Information

Let's suppose that you have been selected to appear on a TV game show. You got on the show because you are known as a poker player, and poker players have logical minds, so it will be interesting to see how well you do. The show is called What's My Job? The idea is that people come onstage and - believe it or not - you have to guess their jobs. If you play the game well, you will win a ton of cash. It sounds simple, but judging by normal game-show standards, this is quite a sophisticated concept.

The first person appears and you are told that he is either a farmer or a teacher. If you guess right, you proceed and get a shot at the big bucks. If you are wrong - well, at least you had a day out.

So, you have to choose, and you have to use whatever evidence is available to you to make this decision. Now, it may be that this particular test is actually very easy. Perhaps the person is sitting on a tractor and chewing a piece of corn. In this case - unless the producers of the show are playing an ugly trick on you - he is obviously a farmer. The evidence is overwhelming. However, you may not be so fortunate. Perhaps there is very little about this person that gives you a clue to his profession. Now what do you do?

You stare at him long and hard. You look for anything that might give you even the slightest suggestion of what he does for a living. Maybe you eventually decide that the only distinctive thing about this person is that he has a tan complexion. In that case, you will have to hazard a guess that he is indeed a farmer. After all, farmers tend to work in fields and teachers tend to work in classrooms. Thus - all other things being equal - one might reasonably expect that a person with such a complexion is more likely to be a farmer than a teacher.

In this second scenario, the clues do not add up to very much at all. Perhaps this person really is a teacher and just happens to have returned from a vacation in the Bahamas, where he got his tan. You can't be sure and the evidence is flimsy. However, you have to make a decision, and it's the only evidence you've got - so you might as well go with it.

Poker is often like this. When we are confronted with tough problems, we want as much evidence as possible before we make a decision. Sometimes this information is available to us and the decision becomes straightforward. Maybe you are highly familiar with a particular opponent and know him to have strong maniac tendencies. Thus, when you are sitting there with top pair, top kicker and he gives you a lot of heat, you are very inclined to look him up. Perhaps, instead, you have tagged an opponent as a total rock who plays only premium cards and bets and raises only when he has a near lock on the pot. Now, your top pair, top kicker may look decidedly feeble, and folding becomes an easy decision.

Naturally, things will not always be so straightforward, and sometimes you have to make a decision when you seem to have almost no data to act upon. So, what do you do then - just guess? No. Think hard about the situation. Even the flimsiest of evidence can occasionally be fashioned into a clue, and the clue might well lead you to the right course of action. Oftentimes, you don't even need to see a player's cards to get a line on his play. Here are a couple of examples:

You are playing in a shorthanded five-player limit hold'em game and have just sat down. Nothing much happens for a few deals and then you observe the following hand. You are under the gun and fold. The button opens with a raise. The small blind is a player by the name of Hector. He calls, as does the big blind. The flop is 9 8 6. Hector and the big blind check and the button bets. Both blinds fold.

The next hand sees Hector on the button. The under-the-gun player (UTG) opens with a raise and Hector calls. The blinds fold. The flop comes down 10 9 6. The UTG bets and Hector folds.

These are not exactly action-packed hands, yet there is useful information to be gathered here.

Now let's consider another sequence of hands involving a different player, Cosmo. Cosmo is on the button. The cutoff opens with a raise and Cosmo three-bets. Both blinds fold and the cutoff calls. The flop is Q 7 5. The cutoff checks, Cosmo bets, and the cutoff folds. A little later, Cosmo is in the big blind when the UTG opens with a raise. Everyone passes to Cosmo, who calls. The flop is J 7 6. Cosmo checks, the UTG bets, and Cosmo calls. The turn brings the Q. Cosmo checks, the UTG bets, and Cosmo check-raises. The UTG now three-bets, and Cosmo calls. The river brings the 4. Cosmo checks, the UTG bets, and Cosmo folds.

In neither of these sequences did we get to see the cards that these players were playing, but there is much information to be gained here. A few hands later, you are in the small blind with the 6 6. The cutoff opens with a raise and the button folds. What should you do in the following situations?

1. The cutoff is Hector.
1. The cutoff is Cosmo.

My thoughts would be as follows for each situation:

1. Three-bet. Hector looks like a weak player. In shorthanded play, it is nearly always right to meet preflop raises with a reraise, or fold. Hector has twice called a raise preflop. Furthermore, he also has given up meekly when the flop arrived. Both flops were decent candidates for trying a steal if he wanted to (connected, and scary for a player holding either just overcards or a small pair), but he simply gave up both times. He would appear to be a timid and pedestrian player.

If I three-bet, I can probably isolate Hector, and although my pair of sixes is not a great holding, I am likely to be able to play the hand accurately post-flop, because Hector does not appear to be the kind of player who will cause me trouble. If I am beat - it should be obvious. This appears to be a profitable situation.

2. Fold. Cosmo, on the other hand, seems to know what he is doing and also appears to be aggressive and tricky. In the second hand he was involved in, we saw him check-raise on the turn with what must have been a drawing hand, as he was unable to call on the river even though the pot odds were substantial.

If I three-bet against Cosmo, I will be playing a moderate hand from out of position against a tricky and aggressive opponent. Much of the time, he is going to give me heat on the flop and beyond, and I will not be sure how to react. He may be pushing a draw, value-betting a strong made hand (and with 6-6, it's not likely that I am going to have many outs), or simply bluffing. It will be difficult to know where I stand, and I will inevitably misplay many of the situations that arise - paying off when I have few outs and folding when I am ahead because the board is scary. Being out of position is a big deal here; it is much easier to control play when you hold position. This does not appear to be a profitable situation, and it's better to just fold.

The moral here is: Pay attention! Even when the game is quiet and not much seems to be happening, there is information everywhere. Make sure that you spot it and use it.

Byron Jacobs is the author of How Good is Your Limit Hold Em? with Jim Brier and Beginner's Guide to Limit Hold'em, both available through bookshops and www.dandbpoker.com.