All-In Overbets When Acting Second

In my last column, which discussed all-in overbets of several times the pot size, I wrote about the many advantages that come from being all in, whether with a made hand or a draw. In that column, I looked at flop betting when you are acting first. When you are acting second (I am assuming that you are heads up), there are some differences.

As you recall, one of the reasons to overbet the pot size when acting first was to nullify your positional disadvantage. It seems logical that having position means you are less likely to want to move all in. If you can read your opponent very well, you may want to retain your positional advantage. On the other hand, the fact that your opponent has already checked would seem to make it less likely that you will be called if you go all in. However, all in all, my opinion is that there are fewer hands with which you will want to overbet the pot all in when acting second than when acting first, especially against one of the better players.

If we are talking about a situation in which it is an unraised pot and the opponent checks, there is a good reason to think about what a particular opponent may have when he checks. A weak player may have anything under the sun, since he checks and calls a lot. But a good player is not likely to do this, especially since it will be only a pot-size raise to move all in if you bet. (For our analysis model, we are using a situation in which there is $100 in the pot, you have $400 left, and your opponent has you covered in terms of stack size.) Usually, his check means one of two things: He either has little interest in the pot or is looking to move you in if you bet. (A check-and-call strategy, slow-playing a good hand, is not likely if there is short money and a draw on the board.) What all of this means is that against a good player, there is little reason to move all in with a shaky hand when he checks, because a probe-bet will either win the pot or induce your opponent to show his true strength by raising all of his chips.

Let’s revisit some of the hands that we already discussed when acting first:
A. You have K-Q with a board of the K Q 3. I suggested betting all of your money here if acting first, because so many turn cards are dangerous to you (although, giving a mad-dog aggressive player some rope by checking, hoping to check-raise, is also reasonable). When acting second, I would go all in against most opponents.

B. You have the A 10 with the same board of the K Q 3. The royal-flush draw is a strong hand that I would be willing to play for all of my money. Since all you have is ace high, it makes no sense to me to either make a probe-bet or take a free card. Let’s take our best shot at winning immediately and bet the whole farm.

C. You have the 9 7 with the same board of the K Q 3. Here, when out of position with a small flush draw, I was a reluctant warrior, willing to bet all of my chips if heads up, but not happy about it. If acting second and checked to, I would bet about $75, and possibly let the hand go if my opponent put me all in with a raise. With this weak drawing hand, I do not need to commit all of my money, because I have position on my opponent. Against most players, I would prefer to probe-bet.

Now, here are some hands that were not discussed in my last column. Assume a tournament with blinds only, 50-100, and you start the hand with 1,100 in chips.

1. You limp in from under the gun, eight-handed, with the K Q and everyone folds, so you are heads up against the big blind. There is 250 in the pot and you have 1,000 left in your stack. The flop is the A Q 3. Your opponent checks; what should you do? The check by the big blind is pretty much devoid of meaning, as he will check most hands there, expecting you to bet. I do not see the point in betting all of your money, as you have position and your opponent will probably do the right thing (call if you are beat and fold if he has a hand that’s worse than yours).

2. You have the same hand in the same situation, but the flop is K-6-2 rainbow, giving you top pair. I would bet about 150 into this 250 pot. A big overbet of the pot size to get all in is fine here, but I see little merit in doing this when you know that your opponent is not drawing and he knows that you are not drawing. You would like to get called when your opponent has five outs or fewer, and you also want him to think he has fold equity if he raises, so the probe-bet size looks right to me even when you have a through ticket, whether it is a solid hand, as here, or a real biggie.

I believe that going all in on the flop in no-limit betting when the pot is a quarter of your stack size or larger is an important tool of the trade. Most players consider using this tool when on a draw, but a surprisingly large number rarely or never use it when they have a good made hand, especially when they have more than one pair. They are afraid that their opponent will fold, whereas a smaller bet will have a better chance of being called. However, these same players regularly call an all-in overbet with top pair and a weak kicker (or worse), because they put the opponent on a draw. You would think they would realize that you cannot have it both ways. By this I mean that if an all-in overbet both looks like a draw and is a draw most of the time, why not use it with a good made hand? Do you think your opponent is psychic, calling with light hands when you have a draw and folding when you actually have a big duke? (I assume that you can keep a poker face and a shut mouth.) Furthermore, using this tool of an all-in overbet when holding two pair or a set will make your opponents think twice about making a light call with hands like top pair/no kicker, second pair, or middle pair. The bottom line is, the all-in overbet is a difficult weapon for an opponent to cope with, especially when he knows that you may have a biggie instead of a draw.

Bob Ciaffone has authored four poker books, Middle Limit Holdem Poker, Pot-limit and No-limit Poker, Improve Your Poker, and Omaha Poker. All can be ordered from Card Player. Ciaffone is available for poker lessons: e-mail [email protected]. His website is www.pokercoach.us, where you can get his rulebook, Robert’s Rules of Poker, for free. Bob also has a website called www.fairlawsonpoker.org.