My latest poker strategy article, Putting Your Opponents to a Decision, is now appearing in the May issue of 2+2 Magazine. It addresses some misunderstandings related to the intrinsic value of aggressive actions:
[T]here are other decisions in poker besides call-or-fold. When you check, you put your opponent to a bet-or-check decision. In other words, after you check, your opponent does not (or should not given you are doing your job well) know whether or not you plan to fold to a bet. Thus, when he holds a weak hand, he has a decision: should he attempt to bluff, or he should he check behind and take a free card or surrender the pot? Just as with calling or folding, this is a decision that your opponent may get wrong, and if she does, then you stand to profit.
As always, please check it out and let me know what you think!
Good article.
I like the use of “she” as the pronoun; sticking it to the people who always write “he” fits nicely with your world view. I must admit when I noticed it at the bottom of the fourth paragraph I immediately started reading back from the start of the article because I assumed I’d missed some specific information about the villain.
You know though, English already has a non-specific human singular pronoun, “they”, which like “you” has been used with singular meaning for hundred of years from Chaucer and Shakespeare to the “Hei ‘Sol Reader” article directly below yours.
Thanks for the very interesting comment (and kind words). I don’t know that I even intend to “stick it” to anyone (speaking of gendered language) as much as use both because why not have some hypothetical female players? Though I do realize that there exist people who take the use of feminine pronouns in this context as a provocation.
As for “they”, it’s always kinda grated on me to see that used in the singular, though I’ll admit I wasn’t aware that Shakespeare and Chaucer did it. I guess if it’s good enough for them….