It's a Kilt, Not a Skirt!

"Don't lift your skirt up too high," the smart aleck snickered. He clucked disapprovingly as he stared at my three sevens and turned his two kings faceup into the muck. Upset by his losing the fair-sized pot, he made the comment to challenge my machismo, as if to say that not only did he hold a superior starting hand, but he was also a better man than I. He thought I had played my hand too conservatively and too weakly, and therefore should be scorned. It made me feel all warm and fuzzy to know that somebody so clueless would be sure to throw some more chips my way.

First, this guy obviously missed the train into the third millennium, where that kind of sexist garbage just doesn't fly. Second, he didn't have the sense to know that I can find an abundance of women players who would kick his tail to kingdom come at the poker table. Most importantly, though, who's more macho has nothing to do with winning at poker.

Those who make the game a testosterone-driven mano a mano challenge are just setting themselves up to be taken down by the wily and willful. You can out-macho me at the table any day, buster – just give me the edge and expectation. And I had played my hand in a manner that would maximize my edge!

I was in the small blind in a $30-$60 hold'em game. Several players called, the smart aleck raised, and was reraised by a tourist on the button. Holding two sevens, I called the $70. I am not crazy about calling three bets cold with pairs that are not likely to be the best hand. But, as the small blind, I got a two-chip discount, the volume required to make the call a correct play was there because five opponents were already in the pot, and the quality and texture of play in the game was such that if I flopped a set, I was likely to win a big pot. I didn't like being the first to act on all subsequent betting rounds, but if I hit the hand, there would be some serious potential.

The big blind folded, all of the limpers called the two extra bets, and the original raiser made it four bets. Everyone called. The flop came 8-7-3 with two spades.

I think people tend to underplay sets on early streets in large fields, especially when confronted with perilous boards such as this one, which presented many draws. I led into the field, hoping the four-bettor held an overpair and that I could trap draws in between us for three bets, and maybe more. Two players called, the preflop four-bettor raised, the button called the raise cold, and I three-bet. All five of us took it to the turn for the three bets. I was pretty sure the smart aleck, who had been the preflop four-bettor, held an overpair.

The turn brought the 2. They don't make cards much safer than that. Once again, I led into the field, and everyone called me. The Q hit on the river, and I fired $60 forward. The two players in between the overpair and me folded, the fellow I thought had an overpair called, and then, much to my surprise, the tourist on the button raised.

I went into the "Roy Huddle," trying to figure out what he might have. He'd shown strength preflop by three-betting a player who had raised two limpers. He did not possess good poker knowledge, but he seemed like a bright enough guy. He tried to play well, but didn't understand odds and concepts, or have a good feel for the game. When he three-bet preflop, I was certain he held a strong hand, one worthy of three-betting. But he didn't cap off preflop, and didn't put in a raise on the flop or turn. In earlier hands, he had shown a tendency to overvalue hands a bit, and had not been timid about raising if he thought the situation warranted it. As he called down the action through the flop and turn, I suspected he was drawing to overcards, most likely A-K. But then he raised the river when the queen hit!

When he raised the river, there were several possibilities. He might have made a big hand early and been slow-playing it. The only hand remotely possible for that was three eights. But I suspected he'd have made a play on the pot before the river if he held that mitt. He might be bluff-raising and trying to buy the pot. That play might have some value against one player for a pot this size, but not two opponents, particularly if both had shown as much strength as his opponents had. Despite the tourist's relative inexperience, I suspected he knew that. I didn't think he would bluff-raise in this spot.

The most obvious possibility was that the queen hit his hand. Did he hold an overpair and make a set with the queen? Or, did he hold A-Q and hit a queen on the river? I thought both situations were plausible, so I thought about what he might have thought. He might have put the preflop four-bettor on A-A or K-K, and for that reason not raised the flop with Q-Q, or he might have called two flop bets to draw to overcards. I had seen him draw to overcards all night long. That was my best "read" at the point of decision: A-Q, in which case I had him, or Q-Q, in which case he held the nuts.

If he would play both hands the same way, I was 12-3 to have the best hand. Twelve combinations of A-Q were available and three of Q-Q. But there was more to the equation than that. Were both scenarios equally likely? Would he three-bet with A-Q on the button and would he raise if he hit one pair on the river? I was unsure. That is part of what makes the game of poker so interesting: We must make judgments based on incomplete data.

So, what was my best play? If I raised and got reraised, I could almost surely put him on three queens and dump my hand, so I was not laying 2-1 on the raise, as is often the case when you raise a player and must pay him off if reraised. Was he more than twice as likely to hold A-Q, giving him top pair and top kicker, than three queens? Intuitively, I thought so, and I like to pull the trigger on my intuitions when I am playing poker. But in this situation, another variable was factored in: the third player behind me yet to act.

Would he call the raise? If the player behind me would call the raise and fold to a reraise, the bets gained if I flat-called and won would be identical. Plus, if I was beat and the button in fact held three queens, I would not be at risk for the third bet. The player behind me was one of those folks who, when he lost a hand, just wanted to show the table how unlucky he was, and that was more important to him than saving a bet. I was pretty confident he'd pay off one bet with a bad hand, but not two bets.

Although I thought I was a significant favorite to hold the best hand, I chose to flat-call, believing it was the better play. The player behind me called the raise, the button turned over the A Q, and I flipped over my set. And the smart aleck showed his kings and commented on my skirt.

Several concepts came into play through the course of this hand. The fellow with the two kings needs to learn to base his poker decisions on the prevailing facts, not on his emotions at the time. Also, when deciding upon the best play, you need to incorporate all potential scenarios into the equation. Overcalling can often gain you more equity in the pot than reraising, particularly if there is some question that you have the best hand and may lose another bet after the reraise. Factors that go into determining if the overcall play is correct are the likelihood of your hand being good, the likelihood of your losing more bets if your hand is not good, the likelihood of an opponent(s) behind you calling or raising, the likelihood of the initial bettor reraising with an inferior hand to yours, and any future effects the play will have on your opponents.

Oh, here's one last thing: That ain't a skirt, it's a kilt. And let me show you what William Wallace in Braveheart showed the English army: Don't you be messing with a man you think is wearing a skirt. You may be surprised.

Roy Cooke played winning professional poker for more than 16 years. He is a successful real estate broker/salesperson in Las Vegas. If you would like to ask Roy poker-related questions, you may do so online at www.UnitedPokerForum.com.