A Fascinating Hand

I have often joked that knowing what an opponent has is vastly overrated. Everyone has been in the situation of knowing that he's beat, but calling the last bet anyway. This phenomenon is so well known that it has a name - the crying call.

One of the best ways to improve in poker is to read poker books.

Which books should you read? Everyone should have read the classics, Doyle's Super/System and Sklansky's two hold'em books and his book on poker theory. More recent books on hold'em by Dan Harrington and Bob Ciaffone are also excellent. The former covers no-limit hold'em tournaments, while the latter, with Jim Brier, provides a lot of situations from small- to medium-limit cash play. Card Player is the best magazine. Several Internet sites provide some good content for players at all levels. I would particularly recommend FullTilt's Tips From the Pros, which gives you a chance to learn some basic concepts from some of the most successful players in poker.

Don't read them like novels; treat them like textbooks with a lot of problems. Try to solve the problem before you read the author's answer. If yours is different, try to figure out who is right. You can try this on your own or discuss the situation with other players. I did exactly this while back in New York last month. I started reading and analyzing Internet Texas Hold'em by Matt Hilger. This is another interesting book, with a lot of good stuff. The real reason for this column is to discuss an extremely instructive hand from that book. The game is limit hold'em. There is an early limper. You are in the small blind with the 10 8 and call for half a bet. The big blind doesn't raise.

The flop is 9 6 6, and you decide to lead out. This seems like a typical aggressive move against two opponents who don't appear to be particularly strong. The big blind raises, the limper folds, and you call. This call is somewhat questionable, but you figure that gutshot, backdoor flush, and overcard possibilites warrant a call. I think this makes sense, especially against a player who is likely to call with a set and try to trap you for some big bets.

The turn is the 2. You check, and your opponent checks, as well. That's pretty sweet, as you have a free shot at a flush and a gutshot. On the river, a 9 pairs the board, which now shows 9-6-6-2-9, and suits no longer matter. What does your opponent have? Matt's analysis is flawless. He knows what his opponent has. The opponent's check on the turn shows one of three types of hands: a 9 (with a bad kicker), a draw (most likely 8-7), or a small pair (5-5, 4-4, or 3-3).

What should you do? Matt recommends betting as a bluff. He goes on to say that this is what was done at the table, and it succeeded in winning the pot. Here, I think Matt fumbled the ball. Even when you know what they have, you must make the right decision. Let's see what happens if you bet. You get called or raised when you are beat, most likely by nines full. But what about the rest of the time? When he has 8-7 or 4-4, doesn't the bluff work? And don't you win the pot? You win the pot, but it isn't a bluff. You have the best hand and you have stopped him from bluffing!

The play I recommend is checking and calling. You still lose one bet when you are beat, but what happens when he has 8-7 or 4-4? He is forced to bluff. He raised on the flop, and you haven't shown any strength. He now has nines and sixes with an 8 kicker or a 4 kicker. Your 10 kicker has him crushed, and you snap off an extra bet. Plus, you have the fun of making a winning call with 10 high. You also can be pretty sure that the guy who lost the pot, if not everyone at the table, is not about to bluff you anytime soon. They'll all figure that if you call with 10 high, you'll call with anything.