Free Cards - Part 1

Much of post-flop strategy revolves around a struggle for free cards. If you're ahead, you rarely want to give one. If you're behind, you benefit greatly by getting or taking one.

In this series of columns, we will take a look at various aspects of free cards, beginning here with:

• Definitions
• The value of a free card

Definitions: In the classical sense, a "free card" means a boardcard that a player with a currently losing hand gets to see without putting any more money in the pot. The clear implication is that there is at least one card that will turn the losing hand into a winning one. While this explanation can apply to any form of poker, I will restrict this discussion to limit hold'em. Free cards in other games have very different parameters and implications.

Note that, by this definition, position is not an important consideration. If an opponent checks, and you check, you may be giving him a free card. This is true if (a) you happen to be ahead, or (b) he would not realize that he is ahead and would fold if you bet. Of course, in our game of incomplete information, you can't be sure of much, but that not does affect the definition.

Raising for a free card: The above definition isn't the most common use of the term free card. More often, it involves raising on the flop to get a free card on the turn. This idea of raising for a free card obviously costs money. The sequence starts when you have a draw in position. Your opponent bets. If you call, he will likely bet on the turn and you will call again, thus paying one and a half small bets to see the river card. In the free-card alternative, you raise on the flop. Presumably intimidated, he checks the turn. Now, if you miss the turn, you check and see the river, planning to give up if you miss again.

When it works, the free-card play saves you a small bet. Even better, it may gain you a small bet when you do hit the turn, as the flop bettor would have checked a scary card.

The "never-ending free-card play": Sometimes, your opponent doesn't cooperate in your free-card attempt, and three-bets the flop. He may have a great hand, but he also may suspect that you are trying for a free card, and try to find out. If you suspect the latter, you can still try for the free card. Sure, it now starts to cost a lot, but the logic is still the same. If he will call your next raise and check on the turn, you still save a small bet over calling his three-bet and then calling the turn if you miss.

When discussing this play, a student repeatedly told me, "I'm going to get a free card no matter how much it costs." Clearly, this requires judgment, as perhaps against a three-betting opponent, it was unwise to begin the free-card attempt. Just because a free-card play is available does not mean that you should try for it, especially against savvy or suspicious opponents.

Over-attempting the free-card raise is quite costly, and a significant strategic flaw in the games of otherwise decent players. In many aggressive middle-limit games, opponents are so concerned with being victimized by the free-card raise that you can profitably forego it and simply raise with good hands in position. People will play back to ensure that you are not trying for a free card. We'll cover this topic in greater depth in future installments.

The "inverse free-card play": Some players believe they have invented the inverse free-card play. In this variant, they are out of position, check-raise the flop, and then check the turn if called. They hope that the opponent, fearing another more humiliating check-raise, will check the turn behind them and give them the free card. Note that they are not actually taking a free card on the turn; they are requesting one and hoping for cooperation. I have never been a fan of this play, and I don't endorse making positional plays when out of position, but people do try it, and like everything in poker, sometimes it works.

The value of a free card: Master theorist David Sklansky has stated that giving a free card to a player who would have folded had you bet, but wins because of that free card, is a "mathematical catastrophe." Of course, Sklansky has written an entire chapter on free cards in his book Theory of Poker, which covers the subject quite well. But the term mathematical catastrophe has overridden all of those other words in the minds of many players, who simply refuse to give anyone a free card at any time, to avoid such an event.

It's true that giving a free card that costs you the pot is very bad. But, it does have a value: roughly the size of the pot. For example, you open-raise from middle position with the K 9. Only the big blind calls, and he has the 3 3. The flop hits A K Q. The big blind checks, planning to fold to all of those overcards, but you decide to check behind him, perhaps (incorrectly) fearing an ace. Now, the 3 hits and he wins the pot (plus a bet or two). You have lost the four and a half small bets that you would have won by betting. Those small bets are significant, and you can't afford to play like this over and over, but in the course of a few thousand hours of play, it is not a major issue.

Obviously, it's less catastrophic to make the mistake in small pots than large ones. Interestingly, however, it is also much harder to make the mistake in large pots. This is because the larger the pot, the better pot odds your opponent is getting, and the more likely (and proper) he is to call with a marginal hand or weak draw. In a six-way capped pot with 25 or so bets in it, checking instead of betting is rarely that huge an error, because pretty much everyone will call you anyway, as small pairs and even backdoor-flush draws are getting the right current price. This does not mean that you should check the best hand, but it does mean that you have to think about finding ways to reduce your opponents' pot odds by working raises into the betting scheme to get people to fold. While the magnitude of the error for giving a free card to a hand that would have folded but now beats you is huge, it is quite difficult to get anyone to fold, whether they should or not.

In the next issue, we will look at the value of free cards when your opponent will not fold, and start examining when you should attempt a free-card raise.

Barry Tanenbaum is the author of Advanced Limit Hold'em Strategy, and collaborator on Limit Hold'em: Winning Short-Handed Strategies, both available at www.CardPlayer.com. Barry offers private lessons tailored to the individual student. Please see his website, www.barrytanenbaum.com, or write to him at [email protected].