Peter Costa's 'Small Bet Poker'

by Phil Hellmuth | Published: Mar 17, 2004

The following hand is another written by Peter Costa. Take it away, Peter.

During my early years of playing tournament poker, I decided to experiment with various styles of playing pot-limit hold'em. One of those experiments was slow-playing or underbetting some of my strong hands. This led to many situations in which I made a succession of small bets – even with the nuts. I often showed these hands down, and as a result, I was for the most part given a lot of respect when making a small bet.

This led to many bluffing opportunities in which I needed to make only a small bet in order to steal a pot. Although this style of play occasionally opened the door to a bad beat when I did have a big hand, it did pay many dividends over the long run. One such hand took place in my local casino (the Gala) in Nottingham , England , in 1993.

The tournament was a £200 buy-in (somewhat of a big one in those days) pot-limit hold'em event, with multiple rebuys. From a starting field of around 80 players, I found myself among the last 24, but with a very small stack. With blinds of £800-£800 (in those days, the two blinds were the same), my stack of £5,800 was looking weak.

But, having just posted both blinds, I knew that I had a whole round to pick up some sort of hand, and that I had no need to worry. And, I was right! On the very next hand I was dealt 3-3. What a hand! After failing to get any sort of a playable hand for the previous two hours, this one looked like a monster. And as each player folded to me on the button, my hand grew in strength.

I would simply raise the pot to £3,200 and take the blinds. Both of the blinds had about the same-size stack as mine. I felt sure that if I found either of them with any kind of hand, they would be forced to call. I would then be in a position of needing to get lucky. Thus, I decided to slow-play this "monster," and just raise the minimum. I fully expected to get at least one caller, but this way I could represent a hand without having to commit most of my stack. It also provided me the opportunity to make a steal from the perfect spot, as I was on the button.

The first blind thought about it, but reluctantly mucked his hand. The second blind, a somewhat tight lady player, flat-called. Hmm … I knew she had some sort of hand, but obviously not good enough to reraise me. Oh well, perhaps I could get lucky and flop another 3.

A 3 did not hit, but she checked the flop of K-Q-Q rainbow. I now liked my hand! I had to make a stab at the pot somehow, but what could I bet with just £4,200? Should I bet the pot of £4,000 and hope she had not connected with the flop? Checking was an option, but a very weak one. Having represented something of a hand with my minimum preflop raise, I decided to follow it through with a minimum bet. I was sure that if she did not connect with the flop, she would have no problem mucking her hand.

With a slight hesitation, and to my disappointment, she called my bet of £800. That was it! I was done with the hand! It was now obvious to me that one of her two holecards was a king. Her reluctance to call was based only on the many times she had seen me underbet big hands. But with the size of our stacks being around £4,200, there was no way I could get her to muck. She would reluctantly call. I waited for a 3 to hit the turn. It did not! But, it was a big, beautiful ace.

I know she didn't like that card at all. Her tap on the table to indicate a check came as no surprise to me. All I now had to do was bet the pot and almost all in. I reasoned that she could not call with just a king in her hand; at least not now that the ace had hit the board. I did ponder for a moment that she may have a queen, but I felt certain that she simply would have reraised all in after I had bet on the flop.

Experimentation in poker is a complex thing, but it is complex only to the extent that you disregard the simple and the obvious – like betting all in in this case and simply taking the pot. I became greedy for another £800 of this lady's chips. She would be forced to call and try to river another king. Thus, the £800 was reluctantly thrown from her hand into what was now a nice pot. I was playing the odds and hoped for any card but a king.

A king did not hit the river, but a dangerous jack did. She took another look at her holecards and checked. That was close! With a board of K-Q-Q-A-J, she needed only a 10 for a straight. But her check was assuring; she did not have a straight.

Experimentation concluded! I simply moved all in with the knowledge that she would muck what I thought was K-9. She declared, "I muck," as she picked up her hand to throw it to the dealer. I asked her if her K-9 was suited. She asked how I knew it was K-9, as she threw them faceup on the table. I explained that it was a long story and that I had A-Q for a full house.

And, yes, the K-9 was suited. As for my being on the button, I felt sure that she would have called any pot raise before the flop. That was one of my thoughts during my drive home after winning the tournament that night.

They say that necessity is the mother of invention. In poker, it could well be that invention becomes the necessity. That was another thought I had that night.