Three Recent Trends, and an Observation

I had a pretty rough go at this year’s World Series of Poker. I had only one in-the-money finish, and it was the first time that I busted out on day one of the main event. I had my share of bad luck, but I also believe that the quality of the competition has gotten better. There are still some rank novices taking their shots, but I think there are fewer and fewer of them. And I also think the ABC players are starting to add D, E, and F to their games, if you know what I mean.

And why shouldn’t they? Poker strategy is constantly evolving. If you looked at the plays that were in vogue five years ago, you’d see a much different game than what is being played now, especially at the top levels. Here are three recent trends that I’ve seen in both live and online play. Five years from now, this list could, and probably will, be completely different.

1. Weak lead bets are now more often made by stronger hands.

In the past, when players underbet the pot from first position after not having been the aggressor before that, my instinct was always to attack them, regardless of what I held. They were either making a weak attempt at taking control of the hand or executing a blocking bet, hoping to get through that round of betting cheaply. In either case, my goal was to disappoint them by making a substantial raise.

Now, it’s no longer a signal to auto-raise. Many players have made the correct adjustment by leading small from out of position with big hands. They know that many opponents will continue to view their bet as weak and will raise indiscriminately, allowing them to then reraise and really put the pressure on.

If you can successfully pull off the weak lead bet — such that you entice your opponent to raise with the worst hand and allow you to reraise — that is far superior to a simple check-raise. First of all, since your opponent is raising rather than simply betting, he’s putting in more chips than if you had checked to him. Second of all, because he’s put in a raise, he’ll often feel more deeply committed to the hand as a whole. Thus, he’ll be more likely to call your raise and stick around with the worst hand. If there are more betting rounds, you could get even more of his stack, if not the whole thing.

2. Players are not auto-betting when checked to twice.

When I flopped a big hand out of position and was desperate for action against a knowledgeable player, this used to be a very reliable tactic. Some players would take the free card on the flop, but when I checked to them on the turn, they could not help but fire against a second display of weakness. And who could blame them? Poker is all about attacking weakness, and having an opponent check twice was as much a sign of surrender as you could find.

Now, the better players have caught on. This tactic works sometimes, but it’s not nearly the automatic bet-inducer that it used to be. The action can often go check, check on both the flop and turn, and maybe I can get paid off for a small bet on the river. But with a big hand, I was hoping to build a pot before the river, and now that’s not as easy to do.

3. A lot of talk is a sign of a real hand.

In the past, when players made a bet or a raise and then chatted nonstop, general poker wisdom suggested that they had polarized their range. In other words, they either had a monster hand or were on a complete bluff. More often, it was a monster hand, with the chatter designed to confuse their opponents into calling. But sometimes the chatter was to talk someone out of a brave call.

From what I’ve seen recently, though, the chatter is rarely a bluff. The bluffers are keeping quiet, and the real hands are trying to talk their way into getting paid off. I actually give Jamie Gold much of the credit for this phenomenon. He had the chip lead for more than half of the 2006 main event, so he had more TV time than any other player, and what we got to witness was a constant stream of chatter. Almost always, he talked more with a strong hand, and very often told his opponents exactly what he had! But, of course, they rarely believed him, so he ended up getting way more action than he probably should have.

My guess is that a lot of players saw his performance that year, saw the success that he had with his tactics, and have tried to copy him to some extent. I had a hand in which a middle-position player raised, I reraised out of the small blind with K-K, and he called. I made a continuation-bet on a flop of A-8-5, my opponent immediately moved all in, and then wouldn’t stop talking! I was done with the hand anyway, but I let him babble on for a little while. When I folded, he proudly turned up his A-5 offsuit, and then seemed surprised that I didn’t call. Maybe with A-K, I would have, but even then I would have been so suspicious of his nonstop chatter that I might have gotten away from it.

Finally, here’s an observation from the 2009 WSOP:

Phil Ivey is a poker god.

With all due respect to Jeffrey Lisandro, Brock Parker, and everyone else who enjoyed substantial success at this year’s_WSOP_, I don’t know anyone who has exhibited the mastery of every different form of poker the way that Phil Ivey has. He has won seven WSOP bracelets in six different types of events, and could add his biggest one with a win in November. With 3,000 players left in this year’s main event, I tried to get 40-1 on him to win it all, and couldn’t. That alone speaks to how respected he is. He has said that he could possibly win 30 bracelets before he is done. If anyone else said that, I’d have to laugh. When Phil Ivey says it, you have to take it seriously.

Thinking of betting against him? I think you must be crazy.

Matt Lessinger is the author of The Book of Bluffs: How to Bluff and Win at Poker, available everywhere. You can find other articles of his at www.CardPlayer.com.