Triple-Draw Lowball: Part II

Last time, the description of triple-draw lowball began. I discussed the high-stakes origins of the game and how it has become a game for the masses on the Internet. I described hand rankings and how to play, and concluded with some common mistakes made by beginners.

A big mistake is playing triple-draw as if it were single-draw. I have seen a player open-raise with a 10-9 (or even a J-10), and play the hand pat against three opponents for three drawing rounds. Yes, I have seen someone win in this situation, but that is extremely rare. A 10-9 wouldn’t fare well against three opponents in a single-draw game, but at least it would have a slight chance. Against even one opponent having three draws, a 10-9 is a huge dog. Even an 8-7 against three opponents drawing three cards and continuing on for three more rounds is a decided underdog. Some people lose a lot of money and never figure this out. More common than a 10-9, though, is someone playing a rough 8 pat all the way against one or more players drawing to the nuts. Apart from losing with such a hand regularly, it may not be intuitively obvious to some players that this is a huge mistake.

Another big mistake is drawing rough. Since triple-draw is essentially a game of having the nuts or drawing to the nuts, drawing to considerably worse than the nuts is a losing proposition. Yet, all the time I see players go three rounds when the best they can make is an 8-7. Constantly drawing to substandard hands is very expensive.

All of the mistakes so far have been erring on the loose side, but errors on the tight side may be just as expensive, albeit not directly observable. I see a pot capped on the second round because two players, Aggro and Bider, have good draws, while a third player, Chary, tags along. Bider makes a 7 on the third round. Aggro bets and Bider just calls, afraid that if he raises, one of the other two, who undoubtedly are drawing to monsters, might have him beat and reraise. Chary calls. Aggro stands pat, Bider does the same, and Chary draws. On the last round, Aggro bets, Bider calls, and Chary raises. Aggro and Bider call. On the showdown, Aggro reveals 8-5-4-3-2. Bider shows 7-6-5-3-2. Chary does not show his cards, but a check of the hand history shows that he had 7-6-5-4-2. Bider is pleased with his pot, never realizing that he left a lot of money on the table. He should have raised on the third and fourth rounds, not called. Chary still would have called, since he was drawing to the nuts, and Aggro at least would have called, and might have reraised.

Related to the preceding is FPS (fancy play syndrome). It seems that some players are more interested in being tricky than winning, and that philosophy just costs them money. For example, TightS gets dealt 7-6-4-3-2 on the first round. Someone limps in from first position, and TightS calls. Two other players come in, and both blinds play. So, this pot has six players. The blinds take two and four cards, respectively. The opener takes two cards, TightS stands pat, and the other players take three and two cards, respectively. The blinds and the opener check. TightS checks, and so does everyone else. Why did TightS check? Well, he hoped to trap someone. It’s not completely clear what he would have done if someone had bet behind him. I suspect that he just would have called, not yet wanting to reveal his strength on what was still a “cheap” round, hoping to keep everyone in. On the third round of betting, the blinds take two cards each. The opener takes one, TightS stands pat, of course, and the other two take two and one, respectively. Again, the first three players check. TightS can’t hold off any longer. We’re now into the double-bet rounds.

He bets. One of the players behind calls, as does the big blind. Everyone else is out. The big blind takes one card, TightS is still pat, and the player behind takes one card. On the last round, the big blind checks, TightS bets again, and the player behind calls. He has played with TightS before. The big blind folds. TightS shows his monster. The player behind mucks, without revealing that he had 8-5-4-3-2. TightS won five big bets altogether, but if he had been betting and raising all along, he might have won 10 or more big bets. Yes, fewer players would have been in, but those who had good draws would have called along. A variation of this situation is that one of the players drawing multiple times makes a hand better than 7-6-4-3-2 and beats TightS. By letting everyone in, TightS made it easier for others to draw out on him. Also, by holding off betting his hand until the third round, he essentially told everyone that he had a good hand. After all, what hand could he bet on the third round that he couldn’t bet on preceding rounds if he stood pat all along? FPS. He had been hoping to trap someone, but in the process either cost himself several bets or gave others essentially a free shot at drawing out on him. Whenever a player stands pat and skips a round in which he could have bet, that raises the suspicions of the other players. One of the keys to winning in poker is to bet the terrific hands exactly the same as you bet the not-so-good hands. Since it’s perfectly natural to bet good draws each round, betting does not give your hand away. So, why not bet in a way that is consistent with having a medium pat hand or a good drawing hand when you have a monster?

Michael Wiesenberg has been a columnist for Card Player since the first issue in 1988. He has written or edited many books about poker, and has also written extensively about computers. His crossword puzzles are syndicated in newspapers and appear online and in national publications. Send inquiries, imputations of incorrectness, and input to [email protected].