To build on my other post, here's another solid play you make because poker is gambling.
You're in the CO or on the button with QJs. Four limpers to you, you limp, the SB completes, the BB raises and all the limpers call - what's your action?
You 3-bet with a hand that wasn't worth a raise the first time around. Why? Not because you have the best hand, you don't, but the few times you improve and win the hand, you want the pot to be as big as possible, so you 3-bet here to tie the rest of the field to the pot so the 18% of the time you make a big hand, you hit big. What are you risking for this? One small bet (one big bet if the initial raiser caps)
you 3-bet here knowing that the majority of the time you're going to fold on the flop, but in the long run this "gambling" play makes you money.
What's funny is that when you do this and the BB caps with his AA and 7 see the flop for 28 sb, and you call the flop with only a back-door flush draw and hit runner-runner to beat him (easily getting correct odds to call on each street), the "poker isn't gambling" guy with the aces will probably think you're the fish, when the truth is, your play shows that you understand the game better than he does.
What is it that you understand that he doesn't? You understand that poker is a gambling game, and thus you manipulated the size of the pot preflop to your benefit.
When you say, it's not gambling, it's a game of skill, you fail to grasp the fact that the two are not mutually exclusive.
|