Previously I discussed how I sometimes get players to break their hands in lowball, thus changing my expectation from negative to positive. Breaking a hand in lowball means discarding one or more cards from an otherwise pat hand and drawing to a better hand.
For example, you might have the big blind and your hand is 9-7-3-2-A. I open with 4-3-2-A-K. No one calls until the action gets to you. You raise. I immediately reraise. You think I might have a pat 8 and that your hand is a sure loser if you stand pat. Also, you don't like to have a pat 9 against a one-card draw, because you are afraid you will just lose another bet. You particularly don't want to have that very vulnerable hand when you are first to act. You want to make a hand that you can bet after the draw, so you draw a card, and I, of course, draw behind you. Had you stood pat on the 9-7, you would have been about an 11-to-9 favorite. When you drew a card, though, since you were drawing to a worse hand than mine, you changed the odds in the other direction, and became an 11-to-9 underdog. By getting you to break, I changed from the dog to the favorite. This happens in lowball frequently, and is called getting someone to break. It is an aggressive play, and someone who employs it takes the risk of running into a good hand. If the opponent has a pat 8, he usually will not break. He will probably call and stand pat. I would have just put in three bets and taken about 2-to-1 the worst of it. And if my opponent has a 7 or better, he will reraise, and I will be putting in four bets as a 3-to-1 dog or worse. This is, of course, where it helps to know your opponent. Nonetheless, in the right situation, getting someone to break is a powerful weapon in your lowball arsenal. Often, your opponent won't even realize he has made a mistake, even when you draw. He will reason that since you are obviously drawing to a good hand, he doesn't want to be stuck with a 9 in bad position, and will think that he is doing the right thing trying to make a better hand. He won't understand how he has changed his expectation from positive to negative – and, of course, you won't tell him. At any rate, I won't.
Recently I did this exactly wrong, and I'm still kicking myself. I changed a play with positive expectation for me to one that was negative. Who says a putative lowball expert can't make mistakes? (I can only plead temporary.)
With the button to my left, Horatio, in the small blind position – that is, directly to the left of the button – killed the pot after the first two cards were dealt in the single-limit Northern California-style lowball game I was in. The game was $20-limit, so this meant that Horatio had looked at and liked his first two cards. In this club, anyone can kill the pot after two cards have been dealt (and before receiving the third card). Some Southern California clubs permit killing after looking at three cards, which is a strong edge indeed for the killer. Many clubs permit killing only before any cards have been dealt. While the rules differ, we're not talking about lots of cardrooms. Lowball is played in no more than 10 California clubs, and the number might be closer to half that. Anyway, in this particular club, Horatio had added three $5 chips to his small blind, changing the limit for this hand from $20 to $40. All bets before and after the draw would be in increments of $40 rather than the usual $20. Horatio would be last to act before the draw, but first to act after the draw.
Now, Horatio was winning. This meant he would be playing fairly conservatively. When he was stuck, particularly if he had a short stack, he might sometimes take chances, but not when winning. But he did like to kill pots when he started with two good cards. And in this case it was almost certain that he had the joker plus a wheel card.
No one opened in front of me. I had 7-6-2-A-K, definitely a hand with which to open in this position, even though I was spotting Horatio at least two good cards. If he had three bad cards to go with his two good cards, Horatio would fold. He never drew three cards, particularly in bad position. But if he had at least one good card with the other two, he would definitely call and draw two cards. If he had a pat hand, he would raise. If he had four good cards, he very likely would just call. If I had killed the pot and had four cards, one of which was the joker, I certainly would raise, even though I was out of position. (Of course, I would never kill from the small blind. If I start with two good cards and I want to create a little action, I generally kill only from the cutoff or the button.) Horatio would not raise on the come, though, when he was ahead.
I opened, the button folded, Horatio raised, the big blind folded, and the action was back on me.
Here's where I made my huge mistake. I reraised. I don't know what I was thinking. Horatio had to have a pat hand, and it was not a 9. He would just call with a pat 9, discard the 9, and draw a card in hope of making a big hand. Even if the hand was a 9-8, he would probably draw a card. So, he had to have a pat 8 or better. Then, what was I trying to do – get him to break an 8? No one breaks an 8 in that spot; he just calls, stands pat, and checks after the draw. And if Horatio was raising with a good one-card draw, while unlikely, his draw had to be better than mine. There was no way he had a worse hand than mine. Mine would have been a good play only if I had three to a wheel plus the joker, but I didn't.
Horatio called the raise and when the dealer asked how many cards he wanted, Horatio pulled a card out of his hand, showed it, an 8, said, "I overlooked my hand," and asked for one card. He didn't fool me for a second. I knew exactly what he was doing. He wanted to make me think he was drawing to an 8, but I knew he was drawing to a 6 or wheel with the joker. The proper play, of course, would have been to reraise or call. An aggressive player would reraise. A less aggressive player would call, stand pat, and check after the draw. But I knew Horatio was not drawing to an 8. He had to be drawing to a monster.
I asked for one card, also. After the draw, Horatio bet. I caught a 9. I knew it was unlikely he would be betting worse, but the pot was offering more than 6-to-1 on my call, and a slight possibility existed that he was now trying a bluff. He either had to have a 7 or better or be bluffing. He would not bet an 8 or 9 in this spot.
On the showdown, Horatio had a wheel, 5-4-3-2-joker. He had made a mistake. He had broken the 8 to draw to a monster just as I suspected. Even though he had decreased his chances of winning, he still was a considerable favorite over me.
Specifically, if he stood pat on the (say) 8-5, he would win about 77 percent of the time. If he drew one card, he would win about 61 percent of the time. He would also be able to bet a certain percentage of the time and win an extra bet about three-fourths of the time he bet. (That assumes he bluffs once in a while and that I call about six-sevenths of the time.) But he was ahead no matter what he did.
By standing pat, he wins 77 percent of $140. This represents the three bets I put in plus the blinds. He loses 23 percent of $160. This is because he checks after the draw, I bet only when I make a 7 or better, and he always calls (losing four bets). So, his profit by standing pat is $107.80 – $36.80 = $71.
By drawing, he wins 60 percent of $140 plus approximately $30 (three-fourths of the $40 bet after the draw). He loses 40 percent of $120 plus approximately $10 (one-fourth of the $40 bet after the draw). So, his profit by drawing is $114 – $58 = $56.
In both cases he profits, but he does better by standing pat. It seems from this, then, that I did the right thing by raising and getting him to break. But did I?
I did the right thing only if he had a pat 8, and, furthermore, if he would break it. But how could I know that? First, the odds are approximately 4-to-1 in favor of his having a pat hand better than an 8. Remember, he never raises on the come in this situation. If he raises and has the joker, his fifth card can be one of five possibilities. Say he has 3-2-A-joker plus one other card. That card can be any 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8. So, even if I know he will break an 8, I make a huge mistake by raising. But it's worse than that. When he raises, if his hand is 8-7, he won't break if I reraise.
After he has raised, I have two choices. I can call the $40, or I can put in $80. Let's compare both possibilities.
First, let's see what happens if I just call. He always stands pat in this case. Four times out of five he has a pat hand better than what I'm drawing to. One time out of five he has a pat 8. He always bets with his pat 7 or better and always checks with his 8. I always lose when I make a 7, because I call. (I'm neglecting the times I make an 8 or 9, because I rarely call with those hands. If he's making a play, I just lose and never find out.) I make a 7 approximately 23 percent of the time. So, in five times the situation comes up, four times I lose. When I lose, it's $40 (my initial call) plus 23 percent of another $40 (when I make my 7), about a $49.20 loss. The one time in five he has an 8, I win 23 percent (when I make my 7) of $180 (my initial call, his two bets, his call after the draw, plus the blinds), about a $41.40 win. (I assume here that he always checks the 8 and always calls my bet.) The net for the five times is (4 x $49.20) – (1 x $41.40) = $155.40. Divide $155.40 by 5 for the average, and it costs me about $31 every time I just call.
If I raise, four times out of five he has a pat hand better than what I'm drawing to and he reraises, so I have to put in $160. One time out of five he has a pat 8. Let's be charitable and say he always breaks the 8. So, in five times the situation comes up, four times I lose. When I lose, it's $160 (the four bets I had to put in) plus 23 percent of another $40 (when I make my 7), about a $169.20 loss. The one time in five he has an 8, I win 23 percent (when I make my 7) of $220 (my initial call, his three bets, his call after the draw, plus the blinds), about a $50.60 win. The net is (4 x $169.20) – (1 x $50.60) = $626.20. Divide $626.20 by 5 for the average, and it costs me about $125 every time I raise.
So, my situation is always bad, but clearly I made a horrible mistake. Most of the time that I flat-call, my average loss is $31. Most of the time that I raise, my average loss is $125. That's a huge difference.
It was actually worse for the exact situation that came down, because half of the cards he could have caught would have made my 7, so by just calling, I actually was about 1-to-1. I had no way of knowing that, of course, but it further pointed out the stupidity of my play.
Nominally, it looks like I do better by making him break. But that was only for the one situation of his having exactly a smooth pat 8. The odds against that, as we have seen, were approximately 4-to-1. The further trouble is, if he plays his hand properly, I lose a lot more by raising than by calling. Also, I take a huge risk of his having a pat 7 or better, and losing four and maybe five bets on a hand that should have cost me only two, possibly three. I come out ahead only in the very unusual situation of his having a smooth pat 8 and breaking it. If he had an 8-7, he would not have broken it. Lowball players rarely break eights to draw to sevens, afraid they might be drawing dead anyway, so why take a chance? Why should I risk a lot more for the slight chance of getting him to break an 8, when I can escape for only another $40? If he has an 8, I lose no more money, and I make money if I make my 7. If he has better than an 8, I lose the minimum by not reraising. But if I reraise, sometimes I lose $80 (not counting my initial $40, which, as I said, is already gone), sometimes I lose $120 (when he reraises), and sometimes I lose $160 (in case I make my 7 after the draw and have to call his bet). Often, a winning session is based on minimizing losses. By reraising, I did my best to maximize my loss, and that was dumb.