In a loose no-limit hold'em game, you raised before the flop with a high pocket pair (kings), got several callers, and flopped three undercards (no pair), with two cards of the same suit. The pot is large, about one-third of your current stack. Is it automatic to go all in? Or, should you bet less, fishing for action, although that increases your risk of losing the pot?
In a recent column ("Down Under," available at CardPlayer.com), I discussed a hand in which I held pocket kings in a rather loose $2-$5 no-limit hold'em game in Australia. With three-way action and $192 in the pot, the flop came J
6
3
. It was checked to me. I had about $450 in chips in my stack, and the other two players had about the same amount of chips.
I chose to go all in to exert maximum pressure to win the pot instantly before seeing more cards. I judged that I was very likely to have the best hand at that moment, and that any other bet that I would make would make me pot-committed, since I would not fold to an all-in raise (which might be made by a lesser hand, such as a big jack or a semibluff flush draw). And, I certainly did not want to see an ace or another heart on the turn. I invited readers to send comments and received about 40 replies.
Many of the replies authoritatively asserted that going all in was completely automatic, such as, "So, what is the problem?" and, "You are playing
no-limit aren't you?" But several young pros who play daily in loose no-limit hold'em games expressed reasons to bet more slowly - apparently willing to risk losing the pot to fish more money out of the opponents. For your consideration, three such replies follow.
Even if I don't really agree with their conclusions, their voices deserve to be heard.
How often do you have pocket kings to work with? You don't want people out, you want them in. Sure, you might get unlucky and lose the pot. That can happen with almost any hand. You have to make hay while the sun is shining. Just as you said earlier in your column, you didn't make a big bet before the flop because you didn't want people folding when you had pocket kings. Well, you have a good flop (no ace). Now, go try to make some money. I would bet $200 here and hope that I get some callers. [Larry from Reno, NV]
The following reader sent a "range of hands" analysis.
Now, my analysis is lacking some information regarding the type of players the other two in the pot were, and with what types of hands they were likely to raise preflop and call your reraise preflop. Also, what type of player do they think you are? Now, here is where I play things differently. Again, without knowing the type of players your two opponents were, it's hard for me to be 100 percent certain, but take a look at each hand possibility for the player behind you.
The player who made it $20 to go could be raising with a lot of hands. Standard hands in this spot would be 10-10, J-J, Q-Q, K-K, A-A, A-K, A-Q, A-J, and A-10. You can rule out A-A due to the lack of a reraise of your reraise. So, if he had:
10-10, he would fold due to the overcard
J-J, he would instantly call you and you would lose $450, excluding a miracle king coming
Q-Q, this would be hard to speculate on, due to lack of knowledge of your opponent, but a solid player would fold due to your limp-reraise preflop, which is an incredible show of strength
A-K, he would fold
A-Q, he would fold
A-J, he would probably fold, for the same reason that Q-Q would fold
A-10, he would fold
Now, as it turns out, your opponent had a flush draw and an ace, and called you. So, your play was the correct one, given the hand that he ended up having. However, in the long run, I think the better play mathematically is to make a smaller bet. I would say somewhere around $100. This way, you are giving him 3-1 on his money. He is much more likely to call with hands that you completely dominate, such as Q-Q and A-J. Also, if he happens to have a flush draw, he still isn't getting the right odds to call (he needs around 4-1 if just seeing the turn), but if he does call, you're happy because he is making a mistake mathematically. [Jared from Williamstown, NJ]
Several readers advocated a wait-and-see approach.
I don't really disagree with an all-in play with that flop, but I've gone all in under similar circumstances and have lost many times. Assuming that you are trying to avoid an ace or especially another heart for a flush, how about waiting until the turn, and if no heart or ace hits, bet out heavily? Then, the potential caller is looking for only the river to make his hand. I'm not saying that you should check the flop, but bet the pot or half of the pot. [Jeffrey from Florida]
Again, the main problem I have with any lesser bet - say, $100 to $200 - is that if a heart turns, are you really going to fold to a big bet? So, if you are pot-committed, going all in after the flop is the safer all-around action.
Formerly a career lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice, Mike Cappelletti has written numerous books on poker and bridge, and is considered to be one of the leading authorities on Omaha. Mike has also represented the U.S. in international bridge competition, and he and his wife were featured in a four-page Couples Section in People magazine. His books include Cappelletti on Omaha, Poker at the Millennium (with Mike Caro), and Omaha High Low Poker.
