I’m all-in pre-flop with QQ against AK; an ace hits the flop but I spike a queen on the river to win. ‘So lucky’ moans my opponent. ‘Not really,’ I mutter knowing that I was a 57-43% favourite at the moment that counts – when the chips went in. Two popular misconceptions are caught up in one grievance here. Firstly, the big one. An astonishing number of poker players classify QQ vs. AK as the classic coin flip, a race where both players have an equal chance of success. This is almost true, but crucially in the long-term QQ will win 6/10 times more often than 5/10. AK will consequently prosper 4/10 more often than the perceived half the time. In a one-off event this advantage is very slight but over thousands of ‘races’ this differential will really add up.
The second daft element of the grumble would be that AK was a 95% favourite before the 2-outer queen reversed fortunes on the river. Therefore I am supposedly a ‘fluky donk’ for winning such a long shot. The implication is that I would have willingly risked all my chips after the turn (when 19:1 against) in the outrageous pursuit of a queen, out of choice. Clearly the manner of the outcome is irrelevant once all the betting occurs pre-flop. It is simply more galling to lose like that, not more unlucky. The latter misconception is taught at the school of sour grapes but the former misnomer is merely down to ignorance. There are many other similar examples and I’ll give you my thoughts on a few of them.
Another favourite misconception would be that bluffing is bad play. This one still boggles the mind. I’ve discussed before that there seems to be a bizarre school of thought out there that bluffing is somehow grubby and rotten. I swear some players view the exposure of bluffing as tantamount to uncovering a paedophile ring. Apparently if you can’t win playing the cards you’re dealt in the textbook manner then you ought to lose pitifully in the same ‘dignified’ manner as the feeble and unadventurous have to.
Putting to one side the obvious merits of being unpredictable and thinking outside the box there is mathematical sense to bluffing even when there’s a reasonable chance of getting caught. Imagine that! Bluffing so shamelessly that you’re willing to put yourself at high risk of being caught and exposed to the ultimate humiliation. But thinking logically if you believe that a £20 bluff into a pot of £100 will succeed a third of the time then you should make the play even if the majority of the time you may look foolish. So you lose £20 twice and look cheeky – big deal. If on the third occasion you win £120 it’s clearly a profitable play. This is basic concept poker and yet I can guarantee that a huge number of poker players out there, many of whom will rate themselves highly, never take this chance. Crazy but true.
It’s a similar mentality and an ignorance of pot odds that can lead to another funny, yet common misconception. ‘Thou shall not defend your big blind with 2-7o under any circumstances’. Most Holdem participants quickly learn that that this is the worst start hand in poker and therefore assume it should be folded in all circumstances. Again, this is untrue. If the pot odds to call are correct then you call, it’s that simple. I’ve lost count of the number of times when an irritable, and presumably inexperienced opponent has chastised me for calling his short stacked all-in with a hand like 2-7. But let’s say the blinds are 200-400 and he puts his last 1000 chips in on the button. If the small blind folds I have 600 to call to make it a pot of 2200. Supposing he has a strong hand that dominates me such as 6-6, I still have a 27% of winning. I can therefore assume to win 1 in 4 times ( 1 in 3 times against AK) and should therefore call. The maths is simple: lose 600 three times (1800) but win 2200 once, thus making a profit of 400.
Calling with 2-7o is somehow seen as indecent even in the face of mathematical fact. I mean, it’s almost as disgusting as bluffing, or winning a pre-flop ‘race’ on the river of all things. There can’t be many other games where a good player is so easily dismissed as lucky or even as downright poor, by inferior opponents. In football I rarely see strikers criticised for scoring in off the post. Yet presumably some of these muddled poker players see a footballer putting the ball in the corner of the goal merely as proof that they ‘nearly missed‘. So lucky.
Simon Ballou writes for Oddschecker Poker