I want to discuss a theory I have regarding playing is such a way at to let your opponent know what you have. The topic arises from a question about a reply I made in the Forum. You are welcome to join the Forum and contribute.

Essentially, a player had an ace on an ace high flop. I suggested check-raising the flop (as did others) and said as reason that I wanted my opponents to know I held an ace. Poker s mostly about deception, and not letting your opponent know what you have, so why am I trying to inform my opposition.

I think I did a column on this topic once, possibly called “Full Disclosure.” Essentially the concept comes into play when you are possibly going to have some difficult decisions later in the hand, and you want to be able to trust your opponents’ actions.

Of course, they may still try to fool you, but if they believe (correctly) that you have a real hand and are unlikely to lay it down, they generally bet and raise with that expectation. For example, if a player knows you have set and still raises you, you can pretty sure he can beat a set. if you have disguised your set, then you have no idea if his raise is based on a powerful hand, a mediocre hand that he thinks beats yours, or a bluff hoping you are weak and will fold. Since you cannot know, you must pay off.

As I discussed in my book “Advanced Limit Hold’em Strategy”, one the keys to winning is making your opponents predictable. If the situation is right, telling him what you have will help achieve that objective.