Playing by 'The Book'

I was recently in a $215 Sunday Million tournament online. I had been doing well and maintaining an above-average stack of 19,000. But suddenly I lost a big all-in confrontation against a slightly smaller stack, and, just like that, I was down to only 2,000. The blinds were 300-600, and I had only two hands remaining before I would be forced to post the big blind.

Conventional poker wisdom says that I should move all in before the big blind gets to me, even with a garbage hand. That way, I still have some "fold equity" --- since a raise to 2,000 is big enough to discourage callers, including the blinds -- and I can avoid getting short-stacked to the point where even a double-up wouldn't do much good.

In many situations, I don't think that would be bad advice. But taking a closer look at my specific situation, I think there were clear reasons for not moving in with any two cards:

1. My opponents just saw me lose a big all-in confrontation. When I see someone lose most of his chips, and then he moves all in the very next hand, I usually assume that there is a decent chance he is on tilt. So, in my case, I did not want to move in with garbage. Since I would already appear to be on tilt, I knew that I probably would get called by any half-decent hand.

And, essentially, my "strategy" would be no different than if I truly was on tilt! If I planned to move all in regardless of my cards, it really didn't matter whether my motivation was a preplanned strategy or just plain tilt. Either way, I was likely to get called by a much wider range of hands than usual.

2. Even if I hadn't just lost a big hand, I needed to give my opponents some credit anyway. They could clearly see that I was in a desperate situation. Conventional poker wisdom seems to ignore that opponents have brains, and that they can tell when you are short-stacked with the big blind approaching, and therefore more likely to be moving in with a weak hand. In my experience, they are often smart enough to loosen their calling requirements and mix it up with weaker hands than usual, knowing that your hand could be even worse. Plus, they know that even if they call and lose, your stack is so small that they can't get hurt too badly.

Keep in mind that if I picked up any semblance of a hand, I was prepared to take my chances with it. But instead, I found 9-4 offsuit in my first hand and J-3 offsuit when under the gun, so I had to consider the factors I mentioned above. I just didn't think I had any real fold equity, and therefore I preferred to take my chances with whatever I found in the big blind, rather than take a stand with either of those hands. I decided to go against conventional wisdom, because I thought my opponents were smart enough to be ready for it.

As you move up in limits, that is the basis of many adjustments that you must make to your game. For example, if I had been playing in an $11 tournament instead of the Sunday Million, I might have taken my chances and gone all in, hoping that my opponents would not be thinking about my stack and my situation, but instead simply focusing on their own cards. But in a tournament with many skilled players, it would be foolish to think that they would be unaware of my desperate position. In general, "the book" (the one that contains poker strategies that are widely deemed to be correct) said I should push with 9-4. In reality, the book was not playing against experienced opponents, most of whom were aware of what the book said.

Let me give you another example. I have a friend who has an outstanding win rate in low-limit hold'em. One of his favorite plays is to lead out from the blinds in an unraised pot at any board that seems likely to have missed everybody. If the flop is 8-3-3, 7-2-2, or something like that, he is guaranteed to bet 100 percent of the time. Occasionally, someone will have flopped top pair or trips, and he'll find that out right away. But most of the time, his opponents simply fold and let him have the $8 or $12 pot. They probably never give it a second thought. But in reality, my friend has won thousands of dollars in just those types of pots.

This could clearly be considered the "book" play -- bluffing at a flop when it is most likely that no one flopped a pair or a draw. (In fact, it is literally the book play, given that I discuss this scenario in my Book of Bluffs). I give my friend credit for doing it well, but he's playing low limits. He doesn't give his opponents much credit, and usually he doesn't have to. But the second he steps up in limits, we both know that he's going to get a rude awakening unless he makes some changes to his strategy.

If he tried to indiscriminately make that same play at high limits, or even middle limits, his experienced opponents would know exactly what he was doing. They might let him get away with it now and then, but very often they would play back at him with nothing, knowing that he also probably had nothing. In general, if he made any play indiscriminately or too frequently, his opponents would soon figure out what he was doing and correctly counter him. After all, they've also read the book. Generally, the book works very well, but only against opponents who haven't read it. The more you move up in class, the fewer of those opponents you'll see.

My point is that I'm sick of hearing about the book play. The correct play in a given situation depends on many factors, not the least of which is the experience level of your opponents. So, when someone tells me that you should always go all in when short-stacked with the blinds approaching, or you should always bluff in a given situation, I him that he they must always be playing against some pretty unobservant competition.

Otherwise, he'd be getting the book thrown right back in his face.

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.