Poker News

Ashley Adams

When last we left off I was busily engaged in ethnic, gender and age-specific profiling at the poker table. I was waiting for a seat. I was fortunate. I was given my choice of playing with only older white men or with a mixed table of women, black West Indian players, and four older white guys. I chose the mixed group.

I made the immediate deduction that the two West Indian men had been up all night gambling at blackjack or craps or the slots even and had recently made their way to poker to relax. Not that I actually knew anything - but I was allowing my ethnic stereotyping to fill in the many blanks. This would prove dangerous.

One of the West Indians left shortly after I arrived. The other was seated directly on my left. I got a long series of unplayable hands, but used the time to observe my West Indian opponent. Relying on my initial impression of him - which was literally only skin deep - I interpreted his loose and wild style to poor play. This fit in with my general impression about young black players. He was loose; he was wild, and he was at the table, I presumed, mainly to have a good time and gamble.

The bring-in was to my right on this particular hand. I folded with yet another bad hand. The West Indian had an Ace and playfully splashed in $20 as he often did when he was high on board. He got a caller. One of the older white players, with a frown, shoved in $40. Everyone folded back to the Ace who amateurishly re-checked his downcard, and then tossed in $20 more, saying “OK, let’s see the next card”. The player after him who had called the first raise called the second raise as well. The dealer dealt an unsuited 5 to the Ace, an unhelpful low card to the second player and a King to the Queen. The Ace was still high, looked again at his hole cards and checked. The next player checked. The player with the Q-K bet $20. The Ace said, “OK, I call” and the next player folded.

The deal progressed. Neither player seemed to improve. The Ace (the West Indian player remember) continued to check and call when his opponent bet, rechecking his hole cards each time. His behavior remained that of a loose, happy-go-lucky gambler at the poker table - the ideal opponent.

On the River the Ace checked; his opponent bet; the Ace raised (for the first time without re-checking his down cards). They showed down their hands. Queens Up lost to Aces Up. It was clear from the way the cards were exposed, that the black guy started with Aces and got Aces Up on Fourth Street. His rechecking his down cards, laughing it up, acting the fool was just a schtick for our benefit. He wasn’t a bad player. He was a very, very good and thoughtful player who was deliberately trying to use our stereotypical image of him as a trap. Whether or not you agree with the tactic of slowplaying Aces Up until the River, it was crystal clear that he was doing this not because he was a loosey-goosey gambler but because he was a very good poker player putting a move on the other player.

I was lucky. Had I good cards, I probably would have fallen into this trap that he laid. His act would have worked on me because of my initial MIS-impression of the type of player he was. Fortunately, witnessing it all from the sidelines allowed me to see what he was doing without losing any money. It was a real wake up call for me.

The sooner each of us is able to see beyond the stereotype we may have formed initially, the less likely we’ll fall into a trap in the future.

Filed under: Poker News