In this series of Thinking About Poker we focused on determining the betting patterns of our opponents and how to employ some basic counter-measures to turn their behavior to our own gain. Questions we need to consider about the players we face are: How aggressive is he? How often does he raise pre-flop? How often does he employ a post-flop continuation bet? How does he play his big hands? Answering these questions about the opposition thereby affords the thinking player an edge over the straight, unimaginative “A-B-C” style player. But there is one last question we need to consider in wrapping up the discussion about betting patterns:
How often does the player bluff at the end when he has missed his draw?
Now your player reading skills must be finely honed to accurately ascertain the answer to this question. Many times a player who has raised pre-flop and fired several more bets into the pot has nothing more than two large face cards (A-K immediately comes to mind). If those kinds of holdings are not supported by the texture of the flop, turn and river, the player doing the lead-betting will think, “The only way I can win this pot is by betting/bluffing at it.” So they fire a bet, usually a large to absurd amount, after the river card has hit the felt. A thinking, aware player who has been observing his opponents – even when not involved in the hand – will note the prior results of this style of play and remember that fact when it comes his time to go up against the player who operates in this manner.
Recall one of Mike Caro’s dicta on poker: “Weak means strong and strong means weak.” What Mike is referring to is the tendency of players to slow-play a monster and represents – by show of strength in bet amount, delivery style and/or body language – a strong hand when it’s really a weak one. If you, as an astute observer of player styles and tendencies, have seen the player consistently attempt this, then your resolve to call a large river bet by this player will be rewarded when the dealer shoves the pot your way. The villain will soon be on the rail, wondering why you always seem to be the one cracking his A-K with a measly middle pair.
I can present an example of this from my own experience: I was in a tournament at the Commerce Club in Los Angeles a few years back and was seated at a table where one player made himself the focus of everyone’s attention by his aggressive demeanor, loud talk and swaggering attitude. I noticed that every time he had A-K or A-Q he would bet about one-third of his stack before the flop. Occasionally someone would call his wager and I’d get to see his hand at the showdown. The time came to break the table and we went our separate ways; later, when down to eight tables and being in-the-money was close at hand, he was moved to my table and continued his tactics there. Then came the hand that paid off my observational skills from earlier.
He was first to act and made a raise for about one-third of his stack. I looked down at pocket 3’s (yes…pocket 3’s!) and, knowing what he had, decided to call to see how the flop developed. On the flop were rags, unsuited and non-connected, not a face card among them. He made another wager of approximately the same amount as his pre-flop raise and I decided to go all-in. He just about beat me into the pot with the rest of his chips and proudly turned over A-K offsuit. I showed my pocket three’s and he began laughing…which quickly stuck in his throat as the turn and river brought him no help and I scooped a HUGE pot. Two hands later he went all-in for what little he had left and hit the rail, still muttering – loudly I might add – about how his “great hand” was cracked by some jerk with pocket 3’s. Little did he know that his defeat was insured early on when his standard tactic was understood by an observant opponent and then used against him. By the way, winning that pot gave me the chips and momentum to place second in that tourney and pocket a cool $35,000.
As you consider the five questions addressed in this series you will understand how they all fit together when learning to read opponents. When I sit at the poker table, I first try to determine how they play in each area and if they do, or do not, vary their style of play. Are they flexible and cagy or have they fallen into predictable patterns? I also remain aware of my own style, strategy and tactics to make sure I do not fall into the same trap. It might have been the great Doyle Brunson who once said: “Vary your play; give nothing away.” Someone who thinks about poker will hear this and use it as their “Prime Directive.”
