Evolving Hand Values

Poker hands are often like stocks. Their value rises or falls with the latest news. Just because you started with a blue-chip holding does not mean your investment is locked in.

A hand posted on my forum at www.barrytanenbaum.com exemplified this. David was playing an online $1-$2 limit hold'em game. About 12 hands into his session, he had not observed anything unusual about any of his opponents, who were playing a mostly conservative game.

David was dealt the K K in the big blind. A middle-position player open-raised, and the button called. After the small blind folded, David three-bet. Opinions generally vary about three-betting from the big blind, especially when it is not going to eliminate any players. You generally do not want to build larger pots when you are out of position, and you also lose any element of strategic surprise when you three-bet here. Nevertheless, pocket kings is such a premium hand, and so likely to be far ahead of those of the other competitors, that I think the reraise is warranted. Had it been Q-Q instead, I would have advocated a call.

The flop was mostly good news, Q J 9, giving David an overpair and a gutshot-straight draw. He is still well ahead of most of the hands he may be up against, trailing only A-A, Q-Q, J-J, 9-9, and the far less likely Q-J, Q-9, J-9, and K-10. However, some players do raise preflop with these latter holdings, so there is some danger, and the stock price of his kings has fallen a bit -- but not enough to check, of course, so David bet and was raised by the preflop raiser. The button folded, which was nice, because it simplified the hand considerably. David three-bet, and was called.

The raise by the preflop raiser was a problem, of course. Some preflop raisers automatically pop it if you bet into them on the flop, but without more evidence, it is foolish to operate on that assumption. Even if the raiser was showing some real value, there were still a few hands David could beat: A-Q, A-J, and maybe 10-10 raising for a free card. But the majority of possible raises were hands that had David at a disadvantage, in addition to his positional disadvantage. His three-bet, while reasonable on the surface with an overpair, was one that I probably would not have made. I would rather wait to see the turn and make a new decision then.

The turn card was the very interesting 10. That card made David's one-card straight, of course, but it also put three diamonds on the board. Nevertheless, David must bet a Q-J-10-9 board, as he certainly cannot afford to allow a free card when he has made a straight. So, David did bet, pretty much defining his hand, and was raised again! How do his pocket kings look now?

Not so good. Unless the raise is simply the result of insane online aggression, David is in some trouble. The board is quite frightening to his opponent as well as to David, David has shown massive aggression, betting and raising whenever it was his turn, and still his opponent is anxious to put more money into the pot! Given the board, David had one of the worst possible holdings with a king-high straight.

Some members of the forum suggested the raiser may have had a set, such as the Q Q. While anything is possible, I think this is a reach. Very few players would raise here, even in position, when looking at an open-end four-card straight and three-flush. Those who would likely would have a diamond, such as the J J, as well as full-house outs. They also would usually plan to check the river unless they hit an out.

Overall, these are still unlikely plays. Most likely is that the raiser has a flush (A K, A J, K J, A X), a bigger straight (A-K, perhaps with a diamond redraw) or, at best, K-Q or K-J for a tie). David called the raise, as most of us would.
On the river, a low diamond appeared. What should David have done?

Before you decide, take a look at his chances. Against any legitimate opponent, he is unlikely to have the best hand, and in fact has but a small chance for a tie if he checks and his opponent bets. If he checks and his opponent checks, David almost always will lose to A-K or will chop. There were almost 12 bets in the pot at the river, and if David checks and calls, his best expectation is getting six back for his investment, barring a total bluff from his opponent.

If David planned to check and call, he may have been better off betting. He easily could have folded to a raise, and may have induced a reluctant fold from an opponent who held a hand like K-Q with no diamond. I doubt that he could get an A-K to fold, but you never know.

David checked and folded, so we do not know what he was up against. On the forum, I suggested a check and fold as the best play, as it is almost impossible to invent a hand for his opponent that David can beat, and almost as difficult to name a hand he can even tie.

It is always possible for his opponent to be bluffing, but this betting sequence is tough for most players to bluff into. David has played the hand strongly throughout, and has given his opponent no reason to believe that he might fold on the river. Most bluffs are made when the opponent at least has a reason to hope for a fold, and that is not the case here. Even if a bluff is possible, a call has to make sense mathematically. If one bet out of 100 would be a bluff here, David would still be right to fold. He needs to expect a bluff more than 8.5 percent of the time to make a call correct.

So, I like his check and fold on the river, but I think betting also has some merit. This was a very difficult play for a hand that started with such promise, and also made a straight. But a hand is worth only its present value, and it does not matter how it started or how good it looked on the way to the river.

Conclusion: I thought this was an interesting hand, as it started out being quite powerful, David played it very strongly and made a good hand, and then he ended up meekly checking and folding. His play showed good awareness of the evolving situation. His approach was analytical and dispassionate, as he did not call on the end out of frustration that he had a good hand, or simply wished to see what he lost to.

Sometimes the value of a hand declines rapidly. To be a winner, you must assess your hand's chances based on its present value only, and act only on that assessment, not on what it used to be or might have been.

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].