A Memorable Tournament

In April, I took a trip to the Southwest, catching a "doubleheader" of the kind that suits me. First, I went for a few days to the Spring National Bridge Championships, which were in Dallas this year. Then, I took a trip by car with a couple of my poker/bridge friends up to the Cherokee Catoosa Casino near Tulsa, where I always enjoy going, for some seniors poker events, and stayed for a couple more days to play in one of the tournaments.

I had another motive for going to the Cherokee Casino besides the poker, and that was to attend a meeting. Let me explain.

Last fall, I received an e-mail from a girl who belonged to a small college sorority in Oklahoma. Her sorority had decided to hold a poker tournament to raise some funds. Their idea was to get some local businessmen to put up the prize money. However, the school lawyer nixed the idea, saying it was illegal. She asked me if the lawyer was right about the law on this type of event. I thought the lawyer was mistaken, because the sorority girls were not putting up any money, so it was not gambling. However, I told her I would check it out. I did some Google searches, and sure enough, the lawyer was right. In Oklahoma, there is a law against playing poker for prize money. The attorney general of the state, in a 2005 advisory opinion, said this meant that a no-entry-fee poker tournament for prize money was not allowed, even though it was not gambling. Naturally, I thought this was a highly undesirable law to have on the books.

I brought this terrible state law to the attention of some of the top Cherokee Casino management people when I went there in February. I was not sure at that time what their attitude would be. It is not uncommon for people in the gambling business, once they have their own foot in the door, to be more strongly against expanding gambling than a flock of fundamentalist preachers. However, I was pleased to find that their attitude was the same as mine; this was a bad law for poker players. They were nice enough to set up a meeting for me with the general counsel for the tribe in April. I had that meeting, and found another sympathetic ear. I was elated to be able to present my case; we'll see what happens.

The next day, I played in the seniors no-limit hold'em tournament. The structure used was very fast, so you had to gamble. I got out of the gate pretty well and had about $10,000 when this hand came up: I limped in from under the gun with A-K suited, someone called, and a player in middle position who also had a lot of money raised. The next player went all in for about $5,000, and it was up to me. I reraised all in. The original raiser went into the tank, and finally called. He had two jacks, which was the best hand at that point (the other player had a smaller pair). I drew out and won a huge pot, becoming the tournament chip leader, and I held that position until the dinner break. After play resumed, I won a couple of good pots right away to run my stack up to $50,000. This was about twice as much as anyone else had, and the best start I have ever gotten off to in a no-limit hold'em tournament. Then, an interesting and educational hand occurred.

We were playing with $800-$1,600 blinds and a $200 ante with 35 players left in an event that paid 16 places. I was in the big blind with A-6 offsuit. The under-the-gun player opened with his entire stack of $5,200, everyone folded, and it was up to me; it was $3,600 more to call. This type of situation is quite common in a tournament, and very much worthwhile analyzing. Some people might say it is a clear fold, because the player who went all in was under the gun and therefore had a better hand than A-6. Others might say it is a clear call, because I had a big stack, making my chips less valuable than his chips. I called, but did not do so because I had a big stack. My chips are valuable because they belong to me, so I make a call only when I think it is mathematically correct to do it. So, how do we analyze this layout concretely?

The first thing we must look at is the psychology of the situation, to know which hand I am likely to be up against. This guy had enough chips to last for only a little more than a round; plus, he was due for the big blind. He had $5,200 and we were posting $4,000 a round in blinds and antes. That is almost as desperate as it can get, because it was his last chance to win a pot by raising and not getting called. There are a lot of hands I can beat that he is supposed to go all in with. On the minus side, you seldom know if an opponent understands his plight, and is willing to take a shot with nearly anything. He might have been waiting for a real hand and finally found one.

Let's examine the math. Keep in mind as we discuss this that I have to put up $3,600 for a shot at $9,200 (my opponent's $5,200 plus the starting $4,000), so I am getting a bit more than 2.5-1 on the money. Obviously, two aces bury me, but that would be most unlikely to be the situation, especially since I have an ace. So, let's look at what hands put me in bad shape.

If I face a bigger ace, such as A-K, and he is not suited, I will be about a 2.9-1 dog, meaning my call is slightly incorrect. (I will be a 3.2-1 dog if he is suited.) If he has a pair bigger than sixes, I am about a 2.5-1 dog, so I'm getting just about the right price. But, as I explained, he does not necessarily need this good a hand to bet all of his money here. For example, if he has a pair lower than sixes, like 4-4, he is only about 1.2-1 favorite.

The darker side to my position is that when I have the best hand, I will seldom have a big advantage. If he has a smaller ace, such as A-2, my kicker may not play. In fact, I am only a 1.7-1 favorite against that hand. If he has a couple of big cards, such as Q-J, and is not suited, I am only a 1.26-1 favorite. So, I am not going to have a big advantage unless I catch him with something like K-6, tying up one of his cards with a bigger kicker (which is much better than tying up his ace and having a bigger kicker). But that would be a real rarity.

I think you will agree with me that a call is merited here. Against correct play, I should have the best hand at least as often as not. I admit that the possibility that my opponent does not understand the situation properly might make me a dog perhaps two-thirds of the time, in practice. Even so, the call would be correct, because even when he has a big advantage, I am getting almost the proper price anyway (unless he has pocket aces).

However, you can see that if he had a bigger stack, the math would change, as would the chances of my being on top of him rather than the other way around. So, it pays to defend your blind when holding an ace if your opponent is on real short money, or if he may well be on a steal because he is in late position. But absent one of these conditions, it is better to fold. An ace with a low kicker is a decent hand with which to steal when short-stacked, but it's not much of a calling hand, especially when offsuit.

He actually had A-K, far more hand than he figured to have here, and I lost the pot. After that, I could hardly win a hand, and wound up only eighth. Such is life.

Bob Ciaffone has authored four poker books, Middle Limit Holdem Poker (available at CardPlayer.com), Pot-limit and No-limit Poker (available at CardPlayer.com), Improve Your Poker (available at CardPlayer.com), and Omaha Holdem Poker. Ciaffone is available for poker lessons: e-mail [email protected]. His website is http://www.pokercoach.us/, where you can get his rulebook, Robert's Rules of Poker, for free. Bob also has a website called http://www.fairlawsonpoker.org/.