In this installment we take a look at another way that our own egos can slip their fingers around our game. Most of us already know that it is a cardinal sin to allow our own bravado to have any say in plays that we make at the poker table. As in all competitive situations, one of the worst mistakes you can ever make is to underestimate your opponents. The same holds true on the felt, of course. There are few poorer decisions one can make than deciding their table is full of donkeys and they can run over them with any two cards, regardless of game circumstances.

Whether you are playing with a bunch of monkeys who should be swinging in the trees is immaterial. This simply means you should be employing different strategies against them. A good player just reaches into his bag of tricks to find those that deal with the bad players. Don't fall into the trap of being the player who feels they have enough moves to run over their opponents, regardless of the situation.

Part IIa: Madhouse
One example of this is what I call playing "madhouse". This is when you begin just hammering on the table, regardless again, of what cards they may hold and the ones that you yourself do -without any regard for the game. While this is often an effective strategy used selectively, the player who fails to account for ever-changing game factors will find themselves using this approach at their own peril.

While this strategy is used effectively by many players in no-limit hold'em, it can often be a big mistake in limit. Remember, typically in limit games, you are going to need to have a hand. While it's true that occasionally you will be able to run over a table, eventually even the poorest of players will catch on to your strategy and just pick you off, or reraise your weak holdings.

As well, even in no-limit you may need to switch it up a little. When I sense a player is trying to run over me I will typically just return the favor and start reraising like it's going out of style. It's basically a message saying, "Look buddy, I know what you are trying to do and it ain't happening over here. Take it on down the road." This isn't to say that you shouldn't run over someone if they give you the opportunity. If I find a player I can take advantage of in this way at my no-limit table I raise them until they can't even see straight. Don't switch up a strategy if it's working...but don't force one if it isn't either.

Another mistake I see is that many times a player will employ the "madhouse" strategy after losing a big pot, or being sucked out on. It can be a typical form of steaming, as I wrote about in a previous column. I have seen some players who play this way all the time, wanting to maintain constant pressure on their opponents. Again, this works as long as the other players are unable to catch on and either set traps, or simply come over the top of you. And again, it works much better in no-limit than limit.

The real problem with this strategy is that it is going to work against the weak players, but fail miserably against the strong ones. It can be an effective tactic if used correctly. Just be careful to not overuse it, and also not to use it on the wrong kind of players. If you do, you'll soon discover the "madhouse" policy can send you straight to the poorhouse.

Part IIb: Constant Moves
Look, I'm guilty of this one. I know you are as well. The fact of the matter is that all players are guilty of it at times. Underestimating your competition is an inevitable consequence of having confidence. If you don't feel that you are the best player at the table much of the time, than why are you even there? Part of being one of the best though is not being too cocky…but rather, just cocky enough. Deciding that you can just make constant moves on players continually, with no regards to actual game factors, is most definitely not.

A few months back I was playing $30-$60 limit hold'em at the Bellagio and had a very weak player two seats to my right. He was raising tons of pots with extremely soft holdings. Several times he would bring it in with a raise from early position and end up showing a hand like A3. I decided to begin to try and isolate him with hands that would be, on average, stronger than his typical holdings. When he brought it in with a raise, I would make it three bets when I had a hand like KJ or A10. Occasionally a player behind me would decide to play the hand as well, thus making my attempt to isolate much more dangerous for me.

When I did manage to get the pot heads-up with the initial player I would try and hammer on him as much as possible. Whatever came on the flop, I would raise his initial bet. Anytime he would make it three bets on me, I would cap it. Many times I would do this regardless of what cards I held in my hand. A few times he would turn his hand up and have the best hand, thus taking down a huge pot, but many times I was able to build a nice pot for myself. Overall though, I would say that our altercations became break-even affairs, thus negating my plan, and negating any overall positive results. It's tough to run a hand like 89 through on a board of A 7 10 Q 3, get me?

The more lethal situation I was creating for myself though was when a player, or two, would enter the pot despite the several bets they had to call in front of them. These players weren't playing loosely, as my initial target was, and generally would have strong hands. Strong enough to cold-call at least two, and sometimes three bets. They perhaps were catching on to my isolation strategy and attempting to cut themselves in on a piece of the action. Unfortunately it took me a little while longer than it should have to further refine my play to account for this. It was one thing to isolate the loose player in late position when he would come in with a raise, but when he would open in early position and I would raise it there it would often leave us both too vulnerable to the rest of the table. If I would raise with a medium to weak ace, it would often cost me when a player behind me would have a holding such as AQ or AJ. These players would often not reraise with these hands, but rather cold-call and I would inevitably fall into my own trap when an ace flopped. I was continuing to try and just take over the table with any two cards. This kind of play was only going to work, and only really work about half the time anyway, when I could use it against the one solitary player. My thinking was correct, but my execution was far from perfect here.

Don't confuse this kind of overconfidence with, say, the play of a Phil Ivey. Phil will try and steal, force other players to play poorly against him, and just cause overall havoc at the tables he is playing at, and it is all part of an overall plan. You will often see Phil toss away his cards when it is clear that the strategy isn't going to work on that particular hand. He doesn't often fall into the trap of feeling that he can just outplay his opponents on any single hand, regardless of their own starting hands.

I don't see this falling into overconfidence in the slightest. He is employing a particular tactic and trying it on players that it will usually work against. Hopefully, as soon as he can see he can't keep running it, he drops it. The point being that Mr. Ivey will attempt to take any two cards and outplay his opponents, when it is the appropriate play for the time. When it isn't, than he simply doesn't do it. This is a far cry from underestimating your opponents and mistakenly just trying to force them out of every pot. After all, it's pretty tough to get a player to fold pocket aces, regardless of the circumstances.

Remember this key as well: if the players are really that bad, you can't outplay them anyway! Don't try and bluff a player that won't have a clue what you are doing. I know you are telling yourself that you know this, but I see it time and time again. Don't fall into the trap, and give your own hole cards just a quick look-see before you try and bulldoze the table.