to show or not to show (ii)

Part (i) suggested never volunteering hole cards invariably beats the bottom line impact of constantly exposing them. Clearly, to transit from one state to the other requires us to escalate the flow of information; to show more hands. The sensible but simplistic deduction assumes the submission of any information to be detrimental, even just a little: so don’t give any.

Sure enough, correctly adding numbers on a sudoko or clues to a crossword invariably facilitates problem-solving; however, not always, though, the elicitation of a patient’s symptoms or, indeed, body language from a poker player. Sometimes, less is more; selective information misleads, too much invariably confuses.

At the table, and your adversary has you exactly where you are: he commits to you just the right amount of respect. Good on him: but what are you to do? Well, you have two options: either you attempt to alter his perception of your game, or you, stealthily, render this perception false. However, since game-adjustment isn’t always desirable, straightforward or globally good, sometimes we’re left with only the former. One way of achieving this is through disinformation or ‘the deliberate leakage of misleading information ’. Time, perhaps, for psyops.

The Information Exchange:

Voluntary disclosure, it is widely held, is to issue free information: however, it isn't free, information is exchanged. Once committed to the trade each player is required to exploit his or her angle with greater effectiveness.

There are instances where disinformation is delivered surreptitiously. In a ring game with unfamiliar players you raise very loosely with Q-10o:

Scenario1: Everyone passes. You show Q-10o.

Scenario 2: The Big Blind defends. The flop comes 9-K-J. You lead, your opponent passes. Once again, you show Q-10o.

Scenario3: The button cold calls. The A-rag flop is checked. The turn brings a 9, you secure the pot and then lay bare the bluff.

Opponents and the viewing gallery may discern only a very loose under-the-gun raise from all scenarios. What price, though, for this strategic insight?

The message sent is the one received in Scenario 1; the price you’ve charged is the intelligence that you know he knows. Evidently, you openly desired your adversaries to hold this knowledge, but they’d surely readily recognise your thinly veiled attempts to manufacture an image; after all, if Q-10o was, for you, a typical raising hand, why make a point of displaying it?

The motives for relinquishing the contents of your hand in Scenario 2 are considerably less obvious: are you being polite, showing off a great hand, saying ‘when I bet, I’ve got it’, or still ‘hey I’ve just raised utg with Q-10o’? Which seeds are you sowing?

Although, to him, your intentions are far from clear, neither to you will be his interpretation, or best guess, of them. Despite having sold him a ‘Q-10o utg raise’, quite what you’ve charged may not be apparent. However, that may not matter much, so long as you’re classified a loose early raiser.

In the third case, the ruse should bear greater success: the focus is on the turn where you appear to brag a bluff. So you know that he knows you’ve raised early with Q-10o, but he thinks you know that he knows you’ve just bluffed the turn!

Compare these events to an occasion where your adversary’s buddy, standing behind you, relays this information afterwards, without your knowledge. In this case you may not mind, but what price now? Nothing: unless we’re measuring ethics.

There are, naturally, subtler illustrations than those mentioned above*. For instance, say you commit an untypical (for you) but prevalent play on the flop leading to a successful bluff or completion of a hand, albeit uncalled, on a future street. Benevolent or vain your intentions to indulge in poker’s ‘show & tell’ appear honest, but in so doing you may just wrong-foot the observant opponent further down the line.

Next article: part (iii) 29th June – a consequence of my inability to finish part (ii) in time.

* Also, in big bet games such as no-limit there is an added dimension over many decisions in limit: quantity. So the potential misdirection implicit in hand-showing has extra depth in no-limit e.g. an opponent shows you a bluff on the river, but is trying to sell you an over-bet on the turn.