Poker Articles

Two Fallacies
By Michael Wiesenberg

Never Leave a Good Game

Some writers have stated that if you're in a good game, you should never leave, assuming, of course, that some other factor doesn't prevent you from playing your best, such as being so tired or sick that you make so many mistakes you can't win. That may be true much of the time, but it can be a fallacy sometimes.

You're playing hold 'em with eight drunks. Most of them are in every pot, since their definition of playable hand is two cards. Your criteria, of course, differ, depending on position, number of players in the pot, and so on. Most pots are capped before the flop, which usually drops no one. If any player catches even the remotest part of the flop, he's usually in till the bitter end, including the chance for runner-runner straight or flush. Bottom pair is gold in their hands. The betting on the flop and next two rounds is also usually spirited. Big pots are won by one or two pair. If someone has that bottom pair, he can be counted to pay off on the end against an obviously better hand.

What a wonderful game, you think. You lose 12 bets in one pot when your flopped set gets beat by a runner-runner double inside straight. You lose another 12 in a pot when your pocket aces get beat on the river by someone who flopped a deuce to his off-suited 7-2 and spikes a 7 on the river.

Every pot you play to the end -- and you make sure only to play those hands with high expected value -- you get second-bested like that. Those where you start with the best, nothing flops for you, and you have to give up early. Clearly the decision was right, because someone makes something every pot.

Lots of action, but you can't make any hands, or the ones you do make get beat on the river.

Should you keep playing? Not if you keep losing, you shouldn't. Sometimes you just can't win in a particular game. You may be playing your best, but are just not lucky, or maybe someone is cheating you.

Whatever the reason, if you can't do anything right, if you just can't win in a particular game, it's a fallacy to think you should stay. If you're losing, despite being in what seems to be a good game, maybe you should temporarily revise your definition of a good game.

Always Leave a Bad Game

It's a fallacy to think that you should always leave a bad poker game. Here's an illustration.

You're playing limit lowball with seven "hard-rocks." They don't ever get into a pot unless they have a pat 8 or better. When you have a good hand and open, all you win is the blinds, because no one else stays. Several of these "beauties" consider a rough 6 just a calling hand after the draw.

When you miss your hand, they don't call your bluff. (Of course, you bluff every chance you get -- don't you?)

What a terrible game, you think. But then you win 14 bets from the two tightest players at the table because your pat bicycle beats their pat 6-4 and 6-5 respectively. The one with the 6-4 "cries" with every chip he puts in the pot, and, after it's over, says, "I knew I shouldn't've reraised. I knew you had a wheel." Yeah, maybe he did "know," but he did raise and then have to call your final raise, and you won his money.

Hand after hand you either make what you're drawing to and beat one of those "conservatives," or you miss and no one calls your bluff. Should you quit? Not if you keep winning, you shouldn't. Sometimes you just can't lose in a particular game. You may not even be playing your best, but are just lucky.

Whatever the reason, if you can't do anything wrong, if you just can't lose in a particular game, it's a fallacy to think you should quit. If you're winning, despite being in what seems to be a bad game, maybe you should temporarily revise your definition of a bad game.