Poker Articles

Having trouble with poker terminology? Open a new window and follow along with our poker glossary.

Ace Speaks - Playing the blinds part 2:
Top pair / weak kicker against a possible steal raiser
by Rolf Slotboom

In part I of this series, I discussed the play of top pair / no kicker in a four-way pot, having defended with K2s against an early position raise. Today's hand may seem quite alike (because once again you flop top pair with your king, and once again you are the first to speak), but there are a lot more differences than may seem obvious at first glance. Because situational factors are not the same as in last week's hand, the recommended play is different as well.

The situation.

This time, you are in the big blind, holding king-nine offsuit in a full ring game. Everybody folds to the button, who raises. The small blind folds, and it's up to you. What do you do?

You have played with the button player lots of times, and know he doesn't need to have premium values in this spot. You know he's an aggressive player who likes to play his position, and who thinks that because you fold before the flop so often you may well be an "easy blind". You decide to defend (rather than fold or re-raise), keeping in mind you might even hold the best hand at the moment. This means you are not automatically willing to surrender your hand after the flop, even when you receive little to no help.

Once again, the flop comes KT7 rainbow. So, you have flopped top pair with a relatively weak kicker. Even though the raiser might have you beat (because hands like KQ or KJ would be common raising hands in this spot), in a heads up situation like this you will not automatically give the raiser credit for having top pair with a bigger kicker- in fact, you will probably assume that you hold the boss hand. However, this does not mean you should automatically take the lead to defend your hand. Since a pair of kings is not that easily overtaken in a heads-up situation, there's nothing wrong with letting your opponent do the betting for you- especially with the pot being so small. When you check, he will bet close to 100% of the time- whether he holds a great hand like KK, a good hand like KQ, a drawing hand like J9, a marginal hand like Q7, or a horrible hand like 54. In fact, he is much more likely to be bluffing or semi-bluffing than to be betting a decent or even good hand. Checking is therefore clearly better than betting out or even check-raising, because you would not give your opponent enough room to bluff off his money. So, checking and calling would seem like the natural course of action on the flop. And because you have not shown any strength yet other than responding to his bets by only calling, he will almost certainly bet the turn, whether he is bluffing, semi-bluffing, or simply betting the best hand. While it may seem right for you to pull the trigger on the turn and check-raise (because you are quite likely to be holding the best hand), I think that check-calling once again might be the superior play- but only if you are willing to bet into your opponent on the river. If, say, an offsuit four comes on the river which looks like a total blank to your opponent, and you suddenly come out betting (make sure this is a hesitant bet!), you will have your opponent totally confused. He will probably think you were drawing and have now missed -for instance, you've got the 98 and are now on a stone-cold bluff-, but you may also have been bagging a monster, like a flopped set. Because you make it seem like an either / or situation (you either have a monster, or are bluffing), your opponent will probably react to your bet as follows:

• With a relatively weak holding like ace high or a pair lower than kings, he will probably call you, because you might very well be bluffing. Had you check-raised him on the turn, he would probably have folded, so you now get an extra bet out of him (which is very meaningful, with the pot still relatively small).
• With a hand like AK or KQ, he doesn't like you betting into him, although he probably thinks his hand is still best. So, your bet can never make him fold, but he will probably not raise either, fearing you either have a very strong holding (in which case you will reraise), or are bluffing (in which case you will fold and he makes no extra money).
• With a busted hand himself, or even a total bluff, your hesitant bet might have convinced him you are now bluffing yourself. This is especially likely when taking into account the board, and your sudden, highly suspicious, bet on the end. Your opponent might be tempted to go for the bluff-raise on the end, because with this strange betting of yours he might get away with a re-bluff, to make you lay down your higher "nothing".

By check-raising on the turn, even though you will often win the pot there and then, your opponent will probably figure you for exactly the type of hand you have: top pair. This means he is likely to make the right decisions at this stage: laying down any hand lower than that, including his bluffs, and re-raising with all other hands. But you may now be forced to pay him off (after all, he is a highly aggressive player, and he might still be playing his position, or continuing a semi-bluff), meaning you will lose a lot more money than would seem natural with this type of holding. If you play your hand in the unusual manner I recommend, he is less likely to make the right decisions against you. Plus, you will often gain an extra bet (when he pays you off on the end with a relatively weak holding), and sometimes even two (when he falls for your trap, and goes for the bluff-raise on the river). What's more: not only are you maximizing your wins rather well, just as importantly you will also minimize your losses in case your hand is not good. Say your opponent holds a king with a better kicker, by check-raising the turn you might have lost four bets (by paying off your opponent's re-raise and also his bet on the end), while if you get lucky you might lose only two bets now.

Some final words

While it is important not to go for the fancy play too often, there's nothing wrong with making an unusual play once in a while. Especially in situations like this (a small pot, where your hand, if good, is likely to stay good, but if second-best, is likely to end second-best), there's nothing wrong with playing your hand in the manner described here. A few words of caution though:

• Don't get carried away with checking and calling, as it is almost always a very weak play. I know almost no people who check-call on a regular basis, and still beat the games.
• Even though late-position players often bet or raise on light values, you should not automatically assume that a late-position raiser holds nothing. If you take any pair to the river in this type of situation, regardless of player characteristics, betting patterns and / or the texture of the board, you will be standing on the rail sooner than you can imagine.
• When making decisions, you should always take into account your opponent's playing knowledge and experience, his level of aggressiveness and his evaluation of your play. These factors are very important when putting a play on someone, because you will have more information available on how your opponent will react to a bet or raise by you.

Now, if you take all these words of caution to heart, you might be able to get away with an unusual but effective play every once in a while, which in turn may add a little to your hourly rate, and to your overall results.

Some final words

In the third part of this series, I will discuss the play of yet another marginal blind hand, the 65 suited, and how to play this hand in various situations, against various flops. In the meantime, I hope you will get lots of aces- and win with them.