The Entanglements of Deceiving

I play limit hold’em with many highly experienced, knowledgeable opponents who are also good hand readers. When they are in my pots, I utilize a lot of strategic deception. But knowing when to be deceptive and when to play your hand straightforwardly is something you need to fine tune to the situation. The expected value (EV) cost of the initial deception, the implied EV of the deception, and your opponents’ mode of thinking are all very important.

Recently, I picked up K-K in early position during a $40-$80 limit hold’em game at the Bellagio and raised to $80 preflop. A quality pro, one who’s aware I often play deceptively against him, especially heads-up, three-bet me. I knew Mr. Quality-Pro held a strong hand to three-bet my upfront raise. Calculating that he believed that I would soft-play a large wired pair, I four-bet, thinking that Mr. Quality-Pro would remove A-A and K-K from my hand range. Since my opponent would expect me to play my current holding deceptively, playing it straightforwardly was a more deceptive play. Mr. Quality-Pro called, and we took the flop heads-up. When the flop produced all low cards, I continuation bet my kings, and Mr. Quality-Pro hit it a lick. I reraised, and he called.

When I fired the turn, he thought for a few moments, not something in his DNA as he is usually a very quick thinking, quality decision-making player. He then called both the turn and the river, disgustedly throwing away his cards when I turned over my kings. I read Mr. Quality-Pro for calling with a weaker pair, one that he likely would have thrown away or played incorporating a cheaper strategy had I played it differently. And importantly, I had advantageous equity on those extra bets, because he only had two wins.

Several days later I was in the $40-$80 again, this time sitting directly behind Mr. Quality-Pro. Two weak players limped early, and Mr. Quality-Pro raised in front of me. I looked down to the A A. In this situation I elected to reraise. Yeah, I could flat call, and Mr. Quality-Pro wouldn’t put me on a big mitt, and would almost certainly fire the flop in front of me allowing me to raise and put any other callers with a marginal holding in a tough position. But other issues existed in how this hand might play. Mr. Quality-Pro would read me for a wider range of hands in this situation and play accordingly, weakening the value of any deception play. There is no point in trying to deceive someone in a situation which they will have difficulty reading it anyway.

Also, the fact there were two limpers was a highly significant factor. If I three-bet, they might fold, giving up the $40 call as dead equity. If they called the three-bets then they were losing EV from calling when I held two aces. With the volume in the current pot, that EV loss from that call was probably less than $40. Additionally, the price the blinds would receive if I flat called was likely to turn many of their potential holdings from negative EV to positive.

The blinds folded, one limper mucked, the other called, and Mr. Quality-Pro tossed in the extra $40. The flop came the 9 9 3, it was checked to me, and I fired. The limper called, and Mr. Quality-Pro mucked without taking one off. I bet again when the dealer turned the 6 and took down the pot. I never discovered what any of my opponents held.

Yeah, I would have liked to have won a bigger pot. Since Mr. Quality-Pro folded the flop, he had to be drawing extremely thin to my hand and unfortunately for me, was astute enough to figure out that likely was the case. And my upfront limper opponent was probably drawing very thin also. But at least I did win the pot. I’ve lost my share with aces and there’s nothing wrong stacking a medium-sized pot. That is, of course, unless you can win a larger pot without assuming any additional negative EV risk.

But in these cases, I think I maximized my expectation. With the kings, the fact that Mr. Quality-Pro expected me to trap him with big hands because it’s a play I use frequently against him because of his high level of aggressiveness, allowed me to play my hand straightforwardly and also made my hand hard for him to read. With the aces, yeah I would have liked Mr. Quality-Pro to continue forward with his hand, but it wasn’t in the cards. And the fact that I didn’t want to give other opponents any unnecessary EV positive calls counterweighed the loss of expectation from him. Additionally, when dealing with talented opponents in multiway pots, you’re generally better off focusing on how to extract the max from the weaker opponents.

These two situations speak to concepts of when to use deception and when to play your hand straightforwardly. Every situation needs to be weighed independently by assessing the value of the EV from any bets gained versus the EV costs of any additional assumption of risks you are taking in order to deceive your opponents. Many players weigh only the bets gained or lost in nominal terms rather than in EV terms and additionally don’t include any assumptions of risk in their analysis.

So, baffle them with bull only when the situation is right. You might not dazzle them with brilliance playing straightforwardly, but poker’s about taking down the money, not impressing them! Even if they’re pretty girls! ♠

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 any information about Real Estate matters-including purchase, sale or mortgage his office number is 702-396-6575 or Roy’s e-mail is [email protected]. His website is www.roycooke.com. You can also find him on Facebook or Twitter @RealRoyCooke.