Violating a Rule

Although poker is known to be a game of repeated “it depends” decisions, I do have a bunch of rules. They are my own rules for limit hold’em cash games, and I tend to follow them pretty much to the letter.

An example of one rule is: Never slow-play pocket aces before the flop. If I see aces, I raise, and keep raising until either the cap or my stack tells me to stop. I do not worry that opponents will figure out what I have, as I tend to take care of that by occasionally raising aggressively with lesser hands.

Another rule is: Always play small sets fast. I realize that many players like to trap, and wait for the turn to raise when they flop a small set. I just get in there and start betting and raising right away.

OK, I have several of these rules. Recently, I played a hand in which I followed one rule, then broke another. Let’s take a look:

The hand: Bellagio now spreads $40-$80 limit hold’em instead of $30-$60, so that’s what I was playing. I was in the small blind with the K♦ 2♦. A middle-position player and the button limped in. In $30-$60, with the small blind being two-thirds of a small bet, I completed in an unraised pot 100 percent of the time (another rule). But now that my two chips represent only half of a small bet [in the $40-$80 game], I am much more judicious and muck several small blinds. A small suited king, even though it is a tough hand to play, seemed worthwhile enough, and I tossed in two more chips. The big blind, an aspiring young pro, checked.

Four of us looked at a flop of 7♦ 6♦ 6♠. I had flopped a flush draw, but that was not the compelling factor. Another rule is that I always bet trips when I flop them from the blinds, and I like to represent them when I do not. Again, many players who flop trips cannot stand the idea of betting on the flop, preferring to wait for the turn, when the bets double, to get a raise or check-raise in. I like to bet at small pairs on the flop from the blinds, whether I have hit them or not, and let my opponents work it out.

I bet, the young pro called, and the other two folded. It was time to stop and consider what my opponent’s call showed. He almost certainly had a 6 or a draw. How do I know this? Let’s say that he held 9-7, and I bet. He would want to raise to drive out the potential overcards in the other two hands and protect his holding. Similar logic would follow if he held 8-8 or even 5-5. With such holdings, he easily could be ahead, as I might be betting a draw, and a pro knows that it’s too risky to call here and let the others in cheaply.

The only way that he would just call is if he had a 6, in which case overcards would be drawing nearly dead, or a draw, so he would want others to call to improve his odds. “Knowing” this tendency greatly affected the rest of the play.

The turn was the 10♦, making my flush, and bringing up another rule: Always bet the turn when you make your hand. I like this rule because it helps to set up bluffs when I bet the turn after a scare card hits, and it helps to ensure that I get paid off when an opponent does not believe that I would bet instead of try to check-raise.

But here, my opponent is virtually always going to bet, especially if I check, looking like I did not make a flush and was betting something like J-7. If he has a 6, he will want to bet his trips to collect the extra bets that he expects to get from me, and if he has a flush, he will bet for sure. I just have to hope that it’s smaller than mine.

In fact, unless a diamond comes on the river, he will always bet that street, as well, enabling me to check-raise and pick up a bet that I could not get by betting the turn. He would have to respect the possibility that I made the flush, and just call along. Only if he held a straight draw that was not 9-8 (perhaps 8-5 or 5-4) would he possibly not bet, and then he may well fold if I bet. I would prefer that he stay in and make a losing hand. He might even bet a busted straight draw if I check, hoping that I am planning to fold.

I violated my rule, and check-called the turn. I also checked the river when the 8♠ hit, and check-raised when he bet. I would feel bad if he filled up somehow, but I would still pay off a reraise if he made one. However, he jumped when I raised, and went into a funk. Finally, he announced that he would have to pay me off, and he did. In fact, he had three sixes (and the A♦), so I won an extra bet by violating my rule.

Shortly after the hand, he asked me what made me certain that he would bet the river. Had he asked me after the session or away from the table, I probably would have told him, as he seemed like a nice guy. Unfortunately, I have yet another rule: I never discuss strategy at the table, so I made up a quick, silly answer, like he bet the turn too quickly. Perhaps that got him thinking about his betting tempo instead of his poker logic, at least until now, when he reads this column.

Conclusion: I like the idea of having rules, as it makes many decisions quicker and easier. Because some of my decisions are made at least semiautomatically, I have more time to consider other poker logic when I encounter difficult situations. So, rules are good, as long as you have some flexibility, so that you can violate one when the situation calls for it. ♠

Barry Tanenbaum is the author of Advanced Limit Hold’em Strategy, and collaborator on Limit Hold’em: Winning Short-Handed Strategies. Barry offers private lessons tailored to the individual student. Please see his website, www.barrytanenbaum.com, or write to him at [email protected].