Playing a Hand Passively

Aggression is part of any good limit hold’em player’s weaponry. That said, even many very good players overutilize their aggressive plays. Some players virtually never call an opening bet, never flat-call a raise from the small-blind position, or never flat-call behind an opening raiser when they have position. While these plays are often correct, there are times when they are not the best play. Great players are selective in their aggression. They analyze the situation, determine the value of aggression, and select the best play.

I was playing $30-$60 limit hold’em on a Friday afternoon. The weekend tourist crowd had not yet arrived, and most of the players were weak-tight locals. The field folded to a weak-tight woman with whom I had played a significant amount of poker. She raised from the cutoff position, and the button folded. I was in the small blind with the J♠ 10♠.

I thought about how best to play my hand, based on Ms. Weak-Tight’s playing tendencies. She was not one to significantly loosen up in steal positions and raise without a legitimate hand. Oftentimes, she would just call, even as the first opener. So, her hand range was strong. She also had the tendency to call to the river with overcards, often paying off with ace high, and tended to slow down in terms of action when a player she respected (like me) represented an overpair. Since she waited patiently for a good hand, emotionally, she wanted to take it to the river. If I three-bet her and then bet the flop, she would flat-call if she flopped one pair, and would play her overcards and pocket pairs the same way, making her a difficult read. Plus, if she had a big ace, I would have to beat her.

A big reason to three-bet out of the small blind is to fold the big blind and win the pot by betting your hand down when both you and the initial raiser miss. But in this particular case, my opponent would call with the portion of her range that hit the flop, any hand with which she thought she was drawing live, and any hand containing a big ace. That added up to a large portion of her range. That, combined with the fact that she would be difficult to read, weakened the three-bet play significantly.

Another issue was the big blind. He played his hands poorly after the flop. Even if I was making a mathematical error by letting him call preflop, he was likely to make worse mathematical errors in his post-flop play, which would make up for some, if not all, of the lost expectation. I flat-called Ms. Weak-Tight’s raise, as did Mr. Poor Player in the big blind.

The flop came K♠ 10♥ 4♦. Ms. Weak-Tight wasn’t one to “auto-bet” after she had raised preflop, particularly when she received two callers. I chose to lead, in an effort to prevent giving any free cards, and if I got raised, I would gain quality information, as neither of my opponents raised much with draws. They both called.

The turn card was the 6♦. I led again, Mr. Poor Player folded, and Ms. Weak-Tight called again. The river was the 6♣. Since Ms. Weak-Tight called with so many hands on the river, I chose to bet, even with the understanding that she would check some hands that I could not beat. On the river, if a player is going to bet some hands that beat you, and you would be forced to call because you can beat his bluffs, you are better off betting if he will call you with many hands that you beat that he would check behind you. Negating bluff-raises, whether the play is correct or not depends on the number of hands with which your opponent beats you that he would check behind you versus the number of inferior hands with which he would call you that he would check behind if you checked. The fewer of the former and the more of the latter, the stronger the play.

Ms. Weak-Tight called, and I showed my tens. She turned over A-J offsuit in an effort to inform me that I had sucked out on her.

Adding value to my lack of aggressive preflop play was the fact that I was playing at a table full of both solid and observant opponents. Since they had noticed that I did not make an aggressive play out of the small blind, the next time that a situation was right to make an aggressive play, the aggression that I would show would have more credibility. My chances of betting and winning would be greater, as my opponents would fear my hand more. They would read my range of hands as being smaller than it actually was.

This hand speaks to understanding and applying concepts to individual situations. Concepts vary greatly in value depending upon the style(s) of your opponent(s). In this hand, much of the value of aggression was negated by their styles. If the big blind had been a tighter and/or stronger player, and the raiser had been a player who liked to rob the blinds and had a higher propensity to fold to a bet, I would have three-bet preflop. But if I had three-bet preflop in this situation, I probably would have put myself in first position against two opponents with an inferior hand to most of the preflop raiser’s range, and with little bluff equity, so I most likely would have had to make the best hand to win the pot. That’s not a situation that I like.
Great poker players understand poker conceptually, and also understand when to apply certain concepts, and why. Learn to adjust your play conceptually to the types of situations that you face. ♠

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.