Disagreeing With T.J.

In the newsgroups and forums I frequently visit (RGP, TwoPlusTwo), it's a rather common occurrence to find people discussing and criticizing excerpts from poker books by famous authors like David Sklansky, Mason Malmuth, Doyle Brunson, Mike Caro, Tom McEvoy, and T.J. Cloutier. While some of these contributors like to offend these celebrities and disagree just for the sake of disagreeing, there are a few people who sometimes come up with refreshing new ideas. In one of these newsgroups, a young man by the name of Andrew Morton (who, tragically, passed away) stated that Sklansky's Fundamental Theorem of Poker ("Every time you play a hand differently from the way you would have played if you could see all your opponents' cards, they gain; and every time you play your hand the same way you would have played it if you could see all their cards, they lose.") is definitely true in heads-up situations, but not necessarily in multiway pots. He claimed there might be a point in the hand where any additional caller would cost you, the one in the lead, money, even if this person isn't getting the right odds to call. That is, even if they play badly, you are not the one who profits from it! Morton's opinion was named "Morton's Theorem," and it added a new dimension to Sklansky's fundamental poker rule, as stated in his definitive (and excellent) work The Theory of Poker.

One of the most popular people on these forums (and in the poker-playing community as a whole, for that matter) is one of the most charismatic poker players in the world, T.J. Cloutier. As readers of this magazine might well know, Cloutier has composed a series of Championship poker books with fellow World Series of Poker bracelet winner Tom McEvoy. Cloutier's works are a pleasure to read, as the advice is coming from one of the best tournament players in the world. Still, people who try to improve their play by studying books shouldn't automatically take all recommendations for granted, but should stay critical at all times – even when the advice comes from a proven champion like Cloutier. In this column, I'll discuss two excerpts from the Championship poker books in which I think better alternatives than the ones offered are available, and therefore should be mentioned. This doesn't mean I am right and Cloutier is wrong (or vice versa); it just means that in the same situation, there isn't always one right way to play a hand. Remember, in poker you don't want to become too predictable, especially at the higher (pot-/no-limit) stakes, and varying your game is therefore a necessity. This having been said, let's take a look at two recommendations that Cloutier makes, in which choosing a slightly different course of action might (in my opinion) be more profitable in the long run, or in which alternatives to the recommendations given should at least be considered.

Situation No. 1:

Playing Aces in Pot-Limit Omaha

From: Championship Omaha, practice hand 5, A J A 10, pp. 153-155.

In this book, Cloutier describes how he would play from the flop onward with the hand above. To be specific, he recommends becoming aggressive with the hand when the flop comes something like K Q 8 (example 1) or Q 8 4 (example 2). Because you've got a combination of a fine draw and a made hand, you can and often should play this hand aggressively, Cloutier states – and I totally agree. However, he also states that when the board pairs on the turn (for example, if another 8 pops up), it is check-down time; that is, you shouldn't bet any more money on the turn. His reasoning: If someone comes over the top of you, you will have to dump the hand – "all you have with those aces up is a draw with one card to come." I don't agree with Cloutier's reasoning here. Once you make a big bet on the flop, your opponents know you might be betting a big draw, but you also might very well hold the hand you represent – top set, three queens (as in example 2). When the board pairs on the turn, you might very well be full, so if you bet, you will only get called by someone who (a) doesn't believe you are full; (b) thinks about only his own hand – this is, he doesn't consider the fact he might very well be drawing dead; or © can beat the hand you represent (that is, you are up against quads, so there's nothing more for you to draw for). In my opinion, you shouldn't give your opponents the chance to outdraw your vulnerable aces for free. If they hold J-10-9-X, they are going to have a hard time calling your bet (remember, they are drawing to a hand that might lose even if they make it), but if you let them make their hands for free, it might be impossible to get them out on the river, no matter how much you bet. What's more, you will face the headache of someone betting into you on the river, which, for all you know, might very well be a bluff; some guys always bet on the river when the flop bettor shuts down on the turn. In my opinion, you should just about always bet small when the board pairs on the turn (say, 20 percent to 40 percent of the pot), whether you have made your hand or not. This way, you send the message to your opponents that you probably have the goods, and it will take a hell of a guy to try to take the pot away from you now (with a bluff-raise) or to draw to a hand that might lose even if he makes it. (If you are up against someone holding an 8, he might stubbornly call you; however, since you can still improve because your opponent isn't full yet, you have actually given yourself a "cheap draw." If you don't improve on the river, you might just check your hand back if you don't think you can make your opponent lay down his hand; if you do improve, you might even be able to make some additional money on the river.)

Situation No. 2:

Playing Pocket Kings in Limit Hold'em

From: Championship Hold'em, practice hand 2, pp. 243-244.

In this book, Cloutier states: "Suppose it's been raised by someone in early position and another player has called the raise. You must reraise with your kings before the flop. You'd hate for one of them to have an A-4 and then see an ace hit the board … now suppose the flop comes A-10-7. The first person to act comes out betting and the next player just calls. It's up to you with one player left to act behind you. Now what do you do? Your kings aren't looking quite as good as they did before the flop, are they? In fact, they're looking a whole lot like a piece of toilet paper! So, you throw them in the muck."

While pocket kings is a very good starting hand, I don't agree that you should always reraise with them in situations like this. If there's an early-position raiser and a cold-caller, you know at least one ace is already accounted for; therefore, you wouldn't mind anyone holding A-4 coming in behind you. That is, if an ace flops, you are done with the hand anyway, whether you are up against two, three, or more opponents. But if you just call (rather than reraise) with your kings and no ace flops, people won't suspect that you're in there with such a good hand, and you might make a lot more money than you would have otherwise. This means that by just calling, you not only add deception to your game, you also might win more when the flop is favorable and lose less when it's not – and isn't that what limit hold'em is all about? Now, I don't recommend that you should never reraise with kings – but when you do, you should do it for another reason than just because you hold a good hand. In limit hold'em, you should always try to maximize your expectation. Two kings is (in my opinion) a hand that sometimes should be played deceptively before the flop in order to make more money later in the hand. It doesn't make much sense to me to three-bet with kings in a three-way pot when just a single ace will force you to let the hand go. Why not just flat-call, let the weak aces that Cloutier mentions call behind you (so that there's more money in the pot to fight for), and wait until after the flop to make your move?

Some Final Words

It is a wonderful thing that there are so many great books out there for people who want to improve their game. Without some of them (especially the ones by Sklansky and Bob Ciaffone), I wouldn't be the player I have become, and I am thankful that so many great players have been willing to share their knowledge with me. You should take the advice of some of these great players and think about it. Always try to figure out why the right play is in fact the right play – and if perhaps an even better play exists. Do not think you know more than the writers of these books: They are proven champions with tons of experience, while you may just be on your way up – but don't think that just because they are great players, they are always right.