A hand came up recently at the end of a long night of poker that I found myself explaining my actions to my opponent after all was said and done. Let me set up the scenario.

Blinds are ten cents and twenty cents. I have about $78 dollars, most of which was mine when we sat down. I got fifty dollars deep at this structure, but that goes back to the old adage, "Never quit when you have the best of it." To be fair to myself, I added the last twenty all at once after some of my opponents started to grow very large stacks. In any case, it's down to myself and one other player, and has about $22 in front of him. We've been jabbing at each other for the last twenty minutes or so after breaking the last of the others trying to catch each other in a mistake. He's playing a bit timid and tight for a two-man game, and he isn't taking too many chances. That being said, we've more or less dispensed with the blind structure as being meaningful, and every played pot has at least a couple dollars in it before the flop.

He's the dealer when we reach the final hand of the night. I'm dealt 2-3 offsuit, and he opens for a buck. I decide his timidity may prove strong enough for me to pick up the hand after the flop with anything, so I call. The flop comes A 4 J, rainbow. I bet two dollars representing Jacks, and get called. Before he called he seemed to contemplate his action. I assumed he was debating whether to fold, so when an 8 fell on the turn I took the opportunity to re-bet the two dollars, as a bit of a pre-river value bet bluff. Again he called, a bit faster this time. After the fact I decided h was going to let me dig my own grave, he'd called to the river with some of his best hands of the night letting me make his action for him. It didn't matter much to me in any case, since I decided two barrels was enough and I was going to check and fold on the river if my five didn't come. But come it did, as it will almost nine percent of the time. I bet four dollars, this time representing a last ditch, third barrel attempt to win the pot without a hand. He raised all-in. With only the six-seven out there to beat me, and finding it unlikely he'd have called my flop bet with raggedy cards and three to an inside straight, I called immediately. He showed me his ace, and I showed him my straight, ending the evening's game.

He found my calling his pre-flop bet, and my betting on the flop and turn bizarre. I explained my logic to him pretty much the same way I just explained it above, adding that that play and plays a lot like it will only work about one in twenty times. However when you factor in the money I make when he folds on the flop and the turn instead of calling, its profitability goes way up. Stack size also figured heavily into it. Would he made an all in bet with $100 in front of him rather than $18? Would he have even come close to betting $18? Would it still be profitable to me if he'd only had five dollars left by the river? Probably not. I had plenty of money in my stack to not worrying about going broke too easily chasing that occasional inside straight, from the position of aggressor, while he had just enough money left to both make it worth my effort to go for it, and little enough money that he'd commit it.

I still wasn't sure about my logic, and if it all made sense. Maybe I was guilty of rationalizing bad decisions after everything turned out okay. I'm getting ready for a trip to the casino in March, so I thought while I was in the bathroom I'd re-read Brunson's advice on No-Limit Holdem. I didn't have to wait for the appendix, Doyle laid out pretty much my whole strategy within the first five pages. I felt vindicated. To paraphrase Doyle's philosophy, never bet without some kind of out, some kind of escape hatch. You may have a lot of money invested with the worst hand by being aggressive, but sometimes you get the card you need. When you add that to the times your opponent folds because your bet intimidates him, it makes the times when your cards don't come well worth it.