Howard Lederer

Many of the people crowding the tournament circuit these days developed their interest in serious poker from watching broadcasts of the World Poker Tour and the World Series of Poker*. With hole cards shown as the hands are played out, viewers get to see how the best players in the world ply their craft. They can then apply the lessons they’ve learned in their own play.

In the last couple of years, I’ve noticed that some of the less experienced players who have entered $10,000 buy-in tournaments don’t fully appreciate what they’ve seen on TV. Many are apt to misapply the techniques they’ve witnessed. As a result, these players find themselves on the rail early, wondering why a move that worked so well for Phil Ivey or Chris Ferguson had such disastrous results for them.

To avoid falling into this trap yourself, take note of two key pieces of information the next time you sit down to watch the WPT or WSOP*: The number of players at the table and the stack sizes relative to the blinds.

World Poker Tour final-table broadcasts start when six players remain. Through the vast majority of tournaments, however, tables are nine or 10-handed. When 10 people are at the table, you always need to be concerned that someone holds a big pocket pair or Ace-King. As a result, most good players tend to be cautious at full tables. They won’t get themselves in a lot of trouble with speculative hands like a middle pocket pair or Ace-10. At a short-handed table, however, the chances of running into a big hand are greatly diminished. When play is three- or four-handed, a pro will likely play a hand like pocket 9s very aggressively.

Usually, in the late stages of tournaments, the blinds are extremely high when compared to the size of the stacks. For example, in the recent WPT event from the Gold Strike in Tunica, when four players remained, the average stack had about 1.4 Million in chips. This may sound like a lot but, at that time, the blinds were 30,000 and 60,000 with a 10,000 ante. The short stacks, who had less than 1 Million each, couldn’t afford to be patient. If they failed to play for a mere 20 hands, their stacks would be cut in half.

As blinds increase, good players get more aggressive, making frequent pre-flop raises while attempting to steal the blinds and antes. They know that if they sit and wait for top-quality hands, the blinds and antes will decimate their stacks. At these stages of tournaments, you’ll see a lot of attempted steals with second-rate hands. Other good players, fully aware that their opponents may be raising with very little, might re-raise or fight back from the blinds with similarly modest holdings.

Short tables and high blinds create settings that necessitate near constant aggression and continual action. So, for example, when you see a pro re-raise all-in from the blinds with pocket 7s, it’s likely he’s properly considered the situation and has made the best available play. He’s thought about the short table and high blinds, determined that he probably has the best hand and, most importantly, that his opponent likely can’t call the re-raise. The same player would treat the same hand very differently at an earlier stage of the tournament.

The final factor to consider when watching televised poker is that the shows are highly edited. At this year’s WSOP*, it sometimes took 15 hours and hundreds of hands to determine a winner. On ESPN, they usually include about 20 hands in an hour-long broadcast. So, you can be sure that much of the context if missing from these telecasts. A call or re-raise that seemed odd on TV may have made perfect sense in the course of the event. For instance, if an aggressive player raised eight consecutive times on the button, the big blind may have decided that he had to fight back with rags, just to let his opponent know that he was willing to take a stand. It’s not a play that person would normally make, and it may look strange on TV but, in context, the re-raise with 8-high made perfect sense.

I suggest that you TiVo the next poker event you plan to watch. Keep track of the number of players and the size of the blinds. By paying attention to the details, the big picture will likely become clearer.

Chris Ferguson

There’s no question that aggressive poker is winning poker. If the world’s top players have only one thing in common, it’s that they take control of the hands they play with bets and raises. Usually, among the world’s poker elite, calling is the least attractive option.

For this tip, however, I thought I’d talk about a couple of instances when playing passively – just checking and calling bets – may be the preferred option.

Top Pair, Favorable Board

Say I’m in the early stages of a tournament and I have an ample stack. I find Ace-Jack in middle position and raise to three times the big blind. A player in late position, who I know to be solid but fairly aggressive, calls my raise, and everyone else folds. The flop comes As-4d-8h. I’ve got top-pair, with a decent kicker.

First, I want to think about the hands my opponent might hold. It’s likely he called my raise with an Ace or a pocket pair, maybe in the range of 66-99. He may have also called with two high cards like KQ, KJ or QJ.

In this situation, I’m likely very far ahead or hopelessly behind if my opponent hit a set or has a bigger Ace. If he’s got an Ace with a worse kicker, he’s drawing to only three outs. If he’s got a pocket pair like 77, he has only two outs. With just two face cards, he’s almost drawing dead. And on this board (As-4d-8h), I don’t need to be especially worried about straight or flush draws. Because of this, I don’t mind giving my opponent a free card.

If I bet my top pair and my opponent holds a pocket pair, he’s likely to fold, and I’ll have failed to get any additional value out of my hand. If I check, however, I give this player the chance to bluff or bet his lesser Ace, and I can then call.

Ideally, I want to get one decent-sized bet in over the course of this hand and by checking, I prevent my opponent from giving me more action than my hand can handle.

Say the turn is 3c. The situation hasn’t changed much. I’m still either way ahead or very far behind. I can check again, and allow my opponent to bluff.

On most river cards, if we have checked the hand down, I will generally bet. If we’ve put one bet in, I’ll probably check-call, and if we’ve put in two, I’ll likely check and fold. Playing the hand in this manner provides three advantages. It allows me to get good value out of a strong hand, and it also keeps me from losing more than I need to against a hand that has mine beat without too much risk. Additionally, playing this way gives my opponent the opportunity to bluff, which is the only way to get any money out of him if he holds a hand like QJ.

Decent Hand, Scary Board

Here’s another early tournament situation where my opponents and I have relatively deep stacks. Say I’m holding pocket 8s in middle position and a player has raised pre-flop from early position. I call the raise and a player in late position calls as well. The three of us see a flop of Jd-Jc-4s.

There’s a decent chance that my 8s are good, but I want to proceed cautiously, as either of the other players in the hand could hold a Jack.

Say that all three of us check this flop. I really haven’t learned too much, because someone could be slow playing trip Jacks.

The turn comes 6h. This doesn’t look like it would have helped anyone’s hand, but the pre-flop raiser bets from early position. This is a spot where I’d likely just call. There are a couple of advantages to just calling in this situation. First, it doesn’t over-commit me to the pot. If the player in late position raises, I can muck having lost a minimum number of chips. Secondly, the call is going to look very scary to my opponents. They might be thinking that I’m the one slow playing trip Jacks. So, even if the early position player holds a higher pocket pair, he’s likely to check on the river no matter what card hits. At that point, I can show down my 8s and see if they are in fact the best hand.

The problem with this play relative to the last one is that I am probably giving my opponent six outs to catch up and beat my hand if he has two over-cards, as opposed to two or three outs in the previous example.

I don’t play passively often, but under the right circumstances, just calling bets can provide good value while minimizing risk.

For another perspective on passive play, be sure to read the lesson entitled In Defense of the Call by Gavin Smith.

Jay Greenspan

As a writer covering the poker circuit, I wasn’t surprised to see that John D’Agostino took second in the Borgata Winter Open, netting more than half a million dollars. John is widely considered one of the great, young, all-around players in the game. He’s equally comfortable playing limit and no-limit, cash games, and tournaments.

I got a particularly close look at John’s play a week prior to Borgata, when we shared a table in Tunica at the $10,000 buy-in World Poker Tour event. John didn’t cash in that event, but during the hours we played together, I witnessed many qualities that make him a great player – here are three of them.

Overcoming a Tough Stretch

In Tunica, the players started with 20,000 chips. Within the first blind level, almost half of John’s stack was gone. In a key hand, John made a tough lay down when he deduced that his high pocket pair hand had not survived to the river. A couple of difficult hands followed soon after.

It was the kind of tournament start that dispirits others. After such a difficult opening, it’s not uncommon to see even very good players overwhelmed with resignation. I’ve heard players utter “It’s not my day.” At that point, they’re sealing their fate.

John, however, settled in. He didn’t make unneeded moves that would decimate his stack. On his way to his second-place finish at Borgata, John was able to deal with a far greater level of adversity. With 25 players remaining, John was the chip leader, holding nearly one million in chips. A few tough hands and four hours later, John held only 280,000 chips and was in twelfth place with 16 players remaining.

Despite these setbacks, he didn’t tilt – he focused and made good decisions. He waited for his spots and was able to build his stack back.

During Tunica, John was keenly aware of his own stack and the stacks of others. After the tough early hands, he was quiet while waiting for a spot to double up. He didn’t rush it. He knew that he held more than 20 big blinds in his stack and could wait for the right opportunity. He wasn’t forced to push in on Ace-Nine or a pair of 3s.

Once he managed to build himself back, he was on the hunt, looking for stacks to attack. Sadly for me, he noticed that I had become the table short stack. John was in late position when I had the big blind, and he let no opportunity go by to attack my blind. With only 20 big blinds, I couldn’t afford to fight back without a premium hand, as any decision I’d make would be for my tournament life. John was the only one at the table (other than me) who seemed fully aware of the situation. Others were far more focused on their own cards, rather than on the other factors that would give them opportunities to pick up pots.

Inscrutable Behaviors

In Tunica, most of the players at my table offered a treasure trove of information. They varied their bet sizes pre-flop – a little higher when they didn’t want action, a little lower when they welcomed it. Their arm and hand movements varied wildly from hand to hand. With time, one could draw fairly accurate conclusions based on such tells.

John, however, offered nothing. When he open-raised, he did so for three times the big blind every time. His motions seemed nearly identical to me time after time. If I tried to read his facial expression, I got only a view of his downcast eyes as he stared vacantly at the felt. As far as I could tell, there was nothing to learn.

The Tunica event didn’t go well for me, but I leaned a lot from watching John. Without question, observing the pros is one the easiest ways to improve one’s game.

Ben Roberts

There are four possible outcomes for any session of poker. You might win a little, lose a little, win a lot, or lose a lot. Most of us react differently to the different outcomes. When we win big, we’re elated; when we lose big we’re upset. Think back to some recent bad beats. Do you recall feeling a rush of adrenaline and an overwhelming sense of rage? If you haven’t encountered this, you’re lucky; most players have.

I believe that reactions at the poker table are so strong because the game taps into a very primal portion of our brains. In poker, we’re fighting for something we view as critical – money. In these days of relative safety and comfort, our battles at the poker table are as close as we get to the life-and-death struggles that our ancient ancestors encountered. Eons ago, the adrenaline served a purpose – it triggered a response critical to survival. Without thought or reason, ancient man knew two things: Fight or flee. The quick surge of panic and anger kept the species alive.

At the poker table, however, the same response serves no useful purpose. You can’t beat the dealer over the head with a rock. Screaming in panic and running from the room isn’t a great idea either. So most of us just steam – we tilt. With no outlet for the excess chemicals, we sit at the table, angry, while our judgment becomes clouded. Maybe we blast off some money or run a ridiculous bluff as a way to relieve the pressure.

The thing is, you need to overcome these instinctual reactions if you’re going to become a consistent winner at poker. It’s not easy to control the instinctual part of your brain, but it’s something that you can work on every time you play poker. Endeavor to leave each session in the same emotional state. If you win big, keep yourself from getting too excited. Remind yourself that this is just one session that has gone well, and that another is bound to go poorly. Reverse the argument after a big loss.

I believe that if you commit to engaging the thinking, reasoning portion of your brain at every opportunity you can, in time, overcome the primal reactions. It isn’t easy. Some players with incredible mastery of the game are long-term losers because they can’t get a handle on their emotions.

Embrace the challenge of evening your emotional responses. It may be the most important thing you can do to improve your poker results.

Since this is the 145th installment of Improving Performance, if you’ve been a regular reader then you would know my answer to the title’s question, is tight really right? I’ve probably intoned over the last five years that in limit hold ‘em, tight is right at least one hundred and forty five times!

The real key to this question is, what kind of tight are we referring to? Can you be too tight? Too tight usually indicates a weak player with little heart. We all should know that tight-aggressive play is generally the correct formula for limit hold ‘em, and today we’ll explore how to beat those weak-tight, passive players. They’re the rocks who just sit there and wait for premium hands and never mix up their games.

First, you must identify the player as weak-tight. I know it would be easier if it was mandated that all players were required to wear name tags identifying their style of play. Imagine tags such as ‘Hi, I’m a maniac,’ or ‘Hi, I’m tight-aggressive…. Continue reading Part 145: Is Tight Really Right?

Small-Pot Poker
Gavin Smith

You’ll be seeing a lot of me on next year’s World Poker Tour broadcasts. So far in the 2005-2006 schedule, I’ve made three final tables. I won the Mirage event, finished third at the Bellagio and fourth in Tunica. When you see a broadcast that features my play, you may be left scratching your head, asking, “Why the heck is that guy playing those cards?”

There’s no question that I do play an unconventional game. But, there is a method to my madness.

I play a style that’s usually referred to as “small-pot poker.” Using this approach, I’m looking to pick up a lot of small pots by applying a constant level of pressure to my opponents. Pre-flop, I raise frequently, especially in position. My raises are small, usually around two-and-a-half times the big blind, as opposed to the customary three or four times the big blind. I’ll raise with a huge variety of hands – everything from big pocket pairs to “junk” hands, like 6d-4d, or 5c-8c.

Usually, I’ll miss the flop when I raise with junk. In fact, two-thirds of the time, I won’t make as much as a pair. But here’s the thing: If someone called my pre-flop raise, he’s also going to miss the flop most of the time. When we both miss, I have a distinct advantage. As the pre-flop aggressor, I have control of the hand. Most of the time (as much as 90 percent of the time), I’ll follow up my pre-flop aggression by betting roughly half to two-thirds of the pot on the flop. A good percentage of the time, this bet will be enough to take down the small pot.

Let me give you an example. Imagine that you’re playing in the big blind and you hold Ks-Qs. I raise in late position to two-and-a-half. K-Q suited is a pretty decent hand against someone like me, who has been raising constantly. Still, it’s not necessarily a hand you want to risk your whole tournament on. So you call.

When you opt to just call, I put you in a position where you really need to hit the flop. If the flop is all rags, you need to be worried that I made two-pair with 4-7. Or, if there’s an Ace on the flop, you need to be concerned, since I could be holding a real hand. Most of the time, you’ll end up surrendering the hand to my bet on the flop.

If you do hit a hand – say the flop comes K-Q-4 – that’s fine. With my playing style, I’m accustomed to getting check-raised a lot. But that’s okay, too. I didn’t risk a whole lot with my bets, so I can just surrender the hand and look for better spots down the line.

There are a couple of other advantages that come with playing this style. One is that no one ever puts me on a big hand pre-flop. So, when I do pick up pocket Aces or Kings, my hand is well disguised. My opponents are willing to call with marginal hands (like the aforementioned K-Q) and maybe get themselves in a lot of trouble. If someone does flop top pair when I hold an overpair, it’s likely I’m going to get a big portion of his stack.

The other great benefit comes when I hold junk and hit the flop hard. When I raise with 5-7 and flop a straight, an opponent holding pocket Jacks is going to be in a lot of trouble.

Some of the best tournament players around – Daniel Negreanu, Gus Hansen and Phil Hellmuth among them – employ some version of the small pot approach. Is it the right method for you? That’s something you’ll have to find out for yourself.

I do, however, caution beginners from trying this style as it requires a lot of difficult decisions (what do you do with top-pair bad-kicker on an 8-high flop, for example). These are answers that sometimes come easier to more experienced players who have developed a feel for the game.

Still, you can give small-pot poker a shot. Register for a low buy-in tournament online and mix up your game. If the tournament doesn’t go so well, you’ll only be out a small buy-in.

Tips From Tunica
Andy Bloch

I’m writing from Tunica, MS, where I’ve played in several World Series of Poker Circuit events at the Grand Hotel and Casino. A couple of days ago, I played in a $2,000 No-Limit Hold ‘em tournament, and I saw some of my opponents make some pretty odd plays. For this tip, I decided to highlight a couple of these strange decisions and describe why you should avoid making similar plays.

A Curious River Raise

Midway through the tournament, I saw King-9 in the cutoff (the seat to the immediate right of the button). I raised to put some pressure on the blinds, and I was called by the big blind. The flop came T-5-2 rainbow, so it was no help to me. My opponent checked, and I checked behind him.

The turn was a 9, giving me a pair. He checked, and I made a small bet that he then called. The river was a King and I now had two pair. After my opponent checked and, thinking that I had the best hand, I made a substantial bet. At this point, he surprised me and made a large raise. I was reasonably sure I was up against a set or Q-J for the straight, but still, I made the crying call.

He showed pocket Aces and I took a nice pot.

What should my opponent have done?

For starters, he could have re-raised pre-flop, though calling pre-flop was certainly reasonable. He also could have taken the lead in the betting on the flop or the turn, not allowing free cards to hit the board. However, his real trouble came on the river.

When he check-raised, he failed to ask himself a critical question: What hand can I call with that he could beat? His river check-raise showed a lot of strength – so much, in fact, that I probably wouldn’t have called with any one pair. By the river, he really had no idea what I was holding. For all he knew, I could have had Queen-Jack or any sort of two pair. If I held the straight, he’d be facing a very large raise, one that would certainly be a mistake to call.

In this sort of situation, his best play was to check-call on the river. By the time the river card hit, he should have been looking to showdown the hand with the hope that his pair survived.

While here, I’ve seen many players make similar mistakes on the river. They bet or raised with any hand that they suspected was best, including marginal cards like second pair. But their big mistake was that they failed to consider their opponent’s hand. When you hold marginal cards, you should ask yourself two important questions: Do I have the best hand? And, if I do, does my opponent hold a hand that he’s willing to call with? If you can’t answer “yes” to both questions, just check the river and showdown the hand.

Trouble on the Turn

Later in the tournament, I raised pre-flop in late position with King-6 and the big blind called me. The flop came Ac-As-7s. I didn’t have an Ace, but I bet anyway when my opponent checked. After he smooth-called and a 6h came up on the turn, my opponent bet big.

This play makes no sense because it doesn’t tell a coherent story. A check-raise on the flop would be reasonable – my opponent would be representing a big hand, maybe trip Aces. A check-call on the turn would make sense, too. In that case, he probably holds a monster like a full house or he could just have a seven.

As it turned out, my opponent had A-7 (that’s what he said, anyway), and by betting he forced me to fold. That wasn’t very smart. If he checked, I might have continued with my bluff (though that-s unlikely).

In any case, it’s almost never a good idea to check-call a flop bet, and then bet the turn if a blank hits. A play like that might confuse your opponent momentarily, but you’re unlikely to gain much value. Your flop and turn bets should be related – they should tell a consistent story.

If you think carefully about your turn and river bets and what you’re trying to gain, you’re sure to improve your results. You’ll get better value on the turn and avoid drowning on the river.

See you at the next tournament stop.

How Big a Bankroll?
Team Full Tilt

“Poker is a tough business,” says Erik Seidel. “You can go through long streaks when you don’t win anything.” When things go badly, when you can’t seem to cash in a tournament or win a significant pot in a cash game, you come to understand the importance of maintaining an adequate bankroll.

Just how big should your bankroll be? How much money do you need to ensure that a bad run won’t put you on the rail? We Full Tilt Poker pros agree that the answer depends on a number of factors, including the types of games you’re playing, the level of competition you’re encountering, and your psychological disposition.

As Jennifer Harman says, “Some players can be effective on a relatively short bankroll, but others need more of a cushion. They’ll get stressed out and play scared if they don’t have enough money behind them.” So you need to be aware of your comfort level at the table. If you’re nervous about what you stand to lose in a given pot, you’re probably playing too high for your bankroll. Harman, like most Team Full Tilt members, recommends a conservative approach and suggests maintaining a bankroll that leaves plenty of room for downswings. “If you’re playing $10-$20 limit, I think $10,000 is about right,” says Harman.

John D’Agostino agrees, “You should never play a limit where you feel uncomfortable.” He suggests that a player shouldn’t put more than five percent of his bankroll in play at any time.

The need for a sizable bankroll exists for tournament play as well as cash games. Erik Seidel, a tournament specialist, notes that long droughts are common for tournament professionals and that entry fees can add up quickly. “If you were to play all of the $10,000 buy-in events, you could spend half a million over the course of year,” says Seidel. “Even top players can have years when then don’t cash for $100,000, so having a proper bankroll is critical.”

“You need a much bigger bankroll in tournaments than you do in side games,” agrees Chris Ferguson. “A lot of people play tournaments without nearly enough. You easily need 100 buy-ins. Maybe 200.”

Playing over your bankroll is fine once in awhile, but all the pros concur that it’s important to leave yourself plenty of money to recover from unlucky hands and the occasional mistake. D’Agostino, one of the top young players in poker, offers one further tip for hanging on to your money. “Don’t play Phil Ivey heads up. I tried that once and I failed miserably.”

Jennifer Harman

In an earlier tip, I gave advice for playing Stud-8 or Better. For this article, I’ll look at the other popular hi/lo split game, Omaha-8 or Better. In my article on Stud-8, I encouraged players to look for hands that have the possibility of scooping entire pots. The same goes for Omaha-8: whenever possible, you need to position yourself to take every chip from a big pot.

The best Omaha-8 hands have four cards that work together. Something like Ad-Ks-2d-4s is a terrific hand. It gives opportunities for high hands with flushes and straights. It’s also likely to make a winning low. When you see a hand with this sort of potential, play it aggressively pre-flop. You also want to play hands like Ad-2c-3h-5s, Ad-2c-3s-8c, and Ah-2d-3c-Qc, but since these hands don’t have as many opportunities to make great highs, you may not want to be as aggressive.

Some players overvalue any hand that contains A-2. For example, a hand like Ah-2c-8s-Jd isn’t all that great. It’s got a chance to win the low half of a pot, but it’s unlikely to make a decent high. Another problem is that a hand with A-2 and not much else is in danger of “getting quartered.” That means if another player holds A-2, you’ll only win half of the low half. Getting quartered in a big Omaha-8 hand isn’t much fun.

That warning aside, in very loose Omaha-8 games where six or seven players are seeing every flop, you should play most hands that have A-2. The pots will be large enough to justify playing for only the low half of the pot. But even in a multi-way pot, there’s no need to play every hand with A-2 aggressively. When you have little chance of winning a high, you’re better off seeing a flop cheaply.

In tight games, where only two or three players are contesting most pots, you can muck a hand like Ah-2c-8s-Jd pre-flop. When the pots are small, you don’t want to get involved in any confrontation where you have little chance of making a good high hand.

Many players undervalue hands that contain four high cards. For example, a hand like K-Q-J-T is a solid Omaha-8 hand. Any flop that has two cards above a 9 will give K-Q-J-T a straight draw, two-pair, or a set. On such a flop, there probably won’t be a qualifying low, so there’s a great chance to scoop. (In Omaha-8, three of the board cards must be 8 or below for anyone to make a low that can take half the pot.) If the flop has three low cards, you can abandon K-Q-J-T, knowing that it’s got essentially no chance to win.

Should you find yourself playing a hand with four high cards, don’t be seduced by a flop that gives you only top pair. A flop of K-5-2 is not good if you’re holding K-Q-J-T. With such a flop, you can be pretty sure that some of your opponents are playing the low end of the deck and are working on powerful lows and straight draws. In fact, in multi-way pots, you should be wary of any single pair or even two-pair. It usually takes a strong hand to take the high-half of a multi-way Omaha-8 pot; a five-card hand – a straight, flush or full house is often necessary to win.

Omaha-8 attracts players who love to play pots. Many draw too frequently and play hands that can only get them in trouble. If you learn to play Omaha-8, you can take advantage of these loose players and turn a solid profit.

Gavin Smith

Most poker literature warns of the dangers of becoming a calling station. Common wisdom has it that when you’re playing a hand, you should be betting, raising or folding. Calling is usually considered the worst thing you can do.

I disagree. When I play in No-Limit Hold ‘em tournaments, I find a lot of situations where calling is the best available option. A strategic call might keep me from going broke in a hand where I hold a good, but second-best hand. Or, a well-timed call might allow me to pick up a pot with a hand that wouldn’t win at showdown. Take a look at the following examples. I think you’ll see that the call is a powerful and underutilized weapon.

Say you’re in the middle stages of a tournament and you have a stack that is slightly above average. A tight player opens in early position for a raise of three times the big blind. You look at your cards and see pocket Tens. You probably don’t want to fold Tens. It might be as good a hand as you’ve seen in a long while, and it may very well be the best hand at that moment. Many people would say that, in this situation, you should throw in a large re-raise.

But the re-raise can be dangerous. Depending on the size of your stack, you could end up committed to the pot and have no choice but to call if your opponent moves all-in. If that happens, you’re probably up against a higher pair or, at best, A-K. You never want to commit all your chips when you’re either a small favorite or a big underdog.

If, however, you just call the open-raise, you’ll have a far better opportunity to make a good decision after the flop. The flop might come A-Q-7, at which point, you can fold to any bet, knowing there’s essentially no chance your hand is best. Should you see a flop of 4-4-6 and your opponent bets, you can raise. Most opponents holding only A-K would fold at that point. If your opponent then moves all-in, you can be pretty sure that your Tens are no good. You can fold, having preserved a good portion of your stack.

However the hand plays out, you’re sure to have a lot more information to work with if you just call the pre-flop raise. You’ll get to see three of the five community cards before you commit the bulk of your stack. You’ll also force your opponent to react to the flop. His action – his bet or check – is sure to help you determine the strength of his hand.

Here’s another situation where calling pre-flop has great advantages. Say you’re in late position with pocket 7s and a player from middle position open-raises. For the sake of this example, assume that the opponent holds pocket Jacks. The flop comes A-K-4. It’s nearly impossible for the player with Jacks to continue with the hand. A good percentage of the time, this player will check. When that happens, you can bet representing the Ace, which will probably force a fold. You’ll have earned a pot by outplaying your opponent. There’s no better feeling in poker.

These are just a couple of simple examples, but I want to make the larger point. A lot of beginners seem eager to make all of their plays before the flop. On any decent hand, they’re raising and re-raising, doing their best to get all-in. I believe that playing after the flop opens up opportunities for tough lay downs and good bluffs that aren’t available pre-flop. Playing post-flop is actually a lot of fun. In your next tournament, try some calls in spots where you might have re-raised. I think you’ll enjoy the experience.