Way Ahead or Way Behind Revisited

In a column of mine several years ago, I formally defined the “Way Ahead or Way Behind” (WA/WB) scenario. To remind you, this was the definition:

A “Way Ahead or Way Behind” situation requires the following:
• You are heads up.
• You do not know if you are ahead or behind.
• If you are ahead, your opponent has very few outs (typically, two or three).
• If you are behind, you have very few outs.

The column (in Card Player, Vol. 17/No. 26, and revised in my book, Advanced Limit Hold’em Strategy) then went on to give typical examples. In all of them, you had to make a decision on the turn, in position, after your opponent checked. If, indeed, you were in a WA/WB situation in those cases, I recommended that you check.

In the intervening years, some students and visitors to my website have asked questions about that original column. I will address them here.

Question No. 1: In position in WA/WB situations, you recommend that I check on boards with no draws. You say that if I bet when way ahead, my opponent will likely fold, and if I bet when way behind, he may check-raise. If I check, he could become suspicious enough to pay off on the river or attempt a bluff. You don’t realize that my opponents are weak, and generally call my turn and river bets when they are way behind, as they seem incapable of getting away from a second-best hand. Shouldn’t I be betting all the way and make the two big bets, instead of checking to make fairly sure that they will pay me off?

When you appear to be in a WA/WB situation, in position, on the turn, your check is not automatic. You have to weigh the following factors:

• The likelihood that you are ahead or behind. If you decide that you are probably way ahead, go ahead and bet, even though you may occasionally be behind.
• The chances that your opponent will call the turn and river with a worse hand. If the chances are good, bet.
• The chances that you will be check-raised if your opponent has a better hand. If this is likely, tend to check. Against opponents who rarely or never check-raise, bet more often.
• The possibility that a check by you could induce a bluff on the river. This would be another good reason to check.
• The possibility that your opponent may fold the turn when behind if you bet, but bet or call the river if you check the turn. This is the final argument for checking.

That makes two factors that favor betting and three that favor checking. In poker, there are no automatic rules, so your assessment of your opponent, your image, and the exact texture of the flop should all go into determining your decision.

Question No. 2: Your examples show that I should check when in position in many cases. What should I do when I am out of position? Check-call and bet the river? Check all the way? Bet?

Playing a WA/WB situation is far easier when you are in position. Of course, almost everything is easier when you are in position. If you are out of position, you generally should bet.

Here’s why: If you check, your opponent who is ahead may realize that he is and bet. Of course, he also may bet because it is the turn and you just checked, so you cannot fold with any certainly that you are behind.

Similarly, if you are ahead, your opponent may check and take a free card, trying to outdraw you or get to a showdown for a single big bet. As a result, betting seems better than checking, most often.

For example, picture a situation in which you have A-10 suited in middle position and your opponent has either A-Q or J-J. You open-raise from middle position and he calls from the button. The flop is A-8-4. You bet, and he calls. The turn is a 3. What should you do?

The problem is that if you check, he may well bet when he has A-Q and check when he has J-J. Of course, he also might bet his J-J, so you cannot fold with confidence if he bets. As a result, you may as well bet, since you are going to call if he bets, anyway.

There are exceptions, of course, because this is poker. If your opponent is the aggressive type who loves to bet, there is no need to bet yourself, as all you can accomplish is to get him to fold a worse hand. If you check, he will bet his worse hands as well as his better ones. Many of these aggressive types also will throw in a wide variety of turn raises, some of which are with a better hand, and some not. Against such players, betting will gain nothing and checking will break even or gain a lot.

Question No. 3: You say that the WA/WB concept works when there are no draws, but almost every flop has some sort of draw. Doesn’t that make the concept useless?

It is true that very few flops look like K-8-3 rainbow. Certainly, every flop with an ace, which represents many WA/WB situations, has some kind of straight draw. So, you need to exercise some judgment between A-J-6 — where your opponent could have K-Q, Q-10, or K-10 for a straight draw — and A-9-4, where the drawing hands are 5-2, 3-2, and 5-3.

Also, context is relevant. You do not sit down in a poker game and suddenly find yourself heads up on the turn. If you raise from middle position and one opponent calls, he is far less likely to have a flush draw than if you raise from early position, six people call, and five of them fold when you bet the flop. You must take into account the likelihood that your opponent has a draw, and not just observe that one is possible on the board.

Conclusion: I did not invent WA/WB; I merely tried to bring some discipline to the definition. But doing so did not imply that sound poker judgment was no longer required. You need to think through every poker situation, and this one is no different. I hope that by recognizing this particular recurring set of circumstances, you will be able to channel your decision-making along narrow lines and often make the proper and profitable play.

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].