Adjusting to Their Adjustments

I am known as a tight-aggressive player. I play relatively few hands, but tend to play quite aggressively when I do. Of course, I adjust to my opponents' tendencies and play hands differently against different opponents, but my general style is tight-aggressive.

Many opponents with whom I play regularly know my style and have adjusted to me. And since they adjust, I need to make counteradjustments for their adjustment(s). Great players take their games to higher levels by knowing their opponents and adjusting to their opponents' thinking, making plays based on their opponents' thoughts. They are able to do this because they observe their opponents - mostly during hands in which they are not involved, so they can view the action through an objective prism.

I was playing $30-$60 hold'em against an aware, good player with whom I often play. He has lots of play in him, and is capable of being tricky. He had raised from middle position against tight blinds, a play that I know he likes to frequently make. He could have a wide range of holdings in that spot, and not necessarily a premium hand, by any means. I was two behind him with the A Q and three-bet, folding the remaining field, including the blinds. We took the flop off heads up.

The flop came 8 7 6, putting multiple straight draws and a flush draw out there - which was not favorable to my hand and also was difficult to play, particularly against a tricky opponent. That said, my hand still had significant potential to be good, and there were almost eight small bets in the pot! Mr. Tricky checked to me, I fired $30 into the pot, and he instantly check-raised.

The fact that Mr. Tricky check-raised me did not mean that my hand was not good, as he had played with me and adjusted to my play. He likes to make aggressive post-flop plays both with draws and with as little as overcards if he thinks he can play his opponent(s) off the pot. I find that these days, too many players get fancy trying to play their opponents off a pot, but it is often a winning strategy when properly executed and not so overused that it loses its value. In this situation, I knew that Mr. Tricky knew that I could both three-bet preflop and bet post-flop with many hands containing no pair. He also has enough knowledge to know that this particular board was very threatening.

In these types of situations, when I hold an overpair, I generally try to trap my opponent. I'm no great favorite over a pair and a straight draw/flush draw on the flop even if I have a pair. Therefore, calling is a better option with a pair, making a determining decision on the turn, and also with no pair, unless I can three-bet and intimidate my opponent into giving me a free card(s).

Mr. Tricky does not intimidate easily, so I flat-called his check-raise to see the turn card and make a decision then with a higher level of information about both my opponent and the board. If I liked the turn card, I could make a play on my opponent and force him off his stone-cold bluffs and perhaps stop a bluff on the river if he was drawing and missed. That said, if the board filled some of the draws, I might want to let my hand go!

The turn card was the J. I had picked up a flush draw to go along with my two overcards, and I still had some chance to have the best hand. Mr. Tricky led into me, and I raised. He quickly called. The quickness of his call, without any real thought of a reraise, convinced me that he was likely on a draw.

The river was an ugly card for my holding - the 10, filling the high side open-ender. Mr. Tricky has played enough with me and is observant enough to know that a 9 in my hand was unlikely. He also knew that I could raise the turn with no pair, inducing a call if his hand contained only one pair. I knuckled. He turned over the Q 10, having made a pair on the river for the best hand. I tossed my hand into the muck.

This hand speaks to the question of adjusting to your opponent and dealing with his tendencies. By playing the hand the way that I did, I stopped my opponent from bluffing me out at a cheap price in regard to expectation. The fact that I picked up a flush draw cheapened the price I paid to make the turn play (although it is a play that I make even if I don't pick up a draw if I think there is a high likelihood of my opponent bluffing or folding a better hand, or if I can get a check-down on the river). The fact that I had several outs if I was beat meant that if I made my hand and beat a superior turn holding, it gave my raise additional value by cheapening its expectation cost. I stopped a river bluff and might have won a bigger pot if I made a hand. The combination of the potential value of both scenarios made the play an expectation winner even if I did lose the pot.

A different opponent than Mr. Tricky might have played the hand differently against me, and I would have played my hand differently against him. A major reason that there are no pat answers to poker questions is that you have to take the style of a particular opponent and situation into account. Adjustments and counteradjustments are part of the analysis of each decision to commit chips to the pot when seeking the best possible result.

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, can be found playing the $5-$10 no-limit hold'em game at Seminole Hard Rock Casino in Hollywood, Florida. Their newest book, How to Think Like a Poker Pro, is available from www.ConJelCo.com/cooke.