Poker Essays

Here's a hand I played the other day. It took an interesting turn that I think we can learn a lesson from.

I had king and jack of spades, on the big blind.

Two players limp in from middle position, the small blind calls. I think about raising but decide not to.

The flop is As4sTc. This is a very good flop for me -- nut flush draw and a gutshot nut straight draw.

The small blind is first, and bets. I've decided to play this hand aggressively but there are two players behind me. It's a fairly aggressive table so I just call, hoping for a raise from one of the players behind me. I'm intending to reraise. You usually need about three callers to play a nut flush draw aggressively on the flop. You're about a two-to-one underdog to make your flush by the river and 3-1 odds gives you a little extra to account for those times you make your flush and someone else makes a full-house. With the extra draw from the gut-shot though, it would have been enough for a raise to only have two callers. That's a little marginal, but I like to raise.

My plan fails when both players fold.

The turn card is a nine of hearts, a blank. Now, to my surprise, the small blind checks. He must be on a draw, I think.

I bet. He calls.

The river card is a deuce of diamonds. I miss. The small blind checks. Aha, he missed, too. I bet again. He folds. Dealer pushes me the money.

There is a lesson in the play of this hand. Not from my play, I didn't do anything out of the ordinary, and I probably didn't steal that pot. With my King and Jack for high there is a good chance I had the best hand. The lesson comes from the mistake made by the small blind -- he could have easily won that pot.

Whatever his hand was, I hadn't shown any aggression at all. And, I'm a pretty aggressive player. There was no reason to think I had much of a hand, and in fact my play should have suggested my hand was pretty weak. Why did he check the turn after taking the lead on the flop?

A bet by him on the turn and river would have won the pot for him. His bet on the flop actually made little sense at this table if he did not intend to continue betting when no one showed any aggression. This was a pretty loose table, with very few pots won by a single bet on the flop. It was unusual for the two players behind me to fold. So, his bet on the flop only makes sense if he follows through and continues to bet.

The lesson here is that you should have a reason for acting that's part of a consistent plan for the hand and you should be prepared to change your plan when confronted with new information. Whatever your plan is, it should take into account your opponents. When your opponents don't react as you expected you must reevaluate your plan.

My original plan was to play aggressively. I intended to call and re-raise on the flop, then continue by betting the turn and river no matter what fell. I had expected someone else to raise on the flop. When they didn't, I changed my plans. Once I lost my opportunity to play aggressively on the flop, I decided to just call with my draw and give it up if I missed. When the small blind checked rather than betting as I expected him to, I changed my plans again and played my draw aggressively.

Now, you could argue that I made mistakes in the play of this hand. Maybe I should have raised on the flop, even with players behind me. Maybe I should have taken the free card on the turn and just showed my hand on the river. But, I did take the money.

My opponent however clearly made a mistake. After betting the flop, a bet that was very unlikely to win the pot without followthru, he shifted gears and showed weakness. He changed directions for no reason and it cost him the pot.

Whatever you do, do it for a reason, and keep going until subsequent action suggests you should do something differently.