A Very Instructive Hand

Overly pessimistic thinking

Most of the time, a new student of mine will err on both sides of correct play, sometimes being too bold and other times too cautious. However, the fellow who gave me this hand to analyze does not fall into that mold. Rather, he has the constant problem of being overly pessimistic. As a result, he wins less money than he should, even though on a given hand he may get a better result than someone who has a rosier outlook. Here is a hand he sent me, with my comments inserted at various points. (Our correspondence is slightly edited for better clarity.)

Student: I was playing in a $1-$2 blinds no-limit hold'em cash game. My stack was about $600. My opponent, Player A, had $280. I called from the button with 8-5 suited. We saw the flop with five players. The small blind had folded, so there was $13 in the pot. The flop came Q-7-6, with two hearts and one diamond. This gave me an open-end straight draw. Player A bet $15. I called, and the others folded. I intended to fold on the turn if I did not hit the straight and he bet again.

My comment: If a flush card comes and he checks or makes a wimpy-sized bet, you probably should try to take the pot away from him.

Student: The turn was the 9, giving me the second-best straight and putting two flush draws on the table. Player A bet $40. I gave this a lot of thought. My first inclination was to raise all in to end the hand right there. However, it occurred to me that since there was no preflop raise, Player A might have played 10-8. I figured it might be too dangerous to put all of my money in, since I could run into a hand that left me with three outs for a tie, and no wins.

My comment: Your thought process is too pessimistic. You should think like this: "The guy has only $225 left, so I cannot go broke if I am unlucky enough to have run into the nuts. If he was fortunate enough to have turned the nut straight, there is no way for me to detect this, as many other holdings are possible. So, I will play the hand under the assumption that it is good, and use the method that's best-suited to getting all of his money. I need to raise here, both to make him pay a bigger price for drawing and to avoid losing my market at the river."

Student: I figured that since Player A was betting, it was less likely that he was on a flush draw. I figured that he either had a pair of queens or had hit the higher straight. I probably should have thought that he would not have bet on the flop if he had played 10-8, but I did not think of that until the next day.

My comment: This should be another factor in your reasoning. The chances of your opponent having the nuts are cut in half if the chances of him checking the nuts was only 50 percent. Some players habitually put on a broken-wing act whenever they make the nuts, so being up against one of those characters would make you feel very comfortable here.

Student: At the time, I did not consider that he might have made a set. I decided to just call the $40 bet. My logic was that even though I was allowing the flush draws, he probably was not drawing, and if he had the better straight, he would slow down on the river bet, and I would call.

My comment: Just calling was a horrible decision, even though it likely saved you money.

Student: The river was the Q, pairing the board. This didn't seem that significant to me at the time. Player A thought for a long time and bet $50. I figured that he was either value-betting three queens or had the better straight. I called the $50. My opponent showed me pocket sevens for a full house. Should I have raised on the turn? Would you agree that if I had raised, it should have been for all of Player A's stack?

My comment: You let him draw without charging him. I would have raised all in. If you are using proper analysis, and did not know the river card, you will see that the all-in raise is clearly the right play. If your opponent is drawing to beat you, as he would be with a set or a flush draw, the all-in wager will either lock up the loot or make him commit all of his money when you are a substantial favorite to win the pot. Furthermore, you relieve yourself of a guess on the end, and deprive him of the extra equity of being able to bet if he hits his hand.

Student: Raising would have priced Player A out of the full-house draw, but I am pretty sure that he would have called, and I would have lost more money. But I would have made the mathematically correct move.

My comment: Yes, it is most unlikely that he would fold a set, since, for all he knows, you might have two pair or a big draw. So, you would have been doubled through on this hand. However, you should never judge the correctness of your play by what comes, but by the respective chances at the point when all of the money goes in.

Student: If my goal was to end the hand with my all-in turn raise, what do you think of the idea of turning over my cards when I made the raise heads up? The cardroom we were in allows people to do this. If he had the 10-8 straight, he was calling anyway; otherwise, he would see that he was drawing for the wrong price.

My comment: Yuck. If he is getting the wrong price, as he is here, you want him to call. And showing your hand would cost you a lot of equity if he was going to call with two pair. You can't play poker (or any other gambling game) with the attitude that you will not gamble if there is a way to lock up a small profit, even when you would have the best of it by gambling for a greater amount.

You can see from this hand and my student's comments that he has a problem with overly pessimistic thinking, which inhibits him from maximizing his results when he has a good hand (but not the nuts). What about you? Do you have enough heart for no-limit play?