Sometimes You Bet Your Draws …

"At least I didn't dog my A-K on the turn," my friend Mike needled me after showing A-K high on the river and being beat in two spots. He was criticizing a check play I'd made with A-K on the turn in the previous hand. Mike's a very smart guy, so when he speaks, I listen. I ran through my play of the hand again in my mind to double-check if my thinking was accurate.

It was Christmas week in Vegas, a happy time for poker. The $30-$60 limit hold'em games at Bellagio were fast, furious, and fun. Several hours into the session, I was winning big. I raised four loose limpers with the A K in late position. Both blinds called, and we took the flop seven-handed. The dealer turned the J 10 6. Inasmuch as I had a tight table image, everyone checked to me. With two overcards, a gutshot, a backdoor-flush draw, and little check-raising going on at this table, I wagered. I bet not because I thought I had the best hand or could buy the pot, but because I wanted to try to thin the field and increase my chances of winning with one pair, and to get a free card on the turn if I blanked off. Three players folded, and the three loosest players at the table, all of whom took any conceivable out to the river, called. I was gonna have to make some kind of hand to win this one.

The turn card was the 8, filling many straights and flushes, but also giving me the nut-flush draw with my A. Everyone checked to me. A queen would give me the nut straight, and had some value. Generally, I would continue to show strength and bet again. The possibility of winning a larger pot if I made a hand, added to the chance of everyone folding, generally would make a bet correct in a situation similar to this one. But in this particular situation, all three of my opponents were total
calling stations. When there is virtually no chance of folding your opponents, the value of following through on the turn is significantly diminished. Plus, there was the possibility that I could get check-raised if someone had made a flush or straight. My chances of winning with one pair were reduced, given the coordinated board and four-way action. Since I was in last position, I could guarantee myself a free card. Those thoughts gave credence to a check being the right play. I knuckled, and took a free one.

The river card was the 4, giving me the nut flush. Once again, the field checked to me. This time, I fired a bet and was called in two spots.

Conventional wisdom states that you should bet your draws, but that is too simplistic! One has to apply multiple poker concepts to the current situation. Betting draws makes you a tougher read by expanding your potential range of hands in your opponents' eyes, and increases the pot size when you make them and win. Most importantly, though, betting a draw sometimes folds your opponents, allowing you to win without ever making your hand.

The essence of poker's decision-making matrix is blending all of the positive and negative values of all of the applicable concepts to the current equation when choosing what action to take, and letting the net result determine that action. Too many players assess their situations and apply rote plays, costing them significant value over time.

In this scenario, since all three of my opponents were calling stations, the fold value was eliminated from the value equation. It just wasn't going to play out that way, ever! Furthermore, part of the value of semibluffing is the deception that creates uncertainty in the minds of your opponents on future plays. You don't need to spend any bets trying to deceive opponents who don't even try to read their opponents' hands in the first place.

The fact that I was last to act and could guarantee myself a free card strengthened my check. Paradoxically, checking added more deception to my game than betting. None of my three opponents looked beyond their own hands and board strength, and none considered other players' styles. But some of the other players in the game, those I play with regularly, like Mike, were surprised by my check and might remember it in future situations, making it more complicated to read me. Such considerations can add real value to your game when you compete against some of the field on a regular basis, as is common in Vegas and many other poker environs.

Depending on what my opponents held, betting my hand was a close value-bet if I got exactly three callers and nobody had a made flush, giving me three queens for a straight as additional outs. But I couldn't be sure that a flush was not out and that I would get three callers on the turn. And there was some chance that I would get check-raised.

Looking back at my 35 years of play, it is my opinion that overplaying an A-K that misses is one of the top 10 leaks of winning players. Winning players lean toward aggressiveness, which is good. Continuation-betting is often correct, but it is not universally correct, and when it's wrong, it costs you. Over a lifetime, it costs you a lot.

So, Mike, checking was the right play, that time. Next time, it will depend.


Longtime poker pro and author Roy Cooke's Card Player column has appeared since 1992. A successful Las Vegas real estate broker since 1990, his website is www.roycooke.com. Should you wish to inquire regarding real-estate matters - including purchase, sale, or mortgage - his phone number is (702) 396-6575. Roy's longtime collaborator John Bond's website is www.johnbondwriting.com. Find John and Roy on Facebook.