An issue with an Olympic team throwing matches to try to give themselves a better chance at winning a medal earlier this week led to a lot of talk about “losing the battle to win the war” strategies. There’s no reason for me to get into my views on whether that was acceptable behavior in the Olympics, but in poker, strategy can take many forms. I often find myself doing small things that are “losing the battle” that greatly help me “win the war.”

The most obvious of these is that I play hands and make moves in certain situations that I know are breakeven at best and usually negative value. But, they give me the image of being a gambler who could have almost any hand at any time. Down the road, this helps get me calls in big pots where a tighter, more conservative player would never get action. In the games I play in, I see the same faces week after week and year after year, so everyone has a general perception of everyone else.

Not only does taking the worst of it help me get action down the road, but it also contributes to making the games good. All the time, I hear people talking about being at a good game or a game that wasn’t any good. Generally, a good game is one with action and money moving around, while a bad game is one where everyone is playing snug and there is no action.

There is a snowball effect where a few active players can loosen up tighter ones, but a tight game can also cause a guy who is usually an active player to lock it up a bit. I do my best to help build good games. They are more fun, more profitable, and the type I want to be in.

Doing so means that sometimes I am calling from bad position, getting in there with questionable hands, calling on a draw when I don’t really have the right odds, straddling and sometimes re-straddling, and just generally getting involved. Sometimes, this gets me in trouble, but even when that happens, it is creating a better game.

Sometimes, even when you are taking the worst of it, you can still get lucky. In those spots, you win and create a good game with players who are gambling and stuck. Then, you can shift gears back into a more conservative style and take advantage of your edge in what is now a really good game.

There are examples in poker where you are losing the battle to give yourself a better chance at winning the war. The catch is you can’t use this strategy to just rationalize bad play over time. At some point, you have to pull back and make sure that what you are doing is actually working and isn’t just an excuse to gamble it up. With the variance of poker, this requires some serious self-analysis. You can’t get caught up in the day-to-day swings; you have to take a broader view.

This view on strategy is also why I don’t like the rule that penalizes a player for checking the nuts on the end in a tournament. If a player decides there is almost no chance their opponent will call, but is interested enough to see their hand for information purposes, that should be a strategy that is available to them. Whether it is a good strategy is up for debate, but it shouldn’t be an issue that is defined by the rulebook. Not to mention it scares off and embarrasses novices who may have misread the board.

Don’t be afraid to lose the battle sometimes to give yourself a tactical advantage in the war. But at the same time, don’t just lay your head out on the chopping block time after time either.

Court Harrington has worked on the business side of the poker industry in roles including tournament reporting for PocketFives, radio hosting for PokerRoad Radio, coaching for the WSOP Academy and privately, and a variety of behind-the-scenes responsibilities. He also plays in cash games and tournaments. Harrington is currently doing consulting work and exploring business opportunities outside of the poker industry. You can contact him at Court@CourtHarrington.com.