Game theory in Poker After Dark

There was a hand in the TV show Poker After Dark with some interesting strategy.

The hand is from Season 6, Episode 49, and here’s a clip where the hand gets interesting on the river:

Youtube video: Poker After Dark hand at 7:52

The action is ultimately between Brad Booth and Erick Lindgren. Booth made trip fours on the river and made a sizable bet.

Lindgren faces a decision of what to do. He had flopped top pair of jacks and was ahead most of the hand. He was deciding whether to fold or call the big bet. Based on the betting in the hand, Lindgren believed he was facing either a straight, trip fours, or a pure bluff. Lindgren was thinking, “Does Booth have the goods or is he bluffing?”

Lindgren contemplates the decision out loud, and Booth comes up with an interesting offer.

Erick Lindgren: Yukon Brad. You do bluff a lot…If you show me one card, I’ll probably call it. Show me one card.

Brad Booth: places his card on the table Pick one card! Point to a card!

Erick Lindgren: You have a five and a six [making a straight] in your hand. Show me that card right there!

Brad Booth: shows the King of diamonds

Erick Lindgren: Alright, you win. makes the call.

Brad Booth: flips over king, happy Lindgren picked wrong card. I so knew he was picking this one.

While Booth was enjoying his victory and Lindgren analyzing his loss, other players started chiming in with their analyses:

Antonio Esfandiari: Do you know what a genius he is? [Booth] knew he wasn’t going to get paid off, so he took a fifty-fifty shot of getting paid off, and it went from like twenty percent to fifty percent.

Brad Booth: But it’s more than fifty-fifty because I think more than 70 percent of the time he’s going to pick the one here [to his right] … because he’s right handed. Generally if you’re right handed you pick the thing on the right.

I’m not sure Booth is correct about the right-handed psychology, but I do think Booth used a fun strategy of surprise. Booth was acting overly strong on the river which is what made Lindgren suspicious. When he offered to show a card, it was even more suspicious–why show a card that ruins your chance of a payout? Lindgren suspected all this acting meant Booth was weak so he called.

Quite the display of strategy, I think. Though notably the commentator was less enthused, saying “Brad [Booth] just gave us a glimpse of pure genius or dumb luck, still not sure which of the two.”



Share this post:

| More

Previous post:

Next post:



  • Pingback: Innovative Poker Strategy « Cheap Talk

  • http://ww.franchise-info.ca michael webster

    I am little surprised that no one has commented – poker is the activity in which to test game theoretic intuitions.

    Here is my advice.

    1. Watch the entire video, and not just this hand.
    2. Understand what pot odds were at each deal.
    3. Understand the forced calls.

    After you are comfortable with knowledge,
    then do the following.

    1. Construct 4 models for each deal.

    a) what did B evaluate his hand as.
    b) what did L evaluate his hand as.
    c) what did B think L evaluated a) as.
    d) what did L think B evaluated b) as.

    L claims, on the final card, that B must have been bluffing when the fourth card was dealt, the first 4.

    I believe that this is correct.

    So, on the play of the fourth card, what did L think that B thought L held?

    Welcome thoughts at this point.

  • http://ww.franchise-info.ca michael webster

    Let me make a few more observations.

    1. B was right, L was bluffing on the 4th card, which gave L only 4′s.

    2. Then, why did B contemplate that L may have had a 5 and 6? Before the 4th card, at the flop, B’s model of L’s hand was 5,6, 7, and 8. And 4 people were still in. It isn’t a bluff because no one bet on the flop. L’s bet was on 4th card, or turn. Why didn’t B then decide whether L was bluffing? Why wait until the second 4 shows up?

  • Pingback: Game theory in High Stakes Poker - Mind Your Decisions





Previous post:

Next post:

Other posts you may enjoy reading: