Full Disclosure

Everyone understands that deception plays a large role in poker. Because this is true, people sometimes underrepresent their hands deliberately by betting in such a way as to deceive opponents about what they have.



Sometimes, though, when you deceive your opponent, you find yourself in a quandary, trying to decipher his intentions. For example, suppose that you open-limp with pocket aces, hoping someone else raises so that you can reraise. Unfortunately, two players limp in behind you and both blinds call. Now, the flop comes J-9-6. After the blinds check, you bet and get raised by the next player. Everyone else folds, and you three-bet. Your opponent calls. After a deuce on the turn, you bet and your opponent raises. Does he have you beat with two pair or a set, or is he raising for value with a hand like A-J or K-J, assuming that you do not have a big pair, since you did not raise preflop? Because you have fooled him, you really have no idea whether you are ahead or behind, and almost certainly have to pay him off.



Had you raised preflop, gotten the same number of callers or perhaps one or two fewer, and the same betting sequence happened on the flop and turn, you could be almost certain that you are well behind against most opponents. Whether you can lay the hand down will still depend on your odds of improving and your read of this particular situation, but at least you know that he knows what you have and he's still willing to put lots of money in the pot.

An example hand: I recently played a hand that exemplified this full disclosure concept. I held the K 10 in the cutoff seat in a $40-$80 hold'em game. Everyone folded to me, and I made an attempt at the blinds with a raise. The button was an unknown tourist, but the blinds were fairly tight players, and I thought I had a good chance to win the money already in the pot, or perhaps have the best hand if called. My immediate plan was thwarted when the button put in three bets.



The small blind folded, but the big blind, after some contemplation and even some feints at making it four bets (to which I would have folded), decided to call. I called the additional bet, as well. The flop of K 8 4 gave me top pair. The big blind checked, and I had to decide what to do.



I wanted to represent a king, which is what I had, so that I could trust the responses of my opponents. A bet should represent a king, but many middle-limit players bet in this situation with a variety of hands to see what the button will do. As a result, the player on the button, not crediting me with a king, might raise with any reasonable holding to eliminate the big blind. Subsequently, he can either take a free card (rare) or just bet the turn, hoping that his hand is the best or that the original bettor (me) will fold.



I decided to check-raise, as that would more definitely show my king (actually, it should show a better kicker than the one I held), and I could get away from the hand if my opponents put in much more action after that. So, I checked and the button dutifully bet, but now the big blind raised. What should I have done now?



I needed to determine the likelihood that I was still ahead. What does the button need for his actions so far? Since I would raise preflop from the cutoff seat with a wide variety of hands, the button's preflop raise also has a very wide range. He could have a big hand like aces, or A-K, or a small pair, or A-J, or he could even be making a clever variety play with suited connectors, hoping to take control of the hand and bet me off my hand if I missed the flop.



The player in the big blind knew this, of course, and his flop raise, while it could show a hand that had me beat, could be an attempt to get me to fold a big pair lower than kings, or get me off an ace, or represent a king to get the player on the button and me to fold. I believed I was ahead in enough cases to justify continuing with my plan to check-raise here in order to make sure everyone knew I had a king. If I represented my king, which could easily be A-K, and still got resistance, I would know that my hand was not good and be able to fold without paying off on the turn and river.



Thus, my three-small-bet raise could win me the pot if I did have the best hand, while protecting me from simply calling all the way with the worst of it. In practice, it worked well, as the button folded and the small blind, after still more contemplation, made what appeared to be a crying call.



After the 3 fell on the turn, he checked and I bet. Now, he again thought for a while, and said, "You had better hold that king," and folded his pocket queens. So, I won the pot with no showdown.



Analysis: People could argue that if I flat-called the two bets on the flop, my hand would be disguised to some extent, and I might have won several more bets from the player with pocket queens. And, of course, that's true. If I knew what everyone had, deception could work well.



On the other hand, if I flat-called the two bets on the flop, I would let the button in cheaply with any ace (he would be getting 14.5-1 to make the call with three outs, and if he had A-J or A-9, he would have three outs) and give the big blind extra chances, as well. But equally important to me is the fact that after my reraise on the flop, I could trust my opponents' betting. If, for example, the button raised again and the big blind capped it, I could have safely folded my hand, knowing they both could beat my most likely hand (A-K), and therefore certainly beat the considerably weaker one that I actually held.



Certainly I see that there is a chance I can be bluffed off the hand, but generally when I represent considerable strength, I have a far more powerful hand than this, and fully intend to (at least) call my opponent down. It is very difficult for most opponents to interpret my show of great strength as an attempt to find out where I stand with a moderate holding and to see it as a ripe opportunity to bluff.



Finally, if by raising I can eliminate the player on the button, I gain position, and at least he can no longer beat me.



Conclusion: When you are planning your play in a hand, there are many things you need to consider. One of them is whether to play deceptively or straightforwardly. If you think you may be well behind, but could also be leading, sometimes it is best to announce your belief that you are well ahead and see how your opponents respond. If they continue to assert that you are trailing, you may be able to accept that fact and save some bets.