The X Factor

Byron Jacobs

There is a very simple test in chess which is a good indicator of natural talent for the game. It can be taken by anyone who knows how the pieces move and it is particularly interesting to see how players of various abilities cope with it. Essentially you have to manoeuvre a knight around the board, visiting various squares whilst avoiding certain other squares. It is not easy. The test is timed and anyone who can do it in less than ten minutes has great potential as a chessplayer. If you fancy your chances on the 64 squares rather than with 52 cards then have a look at http://www.jlevitt.dircon.co.uk/talent.htm

I would like to propose a similar, albeit rather cruder, test for limit hold’em. Unfortunately this is not a test that can be taken by complete beginners, but when someone has a reasonable experience of the game, then I think it may be relevant in assessing their potential. The idea is as follows.

Your test victim is given the hand 10c-9c and they are in the big blind in a normal limit hold’em game. It is folded round to the small blind and you will play the small blind hand. It is important to give a reasonable profile of you (the small blind) and this is as follows.

You are marked out as a decent, tricky player who plays well but is not outstanding. You are reasonably aggressive and capable of making plays but you are not a maniac. You won’t chase hopeless situations and are not a calling station. Obviously this hand will be played heads-up and you have a track record as a decent heads-up player but no more than that. Your perspective on your opponent is that he/she plays to the same level as you with a similar style. The big blind (your test victim) must be told all of this.

I am not going to reveal your hand until later, but I will tell you how to play the hand in response to the play of the big blind. Your play will all be quite logical.

Firstly, you limp in. The big blind can now either check or raise. In response to a raise you will call and play will move on to the flop. The flop comes down Jh-8h-6d. Regardless of the pre-flop play you will now bet. If the big blind calls then play moves on to the turn. If instead the big blind raises you will just call.

The turn brings Jh-8h-6d-As. Again, regardless of the earlier play, you will now bet. The big blind may now call in which case we move on to the river. If instead they decide to raise, you will just call.

The river brings Jh-8h-6d-As-2s. At this point what you do, as the small blind, depends upon the previous play. If the play on the turn went bet – raise – call, then you will now check and fold to a bet. If instead the play went bet – call, then you will now bet. If the big blind raises here you will fold.

So, what hand do you think you (the small blind) are holding? You have exactly the same hand as the big blind, only in spades – 10s-9s. No-one has anything but the stronger bettor will win the pot. The pot should only be split if both players are very weak.

The point of the hand is that if the big blind plays with a decent amount of aggression they will win. If they play too passively, they will lose. This hand tests their ability to be naturally aggressive in appropriate situations. I would suggest that the correct plays are as follows.

  1. Pre-flop. 10c-9c is a decent enough holding playing heads up with position and the big blind should raise. Although the high card strength is poor, in many ways this hand actually plays better than something stronger such as A-3 for a couple of reasons:
    1. It’s hard to win much money with A-3. If an ace comes on the flop your opponent will ‘expect’ you to have an ace because of your pre-flop raise (or at least consider it very possible) and is unlikely to give you much action.
    2. Your opponent is tricky, so if you miss the flop and get heat you might want to stick around. Now with 10c-9c you will almost certainly have more outs than with A-3. For example if the flop is Q-8-4 you could have up to ten outs if your opponent has made a pair. With A-3 you will have a maximum of three.
  2. The Flop. Raising is again correct. The big blind has position and an excellent draw with a minimum of eight outs to the straight and quite possibly more by pairing. The flop is reasonably coordinated, features a two-flush and it is perfectly possible that the small blind also has some sort of draw. It is not that likely that they hold a jack as playing for a check raise would be more natural with such a strong holding for heads-up play.
  3. The Turn. There are two ways that the turn can be arrived at. Let’s consider each case:
    1. The big blind just called on the flop. This is a reasonable play if (Note: please use italics for ‘if’) it is made with the intention of raising on the turn. When the small blind bets out this ace is a great scare card and raising is a good play. We know that the small blind is a decent tricky player and could well be on a weak draw. The big blind’s pre-flop raise showed strength and it is quite plausible that the ace has helped. The small blind might now very well fold with a low pair.
    2. The big blind raised the flop, but now the small blind has bet out on the ace anyway. This is suspicious. If the small blind held an ace it is most likely they would have raised pre-flop but they only limped and then showed strength on a board of middling cards. How can this ace possibly help unless they have a hand such as A-6 or A-8? Furthermore, with a hand that strong it would be very tempting to go for a check raise. It rather looks as though the small blind is using the ace as a scare card (as indeed they are) but they do not hold a monopoly on that particular tactic. When the scare tactics come from the big blind they should be more convincing and more frightening. A raise here is an excellent play which maximises the big blind’s potential.
    3. If all else fails, the big blind still has eight good outs on the river.
  4. The River. Again there are two ways to come to arrive at the river.
    1. The big blind just called on the turn. Now when the small blind bets the river the only sensible play is to give up and fold. Of course, as the cards stand the big blind can win by bluff-raising but this is – in principle – a very odd way to play the hand. The 2s appears utterly harmless. Why should this encourage a raise on the river? The small blind should now call with more or less anything – certainly any pair.
    2. The big blind raised the turn. Now the small blind will check, the big blind should bet and the small blind will fold. The big blind is rewarded for good aggressive handling of their draw.

Of course, I realise that there are some problems here. It will favour players who are more comfortable with short-handed play and it will also favour players who are more aggressive. Nevertheless, I believe it has some validity. The ability to visualise complex knight manoeuvres around a chessboard demonstrates potential chess skill; the ability to be naturally aggressive in an appropriate situations demonstrates potential poker skill.

So, try this out on your friends and see if they can win the pot. I would be interested to hear of anyone’s results.

Provided by Card Player, The Poker Authority

> top