He Sees Your Cards.

[David Sklansky]

In which games, if any, would it be to your advantage to play one hand only, against a cheater who did not realize that you knew he knew your cards. Assume you quit after one hand and that you are not concerned about his finding out you knew.

[Unknown Soldier]

In this case I don't think you would have an advantage. You would not be able to bluff at all. The only way you could win would be to call a bluff of his with your (presumably) marginal holding. And you would obviously not be able to get him to pay you off with a better hand then his.

[George Rice]

Well, you could move all-in in no-limit hold'em, possibly some other no-limit games, for the following reason. The cheater will fold most of his hands, even if he has a small advantage, because he figures on having larger advantages later on, and will get all of your money with less risk by waiting.

This assumes you will fold your very worst hands, as he will call more often. He will also call with his premium hands. But you will be moving-in and not be called the vast majority of the time.

The above assumes the cheater is also smart enough to wait for better opportunities. And it's better if the stacks aren't huge compared with the blinds, as your +EV of your steal may be overcome by the -EV if you are called.

[candyman718]

I think you risk getting a call here. If I could see you hand and I had you dominated, i.e. KT vs T3, I am calling. I am not waiting for a premium hand.

[Unknown Soldier]

if it's a cash game and I'm the cheater, then I'm calling with any edge, because even if I lose, I can reload and still have a big advantage over the person who's cards I can see. So I don't agree with the all-in argument.

[BigBuffet]

[ QUOTE ]
In which games, if any, would it be to your advantage to play one hand only, against a cheater who did not realize that you knew he knew your cards. Assume you quit after one hand and that you are not concerned about his finding out you knew.

[/ QUOTE ]

How 'bout Panguine?

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
if it's a cash game and I'm the cheater, then I'm calling with any edge, because even if I lose, I can reload and still have a big advantage over the person who's cards I can see. So I don't agree with the all-in argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can, but I think you're making a mistake.

First, you are virtually guaranteed to win all my money by waiting, with little risk. Why risk losing?

Second, how would it look if you called an all-in bet with "any advantage?" You can only call with reasonable calling hands to an all-in bet, or risk being discovered as a cheater.

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you risk getting a call here. If I could see you hand and I had you dominated, i.e. KT vs T3, I am calling. I am not waiting for a premium hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a terrible call, imo. It's not about waiting for a premimum hand. It's about reducing your risk to almost zero.

Also, calling with KT to an all-in bet is suspicious. You figure to make far more in the long run by not risking being found out.

You should only call with AA, KK and maybe QQ or JJ. And then only if I didn't have an overcard. Why would you call with other hands if you couldn't see my cards? And on the first hand at that.

[AaronBrown]

I agree with George Rice. If I'm the cheater, I'm not calling any all-in preflop bet. Even if I have an 85% chance of winning, I'll have 100% chances of winning if I wait. I'll see every cheap flop and bide my time until you go all-in and I know I have you beat.

I would play one hand of hold'em against the cheater under these conditions, if I had confidence that he was a careful guy. I think I have the advantage. With a weak hand, I'd go all-in preflop and take the blinds. With a stronger hand, I'd make a good-sized preflop bet in hopes he would call. If I hit the flop at all, I go all-in. If I don't, I check to showdown. If he makes a big bet, I decide whether he's doing it because he knows he's got me beat, or because he knows my hand is weak and expects me to fold.

But if the cheater is a poor or average player, or a gambler, I'd pass on the opportunity to play him.

I'd prefer to play him in Omaha than hold'em. Things are more unpredictable early, so I could get bigger preflop bets on more hands, and there's less chance he has me dominated after the flop.

[disjunction]

George,

I think catching him thinking there will be more hands defeats the spirit of the problem. We want to assume he's playing this hand perfectly with his knowledge, and maximizing his own EV.

The only way you're going to catch him, I think, is by exploiting his false model of how you will play. That is, he thinks that you think it is best to take action A now, and take action A' if the 9 of spades comes up on the next street, etc. But you will defy his expectation by taking Action B on the next street instead. The easiest example I think is getting him to bluff with the nut worst hands when you have a mediocre-bad hand, where his worst hands represent large part of his holdings, but he thinks you can't call because you'll get burnt on later streets.

So in No Limit Hold'em you can get him to 3-barrel, because each time he thinks you think you'll have to pay even more on the big streets.

But the above isn't necessarily true, and I can't think of an obvious answer.