PLAYING $1 AND $2 NO LIMIT CASH GAMES
with Sam O’Connor
TRAPPING AND AVOIDING TRAPS
A good reader asks:
I was just was wondering if you have some time to give a few examples of spotting and defending against traps.
A trap is a hand that benefits us while surprising the opponent. It can also be an opponent’s hand that surprises us. Either way, when played well, it wins some significant bucks for somebody. We have space enough in this article to discuss the most common trap, the hidden set.
By definition, a set is always hidden in that a card on the board matches a pair in the pocket. (A pair on the board which matches a pocket card does not a set make; those three cards are referred to correctly as “trips”.) We like to add the work “hidden” to our set in instances where the set is hard to detect by the opponents. The hidden set is a surprise to the opponents and perhaps to the entire table.
In the following example, Leo played the hand. Leo is a cowboy from Oklahoma and a well seasoned poker veteran. In our example, Leo’s biggest adversary at the table was a young man named Zack. Between them, they dominated the other players.
Leo was two seats from the button with big slick. He raised preflop and Zack called from the button.
Zack reminded Leo a little of Doyle Brunson. He had the card skill and the “Dolly” chatter with all its diversions; and he did it well. Leo tried to avoid the young man when he could because there were softer spots at the table to make a challenge and take advantage. In fact, Leo had been waiting for a chance to change seats and place the young man more on the right so a few of the harder choices could be avoided.
But for the moment, Zack, the young charger, was two chairs behind Leo and they were heads up in a hand. This young man was an action player who asked and gave no quarter which, as Leo has always said, is the way it should be.
After Leo raised with ace-king pre-flop and the young man called, Leo wondered why he hadn’t been re-raised. The young man’s calling action was different from his usual aggression, especially when he thought Leo was trying to rob him of a button raise.
The two players got a three rag flop. It ragged the nine of clubs, the five of clubs, and the deuce of diamonds.
Leo checked his ace-king, giving Zack the opportunity to bluff from the button. But he checked along.
The turn brought the king of spades, pairing Leo’s big slick.
Because Leo was the raiser, and the young man a mere pre-flop caller and a post-flop checker, Leo bet more than the size of the pot. If Zack was drawing to a club flush, he could try for that flush; all he had to do was call the big bet. And, if the young man had a king, Leo reasoned, Leo had the best king pair because of the ace kicker.
Zack called.
The river was the eight of hearts, avoiding the working flush, if there ever was one.
Leo checked his one pair of kings and the young man moved all-in. After not enough thinking, Leo called.
You know what happened. The young man showed a set of deuces.
This is the classic set trap well played. The trouble is it was so classic it can hardly be called “hidden”. It was bad play on Leo’s part, which was something unusual for Leo. He didn't pay attention to any of the clues, which were ordinary and not too hard to catch. Among the clues:
Mainly, the young man was a very strong player and, in this hand, he slow played like a city call boy. That should have raised a red flag for Leo. The rest of the reasons are related to this obvious change in play pattern.
The opponent, a big raiser, didn't re-raise before the flop.
The opponent checked along after the flop when he could have made a button bet and taken the pot.
The opponent called Leo’s oversized bet after a big turn card. Pot odds for a drawing hand were out of the question. Let’s say for a moment that Zack hadn’t been holding a set. If the king didn’t help his hand, he wouldn’t have called; and, if the king did help him, he would have raised. Because Zack’s call was so unusual, the call showed a tremendous amount of strength.
The young man, not given to desperation bluffs, made an all-in move after a garbage river card. This showed giant strength after apparent weakness and was conclusive evidence of a big hand. Actually, all Zack’s moves showed strength after apparent weakness, the usual mark of a trapping set.
Leo called after the river because he sensed the opponent was ready to bluff. In view of other, overwhelming evidence, that was not a good reason. Additionally, Leo knew the young man to be a better player than to make a desperation bluff.
The point is the trap and its symptoms in this hand were not unusual; they were typical.
Now, about getting even.
After the hand, Leo was able to change seats to a position across from Zack. While sitting across from him. Leo noticed when the young man had a solid hand, he stared in silence at no particular thing across the room. When he bluffed, he stared at his opponent and sometimes talked to him.
It’s important for us to keep our cool after we have made a shameful mistake. Leo did not target Zack in future play, but was conscious of the young man’s attitude toward him. And he continued to watch the tell he had found.
Leo knew Zack thought Leo was ripe to be bluffed. So, in a later hand, Leo gave Zack an opportunity to bluff and Leo was able to call a very sizable bet, giving him more than his money back.
Leo’s play was an invitation to bluff. And that’s another trap.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sam O’Connor is the author of the new book How to Dominate $1 and $2 No Limit Hold ‘Em. You can contact him at HowToDominate@aol.com