The final principle

Sounds like a good movie title (or perhaps, a good title for a bad movie) doesn't it? Anyhow, I was all set to regale you with tales of my SNG exploits last night (two table turbos in deference to the fact that I was trying to keep my eyes on the cricket as well), but when I reviewed the hand records they were a real yawnfest. Just one question from there before moving on:

On the bubble (5 remaining, payoff 4:3:2:1:0), blinds 200/400 (25 or 50 ante, I can never remember), you (2K) are UTG with K9o. Remaining stacks are all roughly 4K-5K, except for the BB who has about 10K. The medium stacks have been (probably incorrectly) soft-pedalling, waiting for you to bust. Do you push?

So, on to the final principle from Lessons in Play and its purported relevance to poker. This one is called the “Don't burn your bridges” principle. In the theoretical setting, it is again intended as a tool to simplify analysis. Basically it says that, between two moves, if one leaves a strictly larger set of future options available, then you don't need to consider the other one as part of a winning strategy.

Of course, we don't expect such hard and fast rules to apply at poker. But consider: you are in position, possibly with the best hand, but, regardless, with a strong draw; you can check or bet, but if you bet, and are check-raised you'll have to fold. Here, based on the principle above, it's often correct to check.