The vanguard of modern poker

Here's the thing about Jeffery.

[Incidentally, I feel that I can call him by his first name now, having done a bit of Googling on him and found that although he never wrote another poker book, he did produce two sci-fi novels, the appropriate translations of which seem to have been peculiarly popular in Germany - Satellite E One and Vanguard to Venus.]

Here's the thing. I'm not sure that he's got it wrong. Let me put that another way. I suspect that he is wrong. I believe that he is wrong. I'm just not sure.

So, this is what he says about Hold Me. When two pairs comes on the board, it's pretty likely that one of the players will have a hand that gives them a full house. That player is almost certain to win. When there is a four-card straight or flush, the player with the key card is "virtually certain" to win. If there's just a pair on the board, the player with trips is very likely to be the winner.

The conclusion he reaches is as follows:

"It therefore transpires that on those occasions where the common hand contains a pair or better, or a four-card flush or straight, it is impossible to forecast the value of one's hole cards in relation to the probable winning hand. This eliminates 57 1/2% of the deals, which must be regarded as pure gambles."

He then looks at the remainder of hands and at the value of AK vs QQ or indeed any pair. At first he seems to warm to the down pair, but then talks himself out of it. His reasoning? Where there is no pair etc in the centre, "it is better than 3-1 on that it will contain an Ace or a King, and more than 4 to 1 against it containing a card matching the pair in the hole. So the prospect of winning with a pair less than Aces or Kings is minimal."

He concludes that Hold Me is a "pure gamble", that "nothing less than a pair of Aces or Kings in the hole has any significance at all", and advises "at the second or third betting interval fold as soon as a pair appears on the table unless one holds a matching hand".

What he's missed , I think, is the betting. In no-limit you certainly can't hang around until post-flop or post-turn to fold the hands that need folding - it gets too expensive. I think also that Mr Castle has abandoned the scientific approach to expectations that he takes elsewhere in the book.

But his conclusions give pause for thought. The assertion that no pair below KK has any significance reminds one that Doyle Brunson and his gang typically referred to QQ or worse as "a little pair", treating them with suitable disrespect. I do wonder also whether the suggestion that it is a "pure gamble" is so far wide of the mark. Is it ridiculous to suggest that the rise in poker's popularity, largely based on Hold 'em rather than other poker variants, could have something to do with the wider public's liking for a bit of a flutter*?


*Non-native English speakers and US types may find the 13th meaning listed here instructive.