Maximize the size of the pots that you win; minimize the amount of your money in the pots that you lose.

Pretty anti-climactic, eh? Expecting quite a bit more, weren’t you? And why wouldn’t you…to be told to expect the golden rule of your favourite game is bound to straighten you up to attention in your seat. And to be told something so simple, something so base that you already knew, has got to hurt.

Before you hit your Back button to leave this page in disgust, I hold that half of home poker players have never thought of this point in its entirety. And of the half that do, I also hold that half of them do not keep this principle in mind when making every single observation and every single decision they make at the Poker table. This rule of Poker is in fact so simple, that it is often overlooked.

Every time you put money into a pot that you can’t win ‘just to see what comes up’, you lose more money than you need to. Every time you don’t maximize the size of the pot by folding players with a big bet who would have otherwise stayed in and called on a smaller bet, you win less money that you could have.

It must be emphasized that individual hands are insignificant compared to your overall winnings/losings over the course of the night. Knowing when to hold ‘em and when to fold ‘em is the smartest thing that non-gambler Kenny Rogers ever contributed to this game. Again, it’s so simple, it’s overlooked. I challenge anybody to come up with a single generic Poker strategy that does not, in some way, branch off of this one golden rule of Poker. The fact is that this rule is the basis behind all intelligent Poker playing.

In fact, as more golden rules of poker are put forward in the weeks to come, the truth is that they will all go back to this one rule. Therefore, we’ll take this one with basic examples and illustrations.

Example #1:
In a Community Poker game, half of the players are live, and card-reading up until this point suggests that no player has a made hand yet. Everybody is waiting for their ticket on the board. Yours comes up. You decide that you are more than the likely winner, with few hands that can beat you. In jubilation, you bet the table’s max. With still more cards to be revealed (and therefore, more betting rounds to come), you fold all or most of the players at the table. Was it worth it? From a mathematical standpoint, could you have increased the size of your pot with a soft bet now -one that would have kept more players in the game- and a big bet later?

Example #2:
In a game of Murder, you have two exposed pairs and remain in the game with one player showing an outside straight flush. Because of your pairs, half of the money in the pot is yours…worse still, you do not have the full house. The other player has not paired up once, therefore has invested little into this pot, may have the straight flush, and if he doesn’t, could still beat you with a flush. You bet small, he sees, and re-raises. Things don’t look good for you to win, but so much of that pot was yours that you’d feel weak to let it go. You’d be better off swallowing your pride and folding. Your money in the pot is already spent. Any more money that you invest into this pot -based on odds- is lost, especially since representing the boat didn’t bluff him out. Every penny more you put into this pot does nothing to minimize your amount of money into a pot you will likely not win.

These examples are basic, but critical. Future golden rules that stem from this one will go into a little more detail, depending on the ground being covered. But, take this piece of advice to your next game. Pay attention to whether or not your decision-making truly reflects the maximizing of wins and the minimizing of losses.

The only winnings/losings that count is the overall bottom line at the end of the night. Did you pull in more money in maximized pots that you put out in minimized losses?

The Second Common Sense Rule of Poker

When deciding whether or not to call, factor the amount of money being asked of you in relation to the amount of money in the pot.

In pot-matching games like Murder when the amount of money in the pot needs to be counted and announced, it’s interesting to note how few players have any idea what’s in the pot. This is tantamount to decision-making in the betting rounds.

The decision to see a fifty-cent bet varies inevitably between the chance to win a two-dollar pot and a ten-dollar pot. If you are holding a fourflush in 5 card Draw, then of the 47 cards in the deck that you have not yet seen, there are nine that will make your hand. Nine divided by 47 gives a one in five chance of success roughly. Paying fifty cents in the hopes of winning a two-dollar pot is a payoff of four to one. Paying fifty cents in the hopes of winning a ten-dollar pot is a payoff of twenty to one. Based on your chances of making the flush, what bet makes more sense?

Unfortunately, a call this simple to make is rare. Nobody brings a calculator to the table, in which case approximation is required. In the interests of taking the right chances, it should be less appealing to go after payouts that do not match or exceed the odds of successfully winning the pot. Better still, the important theme to consider is that the size of the pot should have bearing on your decision to stay in. The opportunity to win a bigger pot should influence your staying in the game over the same odds of winning a smaller pot.

If your hand is made, then a different kind of math is required. What are the chances that this made hand will be the best hand at the table? If chances are good, then throwing your 50 cents into a two-dollar pot would be the right move. Throwing your 50 cents into a ten-dollar pot would be the only right move. What are the chances that somebody else has or will make a hand that can beat yours? Let’s look at an example.

You are playing 5 card Draw, and are dealt 7-7-A-5-6. If you get that far, you intend to hold the pair and the Ace as a kicker. Drawing two, your chances of getting another Ace are three in 47 for the first card and three in 46 for the second card…roughly 1 in 8 to get your hand. A fifty-cent bet for what is now a two-dollar pot is chancy…the bettor is not betting too smartly, but is he playing dumb, holding gold, or bluffing? Do you challenge his poker-playing or his bluff by staying in? Odds would dictate that you fold, since a 4-to-1 payout does not justify a 1-in-8 probability. If your fair hand is suspect enough, how about the other players who will fold and contribute nothing more on the next betting round?

Other factors obviously weigh in the decision then. What’s more is that nobody wants to spend the night calculating poker hand probabilities. For this reason, the Second Golden Rule of Poker is not a standalone rule, especially not for many home games played more in the interest of fun than maximizing your loot.

The point however is to pay rough attention to the investment you are considering, as it relates to the payback that you are after. Is it worth it? As mentioned, all poker strategy will be rooted in the First Golden Rule of Poker, and this one is no exception. It is in calculating considered calls versus pot sizes that you are maximizing wins and minimizing losses: what are the chances of me winning this hand versus the size of the bet versus the size of the pot. Take less chances on small pots and more chances on big pots.

The Third Common Sense Rule of Poker

Avoid playing too consistently; take note of the consistencies in your opponents.

Take a minute and think about some of the regulars with whom you play. Do any of them play the same game every time? Does one only raise when he’s holding a monster? Does one raise all the time regardless of what he is holding? Does one call on mediocres to monsters, and fold on everything else? Let’s look at some examples that better illustrate this point:

Example #1:
You’re at the table playing Hold ‘Em with a bunch of calling stations -that is, players that only call or fold, but never raise- and one consistently big bettor. This player likens folding from a pot to backing out of a fight. His pride doesn’t permit him to fold from a pot. What’s more is that he rarely lets a bet go by without re-raising. A regular tough guy (and obviously unskilled poker player) at the table. Assuming he does not vary this style of play at all, here’s how to make some easy money by taking advantage of his consistencies. If you are holding a weak hand, fold it…it’s obvious you can’t bluff him out. If you are holding a mediocre hand, call his bets without re-raising; in doing so, you put an end to his betting rounds unless a less intelligent player at the table chooses to re-raise (not likely out of a calling station). If you are holding a monster, bet your ass off…you’ll be harder-pressed to card-read a consistent bumper like this one, so take him to task when you have the hand for it.

Example #2:
You’ve been at the table for a few hours now, noting that a specific player is a regular calling station. Once in every ten hands, he opens a big betting round, or re-raises one on its way by. Because he does this rarely, you take note of his hand every time he plays it to showdown. Because raises from him are rare, you notice that he never raises and not plays to showdown. And every time that he does, he’s holding a monster. If nobody sees him to showdown, go ahead and ask if he had it anyway. He’s under no obligation to tell you, since nobody has paid to see his hand, but what’s the harm in asking anyway? Of all this, you see that he never bluffs. Maybe he tried it once in his life, and didn’t feel he could pull it off. Instead, he plays the hand that was dealt to him…every time. By observing these traits in what is obviously a basic illustration, it’s clear as day that he ONLY ever raises with a monster.

Again, two basic examples, but only to illustrate a point. In the first example, your game plan maximizes your wins and minimizes your losses. Your opponent only plays consistently. Even though he does not ever play representative of his hand (he raises on junk and on strong hands alike), you play your hand exactly as it was dealt to you. Even though you’re now playing consistently, his style is not changing. You’re both playing consistently, but you’re playing smartly. In the second example, you have taken enough note of a player that his raises send off an alarm to tell you to re-examine your hand and possibly fold up tent. True, he could be bluffing, but you haven’t seen him do it yet, and until you do, he is playing consistently.

So, how to play inconsistently? There are no less than two basic methods of falsely representing your hand.

If you have a strong hand, than consistent playing of the odds would dictate that you at least call, and possibly raise. To play inconsistently, you would ’slowplay’. With a made hand, you may choose to simply call or not raise very much in the early betting rounds, keeping more players in the game for later, heavier betting. By raising early (the ‘right’ decision when playing odds), you risk folding too many players who recognize your consistency and your strong hand.

If you have a weak hand, than consistent playing of the odds would dictate that you fold, but possibly call. To play inconsistently, you would bluff. Folding obviously ensures you cannot win any money, and calling sends a message that your hand may not be a very strong one. Raising, when the odds dictate that you should not, sends a different message, that your hand is a strong one. If caught in the occasional bluff, you even extend a message to the whole table that your playing is not consistent, that they’d better develop a different strategy to beat you in future hands.

Mixing up your consistent and inconsistent strategy ensures that your play is not so consistent that your betting round decisions firmly represent your true hand. Likewise, noted consistencies in the playing of your opponents can only help you in reading their hands and reacting accordingly.

The Fourth Common Sense Rule of Poker

Know the players at the table; adjust your playing style accordingly.

In a previous example, I spoke of the player who not only never folded, but rarely let a bet leave him without a re-raise. Let’s assume that I’m the kind of guy who bluffs with a certain frequency. Playing heads up against this player, how would I adjust that frequency to compensate for my opponent’s style? A bluff is only used to make a player fold immediately, or to suggest enough strength that the player will fold on a later round. So, if I’m playing against a player who NEVER folds, then even one attempt to bluff is a waste of money.

Therefore, if the frequency with which I bluff was written in stone instead of flexible, I would lose money against this type of player. Knowing what I know of his style, I’m now smart to the fact that he will not fold. Further, attempts to bluff would be wastes of money. Therefore, I won’t even try to bluff, and this will save me the money that I would have lost if I didn’t adjust my game plan according to what I know of my opponent.

Sandbagging -having a strong hand, but not opening a betting round, waiting for somebody else to open it, and then raising the bet when it gets back to me- has one criterion where it concerns the other players at the table. If I do not think that one single player at the table will open the betting round, and that everybody checks, then the strategy of sandbagging would be an indirect waste of money. It would allow every player at the table to stay in the game for free, since nobody bet. And considering my strong hand, it would mean less money in the pot that I intend to win.

As noted, it is an indirect loss to not maximize the amount of money in the pots that you win. Playing at this table, how would I adjust the frequency with which I sandbag? A failed sandbag is one where nobody opens the betting round that I “should have” opened, and the number of failed sandbags is certain to increase at a table where everybody checks and call, but nobody bets and raises. Therefore, each attempt to sandbag would mean allowing players with poor hands to remain in the game for free (also allowing them the opportunity to put together a better hand if there are more cards to come) as well as reducing the amount of money that could have accumulated in the pot had I won.

Therefore, I won’t even try, or may simply reduce my attempts, to sandbag, and this will save me the indirect loss of money that results from failed sandbagging. Again, my game plan adjusted according to what I know of my opponents at the table.

Home games offer the irreplaceable benefit of seeing the same mugs at the table on a bi-weekly, or even weekly basis. Whereas figuring out a stranger requires you to analyze and evaluate from scratch, playing with the same people allows you to use your knowledge of how they typically act in given situations. Taken a step further, it even allows you to use your knowledge of what they think you are doing based on the way they think you typically act in given situations.

Broadly speaking, there are three categories of poker players: tight players, loose players, and players who are neither consistently. Tight players play a more conservative game where the dispensing of money is concerned. They will fold before they call, they will call before they raise, they will play ‘honest’ before they bluff. Loose players play a more liberal game. They will call before they fold, they will raise before they call, they will bluff before they play ‘honest’.

A solid poker player falls into neither of these two generic categories, falling rather into neither. The player who is neither loose nor tight (or enough of each to evade this classification) is the hardest to nail down. Your game plan needs to reflect this distinction. A bluff is a play more sound against a tight player than a loose one. A slowplay or downright sandbagging is a play more sound against a loose player than a tight one.

The tight-versus-loose player analysis is an excellent, but general one. It will tell you in very general terms how a player will react to a given situation. If it is a situation involving ‘monetary intimidation’, it will be more effective against the tight player. If it is a play involving ‘monetary extraction’, it will be more effective against the loose player. It, of course, is not nearly enough to rely on altogether. If the general feel of the table is tight or loose -a tight table or a loose table, as they say- then certain general playing is effective. However, specific players will be prone to specific characteristics going beyond tight and loose.

Some players sweat when they bluff (or scratch their face, or light up a smoke, or adjust themselves uncontrollably in their seat, or pretend they’re not interested in the hand, or show that they are far too interested in the hand, etc.). Note this and use it to your advantage. Some players only raise when holding a certain hand at a certain point in the game. Note this as well. Some players slowplay more times than not. Some players are watching you carefully. Some players are not watching you at all. Some players take the game very seriously. Some players are having fun first and playing a serious game second. Note all of this. When you can observe with certainty that a given player has a trigger that suggests what that player is holding, it’s as good as gold.

How liberal is a player with their money? Does a player reek of tells? What consistencies are in that player’s game? In short, in what ways does a given player illustrate consistency? Consistent play is what you can depend on from a player, and use to your advantage. You have to know the players, and adapt your game plan.

The Fifth Common Sense Rule of Poker

Be aware of tells in yourself; be aware of tells in others.

The order in which these two points are expressed is no accident. I have always been of the opinion that the first place to go to learn about tells is not your fellow player at the table, but rather yourself. Poker lore dictates that if you’ve never before given thought to tells, then you’re probably full of them. Any good book on interview skills warns you against such physical slights. The first thing you have to do is be aware of them.

There is clearly only one exercise in observing and preventing this kind of activity. Aside from your friends filling you in on your own tells, the only way to track them is to pay attention to them. In getting you started, I’ll run you through my own experience with tell-finding.

First, I bite my nails. This is a habit I’ve never even tried to stop; I will always bite my nails. As far as I can tell, I bite them most when I’m anxious or bored. At the poker table, I consciously stop myself whenever the urge strikes me to go to town on my fingertips.

Second, I used to smoke cigarettes regularly; now, I smoke casually, which is probably worse. The urge to light up a cigarette is trigerred by different things in different people. As a casual smoker, I tend to light up again when I’m anxious or bored. At the poker table, I consciously time my cigarettes at approximately one hour between them; with that kind of consistent frequency, it gives nothing away of my game.

Third, when looking at my hand for the first time in a game, I sometimes pick up the cards, look at them, and hold onto them; other times, I pick them up, look at them, and drop them right to the table. Unlike a nervous habit like nail-biting or cigarette-smoking, it is hard to target what triggers card-holding versus cards-down. Quite frankly, I’ve just as soon decided that it does not matter. In games with two hole cards (ie. Hold ‘Em), I have trained myself to look at them once and put them down every time. In games with more than two hole cards (except for Stud), I have trained myself to keep the cards in my hand throughout my whole tenour in the game every time.

What we have here is an intraspection into my own unconscious physical tendencies, slights, habits, and twitches at the poker table. Each one of them is triggered by either one situation or another. There is nothing to suggest that one twitch means I have a good hand, and the other means I am bluffing. In fact, it is quite possible that none of these tendencies give anything away of my actual hand. The point is that it does not matter.

These are unconscious physical tendencies that should be reigned into consistent action regardless of the hand I am holding. Now, I don’t bite my nails at the poker table. Now, I smoke cigarettes in timed intervals. Now, I always hold my cards in some games, and never hold my cards in others. There is another school of thought that talks of purposely using assumed tells to mislead players as to your true hand. Such a tactic might involve biting your nails while playing a purposely ill-played and inexpensive bluff to showdown, so that the table thinks you bite your nails when you bluff. Advertising, as it is called to mislead players this way, is a subject that will be discussed at length later.

The next step in your quest to use tell-smarts at the poker table is obviously to switch taking note from yourself to taking note of others. The problems with this are obvious. How are you supposed to keep staring at people -even at the poker table- without making some people angry? What classifies as a tell as opposed to a player’s once-in-awhile twitch? How do you keep an eye on everybody at the table? Who do you watch?

These are all valid questions. If poker was played for nothing but fun like cribbage, then ideally, we would all just sit around and play our hands honest. But when there’s money on the line and deception is an important part of the game, you need to be aware of tells in other players, and you need tact in noticing them for later reference.

There are a number of ways of going about this. Here’s one. From hand to hand, take note of the players involved in the action. There should only be two or three of them in any given hand, but the players who are involved in betting are players obviously holding a strong hand or else, bluffing. Logically, these are also the players most likely to play their hand until showdown, at which point you will be able to see what they were holding, even if you’d previously folded out of the hand. While looking for tells, you are able to associate a potential tell with that player’s hand at showdown (either as a bluff or a legitimately strong hand). Because only a few players are ever involved in any real action, there are not too many for you to have to watch.

So, you know what few people you need to watch from hand to hand. You also know what to look for at showdown, be it a bluff or a strong hand. But, what are you specifically looking for in these players? This is the part that makes abstract and vague any discussion on tells. It is hard to say exactly what to look for. A tell is involuntary, so it could be as minute as bottom-lip-biting or as obvious as a sweaty forehead or shaky hand. It could be anything in-between, if nails are bitten, how a cigarette is smoked, if cards are held sometimes and put down others. A tell could be anything…body language of any kind.

If you think you’ve spotted a tell, take note of what that player has at showdown, which costs you no money, as we’ve discussed. If you think you’ve made a connection, put it to the test the next time that player is involved in any action. The rare repeat of tells connected to a hand of specific strength just might be the winner you are looking for. Be forewarned however that the skilled poker player has no to few tells. True enough though, anybody can slip up and forget to watch themselves.

This brings up the point of one-time tells. Even trickier than repeat tells is the possibility that a player can do something once (and if a skilled player, probably only once) that helps identify that player’s hand. A widening smile on any player’s face would tend to suggest a bluff in a skilled player or a strong hand in an unskilled player. A long pause from any player would suggest mixed feelings towards one’s hand, or hesitation to play out a mediocre hand. Any player who is overanxious is showing far too much interest, and is likely bluffing or holding a monster.

There is even an off-chance that your self-search of tells will help identify possible tells in others. Once you have corrected them in yourself, and once you have begun to seek them out and use them against others, you are making use of the home game’s most underrated weapon in card-reading, player-reading, and situation-reading.

The Sixth Common Sense Rule of Poker

Utilize bluffing; bluff with the best-balanced frequency to maximize its usefulness.

The first thing to acknowledge is that bluffing is an essential element of poker. Without it, your arsenal decreases in potency. The player who sits back all night waiting for a good hand to collect a pot will lose more in most hands than he wins when his monster comes around. The fact is that most people recognize of other players whether or not they are ‘bluffers’. If you’ve been known to bluff -successfully or not- you can already count yourself one step closer to being among the poker-playing elite. If you can create doubt at a table when you bet, you’re doing yourself all kinds of favours.

Having recognized the need to bluff at least minimally, we move on to how to bluff successfully and with the right frequency. To put to use what we’ve learned so far, the best bluff involves no tells. You need to ensure that when you bluff, you act and carry yourself in the same manner as you would if you were betting with a good hand.

The size of the pot is also important. When you bluff, you anticipate folding at least one hand. If no hand folds, then your bluff was a failure or the hands out there are too strong. The larger the pot, the less likely a player will fold from it, as they have much more to gain from staying in the game. If the pot is smaller, then your bluff will fold more hands. In short, don’t make the mistake of trying to bluff for an enormous pot…you won’t stand a chance.

The amount of live players in the game is also important. Bluffing out one player is possible, two players is hard, three players is next to impossible, four players or more has a snowball’s chance in hell. When you bluff, you try to scare other players out of the game by making them believe that your hand is stronger than it is. Effectively, you are pulling off a ruse…a deception. It’s a whole lot easier to deceive a smaller number of players, and a monster won’t back out of the pot (or even a loose player with a semi-decent hand). The stronger your opponent’s hand, the more likely you will be called. If your opponent re-raises, give very serious consideration to getting out of the pot.

The type of live players in the game is equally important, and an issue already discussed. You would not bluff into a loose player who never folds. If you know that this player will call you, then you also know that a bluff would be a waste of money. Against such a player, you would be far better to not bluff at all, checking or folding a weak hand. You should be more inclined to bluff into one or two tight players. They are more prone to folding, but when a really tight player calls you, look out. He’s probably holding a strong hand. If he goes further and re-raises, get the hell out. You’ve been had…there should be no shame in strategic folding.

The tough part about home games is that typically, there are lower stakes to keep things friendly. While this is the poker that I much prefer, the problem that it creates is that players are often prone to call before they fold. When fifty cents is the maximum bet, most people will be inclined to stay in the game. There are two ways of handling this where it concerns small stakes games.

One, never try to bluff more than two players out of a small stakes game, and consider going at two players to even be a risky move. Even with low stakes, one player can be scared out of the game, but two will be a challenge. Two, get a feel for the table. Even though fifty cents is not a large sum of money, the feel of the table may be that because it is the maximum bet, it is enough of a scare in itself. Put another way, you are making a strong statement by using the table’s maximum bet, even though the size of that bet is not alot of money. Only a table with this type of perspective will offer this kind of atmosphere. Otherwise, with stakes too low, everybody will play loosely, minimizing your room to bluff.

The frequency with which you bluff is another tricky element. There are two things you want to bear in mind. The first is how you perceive the table you’re sitting at. The second is how you plan to have yourself perceived by the table.

The first is one we’ve already discussed. If the table is loose, bluff less. If the table is tight, bluff more. If the pot is big, be less inclined to bluff. If there are alot of live players in the game, be less inclined to bluff. If the table’s higher to maximum bets are typically not enough to really scare anybody out of a hand, be less inclined to bluff. You make assessments of the players at the table as you go, and adjust the elements of your playing style accordingly. Bluffing is no different. You might even be able to plan your bluff to the number after drawing enough conclusions about the table (ie. “I will bluff one in every twelve weak hands.”).

The second point about frequency is what turns the tables on you, as it were. We’ve spent a considerable amount of time discussing how you perceive the rest of the table. Now, imagine for a moment that you too are being evaluated and assessed. If you play with skilled players, do more than imagine…assume you are being evaluated and assessed. If you play in a regular home game, ask yourself now what your reputation is at that table. Do they think you play too tight? Too loose? More importantly for our discussion here, you want to assess how your bluffing frequency is perceived by the table. Do they think you bluff too much? Not enough or never at all?

Just as you would use your opponents’ excessive or insufficient bluffing against them, so too will a skilled player use yours against you. The frequency with which you bluff makes up the image with which you are viewed. As mentioned, getting caught bluffing isn’t all bad. At least now, you create the doubt every time you raise that you might be bluffing again. So, there are good rules to go by. Allow the times you are caught bluffing to ‘go on your record’. When you successfully bluff and nobody paid to see it, don’t show your hand to the table; you don’t need to show to collect the pot. But, most importantly, find the perfect balance between not bluffing enough and bluffing too much.

It is likely that you will want to avoid bluffing more times than not. Again, all that you need is the idea planted into the heads of your opponents that yours is a playing arsenal that includes the occasional bluff. You want doubt to result from your raises. You want the perfect balance to keep your opponents on their toes.

The Seventh Common Sense Rule of Poker

Practice inexpensive advertising to create false impressions of your playing style.

For the purposes of this discussion, we’ll define advertising as the act of creating a false impression of your playing style for the other players to see. It was obviously not the home game crowd that invented this one. It has more of the feel of the cardroom crowd, who see so many new faces every time they play. To purposely try to deceive the regulars at your table as to your style of play will not be easy. However, if you can play dumb enough or relay the idea that you have recently decided to adjust your style, you can make effective use of advertising.

We will concentrate on two advertising plays: the loose play and the bluff.

In this example, you are dealt a hand that is above average for the game, but not a likely winner. It is plain as day that nobody has anything to brag about. Even if there is one player who may have a strong hand, you remain in the game anyway. You open betting rounds if you assume that nobody will re-raise. Otherwise, you simply check, or call the betting rounds as they go by. If there is not alot of action, then it will not cost much, but you will be showing enough enthusiasm as to indicate you are holding something. If the play remains inexpensive, you play your hand to showdown. Hopefully by this point, it’s just you and one other player who has the winning hand. You throw your hand down and lose a bit of your money as your opponent scoops the pot.

Just what on earth did you accomplish here? At first glance, a bad play. And with any luck, every player that saw your hand at showdown will agree that it was a bad play. In fact, the whole point of playing this hand to showdown, even though it could not win and you were not betting strong enough to consider it a bluff, was for the players at the table to believe that you just committed a bad play. Through advertising, you have created a false impression of your playing style. You will now appear to be a player who is more loose, especially if you can follow up the play with talk about how you thought you had a chance. Advertising can cost any sum of money, but you have minimized your investment into this false impression by ensuring minimal action and loss.

The best part of all is that you may just as soon have won, in which case you get the pot. Sure, it was not a big pot, but this isn’t important, as a better hand or smarter play should by all rights have taken it. So, by pure luck and an inadvertent bluff, you win the pot. Otherwise, the worst case scenario is that you have advertised inexpensively.

The way in which such an investment and purposely bad play pays dividends is when you duplicate the exact same moves later on with a monster of a hand. When dealt this monster later on in the night, you spend the first few betting rounds doing similar moves: checking (only if you assume somebody else will open) and calling, but not raising or re-raising. If it’s assumed that you are too loose a player, your chances for the family pot will be taken less seriously. Then, on the last one or two betting rounds, you come out betting strong. If players still question your ability based on previous advertising, even better. Let them stay in for an even bigger pot for you.

This example begs the question: how can one single variance play (the fancy-dan term for advertising) affect players’ opinions over the course of numerous hands? This is probably what discourages most people from it. I suppose it’s hard to demonstrate the full worth of advertising using so basic an example as the one above. The point of players advertising is that through minimal expense, they allow the table to see their ‘bad plays’ on more than one occasion. While there will be some scenarios like the one above that are planned and orchestrated, opportunities to advertise for a low price may come up at rare moments to be seized upon. A variation on this play may involve staying in for a couple of betting rounds, and then folding. Upon folding, you expose your cards to the table (which, although ethically wrong, is not usually outlawed) who see the crap cards you were staying in on. This creates the false impression of what your requirements are to stay in a pot. If exposing your folded cards is so frowned upon, then just tell everybody what you had stayed in on.

A false bluff, as opposed to one where you are honestly trying to scare everybody out of the game, can also be used as advertising. In our discussion of tells, we talked about how ‘false tells’ can be exhibited using advertising. If you can make an inexpensive ‘bluff’, exhibiting certain tells like forehead scratching or bottom lip-biting, then come showdown, the table will see that you were bluffing. Later on, when you are dealt a monster, you bet and raise again, while exhibiting the exact same tells. The beauty of it is that as players feel they’ve tagged onto your bluff tells, you show them your monster and collect the pot.

In both examples of advertising, you make an inexpensive investment for future dividends. In both examples, you were dealt bad cards. Rather than play the hand tight or fold outright, you not only stay in the game, but you make sure that everybody at the table saw what you stayed in with. This sets the precedent that you either are too loose a player or that you exhibit certain tells when bluffing. Later on in the night, your time comes up and you are dealt a monster hand. This time, you have a hand worth playing legitimately. You duplicate the moves made previously while advertising in order to lure players in. They still believe that either you are too loose, or that the tells you exhibit indicate that you are bluffing. More players stay in the game, because they don’t take your presence as seriously. When more players stay in the game, the pot increases in size. That pot is the one to win with your monster hand.

Realistically, you will only pull in one or two big pots through a previous variance play. However, a number of variance plays peppered over the course of the night will offer the chance to pull a number of big pots most every time you are dealt a monster. Kept inexpensive, advertising is a cheap way of further confusing players’ perception of your style. The more confused they are, the less they can read your hands.

The key is to think of advertising as anything visible that you pull throughout the night to deceive your opponent’s perception of your playing style.

Now you can become an excellent poker player in the wink of an eye…in an instant…in a nanosecond. Just like that, and in less time than it took you to read from there to here.

Is this a scam? Some kind of offering from an esoteric self-improvement guru? Isn’t excellence a long time in the making? Nope. None of the above. You can do it right now. It’s the real deal. Here’s how you can accomplish this wondrous feat. Like the Nike commercials admonish us, Just do it!

Make the commitment, and it’s done. Then, work your tail off every day for the rest of your life to make sure it stays done. IBM founder Thomas Watson said, “If you want to achieve excellence, you can get there today. As of this second, quit doing less-than-excellent stuff.” Simple sounding? Sure, but like the Golden Rule, most profound truths are simple.

Lou Krieger is the co-author of ‘Poker for Dummies’ and the host of Royal Vegas Poker.

A while back Mason Malmuth wrote about having “…a zero tilt factor.” That seemingly simple statement is really quite profound. After all, here is a man who thinks deeply about poker, and whose expertise is grounded in statistical theory — some of which is quite complex. Yet that statement about “zero tilt factor,” which is nothing more than a commitment each of us could choose to make, might just account for as much of Malmuth’s own poker success as all his technical knowledge.

Because his statement really touched a nerve in me, I consciously committed to zero tilt factor (or ZTF, as I like to call it). I simply made a commitment that I would never, ever go on tilt again. Not for one session, nor one hour, or even one hand. That commitment alone gives me an extra edge over any player who goes on tilt. The money they throw off, I’ll catch! How many of you can say the same thing about your own game — that you never go on tilt. Not sometimes, not occasionally, but never.

The key to excellence is making a commitment. Wishing or wanting to achieve excellence is not enough. Neither is it sufficient to merely involve yourself in a a try for excellence. You have to commit to it. Make no bones about it, there is a significant difference between involvement and commitment, and it’s like the difference between ham and eggs. The chicken is involved; the ham is committed!

Want to be a great poker player? Commit to greatness. Sure, you won’t be any better 10 minutes after you’ve made that commitment than you are right now. But commitment is a necessary first step down a long road. You’ll need to read up, think about the game while you’re at the table and when you’re away from it, model your own game after players you respect, talk to winning players whose game you admire — and you’ll need to keep on doing the things it takes to guarantee yourself the best of it, until your deal is done.

Still, you can declare your excellence tonight, starting with the first hand you play. How do you begin? Visualize yourself as the greatest poker player ever — and act accordingly. Sound silly? Even embarrassing? It’s not. A few years ago, before I started writing for Card Player, the instructor in a writing class told me, “The way to become a published writer is easy. Just put on the hat of a writer, and you’ll grow into it!”

Yup. Just do it. And you know what? It works! Someone, I’m not sure who, said, “Ninety percent of success is just showing up.” That’s what this is all about, showing up — and showing up every time you play for the rest of your playing life. Commitment — that unbreakable bond to excellence, while easily made, carries with it this mandate: I will picture myself as the greatest poker player ever, and always play accordingly.

Sure, you’ll slide through valleys on your road to the heights. So what! Life is not a kindergarten, and most things worthwhile do not come without enduring struggle and adversity.

Here’s a terrific opportunity. When you sit in your game tonight, play like an excellent player. Don’t delude yourself into playing a less-than-quality hand because you “…have a feeling.” Don’t play tired, and don’t take the worst of it. Make the plays a top player would. You already know much of what they do. You only need to apply it, and apply it every time you sit in a game. Never, but never, allow or permit yourself to play less than your best. That’s what commitment is all about. That’s the decision you make in the wink of an eye.

And if you don’t know what a top player would do in a given situation, that, too, is an opportunity. It’s a chance to learn. To keep your commitment you need to learn something new every day. And once you learn it, go out and practice it. Making that commitment, and having decided to do what it takes to achieve excellence as a poker player, never do anything, no matter how trivial, inconsistent with your commitment.

Here’s the truth, and it’s simple. It does not take long to make changes. It takes forever to maintain change, but changes of the most dramatic, fundamental and far-reaching sorts, can be had instantly and made today. It’s true with diets, smoking and becoming a great poker player. Want to quit smoking? Just give up cigarettes! Want to lose weight? Don’t eat any fats and exercise aerobically for thirty minutes every day! It will work for you when you work at it. Want to be a better poker player? Commit to playing better. Then do it.

But remember, it’s all-or-nothing. You either commit to making change or you don’t. Saying you’re going to change, and then doing it — except for five or six weak hands you decided to play because you were tired, or you had a hunch, or whatever, just doesn’t cut it. You’re either there or your not — on the bus or off the bus. No in-betweens allowed, and this is a bet you can’t hedge.

You want to be a top-notch poker player? Great. Go ahead and commit to it. Do it and it’s done. You can reach excellence in a heartbeat, and you can do it today. But if you do, there’ll be no more talk about bad beats, or that dealer who kills you. Once you commit to achieving excellence and being the best poker player alive, you can never again place the blame for your failures or fortune on anyone else. Your results are your own. You own them and they own you.

And if you decide not to make that commitment, it’s no big deal. Just recognize the truth for what it is. You’re a recreational player who cares more for enjoyment than results. Nothing wrong with that, but you can’t have it both ways. If you want to be a winning, excellent player, go ahead and do it. It takes no time at all to achieve change, but it will take forever to maintain it. It’s that simple. Really.

A reader living in upstate New York who plays at Turning Stone Casino asked me to comment on two hands. One was played in a cash game; the other in a tournament. The issues are interesting in and of themselves, and, in addition, help point out some of the major differences between tournament and cash game play.

SITUATION NUMBER 1 “In a $10 -$20 Texas hold’em cash game, I was dealt pocket Nines and considered raising, but because I was in early-middle position, I decided to call instead. No one raised, and five players saw the flop, which was 4-4-2 of mixed suits.

“The player in the small blind came out betting. I was considering whether to raise or call, when an opponent to the small blind’s left beat me to the punch. I knew the small blind frequently overplays his hands and likes to come out betting ¾ or even raising ¾ with mediocre holdings, or sometimes with nothing at all.

“The raiser fancies himself a very strong player, is certain he can always put each of his opponents on a hand, but he’s not nearly as strong a player as he thinks. He has a weakness for suited cards, and will usually play almost suited hand.

“While I’m fairly certain my pair of nines is better than the small blind’s hand, I’m not sure about the raiser, since it’s difficult for me to put him on a hand. He could have a pair of Queens, Jacks, or Tens and not raised before the flop. He might also have a hand like K-4 suited, or he might even be raising on a draw with A-3 or A-5. A pair of Sixes, Sevens, or Eights, or even A-K are all possibilities.

“There are two players to act after me, and I believe one of them will cold-call the raise and the other will release his hand. Moreover, I expect the small blind to either call or reraise. Thinking I have only two outs and may not win even if I catch another Nine, I decide to fold my hand. Was this the correct play, based on my analysis of the other players?”

MY RESPONSE This appears to be one of those situations in which raising or folding is far superior to calling. A call doesn’t help you much, and might even attract additional callers who would probably have throw their hands away if you raised. Moreover, calling does not help you define the hands held by the two players who have already acted.

Since the small blind plays any two cards under most circumstances, he’s more likely to hold nothing at all, than he is to hold one of the two remaining fours. If the second player does hold a four, he’ll just call if you reraise, planning to checkraise the turn ¾ when betting limits double.

But if you three-bet him on the flop and he checks the turn, you have some options at your disposal. You can bet if you believe neither of them has a four or an overpair bigger than your pair of Nines, or you can check behind them and save a bet if, in fact, you’re beaten. If you’re not beaten, checking the turn might even induce a bluff on the river, which you can easily snap off with your pair of Nines.

The key to your decision is the trickier player who acts immediately before you do. I would assume he’d have raised before the flop with A-K, or with a pair of Aces, Kings, Queens, or Jacks, so I’d discount the chances that he’s has any of those hands. A pair of Tens is a possibility, and so is a Four that’s suited to an Ace or King. He might also have a pair of Eights, Sevens, Sixes, or even Fives. Since your hand is probably better than most of his potential holdings, my inclination, if I were in your shoes, would be to raise ¾ although folding is not a bad decision either. After all, the small blind, whom we cannot put on a hand because he could have anything, might just have a real hand this time. Because it’s more difficult to beat two opponents than just one, folding is a good option too.

SITUATION NUMBER 2 “I’m in a limit hold’em tournament with 20-minute rounds and blinds that double each round. We’re five-handed at the final table, and I have the second highest stack, when I’m dealt Ah-Qh under the gun. I raise, and everyone but the small blind, who is the chip leader ¾ though not by much ¾ calls. The flop contains a Jack and two small hearts. The small blind bets out on the flop, and I read him for a Jack. I call, since I have two overcards that can make a bigger pair, as well as a draw to the best possible flush. But the turn is no help and neither is the river. We both check, and he wins the pot with K-J.

“In retrospect, I think I should have folded to his bet on the flop. With only two of us, and each chip so vitally important, this did not seem to be the best time to continue with a draw.”

MY RESPONSE If this were a cash game, it’s clearly correct to call with your hand. But this was a tournament, and since you were in second chip position, this was a hand you did not need to play. If you had a substantial chip lead over the player who was third in chip count, it might be correct to call the flop, in hopes of making your flush and having two additional betting rounds to punish your opponent. But once he bet the turn you should have released your hand. At that point your chances for improvement were reduced, and less of an opportunity to punish him if you were lucky enough to make your hand.

In a no-limit tournament you might have raised him all-in on the flop, if you thought there was some chance that he would have released his hand. Because you raised before the flop, a good player might read you for an overpair and not want to jeopardize his chip lead. But in a limit tournament you probably won’t induce a fold by raising, unless your opponent held A-K and was willing to fold in the face of a raise.

But all of this is speculative and conjecture. The key issue here is that you did not need to play this hand in the first place, and could have released it with a minimal loss in chips once your opponent bet the flop.

Conventional wisdom is to attack the small stacks and avoid the big ones. Of course, if you flopped an unbeatable hand, you’d welcome an opportunity to reduce the chip leader’s stacks to rubble, but in this case you were the fox, not the hound.

In retrospect, you would have been better off waiting for opportunities to punish the small stacks. If this hand were played against a small stack, you would have been justified in raising him all-in. After all, you couldn’t have gotten hurt by bets on the turn and river, and with nine outs to a flush and three additional Queens and three Aces that would presumably vault you into the lead, it’s a play worth making ¾ particularly when you realize that each additional player eliminated guarantees you a higher rung on the pay ladder.