Acting Strong when you’re Strong

It’s heads up on the turn, and you’re out of position against a solid player. You’re holding the Js-9c when the flop came Qh-Tc-6s. The turn is the 8s, giving you the nut straight. You check, because your opponent showed some strength on the flop and now that you have the nuts, you hope that she will bet again. Sure enough, she does bet half the pot. You pretend to think a while, trying to decide what to do, and decide to just call hoping that she will put you on some kind of draw. That way, if the draw misses, you may be able to get some kind of action out of her on the river.

The river is the 2h. Bingo! The board did not pair, did not complete a flush and did not complete a bigger straight. So we still have the nuts. Now, how do we get paid off?

Out of position, there are three options**. You can check again, hoping that she will bet out and you can get in a check-raise. You can make a value bet, hoping that she will call or raise you. Or you can move all-in and hope that she calls. Let see how each of these courses of action plays out.

1) Checking
This is the play that a lot of players would make. Since our opponent has bet on the flop and the turn, chances are she has at least a Queen (unless she’s totally bluffing). Even better would be if she has something as strong as two pair or trips, or 7-9 for a smaller straight. These are hands she would probably bet for value since the river was a blank. So it seems like checking in hopes of check-raising might be a good way to get our big hand paid off.

The problem with a check here is if she isn’t all that strong. How many times have you checked the river to trap only to kick yourself when the opponent checks as well? If she only has a Queen (one pair) or if she was totally bluffing, then there is a good chance that our opponent will check right behind us. Remember, that we’re up against a solid player. She will recognize that we have checked and called on two streets, and she isn’t likely to fire a third bullet without a huge hand. If she senses weakness, she might try and make a big bet to push us out, but few players have the fortitude to fire the third bullet on the river when they have been called down to that point. So there is a real danger that checking the river will not induce a third bet from our opponent.

2) Betting for Value
Another play that I see a lot is the value bet on the river. We want to avoid the pitfall of checking the river and having our solid opponent check as well. So we make a smallish suck-bet (perhaps 30-40% of the pot) in hopes that we will be called. It looks suspicious, since the 2h likely didn’t help us any. So we may get called by hands like A-Q, and we may even get raised by other hands. Since our opponent appears strong, let’s see if she’ll pay us off.

This option also has its issues. One big problem with a value bet is that, to a solid player, it looks like a value bet. Solid players will begin to consider the possibilities of what you could be betting for value, and will make the appropriate response. A bluffer will surely fold, and single pairs might do the same. Hands that are two pair or better might still reluctantly call, but then they might not depending on how good our opponent is.

3) Moving All-In
Most players shy away from this move when they have the nuts. They want to be sure they get paid off, and they feel that moving all-in will scare off hands that they want calling. The obvious benefit to moving all-in is that if you’re called, you’re guaranteed to have extracted the maximum from your opponent. If you check and they check (i.e., call your bet of $0) then you definitely haven’t gotten the maximum. Likewise, if you bet for value and they call, you’re always unsure if you could have gotten just a little bit more from them.

Despite this benefit, very few players would put in all their chips on the river with such a strong hand. They want to make a bet that would get called. But let’s look a little closer at the hands our solid opponent could have, and how she would respond to a push on the river.

A bad player that had been bluffing all along might bet into us if we check to her, but a solid player is less likely to do so. So a solid player that has been bluffing to this point will probably surrender if checked to, and certainly won’t call a value bet with rags.

Hands like A-Q or K-Q might have checked the river if we checked to them, giving up trying to take it down by betting and just hoping to show down the best hand. They also might fold if we bet for value, depending on the pot odds and their read on us. So we’re probably not going to get much from single pairs by either checking the river or betting it for value.

Hands that are two pair or better, however, are the hands that we might be able to get some action from by either checking or betting for value. These are stronger hands, and our opponent is looking to get value from her good hands just like we are. However, I would like to propose that the same hands that might call a value bet on the river might also call your all-in bet in the same situation.

Consider checking to a hand like a set of 6’s, hoping to trap her. She will make a value bet on the river, and you can check-raise her all-in. Will this solid opponent call your check-raise? Possibly, but from her point of view calling a check-raise is starting to seem negative EV. You have check-called her on the flop and the turn, and now you are check-raising her? It’s beginning to look like you’ve been trapping her instead of the other way around, and if she’s good enough there’s a chance that she might just talk herself into laying down her small set.

If you bet for value into her set, she will similarly slow down a bit. She’s probably not going to fold her set to a value bet, but she’s less likely to raise you than you might hope. After you’ve checked-called her twice, and then decide to bet into her on the river, a solid player may decide that it’s best to just call your bet with her strong (but non-nut) hand.

But what if you move all-in? This bet looks really suspicious, given the way the hand has been played thus far. You have check-called twice, representing that you are on a draw or trapping with a monster. For you to push all-in out of position looks a lot like you’re trying to buy the pot with a busted draw. If you had a monster hand, wouldn’t you just make a value bet and hope to get paid off? Furthermore, it’s less likely for you to have two pair or a set if she has two pair or a set herself, just because some of the cards you would need are accounted for. So while she still might fold hands like A-Q, she might be more inclined to call with stronger hands due to your deception. And since she might not have called your value bet with a single pair anyway, you’re not really sacrificing that many bets if she folds. The hands that she will call a value bet with are pretty much the same hands that she would call all in with. Your move on the river just looks too much like a steal. She’s more likely to call with anything decent.

One last thing before I go. Even if our opponent does correctly fold, it’s not the worst thing that could happen. Chances are we wouldn’t have won much more anyway. And furthermore, we get to pick up the pot without showing down the hand. Any time you are able to do this, it’s a bonus for your table image. Your opponent, and indeed everyone else at the table will have to ponder whether or not you were bluffing. The all-in move on the river just generally looks like a bluff. And if you occasionally do it when you have the goods, some of those times you’re going to get someone to call.

This is a realization I came to while working through Harrington on Hold’Em Vol. III, but I don’t pretend to believe my example was written as eloquently as his. Still, I hope that this analysis will help your post-flop play as much as it helped mine.


** For simplicity's sake, I have narrowed the number of options under the gun from a nearly infinite number down to three. I have essentially categorized all bets up to 100% the size of the pot as "Value Bets" and bets greater than than the size of the pot as "All-In Bets." I recognize that this is imprecise; however, I consider said imprecision to be immaterial to the argument as a whole.