Justified Caution or Scared Poker?

When players review the way they played a hand, the central issue is often their level of aggressiveness. Many poker mistakes fall into two categories: playing too passively or too aggressively. If I had to choose between the two, I would usually hope to err on the side of aggressiveness. Passive poker is generally losing poker, and you cannot constantly live in fear that an opponent has you beat. However, there is nothing wrong with being cautious in certain scenarios. Perhaps the texture of the board or an opponent's betting pattern suggests that he has the best hand. The following hand came up recently in a $15-$30 hold'em game. Was I being rationally prudent, or did I become too timid for no good reason? You can decide for yourself.

A very loose-passive player called from under the gun (UTG). An aggressive player to his left raised, which was not surprising, since he had frequently tried to isolate the UTG player preflop. Everyone passed to me on the button, and I looked down at the K J. Usually I would fold this hand for two bets. However, since the raiser was so aggressive, I knew he did not necessarily have a premium hand. In fact, he had shown down several subpar raising hands already. That pattern, combined with the fact that I was on the button, convinced me to call. The blinds and the limper also called, so we had five-way action.

The flop came A A 6. I missed completely. However, the action got checked around to me. In my young and foolish days (that is, my early 20s), I might have taken a poke at the pot here – but not anymore. I took the free card, meanwhile considering the strong possibility that someone was slow-playing an ace. The turn card was the K. To my surprise, the action again was checked around to me. I had top two pair with a decent kicker. So, now the question is, would you bet in this spot? Why or why not?

I don't think the answer is as simple as it first seems. There are many things to consider. Let's first look at some of the reasons to bet:

1. There's a good chance that you have the best hand, and naturally you want to bet the best hand. Not many made hands worse than yours will give you action, but someone with a K-10 type of hand might pay you off. There's also the possibility that someone will play "table sheriff," and call with a marginal holding just to keep you honest. But other than those situations, the only players who can be expected to call with hands you can beat are those on a draw. This leads to reason No. 2.

2. You want to make drawing hands pay to catch. There are two flush draws out there, and someone with either one would welcome a free card. The same goes for anyone holding Q-J, Q-10, or J-10. These gutshot-straight draws are all likely hands for an opponent to be holding. Any one of them would be getting the wrong price to call a big bet, but they all would be more than happy to get a free shot at making their hand.

3. You can tell if you have the best hand from your opponents' response to a bet. I personally do not agree with this strategy, but enough people do it that I have to give it consideration. The idea is that if no one raises you, your K-J is probably good. If you get check-raised, you can give that person credit for trip aces and lay your hand down.

There also are several reasons to check:

1. It is very suspicious that the preflop raiser checked twice. He had been playing very aggressively up to that point, so there was almost more reason to fear his checking than betting. His opponents had not shown any strength on the flop or the turn, so it would have made sense for him to take the initiative. Especially since he was the last aggressor, he basically had the "right of way" to try to win the pot on the turn, and I found it very dubious that he did not use it.

2. It is not at all unusual for a player in a midlimit hold'em game to check a big hand twice. This sort of trickiness does not come up often in low-limit games, but many midlimit players are sophisticated enough to make this play. It's not only the preflop raiser I had to be concerned with. Either of the players in the blinds could check an ace twice, expecting the preflop raiser to bet the turn automatically. I'm sure that the action getting checked around twice was as surprising to them as it was to me.

3. If the preflop raiser had bet the turn, I probably would have laid my hand down. Therefore, I don't want to invest money in a hand that I was prepared to give up, just because he unexpectedly checked. Besides, what will I do if I get check-raised? That leads to reason No. 4, which was the deciding factor for me.

4. Betting to see if you have the best hand (reason No. 3 to bet) is extremely problematic. The fact that you are on the button (that is, in the "steal" position) makes your bet look very suspicious. An opponent could suspect that you are attempting a steal and check-raise you with nothing, and then you are left with a difficult decision. Does he have you beat or does he merely suspect that you will lay your hand down? Maybe you'll choose correctly, but why put yourself to this decision when all you have to do is check? This is why I hate the strategy of betting "to see where you are at." You're at a poker table. That's all you're going to find out. Straightforward opponents will check-raise you only with the goods. More advanced players are certainly capable of check-raising just to test you, and against such players you haven't gained any information about the strength of your hand. What's worse is that you've spent a bet in the process.

This brings up a point that I've yet to see discussed by poker strategists. They argue that in limit poker, playing a hand too passively is a much costlier mistake than playing it too aggressively, and I agree that is usually the case. An ill-advised aggressive bet can cost you only a single extra bet if you get raised and decide to call. An ill-advised check, on the other hand, can give an opponent with a marginal hand a free card. That opponent would have folded if you had bet, but instead, the free card could give him the winning hand, and now your passivity has cost you the entire pot.

But what happens when you get too aggressive with a marginal hand and an opponent who senses weakness responds by bluff-raising you? If he causes you to lay down the best hand, your aggressiveness has cost you the entire pot! Granted, this doesn't happen every day, but it happens often enough, especially in tricky games, that it should not be ignored. This is the dilemma I faced on the turn, because I thought I could potentially cost myself the entire pot either way.

Back to the action. When everyone checked to me, I remember thinking that I did not want to get check-raised, and I considered it a strong possibility that someone was ready to raise. I went with my gut feeling, which told me to check and take the free card. The river was the innocuous 9. Everyone checked to me again, and I was finally convinced that no one was slow-playing. If someone checked a big hand three times, more power to him. He would get my money. I bet, everyone folded to the preflop raiser who made what was obviously a crying call (perhaps he had a small or medium pocket pair), and my K J was good.

The way it played out, I made the wrong decision in this particular hand. I had the best hand all along, and my failure to bet potentially could have cost me the entire pot if the river card had been different. However, if the same scenario came up again, I could still see playing it either way. Many players have suggested that betting the turn was the preferable play, and I can easily accept their point of view. In retrospect, I probably agree with it. However, I would take issue with someone if they suggested that betting the turn was the only correct play. If I thought there was only one correct way to play this hand, it would not be worth writing about. You don't want to play in fear, but you don't want to be reckless, either. That's usually when you end up getting a rude awakening.