State of Mind Makes the Play

Once you play at a level on which your opponents understand the fundamentals of poker, the major difference in playing ability is reading your opponents accurately and actualizing correct plays for those reads. It's reading not just your opponent's hands or card range, but also his thoughts, and how past events have shaped his thinking for the decisions he will make in the current situation.

I was in a loose-passive $30-$60 limit hold'em game at Bellagio. Several players limped, I raised from the button with the A 10, both blinds called, and we took the flop off sixhanded. The dealer flipped up a K Q 6 flop. The field checked to me. Possessing gutshot and nut-flush draws, I fired a bet and was called by several players. The dealer turned the K. After everyone checked to me, I bet, thinking that I had some fold equity if nobody held a king; plus, my hand still had significant value should I be called. Only the small blind, a player who had played the session very passively, called me. The river was the 8, the small blind checked, and I checked behind him, thinking that he would call me with any pair or better and fold any worse hand. He showed the J 9, having missed an inferior flush draw and a gutshot. I happily stacked the pot with no pair.

The very next hand, I peeked down to see two jacks and raised an early-position limper. Mr. Passive, the small blind from the previous hand,flat-called me from the button. Both blinds called, and we took the flop off fivehanded. It came Q 6 4. It was checked around to me, I wagered, and was immediately raised by Mr. Passive. The rest of the field folded to me.



I don't like being raised by passive players when I hold an underpair. It is a tough spot in which I must play good poker, read my opponent well, and make a determination based on the size of the pot and the likelihood of my hand being good on the river.

In this particular situation, I asked myself if there was any reason that my opponent might raise with a hand that did not contain a queen, when he previously had not shown any willingness to raise with less than top pair, good kicker.

I didn't have to search my mental database too much. Mr. Passive seemed peeved that I had won the previous hand with no pair. I thought he might be bluffing, thinking that I bet weak hands, or raising with a weak hand, thinking that I possessed a weaker one. I decided to check-call down, inducing bets out of him and getting to a showdown. By check-calling and inducing bets, I acquired extra bets from him when my hand was good and prevented myself from getting pushed off my hand, and didn't lose extra bets in case my hand was inferior. Yes, I might cost myself the pot by not making him fold an inferior hand that might draw out on me, but I didn't think I was a favorite to have the best hand, and thought the chances of him folding to me in the emotional state he was in after the previous hand were small, and that I had more overall expectation by check-calling.

The turn was the 9, and the river was the 3. I checked both times and called, and he showed me 7-7. I flipped over my J-J and made it two in a row!

This hand speaks to varying your play based on your opponent's thinking. I never would have called this particular player with an underpair if I had not delved into his thought process. Since he bet only premium hands and didn't bet his draws, calling with an underpair that was unlikely to improve would generally be incorrect. But since I sensed his disgust from my winning the previous pot with no pair, it was reasonable that he would change his thinking based on his emotional state and put together a newfound thought process.

I have written often that the number of variables to be considered when making a poker decision is so large as to be effectively infinite. As in this case, does the history of your play against someone (in the current or previous sessions) affect the play of the hand? Has something put him on tilt? Did he just get a hand snapped, win a hand, or get even? Is he distracted by the cocktail waitress or the basketball game? Did his wife just come in to watch him play? And so on, and so on, ad infinitum. Every cultural, biochemical, situational, circumstantial element of each of your opponents and yourself is part of every decision. Obviously, some of these variables weigh more heavily than others. And some of them you can know and some of them you can't know. But you must do the best you can with the data available at the point of decision.

When analyzing a play, I ask myself, "Is there any reason that this player might think that a nonstandard play might work here?" Or, "Is there any reason to think he would deviate from his standard play?" While I can't always be certain that I'm right, and probably am even a favorite to be wrong oftentimes, in my analysis of such variables, I pick up enough equity in plays from these thoughts to make my analysis part of my winning play.

And while I may look stupid when I am wrong, I look brilliant when I am right … well, at least I think so!

Roy Cooke has played more than 60,000 hours of pro poker since 1972, and is a licensed real estate broker/salesman in Las Vegas. His longtime collaborator, John Bond, is a freelance writer in South Florida. Their poker books are available at conjelco.com, amazon.com, and most bookstores. Please see Roy's real estate ad on this page.