Winning the Oscar

3-6 holdem. 4 players see an un-raised flop, which contains 3 spades. Solid player (SP) in early position bets out, and 1 weak player (WP) in middle position calls. Turn comes the 4th spades. SP mumbles something to dealer about not knowning how to deal and checks in disgust. WP bets. SP picks up the cards and almost throws them in the muck, but then decides to call. River comes brick, and SP checks, WP bets, and SP check raises!


WP turns over 2sX while SP turns over As7s for the nut flush which he had flopped.


This was some serious oscar performance I've ever seen at the table I must admit. This makes me wonder, is this act ethical??

Of course, it's ethical.


But, you never should have been fooled once he called the turn. He was much too animated.


Read "Caro's Book of Tells". You'll never fall for such an obvious act again.

"is this act ethical??"


Yes.


Let's say the act had been far more subtle, just the tiniest hint of disappointment on seeing the flush card on the turn. Would that be ethical? If you answer yes, then consider that the difference between that and what happened differs in degree only.


Or let's say he had done the big act, but with no pair and no flush, and he check-raised the river against a bright player who folds because of the act, as most of us here would. The double switch. That'd be quite a play, praiseworthy in some circles, even though the act is the same.


I can't recall ever seeing the double switch fail at limit. That could mean it doesn't get tried, or that it doesn't fail.


Now you got me thinking! Because I don't physically react to turn cards, it'd definitely be noticed if I did a little head shake when the four-flush comes after I bet or raised on the flop. In theory, against the right player, all I'd need do is show honest disappointment on the turn (with say, top pair), and then check-raise the river, and an attentive player with a non-nut flush would fold! Hmmmm.


Tommy

Tommy,


Interesting thought on the reverse psychology part. However, I think it would be an expensive attempt because it will cost you 3 big bets if it fails. Well, let us know whether it works for you at the table when the occasion arises...

I haven't read that book yet. Is it worth the $25 investment? Thanks.

Of course if we all read Caro's book then the Qscar winner will be one who acts strong when stong :-)

I think it's definitely worth the investment.


At the very least, it is the best source of information about a facet of the game which is hardly discussed in other great books like HEPFAP, 7CSFAP, and Theory of Poker. It gives you information to win/save (especially save) some bets in an entirely different way.

only once or twice but never caught doing it.

was forced to show it once though and I still won!

"top set good!"


p.s. I was pretty sure my lone opponent didnt have it and thought he'd fold. He was pissed cuz he flopped top two.

very obvious what he had when he kept his cards. hes ACTING weak. almost textbook. even on the flop. hes representing a small flush. when he keeps his cards after almost mucking, put up the readerboard. he's got the goods...


b

This performance is not worthy of an oscar, not even close. "SP" was performing the classic "weak when strong" maneuver, which was outlined in Mike Caro's book of tells many moons ago. My question is this: how "solid" could solid player really be if he uses such a pitifully old and crusty routine like the "weak when strong" act on his opponents? The only thing that saved him was that his opponent was an even bigger magoo for not realizing that when SP called the turn, he certainly would not be FOLDING the river, as there really wasn't much else he could have possibly played that way other than a flush.


Dave in Cali