GT-NO: Two Controversial Preflop Slowplays In One Hand

Those of you who have read, or read about, our new book, are probably aware of the controversy surrounding the way I played pocket kings and the fact that I recommended that readers sometimes play that hand the way I did. Namely, limp with it after others have limped, in the hopes of someone in later position putting in a raise.

I am not going to discuss the pros and cons of making this play in various types of games, (seriously, it’s in the book!) However, I coincidently got the chance to witness one of my students take the concept to the next level. So, I thought I would tell you about it.

It was a $3-$5 game at the Venetian and a rather aggressive player had put up a $10 straddle on the button. Four or five people limped, the straddle was skipped over, and the small blind called.

My student, Rubin, had about $550 in front of him in the big blind, and looked down at pocket kings. He decided to just call!

Now it went back to the button who could either check or raise. He made it $30. It’s twenty more to everyone starting with the small blind, who called.

Again, Rubin just called!

Now the first limper, instead of calling twenty made it $120. The straddler called the $90 and NOW Rubin moved in.

His opponents thought about it for a bit, but they both ended up calling the shove. The UTG player had pocket jacks and the button had A-5 suited. Rubin profited over $1,100 with a hand that, if played normally, would have almost certainly won much less.

But did he play it right? Almost certainly GTO players would say no.

They would have raised the first time when it was five to them. Non-GTO players might have just called knowing that the button straddler would raise fairly often, but even then, they would have probably three-bet once it got around to them again.

Instead, Rubin realized that there was not only a decent chance that the straddler would raise, but also a decent chance that at least one of the original limpers was slowplaying a big hand that he thought would have a good chance to reraise with given the aggressiveness of the straddler.

Rubin turned out to be right on both counts. Plus, he realized that both these players were the type who would feel pot committed and would not leave $120 of their money on the table but would rather spend another $430 to try to punish this “old school” type player who thought out of the box, rather than inside of a “solver.” (Admittedly given the way the cards lay the A-5 had a slightly positive EV call but only because he wasn’t against another ace. The J-J call was simply bad against almost all opponents).

Of course, the way this hand played out doesn’t mean that it was played correctly. Whether it was depends on how likely the straddler will raise, how likely one of the limpers is slowplaying, and how likely the opponents will call the all in move with a hand they shouldn’t. However, it should be obvious that you don’t need these things to be THAT likely for it to be right to make this far-outside-the-box play. 

And those who almost always play the way their computer tells them to will probably never even contemplate doing something like that. ♠

David Sklansky is the author of The Theory of Poker, as well as nearly two dozen other guides on gambling, poker, and other games. The three-time WSOP bracelet winner’s latest book, Small Stakes No-Limit Hold’em: Help Them Give You Their Money, is now available on Amazon. You can contact Sklansky at [email protected].