Much is made in poker strategy (particularly tournament strategy) of being the player ‘first in’ – that is, the first player to bet. The many advantages of this are obvious – with no strength shown before you act you can raise quite weak holdings and take down the blinds successfully. The pot odds to call raises are worse than if there are multiple opponents; and players always need a bigger hand to call a raise than to make one themselves (David Sklansky’s ‘gap concept’ gives a thorough explanation of why this is true).
What I want to look at here is the opposite effect – being the last player to bet. This particular effect was highlighted very well by Annette Obrestad at this year’s WSOPE. Frequently Annette_15 would raise marginal holdings, be re-raised by players also holding marginal holdings, and re-shove back over the top of them. Not only is this an extremely powerful play (it screams strength possibly more than any other), it clearly shows the importance of making a play that leaves you last in.
By making a bet that leaves no option available to the opponent other than to call; you effectively disarm their whole poker arsenal. Hands which are ok to try and re-steal from a loose aggressive player are frequently horrible hands to call that final bet with. No one likes calling big all-ins with hands like 88 or A-10 regardless of how sure they are that a player is stealing from them.
Imagine that two deep stacked players both hold 88 (two players holding the same pair actually happens surprisingly often in holdem), one on the button and one in the big blind. Imagine the player on the button raises and the big blind moves all in for a massive over shove – it is a nasty spot to be in with 88 and the hand should often be folded.
Now imagine that the button player raises, the big blind re-raises small, and the button now goes all in. The situation has now been reversed – the big blind is now in an even worse spot than the button is in the previous example (that extra raise indicates a lot more strength) and should probably just fold.
By being the player to put that last chip in you will often leave your opponent in a horrible spot – if you are sure you opponent is making a move this is often a great way to take the pot down. The effect of being last in can be incredible – just look at this hand between Phil Ivey and Paul Jackson, where the first player to be ‘last in’ would have been the player to win the pot. A word of warning though, read the spectacular Stu Ungar/Mansour Matloubi hand in our classic hand archive to see how this strategy can backfire. If you meet a true great ‘last in’ might not mean a lot.
Loading ...
