|
|
 The Worst Play in Poker
I think I find myself making this play too often.
http://www.allinmagazine.com/article...&idMagazine=29
There’s a play that I occasionally see at the poker table that is so horrible it’s hard to comprehend. I’ve even seen it made by some very highly regarded players, too. The play is to bet a medium-weak hand on the river.
Why is this play so bad?
There are basically only two reasons to bet on the river. First, you’re betting for value—where you expect to win even when you get called. The only other reason to bet is as a bluff, hoping your opponent will fold the winning hand. Your strongest hands work as value bets, and your weakest hands can be used as bluffs. The problem with betting these medium-weak hands is that your opponent will only fold hands that are worse than yours—and if you get called you are almost certainly beaten. So why bet?
I was playing Hold'em recently (it was the limit event at this year’s WSOP) and a heads-up hand got down to the river with very little action. My opponent bet and all I had was AK with a board of something like Jc 9d 2s 9s 8c. I obviously couldn't beat any of my opponent's legitimate value-betting hands. However, I decided to call as a defensive measure against being run over. I remember thinking that my hand was the absolute worst hand I could justify calling with, and there were plenty of worse hands that I would have folded. I was happily shocked when my opponent turned over AQ.
What was he thinking? Was he betting for value? Certainly not. He can't possibly expect me to call with enough hands worse than his to justify a value bet. So it must be a bluff. But in this case there weren't any winning hands that I was going to fold—so the bluff couldn't possibly work. In fact, all my calling hands beat him, and any hand I would fold to his bet he could beat risk-free by checking. Clearly, my opponent wasn't thinking.
Before you make any play, you should always ask yourself, "What am I trying to accomplish here?" In the case of betting on the river, you are either hoping for your opponent to call with a worse hand or fold a better hand. You just can't have it both ways. In the above example, my opponent's bet had no chance of accomplishing either of these goals—thus nothing could possibly be gained. Furthermore, betting out only stands to lose a bet whenever I have any kind of a decent hand, whether I raise or just call.
So what should you do with medium-weak hands?
Obviously if you're acting second, just check and hope your hand is good. But if you're acting first, barring a check-raise bluff, you have two options: either check-and-call, or check-and-fold. Checking and calling gives you the chance of inducing your opponent to bluff, thereby winning you more money against his worst hands. You also have the chance of losing less against superior hands when you opponent checks a winning hand behind you. This makes checking and calling a win-win situation versus betting. Checking and folding still may be the best option, but the check-and-call clearly dominates betting in this case.
Perhaps my opponents are acting out of fear when they bet these hands out of position on the river. They fear that if they check, I will bet—forcing them to make a very tough decision between calling with a hand that can only beat a bluff or folding. While it’s true that playing to avoid tough decisions is often a good idea, here they are just giving their chips away, and their play is tantamount of throwing away money for fear of losing it.
This brings up another important point … In theory, you should only bluff with your absolute worst hands. Interestingly, rank beginners often see betting these horrible hands as reckless or dangerous. But the fact is that your worst hands are just as valuable as bluffs as your medium-weak hands. The difference is that medium-weak hands have value as checking hands that the worst hands don't.
As a general rule you should only bluff with hands that have no chance or almost no chance of winning in a showdown. How else are you going to win the pot with these hands except with a bluff? All weak hands lose if they get called, but only for your weakest hands is this risk outweighed by the possibility of getting a better hand to fold. This is why you often see experts turn over the most wretched of cards when they are caught bluffing, or even sometimes when the bluff succeeds. Just think how fun it is to show complete junk after getting someone to lay down a strong hand! This can rile opponents that don't understand the play's accuracy, and even some that do.
I remember one play at the final table of the World Series of Poker's No Limit 2-7 Lowball Draw event some years ago. The player in question raised and was called before the draw from the big blind. His opponent drew one and he stood pat. After the draw, his opponent bet out, this player raised, and his opponent deliberated a long time before finally calling with an audible sigh, showing an 8 low. Our hero slid his hand toward the muck, but the railbirds were so curious to know what he held that they pleaded for him to show. He acquiesced, turning over KKKQQ—a pat full house in lowball!
The railbirds were so impressed by the audacity of the bluff that they burst into spontaneous applause despite the fact that it failed. Was the audience right to be so impressed? No! It is true that he was bluffing with one of his worst hands as this article suggests to do. However, before the draw our player has many hands to choose from for his snowing (pre-draw bluffing) hands. Since he will fold many of his poor hands before the draw he should choose hands to snow with where the play is most likely to succeed.
Holding three Kings and two Queens means that it is unlikely that your opponent has one of those cards, so with this type of hand you should expect the play to fail more often that when you hold just about any other hand! The classic correct hands for trying to snow are low full houses such as 22288 … but that's a lesson for another article.
|
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
