Was Willie Wild or Wise?

In a recent no-limit hold'em game, an interesting hand came up. I'm still not sure what I think of one player's decision. It has intelligence, recklessness, and gamble all wrapped together.

The blinds are $2-$4. Everyone has $300 or more in front of him. One player limps in, then Prudent Paul makes it $20 to go. A couple of players fold, then Aggressive Al makes it $120 to go. It's folded to Wild (or Wise?) Willie on the button, who goes all in for about $300. The blinds fold, the limper folds, and Paul goes into deep thought. After a minute, he decides to fold, and Al quickly calls. Before you read further, what type of hands would you expect each player to have?

Here were the hands: Paul had made it $20 to go with Q-Q. Al made it $120 with the A K. Willie then made it $300 with 10-10. Paul folded his queens, while Al called. In the proverbial coin flip that followed, the board came all rags, and Willie's pocket tens held up to win the $630 pot.

The ensuing table discussion was quite heated. There was some name calling by Paul, who said he thought Willie was a better player than that, and he'd never give him respect again. Meanwhile, Willie defended his play by saying he knew Al had A-K, and he figured that by going all in, he could get heads up and would be a slight favorite to win the pot. He said the hand played out exactly as he had envisioned it would, and he thought Paul was a good enough player to recognize the intelligence of his play.

Wow! So, who is right? On the one hand, it's understandable how Willie could put Al on A-K. Al's reraise was a little too steep for one to think he had aces or kings. With either of those hands, he would probably reraise to only $60 or so, and not try to completely shut out players who might have second-best hands that would give him action. His raise to $120 is a clear attempt to end the hand right then and there. A-K is the typical hand with which to make a power raise such as the one he made. So, at the very least, I am willing to give Willie credit for reading Al correctly.

On the other hand, let's simplify what took place. Willie committed his whole stack with pocket tens against two opponents who both showed strength, rather than simply avoid getting involved in the hand at all. It's tough to consider that a strong no-limit play. It's safe to assume that someone is going to call his all-in bet every time. Either Paul will call, or, if it gets folded to Al, he'll call since he's almost halfway in already. That means that getting both of his opponents to fold – one of the benefits of making an all-in move preflop – is not a consideration. Instead, he has to produce the winning hand in a showdown, and in his best-case scenario, he will be up against two overcards. That makes him slightly better than 50-50 to win the hand, and with the dead money from Paul in the pot, he's getting good odds on his investment. But in his worst-case scenario, he'll run into the overpair, and that makes him roughly a 4-1 dog for his entire stack.

All things considered, I don't like this play. However, if I were in a tournament, I'd feel a lot better about it, because in a tournament it's necessary to accumulate chips. Successful tournament play is all about taking calculated risks, and that's exactly what this is. In fact, I once made a similar play with a much worse hand (pocket fives) at the final table of a major tournament. I was the low man in chips, and when I saw one player raise preflop and another make an oversized reraise, it seemed easy to put the second player on A-K. I was pretty sure the original raiser had me beat (he later said he had pocket sevens), but I thought an all-in call would shut him out and get me heads up with the A-K. That is exactly what happened, but I was not as fortunate as Willie, since the board brought both an ace and a king to eliminate me.

I think I made the right play for the situation I was in, but at the same time I know the long-term percentage for it was not there. It was like taking a three-point shot from the half-court line. And I think that's even more true in the live-game situation I described. Willie doesn't have to win the hand in order for his play to be deemed successful. If he gets heads up against overcards, that in itself is a success. But two things have to go just right:

1. He must not be up against aces or kings (Paul is a tight player, but said he would have called if he held kings instead of queens).

2. He has to hope that a player with queens or jacks will give his reraise enough respect to fold.

So, would I personally make that play in a live no-limit game? No, I would not. But would I condemn someone else for doing it? No, I wouldn't do that, either. As a famous bridge player once said to his partner, "I'll never get mad at you for making a certain play as long as you can tell me why you made the play that you did. If you made the play for no good reason, that's when I'll get mad." Willie was able to defend his rationale for playing his hand the way that he did, and that's good enough for me.

And since the hand worked out perfectly for Willie, I'm sure it's good enough for him, too.