Friends on the Table Part 2

In this, the second part of this article, we'll look at an example of a sticky situation that can arise from playing with a friend, as well as at the two hands-versus-one concept.

As I explained at the end of my previous article, there are times when having a friend on the table can put you into a sticky situation. Here's an example I've run into:

I'm sitting on the left of my good friend, both of us are aggressive action players, and we're in early position. He's on the big blind; I'm under the gun. I wake up to pocket queens and make a standard raise to $35. There are two callers when it gets to him.

My friend raises to $200. We both have the same amount of money, leaving me with $400 behind if I was to make the call. What should I do?

He's an aggressive action player. If I weren't his friend this would be an easy push, as I'm ahead most often, a coin flip sometimes, and dominated almost never (he's not one to overraise with AA or KK here; he wants the action).

Phill Laak is rarely seen without his magician friend.

So if he weren't my friend, easy push here. But since he is my friend, playing on the same program as me, I'm stuck in a quandary. Because there are two other players in the hand, he is forced to play his hand out, but why the overraise?

Does he have AA and is trying to save me money, letting me know he has the nuts with his bet (the only legal way to give a friend information)? Or does he just think he's ahead with JJ, making the same statement?

There's a chance he puts me on raising light, and he's making this move with A-K or A-Q just to pick up the calls of the other players. If that was the case the move would be fine with me. Unfortunately, I have queens.

I'm at a loss as to what to do here. For lack of a better option I lay my hand down.

I found out afterward that he had JJ, and my push would have won the pot right there. (Just calling would be silly to price in another random hand when the pot's already this large.)

Two Hands versus One

What about two friends playing on the same bankroll, at the same table? Many players play in this situation, typically being open about it to anyone willing to enquire. Doyle Brunson played on this system with two friends for the better part of his career.

The line between ethical and shady here is very fine. You are a team, and you are playing as a team, but you're not allowed to use team play to gain an advantage.

Confused yet? If you're unable to openly talk about anything you're doing with your "team" in front of the other players, you are crossing a line.

This means you're not allowed to signal, or share information in any way - that is against the rules,with good reason. But what you can do, perfectly inside the rules, is play two hands versus one. Take a look at this chart:

All three of you have equal stacks of $1,000, and the opponent raises to $100 pre-flop. Your hand is a 3-1 dog while you're paying 1-1; obviously your odds stink here.

Your friend has a better percentage to win here, making them only a 2-1 dog, but still 1-1 on their money, and unable to call on their own.

It's a losing play for you or your friend to call this bet. But, if you both call, the odds change. You have two hands to win, and because you don't care who wins this pot, as long as it's not the opponent, your collective chance at winning is almost 60%. You're putting in 66% of the money, for a 59% chance at winning the pot.

Your pot odds are below your combined hand equity, but by a small enough margin that implied odds can make this a profitable situation. More often than not, one of you is winning the pot, and you have two chances at a setup flop to take a huge pot (A-Q-2 or A-7-8 would do nicely).

Basically, knowing that you can play two hands against one will allow the players to open up their calling range, making it very difficult for your opponent to ever put you on a hand.

"Amarillo Slim" Preston: One of Doyle's friends.

Put fear and doubt into your opponents and you will walk over them. This is one of the reasons Doyle Brunson was able to bluff so effectively and win so many big pots with less-than-premium hands.

Combined equity brings a whole new set of options and lines into the game. If you have one or two friends on the table, you will practically always have the majority share of equity in a two- or three-hands-versus-one scenario. Although this isn't exactly on the level with how the game was meant to be played, it's not exactly against the rules either.

You always had the ability to play that exact hand in that exact manner regardless of who was playing the other hands. The only question is if you would have played it in the first place. Because it is impossible to make a ruling on a player's possible intention, it's not a breach of etiquette.

Just remember the rule of thumb: If you wouldn't feel comfortable telling the whole table exactly what's going down, then you shouldn't be doing it.

If you ever have to wonder if you might be breaking rules, you probably are. Play with friends all you like; just try to keep your game as close to "regular" as you can at all times, while avoiding clever plays and techniques to give yourselves an edge.

More beginner strategy articles:

• Limit Myths Part 1: Pocket Aces
• Check-Raising Part 1
• The Bad Bluff
• Observing Opponents