It was nearing the end of tournament time at Bellagio in Las Vegas. The
Five-Diamond World Poker Classic was winding down toward the main event. As is the case with most tournaments, the action early is fast and furious when the money first hits town. As the evolutionary cycle takes hold, the weaker players go broke and the stronger ones survive, making the side games much tougher later in the tourney. (This concept does not hold true at the
World Series of Poker, for which many players come to town specifically to either play in the main event or watch the festivities; the games are great during the final week.)
My $30-$60 limit hold'em game was full of the survivors. It was not a group with whom I sought to play, by any means, but I still believed that I held an edge. Two players limped in ahead of me, and I looked down at the A
Q
, one off the button. The hand dictated a raise, partially for value, partially to increase my chance to obtain the button, and possibly to fold the blinds. Plus, the hand plays better when raised from late position behind limpers.
The button folded, the small blind called, the big blind tossed his hand into the muck, and the two limpers called. The dealer scooped the bets into the center and flopped the 10
9
4
, not quite the flop I was looking for. All three of my opponents checked to me.
Oftentimes with my holding and a board containing both a straight draw and a flush draw, I will check and take a free card. A flop like that hits many preflop holdings, making the likelihood of winning the pot without hitting at least a pair greatly reduced. That said, other factors go into the decision of whether or not you should bet the flop. A big one is the likelihood of being check-raised if somebody hit - or even if they didn't. By betting the flop, you oftentimes can get a free card on the turn because your opponents are still "checking to the bettor/raiser." But the value of that play is greatly reduced if your opponents are the type who will often to check-raise if they made a hand - or even if they didn't. So, when analyzing whether to bet in such situations, consider the likelihood of your opponents check-raising! The more inclined they are to check-raise, the more inclined you should be to check!
In my situation, the two limpers were mostly passive. One was the type who generally led when he hit a flop. Against those two opponents, betting was surely the correct play. But my opponent in the small blind was an aggressive player. He surely would check-raise from that position with a pair, and would do it with any draw in an attempt to buy the pot. I weighed my thoughts and chose to bet in spite of the threat from the small blind, though I thought the decision was a close one.
Bang! The small blind immediately check-raised me, folding my other two opponents. I considered my options. The pot was large enough and my likely chances were good enough that I wanted to see another card. I considered three-betting, with the thought of taking a free card after the turn, thereby seeing two cards for a cheaper price. But the small blind knew that play and would likely four-bet or lead the turn, taking the value of that play away from me. He was a guy who was capable of running at me. I opted to flat-call his check-raise, not wanting to trap myself for multiple bets.
The turn card was the 4
, pairing the bottom flop card - and I had picked up a flush draw. The small blind led into me. I thought about my best option. What did he have? Was he drawing? Did he have a pair? If he was drawing, I almost certainly held the best hand. If he held a pair, would he fold? I thought he might fold a small wired pair of deuces through eights, and maybe a 9. If he was drawing and was going to bet it down, as he likely would, raising would take his bluff value away from him. If I didn't have the best hand, I likely had 15 outs, nine flush cards and six pair cards.
Since I was only a 2-1 dog to make a flush, queens up, or aces up, the "edge" cost of my raise was greatly reduced. By that I mean, if one-third of the time I made the best hand and won an extra bet, I would gain value from the raise over and above the value of taking the river bluff play away from my opponent and potentially making him fold. This would make my cost of raising the turn much less in the way of edge!
I raised, hoping my opponent would toss his hand into the muck. No such luck. He hesitated for a while and then called. The dealer rivered the J
. I was confident that I was getting called if I was beat, and there was no worse hand with which he would call, making betting valueless. He checked to me and I knuckled behind him. He turned over the K
J
, having flopped an overcard gutshot-straight draw, making a play on the pot, and catching a jack to make the best hand on the river. I tossed my mitt into the muck!
In spite of the fact that I lost the hand, I did give myself an additional chance to win the pot if my opponent had missed his draw. By raising, I had created a situation in which my opponent had put me on a stronger hand than I held, and I had stopped him from bluffing the river had he missed.
You have to think in terms of edge when playing poker. Most players intuitively think in terms of dollar volume when assessing their odds. But the real cost is defined by edge. If cards can come that increase your value when they hit, or if additional winning scenarios are created by the play, the cost of a semibluff-raise such as the one I made on the turn is lessened, and the price the pot is laying you is significantly increased.
Likewise, if you are drawing and there are not sufficient pot odds to warrant calling a bet, betting yourself (or raising) is often a correct play if your opponent(s) may fold. If the combination of potential scenarios adds up to give you an edge, you should bet (or raise.) If you know that your opponent(s) won't fold, betting without the correct odds on your draw would be incorrect!
Note that there is a certain type of action player who loves to make these plays but doesn't really reckon the price. Such a player also doesn't very often assess the nature of his opponents, especially in online games, where reading player tendencies is more difficult. These players put in significant volume when an edge analysis would indicate that it isn't warranted. If you overplay the concept in this column, you will find yourself putting in a lot of money bad, much of it on the turn when the bet is doubled, and it will hurt your results big-time. So, don't just automatically play a situation like this; analyze it and let the situation drive your decisions, as you always should!
Other variables affect whether or not to bet your draws - such as hoping to get your opponent to fold, to get a free card, and so on - but they are the subject for another day. If you think there is a significant chance that your opponent(s) might fold if you bet your draw, betting is probably correct. The greater the likelihood of your opponents to fold and the greater the size of the pot, the more inclined you should be to bet! In the end, it's all about using and adjusting edge.
Roy Cooke has played more than 60,000 hours of pro poker and has been part of the I-poker industry since its beginnings. His longtime collaborator, John Bond, is a freelance writer in South Florida.
