It’s simply not enough to realise when your hand is strong and that you need to put your chips in. The artistry comes in getting paid off on your good hands without unduly risking defeat. It’s been said that if want a call then you bet the highest amount you can get a call with. Conversely, if you want your opponent to fold then you should bet the smallest amount that achieves that objective. It may sound easy but it’s a strategy that takes years to hone and may never be perfected.
For now let’s forget about the exact cards being dealt and focus only on bet sizes and intentions. Where better to start than with the biggest bet-size related blunder you can come across – the over-bet bluff. This is the cardinal sin of poker and the fishiest move in any fish’s repertoire. The classic example is the missed flush draw panic play. This is the novice who bets into a flop with nothing but a flush draw and gets called by Player B. The turn card arrives without solace so he bets the size of the pot again and earns another call. When the river draws another blank the fish identifies, correctly, that there is only one way he can now win this sizeable pot. A call can’t and won’t be tolerated so he throws in one last monster bet that would surely make any opponent tremble and fold. Except it doesn’t.
Player B has seen the fish bet out on every draw imaginable in the past 15 minutes. It’s been a case of providing the novice with just enough rope to hang himself. But any suspicions in Player B’s mind have only been heightened by the curious bet on the river, which was suddenly much larger, even in relation to the size of the pot. What the novice hopes is a powerful and intimidating play actually resembles blind panic and weakness. Player B now has more to lose but he also has a very significant pot win in his sights. He decides that the call with top pair is irresistible, even with a weak kicker, and the novice’s airshot is exposed at great cost.
When dissected more closely the river overbet was always doomed to failure. The intention behind the bet was to force a fold and that’s how it came across. If the novice did have a strong hand then surely he would have wanted to be paid off on the river. If that was so then the most efficient way of inducing a call would have probably been another pot-sized installment bet. Ironically, a bet that looks like it ‘wants’ a call is much less likely to get one. Thus a more measured bet may have had Player B more concerned about his weak kicker. Most importantly, and very obviously, the novice was risking a huge and disproportionate amount of his stack on an ill-disguised bluff.
Could the overbet have worked if Player B was also on a flush draw? Quite possibly yes, if Player B had nothing to call with then the fold may have been forced. But even in this instance the chances of success would only have been hampered by the overbet. If Player B simply couldn’t call then he’d also have folded to a much smaller, more believable bet. However, the suspicious nature of the overbet might encourage him to call down with almost anything, like if he tagged a mediocre pair while chasing the draw. The overbet might even encourage a re-raise bluff with anything from a particularly adventurous opponent. All and all, the desperate overbet with nothing is a minefield, riddled with flaws.
As is so often the case in Texas Holdem, there is a comparable scenario at the opposite end of the spectrum. As wild and reckless as the overbet is the incongruous under bet is just as likely to create suspicion and stand out like a sore thumb. Picture the scene; there’s a calling station at the table that plays every hand and bets the pot whenever the play is checked to him. Suddenly, after 30 minutes of this behaviour he raises pre-flop and when the play passes to him post-flop he bets the minimum amount possible, much less than the size of the pot. It’s a frankly comical play because every other player can assume he has flopped very well. It’s now probably only a question as to whether he has 2-pair or a set. If he receives any action at all it will likely be from an opponent even more half-witted than himself who has ignored the considerable information being emitted.
With bet size being such a crucial aspect of the game it’s best to keep things simple when in doubt. Betting half, or the full size of the pot may seem unimaginative but it stops your opponents gleaning too much information and normally provides you with some much-needed value. That said, the information that different bet sizes gives out leads us to the next level; the prospect of deliberately providing mis-information. More on that next week.
Simon Ballou writes for Oddschecker Poker