Cardless Poker in Canada

While attending a large regional bridge tournament in Ottawa, Canada, I heard about some hot poker action just across the bridge in Quebec at the Casino Lac Leamy. After an evening session of bridge, four of us took a short cab ride, and soon found ourselves strolling through the large, modern Casino Lac Leamy - enveloped in the usual, omnipresent drone of a thousand slot machines.

In the poker room, there were eight tables in play; six were no-limit hold'em with $1-$2 blinds, and two were no-limit with $2-$5 blinds. But there were no cards being dealt! All of the poker tables were electronic. Instead of playing with real cards, in front of each player was a little wireless electronic box with a computer screen. When you cup your hands around the little screen (exactly as you would do when looking at real holecards), your two cards lying facedown on the screen turn over briefly so that you can see them.

We were taught how to "buy in" - by buying credit-card-like money cards that are used to transfer funds into and out of the little computer-like poker machines. Then, an attractive hostess gave us a brief demonstration of how to use the poker machines, which have buttons to perform betting, calling, and folding - quite similar to playing poker online, except that you can see your opponents.

In a previous column, I described two no-limit hold'em hands in which I chose to make large bets with flush draws ("come-bluffs"). Several of my e-mail correspondents raised questions about the frequency of come-bluffing. Of course, the answer is "not too frequently," and, of course, it depends on the specific situation. On that night at the Casino Lac Leamy, there were two good examples of when not to come-bluff.



While playing $2-$5 no-limit hold'em, in late position, I picked up the A Q. A very aggressive player in early position raised to $20, and everyone folded around to me. I called. The flop (on all of our screens) came with the Q and two low spades. He bet a mere $25, which was noticeably less than his usual post-flop bets. Normally, I would be raising here, but I suspected that he was holding back, so I merely called.

The turn was another low card. He checked to me - which again was very suspiciously passive, based on his previous actions. Although it is always very tempting to bet when someone "drops the ball," I was sure that something was happening, so I checked. The last card was a low spade. I now had the nuts. He bet $100, and I raised all in, about a $250 raise. He called, and lost with his pocket aces.

Note that if I had bet after the turn (perhaps $50), since he was obviously trapping, he would have come back at me with a big check-raise (perhaps $300 or more), and if I read him right, I would best fold (or get very bad calling odds).

Sometimes there are early warning signs that point you in the direction of caution - and you should proceed with great care. When you have a very good draw, it would be very frustrating if you attempted a come-bluff that was followed by a check-raise so large that you had to fold that good draw and lose your bluff investment. We all have noted that the "bird-in-hand" approach, however wimpy, is often safest in danger-zone situations, and is certainly less disaster-prone, as in this case.

I then picked up the J 10 in middle position (with 10 players). Several players pushed their "call" buttons in front of me, so I decided to limp in, also. In six-way action, the flop displayed on our screens was the 9 7 4. So, I had a flush draw, an inside-straight draw, and two overcards.

The big blind bet $25 at the $30 pot, and three players folded around to me. I immediately thought of the flush- and straight-draw hands that I wrote about in that previous column. But since I had more than $500 in front of me, I decided that simply calling was best, because there was only $55 in the pot. If I had had only $100 or so in front of me, I would have tried the all-in raise (since I wanted to play the hand, raising all in would definitely give me my best odds of winning that pot). But I certainly did not want to risk my $500 to win a $55 pot. It is often wrong to risk getting involved in a big way in a small pot - which could easily result in a giant loss.

The turn card was a brick, and my opponent checked to me. That was very cooperative of him. Again, I considered making a big bet, but I asked myself why my opponent was being so nice. Maybe I should simply take the free card and bet after I hit. But the last card was another brick. My opponent bet $100 and I folded without a whimper. Then, he proudly flashed his three nines (top set) at me! If I had made any big move, I certainly would have been called, and would have lost a lot of money.

So, to my e-mail friends, I must comment that it is not always right to go around bashing your stack on a good draw - especially when there are danger signs. Remember what Maverick said: "A coward dies 1,000 times before his death? 1,000-to-1 sounds like very good odds." Sometimes, "chicken hold'em" is winning hold'em. And as Mike Caro has profoundly noted, money that you don't lose spends just as well as money that you win.

Formerly a career lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice, Mike Cappelletti has written numerous books on poker and bridge, and is considered to be one of the leading authorities on Omaha. Mike has also represented the U.S. in international bridge competition, and he and his wife were featured in a four-page Couples Section in People magazine. His books include Cappelletti on Omaha, Poker at the Millennium (with Mike Caro), and Omaha High Low Poker.