… And there is a time to check behind quads on the river?

Posted by Verstehen

January 15, 2008

I’ve been re-reading Theory of Poker (Thepokerforum review here) and I’m convinced it’s one of the deepest poker books ever written. Sure, the Harrington books are wonderfully comprehensive, the Cloutier books are full of good stories and the Vorhaus books have snappy writing. But passages like this make me re-think how well I understand poker. A very simple, obvious example but quite profound:

When you are in last position, your opponent will have either checked or bet. First, what should you do when your opponent checks? Some might reply that you should bet if you think you have the best hand. But this is not at all the case. Your chances of having the best hand might be as high as 90 percent or better, but still you should not necessarily bet. Take the following hand from seven-card stud:

You:

7c-7d-Jd-Jh-Jc-Js-As

Opponent:

(X)-(X)-7h-8h-Qd-2c-(X)

With four jacks your chances of having the best hand are enormous, but in either first or second position you cannot possibly bet the hand on the end for the simple reason that your bet has absolutely no positive expectation. Since your four jacks are exposed for the world to see, your opponent will fold every hand he can have except four queens or a straight flush in hearts. With either of those hands, he will raise. So your bet has nothing to gain and everything to lose.

This very obvious situation points toward the key distinction between play in the final round of betting and in earlier rounds. With one card to come, you would most certainly bet the four jacks to avoid giving your opponent a free card to outdraw you. Your bet forces him either to fold and thus give up any chance to outdraw you, or to call and pay for that slim chance. However, when all the cards are out, betting to avoid giving a free card no longer applies. So if you now still decide to bet your hand, you no longer ask what your chances are of having the best hand but rather what the chances are of winning the last bet when you are called.

This distinction may seem like hair-splitting, but it is most assuredly not. In fact, it is crucial to successful play - that is, to winning or saving extra bets - when you are heads-up on the end.

(pp. 201-02)

(If you’re not familiar with Stud hand conventions, (X) refers to the down card of your opponent).

Since I just recently posted on the possibility of value betting J3o on the river, I was thinking hard about a scenario where checking behind with quads was the +EV play. But it is, clearly.

As intriguing as the example is, further thought made me realize it’s a situation that can never be replicated in hold ‘em. Sklansky’s example is the only possible poker scenario where hand-reading can be 100% accurate. Your hand is completely exposed, and with only three down cards you can’t have a better hand: the only possibilities are quad queens, quad kings, quad aces, and a straight flush. Also, since it’s stud, there clearly cannot be a split pot since the opponent can’t hold quad jacks.

In hold ‘em, you could find yourself in a situation holding pocket jacks and a board reading:

Jd Th Qh Kh Jh

A straight flush is a distinct possibility, of course. But so are any number of second best hands. You cannot check this hand down; additionally, there is a chance that an opponent would bluff-raise you with the scary board, when he really only has a baby flush or a straight (it would take a maniac to bluff-raise to represent a straight flush, but I’m sure it happens).

Poker is all about imperfect information. Sklansky’s example is the only situation I can think of, aside from accidentally flipping your cards over, where your opponent has perfect information about your hand. The only analogous situation that could arise in hold ‘em like this is a non-decision. If the board reads:

Jh Td As Kh Qd

3h 3d 3s 3c Ah

Then the nuts are on the board and it’s just a split pot.

Still, the general principle is what matters here: betting your hand because it’s probably good isn’t smart poker. When I first started playing low-stakes NL I was a losing player for exactly this reason: I just bet when I had a good hand, with little regard for what the other player might call with. I won a lot of small pots and lost a lot of big ones. I probably now err on the side of flat calling or checking behind too much on the river, but it’s still an improvement.

Bookmark It