The scene was an early-morning, fourhanded $15-$30 hold'em game that had been going on for a couple of hours. I folded from under the gun, and the button opened for a raise. The small blind (SB) folded, and the big blind (BB) three-bet. The button four-bet, the BB five-bet, and the button called.
The flop came 7-4-3 rainbow. The BB bet, the button raised, and the BB called.
The turn paired the 3. The BB bet again, the button raised again, and the BB called.
The river was a 9, for a final board of 7-4-3-3-9. The BB stubbornly bet out, and the button raised without hesitation. Now, the BB sighed and paused. In one hand he held the six $5 chips to call; in the other hand he held his cards as if he didn't know what to do with them. He looked back at his cards and appeared that he might throw them away, but finally dropped the chips into the pot to call.
"Ah, damn," I heard the button mutter in resignation. He shrugged and turned over Q-10 offsuit. The BB stood up and examined the board for a moment, then turned over his Q-J offsuit to claim the pot. It wasn't a slow-roll; he was genuinely checking to see if he had the best hand before he turned it up.
The game actually had to stop for a couple of minutes, because the SB and I jumped away from the table in semimock disbelief. "What a sick hand!" the SB kept saying. The other players in the cardroom heard the commotion, came over to see what had happened, and got to check out this seemingly bizarre hand.
But as crazy as the action was for these two weak hands, there was some actual poker being played. Allow me to provide some more information about the players in question.
The Big Blind
I had never played with the BB before, and haven't seen him since. He was a perfectly friendly fellow, and win or lose, he seemed to be enjoying himself. He was clearly an inexperienced player, but what made him unusual was that he was a completely contrary player. What I mean is that he played all of his good hands from behind and led with all of his bad ones.
Usually, a beginning player falls into the pattern of being too straightforward. Surprisingly, he did exactly the opposite. Every time he check-called or check-raised, he had at least a decent pair or a primary draw. Every time he led at the pot, he had few or no outs. Sometimes he led with a gutshot-straight draw or something that could improve, but more often than not, he simply led with two random cards.
Obviously, this made him just as predictable as if he played straightforwardly, and sitting to his left, I was able to take full advantage of him. Whenever he led at the pot, I called with some surprisingly weak hands. If he bet the river and I had a hand that could beat a bluff, I called. If I had nothing, I raised, and usually he mucked. His predictable pattern would clearly cause him to go broke sooner or later. But at the time of this hand, he was actually picking up far more than his fair share of hands. And even though he wasn't getting full value from them, he was managing to remain close to even.
The Button
The button was George, a strong, aggressive player who has several tournament wins to his name. He is also a winner in cash games, but his success usually depends on who his opponents are, and how well his aggressive style matches up against them. Whether he wins or loses, he is not afraid to make a read and stick with it. He is the type of player who will raise on the river with one pair of eights if he's decided that you have sevens.
In our fourhanded game, he certainly had made the same observations about the BB as I had. The problem was that he was running card-dead while the BB was picking up hands. Since the BB was playing his hands slowly, George was able to save some bets, but it still had to be frustrating to be losing money to someone he could read like a book. I think that's what led to George's impatience, and his decision to take a stand with his Q-10.
On one hand, there were a couple of things that George could have done differently:
1. He could have waited for a better spot. It didn't take much to beat the BB when he led at the pot. If George could have waited for some semblance of a hand, he probably could have won a showdown.
2. Even with no hand, George could have followed a similar pattern to what had been working for me; namely, waiting until the river to raise. I think part of the reason he got called on the river is because he helped build such a large pot. By keeping the pot smaller, George probably could have gotten the BB out with a single raise on the end.
On the other hand, it was a shorthanded game, and George was trying to make something happen. He correctly decided that the BB was betting with nothing, and he made up his mind that he was going to take him off his hand. I commend George for making a read and sticking with it through the entire hand. Other players might have backed off at some point, and started doubting their initial read. George trusted his instincts, never backed down from his aggressiveness, and made a play that could have (and probably should have) worked.
In general, one of the keys to winning poker is trusting your reads. Analyze your opponent, make your best guess at what he has, and play accordingly. If you think your opponent is bluffing, don't be afraid to play back at him with a hand that can't even beat a bluff! After all, why even bother to put him on a hand if you're not going to act on it? If your read was wrong, so be it, but as long as you take the time to analyze why you made an incorrect decision, your reads will continue to improve over time.
However, when you have a solid long-term read on an opponent, there's no need to force the issue. He's yours for the taking whenever you want him. You must exercise some selectivity, and wait for the right time to pounce. In the end, George did not have to make his stand with an unimproved Q-10. But he is a good enough player to recognize his mistake. And if he is lucky enough to encounter the BB again, I'm sure that he'll be more patient the second time around, and will find the right opportunity to attack.
Matt Lessinger is the author of The Book of Bluffs: How to Bluff and Win at Poker, available everywhere. You can find other articles of his at www.CardPlayer.com.
