Thinking it Through

Holiday weekends tend to bring out the best in the poker games in Vegas, as tourists flock to the city. My Thanksgiving $30-$60 limit hold'em game was no exception. It played fast and furiously, with drinks galore and chips flying!



A very aggressive player opened the pot for a raise, the next player called, and I peeked down at the 7 7. It was an easy call in this game, as lots of players were seeing the flop and playing their hands non-optimally after the flop. Both of these factors added significant value to my medium wired pair. Several players called after me, as did both of the blinds. We took the flop off seven-handed for two bets.

The dealer was magnificent, flopping the Q Q 7, bestowing a full house upon me. The field checked to me. I thought about how to play my hand, looking to get maximum value out of it.

Several different concepts applied to the situation. I tried to think of all of them, and estimate the blended value. One concept was, slow-play more when your opponents are less likely to draw out on you. Since the only player who raised preflop, the player under the gun, checked, I thought there was little chance that anyone held a wired pair higher than sevens. If that was the case, giving a free card possessed little danger. The range of hands that my opponents were likely to hold would be much more likely to make second-best hands than ones that beat mine. The greater the chance your opponents are to make a hand that will give you action, the more value your slow-play contains. Both of those factors suggested a slow-play, but a contradictory concept also came into play. Would my opponents call anyway if I bet? I thought that with the board paired, many of my opponents would automatically take one off with a backdoor draw.

I decided checking was the best play, and knuckled. The player behind me checked and a loose-aggressive player behind him fired a wager forward. A tight woman in one of the blinds called, and everyone else folded back to me. I tried to envision how the hand would play out, and thought about my opponents' range of hands. I thought it likely that the woman held a queen. I wasn't sure what the aggressive player held, as his hand range was wider than Ms. Queen's. I thought that if I flat-called and Mr. Loose-Aggressive didn't hold a queen, he would check the turn if checked to, and I thought Ms. Queen would check the turn with a queen to check-raise. I decided to check-raise to remove the potential scenario of the turn being checked, which would be highly unfavorable for the value of my holding. Mr. Loose-Aggressive instantly reraised me, and Ms. Queen called.

Now what? I almost certainly held the best hand. Should I call and try for a check-raise on the turn? Or, should I four-bet it? Which option was better? Since he three-bet, I felt Mr. Loose-Aggressive had a queen and would bet the turn if I checked. I could then check-raise, trapping Ms. Queen. Also, Ms. Queen might check-raise herself, after which I could three-bet the turn. But, if I four-bet, Mr. Loose-Aggressive might five-bet a queen and I still might be able to check-raise the turn. I thought about his propensity to do so. He wasn't the sort of man who scares easily. I felt that he was a big favorite to try to muscle the situation, due to his style and his holding. Feeling it was the right play, I hit it again!

Damn it! Wrong again! He flat-called me, as did Ms. Queen. I was called down by both players on the turn and river and won the pot. They both stated they held a queen. I could have gotten $60 more by flat-calling and check-raising the turn, assuming Mr. Loose-Aggressive bet and Ms. Queen called - which was pretty likely, as it turned out.

As the scenario presented itself, it appeared that I made an error. But if Mr. Aggressive had five-bet, I would have made $180 extra, and with better expectation on the bets.

Poker is a game of incomplete information, and oftentimes you are just calculating "best estimates." Even if I thought he was only 30 percent to five-bet the flop, I would have been correct to reraise. The value when right was much greater than the loss when wrong. Even when I am wrong more often than I am right, it is still the correct play.

The game constantly presents you choices in which the correct decision isn't clear. It's your job to take as many variables as possible into account at the point of decision and act accordingly. Over the long haul, it is less important for the situation to play out as you thought it would than it is for you to think each problem through correctly. Applying correct principles in varied situations gets you the greatest in earnings over time.

Many players undervalue maximizing bets and check valuable betting opportunities far too often, seemingly happy just to have won the pot. But the added value of the expectation of those extra bets adds up to a significant number over time. Maximize your positive edge when you have the best of it, and minimize your negative edge when you have the worst of it. Yeah, it does sound easy, but it takes a lot of thought to actualize it accurately!

Sometimes your opponents cooperate and sometimes they don't. In the final analysis, you must make the best play that you can construct in the time available. And when your opponents disappoint you, instead of flirting with the cocktail waitress, spend your time in between hands figuring out why the hand played out as it did, and apply that info to the next situation.

Roy Cooke has played winning professional poker since 1972, and has been a Card Player columnist since 1992. He also is a successful Las Vegas real estate broker/salesman. His longtime collaborator, John Bond, is a freelance writer in South Florida. They have written six poker books that are available from www.conjelco.com - most recently, a play-of-hands collection: How to Play Like a Poker Pro.