The “Light” Three-Bet. The “light” three-bet is when you reraise a pre-flop raiser with a hand that does not rate as the best at the moment but that still has value for a variety of reasons. A light three-bet is a semi-bluff. Basically your first goal is to win the pot immediately. You would like your opponent to fold to your reraise. Weekly Poker Hand #314: In this hand from a live $25/$50 cash game, I get 3 streets of value with AK! Even in multi-way pots, you should still bet thinly for value! If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to sign up for a free 7-day trial membership at PokerCoaching.com for an interactive learning experience from Jonathan Little.

Three of a kind, also known as trips or a set, is a hand that contains three cards of one rank and two cards of two other ranks (the kickers), such as 2 ♦ 2 ♠ 2 ♣ K ♠ 6 ♥ ('three of a kind, twos' or 'trip twos' or a 'set of twos'). It ranks below a straight and above two pair. Never betting two pair 3 streets is a massive leak no matter who your opposition is. To the point; bet your top pair for 3 streets depending on how often it is beat. If you almost always have the best hand and it's checked to you on the river, by all means bet.

In no-limit knowing which situations you can get three streets of value from is a huge edge. Too many players pass up this value by overly thinking in terms of pot control or by being excessively fearful of being beat. Missing a bet in no-limit can be a costly “opportunity loss cost,” particularly a river bet. Not exploiting +EV (expected value) opportunities lowers your yearly expectation the same way making a bad call does.

In a passive $2-$5, I’d been playing pretty aggressively. The cutoff had posted a make-up blind and an ABC-passive opponent whom I’d previously pushed out of a couple of pots, open-raised for $20. In every earlier instance he had open-raised for $15. Whenever an opponent does something differently, I always ask myself, “Why?” In this case, I thought he either raised larger because of the make-up blind, or he had a hand that was vulnerable and wanted to protect it, maybe a combination of both.

I peered down to the 10 10. Generally, it’s a situationally-dependent borderline hand to value three-bet or flat. Seeing as I reasoned my opponent was likely to have a vulnerable hand, I chose to three-bet, the field folded, and Mr. ABC called, $134 in the pot, I rasied to $60. When he called I read his preflop range as being a good, but not great holding.

The flop came clean, the 8 5 2, Mr. ABC checked to me, and I bet $65. I thought his calling range would be any medium pair, sixes through queens, possibly A-K. I discounted the sixes and queens thinking he may have played them differently both pre- and post-flop. I wagered a smallish bet-size to increase the propensity for the medium pairs, which I dominated, to remain in his calling range. He called.

The 8 turned, and I bet $95 into a $260 pot, once again on the smallish side, but a sizing I thought he would call with his medium pairs. He hesitantly flatted me one more time, $450 in the pot.

The river came the J. He checked to me. I knuckled behind him and he showed me two nines, I took the pot. As I always do, I reflected on my play of the hand. In hindsight, I thought my check on the river was poor. My opponent’s range was capped, and a river value bet was in order.

His genuine hesitancy on calling the turn further discounted Q-Q. J-J became more unlikely when the jack rivered and he checked to me, and there was only one combination of 8-8. I hadn’t seen a check-raise from him yet, and he didn’t strike me as the sort to check-raise often. My previous aggression in the game, particularly the fact he’d folded a couple of holdings to me increased the odds of Mr. ABC calling a river bet with a pair smaller than tens.

With limited holdings that beat me, the decision on whether to bet came down to if he would call with more hands I beat than hands that beat me, or check-raise since I wasn’t calling a check-raise. There were six possible combinations each of 6-6, 7-7, 9-9, 18 total. I heavily discounted his Q-Q, J-J and 8-8 holdings because of the manner in which he played. He may have A-5 suited, A-8 suited, 8-7 suited or 8-9 suited but would they be in his preflop calling range and would he have played them in this manner? I doubted it! All that said, there was way more hands this particular player in this particular situation would call with that I beat than that beat me. And I’m including any check raise on his part.

A thin smallish river value-bet was in order, maybe in the one-third pot range. He wasn’t prone to check-raise and was likely to view me suspiciously and call with a marginal hand. Even if he only called one-half the time with a pair, my bet would still have +EV value.

I whiffed the bet, but I learned from my mistake. It was a focus error. In most situations, against most opponents, I would check this hand on the river, and my instincts made that decision. My mistake was that I didn’t take the time to think things through. If I had, I would have recognized that this specific situation with this particular opponent was different from most standard situations and adjusted my strategy.

Next time, I’m going to think things through! ♠

Roy Cooke played poker professionally for 16 years prior to becoming a successful Las Vegas Real Estate Broker/Salesman. Should you wish any information about Real Estate matters-including purchase, sale or mortgage his office number is 702-376-1515 or Roy’s e-mail is RealtyAce@aol.com. His website is www.RoyCooke.com. Roy’s blogs and poker tips are at www.RoyCookePokerlv.com. You can also find him on Facebook or Twitter @RealRoyCooke. Please see ad below!

Three-card Monte – also known as Find the Lady and Three-card Trick – is a confidence game in which the victims, or 'marks', are tricked into betting a sum of money, on the assumption that they can find the 'money card' among three face-down playing cards. It is very similar to the shell game except that cards are used instead of shells.^[1]

In its full form, Three-card Monte is an example of a classic 'short con'^[2] in which a shill pretends to conspire with the mark to cheat the dealer, while in fact conspiring with the dealer to cheat the mark. The mark has no chance whatsoever of winning, at any point in the game. In fact, anyone who is observed winning anything in the game can be presumed to be a shill.

This confidence trick was already in use by the turn of the 15th century.^[3]

Rules[edit]

The Three-card Monte game is simple. To play, a dealer places three cards face down on a table, usually on a cardboard box which provides the ability to set up and disappear quickly.^[4] The dealer shows that one of the cards is the target card, e.g., the queen of hearts, and then rearranges the cards quickly to confuse the player about which card is which. The player is then given an opportunity to select one of the three cards. If the player correctly identifies the target card, the player gets the amount bet (the 'stake') back, plus the same amount again; otherwise, the stake is lost.

Usual card selection[edit]

Since there are only three cards, the jack of spades and jack of clubs often complement the 'money card', which is usually a queen.^[5] The queen is often a red card, typically the queen of hearts. Sometimes the ace of spades is used as the money card, since in some cultures the ace of spades is viewed as lucky, which might lure the mark into playing the game.

Drawing a player in[edit]

When the mark arrives at the Three-card Monte game, it is likely that a number of other players will be seen winning and losing money at the game. The people engaged in playing the game are often shills, confederates of the dealer who pretend to play so as to give the illusion of a straight gambling game.^[6]

As the mark watches the game, they are likely to notice that they can follow the queen more easily than the shills seem to be able to, which sets them up to believe that they can win the game.

Eventually, if the mark enters the game, they will be cheated through any number of methods. An example of a simple scheme involves a dealer and two shills:

• The dealer and shills act as if they do not know each other. The mark will come upon a game being conducted in a seemingly clandestine manner, perhaps with somebody 'looking out' for police. The dealer will be engaged in his role, with the first shill betting money. The first shill may be winning, leading the mark to observe that easy money may be had, or losing, leading the mark to observe that they could beat the game and win money where the first shill is losing it.
• While the mark is watching, the second shill, acting as a casual passerby like the mark, will casually engage a mark in conversation regarding the game, commenting on either how easily the first shill is winning or how they are losing money because they cannot win at what appears to the mark to be a simple game. This conversation is engineered to implicitly encourage the mark to play, and it is possible the second shill could resort to outright encouragement.
• If the mark does not enter the game, the dealer may claim to see police and will fold up the operation and restart it elsewhere, or will wait for another mark to appear on the scene.
• If the mark enters the game, they may be 'had' (cheated) by a number of techniques. A common belief is that the operator may let the mark win a couple of bets to suck them in, but this is virtually never true. In a true Monte scam, the mark will never win a single bet, as it is not necessary. There are too many ways for a well-run mob to attract the marks, suck them in, and convince them to put money down.
• When the dealer and the shills have taken the mark, a lookout, the dealer, or a shill acting as an observer will claim to have spotted the police. The dealer will quickly pack up the game and disperse along with the shills.

Methodology[edit]

Dealers employ sleight of hand^[7] and misdirection to prevent the mark from finding the queen.

While various moves have been devised for Monte, there is one basic move which is overwhelmingly used with virtually all Monte games. It has to do with the way the cards are held and tossed to the table. The dealer will pick up one of the cards with one hand, and two with the other. This is the key: although it appears that the dealer is tossing the lowermost card to the table, in actuality they can toss either the top or the bottom card at will. Thus, having done so, and while mixing up the cards, the mark will be following the wrong card from the beginning. The move, done properly, is undetectable. Even the shills pretending to play are often unaware of where the money card actually is without the dealer employing signals of various kinds to let them know where it is.^{[citation needed]}

Inevitably, once in a while the mark will manage to find the right location of the card by pure chance. This presents no problem at all for the mob; if the mark picks the right card, one of the shills will simply post a higher bid, which the dealer immediately accepts, announcing that he will accept only the highest bid. In other words, the mark puts down money on the right card, at which point a shill will immediately place a double bet on top of the card, thereby winning the 'right' to play that round. Of course, if the mark picks the wrong card, the dealer takes the bid and the money. The dealer will never accept a winning bid from a mark.^{[citation needed]}

The psychology of the con is to increase the mark's confidence until they believe they have a special ability to cheat the dealer and win easy money. Everything the Monte mob does is geared towards creating that mindset in the mark. To increase the mark's motivation to bet, they will also employ standard strategies such as having the dealer be slightly abrasive or rude, so there is even more reason to want to take his money.

'Bent corner' variation[edit]

The 'bent corner ploy' is one of the classic scams in Three-card Monte, and is used if the mob thinks a mark can be had for more money, or needs more convincing to put some money down. During the course of tossing the cards, the dealer 'accidentally' drops the cards, resulting in a corner of the money card having a slight bend in it. Another variation is for the dealer to look away, and while occupied, one of the shills will quickly put the crimp in the money card. Either way, the dealer pretends not to notice, this perhaps being made more plausible by having the dealer wear thick glasses. Assuming the mark bets on the card with the bent corner, the dealer will tell the mark to turn it over (so there can be no accusations of card-switching), revealing that it is not the money card after all, but one of the loser cards. The dealer has, in the course of tossing the cards, unbent the money card and bent the loser card. In this variation, the mark will be even more reluctant to complain about having lost money, as doing so would reveal that he intended to cheat the dealer.

Solo variation[edit]

A skilled card mechanic can perform this con without shills or assistants.Everything is legitimate up until the reveal.To show that nothing dishonest is being done with the selected card, the dealer does not even touch it, using one of the other cards to turn it over.If a losing card was selected, the card is simply turned over.If the winning card was selected, a Mexican Turnover is used to switch the two cards.When done correctly, the two actions are indistinguishable.No matter which card is selected, when turned over it is a losing card.

Variation in card magic[edit]

The Three-card Monte is performed in card magic tricks with minor or major variations that manipulate the use of gimmick cards, and other sleight-of-hand techniques.

Legality[edit]

In Canada, under section 206(1) of the Criminal Code, it is illegal to do the following in relation to Three-card Monte, which is mentioned by name:

• Receive bets
• Induce any person to stake or hazard any money or other valuable property
• Carry on or play or offer to carry on or play in a public place
• Employ any person to carry on or play in a public place
• Allow the game to take place (the owner of the premises)

They are indictable offences, with a maximum penalty of two years in prison.^[8]

History and popular culture[edit]

Canada Bill Jones (1820–1877) was considered a master of Three-card Monte, in the middle of the 19th century in America.^[9]

In 1898, infamous con man Soapy Smith stole a sack of gold from returning Klondike miner John Douglas Stewart after several rounds of Three-card Monte. After Stewart had wagered and lost his cash, he was induced to bring his gold out of safekeeping. Smith's associates grabbed it and ran. A local vigilance committee ruled that Smith should return the gold, but he refused, claiming that Stewart had lost it 'fairly'. Smith was killed during a shootout with the committee the next evening.^[10]

After revealing the secret behind the trick on the British television show How Do They Do That?, American illusionist John Lenahan became the first person to be expelled from The Magic Circle.^[11]

The play Topdog/Underdog centers around two brothers who play Three-card Monte; the climax of the play comes when one brother bets his entire inheritance on one game. The play won the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for Drama.

The film Short Circuit 2 features a Three-card Monte scam being uncovered by pure chance by the protagonist Johnny 5, who correctly guesses the red card due to his acute vision.

The 1995 film Restoration has a brief Three-card Monte sequence that utilizes a double turnover and flushtration (or 'back') count. These magician's sleights fail to fool Meg Ryan's character Katherine.

The 1967 film Waterhole #3 features an excellent version of Three Card Monte including the trick of bending one corner being used by the James Coburn Character Lewton Cole.

The film Now You See Me 2 features a life-sized version of the Three-card Monte performed by Jack Wilder (Dave Franco).

The music video for Run DMC's 1987 song 'It's Tricky' features illusionists Penn & Teller trying to scam people by performing the Three-card Monte in front of the Rialto Theater in Los Angeles.

In a 1995 episode of The Simpsons entitled 'The Springfield Connection,' Homer is taken in by a Three-card Monte scam run by Snake and another man, a shill who Marge suspects is related to Snake, 'or at least in cahoots' with him. Homer places a $20 bet anyway and loses. Marge reveals that he's been scammed and accuses Snake of 'preying on the greedy and stupid'. Snake protests his innocence ('surely, you don't blame me!') and then flees.

In the novel and BBC series Wolf Hall episode 'Three Card Trick', Thomas Cromwell learns and utilizes the trick to survive in his adolescent days on the streets in early Tudor-era England, later emphasizing the supremacy of a child doing the trick due to the perceived confidence of prospective players. Cardinal Thomas Wolsey, baffled by his aide's skills at the con, jokingly suggests he teach it to him, should they fall from favor and be put in financial jeopardy.

The film Hearts in Atlantis (2001) features Alan Tudyk as a carny worker performing the Three-card Monte to fleece money from the protagonist Bobby Garfield (played by Anton Yelchin). However, Bobby had inadvertently absorbed a mind reading ability from Ted Brautigan (Anthony Hopkins' character) and was able to beat the con.

In the Marvel Comics television show The Punisher, Frank Castle (Jon Bernthal) learns how to play Three-card Monte with his temporary ward, Amy Bendix (Giorgia Whigham).

Other names[edit]

In French-speaking countries, the game is known as Bonneteau. In German-speaking countries, the game is known as das Kümmelblättchen.^[12]In Uganda, it is known as Wakaleba.

Notes[edit]

1. ^Tom Ogden The Complete Idiot's Guide to Magic Tricks, p. 123, Alpha Books (1998) ISBN0-02-862707-5
2. ^https://nypost.com/2014/12/26/three-card-monte-scam-artists-return-to-midtown/New York Post, Three-card monte scam artists return to midtown, Is this Christmas 2014 – or 1974?
3. ^Paul B. Newman Daily life in the Middle Ages, p. 169, McFarland (2001) ISBN0-7864-0897-9
4. ^Richard John Neuhaus The best of The Public Square, p. 203, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (2001) ISBN0-8028-4995-4
5. ^Three-card Monte at pagat.com
6. ^
7. ^Penn Jillette, radio interview, NPR, ca. 2000
8. ^Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 206.
9. ^William Norman Thompson Gambling in America: an encyclopedia of history, issues, and society, p. 205, ISBN1-57607-159-6
10. ^Sauerwein, Stan (2005). Soapy Smith: Skagway's Scourge of the Klondike. Heritage House Publishing Co. ISBN1554390117.
11. ^Vincent, Matthew (30 March 2012). 'Equities: A kind of magic'. The Financial Times. Retrieved 9 January 2015.
12. ^Hülsemann 1930, p. 294. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHülsemann1930 (help)

Literature[edit]

• * Hülsemann, Robert (1930). Das Buch der Spiele für Familie und Gesellschaft. Hesse & Becker, Leipzig.

Three Streets Poker Games