term: "The Angelo Axiom." It's named after Tommy Angelo, whom I'm proud to call a friend. Tommy's a very good drummer, a better keyboard player, and a truly wonderful guy. He's also a brilliant poker thinker (and teacher; you should take his lessons). A hundred years ago, Tommy said, "If people argue a point of poker long enough without one side persuading the other, it becomes more and more likely that it doesn't matter what you do in that situation." This could be one of those situations. For instance, we'll never know for sure, but what if Adam will turn out to have the best hand exactly two of 13 times? Then, folding on the turn or calling twice has absolutely no effect on him. My point is that it may be close enough that we'll never really know, and, in the grander scheme of things, the difference between calling twice and folding on the turn is a few pennies either way. If so, then indeed, call twice if you wish or fold on the turn if you wish; it doesn't really matter.



Of course, even this tiny nanocosm of the world isn't that simple. Another choice is to call the turn but fold if you don't improve (that is, pick up an ace or a 10), or fold if you don't improve or the board doesn't help you (for example, the 3 pairing on the river would leapfrog you past 8-6). Decisions, decisions. I don't have the space to investigate those paths.



I agree with Jim's point that poker success lies in folding early. But I think the gods have conspired to give you more hand than you can fold in this situation, and you need to take your lumps (most of the time) but win the pot often enough to make it right to do so.



"I say day, you call it a night."



Lee Jones is the poker room manager for PokerStars.com and is the author of the best-selling book Winning Low Limit Hold'em, which is now in its third edition.