There are several different ways to play a hand, and one of the great things about poker is how the play of a hand can be related to a respected player or friend, discussed in blogs or columns, and analyzed so that the player can get more than enough feedback from varied sources and decide if he played it correctly.

In fact, I recently read a column about a limit hold’em hand that noted author Mason Malmuth played – he called a 9-high flop with pocket 4s in a multi-way pot – the discussion which became borderline legendary fodder for poker bloggers and debate among top pros.

A big part of the reason I enjoy playing and writing about poker is because this discussion forum always is available, whether I was in the hand or I am observing someone else’s play.

I came across a recent Card Player column by a young online pro named Dani Stern about the play of one of his recent hands, and I couldn’t help but question a couple of the author’s decisions. Stern won the hand, but that is somewhat beside the point; the result of poker decisions, win or lose, doesn’t necessarily mean that the right or wrong decision was made.

Click Here to view this hand!

Here are the key details: in a short-handed $25/$50 no limit cash game, Stern, holding the 9-10 of diamonds on the button, called an opening raiser for $175 and took a heads-up flop in position.

The raggedy flop came down 10-5-3 rainbow and Stern’s opponent made a predictable continuation bet of $300. Stern called, which seems like a fine play, given that he did not want to build a big pot by raising with a marginal hand, and possibly being blown off his hand if his opponent came back at him.

The next two streets are where I question Stern’s play. The turn brought the 6 of clubs, the raiser checked and Stern bet, figuring his opponent had conceded control of the hand and might be looking to get a free card or get to a cheap showdown with his own marginal hand.

Stern’s opponent called and checked again when a non-club king hit the river. Fairly certain he held the best hand and convinced his opponent did not hold a king, Stern bet $1,750 and his opponent, after some deliberation, made the call and showed down pocket 9s. Stern scooped the pot, having won bets on the turn and river.

So what’s the problem, you ask? I think there are a few, and they are collectively intertwined. I didn’t like the turn bet much and liked the river bet even worse. More perplexing in my mind is why Stern would rule out the possibility that his opponent held a king.

For starters, his opponent is going to make a continuation bet with just about any hand on that flop, and Stern’s call guaranteed that his opponent would see a turn card. When a low club came, his opponent could have easily been planning a check-raise. He might have had a small set that he was sitting on or, lo and behold, a hand like A-K or K-Q of clubs that suddenly looked a lot better when that second club hit. A lot of players probably would have check-raised in this spot, but a check-call isn’t entirely out of the question.

I agreed with Stern’s analysis that players often are overly paranoid when an over card to their pair hits the board, but if I were him, I would not be at all thrilled to see that king hit the river. Why not just check it back and hope your pair of 10s is good?

The point I’m making harkens back to an old David Sklansky-penned axiom that states whenever you are considering a bet or raise, but that a big re-raise would make you want to throw up, you might want to reconsider. Had his opponent put in a big raise on the turn or river, I think Stern has a major problem on his hands. To discount his opponent having a king seems to make little sense when, for reasons previously mentioned, the A-K or K-Q of clubs seems perfectly reasonable based on the way his opponent played the hand. Ultimately, Stern accomplished what he hoped to avoid on the flop … he built a big pot with a marginal hand.

An all-in check raise on the turn or river would have been a disaster. So why not just avoid it all together? I can sort of see the turn bet, but his opponent’s call suggests he is still interested. What’s more, who’s to say he doesn’t have A-10 or K-10, a hand that also has our author crushed? Why continue to build the pot if you might, in fact, be behind?

Conversely, if Stern was ahead – as we now know he was – then his opponent likely is drawing at few wins, and a free card on the turn likely wouldn’t do that much damage. Let’s say his opponent did have the A-K of clubs; he would have had 15 outs going to the river, still just about 30 percent to win.

Giving him this free card is a better risk than the risk of an all-in raise by his opponent in this spot. By now, we also know that Stern did not want to see the case 9 hit the board, as he almost certainly would have had to pay off a large bet.

One other curious detail is that Stern twice comments that he believed his opponent was inexperienced at the given stakes. Perhaps we should just take his word for it, but some sort of detailed evidence would have strengthened this stance. Was he unfamiliar with his opponent’s screen name? Did his opponent appear to be tentative to enter pots, did he play them passively, or did he show down hands that made Stern question his experience level? We never really get an explanation.

Even so, you might say, it’s hard to argue with success. He won the hand. And perhaps this was the result of just an accurate read and you could suggest that my logic of checking the turn and river is a wimpy way to go about it.

But that’s part of the beauty of poker … there’s always more than one way to analyze a hand, and sometimes there might not be a definitive right or wrong answer.