As many of you know, poker is not my only game, by far. I am an enthusiastic player of chess, bridge, backgammon, and many other games. As a games player, I am struck by the similarities of the games. I freely borrow a concept from one game and use it in another. Backgammon is a good game to compare concepts with poker, since gambling is more the norm than the exception with both.
In backgammon, having a good knowledge of the game is essential, but you also must be a good gambler. This means not only ranking high on a scale of skill, but also matching up correctly. This also applies strongly to poker, of course. Backgammon uses dice as the randomizing agent, whereas poker uses cards. In both games, there is a lot of skill, despite the built-in luck factor. You have to be able to evaluate the ability of your opponents correctly, and have the discipline to play with people you can beat. It is hard to find a more important principle of gambling than finding a beatable game.
An element common to all types of gambling is getting stuck. Sometimes this happens when you play poorly, and sometimes this happens despite your playing well. Either way, you have to handle being stuck with the proper mental attitude. In backgammon, it is tempting to accelerate the amount of the swing by aggressive use of the doubling cube. The stuck player when steaming uses tactics such as doubling early to make sure the double is accepted, and taking a double from a bad position that calls for a pass simply for the chance to win a big game. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? It's not much different than raising with hands that are only a notch above average and calling raises with inferior holdings for a chance to participate in a big pot.
There are lots more common threads between backgammon and poker than just those resulting from their both being gambling games. There are some strategic concepts that are associated with backgammon that also apply to poker - sometimes in striking fashion.
Let me start out with my favorite adage from backgammon: "Make sure you do not lose your market." Backgammon frequently involves gambling with a "doubling cube," which has the numbers 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, and 64 written on it. This lets the players know how many times the original stake is being contested. At the start, the cube is neutral, and you are playing for one agreed-upon unit. Either player may double the stakes, forcing the opponent to play for twice as much or give up. Once a double has been made, the person who was doubled has control over the cube if he decides to take the double and play on. Game theory says you should take a double if your money expectancy is at least 25 percent.
When deciding whether to double, you must look at how good your position is, of course, but you must also look at how good it can get on the next roll. For example, suppose you are a 2-to-1 favorite to win the game. This sounds like a position in which any red-blooded gambler should be willing to double the stakes. Most of the time, you double (and the opponent takes). But if your position cannot get so good on the next roll that you may lose your market by rolling a lucky number that gives you an overwhelming game, it is better to wait. You can double later. On the other hand, if you have a position that is weaker than the one we have been talking about, but some of your numbers blow the opponent away, it may be right to turn the cube before you lose your market.
In poker, we want to win the pot, but we also would like to milk the situation for the maximum. A situation might be right for you at the moment, but on the next card, something comes that stops you from getting paid off. For example, you make the nut flush on the turn in a no-limit hold'em game and the opponent leads into you. Yum! You have the pleasant option of either raising or sneakily smooth-calling. Calling can work out, but you can also lose your market. Maybe the opponent has a king-high flush and would call a raise, but another card of the flush suit comes and he is worried you have the ace of trump. Or, the board pairs and both of you are afraid the other is full. Here are some hands that stick in my memory because the concept of "losing your market" was highly involved.
Many years ago, I raised the pot with A-Q suited and got called by one opponent who was in the small blind. The flop came Q-8-rag, giving me top pair with an ace kicker. There were two spades on the board, so when my opponent checked, I bet the full size of the pot. He called. A spade came on the turn and we both checked. A blank came at the river, and I forget whether he made a small bet that I called or we simply checked it out. But, I do remember clear as crystal what he had: three eights. He had flopped a set and slow-played it, figuring that with the flush draw on the board, he could lure me into betting again. If he had raised me on the flop, I probably would have put him all in because of the drawing cards on the board. When he slow-played, a bad card came and he lost his market. Although there was some merit to his strategy, it was apparent to me that my opponent's slow-play had saved me from going broke.
Sometimes I am the one who unsuccessfully slow-plays a hand. I once picked up pocket aces in a no-limit hold'em game at some money game in the mid-'80s. Bobby Turner opened from under the gun for a raise and I "cleverly" just called. The flop came A-rag-rag, giving me top set. I did not make a farthing after the flop. As it turned out, Bobby had two kings, and I would have busted him had I reraised preflop. In retrospect, my slow-play was ill-conceived, and I had gotten my just desserts.
I do not claim that it is always right to bet strongly whenever the next card can cause you to lose your market. You should vary your play. But from what I've seen at the poker table and know of human nature, most players enjoy slow-playing to such a degree that it costs them money. You should try to sell when the market calls for it - just like a sensible backgammon player would.
