Table Talk While Multihanded

Reader Kenneth Phan sent me an e-mail with the subject line "possibly a simple answer to a dumb question":

Hi, Michael. I am a big fan of your articles, and although I've never written to let you know that they are tremendously educational, I am writing to you now to get your opinion of something. I have been playing (middle-limit) no-limit hold'em for five years now, and it bewilders me that this situation has never come up before, but here are the details:

I was in a seven-handed $5-$10 no-limit hold'em game when this hand came up. I was in middle position, holding A-A. I had $600 in front of me and made it $50 to go. The button called my raise, and the BB [big blind] raised it an additional $100 to go (total: $150). I reraised the BB and made it $400, and the button went into the think tank. After two very long minutes, I said to her, "Your hand is no good."

At that point, the BB scolded me for talking during the hand. I believed that I did nothing wrong, since I did not reveal my hand, cheat, or hint to her exactly what I was holding. I thought that I was simply using psychology to have her muck her hand, because I didn't want to be up against two hands. Anyhow, I was surprised when the BB was angry at me. I asked myself silently, "What if the button spoke to me to try to goad me to reveal my hand? Would the BB be indignant then? What if the button was poking and prodding me for information? Would the BB be upset? Or, was he upset only because the raiser was speaking?"

Anyhow, I called the floorman over and he said that I shouldn't speak. In my opinion, that's like saying that I can't use any psychological edge (without cheating, of course) to beat my competition. Since the floorman ruled against me, I apologized and shut up, feeling a little cheated that I couldn't use every part of my smarts to my advantage at the table.

I hope that I have made this clear, and your opinion would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks! Ken

P.S.: The button ended up folding 9-9. The BB had K-K, and he went all in for his final $300. I did win the pot. However, a 9 hit the flop; my speech did end up kicking the button out of the hand, which was a good thing.

Ken gave permission to print his letter and my response, even though I warned that he might not like what I said.

I checked with members of the Tournament Directors Association (TDA). They agreed unanimously that this behavior would earn a penalty in any sanctioned tournament. You just can't say anything designed to influence another player when more than two players are in a pot. In tournaments, you can't say anything about a hand even when it's a heads-up pot until the point at which only two players remain in the tournament. Having expertise also in non-tournament play in cardrooms, TDA members told me that saying something to induce a player to either fold or call when more than two are in a pot would not be sanctioned in very many rooms. What is allowed when the pot is only two-handed varies, though since that doesn't usually directly affect any other player, many cardrooms permit two-handed coffeehousing. But what Ken questions is his not being permitted to use "psychology" to influence one player when another player is also in the pot.

Just to see how unfair it is to other participants, let's say Ken was in the big blind with those same two aces. The action was exactly as described. While he was contemplating his next move, he heard the reraiser trying to talk the button out of calling. Aces in the hole are a favorite no matter whether they're against one or two pocket pairs. Aces make more money in the long run against two opponents, although they don't win as many pots. When you have aces and you can either go all in or put both of your opponents all in, you don't want either of them folding. Ken would have been justifiably upset at the reraiser talking the button out of calling. Similarly, even though he didn't have the best hand, the big blind in the situation Ken described was justifiably upset.

And, by the way, Ken's postscript shows incorrect thinking. That's called "playing results." Sure, the "right thing" happened that time when the pair of nines folded, but in the long run, every time this situation comes up, he loses money if the button folds, compared to calling. The following calculations take into account the dead money left behind when the button folded. For those instances that the button folds, the pot contains $955. A-A (neglecting suits) wins 80 percent of the time. Ken puts in $450 and gets $764, a profit of $314. For those instances that the button calls, the pot contains $1,355. (Let's just assume the button has $450. If she has more, it's even better for the aces.) Here, A-A wins 66 percent of the time. Ken puts in $450 and gets $894, a profit of $444. (Although I said "neglecting suits," I deliberately used the worst matchups for the aces; that is, with the kings being of different suits than the aces, so the hand can win by making a flush. So, overall, the results are conservative, and the actual difference in profit is slightly greater than what the preceding shows.)

So, Ken, not only was the floorman correct in chastising you, you used the wrong psychology.

Michael Wiesenberg has been a columnist for Card Player since the first issue in 1988. His latest book, The Ultimate Casino Guide, published by Sourcebooks, is available at fine bookstores and at Amazon.com and other online book purveyors. The Official Dictionary of Poker should see a new incarnation as part of a more extensive work within a year. Send hallelujahs, harping, and hopes to [email protected].