Do Ya Feel Lucky, Punk?

In a memorable scene from one of the Dirty Harry films, in the aftermath of a shootout, Clint Eastwood has his gun pointed at a robber who is reaching for his gun. He says, "I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"

When you are playing no-limit hold'em, you'd better be aware of how many bullets are likely to be fired. Consider a bet on the flop as the first bullet, a bet on the turn as the second, and a bet on the river as the third.

Question No. 1: Against a particular opponent, would you be willing to fire one, two, or all three bullets at a pot?

Question No. 2: How many bullets does a particular opponent think you are willing to fire?

Question No. 3: Will your opponent fire one, two, or all three bullets at a pot?

Stu Ungar is often praised for his courage in firing all three bullets at a pot with virtually nothing or a semibluff, at best. His answer to No. 1 was frequently "all three." This enabled him to intimidate a lot of opponents as he muscled his way to three World Series of Poker main-event titles. In cash games, however, he frequently ran into opponents who weren't as easy to intimidate. They knew his propensity for firing all three bullets. With a big hand, they could comfortably check and call three times, and finally put in a river raise. Needless to say, his tournament results were a lot better than his results in cash games, where his opponents knew the answer to question No. 2.

I am going to examine question No. 1. In general, I'm not a big fan of firing multiple bullets with nothing. My experience has been that after the first bullet misses, players fire the second one into their foot and the third one into their brain. Of course, if you're confident of your read or believe that your opponent can be scared, go ahead. In reality, from a game theory point of view, you do have to be willing to fire all three bullets with nothing, on occasion. Why? If you always had a reasonable hand for this action, your opponents would (or should) notice this fact and start to fold losing hands with which they might have called if they didn't know your pattern.

Here is a typical situation -- case A: You raise from early position with the A K. Only the button calls. The flop is J 10 4. You bet about two-thirds of the pot. Why not? You have two overcards, a gutshot, and a backdoor-flush draw. He calls. The turn is the 6. You still have nothing, but if he doesn't have a flush, that third spade may scare him. You fire your second bullet, again about two-thirds of the pot, and he calls. The river brings the 6, pairing the 6. You fire your last bullet, moving all in, and he folds. You give yourself a mental pat on the back for having the courage to fire that last bullet.

Now let's make a little change -- case B: Suppose that the river is the A. Now you have made top pair with top kicker. When the river was a 6, you fired the third bullet, hoping he'd fold. Now you decide to fire the third bullet, hoping he'll call. He does.

What did he have? Well, if he had the Q J, you played both hands perfectly. You got him to fold his winner in case A and call with a loser in case B. But is this likely? Why would he call after a scare card comes on the river if he'd fold when a blank hits? The typical opponent might call in case A, but never call in case B. At best, he'll fold in both cases. But suppose that he had the K Q. Now in case A, you were bluffing with the best hand when you bet on the river. You avoided giving yourself the option of checking and folding, letting him bluff you. But you also lost the opportunity to let him bluff and then pick him off. In case B, however, you gave him all of your chips. If you had checked and he had bet, you might have been able to fold your aces with a king and not pay off his straight. As you can see from this example, it is more often correct to fire a third bullet with nothing, but not as a value-bet with a good but not great hand.

Conclusion and recommendations -- Question No. 1: Against a particular opponent, would you be willing to fire one, two, or all three bullets at a pot? Your answer should be that you will usually fire a first bullet. This is usually a continuation-bet. If the situation and the opponent are appropriate for it, you will occasionally fire a second bullet. The third bullet should seldom be fired. When it is fired, it should be as a clear bluff or with a very good hand. The bluff bullet should be aimed only at an opponent who almost certainly has you beat. It is even better if he is reluctant to call the third bet without a monster, and if he has never seen you try this move. And, of course, you should feel lucky. Well, shouldn't ya, punk? In my next column, I'll look at question No. 3: Will your opponent fire one, two, or all three bullets at a pot?

Steve "Zee" Zolotow, aka The Bald Eagle, is a successful games player. He currently devotes most of his time to poker. He can be found at many major tournaments and playing on Full Tilt, as one of its pros. When escaping from poker, he hangs out in his bars on Avenue A -- Nice Guy Eddie's on Houston and Doc Holliday's on 9th Street -- in New York City.