The Pre-emptive Strike: Getting There First

In poker, as in many other fields of endeavor, it is usually strategically best to act last. In contract bridge, you "end play" your opponent when your two remaining cards are A-Q and you throw in your opponent (give him the lead), thus forcing him to lead away from his K-J. In blackjack, the dealer acts last and collects from all players who bust before he does. In camel trading, a merchant would strongly prefer to have a prospective customer make the first offer, since if he posted an "asking price," it might be below the offer that the customer would make.

Most of us appreciate the strong positional advantage that the "button" has in hold'em by acting last throughout a hand (opponents act first and commit first). But there are some situations even in hold'em in which it is actually an advantage to "get there first."

I recently played in a no-limit hold'em tournament in which the 10 players at my table each started with $800 in chips, and I now had a little more than $1,200 in chips. On my $50 big blind, I picked up the A 7. A very aggressive player acting next to last made it $125 to go. I called and the subsequent action was heads-up (note that A-X suited is a better hand in no-limit than limit).

The flop came A-Q-3 offsuit. I chose to check, and he bet $225 – about what I expected. He had been quite lucky during the previous two rounds and was now the chip leader with more than $2,000. But since he had been routinely raising before the flop with hands such as soft aces and Q-J offsuit, I might well have him beat. What would you do in this position?

Since I knew he would bet the flop with almost any hand, and I thought it was quite likely my aces were the best hand, I did not want to fold. Looking ahead, if I called his $225, he might well bet a larger amount on the turn, which I would also be very tempted to call. Was I really willing to bet the ranch on this hand? Maybe. One test I often use is, would I rather wait and see another card first? The answer here was no! Another card was more likely to help him than me.

Against a tight player who would be more likely to have a big ace (an ace with a big kicker) in this situation, I would usually fold and wait for greener pastures. But based upon this player's recent actions, my judgment was that I was more than 75 percent likely to have him beat. But, of course, that was purely a seat-of-the-pants guesstimate and could easily be wrong.

If I had a very good hand, such as a set, I would probably try to maximize my winnings by simply calling and stringing him along, and then perhaps raise his next bet. But I was not that impressed with the durability of my hand. Even if I was ahead after this flop, there was probably about a 25 percent possibility that he would outdraw me.

In situations in which it is quite likely that you would call an all-in bet, it is very important to realize up front that you can improve your overall chances of winning by joining the "move-in specialists" club and getting all of your chips in first! If it turns out that your opponent has a big hand, you were probably going to call and lose anyway (you are unlikely to fold to his bet on the turn because he might well be steamrolling).

But whenever your opponent has merely a mediocre hand or worse, your pre-emptive strike creates a big problem for him. It is right to put your opponent in a position in which whatever he does could be wrong. In this particular hand, not only might my opponent fold a hand that might improve and beat me, but he also might fold a hand that already has me beat (for example, he might fold an ace with a slightly higher kicker than mine). In general, the player who goes all in first (gets there first) wins whenever he has the best hand and when the other player folds the best hand. That is a significant edge.

The key factor here is that once I decide I would probably go all the way with this hand, it seems right to improve my chances of winning by pre-empting the small-time sparring by pushing in my stack (raising him $875). If he does not have a great hand, it becomes his problem – instead of my problem.

But note that all of this is actually a conservative or "middle-of-the-road" stance, since I am essentially trading off the additional money I might have won at showdown for the better chance of winning early. Although you always like to win as many chips as possible, in tournament play you often choose the action that's most likely to win the pot quickly, rather than risk losing to gain a few more chips – especially when you have a marginal hand.

On this particular hand (not that the result necessarily proves anything), unfortunately, my opponent just happened to hold A-J. And after some agonizing thought, he decided to call. He probably would have folded with a smaller kicker. He had me out-kicked at that point, but fortunately the next boardcard was another 3, so we ended up splitting the pot with aces and threes, queen kicker. In no-limit, when two mediocre hands face each other, the player who makes the first big bet has a substantial edge.