Donking Another One

In limit poker, once the pots get big, taking small extra chances to win a pot has great value. Good hand readers have the ability to design plays that create enormous expectation when they can identify opportunities in which they can move their opponents off superior hands. In some cases, the “move play” can be almost assured to work. Sometimes the expectation is not as great, but it is often still positive when you can move your opponent off only a small portion of his range. In limit poker, plays that are a significant underdog to work can have positive expectation due to a favorable risk/reward ratio. That is, you take a small risk that can produce a large gain. Even if it works only a small percentage of the time, it can still have positive EV [expected value].

I was playing $30-$60 limit hold’em at Bellagio, and an aggressive player open-raised from middle position; the field folded to me in the cutoff, and I three-bet with the J J. The button folded, and Jim, a $30-$60 regular, four-bet from the small blind. Mr. Aggressive-Opener called the two bets, and it was my move.

Sometimes I will five-bet in this type of situation, inducing my opponents to misread my starting hand. They read me for having a stronger hand than I actually hold, which enables me to read them more accurately on future streets and, particularly when I have position, save myself bets/equity as the hand plays out.

But you don’t always have to make the aggressive play immediately. Delaying a street or two can often be advantageous. Oftentimes you can determine the best play with a greater level of information on the flop or beyond. Also, raising on the flop can alter how your opponent reads your range of hands, making you more difficult to read. Decisions like this are often a function of your opponent’s style, how he plays his hands, how effectively you can read him, and how effectively you think he reads you. I pondered Jim’s style.

Jim is the kind of guy nobody talks about; he doesn’t gloat when he wins, and never whines when he loses. As a matter of fact, Jim seldom says much to anyone. He’s a patient guy, and plays a solid, straightforward, very disciplined, thoughtful game. He’s not a world-beater, by any means, but he’s nobody’s fool, either. While he is capable of being deceptive, his hand ranges are generally within what is mathematically correct, particularly when he’s out of position. I thought that his hand range was A-K or a large wired pair. I chose to just call the extra $30.

The flop came A K 4, which was not the best of flops for a pair of jacks. With both an ace and a king on the board and Jim’s hand narrowly defined, the probability that he held A-A, K-K, or A-K was reduced by half. He could have only three combinations each of A-A and K-K, and eight combinations of A-K, rather than six combinations of aces or kings and 16 combinations of A-K if there was no ace and king on the flop.

Jim led into the two of us, Mr. Aggressive-Opener folded, and I raised, with the intent of moving Jim off an underpair to the flop if that was his holding. I thought I could move Jim off two queens, and raising reduced my chances of being bluffed off the best hand if Jim possessed a hand like 10-10 or 9-9. Jim flat-called, polarizing his hand; by that I mean he had a very big hand and was slow-playing, or he had an underpair with which he likely would not continue further.

The turn card was the 4, both pairing the board and putting up three diamonds. Jim checked, and I fired another bet, thinking he would fold two queens without the Q. The way that he had played the hand made that holding a likely one. To my disappointment, he called. So, I still had to be concerned that Jim held A-A or K-K and was slow-playing a full house.

The river was the 10. Now, if Jim held two tens with the 10, he had just filled up. He checked to me once again. My hand was reduced to a bluff. I couldn’t bet and get called by a worse hand. But, could I bet and get a better hand to fold? I wondered if Jim would fold any of his range. I thought to myself that the only hand he would fold that I couldn’t beat was two queens with the Q. I knuckled.

“You got me,” Jim declared as he flipped up two red queens.

“Damn,” I said to myself, knowing that I could have won the pot with a bet.

As I always do when I play a problematic hand, I reran my thoughts and my play. I find that I play much better poker in hindsight than I do in the “heat of battle.” In hindsight, I knew that I had screwed up this hand. The probability that Jim held specifically Q-Q with the Q versus his potential hand range made the price the pot was laying me to bluff well worth the risk. I was getting $630-$60, 10.5-1, on the bluff. There were three combinations of Q-Q with the Q. If there were fewer than 30 other legitimate combinations in Jim’s hand range, bluffing would be an overlay.

Reading hands is not an exact science. The probability of an opponent possessing a given hand is frequently less than the mathematics. An opponent oftentimes will play the same hand in a different manner, reducing its likelihood. That is, if Jim held A-K, would he have to have slow-played the flop every time? That fact lowers his probability of holding specifically A-K. Even if you assume that he would, and he wouldn’t, and you assign his range to wired pairs nines and higher, Jim would have only 23 mathematical combinations of starting hands available, three of which would be Q-Q with the Q. There were three combinations of A-A, K-K, Q-Q with the Q, 10-10 with the 10, and 9-9 with the 9, and eight combinations of A-K. Even though Q-Q with the Q was only one potential holding in his range, Jim would have folded a big enough portion of his potential hand range to make bluffing the correct play.

I played the hand poorly, and the actual scenario badly punished my mistake. My error cost me the pot, not just a bet or two. Some players deny that they make mistakes, so they never learn from them. Players develop greatness through a process; it’s not a gift they’re born with. If you analyze every hand and learn from your mistakes, your game will grow every time that you play — and so will your bankroll.

Roy Cooke played poker professionally for 16 years prior to becoming a successful Las Vegas real-estate broker/salesman in 1989. Should you wish to get any information about real-estate matters — including purchase, sale, or mortgage — his office number is (702) 396-6575, and his e-mail address is [email protected]. His website is www.roycooke.com. You also may find him on Facebook.