![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
I was playng in 3-6 holdem game. Game was god but bad players go broke.Game become short handed. 5-10 broke up and thight players from 5-10 come to play in our game. Now game is full of rocks. For last 175 minutes i play 2 hands (KK, QQ) I lost them both. I win one hand out of big blind whith garbege K2s, 20 minutes ago, this kep me allive. UTG i get 75 daimonds. I staition master alowed train 75 depart from truck 3 under closed signal H3 and go on track I, extra carefole and rady for stop if see any danger, until first trafic litht late go whit it signal. So i raise. Train start peaking up some speed slowly going thru staition swithces. Player in midele call. And player on the buton reraise. I and midele position player call. Flop K spade, 5 spade and 4 daimond. I check. Train slowly leving the station. Buton bet. I raise (if buton player have QQ or JJ he will fold). Train gaining speed. 3 player call. Buton reraise. We call. It is dificult to increse speed going uphill. Turn 6 daimonds. I bet (becuse it is beter to be betor then the caller,noboby going to raise with one pair,they will call me if daimond come on the river, if buton raise again, I will check and call if daimond pair the board or if 7 or 5 come, fold if do not improve). Midele player call. Buton raise.I call. Midele player call all-in. River 8 daimond!!! I bet. Train peack top spead. Buton raise. I raise again. He raise... until i was al-in we was raising. 75 limited had a green street. Buton had AK daimonds. Midele positon player had AQ spades.
Godd for you, and your choo choo too. Nice hand...I think?
I hate trains. Did he win the hand or not? Joke, but the hand, 7-5 offsuit, brings me back to my original post on this forum regarding the 3-6 game. Does position matter in low limit hold'em, even against a bunch of rocks?.
After already raising out-of-position pre-flop, I would not try to check-raise the rocks or the button. Just bet middle pair with the backdoor outs directly and forcefully on the flop. When you pick up maximum extra outs on the turn, it's now time to think about check-raising. Managing a short-stack means having patience. On a short-stack, I'd rather wait for another premium hand to raise UTG with even though KK and QQ got cracked. Congratulations on catching Max Senior (your best possible card) on the river, hope the dealer got at least a two dollar toke.
Nice hand, sir, and well played!
Least anyone should take my comment seriously, I should explain that it's an inside joke among rec.gambling.poker (RGP) newsgroup readers.
When clobbered by bad beats, RGPers try to avoid berating or "educating" their opponents. Instead, they smile politely and say, "Nice hand, sir, and well played!"
The challenge, of course, is making this statement without any hint of sarcasm.
In _Gambling Theory and Other Topics_ Mason Malmuth considers the probabilities of three players of equal ability finishing a tournament in different orders. Malmuth assumes when a player finishes third, "he will lose on average half of his chips to [each of the other players]". This seems like an incorrect assumption. Consider 3 players A, B, and C with bankrolls 100, 2, and 1 respectively. If B loses before C, then C has been lucky to survive. Consequently C will win more than 50% of B's money on average when B loses before C.
The probabilities appear to depend on the type of randomness (but there is probably a diffusion limit involving "small" gambles). A simple case has bankrolls {3,2,1} for {A,B,C}. Each player bets $1 and a random winner takes the $3 pot. I calculate the probability of these finishing orders: P(ABC) = 63/156, P(ACB) = 15/156, P(BAC) = 45/156, P(BCA) = 7/156, P(CAB) = 21/156, P(CBA) = 5/156.
I suggest that you read the section again and you will see that I did not make that assumption. The three essays that you refer to were written by Mark Weitzman, and the assumption that you refer to is his. He also states that I approached the problem somewhat differently, and that this was not my approach.
Steve Heston Wrote:
> In _Gambling Theory and Other Topics_ Mason Malmuth
> considers the probabilities of three players of equal
> ability finishing a tournament in different orders.
> Malmuth assumes when a player finishes third, "he will
> lose on average half of his chips to [each of the other
> players]". This seems like an incorrect assumption.
> Consider 3 players A, B, and C with bankrolls 100, 2, and
> 1 respectively. If B loses before C, then C has been lucky
> to survive. Consequently C will win more than 50% of B's
> money on average when B loses before C.
> The probabilities appear to depend on the type of
> randomness (but there is probably a diffusion limit
> involving "small" gambles). A simple case has bankrolls
> {3,2,1} for {A,B,C}. Each player bets $1 and a random
> winner takes the $3 pot. I calculate the probability of
> these finishing orders: P(ABC) = 63/156, P(ACB) = 15/156,
> P(BAC) = 45/156, P(BCA) = 7/156, P(CAB) = 21/156,
> P(CBA) = 5/156.
Interesting... Last June, I posted a similar observation to rgp (entitled "Three-Way Tournament Settlements (Math)"). I also mistakenly attributed the "half-his-chips" assumption to Malmuth, and was subsequently corrected. You get the following probabilities for each player finishing 1st, 2nd, and 3rd:
P(A1) = 1/2, P(A2) = 11/26, P(A3) = 1/13
P(B1) = 1/3, P(B2) = 17/39, P(B3) = 3/13
P(C1) = 1/6, P(C2) = 11/78, P(C3) = 9/13
The first thing I noticed was that it is more probable that C will win the tournament than come in second. That is: P(CAB) + P(CBA) > P(ACB) + P(BCA)
I'm not saying this means your calculation is wrong (in fact I have little or no intuition in this case), just that the result is a bit surprising. It is so surprising that it could make for a great bet:
"If C is eliminated first, no action. If he finishes in first place, you pay me $100, and if he comes in second, I pay you $100." I have an ev of +$8.33 on this bet, if your probability calculations (and my ev calculation) are correct. Cool.
Sorry, I digress (always thinking of those angles). Let's compare with Weitzman's and Malmuth's results (MM's algorithm appears later in the _Gambling Theory_ text) for the same numbers:
Weitzman:
P(A1) = 1/2, P(A2) = 7/22, P(A3) = 2/11
P(B1) = 1/3, P(B2) = 13/33, P(B3) = 3/11
P(C1) = 1/6, P(C2) = 19/66, P(C3) = 6/11
Malmuth:
P(A1) = 1/2, P(A2) = 7/20, P(A3) = 3/20
P(B1) = 1/3, P(B2) = 2/5, P(B3) = 4/15
P(C1) = 1/6, P(C2) = 1/4, P(C3) = 7/12
These certainly are not the easiest numbers to compare (except to see that aside from the first place probabilities the three cases are all different from one another), so let's look at the bottom line for an example tournament split. For a 50-30-20 percentage payout, the splits for each player in each case is:
Heston:
A = 39.23%, B = 34.36%, C = 26.41%
Weitzman:
A = 38.18%, B = 33.94%, C = 27.88%
Malmuth:
A = 38.50%, B = 34.00%, C = 27.50%
Apparently your answer gives a more advantageous split to the higher finishers than the other two methods.
Okay, now for a few questions:
1. How did you arrive at your answer? My algorithm is long and tedious (though I think this is just because I stopped working on it before I came up with some clever shortcuts).
2. In the rgp post, I solved the {2,1,1} case, and got these probabilities:
P(A1) = 1/2, P(A2) = 5/14, P(A3) = 1/7
P(B1 or C1) = 1/4, P(B2 or C2) = 9/28, P(B3 or C3) = 3/7
Do these match your results for this case? If not, we may have made different assumptions (I assumed only pairwise confrontations, equal probabilities for each confrontation to occur, and an equal probability for either player to win a given confrontation).
3. Is your answer the same for all starting points in the same proportions (e.g. does {6,4,2} give the same result as {3,2,1})? Perhaps the answer to #1 will make the answer to this obvious.
4. Is this a standard problem that is addressed in a text that I am not aware of? I've been told that this problem was worked on by none other than Pascal himself. Can you confirm this and/or give me references?
Thanks for reminding me of this interesting problem. I may even go back to looking at the mess I created way back then.
Tom Weideman
The answer depends on the type of poker or randomness. If starting bankrolls are {2,1,1} and every player goes all-in, then the first player can't finish third. This is clearly different from random pairwise competition.
I used {3,2,1} and assumed players bet $1, and one player wins the $3 pot. If nobody goes broke in three rounds then you are back to the starting point. This makes it straightforward (but tedious) to solve for the probabilities.
I haven't seen this problem in probability or game theory texts (but could call colleagues who specialize in these areas). The answer depends on the particular assumptions about randomness. So {3,2,1} is different from {6,4,2}, and {2,1,1} is clearly different from {4,2,2}. I know the math do analyze the diffusion case (infinitesimal bets), but the answer would be a messy integral involving the bivariate normal density.
Ah, now I see why it is more likely C will finish first than second in your model. After the first round, C will either be eliminated, or he will be the chip leader.
I think that pairwise randomness models a three-way tournament a little closer than a model where all three players compete each round. It's possible that the diffusion case (bets very small compared to stack sizes) has all (reasonable) models converge to the same result, though this is far from obvious to me.
Maybe I'll sit down and work out the {3,2,1} case in the pairwise model, to see how its results compare. All I need is a few hours of free time. Hmmm, certainly no sooner than next week.
Tom Weideman
SPECIAL TWO PLUS TWO PUBLISHING ANNOUNCEMENTS
I am happy to announce the following two events:
Saturday, April 25th, 12noon until 10pm we will have an Open House in a suite at the Golden Nugget. Stop by for some refreshments; meet everyone at Two Plus Two, as well as fellow forum contributors. Call the Nugget the morning of the 25th at 385-7111 and ask for Two Plus Two Publishing's suite number.
Thursday, April 30, beginning at 7pm David, Mason, and Ray will hold an informal seminar on poker and gambling at: Borders Books & Music 2323 S. Decatur Las Vegas, Nevada 89102 (702) 258-0999 The cross street is Sahara Ave.
We hope to see you all at one or both of these events.
I am very busy right now so I can't go into detail. Anway the bottom line is that you you should go for a check raise with aces up about half of the time that you have that hand. A very few bets and raises should be with unimproved aces. I am awarding Paul Pudiate $150 (or a complete set of my eight books if he prefers). George Rice and NE2 have $25 each coming (or any TWO books of their choice). Thanks guys. And thanks also to all those others who took an interest in the problem. I will have more to say about it when I get the chance. (To claim your prize, please contact Jessica.)
Let me be the first to congratulate :
- Paul, George and NE2 for their solutions, and how they stuck by them
- you, David, for providing a very challenging topic for discussion
- everybody in the Forum. Something like this only elevates the already high standard and reputation this Forum has.
- the non-math inclined readers who have the reward of benefiting from the solution as compensation for putting up with long, 'unintelligible' posts.
Etienne,
I concur with what you are saying. I wonder if Paul could enlighten the forum readers with a little more detail on how he solved the problem. From what I gather he wrote a program or used some existing software. If this is correct, is the software package commercially available? Also I get the impression that the problem was solved using Linear Programming techniques. Is this right? One last inquiry, is the source code available?
Tom Haley
Let me say a big "bravo" to the winners, and if any of you are dreaming of taking the cash instead of the books, let me also say that I'll gladly pay $151 for a complete set or $26 for two books.
Best Regards,
Dennis
(P.S. - Paul, is there a program publicly available that solves arbitrary matrix games?)
Could someone please explain what they mean by "matrix game."
What are your opinions of the top 3 mistakes most players make? I need feedback please!
(1) Playing too many hands.
(2) Playing hands in early position like 76s and small pairs.
(3) Playing too pasive.
(4) Playing to aggressive.
(5) Going on tilt.
1 3 5
Playing too many hands gets first prize for the most serious and often encountered mistake. In games where many major mistakes occur (low-limit), in the no-fold'em mode, playing hands out-of-position like 76s and small pairs can have positive expectations provided that one plays well after the flop too. Playing too passive often puts that player in situations where they're guessing as to the meaning of hands which bet into them. Check/calling suggests to everyone else that they have a weak draw. Playing too agressive on the river is a mistake some average players will make, otherwise it's usually making too many raises or reraises with the non nut flush draw on the flop which gets them in trouble (this is more a continuation of getting involved with two suited cards before the flop in situations that are disadvantageous). Overall it isn't necessarily a mistake to play hyper-agressive, it is a genuine game plan which values the importance of position ahead of the starting cards and succeeds enough when able to isolate down to one or two opponents on the flop. Going on tilt provides an excuse for playing poorly (no wonder I lost that last two hundred, it wasn't my bad decisions - everyone draws out on me - I was just on tilt). By rationalizing that you lost because you were on tilt, just makes it that much more difficult to reevaluate your basic game plan because you have accepted the easy explaination.
I have a 7-stud question that this latest contest thread has got me thinking about.
You start with a big pocket pair, which you perceive to be the best, but you are fairly certain your opponent has a pair. (Can't be positive though)
On 5th. st. or 6th. st. he makes an open pair and bets. His bet is correct and so is your call (although on occasion you may semi-bluff raise)
Now on the river he bets and you don't improve. This is a VERY common situation. In practice you have a very tough decision. It is my experience that most players (good and bad) pay off more than they fold in this spot. The arguement being...the pot is big.
What do you all do. How do you analyze this situation. It drive me nuts. Sometimes I pay off sometimes I don't. If I am certain I am beat I fold, when I am uncertain I call. Often times I am guessing. I know people who always call in this situation. "Pot's too big." Raising would rarely work in my opinion because, again, most people pay off because of the size of the pot.
Is there an optimal strategy for this very common situation.
All comments welcome.
I'm assuming a full game in the 5/10 to 15/30 range. A shorthanded game would be different, as well as a high limit game where the players are very tricky.
If you're saying the the pot has gotten big then I'm assuming that someone was betting and your opponent was calling with something, or doing the betting himself. This suggests he had something worth calling or betting with.
Even if he didn't, he might have improved on 7th street.
Going to school on our "ultimate problem," calling or folding are your two choices. However, in this example, you suspected him of having two-pair before the river. Even if he didn't, he might have two-pair or trips now. He also could have completed a straight or flush (If he didn't have a pair, then he called on 3rd street with a straight or flush draw).
Unless you've seen him push his luck with nothing, and continue pushing with only a pair on the end, you have to assume that you're beat. I don't think there is enough in the pot to justify a call. Put those cards in the muck where they belong.
I'm curious how many times like this in the past that you had the best hand when you called.
I usually play 15-30 and up. Once and a while 10-20. In 10-20 it is much easier to lay the hand down. The players are more straight forward. Sometimes at 15-30 and 20-40 against certain players it is easy to fold as well. The problem is with very good and very bad players. The decision can become very difficult. The bad players bluff too much and the good players bluff often enough to give you pause. Many passive or weak tourist types (as well as good players) will simply check their two pair and call. They are afraid you made two bigger pair. This can make their bet suspicious. Good players will bet more often making it incorrect to "always lay it down." They know how the situation looks. If they started with a three straight or three flush or three big cards, and now make an open pair, they know they have a bluffing situation as well as more outs against your probable big pair. If they decide to bet out, in most cases they know in order to win on the river they must continue bettting if they don't improve. I make this play myself. Often times the situation demands it.
Aggressive winning players bet and raise, not check and call.
Semi-bluff raising is also an optiion when they pair, as I said previously.
This situation is trickier than it first appears.
I win with naked aces on the river in this situation more often than you might think. You can't just routinely lay it down. If you always fold they will always bluff. If you always call they will never bluff. It can be very aggravating. It becomes a very tough decision.
Actually, I would love to lay the hand down when they catch an open pair, when I feel they made two pair. Yet I know this is incorrect. Still, it feels right. If your beat, then fold. Going to the river makes you want to, "pay it off."
How about raising when he catches a pair, thus making him think you have a higher two pair, and when he checks on the turn, you bet if you catch, or check it down.....if he bets on the river, then fold.
UcMeB4U,
I have about 10 minutes of 7 card stud playing experience, so I've actually spent more time thinking about your post! Whether you should fold your hand the moment they catch an open pair thereby avoiding this whole dilemma, is a question I'm afraid I haven't a clue about. However, given the scenario you've described, I think that always folding (or always calling) would be incorrect for the reasons you mentioned, and that your 'judgment based' mixed strategy is the optimal decision, till of course someone can come up with some optimal frequencies for you ( though this is more complex than the Ultimate Problem.)
Etienne
You've left out a lot of information..what were the stakes and what was the action on third street? You say that at the river it was a "big pot" ... How big? how many players were in on fifth and sixth street?...You don't ever mention anyone raising.
Since you say you had a big pocket pair I will assume that you raised on third street. (It would help to know what your door card was as well) Your opponent calls and also calls you on fourth street. You put him on a probable pair... possibly because he called you EASILY on fourth street without catching a suited card.
In order to continue this analysis I will assume he started with a pair, either split or burried, perhaps a pair which is bigger than your door card .
If he makes the open pair on fifth street and bets into you its OK to raise and represent a hand that can beat two pair...he will have to check on sixth street if he has two pair and you can check behind him and take a free card if you don't improve yourself.
I would not raise if he made the open pair on sixth street but would call to look for two pair on the river.
If I make two pair on the river...and my larger pair is higher than any of his up cards than I would raise him when he bets.
I would always fold if I do not improve on the river (in this scenario) since he started with a pair and now has at least two pair.
Please note that this "analysis" is one that fills in the blanks in a certain way. I would act differently if, for example,... my opponent had limped in...and then called my raise in a multiway pot and had caught a suited card on fourth or fifth street. In this case I might be more inclined to think he started with a three flush and I would have to call him with one pair on the river to snap off a bluff.
.. snip when to call .. when to fold advise ..
But your question is what to do when you really don't know.
Over all you should be paying off on the river much more often than not. If you are in a game where your other decisions are clear (fold often in predictable 10/20 and routinely call in tricky 15/30), then use these unclear situations to adjust your frequency closer to the norm: call in 10/20 and fold in 15/30. This will make your routine decisions even more routine, since the 10/20 players will bluff less when they see you call, and the 15/30 players bluff more when they see you fold.
This works unless the other players can tell the difference between your routine and difficult decisions. But those that can tell the difference should already be playing very well anyway.
- Louie
Bob, This is probably obvious now, but David was referring back to your note, #1, #3, #5 (probably in that order of importance, as well) See Andrew's response for greater detail.. My personal experiences have resulted in the following order: 1 5 3 2 4
The only major problems I've seen in agressive play (4) is taking it on too long into the hand, fearing that I can't back off once I've started.
To me, the tilt 5 is worse than the passive 3, especially in lower limit games. I'm assuming that I have a better chance to recover from stupidity when falling into passive play; tilt is a mess.. they are both close, however
#1 is definately NUMBER ONE, in my (unfortunate) learning experience. #2 and #4 are much farther down on the list of bad plays, in my opinion, in terms of detrimental effect- also are easier to adjust from/recover from than the others.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Paul Pudaite's solution to the Sklansky's Ultimate Problem is a subgame perfect Bayesian Nash equilibrium. This is a set of strategies and beliefs. In each situation the strategies are optimal given the beliefs. And beliefs are calculated with Baye's rule. Unfortunately Paul did not post his beliefs on the (zero probability) off-equilibrium paths like bet-raise-rereraise.
Paul's equilibrium is probably unique. I'm interesting in poker examples of multiple (subgame perfect) equilibria. One possibility is a pooling equilibrium and a separating equilibrium. In a pooling equilibrium different types act identically, but in a separating equilibrium they act differently.
I'm also interested in profitable precommitment to a strategy that is not subgame perfect. Can Doyle Brunson theoretically improve his expectation by playing like an aggressive maniac even though he knows it costs him money on certain hands?
I think that was a singing group wasn't it. Crosby, Bayes and Nash? I like my equilibrium straight. No pooling or seperating. Game theory is supposed to be an optimal strategy when you don't know how the other player is going to react, correct? I have to go, I need to work on my subgame.
You will have trouble finding meaningful multilple equilibria in a poker situation, because multiple equilibria implies at least three, which greatly reduces their application to poker (there aren't that many paths you can follow).
As far as your precommitmnet strategy to work he must be "locked in" such as moving all in in no-limit. It is not credible to "threaten" to do something that is out of equilibrium if you have the option of changing your mind when it is time to act. I suggest you study multi-player Stackelberg models if you are interested in this concept.
One more note, I think some people on thiis forum believe game theory is used to figure out the best thing to do. Game theory is actually a tool that is used to predict what WILL happen, not what should. That is a rational agent can make what ever choice they choose, game theory predicts what economic agents will do under a certain condition.
At least three what? Players?
Yes I understand threats are inconsistent with subgame perfection. Nevertheless Doyle Brunson wrote about forcing himself to bet worthless hands. Maybe he was simply mixing-up his play according to optimal strategy. But I wonder whether you could improve overall profitability with a _policy_ of misplaying certain hands. This would cost you money on those hands but might improve profitability of other hands. This is analogous to throwing away your steering wheel in the highway game of chicken. If "irrational" maniacs can win at chicken then maybe they can win at poker. Due to the zero-sum nature of poker I imagine this is possible only with more than two players.
Unfortunately I haven't seen application of "real" game theory to poker. My (typical) Ph.D. course focused on sequential equilibrium and other esoteric refinements in games with multiple equilibria. Finding a unique equilibrium doesn't involve any of this theory.
I hate to break it too ya Steve, but I think that you can play this game intuitively. Just ask Doyle, his PHD is from the school of experience. Oh, i think I hear a teacher calling you. BYE BYE
At least 3 equilibria (by odd number theorem), if there are multiple equilibria there must be at least 3.
The occasional 'crazy' play can be optimally countered by Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium. In that game theory refinement, you can't assign a zero probabilty to certain actions (ie. your opponent might be going all-in with 10-4 offsuit). If I understand my textbook correctly, the more actions we can rule out as being off the equilibrium path, the less we have to rely on Bayes' rule. If a player can credibly convince us that he is willing to make many seemingly crazy plays, that forces us to constantly use Bayes' rule (and PBE). Well, the more we have to resort to complicated tools like PBE in the middle of a poker hand, the more likely we are to make errors.
Game theory is predictive when looking at wars and such. Optimal strategy is the best strategy in the long run, no matter how your opponent plays his/her hand. its pre-predictive , if you will. You don't make a bet in poker to forecast what your opponent will do. Don't walk too fast, that egg on your head will fall.
What should be the proper order in evaluating a hand to see if you should participate?
(1) The Hand - (minimum pairs playable in early position TT or 99) 20/40 game
(2) Position
(3) Has the pot been raised
(4) How many players have called so far
(5) How many players are behind me
(6) Do I have an aggressive maniac behind me that is likely to raise
(7) The tempo of the game (Loose and passive - Tight and aggressive)
All comments would be greatly appreciated! Thanks
Does it matter?
I usually decide in the following sequence: 2,3,1,4,5 and consider other factors (including WHO called or raised) if the decision is close. One reason I consider #1 third is that I usually haven't looked at my cards by the time I learn 2 and 3.
But the order of factors considered shouldn't really matter.
It seems to me that Bob is trying to write a computer program for playing Holdem poker since he has been asking some interesting (and important) questions related to a computerized Holdem player. Accurate ranking of hands w.r.t. positions, number of players will help eventually building up an expert computerized Holdem player.
(4a) The positions of the callers. Against better players, it matters whether a caller is in early position vs. middle position vs. late position.
""What should be the proper order in evaluating a hand to see if you should participate?"" <-- I assume this means "Please order these criteria based on there relative importance".
1 3 5 *8* 4 7 6
*8* - How are my implied odds? (texture of hand, quality of players, likely betting on later streets ...)
"2 position" seems to be covered primarily in 5, but also somewhat in the other criteria.
- Louie
I just got on line and this is my first post, so I'll mention first that I've been playing poker since 1987, studying the game seriously all along. HPAP and TOP gave me much of my hold'em foundation. That has been supplemented by additional reading, discussion with skilled players, constant thinking, and occasional consultations with David. I've had good success as a regular middle limit player.
Let me make clear that Bob Ciaffone is one of my favorite authors. I do respect his knowledge. Certainly when it comes to "big bet" poker - in which I have little experience - his expertise can hardly be questioned. I have enjoyed and learned from his writing on the limit game as well.
That said, in a recent isse of CARD PLAYER (Vol. 11, No. 7) Ciaffone discusses starting standards for a seven-handed limit holdem game. He attempts to distinguish such an "intermediate"-handed game from full and short-handed games. While I agree with some of what he says, he makes several recommendations which I believe range from potentially misleading to simply inaccurate. Here I'll address just two. Perhaps we can look at some of his other recommendations in the near future. Please share your views.
1. His most general point is that "you can come down... in your caliber of starting hands as the number of players at the table decreases." RESPONSE: While this is true if you are talking about the average value of all hands played, I believe less experienced players could be misled. They might assume it means, for example, that if you are under the gun in a seven-handed game (four players left to act behind you) you should play more loosely than you would in a nine-handed game with four players left behind you, after the two players ahead of you have folded. That would be wrong. I see these two situations as essentially identical. As the number of players in the game decreases further the analogy to a full game in which players ahead of you have folded does weaken somewhat (Mason Malmuth talks about this in his POKER ESSAYS) but is still valid. At seven-handed the analogy is quite intact as you do not yet see the short-handed mind set, which kicks in somewhere around five-handed, in which many players start to play, raise, and defend with all sorts of weak hands.
2. To illustrate his point above he states that it is acceptable to play A-T and K-J "up Front" in a seven-handed game. RESPONSE: If he means under the gun, then I think he's pushing it a bit too far. You still have four players behind you. There's too good a chance of running into a strong hand held by someone with position on you. In my game, people who routinely play these two hands this early don't win. I see these hands as CONSISTENTLY playable only in late positions. They are sometimes playable(raising) with perhaps three people still to act behind you, if those players are the right kind of opponents (e.g., tight/passive). This is basically what David illustrates with a Q-J in his video. But when you have four people behind you, it seems to me that you need fairly optimal conditions to play them (i.e., you're a HIGHLY skilled player, and your opponents are quite weak).
Again, Ciaffone is a writer from whom most of us could learn a great deal. I don't want him in my game! And perhaps I'm nit-picking over stylistic differences in play. Still, I think he missed the mark a bit this time. Comments?
John Feeney writes:
>>1. His most general point is that "you can come down... in your caliber of starting hands as the number of players at the table decreases." RESPONSE: While this is true if you are talking about the average value of all hands played, I believe less experienced players could be misled. They might assume it means, for example, that if you are under the gun in a seven-handed game (four players left to act behind you) you should play more loosely than you would in a nine-handed game with four players left behind you, after the two players ahead of you have folded. That would be wrong. I see these two situations as essentially identical. As the number of players in the game decreases further the analogy to a full game in which players ahead of you have folded does weaken somewhat (Mason Malmuth talks about this in his POKER ESSAYS) but is still valid. At seven-handed the analogy is quite intact as you do not yet see the short-handed mind set, which kicks in somewhere around five-handed, in which many players start to play, raise, and defend with all sorts of weak hands. <<
I read the Card Player article you're referring to. I interpreted this part a bit differently. I think he was trying to say that if you are under the gun in a 7-handed game you can play looser than under the gun in a full game. I think Ciaffione was assuming that most players evaluate their position relative to the blinds when they are under the gun rather than relative to the button. He doesn't specifically talk about being under the gun in the article if I remember correctly
>>2. To illustrate his point above he states that it is acceptable to play A-T and K-J "up Front" in a seven-handed game. RESPONSE: If he means under the gun, then I think he's pushing it a bit too far. You still have four players behind you. There's too good a chance of running into a strong hand held by someone with position on you. In my game, people who routinely play these two hands this early don't win. I see these hands as CONSISTENTLY playable only in late positions. They are sometimes playable(raising) with perhaps three people still to act behind you, if those players are the right kind of opponents (e.g., tight/passive). This is basically what David illustrates with a Q-J in his video. But when you have four people behind you, it seems to me that you need fairly optimal conditions to play them (i.e., you're a HIGHLY skilled player, and your opponents are quite weak).<<
The hands of A,T or K,J o me these hands seem o.k. to play but it would depend on the players in the game I think. I raised an eyebrow about raising early with a pair of 6's but he does go on to say that a lot depends on your opponents and in the context of what he wrote I think he has a valid point.
I thought this was a very interesting article. The past few months I have ended up in a must move game a lot. I think it is good reading for those players who do have to play in must move games as it gives some pretty good insight into what things to consider. Even if you don't agree with the advice it gives a player something to think about. It seems like the usually shorter must move games are better than the main games a lot of the time.
Tom Haley
Perhaps a clearer way to state point #1 in my post above is this: Suppose you were sitting in a nine-handed game, three seats to the left of the big blind. Now suppose before the flop the first two players folded. In general, would you know how to play your hand? Of course you would. Well, in a seven-handed game you should probably play it the same way. The two situations are very similar.
Ciaffone mentioned that hardly anyone had ever written about such "intermediate"-handed games. I think the reason is that there is no need to. If you accept my point above, then you can see that if you know how to play in a full game you also know how to play in a seven-handed game. My concern was that some readers might be misled into thinking that the two are somehow fundamentally different.
Regarding point #2 of my post: Ask yourself, "If I were in a full game and the two players ahead of me folded (as above), would I routinely play A-T (offsuit)? I can't really say that it's *necessarily* wrong. There may be some great players who can get away with it in softer games. But I would guess that even most very good players are crossing the line into the negative expectation zone when they play this hand in this spot. It would be the same in a seven-handed game under the gun.
Ciaffone made some other coments which I think were even more shaky. But they actually concerned how he plays in a full game. So as not to muddy the waters, I'll withhold comment on those items for now.
John Feeney
>>Perhaps a clearer way to state point #1 in my post above is this: Suppose you were sitting in a nine-handed game, three seats to the left of the big blind. Now suppose before the flop the first two players folded. In general, would you know how to play your hand? Of course you would. Well, in a seven-handed game you should probably play it the same way. The two situations are very similar. <<
I agree.
>>Ciaffone mentioned that hardly anyone had ever written about such "intermediate"-handed games. I think the reason is that there is no need to. If you accept my point above, then you can see that if you know how to play in a full game you also know how to play in a seven-handed game.<<
I agree with this as well.
>>My concern was that some readers might be misled into thinking that the two are somehow fundamentally different.<<
True but I think the Ciaffone was alluding to the fact that the psychology has changed for some players. A lot of discussions have ensued on this forum as to whether or not the following situations are identical:
1) In a full game everyone folds to the button.
2) Three handed game.
The big difference to me is the players mind set.
>>Regarding point #2 of my post: Ask yourself, "If I were in a full game and the two players ahead of me folded (as above), would I routinely play A-T (offsuit)? I can't really say that it's *necessarily* wrong. There may be some great players who can get away with it in softer games. But I would guess that even most very good players are crossing the line into the negative expectation zone when they play this hand in this spot. It would be the same in a seven-handed game under the gun.<<
True but I don't think he was specifically talking about being under the gun. Actually I think his premise was that he could lower his standards because there were less people to go through. If I remember correctly he stated that he would raise in early position in a ten handed game with A,Jo. Therefore in a 7 handed game he could lower his standards and raise with A,To in early position. It would be interesting to see what others thought about this "scaling down" of opening requirements. Is lowering your raising standards from A,Jo to A,To valid because you only 4 have players between you and the button as opposed to 7 players in a full game? Is this the right way to lower your standards in that you have less players to go through although still quite a few?
>>Ciaffone made some other coments which I think were even more shaky. But they actually concerned how he plays in a full game. So as not to muddy the waters, I'll withhold comment on those items for now.
John Feeney <<
Don't withhold comment on my account I'd be interested in reading what your comments are. Actually I think what you are saying is that this seven handed game isn't that much different than a full game in theory and I agree with that.
This is off the track a little. I have noticed that some players seem to play very passively in these "intermediate" size games especially in some of the must move games that I have encountered recently. The full games that I encounter are mostly loose and aggressive. Some of the less full games and short games are actually a little tamer as they don't involve a lot of multi-way action or as big of pots pre-flop but that should be expected. Also that players don't want to gamble as much when they are waiting for a seat in the main game especially when it is short handed or 7 handed. This has been pretty easy to exploit. Put me at the bottom of the list!
Tom Haley
>>True but I think the Ciaffone was alluding to the fact that the psychology has changed for some players.<<
I think you're right. However, in my experience, it usually hasn't changed too much at that point. (When it does of course you have to adjust.) Interestingly, my observation has been that it frequently does change noticably at precisely six handed. Still, it's not so much that you have to play *much* differently than you would in a full game when the corresponding number of players have folded. Certainly in neither seven nor six-handed do you often see the kind of fundamental change in psychology that you see in three or four-handed games.
>>A lot of discussions have ensued on this forum as to whether or not the following situations are identical:
1) In a full game everyone folds to the button.
2) Three handed game.
The big difference to me is the players mind set.<<
I agree with you. Mason Malmuth talks about this in an essay on short handed play in Poker Essays. And my experience certainly suggests the same. As I mentioned in my original post, in a short handed game many players just start raising and defending with all sorts of hands that they *wouldn't* play in a full game where everyone has folded to the button.
>>True but I don't think he was specifically talking about being under the gun. Actually I think his premise was that he could lower his standards because there were less people to go through. If I remember correctly he stated that he would raise in early position in a ten handed game with A,Jo. Therefore in a 7 handed game he could lower his standards and raise with A,To in early position. It would be interesting to see what others thought about this "scaling down" of opening requirements. Is lowering your raising standards from A,Jo to A,To valid because you only 4 have players between you and the button as opposed to 7 players in a full game? Is this the right way to lower your standards in that you have less players to go through although still quite a few?<<
If he wasn't including under the gun in his advice then I have less to quibble about with him. However, my basic view is this: A lot of solid players agree that A-Jo is not worth much in the earliest positions in a nine or ten-handed game. I'm certianly not alone in just mucking the thing more often than I play it. So it follows that if I'm not going to play A-J until I have no more than 4 or maybe 5 left behind me, then I'm not going to play A-To till a bit later than that.
Finally, yes, you do lower your standards based on how many players are left between you and the button. Keeping track of these players is how I think of my position (i.e., early= 5 or more players left, middle= 2-4... That's over simplified, but you get the idea.) I just think that in this instance Ciaffone started with slighlty low standards, then lowered them a tad too much again.
I'm out of time now, but ASAP I'll try to touch on the other ideas I found questionable in Ciaffone's article.
John Feeney
Greetings:
I'm in the process of moving from playing poker with the boys to Casino style, low-limit hold'em.
I have Sklanski's, Hold 'Em Poker and Jones' Winning Low Limit Hold 'Em books on order. (Should take a couple weeks to get them). I have also trying to read every article I can find on the net as well as playing IRC hold'em.
I was wondering if any of you have any advice for helping me to "survive the learning curve" while I gain experience.
Thank you.
Just to offer a few words of advice. You must learn to be patient and very well discplined. Also, learn the basics and know how of poker before taking the plunge. Good Luck and I wish you well.
Dice
If you have a computer, buy Turbo Holdem Version 2 and play vs an average lineup and consult the advisor on every hand to see if your decision is "right." This is like having a coach behind you giving you advice on every hand which you could never get in the real world. Every time the advisor disagrees with your decision, play the hand both ways and see which result is better. This is not a substitute for real game experience, but it is a way to learn that you cannot get at the tables and it is free. Thus, it complements table experience, and you will be much better off if you do both rather than just one.
I have not looked at the new version of Turbo Texas Hold 'em, but I have looked at some of the previous versions. I understand that this version is better, but I want to caution that I frequently disagreed with the advice that the previous advisors gave. I assume that this has been improved, but whether it has been improved enough is another question.
It will be a while, but when I get a chance to look at it I will let everyone know what I think. In the mean time, if you are a new player I would be cautious when following it's advice. To cost you all of your money, it doesn't need to make too many errors.
Regarding the advisor feature of Texas Turbo Hold'em 2.0, the program author mentioned to me that it is not working properly after the flop and he will be sending out updates. The program is still good for sparring practice and poker research in its current form. Just don't do what it tells you to do :)
-Abdul
I was in your position 2 months ago. Besides reading the books you mentioned and a few others, I practiced starting hands with TTH 1.x (the 2.x product seems to be good enough to go past the surface practice 1.x provided) and once I got into the casino I kept a log. I believe the log is a very useful tool. It allows me to PM hands in a more detailed fashion then the time at the casino allows.
At this point I can't claim this training regime "works" as I've only played 50 hours of 2-5 (structured) HE with a $250 win, but I do think its helping me learn about how to think about poker situations at a reasonable pace. Unfortunately the legal game is gone in my area for a time :(
Stand on the rail for a couple of days and watch the action.
Try and guess what people have and study their play.
Sometimes you will be able to see a players' hand and you can watch how they play and go over in your mind how you would play the same hand.
When you do decide to jump in try and watch the game you think you will be seated in for a while before you sit down. The action can vary wildly from game to game.
Try to pick up on the rhythm and tempo of the game. This way when you sit down you won't play too fast or too slow. You want to feel comfortable. In synch, at ease. Try to remain silent and concentrate on the play. If you feel uncomfortable, at any time, for any reason, quit immediately. Re-group and then try again later, or the next day. Don't be in a hurry, take your time. Let what happens happen. If you get off winner stay and play, but don't take any big losses. This can be debilitating, especially to a newbie. Keep everything in perspective and think about what you have done when you are away from the game. Analyze your mistakes and your successes and then try again.
After all is said and done, nothing substitutes for experience. Good luck.
First off, get as much knowledge and experience as you can away from the tables. Read the books, but make sure you stick to the tightest starting hand recommendations in the books for two reasons: 1) that's basically always correct and 2) as a newbie you definitely have to play fewer hands than experts could. Play tighter than you can possibly imagine is correct, particularly in early position. Later, when you know more, you'll play even tighter than that.
Turbo Texas Hold'em 2.0 is excellent practice.
IRC Poker lets you play versus humans all over the world for ether dollars. See the rec.gambling.poker Frequently Asked Questions article (posted monthly) for details. The game doesn't become reasonable until you win a big enough bankroll to be allowed into the bigger game.
Once you're fully armed with this information and out-of-casino experience, my suggestions for playing in the casino are, in order of importance:
1. Hide your cards and protect your hand. 2. Do not play when you're losing a lot. 3. Do not play when you're upset. 4. Do not play when you're tired. 5. Do not ever play when you're tired, upset, and losing a lot. 6. Pick an easy game (passive-loose-stupid opponents.) 7. Fold J3 offsuit under the gun.
Actually, hand selection is so important that it would be more important than not playing when you're upset, except that you will probably play too many hands if you're upset.
Finally, keep a notebook to record some or all of your hands. You can then think about the hands later, and if you post some of them you'll get some good feedback here.
-Abdul
I had an interesting situation two mornings ago in a $10-$20 HE game at the Mirage. I was to the right of an out of town player who I had played with the day before. He was a straight-forward tight player who played OK. Three times, the day before, we had been involved in hands where he always had a pair one notch higher than mine. That's the background, here's the hand. Everyone folded to the button, a solid Mirage regular raised on the button. I three bet with a pair of Jacks in the small blind. My friend made it four bets in the big blind. The original raiser folded, and my friend told me he had a very big pair. I was sure this meant AA or KK. He then asked me if I wanted to just check it out. I said yes, turned a set, and won the pot.
Would it be correct to check down AK (or AK suited?), if I thought his possible hands were AA, KK, and QQ?
Jessica,
It is a very interesting situation indeed. His pocket aces (or kings or queens) has about an 82% chance of winning against your jacks in the event of a check down. But I think his proposition is a little deceiving and have doubts about its attractiveness. There is $100 in the pot before the flop, so your expectation is therefore $18 for a check down.
You've already paid for the privilege of seeing the flop, and can check and fold if it is unfavourable. If you happen to flop a set (as you did) or better (11.8% chance), you are now a 92% favourite to win. You know what he has, but he doesn't know what you have. You could have TT, AKs, AQs etc. so when a jack flops he can't suspect anything, and with a pair of aces will probably play it out till the end. With a little raising on your part, there will be about another $140 in the pot by the end, which makes your expectation ($240-$70)x(0.118)x(0.92), or about $18.45. I haven't even considered other possibilities, such as staying after certain (bad for him) flops, bluffing on your part etc. which I'm sure would raise your expectation even further.
So, perhaps you shouldn't have accepted his proposition.
Where have I gone wrong?
Etienne
Actually, she had a 10.7% chance of flopping a set or better, and having it be the best hand on the flop, if her opponent indeed had a higher hand. Assuming that her hand holds up 92% as you stated, then her expectation is only $16.74, not including the times she improves on the turn or river instead of the flop. By the way, in this problem she improved on the turn, not the flop.
However, I agree that she should not have accepted his offer, unless she didn't know how to play her hand. This is the untimate problem all over agian. Her opponent can gurantee himself his check-check expectation by using optimal strategy. She can limit him to check-check expectation by using optimal strategy. If you factor in that he may have been lying about his hand, she does better in the long run to decline his offer and play optimal strategy, whatever that is (Paul, what does you computer program dictate the optimal strategy is for the pair of jacks?).
Of course, if she doesn't know optimal strategy, and she's sure that he has her beat, she does better to accept the check-check expectation. It's the best she'd figure to get anyway.
The only difference in this problem and the ultimate problems is that the weaker hand acts first.
If you were sure he had a better hand, then the best expectation you could hope for would be your check-check expectation. With a pair of jacks, AKs, or AKo, you still have a worse hand than your "friend." He's giving you a gift by offering you to check it down to the end.
The only way you could do better in the long run, was if you knew the optimal strategy for your hand, and he didn't know his. Then maybe you could do better than the "check-check" expectation.
This is similar to the Sklansky Ultimate Problem. We learned from this that the optimal strategy will equal the check-check expectation, unless my understanding of it is wrong. The differences here are that the weaker hand acts first, and there are more cards to come. But that shouldn't change the concept. Take the expectation and run!
In fact, even if he'd been lying about his hand, you still do just as well to check it down. It's just that you will win more often if you have the best hand to start with. However, if he might be lying about checking it down (let's say he bets after you check), then making this deal is wrong. But it sounds like you had developed a rapport with him over the two days, so he was probably honest about his offer.
George,
Firstly, A's check-check expectation for Ultimate #1 is $45.46, higher than the optimal $45.02.
Secondly, I agree in principle with most of what you say, but in the Ultimate Problem they were virtually playing open till the last card. Here only one player is open. Where have you factored in Jessica's advantage of knowing her opponent's hand (AA or KK) ?
If Paul is to supply optimal strategies, he must take into account the added fact that the friend is totally "blind" (as he should be in hold'em).
Alternatively, has an attempt ever been made to quantify the effect of one player knowing the other's hand in, say, a heads-up situation for a variety of possible hands and position ?
Etienne
It is not at all true that the optimal strategies should equal the check- check expectation or even come close. It did in the Ultimate Problem only because the chances for improvement for both hands were such that the existence of the last betting round both helped and hurt each hand approximately equally. This is not usually the case. In other words there is usually one hand that much prefers to be all in. The Ultimate Problem was the exception.
After making my post, I realized that I shouldn't have made such a general assumption base on the results of one problem. Also, as Etienne pointed out, the check-check expectation was actually higher than the optimal expectation (because K gives up too much when he has trip-kings). I stand corrected--twice.
This problem is similar in that it's pair over pair. The likelihood of both improving is about the same, except that the larger pair is way better with the community cards. The smaller pair can't make two-pair without the larger pair also improving. It's different in that the remaining cards are community cards, so both players have an idea whether the other improved. As the pair of jacks has already paid to see the flop, she'll know after the flop if she can continue, which is to her advantage. However, even if she hits a jack, if an ace or king is also there she may still be losing. She won't know for sure if he also improved, but he will!
I wonder if a general rule can be made for preferring to check it down if given the chance. The better hand usually prefers to bet to make the lesser hand pay to out-draw him. But, sometimes the lesser hand has so many outs that he may be favorite, as in Omaha, or there may be more than enough callers to justify a bet based on odds. The small hand also has bluffing equity.
In a pair over pair situation in hold'em, I can't imagine how the over-pair can benefit by checking it down. In this particular situation, I think he was just being friendly, or didn't realize his mistake.
This particular opponent was just being friendly AND didn't realize his mistake. I also wanted to point out that a friendly disposition at the table has earned me money several times. That's not why I'm friendly. I like and am interested in people. On several occasions, opponents with less interest in financial gain and more in entertainment, have put me in favorable spots because I tend to be naturally friendly and polite at the table. (My boyfriend will check-raise me every chance he gets!!)
Jessica,
I understand what you are saying. I also have often had the chance to take advantage of such situations that arise from being friendly and polite at the table. My problem with this is that I am then expected to reciprocate by "soft playing" in return ...which I abhor.
It is for this reason that I never soft play anyone and never encourage anyone to soft play me. I usually try to explain to my friends in a friendly way that I expect them to "play hard" against me because I will play just as hard against them.
Of course, if a "drunk" wanders in and I'll probably never play with him again...that's another story...and of course I'll take advantage of that sort of situation.
Jim Mogal
Jessica,
I would have been skeptical that he was telling the truth for a lot of reasons. If he had Aces or Kings why offer to check it down?
The other thing is that I wonder how this all appears to the rest of the players at the table. Button raises, you re-raise, and big blnd caps it. Button folds and you and the big blind decide to check it down. I wonder if this irratated any of the other players?
Tom Haley
Jessica's problem is very close. Assuming he is telling the truth and that she has two jacks it comes down to this: If one of the three flop cards is a jack she usually costs herself $70 in a 10-20 game if she can't bet. On the other hand if she is all in she now will usually win a $100 pot if one of the last two cards is a jack. I assume she would have folded on the flop if there was a bet. Since 3x70 is more than 2x100, this would seem to indicate that she is slightly better off to not be all in. However since there is some chance that the existence of betting wii COST Jessica a lot more money and there is also a small chance tthat being all in will allow her to make a straight or flush, it is almost certainly better that she take the deal.
Thanks for all the responses. Tom, I was quite certain that my opponent was telling the truth. I assure you that no one at the table was annoyed either. This sort of thing has never happened to me before.
I was hoping there would be some discussion of my follow-up question. If he holds AA, KK, or QQ, and I have AK, or AK suited, how do I fare by checking it down?
If you had AK or AK suited, you're a very long shot against a pair of Kings. Against a pair of Aces you stand almost no chance (you need two kings, or a straight or flush). Checking it down in those situations is probably in your best interest.
Against QQ you have two over-cards but still are a small underdog. Without doing the math, I'd feel I was better off checking it down. But it may be possible that you could do better to play it (you've already paid to see the flop). However, as I've previously stated, if you don't already know how to optimally handle the situation, checking-it down may be your best bet.
In your problem, you don't know exactly what your opponent had when he made the offer. However, since you saw his hand (I think) on the end, you do know now. Based on the fact that he re-re-raised, he probably had aces, maybe kings. Given that, you are probably better off taking the deal.
Ask yourself the following question: If a king flops and you have AK, where are you? It's either your pair of kings versus his aces, or your kings versus his trips (in that situation the aces are obviously more likely). If an ace flops, you still may be beat. Anything else and you are still losing.
Another way of putting it is that either you're a small underdog or a big underdog before the flop. And there are not a lot of flops that will improve you but definitely not your opponent. So, if he's giving you a free chance to beat him, TAKE IT!
George,
I just posted (see below) without knowing about your post. Please use the figures if you wish - I'll read your post when I wake up.....
Etizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..........
Jessica,
OK, I'll get the ball rolling and someone can continue after me 'cause I'm very tired. My sims give me the following checkdown win percentages for the high pair together with preflop, checkdown expectations for Jessica :
AA vs AK 93% ...... $7 expectation for Jessica
AA vs AKs 88% ...... $12
KK vs AK 70% ...... $30
KK vs AKs 66% ...... $34
QQ vs AK 57% ...... $43
QQ vs AKs 54% ...... $46
The flop and subsequent analysis is more complex than before, so I'm going to sleep. Who's next?
Etienne
David,
From your solution it is obvious that if the button had originally folded, and Jessica made it 2 bets, and subsequently called the big blind's raise (pot=$60), then it would have been wrong for her to take the deal. Similarly, it can be shown that if the pot is $140, then it is definitely correct to accept the proposition.
There exists an equilibrium point, say X, slightly below $100 where each decision has equal expectation. Apart from this property, is there anything else special about this pot size X (for this specific set of hands of course) as regards to either AA or JJ ?
Etienne
1) JJ is just about the hardest hand to play in limit poker heads up. I'm not sure if "knowing" you're dominated is any consolation. I think I'd prefer to still hold out hope I'm only up against AK, tho of course against the player you described, I'd doubt it.
2) This diverges from the Ultimate Problem in that there the worse hand had position. Here you have the worse hand and are out of position. Also, the odds of improving are significantly different.
3) The real reason to accept the offer to check it down which Jessica briefly touched on is that there is A LOT OF EQUITY having the person on your left "be your friend." This can easily be worth $100 a session in a red chip game. So if they want to be friendly, you should be friendly. In fact, I bet this very situation is probably a result of Jessica unconsciously sowing the seeds of goodwill already.
Glad you brought this topic up.
Jim Geary
If you can narrow his hand down to 100% knowledge of either AA or KK, and you are already committed to see the flop, you should not agree to check down any hand, no matter how weak it is. You are clearly drawing against a better hand no matter what you have, which means that an enormous part of your ev comes from your implied odds. Giving away that edge is a huge mistake, imho.
The ability to see the turn and river for free is a plus, but I'm pretty sure that this doesn't make up for these advantages:
1. You can easily fold if you miss the flop completely, 2. You know exactly when it is correct to draw if you partially catch the flop, and 3. You'll likely extract 3 more large bets (possibly more if you are lucky and he is stupid) if you hit it.
Tom Weideman
I'm surprised thatr a smart guy like you would make this mistake. I'm not going to explain why you are wrong. As your punishment (as well as a way of redeeming yourself) I expect that you will do it.
Heh. It's very possible that I'm wrong. I would guess that if I am, it's most likely because I misjudged the degrees of the pro's and con's in my post (i.e. the two free cards are much more important than the implied odds for some hands than I had guessed), rather than overlooking something else entirely. But I certainly could be wrong about this as well.
Still, I'm not easily goaded into doing more work on this than I've done already (your C-note didn't even kick me into action on the ultimate problem, after all). It would probably surprise you even more if a "smart guy like me" could be manipulated so easily. Heh.
Tom "maybe smart but definitely lazy" Weideman
Tom,
Perhaps if you consider your application of the concept of implied odds to the problem, you won't have to do much work to see where you are wrong.
You basically stated that an enormous part of your ev comes from your implied odds, and that by checking it down you're giving up that huge edge.
First, the pre-flop betting is over with and you're going to see the flop at no additional cost whether you make the deal or not. Implied odds don't apply here.
Second, after the flop, if you hit, implied odds don't apply because you already hit. The concept of implied odds apply when you're considering calling a bet with the worst hand, hoping to win more bets than are presently in the pot if you hit. Since you already hit, it's your opponent who is now considering HIS implied odds. Your goal now is to reduce his implied odds by betting.
Third, after the flop, if you don't hit, your implied odds on the next card are about 160:20. That assumes that you can get three bets out of your opponent. That's 8:1 for a 21.5:1 shot. Not such a good bet. But if you had made the deal, your implied odds would be infinity (100:0). Checking it down has better implied odds. More importantly, you'll never get to see the turn if you have to call a bet.
Even if your solution of refusing the deal happened to be correct, it wasn't because of implied odds.
Say you have seven deuce against his two aces.If you flop one pair you will win an extra $70 or $50 most of the time you improve but lose $30 extra when you don"t improve and you are not all in.Furthermore you miss out on a small chance to catch two running cards when you don't flop a pair and his $10 flop bet forces you to fold. It is only the rare times that you flop two pair or better that being all in costs you more money than it saves you. this is clearly not enough to make up for the benefits of being all in.
I give up. But only because I found a shortcut method to convince myself, so I didn't have to compromise my laziness.
The scenario: You raise one off the button to steal the blinds with 72o, and the button reraises with AA, losing the blinds. You call. He then tells you he has AA. You know for certain he is telling the truth, but he doesn't know that you know this, so he will keep betting through the river for value, and he won't fold if you play back.
Suppose you adopt the strategy of only calling on the flop if you flop a hand that beats AA (you don't call for any draws). Granted, this is not wise, since you are throwing money away when you flop a good draw, but bear with me for now. There is currently $75 in the pot, and if you hit, you can get $70 more in there by check-raising the turn or river. Under these assumptions, the question boils down to this equivalent scenario:
David finds himself in a generous mood at BARGE, and gives some lucky random person (me) the following choice:
"You have 72o. Your opponent has AA. Ignoring straights and flushes, you have the following choice: You can see a 3 card board or a 5 card board. If your hand beats the aces with the 3 card board, I'll pay you $145. If your hand beats the aces with the 5 card board, I'll give you $75. Which scenario do you prefer?"
I don't have much time to decide, nor do I have the back of an envelope handy to whip out some quick combinatoric calculations, so I use this simple approximation:
I need two helpful cards to beat the aces. With a 3 card board, I get 3-choose-2 = 3 combinations. With a 5 card board, I get 5-choose-2 = 10 combinations. Thus I am 10/3 times as likely to win with my 72o if I take 5 cards than if I take 3 cards. Unfortunately, I only win a little less than twice as much for the 3 card case, so my ev is higher seeing the whole board.
I know that there is a lot that has not been taken into account here (one example is my equity for drawing when I hit one pair on the flop), but this approximation convinces me, so now we can move on to slandering some other forum contributors.
Tom Weideman
P.S. I stopped beating my wife weeks ago.
Okay, I don't have to get over my sloth-like tendencies to answer this one:
~~~~~~~~~
George wrote:
Perhaps if you consider your application of the concept of implied odds to the problem, you won't have to do much work to see where you are wrong.
You basically stated that an enormous part of your ev comes from your implied odds, and that by checking it down you're giving up that huge edge.
First, the pre-flop betting is over with and you're going to see the flop at no additional cost whether you make the deal or not. Implied odds don't apply here.
~~~~~~~~~
I disagree. The decision to decline checking the hand down is a wager. It is a subtle wager to be sure, but a wager nonetheless, and the price you are getting on this bet depends upon money that will go into the pot in the future, making this a clear cut case of implied odds.
How is refusing to check down the hand a wager? Well, at the point when you are offered the soft play, you have a certain percentage of the pot as ev. It may be small for some hands, but it exists. When you refuse to check it down, you are placing that guaranteed ev at risk in the hopes of winning more money. In particular, the ev associated with making your hand on the turn and/or river when you would not have called a flop bet is what is at risk. This is a wager, similar to the case of refusing to settle a bet before the outcome.
So while it's still entirely possible that my conclusion is wrong, I still stand by my assertion that the answer comes down to whether the added ev from winning future bets if you hit your hand makes up for the check-it-down equity you currently have. In short, it depends on your implied odds.
Tom Weideman
There is no doubt that comparing the expectation when taking the offer, as opposed to when refusing the offer, should determine whether you take the offer. Everyone agrees with that. Some of us used different approximations of this to give our advice.
I disagree that considering the amount of money going into the pot in the future must always be considered. If JJ doesn't hit a jack on the flop, she doesn't put money in the pot, she folds. That is unless she picks up three perfect cards to a flush or an open end straight. So she's usually only considering reducing her opponent's implied odds if she hits.
But let's say that you're right, and your equity depends on your implied odds. If your conclusion was wrong, then by your own logic, the implied odds were not good enough to decline the offer. Since your original post claimed that giving away the edge of implied odds was a big mistake, "Tom must be wrong." It's only a mistake if declining the deal is the right choice.
Of course, if you can show that declining the offer has a better expectation, then Tom can be right twice. But to do that, Tom can not be lazy, as he must prove that David is wrong. This will take some work. So if Tom proves he's right, and David's wrong, Tom is still wrong for claiming he's lazy.
Therefore, Tom must be wrong even if he's right twice.
Hypothesis confirmed!
Don't feel so bad. George was right for the wrong reasons.
Kurt Godel and Bertrand Russell would have been proud of you George.
I think not. Lord Russell was a pacifist. I'm from New York.
To all you people who make a Living playing games of Chance. I'm turning some really difficult choices around in my head. I'd like to move to Las Vegas. I live in Idaho as some of you already know. It doesn't look like pushing to leagalize Cardrooms here is a realistic option. Idaho is just to Conservative to allow gambling. I also don't have anything thats really keeping me here except that I own a House, and have a decent job. You know the routine: Work, Eat, Sleep, Pay Bills.
I think I have the dedication and intelligence to be a Card Player, but I just can't get enough experience with the closest Cardroom 2.5 hours away, and me working Fridays and Saturdays at my day job now.
So here is my plan: Get a job as a Dealer to support myself if all gos wrong (I'm actually have a degree in Electronics, but I think Dealing Poker would be more interesting right now). Rent out my house. Move to Las Vegas.
I just feel I need to do something more with my life. What I'm doing right now is what you do when your married with children. No offense to all you people who are the above.
Thanks,
Chris Villalobos
Chris,
If you are already beating the games in Jackpot and Spokane than you will most likely beat the games in Vegas as long as you are selective and have self control. The most important thing is to live where you are most happy as success is easier when you are content. You might try a few trips to vegas or california to see your results and get a handle on the situation first. Vegas treats the dealers the worst of the gambling areas, so my choice would not be there if you plan on dealing for a living. Good Luck.
Chris, I would follow Ray's advice and also I would like to suggest that if your going to be a player, don't be a dealer. Your whole life will be at the card room and its easy to get burned out.But if your going to deal, try Hollywood Park or The Commerce in LA. Most dealers make a decent living there. Good Luck
Thanks for all the responses, and E-mail also. I'll definitely start booking more trips down to Vegas. I think thats the best approach. I might even try to make it down for the "Open House". Yes, I do think I have a good handle on Poker. Not a day has gone by in the last Seven Months that I haven't been studying about Poker, or other games. Like the old cliche' gos though: Its not how well you can play, but how well you do play. I need to start putting in more Hours at the Table. But even if I'm not ready for the 10-20 game yet. I might find other good employment when I'm at Vegas that will keep me in the Black while I work on my game.
CV
Chris,
If I detected the play on words in your last sentence, I would strongly recommend separating the two, because, unless you are super-disciplined, if one goes badly it will affect the other, which would be a great pity. There is no reason why you shouldn't succeed in poker.
If I misunderstood, ignore this post.
Etienne
Chris,
Ray and Al make good points. Especially Ray's about the environment in which you live. I know you were in Vegas in December '97 because when I read your post back in January I had just gotten back from there. We probably weren't 20 feet apart in the Mirage poker room. It was an expensive trip for me (the thread on surviving the learning curve is excellent!) and you probably would have won more had I played 3-6 or 6-12, but I was busy giving my money away at the 10-20 tables. Since then, I haven't played any poker, because I haven't got the luxury of getting into a car and driving to a game. I've got to fly to Vienna or London or Las Vegas. My modus operandi till now has been to fly to my destination and then either rent an apartment or check-in to a hotel, depending on length of stay. Don't rent your house at the moment, but as Ray suggests, go to LV, rent an apartment (weekly rates possible) and play to your heart's content.
When you're alone, whether it's Las Vegas, London or Budapest, you will be subject to all sorts of psychological, physical and emotional hurdles to overcome. All this outside the casino environment. There will be many empty hours to fill which can be pleasantly tolerable when you've had a good day, and agonizingly long when you're going through a patch of 'negative' standard deviation turbulence. It's fun watching 'Double Jeopardy' in your room when you're up $5000. See how relaxed you'll be when you're down $5000.
"Bored? No problem, I'll just drop in to the casino again, but I won't sit down to play." Five hours later, you're still at the table trying to win back your money. This has happened to me before, and I'm more angry at myself for the breach of discipline than the monetary loss, though the latter now hurts doubly.
I've only concentrated on a few subjects which are outside the casino, because I know that you have an understanding of money management, standard deviation, risk of ruin etc. from your BJ days. Your progress in poker has been evident in the Forum from the questions in November,December '97 to your answers to other posts today. In short, I'm not worried about you inside the casino, but outside. Therefore, if things don't go as expected on a particular trip, you fly home, analyze things and return. If things go fantastically, you also fly home, analyze things amd return. The trip length, of course, will be entirely up to you.
Etienne
It is appearant to me you will always WISH you had done this if you hadn't; and will subconsiously worsen the quality of your future family life if you don't do it now.
Its best for you to have a job very close to a card room and play evenings for 6 months or so. Your job pays the bills and you have no money pressure at the table. A dealing job is NOT the best, since you will be at the casino your entire waking life. Get used to living cheap. Then decide about the big leap.
Suggest: Vigourously persue jobs in a major poker area like LA or Vegas; then move.
Go for it. Your future wife will be very glad you did.
- Louie
I am reading Mason's book ``Gambling theory and other topics'', it contains some material about optimal strategy for playing some hands. Is a complete list of such strategies (correct) available in any book ? Since this is a House game and the house plays according to the HOUSE RULE, I expect that the HOUSE RULES are optimal. (Well, Casinos are not always that smart according to S&M's recent book ``Gambling for a living''.) Do casino's suppose to let the players know about their house rules ? They will always advise a player on how to play a particular hand according to the so called house rule. But they declined to provide me with the list of house rules. Does anyone know where and how to get such a list ? Should not such a list be made open to public just like the rules for BLACKJACK ?
I asked for a list of house rules and was provided with one. Also I would direct you to Billy Woo's Paigow poker which gives the strategy for every hand you will encounter.
``Also I would direct you to Billy Woo's Paigow poker which gives the strategy for every hand you will encounter''
Is that a book ? Are the strategies given there agree with the HOUSE RULES ? Since HOUSE RULES are set apriori to the hands dealt, player's optimal strategy is different from the HOUSE RULE (Mimicing the HOUSE RULE is usually not optimal--as demonstrated by BLACKJACK game). I am wondering about how much advantage can a player get by knowing exactly dealer's strategy. Did Mason (or anybody else) do any research along this line ?
There is a book by Stanford Wong that I assume is excellent.
Excellent assumption.
Wong's book is called OPTIMAL STRATEGY FOR PAI GOW POKER. It is clearly the best. I assume you can order it fro ConJelCo or Gambler's Book Club. I don't recommend Billy Woo's Pai Gow poker book.
Frank Scobolete's book "Guerilla Gambling..." contains what is supposed to be a more concise, beginner's version of Pai Gow strategy (which is supposedly loosely based on Wong's master strategy).
I've found that it works pretty well for me, for the few times I've played. I'm also assuming (even before David/Mason weighed in) that Mr. Wong's version is the pinnacle.
There is one particularly interesting concept related to house strategy that may have been pointed out by Wong (I haven't read his book on the subject). If it isn't, I'm certain it at least reflected somewhat in the bottom line strategies he gives:
The house makes something like 5% in commission on wins by the player. This means that the house can possibly find itself in a borderline situation where it does better to actually employ a slightly less-than-optimal strategy if it happens to greatly increase the odds of getting a decisive result rather than a push. If the player mimics this strategy in the same situation, it's a mistake.
Tom Weideman
Does the 5% commission on winning bets mean that Paigow Poker is a 50-50 game with no player disadvantage except for the comission given optimal (?House) play. Is there a house advantage and how does it compare to optimal play at other casino games (basic strategy at BJ,passline with odds at craps,baccarrat, roulette etc.)?
There is a small house advantage (other than the 5% commission). If the house wins 1 hand against you and ties on the other, the house wins. If you win 1 hand and tie the other, it is a push. This doesn't happen frequently, but does occur often enough to give the house an edge.
No one's mentioned it yet, but I'm pretty sure that Pai Gow Poker is an unbeatable game if you're playing against the house in LV. That 5% commission more than overcomes any deficiencies in the house strategy (or dealer mistakes, which are pretty rare).
There are some people who make money banking pai gow in the cardrooms of California. In Cal., there is no 5% commission, but you do pay a fee of something like $1 per bet. However, there is no house in Cal., instead the players take turns being the bank. If you only bet small when you're a player, but cover large bets when you're the bank, you can theoretically make a profit due to this house edge discussed above.
Major caveat: I have heard more than 1 rumor of cheating problems in these games. The players frequently take the cards off of the table, because the games are often played with packs of people present, and more than 1 person playing a hand. The rumors state that when someone these players don't know is banking, they'll trade cards to improve each other's hands, and thus dramatically increase their chances of beating you, the banker. Thus, I wouldn't get into this game in a serious way unless I did a lot of further research. Also, I don't know how large the banker's edge is, but I'm sure that you'd need a very large bankroll (at least $100K) to be able to do this professionally.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I am new to casino poker. I have played on-line, read up but haven't played much since college. As a blackjack player, I usually don't solicit comps. I haven't hard much about pokers comps. Do casino's give them? What are the criteria?
Monte Carlo will give you a reduced room rate ($75 on weekends, much lower during the week) for five hours of poker play per day. Make your reservation through the poker room to get this deal.
AK
Yes, they give comps. They are usually based upon the size of game and how long you play.
In the Taj Mahal in A.C. you are given 50 cents for every hour you play in small games, larger sums for bigger games.
The poker room in each casino will give you details.
Generally poker comps are not as generous as table game comps. We poker players don't make as much money for the house as some of their other patrons.
Tropicana in AC also comps 0.50 every hour or so (when they come around with the card reader) for low-limit games, higher for others.
Does LVegas have comp cards as well?
I am a low level hold-em player that is just past the novice stage and would like to find a program that I can use to improve my skills. Most are so easy that you can beat them with little or no effort. I've seen a lot writter about v2 of Turbo Hold-em and wonder if that is the best available. Any suggestions? John
In a message I posted a couple of weeks ago, I ragged on Turbo Texas Hold'em 2.0, because my version was very buggy. This turned out to be a problem with just my copy, caused by corrupt floppies. The program author promptly sent me replacement floppies when I complained in email, and now it works fine.
The program is excellent. The computer players are much improved over previous versions, to the point that you can gain valuable sparring practice and perform poker research. And believe me, I panned the first version of the program, so my praise does not come easily.
To read a full review, click on the "Review of Turbo Texas Hold'em 2.0" link associated with this message.
-Abdul
Plus EV?
The following developed in a $10-20 game last weekend. The game is fairly loose and somewhat aggressive. There are 5 callers to the player who is immediately to the right of the button who raises, button calls, little blind folds, and big blind calls (tricky player who I posted about previously) and everyone else calls. Eight players for 2 bets pre-flop. Flop comes down Q,7,5 as Q and 5 are diamonds. Big blind bets and gets 1 caller and original raiser raises, button cold calls and big blind calls. Next card off is T as the only 2 suited cards are the original diamonds. Checked around to the original raiser who bets, button calls, and the big blind check raises and both of the other players call. The river is a blank. The big blind bets and gets called by the original raiser. Big blind turns over Q,5o for two pair! The big blind is a good player but I’m wondering about him calling a raise in the big blind with Q,5o. Then I started thinking that he was getting some very high pre-flop odds, 15.5 - 1 neglecting the rake so maybe it was worth it. I know that someone else who called could have raised again pre-flop but in this game this play is a rarity. How bad was this call?
Tom,
How much the worst of it could any decent player have getting 15 to 1 before the flop. It would be measured in pennies. Remember all hands are valued by the odds they are getting to win. With q5 he was not too far off from getting the odds to flop 2 pair or trips, plus the chance to flop probable winning straight or flush draws and the chance of flopping a winning queen you can see it starts to make sense. Good Luck.
>>With q5 he was not too far off from getting the odds to flop 2 pair or trips, plus the chance to flop probable winning straight or flush draws and the chance of flopping a winning queen you can see it starts to make sense. Good Luck.<<
Ray,
I did see that it made a lot of sense.
Tom
It's approximately 20-to-1 to flop two pair and if that happens you expect to win some extra bets, the call is correct. Also, keep in mind that if you flop a queen it might be write, depending on the action, to throw the Q5o away.
So, let's see, you're getting 15 to 1 for a 20 to 1 shot....not good, a small loser.
However, if you flop two pair, you should win some extra bets, but you could lose some two (higher two pair, trips). Seems unlikely, but could happen.
I'm not good enough to do the math, but it seems like a very close call, maybe even as close to +/- 25 cents or so in expectancy for a $10 call. So, let's call it a push, zero expectancy. (if you disagree strongly here, please state your argument).
But what about the volatility...your win/hour will stay pretty close to the same, but your std dev per hour will swing wildly. Seems like a professional player would like that std dev to stay as low as possible given the same expectancy, so the pro should fold. Also seems the wanne-be pro (the player who is still hard in search of his/her true std dev and expectancy) would also want to have a better idea of his/her true numbers, that he/she should fold also. Seems like the only person who should call, are those that in in it for the gamble, willing to bet on roulette if you can get fair value. Those that are in it for the fun.
T.P.,
I'm not so sure that your odds of winning are only 20-1 and what your EV really is. I like what you had to say and I think that you have gotten to a very good point about evaluating your standard deviation as compared to your EV. I guess one way to estimate your EV would be to know your odds of winning the hand based on a sim where everyone plays to the showdown to figure out what your odds of winning are. Of course sims where everyone plays to the showdown aren't realistic poker. Another alternative might be to figure out the types of flops you would like and the situations that you would like to be in to play the hand, calculate the number of flops that you would find yourself in that situation, and then calculate your chances of winning. A formidable task. Another way involve doing a sim that approximated realistic playing. Is there such a sim? Maybe the new version of Turbo Texas Hold'em would work.
I went through a week on RGP involving another long shot (not as long as Q,5o I would guess), 76s, discussing it's EV. The odds for winning when everyone played to the showdown were given for 10 handed and 8 handed games. The problems with evaluating a hand based on a sim where everyone played to the showdown were pointed out as usual. I kept hoping that someone would do a Sim on the new Turbo Texas Holdem (TTH2) or some other tool that might approximate real play. Finally someone did and he was kind enough to post all the pertinent data regarding the sim he ran. I believe that you needed the new version of TTH2 to interpret the results of the sim to evaluate how realistic the play was. At any rate the sim from the new version of TTH2 for 7,6s clearly showed that a lot more flops were playable than a lot of people suspected and the EV was higher than people expected. At least when played against a lineup of TTH2 players and by a particular TTH2 player. Another poster who posts here a lot, Jim Geary, pointed out that certain hands that might dominate 7,6s like Q,6 wouldn't be as likely to be in your opponents hands. Well maybe they would be more likely than I thought.
I'm not sure how to answer this question about EV and what to expect in variance. I've got the new version of TTH2 and when I can figure out how to use all of the features this is a sim that I'll try. I looked over the new player profiles and they really contain a lot of data. I printed a profile out and it is around 20 pages of printed data. So it will be a lot of work to set up the sim. TTH2 doesn't calculate a players standard deviation but a post on RGP gave a suggestion on how it might be done for a TTH2 sim. At any rate just some thoughts.
Tom Haley
Tom,
I do not have access to many of the 'news.' groups, RGP among them. If it is not too many lines, could you please post the method to calculate the s.d. for a TTH2 player - if the post was long, please don't bother.
Thanks,
Etienne
Erik Reuter wrote:
"I'm still not sure how good an estimate this is (comments, please!). I suppose the quality of this estimate depends on the standard deviation of the pot sizes you win (W) being relatively small (relative to what? Some better statistician than I will have to answer...).
Anyway, here is the estimate I derived:
W = average profit per pot won
L = average loss per pot lost
p = probability of winning pot
EV = p W - (1 - p) L
variance = [x^2] - [x]^2
= p W^2 + (1 - p) L^2 - (EV)^2
SD = variance^(1/2)
= (W - EV) / (1/p - 1)^(1/2)
"
--end quote by Erik Reuter
BTW, the Turbo Texas Hold'em author is currently working on putting in standard deviation stuff into the program, so if you have any specific requests, email him or use me as a go-between since I'm already talking to him about what sorts of standard deviation information I think would be useful.
-Abdul
Abdul,
Thanks very much for your effort. I haven't had the time to digest what Erik Reuter posted yet, but, as Mason Malmuth pointed out to me some weeks ago when I tried estimating the hourly s.d. for a particular scenario, it's a pretty difficult task and one should be very wary of the result obtained. Of course I'm talking about using indirect methods, so our problem should be solved if TTH2 will include this feature. Off the cuff, what would be nice would be the ability to calculate the s.d. of an average hand of hold'em for a particular player in any particular lineup. In BJ it's commonly accepted as 1.1 - knowing this opens the possibility of calculating risk of ruin for particular parameters, better money management techniques etc.
On a macro level, we would need hourly s.d (or s.d's per X hands) per player, plus the ability to get the s.d. for a particular hand in any particular situation for any particular player. Then, we can calculate (or the program could!) the Sharpe ratio, which is EV/s.d. Thus, Tom Haley's Q5 offsuit problem could really be settled once and for all. In fact, the Sharpe ratio could be applied to a game and we could compare the desirability of sitting in with different lineups.
If we all put a little thought into it, I'm sure we can come up with a formidable list for the TTH2 developers.
Thanks again
Etienne
When you achieve the ability to get these results, I think it will be very difficult to use the information, as you will want this information for all hands and all situations. You don't need to have a precise answer in this situation. a close answer will suffice. Anytime the whole table is in before the flop and it's to me to act, I will be in with any paint and most other hands except the worst of the worst. If you find out the deviation etc. for this hand and are able to answer it statistically, that doesn't mean that it is the right answer. It is one of the major factors in the decision to play, but not the whole enchilada. Pure math is great, but it will certainly not get the most money in the long run.Rays' posts have alot of merit. Try the voice of experience.Seeya
AL,
Apart from the above request for a TTH2 standard deviation estimation method together with some suggestions on how to enhance the program, plus a few remarks on some flop probabilities, I haven't forwarded any opinion on how Q5o should be played, and certainly have never questioned the merits of Ray's posts.
I can understand you being 'miffed' by math experts (your more recent post above) but how else can a discussion of this nature take place? How many times in your life are you going to get Q5o in the big blind, with 2 bets and 7 players in? Most probably never. So without some sort of guidelines, there isn't a player in the world who can say 'Yeah, I go through that hand at least 139 times a night, and from my experience it's better to .....' That's where statistical analysis or simulations come to our rescue. And from that we get DS's famous starting hand rankings, positional play, and most of the strategic concepts associated with hold'em. Even Mike Caro's 'it depends' has as its basis either mathematics or psychology. Quite clearly then, pure maths is not enough, as you say, because there is an infinite number of different variations of different variations of the same theme (not a typo!) which no book can cover. Using math alone will probably make a breakeven player - using psychology and hand reading and all other non-math skills alone will result in ruin - of course you have to combine the two.
Etienne
T.P.,
If you play to keep your fluctuations small even the bad opponents see it and play better against you. I had a friend that always said at the table when he lost a pot how he had the best of it on the hand. The bad players still played against him with the worst of it anyway, but they didnt play when they had alot the worst of it. His free money just wasnt there in the game. By keeping your fluctuations small it could cut down your win rate as well. I suggest playing close hands when it will not make you look like an "ungambling person". There is alot more to winning large amounts than starting with the best hand. Good Luck.
Argh, I just lost my whole article when Netscape crashed. I'll do the terse version this time.
Whether or not calling with Q5 is correct in this particular situation, in general, this is exactly the sort of call you do not want to be making in hold'em - weak high card versus a multiway field. It doesn't matter if you are getting great odds if you are dominated. If anyone has AA, KK, AK, or a number of other hands, then you're dominated. In fact, if a loose player has an ace, and another loose player has a king, you're probably in trouble. And you're also in trouble if another loose player has a queen, because he'll have a slightly less bad kicker to go with it. Anyway, in the 5.6% chance that you make two pair, you have a good shot at still losing the pot to aces up, kings up, or a better queens up. Remember, if a pair of sixes or higher (except queens) hits the board, then you're likely toast. True, you could make trips or better, but this happens only about 5% of the time.
I ran a bunch of Turbo simulations, but now I'm going to have to try to remember the results, since they went poof. It's very difficult to set up a Turbo simulation for this particular situation.
To illustrate that it doesn't matter if you are getting great odds if you're dominated, consider the case of 7 players limping in with any two cards and then an 8th player raising with AK. Q5 is a $1.50 loser to call here on the big blind (relative to folding) in a $10-$20 game. It's also a $1.50 loser if a fewer number of players enter but with some minimal hand selection (playing 55% of hands instead of 100%) and that AK is still on the button. In similar simulations, putting JJ on the button made Q5 a $3 loser, and putting KK on the button made Q5 a $12.50 loser (and that's on top of the $10 loss for the blind, ouch.)
On the other hand, 88 always raising on the button made calling with Q5 a $1 winner, any two cards always raising on the button made calling with Q5 a $1.50 winner, and A6s always raising on the button made calling with Q5 a $0.75 winner.
Some of the positive figures may be misleading, because in the simulations where an early position player raised, the button would still automatically raise, and I had Q5 fold in such situations, which would cause it to escape the clutches of AA, KK, AK and friends.
In the actual situation, there was not only a raiser but a cold caller. If *either* of these players is tight enough to only raise/call with hands like AQ, KQs, JJ, AK, QJs, etc., then I'd be inclined to fold. Given the simulation results, I'd only call if everyone in the game was an idiot and the raise and cold call could have been with almost any two cards. (However, I have this nagging feeling that the player who called there was me. I must have had a muscle spasm that involuntarily tossed the chips into the pot :)
As for "giving action to get action", I've never been a big believer in that. The fish usually don't even notice when you're playing like a rock, and even when they do, they don't modify their play... e.g., a player commented that this hand was the first my wife had played, and then proceeded to call her UTG raise with J5s in early position. If the pros learn to stay out of my way, so much the better. My e.v. is higher when I can get heads up with a fish without interference from pros (or even other fish.) Just give me the pot, thank you very much.
-Abdul
If your strategy is to fold your hand unless you flop at least two pair then this call must be profitable. You don't need to run any simulations to be able to see this. I suspect that the problem with your simulations is that you are forcing yourself to play hands till the end in spots where you do not have to play all the way.
If you are against someone with a better hand than yours, you will frequently be able to tell in a many handed pot. And you should now throw the hand away even though it appears that you are getting very large pot odds. (You only have 2 outs as opposed to 5 outs if you have middle or bottom pair. That is there are many spots on the flop where it is probably correct to call with middle or bottom pair but you should throw this "bad" top pair away. There is some discussion of a similar situation in HPFAP.)
Let me give another example. Suppose ytou have K4 suited on the button and many players have limped in. If a king flops, you do not have to play. I would certainly fold if an early position player bet and there were a couple of callers. On the other hand, if it was checked to the player on my immediate right, a would almost certainly raise even though I do not have to have the best hand.
There are many situations in poker, and hold 'em in particular, where part of your edge comes from throwing hands away, particularly on the later streets. This is one of them.
Major correction. Everything that I've written was based on an error in my thinking. For some reason, I was thinking that it was only 2-to-1 to flop two pair, it is really more like 50-to-1. Even adding in trips the odds are closer to 30-to-1. Thus I have to agree with David S,
Minor correction. In my previous post I wrote "I was thinking that it was only 2-to-1 to flop two pair." I meant to say 20-to-1.
Mason says, "I suspect that the problem with your simulations is that you are forcing yourself to play hands till the end in spots where you do not have to play all the way."
I just want to address a potential misconception about how Turbo plays the hands. Turbo does not do a no fold'em simulation, nor does it always call with top pair. Turbo does a pretty good job of playing the hands. The advisor profile was used for the Q5 player. The advisor player considers pot odds and aggression from other players, though the details of how it does this are not totally clear from the manual.
Here's an example, with advisor holding Q5 in the big blind in the 10 seat, and the rest stocked with Judicious Jammer, who is a loose fish that usually waits until after the flop to start raising.
1 seat calls, 3 seat calls, 4 seat calls, 8 seat calls, 9 seat calls, (rest fold), hero in 10 seat checks.
Flop comes Qh Jd Th. Small blind in 9 seat bets, hero raises, 1 and 3 seats fold, 4 seat reraises, everyone folds including our hero with the Qc 5h. Played it like a champ, didn't he? Well, I suppose he could have gotten away for cheaper by folding immediately, but it's certainly the right idea of how to play in general. The 4 seat had 9h 8h, BTW, flopped straight and had flush backup draw.
In another hand, the hand was raised preflop, 7 players saw the flop of 522, hero with Q5 bet, got raised behind and then reraised by the preflop raiser. Q5 laid it down. The first raiser had 66 and the preflop raiser had A5s, so Q5 was third best. Nice laydown.
When the flop misses the Q5, it certainly folds without putting another bet into the pot. (But in a short-handed game when heads up on the flop, the computer player might just take a stab with it.)
And before you think it always lays down, it does normally bet with top pair and then calls when hit with a single raise. It usually goes into check and call mode when this happens. If a major scare card hits, it will then check and fold. (It might also sometimes semi-bluff there.) It's not perfect, though - it occasionally makes some calls that are probably too loose and some value bets that are probably too thin. For one thing, it doesn't consider the relative positions of players who have been aggressive or passive on previous rounds in this hand, so it just can't be perfect.
-Abdul
The program sounds quite impressive already, does it employ some random strategies ? A decent program as such must employ some randomly mixed strategies (calculated mathematically) in many cases.
I'm not sure much randomly mixed strategy is necessary in hold'em from a theoretical standpoint. For example, suppose you are supposed to bluff 10% on the end in a certain situation. You might as well bet 100% of the time with your best 10% of hands there (perhaps hands like KQ no pair), just in the off chance your opponent calls with an even worse hand.
But the computer players in Texas Turbo Hold'em can (optionally) mix up their play, which is a good thing from a practical standpoint (since otherwise humans would learn to exploit the computer players in certain situations.) When you turn on this option, "It causes the profiles to use different strategies instead of fixed strategies each time they act." Since there are also options to adjust play by the number of opponents and by the pot odds, and to allow players to come and go at the table with or without names, there are other ways in which the play can be effectively mixed up.
-Abdul
But how to make the decision in situations like a good hand (say, AA) against possible flush, straight, a small pair on the board ? How to decide when to call, fold and raise ? A computer program has to use randomly mixed strategy (determined mathematically according to the current available information) in these situations.
Mason wrote: I don't follow....can you explain why you feel so strongly about this?
Screwed up in typing the previous message, Mason did not say that, forgot to paste in the quote. Anyway, he answered it in a separate post. Thanks.
I must be missing something. I presume when you talk about 2 pair you mean YOUR 2 pair. I get a probability of .0202 or almost 49 to 1. There are 9 combinations of 2 cards plus 44 offcards and 19600 flops, so the calc is 3 * 3 * 44 / 19600.
Posted by: T.P.
Posted on: Wednesday, 8 April 1998, at 2:39 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Davis (windavis54@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 8 April 1998, at 3:07 p.m.
There is a chance that Ray Zee himself could come close to breaking even playing this hand. That is because he would play one pair perfectly. Clearly it is unprofitable to call if you are only counting on flopping two pair or an open end straight draw. However for anyone short of a world class player this call must lose a little money in the long run. It will lose A LOT of money if you let yourself get trapped with top pair in the wrong spots. Whether it is worth playing simply to give the illusion of action is another story. Anyway I salute Abdul for his willingness to so strongly disagree with everyone else. And for most players, I am sure he is right.
I agree completely. If eight people call two bets, the Q5 is at the bottom of the heap, especially early in the evening. At 3 am, against a drunk or someone who is desparate, it is maybe worth a call. But, I would have to be well ahead before I took this risk. People do not give up their money easily. I would rather have a straight draw with stretch. Into the muck!
Having said that I sat in the small blind with a J7 last night, and threw it away. The flop is J77; then, J; then ,9. Oh, well.... (1087 to 1 according to M. Petriv; more if the odds for flopping two full houses are included.)
In your next book, would you, Mason, and/or Ray comment about the interplay of all factors? (See Malmuth's comment about EV)
i'm not suggesting that i will reduce ev for a reduction in stdev...i'm suggesting not increasing stdev with no increase in ev.
Two queens or two fives may also flop. I thought this was obvious. So, if you are right that it is at best a marginal call if all you could make was two pair, then these other strong hands must make it worthwhile.
I believe common sense can be used here for this particular problem (Although I have to admit that my common sense or intuition is usually not that good). This call with Q5-off cannot be possibly right for the following quick reasons.
1. As Abdul pointed out, this hand is dominated. Although the combined odds of getting two-pair or triple is about 20 to 1, it can still lose quite often (to a set , striaght, flush or bigger two-pair). It certaintly can cause a lot trouble. It is said that a world-class player such as Ray can escape after flopping some trouble hands, how could this be true ? By calling this hand before the flop, you are already committed yourself to troubles. with 15.5 units in the pot before the flop, Q5 has to call with almost any flop except flopping absolutely nothing (Even inside straight draw is correct, callin with one pair is certainly correct here.)
2. What else can be worse than Q5-off in this case ? if it is correct to call with Q5-off, then it is certainly correct to call with any two cards including 27-0ff and 38-off. As a matter of fact, 27 and 38 might even be better in this particular case since it is less likely to be dominated.
As most of you probably know from my previous posts, I advocate mathematical analysis in many cases since it does give some supprisingly different results than the ones derived by intuition. But for this problem, common sense should be sufficient for making the right decision. I am somewhat surprised to see so many people agree with the call here. Maybe simply because I do not have enough experience yet in this game ?
Again Jason and Abdul are simply right. If Ray could make money with this hand it would have to be because he would find a few spots where he could steal the pot. But don't try this at home.
Jason,
I hope I did all of the math right. Here is something I muddled through as I am trying to determine how you arrived at 20-1. If I take 2 unpaired cards and leave 50 in the deck. Neglecting straights and flushes. I came up with the following:
I will flop 2-pair, trips or a full house 3.47% of the time.
I arrived at this number by doing the following math:
(6/50) * (44/49) * (5/48)
+ (6/50) * (5/49)
+ (44/50) * (6/49) * (5/48)
I will flop exactly one pair 29 % of the time:
(6/50) * (44/49) * (43/48)
+ (44/50) * (6/49) * (43/48)
+ (44/50) * (43/49) * (6/48)
Of those 29% that I flop one pair I will improve to two pair, trips, or a full house 5.9% of the time:
.29 * ( 1 – ( (42/47) * (41/46)))
Therefore I will end up with two pair, trips, or a full house 9.4% of the time which gives me odds of about 9.7 to 1.
Now of course poker isn’t played this way. I did a sim of random hands against Q,5o on Turbo Texas Hold’em 2 against 7 other players and Q,5o won 11.5 % of the time which gives the odds of approximately 7.7 to 1. Of course hold’em isn’t played this way either so we are left with expert advice, our own experience, and simulations of realistic play that Abdul was so gracious in doing.
Tom Haley
The "20 to 1" odds for flopping two-pair or better is just something off the top of my head, which was not to be taken seriously. It is not difficult to calculate the exact prob. of flopping two-pair or better (but I have not checked your calculation yet), and an accurate estimation of the expectation is certaintly too complicated to do. However, the law of average simply indicates that Q5-off cannot possibly be profitable in this case. (We are not even counting the possible reraises from early position players here, which is very likely to occur in such a multiway action) The implied trouble with this hand far exceeds the implied odds in my opinion. Also the bigger the pot gets, the less room is there for expert play.
Jason,
I also get 3.47% as the probability of flopping 2 pair or better, using a Monte Carlo method, so there's no need to check.
Implied trouble - I couldn't find the term in any of the glossaries of poker, but I like it :-)
Etienne
Although the final probabilty 3.47% is correct, I am a little bit confused by your calculations. The three cards on the flop are not ordered, hence combination (or binomial coefficients) should be used instead of using the product formula. (The kind of calculations you did can easily lead to errors) The three lines in your calculation do not correspond to the prob. for two-pair, triple and full-house respectively. The correct calculation goes as follows, where lines 1 to 4 corresponds to the prob. for two-pair, triple, full-house and quads, respectively: 3*3*44/C(50,3) +2*3*44/C(50,3) +2*3*3/C(50,3) +2/C(50,3)
which is 3.4694%, where C(50,3) stands for the number of ways to choose 3 cards from the remaining 50 cards, and C(50,3)=50*49*48/(3*2).
The expectation from improving one pair on the flop is too complicated to calculate accurately, but the chance of winning by improving one pair on the flop is almost cancelled out by the chance of losing to other bigger hands.
Jason,
I wasn't criticizing you I was just trying to make sure that we at least get some of the math right and mine might not be right so if it is wrong I'm sure I will be corrected (gladly). So far everything has checked out so some how I muddled through and came up with the right answers. Which is the important thing I believe at this point. Certainly 9-1 and 7.7 -1 are a lot better than 20-1 and a lot better than 15-1.
Mason Malmuth made an innocent error in stating that the odds of flopping only 2 pair is 20-1. He went on to say that if your implied odds are good enough then the call is worth it. Well it's not 20-1 to flop only two pair but the odds of ending up with two pair or better are much better than 15-1 so using that logic you must NOT NEED any implied odds. Is this logic correct? The reason I am asking is because I want to evaluate when I should play in these long shot situations. I don't think never playing is the right answer.
You made the following statement:
>>The expectation from improving one pair on the flop is too complicated to calculate accurately, but the chance of winning by improving one pair on the flop is almost cancelled out by the chance of losing to other bigger hands.<<
I don't see how you can back that statement up. It seems to me that there is plenty of money in the pot and drawing to make two pair or trips would often be profitable.
First off I said in my original post that the re-raise after just calling is a rarity in this game and I am not mistaken about this. I have played against most of the players if not all of the players in this game at least several times so I know what their playing styles are. Two points about that. First point the big blind knows this as well and he knew that there would be no more raising. Second point maybe this play of calling and then re-raising ought to be utilized a lot more often.
Secondly in Hold'em for Advance Players it is stated in the chapter regarding the blinds that if the small blind has to call a 1/3 of a bet in a multi-way pot then any hand should be played especially if the blind does not raise frequently. Therefore in a $15-30 game with $10 and $15 blinds if there are 4 callers of $15, the small blind is getting 15-1 on his money. It seems like it is the same situation as the $10-20 game that I talked about. In fact in the $10-20 game I would say there was virtually no chance that there would be any more raises. So using the logic of HFAP, if it is right to call with anything in the $15-30 game why isn't it correct to call in the $10-20 game? The only reason that it would not be correct I would think is that someone has raised. Abdul has supplied us with some information as to how this raise might affect your chances with his sim so maybe that is the best way to evaluate the situation. That's my problem I don't have a good handle on how to estimate my expectation in this situation. Maybe I never will and maybe it isn't very important. Right now TTH2 seems to be my best option.
Thirdly you stated yourself that you like to do the math instead of using intuition. It has been written by many experts that poker is a counter intuitive game so is this one of those situations where the intuitively correct play is the wrong play? Some would say yes and some would say no. I'm starting to believe that calling is the right play here with Q,5o. However, I am going to do some work on my own sims using TTH2. Hey if it's good enough for Abdul it is certainly good enough for me.
Tom Haley
What alot of great debate Tom has stirred up with this question. First of all the Q5 is about 10 to 1 dog to win in a showdown based on the type of game that was talked about. A decent player should be able to get away from some of the traps and be able to punish those that play badly farther on in the hand. Everyone seemed to neglect the times he would win with just a queen out there or luck into a straight. I would agree that J5 or T5 would not have a higher pair chance of winning. Surely no-one person could believe it is much of a hand or even a hand that has any real value except that with the preflop money and the after flop bets to the Q5 he may be getting over 20 to 1 to hit a playable hand. If you want to make a loose call at a large pot why not now? If you take the considerations that I mentioned in my 2 posts and throw it all in the wash you dont have any real downside in my thinking. Those people that are branded tricky players always seem to get extra money during the game from most of the table including me. Those that take few chances just get tough action from those that pay attention. I wont say any more on this hand. Good Luck.
Ray Zee says < If you want to make a loose call at a large pot why not now?>
who says anyone should make a loose call? I thought that was the whole purpose of your books, along with D.S. and M.M., not to play like that, not to give loose calls...but to play tight and aggressive....seems like the call is the exact opposite, loose and passive.
Ray Zee says
too bad...you're input is highly interesting, especially when you are in disagreement with many others. Its always interesting to see what a talented person has to say when they disagree with their peers, and I would like to hear more from you. Your input has been great to read so far in many of your comments, I'd hate to see you stop commenting on this very interesting debate, especially one that potentially pits you (a great player and theorist) against other great players and theorists. When the top guys disagree, I want to eavesdrop on their argument....and learn from it.
If eight players are in the pot the average holding can't be much. In a normal raised pot, you can call up to group 7 . I would be in there, and have confidence in my judgement to play the hand. the books that the authors wrote are guidelines. You can't play strictly by what's written. They are trying to teach us how to think, not play like predictable robots, as so many players do. In the long run this play might be a slight loser, but in the long run this situation probably doesn't come up too much where the whole table is in. With that many players i'm in with any paint.seeya
Al Raiseya,
In light of a previous thread where you recommended 3 betting with A,Js, I guess it's worth knocking out the blinds a lot of the time.
Tom Haley
Ray,
Thanks for your input. What you say about the tricky players getting the money seems to be true of this particular player who made this call. All the other players think he plays bad but he seems to win consistently and he seems to win big. I watch him in amazement make plays that are right and everybody thinks they are wrong. And the other players seem to love playing against him and don't mind losing to him. Of course I mind at least a little.
Tom Haley
>>Secondly in Hold'em for Advance Players it is stated in the chapter regarding the blinds that if the small blind has to call a 1/3 of a bet in a multi-way pot then any hand should be played especially if the blind does not raise frequently. Therefore in a $15-30 game with $10 and $15 blinds if there are 4 callers of $15, the small blind is getting 15-1 on his money. It seems like it is the same situation as the $10-20 game that I talked about.<<
Tom,
The call of 1/3 bet generally (almost always?) has better implied odds than a call of a full bet when they are both getting getting the same odds preflop. This is because the 1/3 bet is compared to future *full* bets. e.g., if the 1/3 of a bet call is getting 15-1 preflop, then you pick up one additional bet after the flop, you now have 18-1. If it were a full bet preflop the one additional bet would only bring it up to 16-1.
Oh, and for what it's worth, in the Q-5 scenario, I'm in the "don't call" camp. But you probably could have guessed that given my comments on the Ciaffone stuff.
John Feeney
Tom Haley writes: "Secondly in Hold'em for Advance Players it is stated in the chapter regarding the blinds that if the small blind has to call a 1/3 of a bet in a multi-way pot then any hand should be played especially if the blind does not raise frequently. Therefore in a $15-30 game with $10 and $15 blinds if there are 4 callers of $15, the small blind is getting 15-1 on his money. It seems like it is the same situation as the $10-20 game that I talked about. In fact in the $10-20 game I would say there was virtually no chance that there would be any more raises. So using the logic of HFAP, if it is right to call with anything in the $15-30 game why isn't it correct to call in the $10-20 game?"
Tom,
There is a *major* difference here.
Implied Odds.
In the 15-30 game with several callers, that $5 call can have implied odds of maybe 60-1, 70-1 or more.
This will not be the case too often calling $10 more in a 10-20 game.
-Rob
I’m warning you this one is a little long.
Rob,
Fair enough good point although I might quibble with 70-1 but that’s not important. Here is what is important in my mind. There are situations where you should play any two cards. Is calling for 1/3 of a bet in the small blind the only time? I’m not meaning to put you on the spot Rob I’m just saying what criteria do you use to make an evaluation of when it is correct to do so. Here are questions I have in determining what your criteria should be with any two cards.
Do you need high implied odds?
If that is true how high?
Does it matter what the pot is laying you?
If so how much does it have to be laying you?
Is it a combination of both what the pot is laying you and how much you expect to win?
What is the process for making a good estimate of your expectation?
Let me start by saying the imo the 2+2 books are the best books you can buy. The section on the blinds in Hold’em for Advanced Players is the best I’ve read. I wouldn’t have any clue as to how to play in the blinds without this book. You all may say I still don’t. The chapter on playing in the blinds is mandatory reading imo for all hold’em players. Therefore anything I say should absolutely NOT be taken as criticism of this great book. But no book on poker can make you into a winner by simply reading it and memorizing it’s strategy imo (blah, blah, blah). The authors have stated this themselves on many occasions. Allow me to quote a few paragraphs from HFAP regarding play in the small blinds:
>> Quoting Hold'em For Advanced Players <<
There are other spots where little blind play differs from big blind play. The first occurs when a pot is not raised and it will only cost you a fraction of a bet to play. If the fraction to enter the pot is half a bet then you (the player in the little blind) should still be somewhat selective of the hands your play, though you should play loose.
For example hand like:
8,6o
any two suited cards or a hand that contains an ace are probably all right to call with. But hands like:
J,2o
still should be thrown away. However, if it costs only 1/3 of a bet to enter the pot, every hand should be played. In this spot, it is too cheap to throw away your hand no matter how bad it is. The one exception is when the big blind is a frequent raiser. Why waste 1/3 of a bet since you have to fold if he raises.
>> End Quoting
From the reading of the previous paragraphs it would be right to call for 1/3 of a bet when there was only one caller pre-flop. Now I’m not saying that I would expect a book on poker to give me a cook book formula on when to play a hand but it is very clear to me that this book is saying that you don’t need anywhere near 70-1 in implied odds to make calling the 1/3 of a bet right. In fact the only time you should not call is when the big blind is a frequent raiser according to the book. The bottom line in my mind is that there are times in the blinds when you should play very, very loose. I know all of the other arguments about if it’s short handed you can steal more and your pair may be the best etc.
In the situation I described, the real question is what criteria should you use to determine that you should play very, very loose in the big blind when someone has raised. Again Hold’em for advanced players offers some guidelines. Are there times when you should play even looser than some of the guidelines suggest because a book can’t cover all conceivable situations? If so what criteria should you use to make your decision? I’ve read some suggestions and maybe the answer is that you should never play a junk hand like Q,5o when someone has raised. I don’t believe it though.
Tom Haley
Tom:
There is another point that you may be missing. When the pot is not raised and you flop a queen with a hand like Q5o your chances of winning and not being trapped are better than if you are calling a raise out of the big blind.
I once heard a so called expert criticize another player for exactly this type of play. The other player called for half a bet in the small blind (in an unraised pot), but then folded the hand after the big blind raised even though he was getting the exact same pot odds. I believe that there are a few hands where this is correct. The so called expert, who has since been a big loser in some of the bigger games, was critical of this play because the pot odds were exactly the same. But with some hands your chances of winning have not only gone down a little (because of the raise) but your chances of getting trapped with a secone best hand have gone up.
Mason,
I get your point. So something to consider here is the raiser and what his raising standards are.
Thanks,
Tom
Tom, you already know what the primary consideration is: who is in the pot already. I don't take loose chances in a raised pot simply because left-brain analysis says I can. When I call a raise with a lesser hand from the blinds it is certain that I expect to have to out-play the opposition.
Tom,
This is a very good discussion. Let's separate the two issues here since some people seem to mix them up in the discussion. Let's assume that there will be no reraising after BB's calling (Sorry I should not have brought it up last time to muddy the water). 1. We all agree that occasional call in this case is not a big problem, especially for advertisment purpose. 2. If we are talking about the long-run theoretical expectation of this call, then this is a fundamental problem related to how to play the first two cards, and we should sort it out. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, the exact calculation of the expectation of this call seems to be too complicated given that there are EIGHT players involved. Computer simulations certaintly help if the program is good enough. Some short-cut (intuitive logic) can be used here, however. Now we know that the exact prob. of flopping two-pair or better is 3.47%, and hence the odds is about 27.8 to 1. Ray mentioned that there is a slight chance that Q5 can win with just one pair (of Queens), but that would not change the odds by much. So 27.8 to 1 v.s. 15.5 to 1 pot odds is a huge dog here. There is a fundamental logic flaw in your argument about improving one pair on the flop, that is only the prob. of improving the hand, NOT the prob. of winning the hand. As I said before, the chance of winning by improving is mostly cancelled by the chance of losing to bigger hands (I have to admit that I cannot back up this statement right now because the calculations involved is very heavy) simply because there are 7 opponents there with much better hands. I think that it is helpful to concentrate on the fact that there are 7 opponents with much better starting hands, and ask the question ``what is the prob. of winning with Q5-off ?'' is it intuitively clear that the winning prob. of this hand is much lower than 6% (=1/16.5) ? Put it in another way, would Q5-off be profitable against 15 other (even random) hands ?
Tom,
A few little mathematical corrections, just for the record.
(1) The probability of flopping exactly one pair is 26.9%, and not 29%. You were including on board pairs.
(6/50)*(44/49)*(40/48)
+ .... replace all 43's with 40.
(2) Of the 26.9% of pairs that you flop, you will improve to two pair, trips, full-house or quads
(0.269)*((11/47 + (36/47)*(14/46))
or 12.56% of the time.
So your final figure is about 16%, or 5.3 to 1.
As I said, this is just for mathematical tidiness, and has no bearing on the debate, which I'm not about to get into :-)
Etienne
Bob,
I'll give my two cents on this one. This would be riskier since the big blind could raise (and he is certainly capable of doing so). Also the the player to the right of the button could cap it if the big blind raised. Still if the big blind only calls you're getting 11-1 in the small blind. If this call is marginal then perhaps if you were suited? Even if it was capped your still getting over 9-1.
Tom Haley
The followings are some reflexions and questions inducted by the reading of Mason Malmuth's book Poker Essays.
I am a little stake hold'em / stud pot-limit player and I wonder if it is possible to improve my game by analysing my statistical results and setting proper conclusions.
The average profile of weak/medium opponents in the pot-limit games I play is the following:
- passive all along the hand (very few initiative, raise, semi-bluff, bluff) - loose at the beginning of the hand (not very selective about starting hands, regardless of position and stack depth) - tight / hyper tight at the later streets especially when the money is deep
I think the strategy against this type of opponents can be adjusted by playing looser in the following spots:
- looser selection of starting hands in unraised pots - raise with all playable hands at the 1rst street in the goal to increase the stakes (to be able to steal a lot later) - raise in hold'em in last position with small pairs, small suited connectors, AXs, especially when the money is big - systematically bluff/semi-bluff after an opponent checks, especially in the last rounds - try some raise steals in fifth street (and later) in stud in heads up situation even without a scary board - bet half or third a pot instead of just check/calling in first position at the last round when you are not sure if you have the best hand
I don't think these plays are valid in limit because of:
- the lesser implied odds and the lesser intimidation factor due to smaller bets/pots size - the fact that the average profile of weak limit opponents is loose all along the hand or weak tight at the beginning
but they all can have positive expectations in pot-limit at the right moment and against the right opponent.
The problem with these plays is that it adds a lot to the money fluctuations, increasing the variance and bankroll requirement, and if done in too big proportion can have a negative impact on the winning rate. But the goal of a serious player is to improve his winning rate, not to decrease his variance if he has a sufficient bankroll.
I suspect there is an optimal point in adding the right proportion of these loose plays, thus optimizing the winning rate even if the variance grows. I also think that the right proportion depends on the strength of a player (an OK player can add a small proportion of these plays, a great player can add a much bigger).
I consider myself as an OK player in the little stake stud/hold'em pot-limit games but when I first made my statistical calculations I found my standard deviation was very small (winning rate = 12, standard deviation = 46 for both stud / hold'em pot-limit games with ante = 1 or blind 1/2). I began to add these loose plays and I observed an increase of both the standard deviation and winning rate. But when to stop ?
The question is
Mason Malmuth in Poker Essays gives some tables with winning rate and bankroll requirement depending on the stake and the player strength (OK, good, great).
Can anyone compare his ratio winning rate / variance to typical results in order to estimate if he is at the optimum point ?
Clearly if the ratio is small he is below the optimum point and can add these loose plays to improve his winning rate; if the ratio is too big he is besides the optimum point and has to play tighter.
Any comments ?
Has anyone such tables for pot-limit games ?
In addition the formula bankroll = (9 * variance) / (4 * winning rate) is it accurate for pot-limit ?
Situation: Single table no-limit tournament, winner take-all, 2 players left, 50-100 Blinds, chip situations: Me T900, opponent T500. I'm in the big blind, opponent in small blind raises it to 200. I have 55 and reraise him all in and win the pot and the bootey after he calls and turns over KQo and neither of us improve. Smart or dumb reraise? I reasoned that even if I lost the race I would still be in with T400 vs T1000. I put him on two overcards and not an overpair because of the small raise and his previous betting pattern, raising only big time with at least JJ or AK. The 50-50 small pair versus two overcards race seemed all the more attractive since he might also fold and try to hang on with T300. Any mistakes in my raising all-in, his too small initial raise or his calling my reraise? It's probably as much a matter of playing style and taste, as it is of logical reasoning.
Rockjock
Your play is fine, but that's because the blinds are so big relative to the stacks. In this situation, the blinds represent over 10% of all the chips in play. You're down to what is not much more than a crapshoot, so going all-in preflop with any pair cannot be a huge mistake, no matter what your opponent does (unless you have a good tell on him and ignore it).
Here's another way you might want to play the hand. Just call him preflop. That way, when the flop misses him (as it will often do), he might check and fold when you bet. You should bet when he checks even if there are 3 overcards to your pair for just this reason. While this play gives him a better chance of getting away from the hand without being busted, it also gives you a better chance of winning a pot (albeit a smaller one). If he bets into you, then this play may be worse, because you are now the one in a position to make a mistake (by calling or folding incorrectly). Anyway, if you think that you can outplay this opponent, consider this option.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Rockjock,
I would raise if there was any chance that he would fold based on his previous playing. If I felt he will no doubt call since I would have position, I would just call and try to play correctly after the flop. If he is an aggressive player who will bet after the flop without regard to it then it makes no difference as you may as well just play it out unless it flops 3 face cards. Without position I might be more inclined to set him in and go for it. Many times he will have a smaller pair for a pleasent surprise or an Ace suited with a smaller card to give you a better edge. By the way his raise of just 100 is a very bad play with the blinds this high and so little money left. He is giving you 3 to 1 odds of out flopping him and position. Good Luck.
44 posts (so far) concerning how to play Q5o ? It's a bad hand.
Not trying to shout down all these intelligent posters, it just seems to me we could try and create value on some more interesting theoretical topic.
As always, walking it like I talk it, here's a few baguettes to refocus the forum:
1) Which has the higher EV: - one table 1k satellites or - superduper satellties for gaining entry into the 10k event?2) The 20-40 game on the Mirage rail plays better than the interior ones because its easier for gambler tourist types to have their friends sweat them.
3) Opening a second cardroom in a one-room town often hurts the games.
4) Can anybody but a handful of top players overcome the tax consequences of tournaments in the long run?
5) CPK or buffet? Which is better when you have to be back in an hour? Calculate optimum mixed strategies based on time of day and occupancy of the Mirage.
Have a nice day.
JG
I like the posts , but although math plays a large part in the game, I get a little miffed at the math boys thinking that their answers end the arguments. We always like to be able to have everything in black and white, when in reality there is just so much grey area in poker, there is never one final answer. I'm not a big Mike Caro fan, but the one thing he says alot is, " It Depends", which happens alot in this game. David said that Ray would play it perfectly, but for most players, "don't try this at home". I would much rather dive into what makes a player like Ray heads and shoulders above most of us, than try to find the statistical answer as to the long term effects of playing Q5 when everyone in the game is in the pot. I'd like to learn how someone like Ray would handle playing against a raise with top pair, etc. in this situation. in other words. what he looks for in his opponents, etc. to make his decisions. We never seem to get into these areas too deep, because we can't run it on a simulator or use a statistical formula, yet it is this pyschological area of decision making, that I believe puts Ray and players like him ahead of the rest of us.
Excellent post, I would like to hear more on psychology from Ray myself.
Jim,
How about if it is suited? Just kidding I'm out on it.
Tom Haley
First: Flop two pair,,,,odds,,,,.0202
Three fives,,,,,,odds,,,,,01346
Three queens,,,,,odds,,,,,01346
Yes, it is 36 to one against flopping trips
and 48.5 to one against flopping two pair.
Queens full of fives,,,,,,00091836
Fives full of queens,,,,,,00091836
Four queens,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,00005102
Four fives,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0005102
Total,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,04905
Odds for flopping 2 pair
or better,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,19.38 to 1.
Anybody got a problem with that?
Second: I play this hand in this situation all the time.
I throw away this hand in this situation all the
time.
Anybody got a problem with that?
Third: Run your sims buy your programs. If you don't have a good feel for how people play in your game you won't win anyway.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.
I have a problem with that. The number of possiible flops is 50 choose 3 which is ( 50X49X48/1x2x3) which is19,600.The numbber of flops which has exactly two fives is 3 choose 2 (which is 3) times the number of other cards (44) This is 132. thus the probability of fopping trp fives is 132/19600 or .0067346.
Thankyou. I made a boo-boo. Can't chat, wife wants me to do the dishes.
The probability of flopping queens full of fives is
(3 choose 2)*3 / 19600 or .00045918
In the most recent copy of Card Player, Sklansky claims to have a solution that should satisfy all sides regarding the death penalty. Personally, I am for the death penalty, but Sklansky states that "cruel and unusual punishment" is the solution. He claims this is better because no innocent people would be executed. But isn't torturing innocent people worse?
Of course. Torture has no place in society, although I can think of a couple of individuals I'd like to see go through it.
Executing an innocent person is terrible, but not as bad as torturing an innocent person.
I guess your point of view depends on whether you consider torture worse than death. Some individuals may prever torture is there was a guarantee of surviving the experience, if something in their life made living through torture worth it. Obviously, the degree of torture is a factor too.
But since everyone is guranteed dying anyway, I feel that I would rather be wrongly executed, than wrongly tortured. Although knowing that you are going to be executed is a mild form of torture.
If one thinks how many times you've seen someone you know die after a long suffering illness, and felt that person was better off dead, I think that makes the point.
Having said that, and not having read David's article yet, did David specify torture as his solution. Or did he leave the term "cruel and unusual punishment" undefined. It makes a big difference.
The best argument for executing someone is not the punishment aspect of it. Nor the deterrent aspect of it (It doesn't seem to work). Even saving the expense of supporting a prisoner is weak, as the appeals cost just as much as the support. The best argument for it is revenge. Whether you think that is justification is your choice. But I do think that someone shouldn't be executed if, for example, the family of a murder victim is opposed to the murderer being executed.
I'm curious what punishment for a capital crime could be cruel and unusual and not be considered a bona fide form of torture?
For crimes of passion, and other situations where the criminal is not likely to repeat his offense, how about a scenerio like in the movie The Dirty Dozen? Preform some necessary high risk act for society and be "forgiven" your otherwise capital crime. Perhaps donating a kidney to someone in need, or something like that.
I'd sure hate to have to do that if I was innocent. But it's better than being executed or tortured for no good reason.
Dear George,
I realise that this thread is in danger of becoming irrelevant to the subject of gambling and associated mathematics. However, I know that you Americans are all hung up about things like the death penalty, so I'll amuse you and myself by coming in on this argument with a pacifist perspective.
You said that the best reason to execute someone is revenge. This is in my opinion the very weakest support of capital punishment, yet it probably lies at the heart of all other arguments supporting it. Revenge is among the most primal and idiotic of human emotions. It is completely illogical. (You hurt me, therefore, ipso facto, I must hurt you). I challenge you or anybody else to prove that revenge is constructive in any way. Incarceration is constructive. Treatment by psychiatrists, where possible, is constructive. Education, policing, and prevention of crime is constructive. And revenge is one of the most pitiful motivations for doing anything.
You then went on to say, "But I do think that someone shouldn't be executed if, for example, the family of a murder victim is opposed to the murderer being executed."
If we take the assumption that there is a correct answer to the question of what should be done to murderers, then the family's opinion is irrelevant. They are no better to morally judge someone than society at large - in fact, they are probably worse. If there is a correct answer, then we should be able to reach it. And if we can't, then to give the decision to the victim's family instead would make the decision even less likely to be the correct one, whatever the correct decision may be. I see no valid connection between a person having known a victim and that person suddenly becoming enormously qualified to morally judge a stranger (the criminal).
If there is no correct answer to the question of what to do with murderers, then in a way, the answer is whatever we want it to be. We define the nature of those things in the world which natural laws have no influence over.
So if we want to live in a vengeful society, we enact capital punishment. And as a result of our decision, our society is vengeful. By accumulating small instances of malevolent, revenge-based schemata (ways of thinking) within our society, our society becomes worse.
For example, I think that one of the reasons why the USA suffers so much from the incredible difference between different classes of people is because those different classes do things to perpetuate the divide. The classes could be eliminated overnight by replacing all of the people in the country with people who have no idea of class distinction. Therefore, the class distinction in your society is ultimately a product of your society's desire to have a class distinction. Make sense?
My own opinion of what to do with murderers involves a combination of lifelong incarceration and apathy towards them. But I have no interest in doing something which doesn't achieve anything.
I hope that this diatribe in some way gives you a better understanding of Holdem. At least we're thinking, unlike most of the people I play against.
Richard Cavell
Perhaps I should have said that revenge is the honest reason for it. The other reasons frequently given don't hold up. If you don't agree with the revenge factor, fine. You're probably right. But anyone who uses the cost factors or deterrent factors is using things that really don't apply.
Personally, I never thought about my position on it. I suspect I would be against it. But I reserve the right to so some serious thinking on it in the future.
Richard asks for any way that revenge is constructive.
I personally am not an advocate of revenge. In fact, I'm willing to forgive quite a bit if I think there is a low probability of the person repeating the crime.
But there is a possible reason for revenge. Consider this hypothetical situation. I am in a profession where I make a lot of enemies, many of whom aren't the most law abiding citizens around. I have a wife and children. If I am well known to have a hot temper and to be likely to become irrational and seek revenge, no matter what the cost, if anyone harms my family, then this would tend to deter some people from harming my family.
Unfortunately, I don't think the death penalty serves as this kind of deterrent. Possibly because it is quite unlikely to be applied in most cases (I wouldn't want it to be applied more often, though).
It's too bad exile is not a practical option. I often wish there was some way to remove a person's priveleges of civilization and socialization as a punishment. Lacking this, I favor life imprisonment for serious criminals which have a high probability of repeat offenses. For those criminals which aren't likely to repeat, I have thought similarly to George that it would be nice to allow the criminal to repay his debt by volunteering for a high risk task where he could save lives.
For those who haven't read the article, it is not really torture I advocate but rather some sort of horrible punishnent that is both VIVID and publicized. The idea is to take advantage of a irrational quirk in human nature (investigated by Amos Tversky, among others) Where people assign far too high a probability to certain scary things. Also I only advocate this punishment for capitol offenses and it would be in addition to life impisonment without parole. The idea is that this solution simultaneously would be a greater detterent than the death penalty while avoiding the tragedy of executing an innocent person.
One possible way to see if Sklansky's argument makes some sense is to find a society that uses torture and look at their crime rate.
I don't want to say the wrong thing since I'm not very knowledgeable in this area. But one country that I understand to have a very low crime rate is Saudi Arabia. Now I don't believe that they tolerate torture, but isn't it true that they have some very tough punishments for certain crimes.
If I am wrong, I would like to be corrected. But if I am right, wouldn't this be good support for David's argument.
Mason,
I know I shouldn’t state anything but I can’t resist. No imo because the end doesn’t justify the means. I haven’t read the most recent Sklansky article. The death penalty issue is an interesting one that but I won’t comment on it because I’m getting way off topic of gambling
Tom Haley
A fitting punishment might be viewing Ben Tracy or Mike caro Videos and seminars over and over.
YOWANDA should win a book for connecting the subject of capital punishment with poker. ;-)
My knowledge is also imperfect, but their law allows mutilation for certain crimes; such as chopping off the hands of thieves. It also allows for beheading for adultery, which is mutilation resulting in death. I suspect that the sight of a mutliated person is a more powerful deterrent to crime than a corpse. Neither punishment by the way is as cruel as the slow bleed at a 3-6 table. A joke, a bad one perhaps, intended to focus the discussion back on the topic--poker.
Would you expand your remarks about the factors present at a table during a game?. And the process that it takes to combine them into correct play?
In his game theory textbook _Fun and Games_, Ken Binmore shows a stylized poker game where the worst hand bluffs in equilibrium where mediocre hand might call. Intuitively a bad hand gains more from successful bluffing when calling is not a viable alternative. The "Ultimate Problem" had some resemblance - unimproved aces sometimes raised, but three aces never raised.
Three aces never raised? Why in the world not?
Three aces never bet, but they always raised.
But you're right about the bad hand never just calling.
The ultimate problem is more complex than the Fun And Games problem.
I had one of the most bewildering situations come up today in my poker session. Perhaps some of you can shed light on it. At 5am, there was no 10-20 HE game, and the 6-12 HE was full with a waiting list. There was an empty seat in an excellent 20-40 HE, so I decided to take it and wait for the 6-12 or for a 10-20. I only play 20-40 occasionally as my bankroll is insufficent. About 20 minutes into the session, I raise with 99 under the gun. The next two spots fold, a live player calls, and the next player calls. All others fold. The second caller is considered one of the best, if not THE best 20-40 player in Vegas. He's tight, aggressive, and beats the games to death. The flop was a dream. 5, 8, 9, three suits. I bet, the live guy called, the expert raised, I re-raised, the live one folded, and the expert made it four bets. I just called. Looked like he had a smaller set. My plan was to raise on the turn. The turn was a 6, and the river was a K. The rest of the play of the hand isn't important - what he turned over was. His hand was 76d. I was stunned. This player knows I'm a tight, winning 10-20 player. How could he make that call pre-flop. He's got 5 players to act behind him. I doubt he could see that they were all about to fold. The only thing that Tod (my boyfriend) and I could come up with, was that he saw both of the live guy's cards and he called based on that extra information. But given that, shouldn't he three-bet? What went on here? Any ideas, comments?
Ouch...
I don't think Mr. 20-40 superstar is making a bad play here, or at least not one that has much negative expectation if any.
You said the game was "excellent" and I'm assuming you meant there were some other live ones besides the one you had trapped.
If the expert w/ 6-7 suited gets one more caller plus the big blind, he's getting good action on his money. Combine this with his after the flop playing edge and the deceptive value of his play on this and future hands, and it's not bad.
If he knew it was going to be three way, it wouldn't be a good call. But there were a lot of players left.
Jessica wrote "How could he make that call pre-flop. He's got 5 players to act behind him. I doubt he could see that they were all about to fold."
I think it is precisely because there WERE 5 players to act behind him that makes his call good. Factor in as well that it was 5 AM and the game was probably full of weak players chasing their losses...he is hoping for four or five way action....which gives him the right price to put in $40 with his drawing hand.
He probably wouldn't have called at all if it looked like it was going to be only three way action.
It looks like this player was expecting or hoping for more callers behind him. similar to calling with a small or medium pair in the same spot with several players to act behind. Not such an out there play, and he got lucky on you and flopped the nuts. Remember the fundamental theorom of poker?
Don't let this bother you, there is nothing you could have done. Only when there is behavior that you can change should you disect it. good Luck
Besides the comments of the other fellows, he was playing a hand he could easily get away from. Combine that with he pretty much knew where you were with your hand, and his play is not bad.
Actually, he was probably surprised you only had pocket nines. Raising under the gun, he probably expected a bigger pair than that.
By the way, if the board paired on the end you should try for a check-raise. He'll bet what looks to you as a full house. He probably put you on an over pair, so betting your hand would seem unnatural. He'd only call a bet. Checking looks more natural so he'd probably bet into you.
George,
Knit picking a little.
You write:
>>Besides the comments of the other fellows, he was playing a hand he could easily get away from. Combine that with he pretty much knew where you were with your hand, and his play is not bad.<<
Compare to this.
>>Actually, he was probably surprised you only had pocket nines. Raising under the gun, he probably expected a bigger pair than that.<<
These two seem contradictory. Actually it seems like he may not have known where she was at. I think I know what you mean. He put Jessica on at least a good hand pre-flop. And he knew that she didn't want a multi-way pot.
>>By the way, if the board paired on the end you should try for a check-raise. He'll bet what looks to you as a full house. He probably put you on an over pair, so betting your hand would seem unnatural. He'd only call a bet. Checking looks more natural so he'd probably bet into you. <<
I think this is good advice because he probably put Jessica on the wrong hand. She was much stronger than he probably suspected.
Sorry Tom, not nit-picking. I overlooked your comment. On the other hand, if I hadn't overlooked your comment I wouldn't have had much to say. ;-)
Jessica,
My two cents. This call doesn't suprise me at all. If no one calls behind him he'll be in last position on the flop. He may feel that he can steal often enough to make it profitable. If one other player calls behind him, there is a good chance that at least another player will come in and he won't mind that either.
Tom Haley
I do. His bankroll allows him to play as if he were in a lower limit game. Plays like this are common. Consider this:
No one three bet at the flop, so your presumably big pair is the best hand. No big draws are evident. He only has to call one raise to get to the flop where he gets three perfect cards. You bet, he raises to represent the flush he does not have, and also to find out if anyone else does. When you are the only person to reraise, he correctly assumes that no one has the flush yet., so he reraises to run out the flush draws, and also the higher straight draws. Remember it is late, and he probably knows very well who is stuck and unable to chase.. The turn card does not pair the board. He figures you for three of a kind now, because only called his reraise despite being heads up. Presumbly if you had a higher straight, or the flush, you would have tried to bust him.. His worry is that the board will pair on the river, giving you a full house. The board does not pair, nor does a fourth suited card come, nor a seven that would allow a ten to top him. So he has you., and he knows it. Tough luck.
1. Even good players make mistakes, get out of line, especially when they are losing. 2. If he got callers behind him, he'd be getting reasonable pot odds. 3. If no calls behind him, and he knows you and knows you know him, he assumes he can steal the pot whenever you don't show strength. (In general a careful player, playing at a higher stake than they are accustomed to, with a somewhat limited bankroll won't bluff, especially one of their first hands, and they will fold if the flop doesn't help them and their opponent shows strength.) If the flop had been KT4, and you had checked, and he bet would you have found a call? How about K74? 4. The only really bad situations come when there is another raise behind him.
Okay, here's a different perspective...
If he called your raise with KQ and flopped a higher pair to beat you, would you have posted here about your shock of his poor play? IMHO, calling with the KQ when he knows you are a tight player that is playing in a higher limit than usual is much worse than calling your raise with 76s.
I guess what I'm saying is this: Determining how well a player plays can be very tricky business. Strange occurances that lie on the outer edges of play are not necessarily the best criteria, because they are not always as bad as they first appear (and they occur so rarely that they don't add up to a great deal of total ev). Moreover, there are often other bad plays that are much more commonplace that you may not pay any attention to when evaluating that person's play.
Tom Weideman
I won't mention any names, but I happen to know the player that held the 76s. He does make an effort to see other player's hands, and I have seen some strange plays out of him over the years because of this.
You can make technical arguments where this hand would be marginally correct to play. But being able to see someone's hand will almost always make your hand "stronger."
The moral of this story is very simple. The first rule of poker is that you should protect your hand. I am always amazed as to how careless some experienced players are in looking at their cards, especially in hold 'em. (In stud, because of the third card, they seem to be more careful.)
There is also another interesting question here. Suppose you are in a game and you notice that a player across the table from you is exposing his hand to a player next to him, and that that player is taking advantage of it. Should you speak up and say something?
If the expert player did see another player's hand, should it affect his decision to call/fold? What type of hand would make him fold rather than call?
Any over pair, or any two cards which detract from his straight or flush potential. Also, two cards which might detract from Jessica's hand (A-J) would make him more likely to call.
Mason,
I would say something to the person exposing his cards. Just try and be friendly and remind the player to protect their hand. It would be rare for a dealer to say something although a few will. A lot of dealers wouldn't for obvious reasons.
Tom Haley
I agree. You could even make light of it. So long as you remind the player, in a friendly way, to keep his cards hidden. I've done this a number of times and it works. Although you might have to do it more than once. Of course, if I'm the beneficiary, I might inadvertently neglect to do that. ;-)
Aside from Mason's observations about seeing or not seeing another players hands. (Which are more than valid and apropos.) What I don't understand is why YOU don't understand this.
Would you raise under the gun with Ace-King or Ace-queen, or perhaps King-Queen suited or Ace-Jack or Ace-Ten suited. In other words you could have a myriad of hands that he could try and outplay you with after the flop. He may be more inclined to try this against someone who is not a regular player. Someone like you perhaps that is taking a shot in a game above her normal playing level. Top players don't walk on water. They make mistakes. They also take chances and try to capitalize on the situation at hand. He may of felt you had one of these holdings and could try to out play you later if the flop comes small. He could also flop a pair and very well have the best hand. (Combine this with the fact he may of seen his opponents cards, he might end up with the button or more people may call.) Wether or not he does flop the best hand or can outplay you later will be something he has to determine as the hand progresses.
It seems just about everybody agrees that 76s is not a bad hand to call for the expert player. Seems puzzling to me....what am I missing? I would not make that call and think I was getting the best of it...what's the difference between me and the expert player? Is it that the Expert player can make winning bets on/after the flop that I can't? Even if that was the case, is that enough to overtake the neg E.V. of the call (if it was in fact neg e.v.). Is it possible the expert had a moment or hour of weakness? Was he trying to make a comeback?
Seems alot like the Q5o question, in that I don't think there's enough E.V. to call, but others believe that Experts can win by playing better on the flop and after. Does that mean that experts can play so much looser than an average player (me)? Would it have been right for Ray Zee to call with this hand ? Where is the line drawn...should an ok player play? how about a good player? a very good player? a great player? or only the experts?
T. P.
I would play this hand if I thought Jessica did not have a big pair so I could steal the pot later and or I thought a few bad players might tag along for the ride. Even in the best of possibilities it is hard to make a case for it being a correct hand to play. You may need to have a read on a player to start taking chances with different plays. This person may of thought he had or just possibly wanted to play the hand for his own reasons. As players get better in their reading and playing ability it becomes more profitable to get involved in pots as you can win pots that others may not. Often you can find 2 or 3 people at the table to pick on and make them miserable by being in lots of their pots and outplaying them. Soon they become docile and make it easier or they become agressive back at you, then just give up on them for awhile till you get a hand to show them. Good Luck.
Thanks for the input Ray. I guess this means that 76s is not a hand one should play unless one thinks they have a good handle on their opponents, as you described. Since I'm not in that category yet, I guess I should not do it on a regular basis, but try it in a couple of situations so I can learn to play it like an expert.
There is a book by D.R. Sherer, No Fold'em Hold'em, that has speaks directly to these hands. You may wish to read it.
I have been following the thread. Two schools of thought. One, that the player was shrewd; the other, a bully. It is true that certain players will not try to beat the table, come one , come all; but key on to a single player whom they believe has a weakness. A lousy experience when you are the target.
Thanks for the input Ray. I guess this means that 76s is not a hand one should play unless one thinks they have a good handle on their opponents, as you described. Since I'm not in that category yet, I guess I should not do it on a regular basis, but try it in a couple of situations so I can learn to play it under the circumstances you described. I've never been in the position of the dominator, but I have seen others do it to others, and it always seemed like a perfect situation for me to lay a trap for the 'dominator'. But I aslo assume if the 'dominator' is an expert player, they would realize this, and play an 'outsider' accordingly.
I basically agree with Ray that it is hard to make a case for playing this hand, that's why I believe that the expert probably saw someone else's hand, thus making his hand stronger.
In addition, some experts play so well that they begin to play a little too loose in full ring games and thus reduce their edge. I also understand that this expert is not having his best year.
This thread has raised a lot of interest...I found it interesting that no one has questioned the fact that this self described "tight winning player" has raised under the gun with 99. Does anyone think this is just a tad "loose"?
Perhaps I better go back and read my S & M textbook again. Is this a raising hand under the gun or not?
Mason in his post raised the point about what you should do when you notice that a player opposite you is exposing his hole cards and the players next to him can see them. Its a tricky situation. The best case scenario is that a really alert dealer will notice this and say something to the player (Don't laugh...I HAVE seen this happen although it is rare). I would like to say something but only if it is clear that I am not accusing the "peeking" player of unethical behaviour...usually if I do not know the player well enough to KNOW how he will take my comment...I usually just shut up about it.
When Jessica told me about the play, the first thing that I said was why are you raising under the gun with 99? In the late night $20-$40 games which are usually fairly loose, this hands main value is to flop a set. Raising usually won't limit the field as this example shows.
A couple of posters did mention that the other player probably didn't suspect Jessica for having pocket nines for that very reason. Pocket nines is not normally a raising hand under the gun. Besides the comment Mason made, another reason for sometimes raising with this hand (if you think you will get callers) is that it's deceptive when you flop a set.
The interesting thing about this hand is that both players were playing out of line, and both got lucky and hit their hands. If Jessica had filled up on the end, her opponent would have been surprised at that. He would have been expecting an overpair, not top set.
I can only think of a few times in the last ten years when I have NOT raised under the gun with pocket nines. What am I going to do, just CALL with them? Throw them away. (I HAVE done that.) This hand has value. I'd rather have 1-3 opponents than five or six. (But if I get 5-6 then fine I'll try and flop a set.) You flop a set so seldom that I want to try and win with my two nines on the basis of their strength when I get a good flop or have a good read on my opponents.
You must also factor in that most aggressive (but not all) higher limit players will three bet with tens or higher so now you have a fair idea where you are at and can proceed accordingly.
I don't see players three betting with tens unless there trying to buy the button or chase the blinds. Also, I think the value in nines is when you make a set. They usually don't hold up as top pair. And to make it worth trying to flop a set, you want callers and don't want to put in extra bets to lower your pot odds. Nines are good, but not THAT good. I wouldn't even normally raise with tens under the gun.
The only reason I would raise with nines under the gun at a full table is to mix up my play. But that's the exception, not the rule.
What kind of success have you had doing this? Do your unimproved nines hold up that much?
I normally fold 9,9 10,10 and J,J under the gun.
Randy said:
> I normally fold 9,9 10,10 and J,J under the gun.
If you are folding these hands UTG, you are costing yourself a lot of money.
If you're not actually folding these hands, but simply spouting total BS in hopes of impressing people with your tight play, well, then you've got a problem of a different nature. I suspect that not only do you play these hands UTG in hold'em, but that you also play them in Omaha 8/B.
There has been a lot of misinformation posted on this thread. People have talked about raising with 99 for purposes of deception: There is no deception in this play. People have talked about raising because you're getting proper pot odds to flop a set: This can only be correct if you're absolutely positively guaranteed that every player at the (full) table is going to call. Somebody mentioned that you will gain by knowing where you are at when you get three-bet by a larger pair: There are many other hands that a person might three-bet you with, so you certainly do not have absolute knowledge. And if you did, you're in such a deep spot that it is of limited value.
If you can expect to reduce the field to three players or less, preferably one loose player behind and one of the blinds, then raising with 99 UTG is probably beneficial. If not, then calling is much more correct than folding. The only games in which you should fold 99 UTG is if you can expect the hand to be played four-way for three or four bets preflop. TT and JJ should not be folded even in those extreme situations. I'm not saying that TT and JJ can be played in all situations for three or four bets preflop; I'm saying that if you can _expect_ it to be three or four bets preflop, then your opponents obviously have lower standards than optimal, so that your hand still stands to be best.
That's my opinion. Sorry if that's not tight enough to impress people.
RF.
I should have clarified the loose games I play in. I play 5-10 with normally 5-7 players seeing the flop, so an overcard on the flop almost always beats you. With an A, K, or Q coming 52% of the time on the flop playing the JJ and down up front is definitely a high variance play even if it does have a positive expected value. This isn't even allowing for one guy that ALWAYS raises pre-flop, bets the flop and THEN looks at his cards. When he is there anyone that planned to raise waits until they can make it 3 bets. If you really believe jacks and tens are playable in this game e-mail me if you are ver in Ohio.
If I know that there will be 5-7 players seeing the flop, then I'll be in there with ANY pair every time (unless I think it's going to be 3 or more bets to see the flop). If the game is getting 3 and 4 bet preflop frequently, then I will throw away the smaller pairs in early position, unless it is clear that there will be 7 (or more) players paying to see the flop.
Too bad I'm not in Ohio to enjoy this juicy game of yours. Enjoy.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg,
It is 3 and 4 bet frequently. This game isn't nearly as good as it sounds because these players can have ANYTHING. Among this crowd they wouldn't be talking about when you can possibly call with Q5o, they would talk about when you shouldn't raise with it. From what I have seen a majority of these players raise any pair and any 2 suited cards and call with any face card. I have been beating it at about $25/hr, but I might be able to win more if I loosened up (I have gone the entire night without seeing the flop).
Let me ask one important question, do these guys generally play well after the flop, or do they continue their loose ways then as well? If they play well after the flop, then they will be much harder to beat (obvious point). However, if they continue with their loose methods post-flop, then you are sitting on an ATM machine. Play every pair with the intention of folding most of them (even KK and AA much of the time) if you don't flop a set or another good draw. Play Ax suited every time, and play suited connectors and Kx suited in position. Otherwise, fold almost every other hand (since they can't make the nuts easily). Actually, you can play many other hands, but you must be able toplay them well for them to be profitable. E.g., you could play a hand like J9s, but you've got to know when to give up on the draws, and when to play for them. When you can pound with 1 or 2 pair, and when to give up.
Actually, if these guys are really this loose, talk them into playing Omaha 8 or better. Now that's a game where tight play alone will win all the money if your opponents are loose. Since it [almost] always takes the nuts to win anyway, you will seldom fold winners because you've been outplayed.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I disagree, I three bet with tens the majority of the time.
Mason didn't really specify why he Three bets TT. So, I'll try to see if I can correctly state why he would.
1)If the game is Short Handed TT would now become a superior holding. Mason has written that he plays many games that are Short Handed so Three Bets would be the right play.
2)In the same sense. If a middle to late position player was the first in and came in for a Raise. Reraising would be the best play to try to make the game Short Handed.
3) The only other time I can see Mason Three Betting TT, when he wasn't just trying occasionaly vary his game, is if he was in a Loose Wild Game, and he was now getting the proper Pot Odds to Flop a Set.
CV
I'm a tight aggressive 20-40 player, and I think I could've picked a better spot to give you action. Readers of RGP know I had no problem poppin the 67s on the button, but this is a different animal. As an aside, if this player is beating the 20-40 at the Mirage to death, there's probably a good 40-80 game for him on the next table over. I've often misjudged players that I've seen at the "other" table (90+% of the time giving them too much credit) and found out after less than an hour of playing with them my error. This player may well be good enough to beat that game, but not be the demigod you perceived.
Regards,
JG
ps I would've limped the 9's in that game as well.
pps I was on the fence about going to play the low EF 78 tourney on the 26th. The chance to crash the two plus two party Sat night pushed me over. Hope other posters make it as well. Would love to meet everyone!
Jim Geary states:
"This player may well be good enough to beat that game, but not be the demigod you perceived."
I guess I need an explination.
Does everyone that posts to this site play perfectly? I wonder. In fact, I would go so far as to say that a lot of people that post here (myself included) don't play half as well as they think they do!
If someone makes what appears to be an out of line play once in a while in my opinion this makes them HUMAN not a sucker, or a worse player than you realized.
I make mistakes all the time. I call with hands I shouldn't. I raise with hands I shouldn't. I pay off with hands I shouldn't. I bluff when I shouldn't.
The guy called a raise with 7-6 suited--so what! Big deal. Does anyone here EVER make a mistake?
Bob,
It is much easier to come up with the right play when you have lots of time to think and write about it. Since you are new to the forum you should know that the players that have been posting and learning make very few mistakes and are now winning most of the money in the poker world. As they get even better I may go to full time writing as there will be no hope for my poker future. I suggest you give up being a grump. Good Luck.
Bob brings up a good point.
It seems to me we approach every discussion like an ultimate problem, that is world class decision making on every turn. I did this when I dismissed Jessica's opponent with the wave of a (poker) hand. I'll state publicly that I don't play every hand with the deliberation and clarity of thought that I try to put into posts to TPT. I retract my prior disparagement with appropriate apology. I'll try to be less absolutist in the future.
Tho I still wouldn't have called with 67s in that spot.
JG
Sorry to jump into this a little late, but this play can make sense. You say that this was an excellent game, the 'best' 20-40 player was in it, and he knows where you're at as a player (tight aggressive 10-20 player). What made the game excellent in your opinion? Lots of loose passive players, a lack of good players, etc?
It may be that the guy saw you as an obstacle to his private party, and decided to take a shot at you... The individual hand is irrelevant in this case.
You were stunned by the play of his hand, which was probably the point of him playing it. How did you do for the rest of the session? Did it throw you off your normal game? It may have been worth it for him to make a loose call if he could snap you off, and dominate you or make you go on tilt. Hands don't happen in a vaccum, his hand EV may have sucked but his session EV may go way up if he hits his hand.
I did some thinking about topics like this on my 3.5 hour drive home from a 4 day weekend at a riverboat casino, and the way everything worked out... I may start a new topic with some of my random thoughts.
I feel that Satellites aren't a bad deal...maybe even a very good deal. Usually the players aren't that great, and you can choose who you're playing against, to some extent. The rake seems o.k. (at the 4 Queens, for a $65 buyin, you win $575...meaning a rake of $75, or $7.50 per player, which comes to probably $3.75 per half hour for bad players, and $2.50 per half hour for good players) and its a great learning situation. I assume the rake would be even better for the WSOP than at 4 Queens.
How should one play differently in a satellite (limit hold'em) versus regular play? Since the rounds are so much shorter (20 min, I believe), it seems that getting a lot of chips in the beginning is worth a lot, so it seems that entering pots where at worst you have zero expectancy would be worth it, near the beggining.
Given all the volatility in the satellites, what's a good success ratio? I think Caffione wrote that in no-limit, a very good player should win 1 out of every 5. Does that change in limit?
In my book POKER ESSAYS, VOLUME II I give an argument for why you should play a little too loose early in a winner take all one table satellite. I idea is to try to decrease you luck factor late in the satellite when the limits have gone up. You do this by having more chips than your opponents do at this stage of the event, thus you gamble more early on.
Not to disagree with you, Mason, because I feel that your rationale is correct. However, I feel that the advantages of playing tight early outweigh the advantages you present of playing loose.
In a satellite, play is fast, and it quickly becomes critical to win every pot you enter. Additionally, I see a lot of tournament regulars enter satellites, and then play too tight, especially at the end. The reason (I believe) is that they are used to getting rewarded for survival, as you do in a multi-place-paying regular tournament. However, since a satellite is winner-take-all, they need to call somewhat more often when the pot size justifies it. Thus, I prefer to play tight early and observe the players, try to get a read on them. Then, when we get to the later stages, they hopefully have perceived me as a tight player, and tend to fold when I bet/raise, thus allowing me to steal a pot or two, or at least allowing me to get them to fold when they've got pot odds to call. This style works well for me, and I've seriously considered the reasons why. However, it could be that I'm not in the majority, and that most people would profit more by following your advice.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
T.P.,
Earl where are you? I agree with you about being a good deal as imo there is a group of players that make a lot of money playing them. As I've stated previously I know one player that claims to make a significant part of his income playing in satellites. You must be getting ready for the WSOP!
Tom Haley
O.K. What does "imo" mean?
I got it. "In My Opinion" duh.. Thanks George.
CV
Satellites have always been profitable for me, perhaps because they play similar to the fast action tournaments that I cut my teeth on in the 80s. If anyone doubts that some players come to the WSOP just to play satellites, talk to Becky Kerber when you are there (one of the nicest and most gracious persons I've ever met, incidentally, despite the incredibly arduous task of keeping the satellites running).
Sure would be nice to see some folks off the forum win a few of these events this year.
You should win about 25-30% of your satellites if you play a good satellite strategy and don't often butt heads with the likes of Barbara Enright and Erik Seidel. The overall winning approach for a satellite is to play tight for one round and progressively loosen up. Don't get busted when the blinds and antes are small. This is particularly true in pot-limit and no-limit, but is nearly as relevant in limit, where you can cripple yourself even when the blinds and antes are small. Ideally you would be able to get your entire stack in on one hand somewhere around rounds 2 or 3 in order to double-up and get in position to win.
My personal approach is to accept (or offer) even splits when the blinds are high and it's down to 2 players. Otherwise it usually turns out to be a coin-flip as to who wins. Murphy's Law seems to rule: the deal you refuse is usually the one you lose.
The WSOP satellites aren't any tougher than any of the others.
SPECIAL TWO PLUS TWO PUBLISHING ANNOUNCEMENTS
I am happy to announce the following two events:
Saturday, April 25th, 12noon until 10pm we will have an Open House in a suite at the Golden Nugget. Stop by for some refreshments; meet everyone at Two Plus Two, as well as fellow forum contributors. Call the Nugget the morning of the 25that 385-7111 and ask for Two Plus Two Publishing's suite number.
Thursday, April 30, beginning at 7pm David, Mason, and Ray will hold an informal seminar on poker and gambling at: Borders Books & Music 2323 S. Decatur Las Vegas, Nevada 89102 (702) 258-0999 The cross street is Sahara Ave.
We hope to see you all at one or both of these events.
I'll be at the Open House. Anyone else? I'd like to meet some of you other Forum Postors. Anyway, I plan on making it down from the 24th to the 29th. Hope to see all of you there.
Chris Villalobos
I just booked a flight yesterday, and tried finding a hotel room as well. The best thing I could find was the Lady Luck for $89. Suggestions anyone?
Thanks to all for the email. Another TPT poster was kind enough to split a room with me. Along the way I learned that your best bet isn't to make reservations on your own but to call Binion's and tell em you're going to WSOP, and they may be able to help you get a good rate on other downtown properties.
I've played in all the clubs in S.F. Bay Areain the 15-30 to 40-80 games. I've also played these games and some tourneys in Vegas and Atlantic City. I find that I recognize many players (especially the ones in the Bay Area, since those are the ones that I frequent the most these days) and have an opinion about their style and level of play. I've also felt this was an advantage I have over the 'regulars' as I feel like I know them and they don't know me....and since I am asian, it seems even more likely that caucasians may have a difficult time recognizing me versus another asian player (not trying to create controversy... but something I think is true).
The question is, how likely am I to be right? I feel like I have a good memory and can usually recognize half the table in a major tournament...but I also feel that no on could possible know me. Am I fooling myself?
Nope ... your anonymity is one of your greatest assets. That's why "no-name" players win tournaments but the result is written off as a fluke.
>>but I also feel that no one could possible know me<<
Hey, aren't you the guy I saw at Table 4, Seat 2 in a recent Trop tourney? :)
Ray, It seems that lately I have been building an interest in omaha 8or better. Therefore I have just ordered your 2+2 book on that subject. However I have one question for you. Is there money to be made in omaha 8 or better tournments?
Joe,
They should be the easiest to beat if you play well. In the smaller tournaments getting in the money should be a piece of cake for you after much study and thinking. In the very large tournaments the better players consistently are all lined up at the last table with very few bad players left, not so in many of the other games. Good Luck.
I thought that I would share this with the forum. A little while ago I played in an underground Florida tournment. I made the last table against 8 ohter remaining players. Then something happened they made me say oh yes yes. Three people got involved duribg the play of a hand. One of them was the chip leader. What happened was this. The chip leader busted the other two players out. I now will finish no worse then 7th. However I am now least in chips. Then the hand that to this day makes me laugh even though it busted me. I was dealt AcKc . The chip leader made a small raise of $400 before me. I had been watching this player carefully and I was positive that he was not making a play on me. I raised$2000 to which he called. The flop came K37s. The chip leader again bet $400. At this point I almost folded. But I thought that this player whould not call my $2000 raise with AXs. Well I was right. I raised all in at $6000 or so to which he called . He turned over his hand which to my dismay was AsKh .He was free-rolling on me. Sure enough a spade hit on the river and I was out of the tourny. I'm forever now hooked on tournament play because I consider myself to be much better at tournament play then ring games.
I am confused about how to play TT and 99 from just about any position.
I am a winning but beginning low-limit player, and I understand that 10/20 is a lot different from 5/10, and that no matter what limit you're playing, how you play depends on the game. With this in mind, some of the things I have read here and in HFAP have still left me a little bewildered. For example, in HFAP, it says (in a normal game) to raise TT (=any group 2 hand) in early postion if there is a caller to your right, but to just call if there is no caller to your right. Why is this? In the discussion of JJ early, it says that you either want few opponents or many opponents, so you should play to achieve one of those two situations. I would think that with TT, you would want either very few opponents or very many opponents by the same logic. Is this correct? If so, how does raising with a caller and just calling without achieve this? Also, in middle or late position, should I always be raising an unraised pot with 99 and TT, or should it depend on the number of callers in front of me? Also, how should this change based upon the tightness of the blinds? Am I raising because I am a favorite in the race (am I a favorite)? I guess what I'm saying is, I like what HFAP has to say about JJ early; is there a similar plan for TT and 99?
How many opponents do I really want with these two hands?
Under what conditions would you three bet TT in middle or late position? Would you with a caller between you and the original raiser? Two callers? Are you doing this soley to increase your stealing opportunities later? Also, how about 99? Do you three bet them often, and from what position with how many callers? George's question really hits it for me: "Do your unimproved nines hold up that much?" (especially against early position callers). Mine don't.
Bottom line: How and WHY should TT and 99 be played from early, middle, and late positions.
Thanks in advance,
Dennis
I haven't done the Math myself, but this is the way I understand playing Upper-Middle Pocket Pairs.
First, if you try to play your starting hands exactly by the book without knowing the Theory behind WHY you should play by the book, you are bound to get confused. You will probably have to invest in "Hold'em Poker". That book talks more about the Theory of Starting Hand selection and how you should play them.
Basicly, the lower your Pocket Pair is the more Overcards can hit the Flop. The more of a chance your Pocket Pair won't be the Top Pair on the Flop the more you want to make Trips with it. To go for Trips you need the Pot giving you about 5 to 1 on your bet. Making Trips on the Flop is around 8 to 1, but you get good Implied Odds with Hidden Trips.
TT and 99 have a good chance of making the best hand without improving against 1 or 2 players, but don't plan on making best unimproved hand against 3 or more players.
If you can't force the Players in the game to Fold and give you a Chance to play against 2 or less opponents you must try to keep as many opponents in as possible in the chance that you hit your Trips.
In the Low-Limit games I play in. If my pocket pair is below Queens I most likely won't Raise with it.
CV
Chris,
I have to say that we seem to think exactly alike here. It seems to me that this would guide me to raise TT in early position with no callers and call with a caller to my right (exactly opposite what HFAP suggests)! Is this perhaps beacuse the games I play in are way looser than what HFAP considers a normal game?
Dennis
In a Loose Game, I would never raise with TT in early Position. If I had TT in a Late position and it looked to be a Family Pot, then I would definitely Raise. Then again it depends on many factors.
CV
HPFAP assumes 10-20 and above. 10-20 on the average is MUCH tighter than 5-10.
Here is an other point about why 3 to 4 opponents is bad for TT and 99. I was thinking about it this morning and I think David mentioned it allready, but I'de like to add it here.
It becomes much harder to out play 3 to 4 opponents when a Overcard Flops, than 1 or 2 opponents.
CV
With two tens you should raise in early position in a tight game and call in a loose game. The idea is to go for more than five or less than two opponents. Raising in a loose game or caliing in a tight game will likely get you the less desirable 3-4 opponents. A limper in front of you should therefore probably not change your strategy. I haven't seen the passage in question but if we said otherwise we were wrong. (So it looks like the first Forum member to get me to say that was not one of you pros but rather a mere beginner. Maybe there is a lesson in that.)
Thank you for the kind title.
I guess the heart of my question is, shouldn't I only be raising TT from early position if there are NO callers to my right (this seems to be more in tune with getting less than two or more than five opponents)? Further, under what conditions should I raise TT in middle and even late position (a very different situation), and why?
Many thanks,
Dennis
David,
There probably is a lesson to be learned. I can't find any specific advice about T,T for early position play in HFAP.
Tom Haley
Tom,
Try page 107.
CV
The time has come to debunk some myths regarding how certain hands (upper-middle and higher pairs) play in multiway pots.
Last month, Richard Cavell started the thread "How many opponents would you prefer with AA?". Opinion was divided between those who thought AA played better against 1 or 2 opponents, and those, like myself, who thought the hand would stand up against many. To his credit, Mason Malmuth said "...I suspect that two aces is a little better in big multiway pots...". This is in contrast to what is written by him and David in HPFAP p.18 - "Part of the reason to raise with these hands (AA,KK,QQ,AK, and AQ) is that they lose much of their value in large multiway pots". I think that I have proven to myself that this statement, at least with regards to AA, KK and QQ, is incorrect and will treat it as such till someone proves otherwise.
Similarly, I cannot agree with HPFAP p.20, that with JJ " the worst scenario is when exactly three or four opponents see the flop with you" for both tight and loose games. With reference to this thread, I put TT in the same category ie. whatever your strategy, it shouldn't be based upon avoiding 3 or 4 opponents.
In my university days, we made plenty of use of the Latin phrase "ceteris paribus" meaning "other things being equal". I can accept almost everything in poker, from someone folding JJ because, for whatever reason, he's 99% certain that his opponent has AA, to someone calling 2 bets with Q5o in the big blind. What I can't accept is someone who seriously believes that, ceteris paribus, he's better off with pocket aces against only one opponent.
It's a simple simulation to see that the more opponents you add to battle a pair of Aces, the less of a favorite you become with those Aces. While you may be right that one is not enough, and there may be a way to calculate the optimum number of opponents to face a pair of Aces, until someone convinces me with more than a gut feeling, I'll tend to stick with the general concept that less is more.
The question is not whether you would prefer more or less opponents with two aces. The question is whether you would prefer fewer opponents coming in for a DOUBLE BET rather than more opponents coming in for a single bet. In this case the answer is almost certainly fewer. Therefore it is almost cerainly correct to raise rather than slowplay aces. Your raise not only thins out the field (which by itself may not be preferable) but also makes the hands that do play, pay more. As for our opinion about two jacks, you must realize that it includes the fact that the hand is hard to play three or four handed when an overcard falls. It would be different if you were all in. Thus I am still fairly sure that what we said in HPFAP is right.
David,
Part of the reason to raise with these hands is that they lose much of their value in large multiway pots.
I'm not questioning the strategy of raising or not, but rather the second part of the sentence. Sure I'd prefer 2 double bet opponents to 4 single bet ones. But with pocket aces, I'd prefer 9 opponents coming in with double bets. And that's what Earl and many others don't understand.
Etienne
Etienne,
I think you are missing one large point that David mentioned with his earlier Post about JJ. If you are going to Play AA against a large number of opponents you want to be "All in". If you are playing against other good players you may get out-played durring the hand. You may incorrectly Fold the Best hand. I guess if you never plan to Fold AA, having 9 opponents may be Right.
CV
I don't think that David said that he wanted to be all in with AA! He was referring to JJ, if an overcard hit.
If you're all in with AA, then you can't bet the opposition out of the pot (or make them pay for staying). That will decrease your chances of winning. With the JJ, you don't know if you have the best hand, and you would like the chance to catch a jack on the turn or river.
For some reason I was thinking No-Limit with AA when I said you want to be all-in. That wouldn't apply to JJ though.
I still believe that you could get out played with AA if 9 opponents stayed in. What if the the Board makes a Flush possible. What if KKx comes on the Flop. This may or may not make someone a better hand than mine, but against 9 opponents, if its Bet and Raised I may be convinced to Fold the Best Hand.
I'll play AA against a small Field and Axs against a large Field any day.
CV
Sure, if play stopped before the flop, nine or 10 opponents facing a pair of Aces would be great. What most people don't understand is that not only are you no longer a favorite pre-flop, but whatever helps your Aces on the flop almost surely helps at least one of your 9 opponents. As noted by Brunson in Super/System, if you flop a set, the next card off the deck could make someone a straight. But realistically, what kind of hand are you trying to make with a pair of Aces? And facing a large field, you'd better make something. People limp in on the button with hands like 5-6 offsuit because of the implied odds they are getting with that large field -- it's your pair of Aces that is paying for the limpers to make that play.
I will concede one point, that is, over a very long time, perhaps a pair of Aces consistently facing a large field would show a marginal profit -- with a high variance. Mr. Sklansky's point about making the attempted limpers pay a double bet is part of the answer, but forcing the double bet while also thinning the field also improves your win.
I'd still be intriqued to see a mathematical model of optimum opponents to face with various hands.
earl wrote: Do you mean that someone else is the favorite or do you mean favorite against the field?
Even if you are no longer a favorite against the field, your e.v. can go up (I am assuming you're making it two bets), because the win amount is so much greater.
If an ace comes, how does that help any of your opponents? And even if does, so what, unless they get a miracle flop (straight/flush), they will not leapfrog over your top set.
I think the debate is kinda moot though, because just about everybody is saying that raising is the right thing to do....seems like the debate is on how many people you would like to see call....which (unless I'm mistaken), once you have raised, there's not much you can do about it.
The debate is not totally moot. If someone has raised before you you have the choice of just calling or re-raising. Just calling will encourage a larger field, and conceal the strength of your hand. Re-raising will tend to limit the size of the field, or make someone call three bets to play.
I think that re-raising is a better play overall, to limit the field. Most drawing hands must now fold, and the hands that call are likely big dogs (underpairs).
I agree that raising as often as possible with AA before the flop is prudent and + e.v.
It might be better not to cap the pot with AA though. Some players will refuse to cap with any holding, for deception purposes only. Others will only cap with very specific hands, giving information (whether desireable or not). I don't like to cap with AA particularly from early position (though I will always reraise) since I want to have check-raising available for me on the flop.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@planet.earthcom.net)
Posted on: Monday, 13 April 1998, at 2:36 p.m.
Posted by: T.P.
Posted on: Monday, 13 April 1998, at 3:25 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 April 1998, at 1:11 p.m.
Etienne,
I'll vote for the 9 players being the most profitable in the long run. Imo myth debunked. Yes you will lose more often against the field but over the long run you'll win more money imo. I am not advocating slow playing I'm just saying if I was on the button would I rather see 9 callers, 5 callers or 1 caller? I'd vote for 9 in the long run in limit hold'em.
Tom Haley
The question is not whether you would prefer more or less opponents with two aces. The question is whether you would prefer fewer opponents coming in for a DOUBLE BET rather than more opponents coming in for a single bet. In this case the answer is almost certainly fewer. Therefore it is almost cerainly correct to raise rather than slowplay aces. Your raise not only thins out the field (which by itself may not be preferable) but also makes the hands that do play, pay more. As for our opinion about two jacks, you must realize that it includes the fact that the hand is hard to play three or four handed when an overcard falls. It would be different if you were all in. Thus I am still fairly sure that what we said in HPFAP is right.
Earl,
The probability of winning a pot, as you say, decreases as the number of opponents increase. However, the expectation per hand increases because the extra amount won per additional player more than offsets the aforementioned decrease in probability.
It is indeed a simple simulation - I've done it. But how can I convince you ?
Etienne
Etienne wrote: "To his credit, Mason Malmuth said "...I suspect that two aces is a little better in big multiway pots..."
I don't remember writing this, and if I did I suspect that it is taken out or context or perhaps just misunderstood. I think I said, or meant to say that two aces in hold 'em are the best hand no matter what the situation, but I believe that they are most profitable against two or three opponents.
Mason,
Your post, dated 22nd March, is in the archives.
It went as follows:
"While I agree with many of the comments that George Rice makes, I suspect that two aces is a little better in big multiway pots, especially against players who play too many hands and go too far with their hands. It can win a huge pot when an ace flops, or one comes on one of the later streets. "
My adding '...' both before and after the quoted section, indicated that I was quoting only a portion.
Etienne
I think he was stating that they do better than I gave them credit for. He's also referring to a specific situation.
Against players who go too far with their hands AA will certainly do better multiway than it would otherwise. But I'm not sure it's still better overall to have many opponents. It may be a closer comparison, but I'd still prefer fewer opponents. The lower bankroll fluctuations is a plus too.
In a LIMIT game, perhaps you and Mason are closer to the optimum number than either myself or Etienne. It does appear that three opponents in LIMIT is more profitable -- long-term, with more variance -- than more or less opponents. On the other hand, those who prefer a mult-way pot in NL with a pair of Aces and a lot of money in front of them may want to visit a poker shrink.
Earl,
And/or your friendly loan officer.
Tom Haley
I just sold a client a new network; no loans needed today, but thanks for the offer. Are you going to make one of the 2+2 get-togethers?
I don't get it Earl. If you had AA in any Position in a No-Limit game. Wouldn't the best play be to push all your money in Pre-Flop. You have the best hand now, and its most likely going to stay the best hand. Why give your opponents a chance to get away from their hands after the Flop, or out-play you after the Flop? Maybe you can be my Shrink.
Thanks, Chris
Depending upon the amount of money in play as compared to the size of the blinds, you very often aren't playing to maximize your EV if you simply shove it all in every time you're dealt AA. Imagine a game like 5/10 blind NL HE with the average player having about $1,000. on the table. Why shove it in and win $15? You can put in a normal bring-in size raise (probably about $50 to go), and hope to get played with. If you end up with a lot of callers, that's too bad, as many other scenarios would've been easier to play correctly, but you're still the favorite. Plus, when you AND another player both flop a set, this other player is going to have a hard time not letting you get him and/or yourself all-in on the flop, as there are so many other hands you might hold besides AA.
Anyway, just shoving it all-in is usually NOT the maximum EV play, although you're correct in that you'll never get outplayed if you do this.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
My point was that you would prefer a single opponent in NL when you held a pair of Aces. Sure I want to get all my money in pre-flop with a pair of Aces.
If I have two aces, and I make it a double-bet....I am hoping that everybody calls, or there's another raise. I don't care that my odds of winning has now decreased (with so many people calling), because I'm comfortable with the increased e.v. Thus, it would seem to me, aces should be most profitable (assuming two-bets or more) with as many opponents as possible. Sure, JT can hit a straight, someone can hit a flush, anyone can hit two pair (or a set), but I'm still favored, and I can draw out too....catching third Ace, four flush on board with my ace.
I'm not playing to win as many pots as possible...I'm playing to get as much e.v. as possible.
The more opponents you have and the more bets they have put in, the higher your pre-flop expected value. The more opponents you have and the more bets you have put in, the harder it becomes to play the hand after the flop. As the pot becomes extremely large,you are forced to play aces thru to the end - sometimes it is the best hand and sometimes you improve to win, but your playing skills become less of a factor.
Another factor that makes aces much less profitable against many opponents is the near certainty that one or both of the remaining aces is against you, and your chance of flopping trips, which you often need to win, is severely diminished.
It is obvious from a practical point of view, that playing aces pre-flop against many opponents (or potential oppents)is easy - raise or reraise when it is your turn. Heads up or even in a 3 way pot, it may be correct to forego the last raise, in order to gain deception after the flop.
What Mason said was that you can win a big pot with AA against many players if you catch an ace of the flop or later. He didn't comment on the number of opponents that was optimal overall.
He was adding to my comments regarding why AA was better against fewer opponents. I left out situations where the AA won a big pot against many opponents. This is because it's not that common to make trips, and when you do, many times your opponents will be afraid of the ace on board.
I felt that about two opponents was optimal. Mason states that 2-3 may be optimal. I'll defer to his experience.
Texas Station casino in (North) Las Vegas started a 7-stud hi-lo game with no qualifier on the low hand (i.e., even a pair takes low on occasion) a couple weeks ago on Thursday. The game is structured as $.50 ante, $1 high card bring-in, $1 to go, $5 to raise, $5 to bet/raise on 4th street unless a door card paired, $10 to bet/raise on 5th and 6th street, and $10 or $20 on 7th street. The rake is quite reasonable: 5%, $2.50 max, no jackpot drop. The game is apparently a duplicate of the old game at the Sahara.
In order to get the game going again this Thursday night, April 16, around 7 pm, they'll need a few more players, perhaps a few of you. Once the game is well-established, maybe it will go every night.
The fish in this game have a much worse disadvantage than in just about any other poker game. For example, some were coming into the pot with hands like K(QJ) and then betting and raising on 5th street after catching a Q and a K, right into the face of a low that had half the pot locked up and a freeroll at the other half.
In case you want to play but don't have a clue about the proper strategy for this game, I'll give you a one word hint: Razz. (Not that I have much experience with this game myself.)
Texas Station casino is located at the intersection of Lake Meed Blvd and Rancho Blvd. Take Highway 95 north, exit onto Lake Meed Blvd (going to the right) and go a long ways (3 miles?) until you basically run right into it.
Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with Texas Station casino. I just would like to see the game going on a regular basis.
-Abdul
Doyle Brunson's Super System contains an extensive chapter on this game written by yours truly.
I thought Doyle wrote all the SS sections except for the one on Draw Poker (see p. 50, SS)?
Admit it now, you didn't really write (in bold italics, nonetheless) (p. 295):
So, play playable hands...and refuse to play unplayable hands.
(-: (-:
I dictated my ideas to a fellow named Alan Goldberg. The exact words, including those, were his.
I may be just a dumb ol country boy but those people who have stated the "more the merrier" with two aces simply don't have enough experience at this game.
If two people limp and I raise with two aces every cold call behind me sends me a little lower into my seat.
Two aces play best against a few opponents (2 from experience). Ev schmee-vee. Those who disagree ( especially those who say they want NINE opponents) simply haven't played this game long enough to know any better. I don't give a damn what your calculators say.
Not only do I agree, but I'd like get almost every hand I can Heads-up, except for obvious hands that you play in late pos. when there are many players already in. I think it was David S who said that "you want to win the big pots right away," in other words even if you are a big favorite, it is probably better to try to get the money as soon as possible, to avoid a miracle draw etc. Especially in high variance games like stud and Hldm.
AL wrote: "Especially in high variance games like stud and Hldm."
What poker games have lower variance (and are still played to any significant extent in casinos)?
I guess the way I stated that was incorrect. I wasn't comparing, just stating that they are high variance.I don't think most people realize how big the swings can be, or how much short term luck there really is. Thus the attitude towards trying to get people into pots with certain hands that I feel is wrong. Multiway is a heart ache ready to happen.
JimmyR and Al Raiseya,
Fair enough. A few questions:
1) How much more likely is a pocket pair of Aces to win against 3 players as opposed to 9?
2) How much money will the pocket pair of aces win when there are 3 players against it? E.g say you raise with pocket aces, get 3 callers and both blinds fold you'll start off with 7.5 small bets not counting your own($10 bets in a $10-20 game). Then how much extra action will you get on average when the aces win?
3) How much money will the aces win when their are 9 players against it. Say your on the button everyone is in for 2 bets including the blinds. Therefore you'll start out with 18 small bets (not counting your own) in the pot when you raise. Then how much extra action will they get on average when the aces win?
4) How much money will you lose against 3 players on average when the aces get cracked ?
5) How much money will you lose against 9 players on average when the aces get cracked ?
If we can agree on all these questions, then it should be pretty straight forward to calculate which is better. For instance is a pocket pair of aces 2 times as likely to win against 3 players as it is against 9? Is a pocket pair of aces 3 times as likely to win against 3 other players as it is against 9 players? The hot and cold sims give these ratios but I'll agree that hot and cold sims (all hands played to the showdown) aren't realistic poker. So its kind of a judgement call. Although I think everyone agrees that they lose more often against 9 players but how much more?
Similarly questions 2) and 3)are a matter of judgement. I think it is fair to say that after the flop the Aces will win more money when they win against 9 opponents as opposed to 3 opponents. How much more is the question? Three times as much? Two times as much?
Question 4)and 5) are relevant as well and again a matter of judgement. Will you lose more against 3 players when your aces lose than you will against 9 players? Imo it could be argued both ways.
Lets see if we can agree on some numbers but maybe you don't feel these numbers are relevant or it is worth the trouble.
Tom Haley
Tom,
Thanks for the support. Have you found the time yet to fully familiarize yourself with TTH2? It's not all that hard to set up this problem. (Abdul, did you take your laptop to Texas Station ??!!)
The key lies in David's statement : "Your raise not only thins out the field (which by itself may not be preferable) but also makes the hands that you play, pay more." The 7 words in parentheses would normally not have been necessary, and, coming from David, is all that I'm looking for.
As for the other posters, no-one has yet shown or proven that there exists an optimal number of opponents to play against. Statements like "I believe..." or "my experience is..." have no meaning. The probability of getting AA is about 1/221, or about 1 in every 7 hours of play. To compare how AA would fare against n opponents (n = 1 to 9), we would need a sample of at least 1,000 for each n, a total of 9,000. That's about 63,000 playing hours or just over 7 playing years.
Etienne
Well, actually you can get an idea a lot faster than that. Even if your playing hours is correct, you also see results when someone else has pocket aces. In a full game, divide that number by 10. That's 6,300 hours, or a little over three years for someone who plays 2000 hours a year. Adjust for the fact that you will not always know when someone has aces, perhaps 6 calander years is more like it.
We have a lot of guys around who have been playing hold'em professionally for over 6 years. One in particular is named Mason Malmuth. Mason expressed the opinion that 2 to 3 players may be optimal. Given his credentials, I'll accept that as close to correct, until someone proves otherwise. Or until someone with similar credentials says otherwise.
My experience is that fewer is better.
George,
If you have read my posts carefully (and I know you do because of your corrections and comments, both appreciated), you should understand the following points:
(1) My hold'em poker playing experience can be measured in hours or days. Everyone on this Forum, without exception, would kill me in a game. As a result, I have never participated in any thread dealing with how to play a particular hand.
(2) To study the theory of a particular game/activity, I carefully select literature, software and more recently, internet discussion groups and other web sites.
(3) I accept nothing at face value. Because it's in print, doesn't make it right. As far as it is possible, I check what can be checked. I write my own software to replace my dependence on existing commercial software, which I also don't fully trust.
(4) If I find what I think is a mistake, discrepancy or contradiction, I will raise the matter with other colleagues. In the majority of cases, it will turn out to be due to a misunderstanding or miscalculation on my part. This has never deterred my curiosity, nor has it been a cause of any embarassment on my part.
So if I think that aces don't "lose much of their value in large multiway pots" because of my computations, then there exists 3 possibilities:
(a) The problem can be solved quantitatively and I'm wrong.
(b) The problem can be solved quantitatively and I'm right.
(c) The problem cannot be solved quantitatively, and it's an experience call, in which case I'm definitely wrong.
Mason Malmuth is eminently qualified to answer which of the above 3 possibilities applies in this case.
Etienne
I believe that solving the problem the way we solved the ultimate problem would be too difficult for mere mortals. If it could be done, it would probably take months to do.
And as I previously stated, I think that writing a simulation would be too difficult also. I too don't trust computer simulations that are currently out there. Poker is just too complicated. And if it was done, the decision process should be programed by a poker expert, to have the simulation act realistically.
Because of these reasons, I think that experience is the best judge of this question. That's why I'll defer to Mason's comments.
My experience, only a few years, seems to be in line with Mason's comments. All the more reason to believe that fewer is better.
A couple of weeks ago when this all started I tried to explain why this works out that way. It was the post that Mason was responding to when he made his comment about aces winning a big pot against many opponents when a third ace comes. My explanation, although simplified, might help some understand my reasoning.
By the way, with all the thought and effort you put in, you should have no problem destroying most games in short order. Good luck
George writes:
>>I believe that solving the problem the way we solved the ultimate problem would be too difficult for mere mortals. If it could be done, it would probably take months to do.<<
This to me is an interesting comment. I'm not even sure you could define the problem well enough to solve it the same way. Which begs the question how would you define it?
>>And as I previously stated, I think that writing a simulation would be too difficult also. I too don't trust computer simulations that are currently out there. Poker is just too complicated. And if it was done, the decision process should be programed by a poker expert, to have the simulation act realistically.<<
Another good point. I would call this healthy skepticism. It would nice if there were benchmarks that you could judge the simulation's results by. There are very simple situations where you can get the simulation output and compare it to what you know is right. It would be benificial to have benchmarks for more complicated situations if that is possible. Maybe their are some but I'm not aware of any.
>>Because of these reasons, I think that experience is the best judge of this question. That's why I'll defer to Mason's comments.<<
I agree with you for the most part. It's still worthwhile to debate the pros and cons imo. It gets people to think.
>>My experience, only a few years, seems to be in line with Mason's comments. All the more reason to believe that fewer is better.
A couple of weeks ago when this all started I tried to explain why this works out that way. It was the post that Mason was responding to when he made his comment about aces winning a big pot against many opponents when a third ace comes. My explanation, although simplified, might help some understand my reasoning.
By the way, with all the thought and effort you put in, you should have no problem destroying most games in short order. Good luck <<
I think that participating in the forum makes one think harder about their ideas, believes, and strategies. I think it does help your game to participate in the forum. I think Etienne's comments about not taking anything at face value is an excellent way to approach poker strategy.
Tom,
You wrote:
There are very simple situations where you can get the simulation output and compare it to what you know is right. It would be benificial to have benchmarks for more complicated situations if that is possible.
I wanted to get the feel of the distribution of starting hands in a normal (if there is such a thing) 10 handed game, the criterion for including a hand being that it is in Group 1 to 5. The following is the result of 1 million rounds:
No of Group---------------Frequency
1 to 5 hands-----------------%
in round
------0-----------------------12.0
------1-----------------------30.3
------2-----------------------31.9
------3-----------------------18.1
------4------------------------6.2
------5------------------------1.3
------6------------------------0.2
------7------------------------0.0 (160 occurrences)
------8------------------------0.0 (13-----"-------)
------9------------------------0.0 (0------"-------)
-----10------------------------0.0 (0------"-------)
If you played for a lifetime, you wouldn't see a round where all 10 players had Group 1-5 starting hands. Not even 9 players, and you may as well include 8 and 7 players. Put another way, a serious player is not likely to be involved in a large multiway pot with his pocket aces, unless he's in a wild, loose, low-limit game, or ... what's the weather like in California these days ?
Etienne
Tom:
You are going to have to ask the calculator boys those questions because I really just don't care.
Whether you have three players vs. nine or nine vs. three when the moon is in pluto is beside the point.
I'll tell you HOW I DO. The more players against me the more often I lose and the less players against me the more often I win. I can't put it any simpler than that.
Jimmy R wrote I'll tell you HOW I DO. The more players against me the more often I lose and the less players against me the more often I win. I can't put it any simpler than that.
No one's arguying against that...that should be the way it happens....but when you have more players, and you do win, you win a gigantic pot (and you have the highest prob of winning than anyone else)...and when you have less players, you'll win more often, but smaller pot....thats the argument, whether the bigger pot is worthwhile for a smaller chance of winning. I think it is, you may not...but that's the argument, not what you mentioned.
Looking for gigantic pots is in my opinion the search of a in- experienced player. Large pots will come your way when you least expect it, but if you play passively(such as with AA) to try to get people in the pot before the flop is simply suicide. Although AA might win a gigantic pot now and then, the loses that you suffer inbetween those times will put you on tilt and cause wide swings. Why choose the rougher of an already very rough road? Narrow the field with AA
Again, I've never said to play passively with AA....raise it up, again and again before the flop. But the point is not to narrow the field, but to make them pay.
T.P. said," The point is not to narrow the field but too make them pay." So, if UTG raises and you are next to act, would you not raise because someone else is "making them pay", or would re-raisee knowing that this re-raise would surely narrow the field substantially? This is assuming you had AA. So if you raise in this spot, are you telling me that you are trying to make them pay??? It seems to me that a re-raise or a first raise, the first objective is to narrow the field. The by product is that you are making any players that call pay more. This on the surface sounds a little silly, but when you are dealing with other hands that don't quite play themselves the way AA or KK tend to, this concept becomes important, as you will want to narrow the field with lesser hands.
I'm sorry if I'm being unclear. I will raise and reraise with Aces before the flop almost exclusively (even on the button if everybody folds to me).
In my opinion a raise or re-raise is not to narrow the field, its to make the pay....I am happier if they call once I've made it three-bets than if they fold. When they call, they are simply giving me positive expectancy....positive expectancy is not the by-product...it is the main product. But again, I think this is moot....I would raise and re-raise with AA, and you would too, but I would hope everybody calls, and you would hope few (2-3) people call...but once we've both raised, there's nothing we can do about the number of callers....maybe you're raising to narrow the field, but I'm raising in the hopes they call so they can give me more MOOLA.
JimmyR wrote: "I'll tell you HOW I DO. The more players against me the more often I lose and the less players against me the more often I win. I can't put it any simpler than that."
This statement applies equally to every single starting hand in HE. As such, it's instructional value here is extremely limited.
As others have pointed out, the issue is not what percentage of pots you win, but the average amount of profit per hand played.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Tom, the MOST important thing I learned in all the Calculus courses I've had is that there is a hard way to do the math and an easy way. WHY do the hard way?!? Keep It Simple Sweetheart!
Cheryle Haley PS: Aces ARE better three handed and I didn't need three pages of calculations to figure it out, nor did I need 3D calculus and this IS the FINAL WORD!
YOU ARE WRONG. ACES IS BEST 10 handed.....given that you have raised as much as possible. Limping in will cost you...but you want to pray they call you after you have raised...in fact, you want to pray someone else will reraise so you can cap it and everybody calls.
T.P. wrote:
"YOU ARE WRONG. ACES IS BEST 10 handed.....given that you have raised as much as possible. Limping in will cost you...but you want to pray they call you after you have raised...in fact, you want to pray someone else will reraise so you can cap it and everybody calls."
Actually, this is an interesting post. I agree with T.P. that if you could put all your money in before the flop you would like everyone to call all the bets. Actually, I'm not sure if this is exactly what T.P. meant, but its clear to me that in no-limit poker this is where aces would be the most profitable.
Unfortunately, I don't know of anyplace that spreads no-limit any more. Thus we are back to the limit model, and I don't agree with this logic for limit since you (1) can't get all your money in, and (2) will have additional action on the later streets.
Mason,
A few things. First of all I agree with you 100% regarding your no-limit scenario. Upon further review I looked at the 10 handed problem and made some qualitative judgments. Against 9 players, if you could only get in 1 raise pre-flop, you would win less in the long run than you would against 3 players if you only got in 1 raise against 3 players. However, and this would be another qualitative judgment, I think you should still raise against 9 players because I feel it is better to get the maximum amount of money in pre-flop in limit hold’em with pocket Aces in almost all situations. I was thinking that there might be some exceptions in head up situations. Still raising and re-raising (playing fast) with pocket Aces couldn’t be very wrong. If you could get in 3 bets with Aces in the 10 handed situation and the 4 handed situation I came to the conclusion that Aces would be more profitable against 9 other players than against 3 other players.
As far as the cost incurred when you lose with Aces. I figured that it would be about the same, in the long run, whether you were against 3 players or 9 players. It would be interesting to read what other players think. I was thinking that it may be easier to read the situation against 9 players and thus make a good laydown. However, against 9 players you might be inclined to stay in longer and pay off because the pot is a bigger. As far as extra action for the times you do win with Aces. In the long run I came to the opinion that the action you expect from 9 opponents after the flop as opposed to 3 players after the flop is certainly more but not enough to offset the cost incurred for the additional times you lose. Again these are all qualitative judgments and it would be interesting to read other opinions. Arguments supported by quantitative data would be interesting as well.
As far as the optimum number of players I haven’t gone that far with it because I’m not sure that it matters that much in playing the hand. I think that Al Raiseya did post an interesting problem. If someone raises under the gun (UTG) should you re-raise or just call if your one seat to the left of the UTG player. My experience is to re-raise because you’ll still get people that will call three bets cold or cap it. But if you got 2 cold callers plus the blind would that be better than being heads up for 3 bets? Anyway this is all a long winded way of saying that I think that JimmyR is right about 3 players for 2 bets as opposed to 9 players for 2 bets. I think that T.P. is right in that you want to play the Aces as fast as possible in almost all situations. In the situations that it may not be right it certainly isn’t a big mistake to play them fast.
Tom Haley
An exception could be made first in from the button. Now, you want the big blind to play against your pocket aces, so a smooth call may be best. I'd still raise to represent a steal if the big blind is someone I'm making money stealing from anyway.
Mason wrote: I was not assuming no-limit situation. I agree that (1) you can't get all your money in , and (2) there will be more action later on....but I think getting more + ev by others calling before the flop is worth it to give up the disadvantage of (2). However, I can't prove it mathematically though.
I give up on this conversation. This will also be my final word. (I would like to hear other people's 'final words' also...seems like time to move on, though)
Aces are best 10 handed, because you have the most positive expectancy that way. You should raise, and re-raise with Aces (before the flop) and rarely limp in. Once you have raised with AA, you are hoping that someone will reraise so you can reraise and put more money in there...and hope everybody calls....because for every dollar they put in the pot, a bigger piece of that is yours than anyone elses. But this cannot be controlled, all you can do is raise, and then hope everybody calls or there's another raise...but that you cannot control.
Thanks for interesting arguments...its been lively and fun....next topic.
A colleague told me you can download a program called "GAMBIT" from the home page of Professor McKelvey at Caltech. This program solves numerically for an equilibrium in extensive form games, e.g., the Ultimate Problem.
What is the url for the page?
Berj,
The program can be found at GAMBIT.
Steve, thanks for the info.
Etienne
I have found myself in the following situation many times. I'm not so sure that I'm making the correct decision. What is the right play?
Here is the situation. $15-30 hold'em. You hold a small pair on the button. Deuces or treys. Everyone folds to you. What do you do? I believe that calling is the worst option, but is raising the best option?
What if you are called and you miss the flop, what do you do? Bet and fold if you get raised? Check the flop and fold on the turn if there is a bet and you don't improve? Can you even call a bet on the flop?
Berj
I am not trying to be a wise guy, but if you don't have a basic game plan here with the situation you mentioned, you might consider playing lower limit until you get more experience. I'll let someone else give you advice on how to play the button, but also, you might want to read S&M's book HFAP.
Depends on how well the blinds *defend* after the flop. If you were bet into on a raggedy flop and you didn't improve, then: If you would fold, you should have folded before the flop. I would raise pre-flop, and continue to play the small unimproved pair fast against just ONE of the blinds. This is the same way I would follow through with any steal from late position. If the blinds play more agressively than I do, I'll have to consider mucking 22 or 33 before the flop even on the button. This is not a static decision, the type of players who are in the blinds matter greatly.
I just got back from a nice Easter Weekend with the family and read 31 messages (and still counting) in two threads from Holdem players arguing about how many opponents they want when they start off with two Aces.
Can any stud players relate to this argument?
When I start off with two Aces in stud I want one opponent...end of story.
eh....in stud, I would want 7 opponents calling my raise....same as hold'em...lower chance of winning, but higher e.v.
Less is more. A pair of Aces has a hard enough time standing up against a single opponent at stud. What hold-em players who tackle stud quite often fail to appreciate is that their stud opponents have much more opportunity to unilaterally improve than they do in hold-em. A pair of Aces versus an underpair is not as big a favorite as it is in hold-em. Furthermore, if you let several opponents (or even one) cheaply get onto a four-flush or four-straight, then you really have problems. One opponent is probably the optimum, unless you have the courage to dump an unimproved pair of Aces late in the hand (when you fail to improve while all your opponents do). If that is the case, then perhaps slowplaying a *pocket* pair of Aces, trying to hit trips, might be a good play. But even trips are vulnerable in stud, so this is, once again, not the optimal strategy play that it might be in hold-em.
I have to disagree with Jim in stud when i have to aces especially pocket aces I want as many players as possible, this allows for the biggest possible pot. And if I catch another ace, just a pair I am ussally sitting good.
In stud, when you can take a pair of aces against a smaller pair, your opponent is generally playing wrong if he knew what you had. However, if other players now enter the pot with hands like three flushes, live three straights, a pair and a straight flush kicker, they are now correct to do so.
In general, if you have two aces, and you knew that additional opponents will come into the pot with the wrong type of hands you would want them to do so. (A wrong type of hand is also dependent on how live the cards are -- both yours and his -- and on how much it costs to get in.) However, my experience is that most regular players will frequently come into the pot with the right type of hands. This is especially true if you don't raise (or reraise). Thus I believe that "the more the better" is not good advice.
Solid, but tricky player raises from early position, all fold to me.
I am in the BB with KK. I reraise, he calls.
The flop comes Ac Jd 3h - I bet, he raises.
How should the hand be played from this point?
Is there a good guide line to use to avoid taking a hand too far?
It all depends on your opponent. Do you think they would raise you without at least a pair of Aces. Is your opponent tricky enough to try this play. Against the typical opponent I would throw my Kings away.
CV
Note that if you now reraise and the tricky player calls, you don't know if your KK is the best. If you call the raise, and bet out on the turn, then: A) If called, check/call the river B) If raised, release it right there. This player must know that you will have to bet out with legitimate hands with or without an ace, and is trying to see if you have a hand like AK, AQ, or better. This means the tricky player does not necessarily have an ace either for the raise on the flop to be correct. If you do decide to call the raise (sometimes), you're playing loose hoping for a total blank or the third king on the turn.
Does anyone know about good books on Backgammon?
Thanks, Chris
Paul Magriel wrote what I think is the most comprehensive book on backgammon. Published by Optimum in 1976. Title is "Backgammon".
ISBN 0-88890-047-3
Playboy also published a pretty good book on backgammon as well. Sorry but I don't have a copy so can't give the details.
I think both books are currently out of print although I heard a rumour that Magriel was working on another edition. Your best route would probably be to check at www.amazon.com.
I purchased a new printing of Magriel's book about a year ago. It is published by X-22.
Paul Magriel's Backgammon book has been reissued. I think Gamblers Book Store has it for $45. It's considered the definitive classic book on Backgammon--it's the equivalent of Doyle's Super/System for Poker. Like Super/System, it's also somewhat dated (1976).
I also highly recommend these two books by Bill Robertie (2 time World Champion): Backgammon for Winners and Backgammon for Serious Players.
Of Course, get JellyFish, it's a shareware Backgammon program that utilizes Neural Network Technology. It can play at a World Class level on level 7. Also you should bookmark the following Web page for ALL the backgammon info and links you might need...
The Web address failed to show up in my post. The backgammon web link is http://www.gammon.com
I would add to the chorus for Magriel and Robertie (also a master chessplayer). If you are just taking up the game, my advice would be to remember that the dice are much more perverse than the river card is in poker. You can steam at backgammon, too! Avoid this at all costs. Also, learn to use the cube properly. I suspect that it is better to be mediocre with the men and good with the cube than vice versa.
So does this mean that there are actually Backgammon Pros? Why haven't I ever heard of them?
CV
Just go to any backgammon club and you'll find some.
There are also tournaments held around the globe, some for big bucks. But most money is made playing individuals.
One reason you don't hear much about backgammon pros is that many of them have taken up poker because there is more money to be made. Three excellent backgammon players who you might have heard of are Dan Harrington, Eric Seidel, and Bob Ciafonne. All more recognized for their poker accomplishments.
I'm not sure, but I think that most backgammon tournaments are played "underground" as not to attract the attention of the IRS. Poker tournaments are run by casinos, which like to advertise that fact. Hence, the IRS now has their hand in poker tournaments. Thank the existence of Card Player for that. Of course, all that exposure makes for bigger prizes and more players.
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned Robertie's "Advanced Backgammon" Volumes I & II, surely the most instructive backgammon books written since Magriel. Danny Kleinman has also written many wonderful books on the subject.
Most of the games I play in are Loose so this wouldn't be a realistic situation for me, but....
Say you are in the Small or Big Blind with a Pocket Pair from 77 to TT and a Tight Player Raises in Early Positon and Drives everyone out of the Pot up to you. You suspect this Player would raise with AA, KK, QQ, AK, AQ. Now, is it right to call the Raise, and if no High cards come, try to push your Medium pair for Value? I would be very tempted to call the raise and if no High cards came on the Flop, try to bet into the Player or Check Raise the Player.
CV
Against a tough opponent who will make your post flop decisions difficult I would definately fold here. Against a predictable opponent who will only bet his overcards once and then check the turn I would call.
I pretty much agree with your thinking Chris - at least out of the big blind.
The reason I nearly always call out of the big blind in such a situation with these pairs is this: If you are up against a predictable player (such as described above by Greg), then if you don't flop a set, but small cards flop, you can push your pair as you describe. You can get away from it easily enough when the opponent's action tells you he has a big pair. (Note that with the hands you specifed for the other player, there are 18 card combinations involving a big pair, and 32 involving just high cards.)
When you are up against a tougher, more aggressive player who will play back at you, then it seems that the call is worth it based almost soley on the odds of flopping a set. You are getting a little better than 3-1 on your call. With implied odds you need to win about 4 1/2 more bets from this player to make the call worthwhile based only on the possibility of a set. I believe that with an aggressive opponent these odds are there. On occasions when he/she has something like A-K and flops a pair while you flop a set, you will often collect in the neighborhood of an additional 8 or 9 units, giving you a total of 11-1 or 12-1 on your call. I could be wrong but I think that's enough to make up for the rare set over set loss.
For example, you call with 8-8, the flop comes K-8-6. You check-raise this tough player. He or she, holding A-K, reraises you. You make it four bets and, except for some very tough players, the opponent will probably call you down.
Add to this the reality that even against tough opponents, if you play fairly well yourself, you will take the pot sometimes *without* flopping a set, and the call begins to look very correct.
I would reraise from the small blind as long as I'm going to play the pocket pair anyway. Try to get the big blind out, and hope I'm up against two big unpaired cards. There are now alot of flops I can come right out betting on which will cause some confusion with the early raiser. Again, I hope I can get a hand like two overcards to fold if I decide to play in the first place.
We have had a lot of discussion as to the number of opponets that you would like to have with a pair of aces when playing hold 'em. One thing I am sure that everyone will agree with is that we do not want to raise the blind when holding aces and only win the blinds. So this leads to the question, when should you just limp in with aces.
All comments are welcome.
Say your in Early position. Nobody has come in the Pot yet, you have a Tight Image, and the game is Tight or Short Handed. Now Limping might be right especially if you think the Pot might be Raised behind you. Now you can make the Pot Three Bets if somebody made it 2 bets after you came in. If its not raised by the time the bet gets to the BB you still can Check raise the Flop or slow play if the Flop looks favorable.
CV
If I'm on the button, and everybody folds to me, I will usually raise with Aces, because the blinds (at least in California) will have no problem calling someone raising from the button. I would be sad if they folded, but usually, they one or both will play. Now, if I thought both were really tight and would fold many hands, I would limp in...but that's pretty rare in Cal.
Playing limit hold-em I can't think of a time when I just limped in with two aces in the last 15 years. (Other than the blinds)
Oh I have tried it but the results were usually disastrous.
Besides in most cases they would of called a raise anyway.
The one's that wouldn't of called a raise are often the ones that beat you.
One other thing, I don't always raise or reraise with two aces when a lot of players have already called. Without going into the why's and wherefore's I think this is the correct play more often than not.
Don't bother criticizing me because I am going to Vegas tomorrow to make my fortune.
I hope I break all of you.
In general at 10-20 and above you should never limp. In games like 4-8 or 6-12 where most of the time a raise doesn't mean anything, then limping might be okay. But even then, if raising takes one person out, who might of called, then I think it's worth it. You'll win the most money with AA and just getting the blinds is part of it. You can only control so much. If I'm in a game where it is just so tight that your afraid to even get one player let alone the nine players that have been discussed earlier, then it's time for me to find a new game. That I do have control over. AA is a premium hand, but your main money from a session can come from rags in the big blind, when some FOOL, let you see the flop for free cause he was being slick slow playing Aces.
I think that there is a contradiction here. Al wrote:
"In games like 4-8 or 6-12 where most of the time a raise doesn't mean anything, then limping might be okay."
But if this is the case, wouldn't your raise force twice as much money into the pot.
I was going to make the same point that Mason did. When a raise doesn't deter callers, its insane not to pump up the pot with the best start there is. On the other hand, in a really tight game, where almost never are there more than 3 players seeing the flop, you would mostly limp in, except when there are already 2 callers (and frequently 1), I would think. In that kind of game you might get a raise behind you and now the opportunity to re-raise with the ideal number of participants.
Mason and Bob, Your right, I was trying to think of any possible situation where limping would be correct. My first priority is trying to narrow the field, and that's where my thoughts were. if you read on, I said that still you should probably raise if it prevented even one person from coming in. I myself, do not limp with AA.
But I would not be raising to get more money in the pot. If I know there is a possibility that many players will call, I'm raising to hopefully keep a couple of them out. If I knew that this would simply not work , then I would call! Why, you say ? Well this is just theoretical because I would always raise, but if everyone was going to call regardless , I would call because now I'm not a favorite, I'm an underdog to win the pot with everyone in, so why would I build a pot for someone else. While I'm thinking about this, I would probably not raise if there were seven to eight callers and I was in the big blind.
Al wrote: I would call because now I'm not a favorite, I'm an underdog to win the pot with everyone in
You are the favorite over anyone else....maybe you only have a 20% of winning, but no one is better than you. The Atlanta Braves are a 11-5 favorite to win the World Series, they are an underdog to win against the field, but they are the favorite. That's the way I look at it.
Also, think of it this way. With 8 opponents you are now getting the proper odds to Flop a Set or Better. So, Raising and Re-Raising would be correct.
CV
The interesting and valuable part of this forum is that you cannot come up with an answer to a simple question without bringing in all of the factors that make poker worthwhile. Do I raise with Ace's before the flop? It depends on my opponents. How much experience do they have? Do I know them? Will they call or fold? If I call hoping to reraise, will I get the chance? If I three bet, how many will fold? Do I have have the blinds to survive? Am I looking to build a pot I can confiscate at the flop? Am I attempting to run over the table?
My experience is that Ace's are likely to lose if you go beyond the flop, unless your play has reduced your number of opponents to three or less. If you have let people tag along, because you didn't raise, and the table went to the flop with you, someone will have a big draw. Bad news.
T.P., Loveya babe, but your baseball analogy doesn't get it done .There is no poker season. C.V.- I always raise em, my point was theoretical. Roger- I'm in total agreement with ya. I'm ready to move on, I hope you guys and dolls are too.
Thanks. I am trying to fix two broken closet systems and keep up with the thread here. So I am running back and forth to my computer. I posted my first significant win in two and one half months last night. The ideas expressed in this forum are literally worth their weight in gold. It is interesting to see the difference between the analytical approaches and the experience approaches. If you ever play in San Diego, let me know.
AL,
You wrote : "I would call because now I'm not a favorite, I am an underdog to win the pot with everyone in".
T.P. is right regarding you still being the favorite, but why take his word for it - from the Glossary of Poker Terms in "The Theory of Poker" by David Sklansky we have :
"Favorite: In poker, before all the cards are out, a hand that has the best chance of winning."
"Underdog: In poker, before all the cards are out, a hand that does not have the best chance of winning."
So if you have AA, you're still the favorite no matter how many are in.
Etienne
>>if everyone was going to call regardless , I would call because now I'm not a favorite, I'm an underdog to win the pot with everyone in, so why would I build a pot for someone else. While I'm thinking about this, I would probably not raise if there were seven to eight callers and I was in the big blind.<<
If AA is not the preflop favorite against a big field, then what hand is the favorite?
If my raising AA preflop into a big field simply builds a pot for someone else, what hand is this "someone else" holding?
Put another way, if you were the big blind and there were 7-8 callers, what cards would you like to look down and see?
I'd like to see JTs in the big blind. This doesn't mean to imply that AA is anything but the favorite.
Why would you like to hold JTs in the big blind instead of AA? I can think of several possible arguments, none of which (or any combination of which) would cause me to opt for JTs.
1. You don't believe AA is favored over JTs. Your post is slightly ambiguous as to whether you believe AA is the favorite hand in a multi-way pot. I believe it is, and I think the general consensus here is that AA is the favorite.
2. You don't feel you can muck AA quickly enough when it becomes reasonably apparent that you should do so, therefore AA ends up costing you a lot of money when it loses. I'm sure most of us (myself included) are guilty of this to a certain degree. Still, I believe I am capable of folding AA fairly quickly when their chances of winning aren't justified enough by the pot odds (or implied odds) to continue playing them. Thus, they don't cost me an overly undue amount when they lose. Your mileage, of course, might vary.
3. You feel JTs will win bigger multi-way pots than AA when they hit, and this extra money more than offsets AA's greater probability of winning. I'm probably willing to concede that pots won with JTs will, on average, be larger than pots won with AA. But I seriously doubt JTs wins often enough that it's total profit over 10,000 hands will exceed the total profit of AA.
Yes, it's #3. It may be a very close call in terms of net money won. I'm going to have to take AA a few bets farther than I would really like to with certain flops that don't fit. Whereas JTs is fit or fold, there are many more flops that help enough to continue. With multiway action, AA has to try to eliminate most of the other hands, the extra bets on the flop (when AA loses or has to fold on a later street) needed to attempt this offset the greater frequency of winners I'll have over JTs. AA is always the favorite over any other starting hand regardless of the number of players, in terms of chances of winning the pot. However, money won minus money lost with AA is not necessarily greater than money won minus money lost with JTs given that there will be seven or more players staying for the flop. I also don't muck AA other than reluctantly on the flop; I'm usually not certain if I'm in a negative situation until the turn. I believe that Hold'em poker has enough of these paradoxes which are counterintuitive to provide the widest range of skill levels among its active participants than any other form of poker.
I guess we've had differing experiences with AA vs. JTs in multi-way pots. AA almost certainly has netted me a bigger profit than JTs, even if I include just multi-way hands. Perhaps this hasn't been true with you. Keep in mind, however, that our memories tend to be rather selective. The times our AA gets cracked usually will make a bigger impression on us than the times our AA wins a medium-sized pot. The times we throw away JTs on the flop often are not remembered at all.
When I get Turbo Texas Hold'em 2.0, this will be one of the simulations I'll have to run. (Not that it will be conclusive proof.)
By the way, I assume you raise with JTs from the big blind in multi-way pots.
I'll raise with more hands than most players from the big blind when it's multiway, JTs included but not always. From what I hear, TTH2 can do more than cold simulations where all players stay until the river. If that is true, and the software has decent strategy, I would like to hear about these results. I've played too many hours to dwell on hands that get cracked off, yet I'm inclined to agree with your comments on memories. I don't have any proof of my opinion, but I'm still not convinced by your arguement either. Let's see how close the computer player's net profits are with these two hands under conditions where all seven players have something worthwhile to stay and see the flop with (if such a sim is possible).
Mitch and Andrew,
Some of your later posts don't appear on my screen, and I wouldn't have noticed them had my friend next door not called to tell me they were intruding into his Solitaire.
Mitch wrote : I'm probably willing to concede that pots won with JTs will, on average, be larger than pots won with AA.
Definitely not true according to Turbo.
Andrew wrote : However, money won minus money lost with AA is not necessarily greater than money won minus money lost with JTs given that there will be seven or more players staying for the flop.
Most definitely not true according to Turbo.
Mitch wrote : When I get TTH2, this will be one of the simulations I'll have to run. (Not that it will be conclusive proof).
That's true (the sentence in parentheses).
Etienne
Did you run the TTH2 sims to include only those times when at least eight players saw the flop? The bone of contention here is how well AA and JTs do in MULTI-WAY pots. Also, what type of field was included in your sim: loose, average, or tight?
If the sim involved only multi-way pots, then I'm a bit surprised (although not all that much) that the average pot size won by JTs is smaller than the average pot size won by AA. Note: this is the average size of the pots that are won, not "total winnings" / "total hands played".
Against a large field, I'm not going to be pushing my AA very hard unless an ace appears on the board (preferably on the flop). And since I raised preflop, that ace usually will kill a lot of my action (at least when I'm playing against semi-aware opponents). The tested TTH2 strategy, however, might differ from mine.
On the other hand, I'm not surprised that the sim indicated the overall profit of AA was greater than that of JTs. I'm reasonably certain this also holds true in the real-life games in which I play, although I don't have the conclusive data or mathematical proof.
Mitch,
Without going into too much detail, the sim was for 8 average to tight players seeing the flop. I agree with your definition of average pot size. Oh, one other thing, if you happen to answer this post, I'll be forced to buy a larger screen :-)
Etienne
Did these other simulated players see the flop with random holdings, or was it possible to program for starting cards which would see the flop if strong enough based on position? I'm not impressed with simulations which allow for multiple players but which assign any two cards to these players, and then require them to see the flop (or worse, continue through the showdown). Under those conditions it is no surprise that AA showed a greater net than JTs.
Andrew,
Did these other simulated players see the flop with random holdings, or was it possible to program for starting cards which would see the flop if strong enough based on position?
The latter. But no matter what you do, you have to compromise somewhere. This artificial situation (strong holdings for 8 players) is unlikely to occur in real life, so perhaps the real test is one against random holdings being forced to see (just) the flop.
As I stated in my previous replies, you have every right to treat these results with more than a grain of salt.
Etienne
I agree that if you know you're only going to win the blinds then raising AA is probably wrong. However, if you have established a reputation for stealing the blinds to the point that they have begun to defend more strongly, then raising is usually better.
Trick is knowing when...as usual.
As Mason suggests, my main goal when I get aces is trying to make some money - if I can raise and get a couple of callers, I'll surely do it. If that looks doubtful, I might well limp, knowing I may get cracked, but willing to take the chance. I'd rather play a big pot with my aces (ideally against one or two opponents), knowing that a fair percentage of the time I'll get them cracked, but also knowing that the money won overall will more than cover those losing cases. I probably should note that the games I usually frequent (30-60 and 50-100) are not the same as "no foldem" low limit games, where limping is probably crazy.
To me the main consideration in deciding when to limp and when to raise is the people involved and their playing style - who has the blinds, and who is left to act after me if I'm in early position.
If one or both of the blinds will generally call at least one raise, or if there are other habitual callers of at least one raise left to act, I'll raise from any position.
The five main examples of when I might limp are:
(a) If I'm not on the button, and one of the non-blinds left to act has the habit of raising any limper trying to get headup, I might limp hoping he does this so I can re-raise.
(b) If I see someone behind me loading up or especially attentive, I might limp, again hoping for a re-raise opportunity.
(c) If the blinds won't normally defend without a real hand, and I'm in last position, I might limp, hoping one of the blinds make a little something on the flop (or that one has enough to raise preflop). This is taking a chance of course, but I may make some real money if they flop something like top pair. One thing that would especially prompt this course would be a blind who doesn't necessarily defend with trash, but who does like to push top pair or one who likes to bluff once involved in the hand.
(d) If I'm in the big blind with the aces and it is folded around to the small blind who just calls, I might limp, again hoping he makes a little something but not enough to crack the aces. Of course if I think he'll call a raise, I'll usually go ahead and raise - as I said, it depends on the person and how he is playing.
(e) If I'm the small blind, and the big blind won't defend with marginal hands, again I might just call, hoping he has or flops a little something (but not too much). And again, I'd be more apt to do this if the big blind usually bulls one flopped pair or likes to bluff.
A real key in any limping strategy, I think, is being able to recognize when the aces have probably been cracked and losing as little as possible after that point.
Mason This is a repost of the question I asked in my "Tight Agressive" response to you earlier. Thought I should add it to this thread...and add some followup questions.
I thought that you raise AA to either a) limit players, locking in your AA value or b) get players to add money when they have the worst of it.
However, getting a lot of callers also puts your AA in more danger. If you only limp in (i'll assume you said in late position, since I can't remember offhand what you wrote), you potentially have even MORE callers and more counterfeit possibilities (the so-called "bad beats").
Doesn't limping AA give you more downside (more callers to beat) without gaining the benefit from raising of more pot money, when they have the worst of it pre-flop? Seems to me that limping doesn't pay off as a general practice...and is only hurting your chances without corresponding ROA (return on action). Occasionally for confusion, yes; regular practice, no??? (ADDITIONAL) Your original question only specified raising the blinds (everyone else folded), but the discussion seems to be in general how many callers for AA. I guess my questions are: 1) Do you really care before the flop? 2) How much quicker will you throw away the AA with 5 callers than 2 callers, post-flop?
#2 sounds obviously silly (depends on board, players and action), but I ask it because I'm curious as to the degree that you devalue AA for each player who calls. For example, if you feel that your limped AA is 80% best hand with two callers, would it be 70% for 3, 50% for 5, 10% for 8?
If you raised, I assume whatever percentage value you place on your AA would show more variance. Example- 70% with 2, 40% with 3, 10% with 5, etc (unless you have a loose-stupid table)
And, for my last question: What is the point at which your callers/ROI ratio is ideal for limping with AA (and maybe KK, regardless of position? 3) If you have only 2 callers (blinds or others), should you EVER raise AA, or wait for additional investments (and unfortunately more risk)? What about 3, 4, etc... 4) Does #3 depend more on the callers being the blinds, or other seats? 4) If you have 5+ callers, should you generally NOT raise pre-flop (ROA won't force out enough callers pre-flop to make ROI worth it, compared to draw-out losses)
I believe I'm asking questions that are too situation-specific to be answered here, but maybe I'm wrong?
While I respect Mason's opinions a great deal, I'm not immediately convinced that with aces, one shouldn't be content to raise and win the blinds.
I think occasionally calling with AA with a lot of callers to mix it up a bit is a fine idea. With fewer callers, I'd generally prefer to win the money now.
How much of a lead does one have to have before one can be comfortable slowing down and giving the field a chance to catch up. Sure, if one flops the nut flush or a full house, slowing down makes a lot of sense, but it's my expectation that AA isn't enough of a favorite over a random field to want to let this happen.
If someone can demonstrate a convincing argument why this is wrong, I'd be very interested in hearing it.
Nick,
You wrote:
(1)While I respect Mason's opinions a great deal, I'm not immediately convinced that with aces, one shouldn't be content to raise and win the blinds.
(2)If someone can demonstrate a convincing argument why this is wrong, I'd be very interested in hearing it.
Addressing (2) first, I've long since given up trying to convince people of anything. I'll just give my opinion.
With AA, you prefer winning 1.5 bets immediately, so it follows that you'd also prefer winning 1.5 bets immediately with every hand that you raised with (since AA is the strongest). Still confining myself, as Mason did, to non-blind positions only, and being first in, utopia for you would therefore be raising as much as possible, with no one calling and the blinds folding. Clearly you wouldn't be able to do this with every hand, so there'd be a minimum hand (say X) with which you'd raise first in, otherwise you'd fold. (Once again, for simplicity, we'll ignore position, as X will vary with position). Your desired EV, say E, by definition must be less than 1.5 bets, because if someone calls your raise or reraises, then whether you continue or not, this is not your preferred scenario.
At this stage, I'll just say that with an expectation of less than 1.5 small bets for your best hands (and not having considered yet the blind positions with their associated freight), you are not playing very optimally. Before I continue, I would like to hear your opinions till now.
Etienne
Your message is an interesting line of inquiry, but it doesn't completely reflect my thinking on this matter. Of course with my strongest hands I'd like to see the most action. If I have AA I'm happy with any number of callers because my hand is the favorite against any number of players.
My point of view is that not raising with AA preflop is essentially slow playing. I generally don't like to slow play hands unless I have a monster. Giving someone a chance to catch up seems a bigger error than not extracting an extra bet on a later round.
The addage that AA wins small pots or loses big ones, in my experience, has a grain of truth to it. Given a ragged flop against a BB that can just check, I have no idea where this person stands. If he nails the flop, he can make me pay and I have very little defense. On the other hand, he can let go of his pot quite cheaply. Should I give him that chance?
Raising the pot will either build a bigger pot or let me win it right there. I'd prefer having people call my raise, but I think I'd rather win the small one with a raise than let people in cheaply most of the time.
Nick,
Basically, I agree with everything you said.
Etienne
I have a question about the rules of poker. Am I allowed to intentionally expose expose my hand? An example of this might be in no limit (a tournament since that is the only no-limit within my reach): if I have pocket aces on the button with many callers in and I my all-in raise isn't enough by itself to knock many people out am I allowed to rasie all in and expose my aces to encourage people to fold?
NN NN OOOO0 NNN NN OOO OO0 NNNN NN OOO OOO NN NN NN OOO OOO NN NN NN OOO OOO NN NN NN OOO OOO NN NN NN OOO OOO NN NN NN OOO OOO NN NN NN OOO OOO NN NNNN OOO OOO NN NNN OOO OOO NN NN OOOOO
This is definitely a no-no in a tournament. In a tournament, as opposed to a ring game, a player's interest is not restricted to merely the chips in his stack and in the pot. Every chip in the tournament affects his potential finish. Therefor, any action that compromises the every-man-for-himself ethos affects the integrity of the entire tournament. Accidentally exposing your hand in a tournament usually kills it. Intentionally exposing risks the wrath of hell itself.
If you are heads up in a tournament (the ones that I know of) then exposing your hand will not kill it. Even if more than one opponent was in, if they were all-in, then your hand wouldn't be dead.
The important issue is whether someone could be hurt by your actions. When heads-up, only you can be hurt. Turn your cards over at your own risk.
Some players like to turn their cards over to see how their opponent will react. Most good player won't react, so this usually doesn't work.
I've done this myself when playing in games where we joke around a bit. Again, only when I can't effect the equity of other players. Usually I fold anyway. I'd only call if the player gave me some indication that he was beat. I mean a reaction that was not contrived.
Realistically, to do this you have to be last to act and be contemplating calling or folding. Although I saw someone flop a set with a big pre-flop pot and turn over his cards after he bet. He had been drawn out on a number of times that night and wanted the pot right there. He was the brother of one of the owners of a private club where they had a rule (never enforced outside of a tournament) that should have caused his hand to be dead. I knew this, knew that his brother wouldn't rule agaist him, so I made a big stink (in jest) about it. The player went ballistic when I insisted that his hand be declared dead. His brother knew I was busting his chops and let him "sweat it" while he contemplated his ruling. Then the brother allowed the hand to play, pointing out that that rule was not enforced outside of tournament play.
However, I wouldn't recommend doing it unless you're sure your hand won't be declared dead. Your brother might not be there to rule in your favor. ;-)
Actually someone who flips over their hand is giving you a great chance to run over them if the flop allows you to represent, or if you have, a very good hand. What they are saying, outside of tournaments, is that they are unsure of the hand, themselves, or their bankroll. I will bet or raise, unless of course I am certain the other player cannot be run out. Or, if I am just dead., like the example you gave. Who is going to fold trips?
This is one of those situations where if you check you're beat, if you call, you're beat, so what choice do you have but to try to steal the pot? Especially if the hand shown is mediochre.
The person who turned over his hand wasn't acting rationally. He was frustrated over the times he had been run down that evening. He left himself open, but got away with it. I certainly wouldn't recommend it in that situation.
The times I've done it, as well as seen it, is in a tournament and I've been bet into (usually putting me all-in if I call). My opponent can not gain from the information because he has already acted. An interesting point is that every time I did it I folded anyway. But I can't even recommend doing that in tough company. Your opponents now know you're capable of a tough lay-down, and might be encouraged to bluff at you in the future. If you're looking to encourage bluffs, then it's a different story.
Careful there boys!
I have played in many tournaments where the rule is an exposed hand is dead unless there is no action left (everyone is either folded or all-in).
Thus, if it's down to heads-up play, and both players have chips left to bet/call, then the exposure of a hand kills that hand.
There is good reason for this. First, it allows the chaser to get away from his hand when he might have busted out. If he busts out, everyone else in the tournament is better off, thus, even though the pot is heads-up, exposing a hand still affects everyone else still in the tournament. Second, it avoids friends "saving" one another. If I get heads-up with a buddy and show him my nut or near-nut hand, I have saved him the risk of busting out, or having his stack severely crippled, on this hand (which we know hurts everyone but me still in the tournament).
BTW, in live action games, I have never heard anyone complain because someone exposed their hand, unless it cost them money immediately. Scenario: pot-limit HE, flop is 3 hearts, 1 player goes all-in on the flop and is called in 2 places, no side pot yet. On the turn, caller 1 bets, and caller 2 is contemplating calling. At this point, all-in player exposes his hand, the nut flush. Upon seeing this, caller 2 exposes 2-pair as he folds. Caller 1 is furious, because all-in player has cost him a lot of money, because caller 1 had top set, and had caller 2 drawing dead. As far as his own interests go, all-in player was improving his chances of winning by eliminating a competitor, but this is clearly unfair to caller 2's interest. Anyway, especially if heads-up, you will rarely get a complaint about exposing your hand before the action is complete. However, learn the rules at the club you're in before trying this.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
George M. Rice, Jr. writes:
>>If you are heads up in a tournament (the ones that I know of) then exposing your hand will not kill it. Even if more than one opponent was in, if they were all-in, then your hand wouldn't be dead.
The important issue is whether someone could be hurt by your actions. When heads-up, only you can be hurt. Turn your cards over at your own risk. <<
This is false. If a player makes a decision to fold and avoids going bust because you've exposed yourself, everyone else in the tournament suffers because this is a player who would definitively finished below them had you not exposed yourself. That is why you may not do it. In a ring game, it wouldn't have mattered because every pot is (mostly) a discrete event. But in a tournament, this is not so, thus the rule and my original response. Everytime I've seen an exposure with action still pending, I've seen this rule enforced.
JG (who worked hard to avoid name-dropping GM and PWH in the above paragraph)
I haven't considered turning over my hand with another player yet to act. The times I've either seen it or done it, was when the player who turned over his cards was last to act. And he would be either calling, or folding anyway. Obviously, we're talking last card here.
I agree that if it effects other players by possibly effecting the opponent's later decisions, then the hand should be dead. However, if I'm last, and there's no more betting after I call, then it's okay. And I say that knowing that if I gain information from the way my opponent reacts to seeing my hand, that will effect everyone in the tourney is some way. But so will anything I do. I don't think turning over your hand in that situation is crossing any lines. But do make sure you're not violating any rules if you do it.
By the way, you usually only see this rule enforced because someone turned over their hand after being all in, as would normally be done at the final table of a major tournament like the World Series. They thought that it didn't matter, only to be rudely awakened to the fact that a third player was yet to act. Ouch! Double ouch if they had the best hand!
In the original post, the querist posed turning over his hand while raising with aces on the button to "encourage people to fold."
In such a situation, his hand should always be dead with more than one opponent. Heads-up in a tournament raises some legit questions if done in that manner. But why in the world would you do it under those circumstances?
It could conceivably be right to expose your aces. Example: There are three players left at the $10,000 buy in World Series of Poker. You have $70,000. Your opponents have 10,000 and 3,000,000. If the short stack folds you gain by moving in and showing the aces to the large stack.
Thank you, David. I am glad I have finally found someone who doesn't think that there is never a reason to expose your hand. I will take it from the large number of posts here that it is illegal in most tournaments.
I assume the reasoning here is that you have very little chance of winning the tournament, so doubling up is not worth that much to you. Whereas, finishing 2nd instead of 3rd is worth a lot. Winning the blinds and antes, or whatever was in the pot, increases your chances of out-lasting the small stack.
With $3 Million, the big stack has no need to call the bet, as he probably wants to see the small stack eliminated before taking on the middle stack. Also, allowing the middle stack to usually double-up only reduces the big stack's expectation more than folding.
However, does the little stack have a legitimate beef? Will Jack declare the aces a dead hand? I don't think so, but I'm not sure exactly how the rule reads.
That reminds me of the time I was at the final table in the $10,000 World Series finale. It was down to Stu Ungar, Doyle Bunson, Johnny Chan and myself. Everybody goes all-in and I'm sitting there with pocket aces in the big blind. . . (Keep dreaming George)
George,
To answer your question...Yes Jack WILL declare the aces hand dead in that situation. This has been the rule at the World Series now for two years and it IS enforced...and, imho, rightly so.
This is my last message for a while ... going to Las Vegas tomorrow to seek my fortune....and have some fun
Regards
Jim Mogal
SPECIAL TWO PLUS TWO PUBLISHING ANNOUNCEMENTS
I am happy to announce the following two events:
Saturday, April 25th, 12noon until 10pm we will have an Open House in a suite at the Golden Nugget. Stop by for some refreshments; meet everyone at Two Plus Two, as well as fellow forum contributors. Call the Nugget the morning of the 25that 385-7111 and ask for Two Plus Two Publishing's suite number.
Thursday, April 30, beginning at 7pm David, Mason, and Ray will hold an informal seminar on poker and gambling at: Borders Books & Music 2323 S. Decatur Las Vegas, Nevada 89102 (702) 258-0999 The cross street is Sahara Ave.
We hope to see you all at one or both of these events.
Jessica and David,
The following was posted on Stanford Wong's BJ21 site, on the 'GAMES not BJ' page, on April 14th, and titled "Sklansky VP game??"
I was in a local software store today and was reading the back of the box on a Caesar's Palace VP program. It said that the program included a new game from Sklansky which was closer to table poker than current VP games. There was little detail, but the indication was that this game was not in casinos yet, but soon would be. Anyone seen or heard of it?
This would be a great chance for a free plug on a very popular site, and someone from '2+2' should answer. (I gladly would, but know very little about the subject).
Etienne
I obviously live on the wrong coast....
By the way, what was the inspiration for the name 2+2 Publishing? And that logo- is a pair of 2's equal to a 4 in certain situations? (ha!)
Let's say you have A3...the flop is 338 ...three people ahead of you. Blind bets, two callers. Should you raise now? or wait til the turn and raise when its a big bet?
My current thinking is to wait til the turn, but of course, I'm not that comfortable with that solution, since I'm asking the forum to discuss it. Also, does this mean that if someone raises on the flop that they probably have a good hand, but not a monster? (like A8 or TT)? If that's the case, it seems if they raise on the flop, you might be able to outplay them on the turn by check-raising or raising (depending on your position) the flop raiser. ...since you don't know they don't have a monster, and you might.
The simplest answer to your question would be to raise on the turn. But you have to remember to mix up your play.
Although if the board is still rainbow on the turn, you should consider calling instead of raising. If you raise, you might chase out the players. Even someone with an 8. Raise the river if they bet into you again. If the river is checked to you, then you can bet and probably get called by someone holding an 8.
If you are sure that someone has a pocket pair higher than the 8, then raise on the flop and make him think that all you have is an 8. He's going to call you down.
Berj
With a pair showing an opponet who raises on the flop has most likely got two pair and is trolling to see if he or she is facing trips. You can slow play and trap, usually. The farther the hand goes the less likely two pair will hold up. So you are a lock unless....
My vote is to raise. Since you are acting last, and everyone has already put in one bet, most if not all of them will call your raise. You want to make the drawing hands pay for the chance of staying in the pot. You didn't say anything about the suits of the flop; if the 8 is the same suit as one of the 3's then someone could be staying in on a flush draw. Also, someone could have an 8 in the hole and would beat you if an 8 came on the turn or river. Make 'em pay to stay in!
If the turn doesn't help anyone they may all check to you; then when you bet they may all drop, but I wouldn't be surprised if one person called you just to see the river.
AK
Perhaps I don't play with the same cut of moron that the rest of you have at your tables, but if somebody were to bet that flop and I were to simply call, then I might as well put a big sign around my neck which says "Trips ... or better". What can I be calling with? There is no draw. Maybe I have an overpair or an eight, but (especially with callers in between) I am in a position where I must raise or fold. The only way I am going to get bet into on the turn is if I am now behind or, maybe, somebody has a big pocket pair. I might as well pump it now and lead the rest of the way.
Now, if I were in that fabled giant ATM which is California, then I might hold off for a round.
Eric
I agree that Cali has an ATM-esque quality -- but where are the best places to play in LA? I am heading out there....
Eric said it in my opinion. also you have bottom set so you don't have a lock. Play it fast and win it as soon as possible.
Against typical players it is slightly better to raise on the flop when three or more players have already called. The three half bets you are likely to pick up is more than the expected gain on fourth st. unless you are playing with idiots.
Raise on the flop, It sounds like the two callers have over cards. They may call a half on the flop but, not a full bet on the turn. I like to raise on the flop because I like to play differant hands the same way. If I have A8 I raise, if I have a over pair I raise, If I have a set I raise, If I have a flush draw i raise [in good position]. Let them guess what I have. This makes it harder for them to read you and it show's you giving action sometimes when you don't have the nut's. It takes sucker to call someone who only bets the nut's
Late post to this thread. I agree with David's response completely. I'm looking for action from the big pocket pair who can't give it up, and the case three if it's out there. Raising on the flop doesn't mean I have at least trips (until I cap any reraise). I prefer not to let two overcards develop backdoor flush chances, so I give the early position bettor an opportunity to reraise and shut out the pretenders. If it was three bets before the flop, then any overcard to the board on the turn might make someone full. All the more reason to play as fast as possible on the flop. An eight on the turn/river or runner-runner pair (other than deuces), and suddenly the trip threes are likely second best. Too many negative situations when you slow down on the flop with a beatable hand; you may not even be allowed to raise on the turn but assuming you do, you'll only get action from the case three or a hand that beats you.
Hi Forum,
A tangential question...
I'm pretty new to casino poker. I've done my share of homework, and I'm a bit on the plus side after about 50 hrs of 2-4 Hold'em in AC.
I was on the opposite side of the table from a hand like the one you describe: I was holding QQ under the gun, flop was 33Q! (I think there were 7 in for one bet to see the flop.) I knew this was a rare chance, and I was so thrown by it that I think I seriously missplayed the hand. Big blind bet, I was next and just called. Two or three more callers. The button, who is a regular player and does pretty well, raised. BB just called, so I re-raised. Mistake? The callers in between dropped, the button and BB called me to the river. Button had A3 and BB didn't show his cards.
I should have held off raising until the more expensive bets, right? Drat...
Anyway, the moral of the story was that the button got a lot of info out of me when he raised on the flop...
JM
JM,
You got a hand that I dream about getting when the pot is seven-handed. In this situation you're right about thinking that you made a mistake about raising on the flop. You have a monster hand that is practically unbeatable and you want as many callers as possible.
However, I understand your reaction as you posted that you have approximately 50 hours of playing time under your belt. With more experience you will be able to smooth-call without giving your opponents too much information about your hand.
Unfortunately, these types of hands don't come up all that often.
Good luck, Theo
Howdy Forum,
I must admit that right now I have no Life. I'm basicly in a holding pattern until I can sell my house, and get the Hell out of Boise. So, in the mean time, I'm working my butt off at Micron Tech., engulfing myself in Poker, and Posting on the Forum. I'm not complaining. Actually, I'm pretty happy about the whole situation. Life is good.
But that isn't the reason I'm posting. I've noticed that we have a certain group of people who allways post on the Forum. Its not very many. There has got to be more intelligent people out there who read the Forum. I wonder why they never Post? Are they afraid that once their Ideas and Dreams are out for the World to see they might lose them. Does it take guts to post on this Forum. Maybe. But the only way we really know if our Ideas and Dreams are valuable is if we set them up for the World to see. This is quite a test, and it takes courage to do. But I think the Risk is well worth the Reward. I know if my thoughts hold up here, they are bound to hold up anywhere in the World. Think about it.
CV
Chris: I think there are a lot of us that enjoy reading the various thoughts and perspectives of players that range in skill from the novice who is scared to death to get into a 1-3 HE or Stud game to the experts like Mason, David, Ray, etc. We value all the opinions expressed herein and try to retain what we read and apply it at the table the next time we play.
I know reading the Forum and articles in Card Player Magazine plus the many books by David Sklansky and Mason I have read really helps my play.
I find out many times that a situation I was in maybe last night is discussed on the forum and I find out whether I played it correctly or not.
Most of us are semi-comfortable in low limit games, and I know I am a better tournament player from reading the various posts. As far a submitting questions or statements, I know that I wouldn't feel comfortable trying to describe the various conditions that applied during the hand and I may come out looking like a fool. This is the main reason I don't post to the forum. I can't speak for the others, but it stands to reason that this may be a factor.
Hope this helps you understand why there are only a few regulars that keep the thing going.
I know there are many others out there. Our March hit report showed an average of 3,100 hits per day. We had a couple of 5,700 hit days in March. The majority of the traffic goes right for the forum. We're all grateful to the group of regulars who keep the discussion going, and keep it at a high level.
One reason is because it is just too time consuming. I probably spend from 40 to 50 minutes everyday just reading the posts.
I don't post because I don't want everybody knowing any of my damn secrets! You people who tell everything for nothing should be taken out and shot! It took me YEARS to learn most of what I know and now all you have to do is go to a news group and find out the answer to some of the most difficult questions in poker. Not only that you receive insights and ideas on topics you probably never thought very much about. I wish all of you geniuses would just put a lid on it once in a while. This game is too damn tough as it is without giving away the booty at every available opportunity! Make em suffer like I had to!
Heh, heh. Don't worry, Bob, there are plenty of wrong answers mixed in with the right ones here (imho) to keep everyone guessing. What is even more important is that reading a correct idea is no assurance of understanding it and being able to apply it correctly. Poker decisions are so situation-dependent that even the slightest change in the conditions can lead to a dramatic change in the correct strategy (and most posts don't describe the conditions in sufficient detail anyway). Finally, I can assure you that the person who benefits the most from a post is the person who posted, because (s)he is the one that did the hardest thinking. It is a generally accepted fact in education circles that a passive reader learns far less than someone who is actively engaged in the debate.
Tom Weideman
Besides which, Bob, most people just glancing at these messages probably don't apply enough energy to learning what they teach anyway...
..and think of all the new fish that spawn every year....
I am currently a student at NAU I am also a member of our coed cheerleading team. I am highly considering transfering to UNR where I can get a full ride.
First question is there anywhere in Reno where you dont have to be 21 to camble because i am only 19 and will not turn 21 until half way through me first yeat at UNR.
Second what is the quality of the games and players in reno esp. in the low to mid limit stud games. I have been playing at Gila River Casino in AZ and doing quite well in the 1-3 stud games
Thanks for any input
David Zart "4 hours from heaven"
Hi! I'm one of the many who often go to this forum to read the messages. I'm only a beginning poker player and although I'm quite serious I don't have a lot of knowledge and experience yet. This is why I don't feel the forum would really benefit much from my thoughts. Anyway, I bought some of mr. Sklansky and mr. Malmuth's books recently and hope to make progression quickly so that I could add some good thoughts you.
Just curious:
Why are Hold 'em tables typically 10-handed in LV and nine-handed in CA?
Why in LV when the SB leaves is there just a BB but in CA they have 2 BB's?
Why if you move N seats to your left in CA you wait out N-1 hands, but in LV if you move left over N<3 players you get dealt in immediately?
How did this dichotomy arise? Hold 'em came to CA in 1987, when it was legalized, as I understand it. Did not Las Vegas have standardized Hold 'em customs by then, or did the current LV standards arise later than 1987?
Oh yes, and why do people in LV fold on the flop to a bet, whereas in CA it's apparently illegal?
(-:
I think I have good answers to some of these, but not all.
I have no good idea why CA in 9 handed vs. 10 handed. Perhaps with 9 handed folks win more pots, which keeps folks in the game, while with 10 handed, pots are larger so the drop from the rake tends to be higher. Just a guess.
The reason for the SB/BB differences is certainly because in many, if not most CA cardrooms the drop is paid for by the button. If the small blind leaves, unless there are two big blinds, there is no way for there to be a collection and still make sure everyone pays each blind only once.
The reason for the seat moving rules is similar, paying the drop is a significant penalty. If I move half way around the table after being under the gun, over the session I've just saved, in some sense, half of one drop payment. Where the pot is raked, this is less of an issue.
In CA cardrooms where there is no collection, but a time charge, things are probably done the same way as in the lower limit games, which account for most, if not all of the club's revenue, for consistency.
If I'm not mistaken, the CA gaming reservations prohibit raking the pot LV style. The rest is a predictable consequence, IMHO.
I think I can answer most of these questions since I have been around for a while.
"Why are Hold 'em tables typically 10-handed in LV and nine-handed in CA?"
I'm not sure of this but in 1987 I remember asking John Sutton who was then running the games at The Bike if we could play 10 handed instead of nine handed. (My thinking was that new players would play especially bad up front and I wanted to give them an extra chance to be in early position.) I remember him telling me that the games would be nine handed, but I don't remember him giving me a reason.
"Why in LV when the SB leaves is there just a BB but in CA they have 2 BB's?"
This is a hold over from the three blind lowball draw game where the blinds always moved forward. LV has always used the dead button rule which the old lowball players who were trying out hold 'em in 1987 resisted.
"Why if you move N seats to your left in CA you wait out N-1 hands, but in LV if you move left over N<3 players you get dealt in immediately? "
The California rule is a hold over from the old lowball draw games. In Las Vegas you have always been allowed to move two seats.
"How did this dichotomy arise? Hold 'em came to CA in 1987, when it was legalized, as I understand it. Did not Las Vegas have standardized Hold 'em customs by then, or did the current LV standards arise later than 1987? "
Las Vegas had standard customs and most of them are still in force today. Again most of the differences have to do with holding over in CA the old lowball draw rules.
"Oh yes, and why do people in LV fold on the flop to a bet, whereas in CA it's apparently illegal?"
I give up.
Mason writes:
>(My thinking was that new players would play especially
>bad up front and I wanted to give them an extra chance to
>be in early position.)
That's probably correct, and also part of the reason why 10-handed Hold'em is unpopular in California.
In California, the losers are mostly people with jobs. It pays to reduce their loss rate in order to keep them in the game longer. If their loss rate is sufficiently small, they'll stay in the game indefinitely.
In Nevada, the losers are mostly tourists who come to Las Vegas expecting to lose $X in a weekend. They drop their money, go home, and are replaced by another tourist.
I've noticed that in the bigger games in Nevada, Hold'em is often nine handed. Perhaps this serves to reduce the a stronger players edge so they don't bust the weaker players too quickly (like the larger ante in stud).
What I'd really like to know is the answer to the folding on the flop question...
JP wrote: "Oh yes, and why do people in LV fold on the flop to a bet, whereas in CA it's apparently illegal?"
This is an interesting question. Judging by my own playing style, this is a huge mistake made by most players (or, conversely, a huge mistake made by me).
I still play around with Turbo HE by Wilson, and it provides a graphical display of how often each player is seeing the flop, turn, river, and showdown. I stay to see the flop about 20% of the time in that game, but only see the turn about 11%. Thus, I fold on the flop almost half the time. This seems pretty reasonable to me. However, as JP comments, it doesn't work this way in the live games in California. Especially in lower limit games, it seems like most players have a hard time folding after the flop. My personal estimate would be that, on average, less than 25% of the players fold on the flop in low limit games, and less than about 35% in middle limit games (I have no experience above 20-40).
However, many of these players who call a bet on the flop, then fold on the turn. In my play, once I stay to see the turn card, I am almost always in to see the river card, and frequently the showdown. This is because if I call or bet the flop, I've either got a good made hand (top pair or better), or a good draw (flush or straight, such that there are almost always pot odds to draw for the turn and river cards).
I'm pretty sure that my style is more profitable than the average player's style in this respect, but I'd love to hear why not if you disagree.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
As to why tables are typically 9 handed in CA, it's a drop consideration. Fewer players means more hands/hour, and fewer players/game means more games in a large club. The drop in CA clubs is fixed/hand (at most clubs). One local club that charges on the half/hour deals ten handed tables. In fact, several clubs that charge on the half/hour for their "top drawer" games deal those games ten handed. Again, it's an economic consideration. More players paying for the half/hour at a table means more money for the club.
As for the handling of the blinds when someone leaves or busts, in CA it's all over the map. Some clubs give a break if the small blind busts or leaves. Some keep the button moving (no dead button), but charge trailing make-up blinds. Some clubs either freeze the button, or have a dead button, and allow a dead small blind. The most common rule in CA these days seems to be always move the button, and charge trailing make-up blinds. As to why there are so many different variations in the rules, I'm not sure.
As for moving over players and waiting or posting, again it varies a lot in CA clubs. Probably, it partially depends on what the owner is used to when they open the club, and sometimes the rules change because people continually abuse the rule and others complain about it. There seems to be much less abuse of lenient rules about posting and moving in Nevada clubs than in CA clubs.
When Hold'em came to CA in 1987, there were a number of considerations. Up to that point, lowball was the only game. Clubs were used to 8 handed tables. Putting in big 10 handed tables didn't fit everyone's floorplan. CA clubs cannot drop a percentage of the pot, so collections had to be handled differently than Nevada. Some of the rules evolve over time.
Do you agree, or disagree?
On average: 20/40 Holdem will be profitable for a player, who enjoys as little, as a one percent edge, in a ten-handed setting.
On average: 10/20 Holdem will be unprofitable for a player, who enjoys as little, as a one percent edge, in a ten-handed setting.
I'm not really familiar with the gambling terms. What exactly do you mean by an x percent 'edge'?
If I understand you right, it would depend on the size of the pots and the drop. If the pots are on average $300, and they're dropping $3, and you have a 1% edge on the money you put in, you're a break even player. As the pots are less likely to be 100 times the drop at lower limits, you'd be long-term loser.
I'm not sure how you go about computing your %-edge, but whatever it is, I bet the good players have significantly more than 1% in a 20-40 game. If you're breaking even in the 20-40 tho, you should be able to beat the 10-20. Sort of a sliding peter principle.
So if I understand you correctly. You'd be breaking even when your %-edge is equal to the %-rake, for example. Am I right?
I'm not sure about the question, but the rake percentage for 20-40 is much better than 10-20 here in Calif. 10-20 seems to be a transitional game where you have players trying to move up, players moving down etc. It's a bankroll crossroads, so you find some tough players there. seems like a contradiction, but I think 20-40 overall is a better.
Hello all! While all of the 2+2 books that I've read (5 and counting...)generally advocate creating a tight agressive image as a player, I was wondering if that should change based on the type of game you are playing in (loose agressive, tight agressive, loose passive, tight passive)?
Does it ever make sense to set up a loose agressive image early in the session, then attempt to take advantage of that later and make other players call you when they have the worst of it? And what are the limits on that, if true?
Recent example- I was playing 2-4 HE, game that was loose and a mix of passive/agressive. I then set the stage early with a 9th seat raise pre-flop (pair of 7's). Many callers, then flop contained Q33. I raised an 3rd seat bet that many had called. I also bet on the turn's rag, as everyone checked, and then, when an A hit the river, I bet as a bluff (unfortunately, seat 3 didn't follow his obvious facial reaction and fold his lone 3- it came close..)
I also raised and bet another hand soon after this, in order to set my image properly. Later on, I raised 2 hands in a row from early-late and late-middle position: KK, then AJs. No one folded in either case after my raise. I ended up throwing away the KK on the river when the flush fell, got lucky (?) on the AJ when a river J let me split the pot. I had slowed down betting on both, as I didn't really get any of the flop for AJ and the KK started looking at flush/straight
I didn't feel that bad about the plays at the time, but since I had a losing session (and I was too loose at other times), I was wondering if I'd made a mistake in setting my loose image in the first place (possibly affecting my play; CERTAINLY affecting the play/calling of others.)
The previous trip, I had the same image set early, was paid off with lock hands several times (a winning session, about equal to this latest losing session).
So, in conclusion- I accept that loose-agressive will have more variance. However, does it have too much to be effectively set up as my image, at a loose passive/agressive table? Should I abandon this as a general practice? Thanks!
I think the hosts have written some substantive essays on image. Here's my thoughts in 200 words.
Without having been in your game, I'll say with some certainty that a loose image is a fine one to have for that limit.
The image you cultivate should be based on pushing opponents to continue to make the errors they are most prone to make. If you're in a game with lots of loose players (probably the case in 2-4), you don't want to do anything that might coach them into folding more often. You want them to continue to stray away from correct general strategy by calling too frequently. Thus I like your popping the 7s. The "downside" is that your KK is going to get cracked more often, but that's OK, the hands you do convert will be significantly more profitable.
If you're in a game that is "too tight," you want to cultivate an even tighter image to facilitate more opportunities to steal. If you "only steal" the blinds with AA, by all means show it, let 'em know they want to fold when you're in the pot. Then, try not to get caught on your steals. Agonize on every fold where you get check raised on the river.
Evaluate your opponents play and decide the appropriate image for the game. Remember, the idea is to push them away from optimal play.
Jim Geary wrote:
"The image you cultivate should be based on pushing pponents to continue to make the errors they are most prone to make."
I disagree. If the errors that they are making are only small mistakes, you may be much better off to push them the other way and try to get them to make a small number of very costly errors. For example, if you are against opponents who call too much and the pots are big, why do you want to have them continue to call too much -- only a small error -- where if you got them to fold, perhaps only occasionally, you might be much better off.
I'm not convinced that way over playing a less than premium hand is the answer. I do play "premium" hands more aggressively on average than most players though. In general it seems that "tight/very aggressive", works well in most games, but I think it's more important to try to use your opponents style to your advantage, such as raising or re-raising a weak tight player with those sevens instead of a whole crowd, or going after the blinds when you notice a player only seems to call in the blinds with above average hands etc.
While Jim is correct to say it is good to cultivate bad tendencies in your opponents, I think another factor is of more importance:
In general, no one at a 2-4 TH table cares about or has the slightest clue about 'your image'. Almost any play you make which costs you EV in the short run is not going to have a longer-run +EV effect, because your opponents don't have any clue. They will continue to play in the same way they have always played: 'Do I have any prayer of winning this pot? Then call.'
The type of manipulation you describe can work in higher limit games, and I have certainly seen it pulled off successfully there.
JP and Jim, Thanks for the input (wow, that was quick!) However, since you both expressed opposite opinions, my important question still stands- tight agressive or loose agressive? JP, I've found that I can affect even the no-foldem-holdem types that play low limits (I'm still learning, so I won't tryto move up in levels yet until I win more consistantly than I lose at the lower levels), depending on how crazy they are. Maybe not enough to profitably affecting my EV on a regular basis as I'd like... which is why I'm questioning the practice, Jim. PS- It's certainly tough in poker to decide if you're improving or not (if you're losing money as you are 'learning'), and if the tables are all over the place...but it sure is fun to try!!!
I think it is true generally that in this type of game your opponents don't pay much attention to your style, but I have often followed the course you describe. Sometimes you can then play tight forever and the action remains, at other times you need to reinforce the 'wild' image periodically because the action dries up as you continually show down good hands. In the first case, it was a mistake for both of us to establish a loose image in the first place, because we just lost money establishing an image we didn't need.
In a 2-4 game your image is unimportant. It's an easy game to beat. Play solid starting hands, fit or fold on the flop. Bet and raise with your very strong hands.
Forget about trying to manipulate your opponents.In most cases any moves you make on them will not be understood.The biggest hurdle you have to overcome is the rake.
Jason wrote: "Play solid starting hands, fit or fold on the flop."
This needs to be addressed a little more. First, in small limit games, or just any game where many people are playing too many hands and going too far with their hands, the emphasis should be on playing hands that have the potential to make big hands. Thus an A7 suited or a small pair is frequently better than a hand like AJ offsuit.
The idea of fit or fold is something that I strongly disagree with. When the flop comes and it contains many bets, you can frequently continue to fourth street with a hand of some value -- especially if it only costs you one bet. Advice to "fit or fold" should prove very expensive for most of you in these types of games.
Look when the flop is a complete miss and all you have is a couple or only one over card you are deluded if you think playing further is profitable. In the rare instance that you hit the overcard more than likely it gives someone else two pair.Individual bets saved are as good as individual bets won.
Now if you have two overcards with 3 to a nut flush draw and maybe a shot at hitting a straight with runner runner that's a different story.With all these things going sure it's worth seeing the turn.
Also if while in the big blind I hit bottom pair and there is a bet and a raise my hand is going into the muck unless the pot is so large that I have a decent overlay for my 2 outer.
Oh one other thing, many experts advise that depending on the size of the pot it's profitable to try for an inside straight. Depending on the texture of the board and a fiull field vying for the pot many times when you hit that miracle card you end up splitting it or lose to a higher straight. What appears to be good pot odds may not in fact be there because of this.
Okay, after reading all of the responses on both sides, maybe I should reword the question:
Is it ever worth the initial investment, which is money lost playing 1 or 2 hands "badly"/ over-agressively very early in your table session, to set up a loose, wild image in a low-limit game to generate later ROI? Or will tight agressive (or tight very agressive) always be the better ROI?
If I'm interpreting everyone's answers correctly (including some who have mailed me directly- thank you, by the way) the answer to that question depends on the table you are at: 1) If table is mainly loose-passive (or even better, loose stupid), don't waste the investment because you won't need it 2) If the table is generally tight-passive (or maybe tight agressive?), then the investment in image may be worth it to loosen up the rocks.
Given #1-2, does that change based on the game you are playing? 7-stud, hold 'em, h/l for example. Would it make sense to be more inclined to invest in a loose image in hold 'em, rather than the other games (which my experience/reading seems to indicate are generally looser anyway, because of greater luck factor)?
Mason, one particular follow-up. Is a big mistake in a small pot better than a bunch of little mistakes in a big pot? If my goal should be to encourage people to fold (big mistake), then the pots will generally be smaller if I'm successful. If the goal should be the opposite, then more people will be building bigger pots for me to hopefully win.
Is the big pot ROI, even with greater variance (river draw-outs, etc) add up to a better value than the smaller pot ROI, smaller variance? And how do you determine that, or the ideal ratio of money/callers?
This also leads me to your "Limp with AA" question. I thought that you raise AA to either a) limit players, locking in your AA value or b) get players to add money when they have the worst of it.
However, getting a lot of callers also puts your AA in more danger. If you only limp in (i'll assume you said in late position, since I can't remember offhand what you wrote), you potentially have even MORE callers and more counterfeit possibilities (the so-called "bad beats").
Doesn't limping AA give you more downside (more callers to beat) without gaining the benefit from raising of more pot money, when they have the worst of it pre-flop? Seems to me that limping doesn't pay off as a general practice...and is only hurting your chances without corresponding ROA (return on action). Occasionally for confusion, yes; regular practice, no???
I know that you addressed this question to Mason but i'm going to jump in here anyway.
You are playing 2-4. In general people that play that game see a lot of hands they want to be in action.You could show two aces,raise and you'd still get 4 callers.In early position you would only call the hand if you were 95% sure that you would get a raise. In late position,in a 2-4 game you should raise EVERY SINGLE TIME.(and I hate using the word "every" when it comes to poker).
Now if you were playing stud and were dealt three aces rolled up it's OK to limp if you think a raise will limit the size of the pot.
Save your fancy plays and misdirection for a game where they may have positive expectations. You "aint" gonna find it in 2-4.
I cringe whenever the subject of image comes up. I love to read Caro's work, except when he gets on this subject. I'm going to speak up here, and then maybe I won't cringe quite so much in the future, knowing that I've already done what I can...
"Creating" or "projecting" a certain image usually does more damage than good, imho. This is especially true if you are enhancing an image by playing suboptimally (rather than "free" advertising like showing bluffs or showing good laydowns), but it is also true for these "free" cases.
In most games, many of the players will not act any differently based on your image than they would normally (the proportion of players whose play is affected by your image goes up as the limits rise). The ones that DO change their play significantly based on your image are generally the better players, and these players...
1. ... don't account for very much of your profit, if any...
2. ... can usually see through obvious attempts at image building...
3. ... are more likely to be the regulars in your game, so they will not be fooled into thinking you play in a manner different from what they have seen for many hours.
#1 is obvious.
#2 is one place where image building can be very detrimental. When you reveal a bluff after a hand to project a bluffing image (to get your later bets paid off), the bad players' play will be unaffected. They are simply incapable of calling you down with ace high to snap you off, and they cannot laydown top pair to your bluff raise on the river. The good players, on the other hand, probably realize what you are doing, and then they either won't pay off your strong hand, or they'll pick off your bluff.
#3 is another place where this advertising behavior gets you into trouble. You may think that creating a certain image in a game full of strangers is useful. But in this case, you don't even know who the perceptive players are, so you may find yourself in a situation where you have one image to some players, a different one to others, and you don't know which is which! If you "set up" a tight image and then try to cash in by bluffing in a pot, you may find that you have taken a shot at someone who is totally clueless about your image.
My recommendation: Play well. If you play in a regular game, your image will be of a player that... plays well. Some opponents will think that this means you play tight, and when you are against these players, you can bluff them and pick off their bluffs. Others won't care how you play, and against them you can avoid the mistake of trying to use your image to your advantage. In short, keep track of your image against individual players, and use that, but don't try to project anything to the table-at-large. Of course, if you take the advice of "play well", this will come automatically.
Tom Weideman
(Okay, now David can chime in with his "Tom is Wrong" response.)
I agree completely. Here are a few facts to consider.
1. I know of no top hold 'em or stud players who have a wild and crazy image.
2. In a game where you are striving to win only one big bet an hour (less if you play big), you cannot afford to give away many bets in the hope that if and when you pick up a hand everyone will pay you off. My experience is that you can sometimes go for a long time before that hand appears.
3. The bad players, where most of your profit comes from, do not play well enough to be manipulated. Most of your profit will come from their playing errors.
For more discussion on this topic you may want to look at my book POKER ESSAYS.
Thanks Tom for an excellent post. All comments are welcome.
How's this for a summation:
The value of stealing a few pots from the good players greatly exceeds the marginal value of additional calls from the bad players who may or may not be aware enough to base their decisions on your table image.
This is something I try to live by in my games, but in the defense of my previous post, the poster was inquiring about 2-4 holdem games. I now agree with anyone who says that you should forget about image in a 2-4 game and play for the math. I also agree that I probably shouldn't post any more 2-4 advice.
JG (now fielding 1-2 questions.)
Mason wrote:
I have never played or watched Mike Caro play, but everything I've read about him or things he's written says that he has a wild and crazy image.
So here's the question:
Do you think he's a top player? Or is my perception of his image incorrect?
I've never seen him play either. But since he is now so well known, the sort of advertising he advocates wouldn't work for him against those who know of him. But there might be some who don't, so I guess it might pay against the right people.
I think that Mike's image is more suited for draw than hold'em. Since no one really knows what another player has, inducing someone to call is easier. It might also work better in no-limit or pot-limit, where advertising for a small amount will pay big dividends later on in the same game against the same players.
But remember that Mike Caro also says that you don't need to keep doing that, as your opponents have long memories. So I believe that he can make it work for him. Just think, if someone stood pat with garbage, wouldn't you call him the next time he stood pat and you only had two pair?
George wrote:
"I think that Mike's image is more suited for draw than hold'em. Since no one really knows what another player has, inducing someone to call is easier. It might also work better in no-limit or pot-limit, where advertising for a small amount will pay big dividends later on in the same game against the same players."
First, I've played a lot of draw poker. Jacks-or-better to open with a joker to be precise. See my book WINNING CONCEPTS IN DRAW AND LOWBALL, and it turns out that draw poker is perhaps the easiest game to put someone else on a hand.
Two examples. (1) If you open and a tight player calls and draws three, he has a pair of aces. (2) If you open and someone backs in late and draws one they are "on the come."
In my book POKER ESSAYS I discuss appropriate image for different games. My conclusion for draw (and razz) is that a wild crazy image has value. This is because the pot is small relative to the bets and getting an extra call is well worth while -- especially before the draw. For limit hold 'em, because the pot quickly becomes large relative to the bet, the opposite is frequently true. However, for pot limit or no limit where the bet can be (relatively) large when compared to the pot, a wild image again has value.
I see your point about putting someone on a hand in draw. And I think that applies to palyers who play rationally.
But if Crazy Mike stood pat with garbage, can you put him on a hand if he stands pat in the future. Of course WE can, because we know his angle (He has a pat hand.). But can people who don't know of him lay down two pair or trips? He could have anything from 7-high to a royal flush.
I don't disagree with any of this. I have stated and written in many places that a wild, loose image does have value in a game like jacks-or-better to open draw poker. You may want to look at some of the examples that I give in my book WINNING CONCEPTS IN DRAW AND LOWBALL.
But my point is this! Just because something works well in a "simple" game like draw that also features small pots, doesn't mean that it will work well in a much more complex game like hold 'em that features large pots and multiple betting rounds.
Mason wrote " I know of no top holdem or stud players who have a wild and crazy image"
While this a true...there are a number of top players who's "image" is very different from the way they REALLY play and they are quite happy to encourage this belief in their opponents..
How often do we hear someone's success attributed to luck. I'm talking about players who have been beating tough games for years and their opponents, who are frustrated, point out how badly they play but win because they are just "lucky"
Players like this get called a lot more than they should because their opponents just don't trust them, and have listened to the talk that goes around about about how "lucky' they are.
A good player, who is aware of this, will "cultivate" this image in subtle ways that his opponents can not comprehend.
See you in Las Vegas
Jim Mogal
Jim Mogal makes a very good point about image. Although Tom makes a good point about trying to cultivate a "Wild and Crazy ", image I think Jim has got the bigger picture. By playing more aggressively and value betting more in close situations, attacking the pot when it looks like know one is going after it, attacking the blinds etc., and knowing when an inferior hand is still good , projects a looser image. I had been playing all day in a 15-30 game and one player had no business in the game. he was a total beginner. I had raised in late posistion and he called in the blind. I flopped bottom pair, and he checked. I bet and he called. I knew this guy had nothing so I kept betting. I showed it down on the river, won the pot, and I heard too guys talking about how lucky i was all the time. I knew where I was with this guy. I'm using this, because I think this is what Jim is talking about. I know there are alot of players that are much more adept at this than myself. But showing extra speed cultivates a loose image, but you don't have to play terrible hands to do it. Seeya
Hello everybody,
I am a new player who has recently started attacking the low limit games (2-4) at the Taj in Atlantic City. So far, I have seen very little of the maniacal tendencies that western players describe, but rather a large number of loose -passive players who seem to provide a very profitable environment. I have read S&M's HEPFAP and Lee Jones Winning Low Limit book, but one problem I am unable to solve in my play is when to check-raise. My problem is that the authors all tend to recommend check-raising based on the position of the probable bettor in relation to my own position. However, in the loose passive games, it is very difficult to assume where the bet is going to come from, or if it will come at all. Therefore, I find myself afraid to use this play, as I always worry that my check-raise attempt to limit the field will end up being bet right behind me and seal everybody in until the river, rather than achieve its original goal. I understand that the check -raise is an especially important part of the low limit game, and want to improve this aspect of my game. Any advice on this play under these conditions would be greatly apreciated.
Ben
Ben,
Try using a check-raise when you flop some drawing hands that you may not care if it gets checks around behind you and you are still happy to put two bets in if someone else bets. This will vary your game a little which you must need and also help you get a feel how your opponents react to you. Then start doing it when you flop pair hands when you think it may limit the field in your favor or you just may want to get some more money in your pot. Good Luck.
When this opportunity presents itself, you will know: When someone to your right is constantly betting and costing yourself a free card, when you flop two pair or trips in early position check-raise. Do this once or twice and it will keep people from running over you.
Usually I prefer to check-raise on the turn. Many times someone will bet in late position on the flop, and then the turn, and will check on the end if they haven't improved. If they bet on the flop, you can be more sure that they will bet on the turn, but you can't be so sure they will bet on the end.
Its posts like this from world class players that really make this forum worthwhile. But Ray, wouldn't it be correct to avoid the check-raise with a drawing hand if the bet came from your immediate right, since you don't want to cut down the field drastically? Of course, in some games it won't matter because you'll get plenty of callers anyway.
It's tough to check-raise a player on your immediate right. The only scenario where that is possible is you're under the gun and she's on the (virtual) button. That wouldn't be a time when you'd wanna check-raise your draws in a 2-4 game.
But despite this, I don't think check raising is that vital to beating a 2-4 game. There's always the danger that you might educate your opponents. When an entry-level player gets check-raised, they may inadvertantly think, "Hey, there's more to this game then just putting my money in the pot and seeing if this hand hits." If you play with the same people at all, this is something to be avoided.
Bob,
You are correct and you answered your own question. Always remember that with a drawing hand that has a high card that may make the best pair it frequently plays much better headsup as you are almost even money to win and have a well disguised hand and can get free cards and punish the other hand to boot. Good Luck.
I am also a beginning player (been playing for about a year now, when I can), and I too spent a lot of time playing the 2/4 in Atlantic city (although mostly at the Trop). I found the 2/4 AC games about the same as you do: many loose-passive players. I am not yet a world class player (although I do now feel comfortable playing the 3/6 and 5/10 AC games) so perhaps you should take my comments with an appropriate grain of salt, but when I played 2/4, I rarely check-raised to limit the field. It just doesn't work so well in 2/4.
When you check-raise, they just don't get it.
They don't understand that this strongly suggests that you have a powerful holding, nor that the pot odds that they are getting have (possibly) just changed significantly (depending on their relative position to you and the bettor). They just know that they are calling... "what is it now, $4? OK." The only times I really check-raised were when I was trying to maximize the amount of money that gets put into the pot. In this context, I thought check-raising worked quite well, especially if you recognize those players that are dying to bet. If you bet the flop, but then "show weakness" by checking on the turn, there are plenty of players that will bet the turn almost all the time. You mentioned that perhaps identifying those players that are dying to bet isn't always easy... I think that you will find it grows easy with time, and that it is very helpful to learn to identify the habits of the various players, especially at the low limits where there are a lot of bad habits to identify.
In a very low limit game the only reason to check raise is to get more money in the pot.Whether you have a strong draw as Ray suggests or a strong made hand.I think that once a player is in for one bet he's in for the rest with cards to come.
Now if the texture of the game is very loose passive and there is a lot of checking you run the risk of giving a free card.In this case you are probably better off just betting your hand. If the game has a bet being made every round then check raising is a good move with the right hands.
"In a very low limit game the only reason to check raise is to get more money in the pot. . . . I think that once a player is in for one bet he's in for the rest with cards to come."
Is the "one bet" to which you are refering the bet the player used to call preflop? In other words, are you suggesting that all the preflop callers are going to see the river card, pretty much regardless of the action? If this is what you mean, then you play in a low-limit game that is much different than mine. (And you'd better keep its location secret.)
Or perhaps you are saying that, for a particular betting round, once players have put money into the pot, nothing is going to get them to fold their hands before they see the next card. This has some resemblance to the games I play in. And it's the reason I will check-raise to thin the field in the right situations.
A check-raise usually WILL NOT thin the field when you (as first-to-act) check, the next player bets, everyone else calls, and you check-raise. As you pointed out, most of the players will throw in one more bet. Even if the original bettor re-raises, many of the players will cold-call another two bets once they have put money into the pot on this round.
In the low-limit games where I play, a check-raise usually WILL thin the field when you (as first-to-act) check, the other players check, the last-to-act bets, and you check-raise. Without having invested any money into the pot on this round, many of the other players will fold their hands when faced with cold-calling two bets.
As others have pointed out, the key is having some idea where the bet is likely to come from. Did a late-position player raise pre-flop? Does the button feel it is his/her duty to bet the flop if it is checked down to him/her?
I don't play lo-limit games but I know some players who do and they are far from clueless. They make moves the same way other players do in larger games. Of course you will find quite a few more beginners in these games, and they tend to play too many hands etc., but there are plenty of good solid players in the lower limits. Many players that we classify as loose might be clueless, but just as many are intelligent, but they have made a philisophical choice about the way they gamble. They know the probabilities etc., yet they play in defiance of the odds because they are playing for today and not the long run.But even though these players play poor starting hands etc. many play reasonably well after the flop. I think it is a mistake to classify these players as clueless, because they can leave with your many more times than seems warranted. Of course there are the truly clueless, but beware. What do you think??
My experience has been that as you travel up the limits, the players become more aware and tougher. That's not to say that there are no exceptions.
There will be a $5-$10 7-stud hi-lo no qualifier game at the Orleans casino in Vegas this Saturday night at 8:00 pm for the first time.
BTW, in my message about the game at Texas Station, I didn't mean to omit mentioning Sklansky's section on 7-stud hi-lo no qualifier in Super System... I just had completely forgotten about its existence.
-Abdul
I feel I am an above average stud player. I have heard people saying hold'em is a better game for many different reasons. What do all of you think?
Also what books would all of you advise me to look at inorder to play hold'em
Thanks
Dave Zart
Where I live, there's just more hold'em than stud. The only limit for stud at the closest casinos is 1-5, and home games just don't spread the game.
The first 2 books I'd recommend for hold'em would be:
Hold'em Poker by David Sklansky,
and
Hold'em Poker for Advanced Players by Malmuth and Sklansky.
Both available from Conjelco. Worth every cent.
I had a nightmare last night. I dreamed I played 2(QQ) in 7-stud hi-lo no qualifier, with predictable consequences.
-Abdul
I've been playing a lot more Omaha8 lately and I can definitely say that I'd rather watch a football game than add up the points in my Omaha8 hand.
I've read Ray Zee's book on the subject but I have just recently started to absorb a lot of the finer points in the book mainly because I've been playing more. The book on Omaha8 is really, really good. A few my observations on this game although I haven't played it at the $10-20 level yet:
1. A lot of players are playing horrible (almost any) starting hands so you can get a decent edge by just playing good starters. The advice of having 4 cards working together works really well. And you don't need a point count to figure out if your hand is good or not. In fact the one point count I looked at has you automatically playing any hand with an A,2 and I don't think that is right. I still think you need something to go along with it.
2. Players seem fairly easy to read before the flop.
3. Players seem fairly easy to read on every round. It isn't all that hard to figure out when your being quartered.
4. Playing loose on the flop where you have few outs will be very expensive. So if you're a tight player this should be a good game for you.
5. It's pretty easy to figure out when you should fold on the flop.
6. You'll need a lot of patience to wait for the right situation to stick your money in the pot.
There are a lot other things I've observed that are just a repeat of what is in Ray's book. The book is great but I didn't realize how good it was until I started making the effort to get proficient at this game.
I don't play Omaha 8 very much, but I had thought that any hand with A2 from any position in most non-tight games were okay to play....why don't you think so?
Also, does Zee's book have a point count in it? I haven't read it in a while, but I don't remember a point count being mentioned.
You really need something to go with A2, because it's easy to either a) get counterfeited and lose, or b) be up against another A2 and get quartered. Ideally you'd want a redraw to your A2 in case an A or a 2 comes on the turn or the river.
There are a number of point count systems out there, Cappaletti's book has one which I haven't seen, Ed Hutchinson had one in Canadian Poker Monthly in December, and Turbo Omaha Hi-Lo has several.
Note: The Turbo point count can be improved, they undervalue high cards.
T.P.
No point count as I never really thought one could really be effective for poker. Maybe for those just learning or a crazy steammer a point count may help keep them in line, but a player needs quickly to learn that his hand value changes greatly with changes in the makeup of the players and the situation in the hand. Good Luck.
Your basic ideas are good. The reason A-2 bare is so bad is not just because of quartering, but also because A or 2 counterfeits you for low. Ray Zee's book is excellent. I believe the best low-limit Omaha 8 (below 10-20 to me) book is the one by Shane Smith, Omaha Hi-Lo Poker (8 or better). --Frank
I would highly recommend the Shane Smith booklet too.
Here's a hand I had last night (early this morn) where I tested this out:
Initial conditions:
Apr 18, 1998. 3am
20-40 Holdem with full kill. This hand not kill.
Everybody has lots of chips.
Table make up:
3 (A) Players Long-term winners,
2 (B) Players Long-term evenish,
5 (C) Players Long-term losers
Players mostly like to play loose, but respect a raise from tight player.
I pick up red AA utg and am deciding what to do as the rest of the cards are being dealt when out of the corner of my brain I see tight player who folds most everything (one of the group A above) reaching for 8 chips. I limp, a couple folds, tight player raises, two cold callers and the big blind calls. I decide to run the draw play and just call. BTW, I think the fact that I had already limped in induces loose types to call the double bet.
Flop comes AJ5, two spades (the Ace being one of them).
Now (given my perception of his "raising range,") I think the odds of preflop aggressor betting have dropped as he's 12:7 to have a hand that missed. However, if he checks, I fully expect one of the other two players behind him to take the intiative, and I can still check raise. Big Blind checks. I check. Preflop raiser bets (mmm maybe he has AK, or better yet JJ) call, call, call (wow), I raise. Original bettor dumps (he had KK, and was taking one shot), late position limper reraises (!), fold, fold to me. I have played with all these players hundreds of hours and I just know he isn't on say KQ spades. I cap, and he says, "What do you have?" "Trip Aces," without missing a beat. We've been joking around all night, putting the table on tilt by two-part harmonizing (from the 3 and 8 seat) Hall and Oates songs with improv lyrics as the hands go down (e.g. "You can rely on the river honey,you can check raise all Ed's money") -- (sim that.). He says OK and throws in four more chips. Everybody laughs.
Turn comes a red deuce. I bet, he raises, I reraise and he actually slows down for a sec before putting in eight more chips. While the river burn is coming off, I check the board once again just to make sure I haven't missed something (wife woke me up early and I was going on 23 hours awake). I quickly calculate the odds of him showing me 34 suited, and decide that I was still in the lead.
River comes 9 of spades. Hmm possible uh-oh. I actually take a second to figure that the odds of me being paid off versus him showing me spades are greater than 2:1, so I bet. He raises. Well, given that he's raised me, the odds might not be better than 2:1 anymore. I just call.
As he turns his hand over, things move in slow motion. Uh-oh, one little black card. What's that? A red card! He has a set of 5s! Presto no goot! I turn over the aces and start stacking like an octopus. He get mad and go home now.
$822 pot. $502 profit.
Now replay the hand without limping:
I raise utg. Other tight player reraises. Everybody sees two tight players going to war, and the field is flushed. I cap and bet the flop. (Limp and check raise the flop is same amount of action, so I might as well put the $ in when I'm sure I'm ahead.)
Either way, a $92 profit.
The Yes-I-Knows:
One hand doesn't prove much.
I felt like I played pretty smart, but basically, I just hammered Aces. Anyone can do that.
You won't see people posting all the times they limped Aces and lost to a pair of 5s that made a set when the Aces failed to improve.
And one perhaps:
Having played with the same players hundreds of hours gives advantages that will manifest themselves more in the kind of pots where you limp the aces as opposed to popping them. If you're playing with players you've never seen before, it's probably best to close your eyes and jam. This difference may be difficult to quantify. (Tho it was probably worth at least $40 in this case.)
JG
I suppose Mason would call limping with the Aces a non self waiting strategy. But re-read your post about how you were sweating it. I'll take the boring 92 profit all day long. The big pots with Aces will manifest themselves without having to limp. You coulsd have had a large pot heads up if a King fell as well as an Ace.
One time when I think that it is clearly correct to limp with aces is when you are in a game where many of your opponents respect your raise, but are also aggressive and like to isolate limpers. Notice that in this situation, if you raise up front your chances of getting the kind of action that you like have gone down, but if you limp they have gone up.
It appears to me that the game that you describe does not meet this criteria. By the way, there are very few games anywhere that will meet this criteria.
Jim,
A very interesting hand. You got a little lucky when someone had a smaller set so imo you have to take the results with a little grain of salt. You did seem to get a lot of action from a player that seemingly played rather recklessly. A couple of things to look at in the long run:
1. Should you have made it 3 before the flop when it got back to you?
2. If you get a tell that someone is going to raise behind you, should you call and hopefully play against 3, 4 or 5 for 3 bets? Should you just call the raise so you don’t give your hand away? Should you raise UTG anyway to narrow the field?
I don’t know how much 3 betting when it got back to you would give your hand away in this game. If it didn’t (you would do it with other hands), then certainly I think you should have made it 3 bets. If it did give your hand away, it still is probably worth it imo. There are 4 extra players and that is lot of extra money to give up for deception I would think. Couple that with the possibility of capping it pre-flop and I think in the long run it would be better to raise when it got back to you.
As far as narrowing the field. Against one player you will certainly win a lot more often. Since often you don’t know what is going to happen behind you when you are UTG raising with the Aces I would think would be right. In this case you had a tell which gave you valuable information about the likely action behind you if you did raise UTG. First of all I can’t see where your play was bad from the standpoint that it gave you a perfect opportunity to vary your game. I’m sure your regular opponents will remember this play for a while.
You surmised that it would be better to play against 3,4, or 5 players than it would be to play against one. The way this would be true is when you lose you will be more than compensated for the extra money you win when your Aces hold up. I have been thinking a lot on how to estimate your expected value with Aces. The only answer that I think is certainly right is that the better players can play against more players with Aces and be more successful than mediocre players. This is because they can extract more money from their opponents when their Aces win and minimize their losses when the Aces lose. But notice I didn’t rule out that only playing against one player is indeed the best in the long run. I’m just not sure as I guess it just depends on the situation.
Tom Haley
One thing I forgot to mention is that also when you limp with abig hand your opponents are going to tighten way up against you for a while.
This *tell* is one of the most counterfeit out there. It involves a conscious decision to handle chips out of turn, rather than an involuntary reaction to an event. Unless this player never fakes this tell (doubtful), it doesn't seem to be enough to justify the hold-up with AA.
I'm in Late position with TT Pre-Flop. A Solid player comes in the Pot, from Late Middle Position with a Raise. I call. Everyone else Folds.
Flop comes KKJ rainbow. Player bets, I Fold. I know Player would have Bet a Hand as well as a Bust. Should I have Raised to stop the Player from Bluffing at me, and if I got Re-raised Fold? Now that I look back, I think I should have Raised. Would anyone have played this differently?
CV
Chris,
I don't think that this fold was bad. It would depend on the player you were raising. If a re-raise meant to fold and it would slow down a player so that you could go all the way to the river and hopefully check it out or sometimes maybe even win right on the flop, I think the investment in the raise may be worth it. However, what would your opponent be raising with pre-flop that didn't fit into that flop somehow? If your opponent is raising with group 1-3 hands only then he could have:
Pairs: A,A K,K Q,Q J,J T,T 9,9
Suited: K,Qs; K,Js; Q,Js; J,Ts; A,Js; A,Ts
Suited or Unsuited: A,K; A,Q
As you can see there aren't that many hands that you would be a big favorite over. Even with a hand like A,Q your opponent has two overcards and a possibility of making a straight although you have two of the tens. Also your opponent might just come out betting with a K thinking that he didn't want to give you a free card with that board. If your opponent is raising with a wider variety of hands, then you have to take into account what you might be a favorite over.
You might try raising on the turn to simulate a slowplay. Risky but if your opponent is capable of folding some hands that have you beat it might be worth it. I actually think that folding in this spot is the best play but maybe someone else feels differently.
Tom Haley
P.S. I found lineup 4. I haven't played that many hands but I'm about $80 stuck. It actually did a re-steal from me.
What was the matter with TT reraising before the flop? At least then if it's bet into you on the flop, your opponent has you beat. Note that by just calling pre-flop you encourage your opponent to bet into you with hands which TT could beat, leaving you guessing or folding as you did.
Another vote for a re-raise pre-flop. If anything you want the blinds out and heads-up. I would encourage you to use your position and always think about raising if your thinking about coming in. By re-raising your getting control of the opponent and possibly the future betting.
In my game, 2-5 7stud, a third street max raise will take the pot maybe half the time. I have been experimenting by raising with no pair. Specifically, I do this with the following hands: AKQ, AKJ, AK10, AQJ, AQ10 and AJ10. I will raise any time I would raise with a split pair. There are four other hands with all cards 10 or higher namely KQJ, KQ10, KJ10 and QJ10. I don't raise with these hands mainly due to the open-end straight possibilities with a good 4th street card. I think this strategy means I'm raising about 20% more often than by just raising with a high pair.
What strategy do you use when raising on third street with no pair?
Gary,
You need to provide more information. Mainly, what's in the pot (ante + bring-in). If there is at least $5 in the pot, and the players fold half the time, you could experiment with raising with any three cards.
Tom D
Some other questions: 1) How many are overcards? 2) How many are suited?
If 1&2 are both 2, raising seems good. 3 overcards, raising also seems good.
Also, Tom's response leads to other important questions: a) What is the table play (tight weak?) b) How much trouble will you get into, when people start calling your raises with low/middle pairs?
You may not want to train them to call your raises, if you can control what seems to be a tight table...
And.. I) what is your play after the flop, when you get called?
Gary, I aften raise on 3rd street based on the stlye of the other players and the possiblities of pettering my hand.
May Day...May Day!
Recently I have been doing well in my local 15-30 Hold'em game when played with a full table. However, once the game drops to five handed or less I seem to become everyones whipping boy.
Can anyone explain to me what a short handed starting hand is?
Is this all in my head or is there a difference?
Is there any book that anyone knows about that may address this subject?
Thanks,
Paul
Your post is too general, but it sounds like you may be playing weak-tight. Also, unless the game is being played by weak players (compared to you), I would avoid playing Short Handed. High cards, Bluffing, Stop Bluffs, and inducing Bluffs become more valueble in a Short Handed game.
CV
In a full game, your cards are very important. Since you know going in that you often need to finish with a good hand in order to win, and that bluffs are less important, the game is a bit more mechanical.
In a short game, the blinds come around twice as fast, and you've got to play a lot more hands. Additionally, your opponent matters more than your cards, especially as it will tend to be 1 opponent at a time (not 3-6 opponents). Against 1 player, you don't need to make a hand to win, and often the player with the highest card will have the best hand. In these spots you can't always throw away middle pair just because you're raised, and you sometimes do strange things like reraise with no hand and no real draw. You've got to play the opponent, and base your decisions upon his expected response, with your cards being secondary.
Good Luck, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
REFERENCES:
1. The little section in HPFAP is short but contains some key ideas. In particular, that playing short-handed is much like playing in late position after most of the other players have folded.
2. Add to that Mason M's observation in Poker Essays, that the psychology of the game changes, as opponents begin to expect you to be stealing, and you will be headed on to the right track in hand selection. (The rest of the two essays there are of course very helpful as well)
3. Find Abdul Jalib's article on short-handed hold'em in Poker World (Vol.1, No. 2). But note carefully what he says about play against different types of opponents. Just skimming through the article's advice could cause some players (though perhaps not yourself from what you describe) to adopt an undiscriminatingly hyperagressive approach, something which will not work against certain types of players.
Make that... "indiscriminately". Heh.
Why play at all? Last weekend I learned this painfully, as I and three others did play short-handed, and as we were apparently similar in skills, or else the winning cards just went around as you would expect them to, we all saw our stacks dwindle due to the rake. This is O.K., because I don't believe I'll ever do it again, and will just take a hike the next time I find myself in that situation. Maybe you should too. There will be another day, and a better game. Frank
Many cardrooms will reduce the rake with less than six players at hold'em. Some will even lower it more, or even eliminate it with only three players. When playing short handed, be sure to have the dealer check with the floor. And when the floor comes over, be sure to try to persuade him/her to reduce or eliminate the rake/time. If they don't, then don't play!
They usually will if there is a chance that the game will fill up if kept going. Or they may do it as a courtesy to players who frequent their room. But whatever their logic, they can't realistically expect players to pay full rake/time shorthanded. As you discovered, everybody will wind up losing.
I've found the bigger cardrooms in AC do the right thing. I haven't played shorthanded in Foxwoods for a while, but I think they were less accommodating. I'm not sure about the west coast. A club here in NYC doesn't reduce their rake, so we usually don't play short handed.
It's a good idea to learn to play short handed, as the higher limits are frequently played that way. Might as well learn at the cheaper limits. :-)
Depends on the Pot Odds. If the game is Loose I'd passively take off a card. If the game is tight I'd Semi-Bluff. If I have a good Nut draw I'd get very aggressive on the Flop. Though this all depends on the situation. In a No Fold'em game the question becomes more Statistical. In a tight game play is more Psychological. I think whoever gets the math right then evaluates his Opponents properly, has the best chance of making the right play with drawing hands.
I don't think a 5 out Hand to make Two Pair or Three of a kind in a Loose game is very good. But I seem to make good money hitting inside Strait Draws on the Turn.
CV
I've often wondered about what is the best way to post as a new player. At the Mirage, I have the option of posting after the button passes or in the big blind.
My thoughts are that in a full game it really doesn't matter. In the big/small blinds you put up 1.5 small bets to see 10 hands and ahead of the button put up 1 small bet to see 7 hands. It's a close decision if only $/hand is considered.
Now in a less than full game the strict cost advantage goes to the big/small blinds. But as the game gets more and more short handed the value of position goes up.
So what are the expert opinions on posting??
Thanks, Derek
Post behind the button. As you mention, the cost/hand is similar. However, you have a huge advantage in playing your "free" big blind hand with excellent position, as opposed to be the first or second to act throughout the hand. Plus, when there's no raise preflop and you flop a big hand with garbage cards, the other players sometimes forget that you got to see the flop for free, i.e., they give you credit for having something playable, as no one would call with the totally garbage hand that is now that only better hand possible.
An exception to this would be if you're playing in a new club where no one knows you. If you sit down at the table and the first thing you do is sit out 3-7 hands waiting to post behind the button, then you're marked before you start as a tight player. If you prefer that your image be other than tight, then try to avoid looking tight by the way you post. Either come in in the normal big blind position, or as you sit down and see where the button is, suddenly realize you need to use the restroom before you start to play. Also, when you're playing at a new club, ask the floorman for the rule about coming in before you get to the table. This way the good players aren't immediately put on notice that you're an aware player (they'll figure it out soon enough anyway).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Hopefully y'all can validate my proof and settle this arguement between my boss and I... and add some mathematical scale to this occurance
Since we started playing casino low-limit poker a year ago, my wife and I have been debating about who is the better player. I generally concede that she must be, because she had been losing less money, and less often, than I had been. (I play 1-5 7stud and 2-4 HE) Bottom line- if you end up with less money than someone else, you're worse...fair poker comparison, no?
I'm now convinced that my wife (the boss) MUST be the worst player, based on this recent trip by her...
(Ed. note- the rest of this could vaguely be described as a "bad beat" story, but it's so unusual that it might be worth your effort to read. If nothing else, feel free to pound other beat whiners over the head with this example...because I don't see ANYONE topping this!)
THE SCENE- Tropicana in AC, 1-5 stud. She had been playing 1-3, but it broke up. She took 2 hands to the river- a bluff (she won) and a Q-full which was beaten by K-full.... nothing unusual for 1-3 or my wife, who seems to have a knack for having big hands beaten.
So she goes to the 1-5 table. THIS is what happened to her in ONE-HALF hour... the hands are in order of her receiving them, but were not immediately sequential (but notice the escalation!)
1) Bluff pair hand that won (folded her opponent) 2) A-full beat by four 2's 3) Four 3's on 4th street beat by higher 4-kind 4) Higher 4-kind (8's? don't remember) beaten by straight flush 5) And the crowning hand, which cost her 10 bets before she was all-in:
3 queeens on board, facing pair of Kings. She's been raising the whole time. She gets a Q-high straight flush (her first ever SF)on the river... which, of course, gets beat by a river K-high straight flush (3 cards down were used)
Total playing time (both tables): 1 hour.
Total hands taken to river: 7- 2 bluffs that won, and those 5 monster hands that were crushed!
(Before you ask, she was betting and re-raising all of these hands hard; she also seemed to be in the lead for most of them).
So, now it's time to vote/calculate: 1) Y/N- My wife must be a bad player (i.e. worse than me) since no GOOD player could get hands like that and lose them all.. 2) What are the odds of getting all of those 4 hands at 1-5 stud, in that specific order and within that timeframe, AND getting 100% of those hands beaten? 3) What are the odds of #2 PLUS getting stuck in an stop-dead hour-long accident jam afterwards, further compounding her wonderful session? 4) What are the odds of her NOT having angered the Poker Gods in some way, yet still facing #3?
Send your votes to the email address above, I'll post the results (if there are any)....
Poker evidently can't be skill- it must be sacrifice (as in, burn that chicken in the name of the PGods or suffer their wrath!)
#4 is just a repackaging of a series of posers in Fighting Fuzzy Thinking, using what I call the "inside-out" Bayes' Theorem. (I forget DS's moniker.)
If you've read that book, you already know that given this information your wife has probably p****d off all non-exclusive dieties.
Alternatively, one could argue that you recounting such a low-probability event as this indicates you've more likely than not made the whole thing up. However, I see you've posted this message twice. We can apply the IOBT one last time and conclude that it is much more likely that it happened than that you contrived the identical story twice. Therefor, don't hang out with her during a lightning storm.
Definately NOT made up..Hopefully someone managing this site will remove the accidently-posted second copy.... Amen to lightning storm- should I have her also buy lottery tickets, as an extreme odds beater?
Assuming that your improbable tale is true.Then I would never play at that casino or with that dealer again.If it was a higher stakes game I'd assume a mechanic at work. But under no circumstances would that dealer get a shot at me again.
If your wife really is that unlucky, then I would return to that same casino--to extract some revenge!
Bring her with you to the roulette wheel. Have her put $1 on either red or black (whichever she feels best about). You, then, will put $50 on the opposite color. Repeat as many times as necessary to win back her poker losses.
Note: If you also are unlucky, watch as the roulette ball falls into 0 or 00 (i.e., the green color) multiple times in a row.
Easy,
Yep, she's a bad player. Why, I remember back when I was a bad player the exact same series of beats happened to me, with the EXACT SAME HANDS.... TWICE!
Tell her to take a lesson or something.
Very easy solution to this problem: Those times that she does end up winner for a session, she must donate 10% of those winnings to charities.
Would appreciate your thoughts on the following situation which occured in a 10-handed, solid and aggressive $10-$20 HE game in New York City (Yes, New York City!). I will spare you the blow-by-blow account of what I was thinking before each play, as I hope to get insight into what you might have thought/done given the same circumstances.
Player 1 ("UTG"): Calls UTG (this guy was the only weak, passive player at the table, could call UTG with almost anything.)
Your Hero: Raises in in late middle position with 88. (I am fairly well respected as tight-aggressive by about 1/2 the table, but the other half, including both blinds are strangers.)
Button: Reraises (this guy repsepects my action, but would reraise with any Group 1 hand or possibly even a small pair ont the button)
Small Blind: Caps the betting with a reraise. (This guy is a stranger who is on a definite rush. He had just dragged a huge pot by reraising a Q-high flush draw on the turn after a very tight players check-raise.)
UTG: Call three bets Hero: Loose call two bets Button: Call
Flop comes: Q-8-4, all hearts.
Small Blind: Bet UTG: Call Hero: Raise Button: Call Small Blind: Reraise UTG: Call two bets Hero: Caps it Button: Fold Small Blind: Call UTG: Fold (later claimed to have black Kings but folded to my "obvious" nut flush.)
Turn comes: A of spades (ugh!)
Small Blind: Bet Hero: Call
River comes: rag (7 of clubs, I think)
Small Blind: Bet Hero: Crying call given the 1 in 20 shot that Small Blind was firing away with KK and flush draw.
How many mistakes did I make in this hand?
Honestly, I am a profitable player, even in this type of game, just a bit rusty after a four year poker lay-off.
The question you might want to ask yourself is ,"Why am I raising"? The reason I say that is sometimes we just kind of play on automatic, and that sounds like what you might have done here. When I raise with a medium pair(55-99), I'm trying to get it heads up,... otherwise I would be calling in hopes of getting enough players in to get the proper odds. With two more raises behind you, your plan is foiled. The message is loud and clear....YOUR BEAT. There is no absolute answer of course, but the best play in my opinion is to fold.This is part of the game that is very difficult for players to act on. Everyone wants to see the flop. if after the flop it was pretty obvious that you were beat, you would fold, right? It seemed pretty obvious that you were in trouble before the flop.....so why no fold? You don't mention whether you won or lost the hand. But even if you won it I think the fold was correct.
Good question. Before the flop, I was trying to get heads up with original limper, who could have any random cards, but more likely unsuited paint. After all of the action on the flop, I figured the pot was already laying 15 small bets for my incremental 2 bets to coldcall the 2 reraises (Sb= 4 bets, UTG= 4 bets, BB= 1 bet, Button = 3 + 1? bets + my original 2 bets.) This seemed like decent odds to flop a sneaky set (better implied odds?), particularly since I figured I could was against 3 hands with big cards.
I will grant you that the reraises on the flop were probably ill-advised against that board and that I knew I was a heavy longshot after the Ace on the turn.
By the way, you could probably figure the ending. The stranger turned over QQ and I got a few looks of disbelief when I didn't show at least a small flush, since that is what most of the regulars thought I represented. By the way, when figuring implied odds to flop a small set, don't we need to consider the possibility of running into a set-over-set and really getting clobbered?
"By the way, when figuring implied odds to flop a small set, don't we need to consider the possibility of running into a set-over-set and really getting clobbered? "
Yes, by adjusting your pots ratio requirements upwards, according to what I've read. For example, since your flop odds were approx. 5-1, but there are more overcards than undercards to your 8's that will be held after the flop (my assumption), you'd probably want to anticipate an implied odds ratio greater than that (maybe 9-1 or so?) ...plus, raises by others (and betting into that 3-flush and A) would generally imply that you were beaten anyway, making your IO negative...
"By the way, when figuring implied odds to flop a small set, don't we need to consider the possibility of running into a set-over-set and really getting clobbered? "
Yes; you will win the pot less often. But the big pair figures to give you excessive action when you flop a set. I BELIEVE this action almost cancels out the fewer pots you will win.
Your biggest mistake was playing in a solid agressive 10/20 game with only one bad player.
Your raise B4 the flop was marginal at best. If you are sure the caller has two cards bigger than 8 then you are only about even money to win a show down; and it doesn't look to me like you can use your position to get him to lay down a better hand than yours. Once it's capped you are getting the right (but marginal) odds to flop a set.
The cap on the flop wasn't so good, unless you can get ALL the stiff one-card heart hands to fold. Once the Ahearts is in, the only hands that are drawing to beat you are the gut shot straight draws, hands only a lunatic would draw to for two bets (already) on a one-suited flop. Not to mention you may not have the best hand.
I would automatically pay it off. He CONSEIEVABLY could have been ramming the Ahearts, and bet it on the end for good form. I certainly do NOT want the other players taking shots at me in the many other situations where I have a marginal hand, just because they saw me lay down a very good hand in a big pot.
- Louie
I agree completely. You should not have raised with the 8's from a middle position against knowledgeable players; though your attempt to get it heads up against a player on a rush is a good tactic. You were just too early. Once in the hand, with your trips, you have 3 to 1 odds to make a full house that will, hopefully, not get crammed down your throat by someone with pocket Ace's. So, once in the hand, you're only mistake may have been to let the hearts lead. Yes, you are beat, but you have the big draw. As far as laying down trips, even low ones, do that just once and the better players will blow you off the table. Bad beat, but I do not see that your play was out of line. In this month's Card Player there is comment by Caro about what happens when two players both make the correct play, given their respective hands. Someone has to lose...Lo siento, and it has happened to me.
Comments on your interesting post:
1. Your play was flawless, except that you should have raised on the turn.
2. There are many more hands the "stranger on a rush" could have had that would have made the fourth street raise profitable than the few that actually beat you. Plus your style is tight aggressive and a raise is more consistent with that.
3. The call of the cap before the flop was a no brainer.
4. UTG is wonderful for the game. You should have topped his whopper of I laid down kings with "great analysis--brilliant laydown."
Are private holdem games in New Yaawwk free from cheating??
Dear Ynotka?,
Calling before the flop in that situation is not a no brainer. if anything the implied odds are reversed.
"Implied" odds refers to the likelyhood that future bets you put in will be either willingly as a favorite (bet or raise) or discouragingly as an underdog (call hoping to catch a semi-bluff). Drawing hands, such as pairs trying to make a set, will routinely put in bets later willingly, if they hit.
Since its "obvious" this 88 is beat then he will rarely put in even one more bet without a set. Since a set is a big favorite then he's future implied odds must be good.
- Louie
Louie/Al:
I was thinking along the lines that Louie was before the flop. I figured if I hit a set, I would be a big favorite; although any A, K, or Q on the board might be trouble. If I didn't hit a set, I was probably gone without risking another bet. However, given the pre-flop betting, the pot size, and the number of players, Al does make an astute observation that the implied odds associated with a set were probably not that great when considering the likelihood of two or possibly 3 live overpairs. Unfortunately, I din't think this through until after all of the action on the flop. (I guess I plead guilty to playing the hand instead of the situation.) Coincidentally, I should have been a bit more cautious since I had just gotten knocked out of the no-limit tourney with the same flopped set of eights running into a flopped set of Aces.
Response to your comments:
1. Thanks for your "forgiving" analysis of my play, I actually liked it OK until the turn. On the flop, I was hoping to charge any overpairs or AK flush draws and didn't figure anyone for a made flush since even the loose UTG (the likliest, suited hand) was a good enough player to fire away with a made, flopped hand given the large pot and number of remaining players.
2. Don't see how you justify a raise on the turn though, since the stranger figures for three possible hands: Overpair with a flush draw, or QQ, against which I was drawing nearly dead. An unpaired high flush draw didn't make sense here for SB given pre and post-flop action. I actually was about 90% sure I was beat by QQ or AA, but wouldn't have laid down in this pot even if 100% certain. The extra $40 bucks was worth it for me in this case because there are some very tough regulars who will run you over once they know you are capable of a tough fold like this. I am interested in what hands you put him on that I could beat after turn given flop texture and pre/post-flop action. I also assumed zero chance stranger would fold on either turn or river, even if a heart fell.
3. Some notes on the private club in NY, if anyone is interested.
-It is a private club with honest house dealers; and is completely on the level. (No membership fee, but an hourly drop to cover club expenses like snacks, drinks, etc.) The dealers work for tokes, which are about a $1 a pot.
-From Monday through Friday there is generally 1 or 2 full $4-$8 hold'em tables starting from 6:00 pm until well after midnight. A $10-$20 game usually starts about 8:00 and sometimes goes all night.
-There is a great $40 buy-in no-limit HE tourney each Sunday at 5:00. $40 bucks gets you $300 in tourney chips, blinds start at $5-$10 and double every 20 minutes, with unlimited $300 for $30 rebuys during the first hour and one $300 for $30 add-on at the end of the first hour. There are generally up 40-50 players, resulting in some pretty sizable payouts ($1500+ for 1st.) The play is super-aggressive given the blind structure, and the tougher players usually do OK despite the predictable luck-out factor.
- The post-tourney ring action on Sundays is usually good, with some $4-8, $6-12, $10-$20, and pot limit HE; and some forced rotation (HE, 7-stud hi/lo, and Omaha-8 hi/lo).
-For details, you can call the "Diamond Club" at 212 727-1956
Double T wrote: "I actually was about 90% sure I was beat by QQ or AA, but wouldn't have laid down in this pot even if 100% certain. The extra $40 bucks was worth it for me in this case because there are some very tough regulars who will run you over once they know you are capable of a tough fold like this."
If you don't show your cards, or talk about them later, they will never know that this was a tough fold. It could have been KK being stubborn, JJ with a single heart, or who knows what, in their view. I don't decide to "run over" someone who is capable of folding unless it's heads-up, because there's just too much chance of running into someone else with a real hand. If you're folding what is obviously (based upon your earlier play) a powerful hand in a big pot when it's down to just you and 1 tough regular, then you might be concerned about image. Otherwise, don't worry about (certainly not $40 worth).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
The pot was opened UTG by a weak passive player who might have anything. The pot was three bet by the button who would take this action with small pairs as well as group 1 hands. The stranger on the small blind is on a rush and has recently three bet the turn on a Q high flush draw.
Since the cap is 4 bets and it's 3 bets to him, the stranger on the small blind would likely cap rather than call if he is going to play the hand. What else might he have besides queens, aces, or AK hearts:
Pocket 9's, T's, J's, or K's if one of them is a heart.
Ace of hearts with any King or Queen.
King of hearts with any Ace or Queen. Any of the above hands would be in line with how the stranger might reasonably be expected to play this hand, given the particular circumstances you describe. Since he's a stranger on a rush, there could be other hands if he's way out of line but just lucky so far. But we don't have to consider that to see that you would be quite justified in raising 4th street. By my arithmetic, there are 8 available combinations that beat you on 4th street, and 24 combinations that beg for you to raise.
By the way, since the small blind stranger is no longer a stranger, describe his playing style over the course of the session(s).
Your analysis makes sense based on his post-flop play. However, although on a rush, the guy wasn't in that many pots up to that point in the session. I didn't figure him for the type to three-bet (or even 2&1/2 bet)before the flop with a pair less than QQ given the early action from me and the button.
I only stuck around another couple hours before figuring out I was EV-negative. From what I could tell, he was very MM/DS solid-aggressive, and actually not that tricky beside the one play. He even managed to put the self-proclaimed "table pro" (a guy who claimed to have finished in the top 15 in the big 1994 WSOP no-limit HE game) on a minor steam by topping severl big hands with monsters.
You can't figure implied odds if the hand doesn't figure to be the winner. With the pot capped the chances for a draw out are higher, since the other players aren't going to be leaving so easily. If it is a passive situation or less aggressive where you have 4-5 players staying for one raise or less that's one thing, but having it capped behind you with a medium pair,...I just can't see playing it. My question is, If you didn't flop trips would you have stayed to see one more card, with all that action behind you on the flop there is quite a bit of money in the pot.Does that justify staying at that point, or would you have quessed that trip 88s wouldn't be good if you had to hit them on the turn? The point I'm trying to make (not so well) with this question is that it seems you were just playing your hand, and not the situation or other players. Further,.. if I see a guy on a rush, I try to stay out of his/her way until I see signs it's over,
AL wrote: "Further,.. if I see a guy on a rush, I try to stay out of his/her way until I see signs it's over,"
Depending upon the player, I'll do just the opposite. You see, I don't believe in future rushes, only past rushes. However, if I see someone I know on a rush, and I know that he's the kind of player who plays his rushes, no matter what his next 2 cards are, then I will play hands that I would have folded (assuming they were marginal folds), and I'll raise with some hands with which I might have just called (in order to isolate the rusher). If I know that someone is coming in with any 2 cards because he's on a rush, and taking off cards on the flop when he doesn't have the pot odds to do so, I want to play against him. I really don't care that he's won 5 pots in a row, I only care how well he's playing THIS hand. Now, I will clearly take his rush into account, in the sense that I'm not going to attempt a bare butt steal on this guy (because you know he'll call). However, I will definitely raise with a weaker set of hands if I think that this will isolate us from the rest of the field.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
A person who is rushing and a person who is playing their rush are two different things. I agree with your comments about playing against someone who is trying to push their luck by playing almost anything after they have won a few hands. The description in the original post is about someone on a rush. That says something completely different to me. For your benefit I will re-state that if I see someone who seems to be winning a high percentage of hands at an above average frequency, I will stay out of his/her way until i see a losss or two. I don't try to buck the trend, I go with the flow. Of course if I pick up a solid playing hand I'm going to be in there, but if this person is in there with me I will play a notch more conservative, unless i feel that playing that way is potentially going to cost me the hand. For the same reason, if I just sit down in a game , and there is one player who has a mountain of chips and seems to be consistently picking up pots and playing "normal", I'm gone.
Al said: "A person who is rushing and a person who is playing their rush are two different things."
But I'm not sure you fully appreciate the point Greg made about "future rushes" vs "past rushes". There simply is no such thing as a player who *is* rushing. There is only such a thing as a player who *did* have a lucky run of cards in the recent past. If you believe you can identify when a player *is* rushing, then you have to believe you can sometimes predict better than chance the next color the roulette ball will land on. The player's next hand is no more or less likely to be a good hand than at any other time.
Correctly stated, but large numbers of people who play this gave believe in rushes, so sometimes you can play a bad hand badly and take down the money. Provided there is any left after a player has gone on a rush. This sight of chips freefalling toward a single player demoralizes others.
I agree that sitting down to a table where one or two people have the money is a complete waste of time. If you threaten the people with the chips, they pack up and go home, leaving you with the losers. Sometimes you can bully them for a small pot, but usually you are better off changing tables.
What I like to keep in mind if someone is winning a lot, is that most people play better poker when they are winning. Regardless of your skill level it's just easier to play well when you are doing well. I might stay out of someone's way based on that notion, even though I subscribe to the theory that there is no such thing as a future rush. (Unless you take into account any possible help from the dealer). Someone who just won 5 monsters in a row is probably going to be more liberal with their tokes so there is a reason for a dealer to do it. The mistake I see made is that someone at the table will sense that this person just bought a pot or two and they are going to put a stop to it. So they call or raise with something they normally wouldn't and now they are off of their game and will probably lose money.
It would be hard to persuade me to play the hand any differently than the way you played it. I might not have capped the betting on the flop though. Raising or reraising with middle set against a fully suited board on the flop are good plays in general. I'd just let a flush or the nut flush draw do the capping instead.
I was playing in a wild o-8 game the other day, (many callers pre-flop and often much raising). The limits were 6-12. pre-flop UTG calls i call button raises and both blinds call (small pot for this game!). I hold Ah,Jh,Jc,9c and the flop comes Kh,Ks,Qh. It's checked to me so i bet and everyone folds. I figure that with the pot offering 10 to 1 a bluff here should show a profit. In addition i consider it a semi-bluff because i do have outs against a lone K and I have a one card out against a made fullhouse. A friend of mine, however, believes this to be a poor play. He says to often i will be up against a K or QQ. Also if I am called by anyone my outs go out the window because i will be limited to checking on the expensive streets and allowing my opponent to take shots at the pot when i show weakness. Also i will not know how to proceed in the hand when i am bet into and i may lose more chips when i hit one of my outs and i was beat all along. In sum, he believes that if i am called i am beaten already or will get out played on future betting rounds and the play does not show a profit. What do you think? Who's right?
It was a straight steal.Your rationale about having outs and what you would do on later streets is bs. If raised your hand goes into the muck. If bet into on a later street you muck here too. You know it and we all know it.As a straight steal it was a good play.Most players in O8 play for low,when three paints show up and it's checked to you ,you are in the driver's seat.
Jason is correct you have a straight stealling hand; with one card out (well, and 2 jacks sort of). The chances of a King being out is not that good; can't be more than 50:50 (35:8 discounting tendancy for players to play hands with Ks and 2s in them).
If you cannot take a shot at a flop like that once in a while then you shouldn't be playing for keeps.
This is especially true in THIS game, where if you get called your advertising EV goes way up. Boneheads don't notice the difference between a three-handed KKQ flop and a 6-handed Q872 board. Loose players look for excuses to play small gut shots and 4th nut low draws, and playing against an "obvious" bluffer like you is plenty of an excuse.
Heck, you should RAISE against that KKQ flop!
- Louie
I have a question to which I realise it is impossible to give an answer applicable to all situations: When do you call with second pair and overcard kicker in Texas Hold'em? Suppose you're two seats away from the button with a hand like A9s, one player ahead of you calls, you call and the button and little blind also call, making it a five-way affair. The Flop comes something like K94 Rainbow. From first position Sklansky and Malmuth in HPFAP argue that a bet with middle pair and overcard kicker is allright. I guess this play is part semi-bluff, part value bet. However when bet into there is no chance to win the pot uncontested, making a call dubious. A Player in my example holding A4 could make this semi-bluff/ value bet work, profiting from his "Right of first Bluff". Raising this player, and raising is after all the strongest reaction to a semi-bluff, however is a risky affair and potentially very costly. I'm aware that a lot depends on game texture, pot odds, your opponents etc. But still I'd like to hear some general considerations. This is a very common Hold'em situation.
Roy Wellton
In general, I would probably only play if it was heads up, and then I'd raise with it. I suppose it might be a close decision about calling if you had five players and you had a backdoor flush draw etc., but usually fold in the situation you describe.
Roy,
Just to add something else. You might get a read on the player by the position they called from.
Tom Haley
As you said, it's a very contextual decision. A lot of players would never semi-bluff with bottom pair+ace; many players always would. I like the bet if you're first, I like the raise against a real tricky opponent, but I don't like a call there and I don't like a raise against a tight player. It's not a great spot to be in....
There is no question that this is a tough spot. I just want to point out that if the pot is not too big and there are still several players to act behind you, your hand is not as strong as it appears. See our books for more discussion.
Dear Mason,
I believe the subject of when/if to call/raise with middle Pair and overcard kicker is poorly covered in the 2+2 books I've read sofar (Theory of Poker, Hold' em Poker, HPFAP and esays II) You put great emphasis on the correctness of betting when first in but do not discuss the reversed situation of being bet into with the same hand. I'm aware that with correct pot odds you might chase with your 5-outer but that's not the situation I'm thinking about. You and Sklansky write that that a hand that is (almost) worth a call, is definitely worth a bet in this situation. From your analysis that it is allright to bet with middle pair + overcard kicker, I deduce that you must consider this hand (almost)worth a call. Also you will much more frequently find yourself bet into, as opposed to being in first betting position. I think a reference to your books is clearly an insufficient answer to my question. I read them before I posted it.
Kind regards,
Roy Wellton
Here are two things to look at from HPFAP. Read the chapter titled "Odds and Implied Odds" starting on page 66; read the section titled "Playing Pairs in the Hole;" as well as the reading hands info. This should help.
If poker didn't have such difficult decisions even for experienced players...
I would have to think about raising if it seems very likely that I can get heads-up with the bettor going into the turn, and if I know I play well against the bettor. Otherwise, (usually) the bettor's semi-bluff or legitimate hand will get me out. In an unraised (pre-flop) pot, the blinds could have king-anything and might reraise if they read this correctly as a move against the bettor. Certainly a raise or fold situation though.
Since it was mentioned that "TwoPlusTwo", was coming out with a tournament book I would like to ask a couple of questions.
1- When will it be released?
2- What makes this book unique or more advanced than the other books out there,(specifically Mcelvoy's)?
3- If the author is a succesful tourney player, why is he or she not putting his/her name on the book?
4- Can you mention what some of the chapter titles are?
Thanks
Check www.twoplustwo.com (instead of going right to the forum). You'll find a description. Last I looked there wasn't a TOC.
1- When will it be released? It is now available.
2- What makes this book unique or more advanced than the other books out there,(specifically Mcelvoy's)? This book talks about specific tournament concepts, not how you play some particular form of poker.
3- If the author is a succesful tourney player, why is he or she not putting his/her name on the book? The author requested that he remain anyomous. However, bith David Sklansky and myself spent a great deal of time working on the text and reviewing it making sure that the ideas were accurate.
4- Can you mention what some of the chapter titles are?
Table of Contents
Foreword by Mason Malmuth v
About Sylvester Suzuki vii
Introduction 1
Background 3
Part One: Progressive Stack Rebuy Tournaments 9
Introduction 10
Overview 11
The First Twenty Minutes 16
The Second Twenty Minutes 20
The Third Twenty Minutes 21
Special Note 24
The Intermediate Stage 25
The End Game 26
Rebuys Revisited 34
The Ultimate Recommendation 36
Common Mistakes 37
Part Two: No Rebuy Tournaments 41
Introduction 42
Overview 43
The First Thirty Minutes 46
The Second Thirty Minutes 51
The End Game 53
Common Mistakes 56
Part Three: Constant Stack Rebuy Tournaments 57
Introduction 58
Overview 59
The First Thirty Minutes 61
The Second Thirty Minutes 64
The Intermediate Stage 66
The End Game 67
Common Mistakes 70
Part Four: Sudden Sayonara Tournaments 71
Introduction 72
Overview 73
Strategy 74
Part Five: Shootout Tournaments 77
Introduction 78
Overview 79
The First Table 80
The Second Session 82
Part Six: Last Table Negotiations 85
Introduction 86
Overview 87
The Amount at Stake 88
The Position of the Dealer Button 91
The IRS 92
The Skill of the Negotiators 93
Part Seven: Other Topics 95
Introduction 96
Chip Exchanges 97
Tournament Tie Breakers 100
Playing Short-Handed Poker 103
The Collusion Stage 108
The Most Beatable Tournaments 112
Part Eight: Stepping Up 115
Introduction 116
No Rebuy Major Tournaments 118
Limit Games 118
The First Three Levels 119
The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Levels 121
The End Game 122
No-Limit and Pot-limit Games 122
Constant Stack Rebuy Major Tournaments 125
Limit Games 125
The Rebuy Period 126
The Intermediate Stage 126
The End Game 127
No-Limit and Pot-Limit Games 127
Part Nine: Tips for Tournament Managers 129
Introduction 130
Recommendations 131
Part Ten: Questions and Answers 137
Introduction 138
Progressive Stack Rebuy Tournaments 139
The First Twenty Minutes 139
The Second Twenty Minutes 140
The Third Twenty Minutes 141
The Intermediate Stage 142
The End Game 142
No Rebuy Tournaments 145
The First Twenty Minutes 145
The Second Twenty Minutes 146
The End Game 147
Constant Stack Rebuy Tournaments 149
The First Thirty Minutes 149
The Second Thirty Minutes 150
The Intermediate Stage 151
The End Game 151
Sudden Sayonara Tournaments 154
Overview 154
Strategy 154
Shootout Tournaments 156
The First Table 156
The Second Session 157
Last Table Negotiations 158
The Amount at Stake 158
The Position of the Dealer Button 159
The Skill of the Negotiators 160
Other Topics 161
Playing Short-Handed Poker 161
The Collusion Stage 163
Stepping Up 164
No Rebuy Tournaments 164
Limit Games 164
The First Three Levels 164
The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Levels 165
The End Game 165
No-Limit and Pot-Limit Games 166
Constant Stack Rebuy Tournaments 166
Limit Games 166
The Rebuy Period 167
The Intermediate Stage 168
Conclusion 169
Appendix A: Glossary 171
Appendix B: Recommended Reading 183
Index 185
Thankyou Mason, you went over the call of duty with the chapters. The price seems reasonable . I hope your future releases stay in the 19.95 range./ Thankyou Mason
Can someone help me with the basic rules of the holdem style game of pinapple. I have tried varios game rules sites but they do not cover "pinapple".
I saw this game in Montana card rooms about five years ago. The version they played was identical to hold'em, except that three hole cards are dealt and one discarded before the flop. They also played a version called Crazy Pineapple where the discard took place after the flop.
Discards must be made in rotation, starting with the small blind and continuing on to the button. This is particularly enforced with the Crazy Pineapple variation.
Andrew wrote: "Discards must be made in rotation, starting with the small blind and continuing on to the button. This is particularly enforced with the Crazy Pineapple variation."
I've only played this game in SoCal (maybe once at Bay 101 in NoCal), but I've never heard of this requirement. Additionally, why would it matter? Since everyone must discard exactly 1 card, and no one ever sees anyone else's discard, how could the order of discards matter?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Because of the possibility of exposed discards. This is in force at the east coast cardroom I frequent. However, it is rare to see any form of Pineapple Hold'em spread there.
Crazy Pineapple is being introduced at the Indian casinos in very Southern California--San Diego. I would appreciate any comments by someone who has played this game. A triad called HOP is also being introduced. All are played high hand wins.
It seems to me that with the ability to discard, these concepts follow:
More people will see the flop.
The number of drawing hands will increase.
Pocket pairs, even top pair, will lose value.
The average winning hand will be stronger.
Comments?
>>More people will see the flop. <<
Yes they will; but you WON'T.
>>The number of drawing hands will increase. <<
Yes.
>>Pocket pairs, even top pair, will lose value. <<
Excessive action you can expect, I'd guess, will preserve the value of small pairs flopping sets.
Yes, one pair hands go way down.
>>The average winning hand will be stronger. <<
Yes, by a lot.
>>Comments? <<
There are three times as many hands out against you than in holdem. Therefore, there is considerabl merit in believing you need a hand 3 times as strong your normal holdem minimum to play.
You will almost always need to HIT the flop to play. So 2 weak combinations (7c6c6s) are usually betting than 1 strong combo (QQ4). <<== controversial opinion ==
Small suited connectors go down, due to the likeliness of losing to larger flushes and even larger straights. Big suited connectors and Axs go up in value for the same reason.
There are no good non-paired non-suited hands. AK is a trouble hand. AJ is out of the question.
Expect others to play holdem; and this is where your profit comes from. Expect JT flopping a pair of Jacks to call bets and raises and go to the river (Doh!). Be prepared to abandon over pairs when the raising starts.
- Louie
All versions of pineapple are played by dealing 3 cards to each player. Betting proceeds just as in HE, and the cards are placed on the table (flop, turn, and river) just as HE. This game is also frequently played hi/lo with an 8 or better qualifier for low. It is also frequently played as a kill game, with someone being required to "kill" the next pot if they scoop a pot of greater than x dollars (with x varying depending upon the size of the original stakes).
regular pineapple - 1 of your 3 cards must be discarded before the flop is revealed (although you can wait for the betting to be completed before making your decision).
crazy pineapple - 1 of your 3 cards must be discarded before the turn is revealed. This game is almost always played hi/lo.
lazy pineapple - keep all 3 cards through the river, but you can only play 2 of them at most in showdown (you can also use 0 or 1 of them, just like HE).
The main key to playing this game is to realize that everyone will have many more good hands than regular HE. Therefore, you must tighten up your starting requirements significantly, especially with respect to unsuited big cards. Hands that include AQ, KQ, etc. are not necessarily playable, even though these 2 card hands are often playable in regular HE. Additionally, crazy and lazy pineapple are a lot like Omaha, where the nut hand is much more likely to be present. Also, unimproved overpairs are much more vulnerable in the latter two games, because with 3 cards seeing the flop, it is so much easier to make 2 pair, even on a ragged flop. Plus, any draw that is possible on the flop is that much more likely to be present. You'll be amazed at how often you'll see a tight player show you something like KTo to win the pot in crazy pineapple, even though you raised preflop. However, it is very possible that this tight player started with the suited A, thus making the hand very playable.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Is this likelihood of making a drawing hand decreased because of the addtional cards that are dealt out before the flop?
And, if played high/low, is the correct strategy to play low hands that can scoop as in Stud high/low 8 or better?
The number of cards dealt out before the flop in no way effects the chances of making a drawing hand. However, the number of cards in your hand does slightly effect the chances, as now there are 49 unseen cards before the flop, as compared to 50 in hold'em. Likewise, there will be 46 unseen cards after the flop, compared with 47 in hold'em.
I don't play crazy pineapple, but I would imagine that playing cards that can scoop would be the best tactic when played with an 8-low qualifier. A hand such as AKs,2 or A,A2s may be some of the best starting hands. However, if a qualifier is not in effect, then playing hands that have a better chance of winning the low, is probably the better tactic. A hand such as A23s would probably be the best starting hand without a qualifier. It can scoop, but also maximizes your chances for making the low. This wouldn't be true with the qualifier because there is no guarantee that there will be a low hand.
Perhaps someone with experience can give you more insight into proper starting hands.
SPECIAL TWO PLUS TWO PUBLISHING ANNOUNCEMENTS
I am happy to announce the following two events:
Saturday, April 25th, 12noon until 10pm we will have an Open House in a suite at the Golden Nugget. Stop by for some refreshments; meet everyone at Two Plus Two, as well as fellow forum contributors. Call the Nugget the morning of the 25th at 385-7111 and ask for Two Plus Two Publishing's suite number.
Thursday, April 30, beginning at 7pm David, Mason, and Ray will hold an informal seminar on poker and gambling at: Borders Books & Music 2323 S. Decatur Las Vegas, Nevada 89102 (702) 258-0999 The cross street is Sahara Ave.
We hope to see you all at one or both of these events.
The following hand came down just a short time ago at the 1998 WSOP in a $75-$150 Limit Hold 'em ring game I was able to observe from the rail.
The game is six-handed, and an apparently new player, whom I recognize as a high-limit Hold 'em player in LA, has posted $75 two off the button.
RZ raises UTG, fold, past-poster (PP) calls, button folds, SB folds, and the BB calls.
The flop is A 8 6, two spades (I believe the 8 and 6, but am not sure).
BB checks, RZ bets, PP raises, BB cold-calls, RZ calls.
Turn is an offsuit J (clubs, I think). BB checks, RZ checks, PP bets, BB folds, RZ calls.
River is a blank; I don't believe straight is possible (so either a 2 or 3, but I'm not sure).
RZ checks, PP bets, RZ raises, PP calls.
RZ says 'I missed', but PP forces RZ to turn over his hand, which is T9s of clubs. PP shows down A9 offsuit, with one of the A or 9 being a spade.
(This is the only hand that RZ plays the time I am watching the table.)
One question I have is the thought process Ray went through in calling the raise on the flop: once the BB cold-calls, I'd be pretty terrified. There are almost 12 small bets in the pot, so Ray can draw to his nut straight, but if the the 7 of spades hits he's not happy.
In cases like this, where one of my outs gives the flush, and where a flush draw has the river to draw out on me even if I make my nut straight, I tend to let discretion be the better part of valor.
Comments?
I hit my
JP,
He may have thought he had a decent chance to steal on the river or he could make his hand. Combination of the two is maybe why he played it that way. Just a guess.
Tom Haley
He won't play a hand while i am dealing.. Just ask him
And what was up with that check-raise bluff on the river? If the cards and action were described correctly, it seems like a long shot. Did RZ put PP on a stubborn semi-bluff with a non-Ace spade flush draw?
First of all Ray doesn't have to be up against a flush draw. Secondly his implied odds are at least 16-1. Thirdly he can sometimes win without catching a seven. It is a pretty straightforward call on the flop. The check raise on the end will often work against good players and will show a profit if it works a quarter of the time.
These types of situations are a great premise for a book. A book about nothing but close situations and decisions at the table with Davids and mason's analysis would ,I think, be well received.
I couldn't agree more. I also play bridge, and some of my favorite books are of the type "Play along with.." such as Terence Reese and Mike Lawrence have written, which analyze approximately 60 hands - hand on 1-3 pages, answer overleaf. Go for it, D & M.
I agree. Mike Caro has been promising a play-by-play series of books and tapes for a couple of years now, but nothing has come of it.
Perhaps the two-plus-two crew would considering publishing a book which analyzes hands bet by bet, and card by card. This seems to popular in backgammon, where big matches are analyzed move by move and much can be learned by the reader. I suspect that it would be more difficult in poker than backgammon, but still possible.
One possible scenario would be for someone to "deal" David, Mason, and Ray a hand from a "stacked" deck. They would be playing each other. Each would give us his thoughts about the hand as it progressed, and would fully explain each decision. This would teach the reader how an expert goes about playing a poker hand.
Hands analyzed in this manner could be chosen to demonstrate certain principles used by expert players. Sort of like my "differential equations" professor back in college many years ago. Not only was this guy a great teacher, but he reavealed new things through the questions he gave on his exams.
The great thing about it from the publishers point of view (hint, hint), is that there is no concern about repeating material already published. Just come up with a couple of dozen new problems every so often and you have a new book.
The downside of it is that you open yourself up to all kinds of second guessing about your analysis and decisions by other experts (challenge, challenge). Since 2+2 prides itself for publishing information that is "unassailably, logically, mathematically correct," they may be hesitant to analyze hands which may have more than one legitimate analysis. But if done with that understanding, readers will accept it for what it is. Perhaps comments by other experts as well would be in order.
Of course this is easy for me to say, I don't have to write the book(s). :-)
I have been busy and will be travelling a lot and hence missed many of the wonderful discussions in the forum. I would like to say that I really liked the suggestions in this thread. So now there is an "Ultimate Challenge" for David, Mason and Ray.
Jason.
I understand the tactic of a bluff check-raise on the end-- after missing his draw. However, isn't the stonger play in this situation-- a check-raise on the turn-- and then an automatic bet on the river?
On the river...
"RZ checks, PP bets, RZ raises, PP calls. RZ says 'I missed', but PP forces RZ to turn over his hand, which is T9s of clubs."
What do you mean PP "forces" RZ to turn over his hand? Perhaps this was just a poor word choice. Where I play, the last aggressor is supposed to turn over his hand first. Players who say "I missed" or "ten high" just slow up the game in hopes of not revealing their hands. Unfortunately, they often succeed, so their behavior is rewarded.
When someone does that to me, I respond by saying, "Show them or muck them." It doesn't matter if I can deduce that I'm holding the winning hand. My call on the end not only preserves my claim to the pot, it also entitles me to see the aggressor's hand (and learn from that information). By the way, if I'm the final aggressor, I immediately turn over my hand.
I believe this is a much different situation than a non-involved player asking to see all the showdown hands (i.e., unethically taking advantage of a rule intended to prevent collusion). It's also a different situation than the final aggressor asking to see his/her showdown opponent's folded hand (i.e., rude behavior).
Ray I go today to pick up your book that I ordered. I'm asking you if this book contains any solid strategies that are useful for playing in omaha8 tournaments?I know I know your gonna tell me to get the new book in which I will but I'm curious about yours. See yah!!
Joe,
The book will guide you through part way through the maze. Read it well and you will see what I mean. Good Luck.
Mason, it is clearly proven that the 2+2 book on hold'em can make you a winner by supplying a hourly rate. My question is this;will this new book make you a winner by a hourly rate or a winner by averaging your total prize money by your total of tournies played?. Or is this book a general concept book with which you hope to be lucky enough to make the money rounds? At any rate all 2+2 books are a great read.
Learn how to spell first then ask questions on how to play poker.
Joseph,
Please note that "alot" is not really a word, and you generally should not split your verbs with your modifiers, as you did in "should first learn". -JM
Not to mention that in your Omaha-8 post to Ray Zee "your" should be "you're", as in you are, not your, which is the possessive case. Sorry, but you asked for it.
It appears many people agree with you, Joseph.
Tom Weideman
Joseph Nerdo, what the hell are you talking about? You don't seem to be able to properly spell yourself! Why don't you answer some questions instead of bitching about.
With my apologies to everyone on this site, and as this will be my last post that's not about poker, I offer this to Eric: Number one I spell correctly, number two do not call me Nerdo and number three don't take my dumb spelling post personally as it wasn't an attack but a suggestion. Okay Eric !
Dear mr Nardo,
I posted a question about calling with middle Pairs a few days ago. I checked my messages but could not find any grammatical errors in them. If there are any, you should be aware that you are posting on a world wide forum, so some people will post whose native language is not English. In my case it is Dutch. I wonder about your proficiency in this language. Please point out the mistakes that bothered you so much that you felt it was necessary to invest some 15 odd minutes or so in posting this irrelevant message. As for you r normal contributions to this forum, I read them with great interest. Your last post though is bad etiquette.
Kind regards,
Roy Wellton
In addition mr Nardo: in your last post about the new 2+2 Tournament book: It is an hourly rate and not a hourly rate. Enough of this nonsense. Let's get back to Poker.
Roy Wellton
Ware is Boreis win we reelly nead hymn.
Here's the big, bad moderator to remind everyone that we must stay on topic. One of this forum's strengths is that there is very little off-topic discussion. All week, in the side games at Binion's, I've heard from our readers that it is a pleasure not to have to sift through non-gambling articles. Let's remember that many forum readers have precious little time to spend on the internet.
O.K. Joe, I'll look into a spell check, but don't hold your breath!!
Theirs nothing moor frustrating then reeding a post full of spelling eras. Just ads too the confucian.
Hello all! On another site, in reaction to my wife's Avalanche Beat experience, someone questioned whether there were shills in the game (presumeably as the winning players).
My question- is there such a thing as a poker shill? How does that work? My understanding of a casino shill is someone playing with the casino's money, to generate interest in the game (they leave when demand for the seat requires it). In that manner, the casino risks nothing. And, in that case, they don't affect me (except blackjack)
I don't see that lack of risk existing in poker- how could the rake cover the potential losses to other players? I've read that some players (usu. local pros) are paid an hourly wage to play at the casino, to generate games, but they would be risking their own money at poker (don't they?)
Is this something to be concerned about? If so, can I ask/demand that the shills be identified (as you supposedly can with the casino table games)? What is the general procedure to follow- floorperson? Dealer question?
PS- has anyone ever heard of shills playing in pai gow poker (where they could lose to other players if they act as the house) or other head-to-head games?
Some places in Las Vegas use shills, or at least used to use them. There're no threat, as they just ante and put up the bring-in or blinds, then fold to a bet or raise. If you ask the floor person to identify them, they will.
More common are "props", or propositional players. I'm not sure of the financial details, but they are paid a little to help get games going. They play with their own money, and are probably fairly good players (otherwise, what's the point?). Sounds good for them, but they have to give up their seat if a player shows up. They also may be forced to play in a game they would rather not, and so on. They play to win and they're usually play tight.
If you're too timid to ask the floor, one tell-tale sign that props or shills are in the game is to watch when new players show up. If the tables are full, you'll see the floor motion, tell, or ask one of the players to give up his/her seat. That player was a shill or prop.
They're usually at the smaller cardrooms which spread small games. I think it's a good idea to find out before sitting down which is which. Raising to steal the blinds and bring-in is easier if you know that two of the three players behind you are shills--they CAN'T call. On the otherhand, if the game is full of props, you might be better off not playing. They'll play tight and you have little chance of making money, especially since most places have no ante in their low limit stud games.
In hold'em, sitting just to the right of a shill might be the best seat. They're not going to raise you, and stealing their blind is automatic. But in practice, I think props are much more common than shills.
Easy E,
With regard to shills, you wrote And, in that case, they don't affect me (except blackjack).
How do they affect you in blackjack?
Etienne
Conceivably, they could play improperly to draw out extra cards in hi-count shoes, etc. Since they aren't playing for themselves, they could try to wreck others and shortcircuit counters. I understand that in the long run, their play really doesn't affect me- but idiot play in the short run sure seems to have a negative effect... I've never seen this, but I don't play much blackjack.
They don't, unless the casino is unable to bar card counters.
However, it is usually advantageous to play against the dealer heads-up when you're counting. Therefore, if the house sent in some shills to sit at your table and play, some of your advantage would be lost. However, the only reason to do this is if they know you're counting, in which case almost every casino in the world will simply bar you instead.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Maybe David, Mason and Ray can explain the logic behind the hands that are on the covers of HEFAP and H/LFAP. It seems as if the winning hand in each case was won by someone who shouldn't have stayed in (unless there were no raises and/or few bets):
1) Hold Em cover- 83o vs AKs. a) unless AK didn't raise, or 83 was in blinds or last with lots of callers (no raises), why are they in at river? b) Flop: Ad 8s 3s. Player LI ("Lucky Idiot") can't be that happy about 2 low pair no flush draw, with A and 2-flush on board. c) 4th st: Kc. Did AK not raise? Is there some logic to LI staying with 8's and 3's? If pot was huge enough to justify call, why did they eat all the raises before then? d) Full on river- I would probably call LI's hand, but expecting that I have a high chance to get beat (AA, KK, 88) after the other player's raises (that I'm assuming)
I'll have to post tomorrow on H/L8 hands, i can't remember exact cards. I do know that LI was weak early with 2 pair in 7-stud 8 and trip 3's in Omaha 8, was in big danger early of being scooped, and was behind in middle of hand. They only won because they got miracle card on river.
None of the hands made sense to me, based on the contents in the books that they cover. Are there logical reasons for playing the LI hands?....
or are DS/MM/RZ in an evil plot, trying to brainwash us into loose calling morons so they can load up their tables with crazy people? (actually, that would explain why they would discuss strategy, potentially giving people a better chance against them... :)
Don't you have better things to do?
George, evidently not....
Ray, As I'm just learning H/L from your book, I was curious about the play on the cover(s) and how bad it actually was.
A) 7s8- LI has 3c9d3d9h on 4th street, gets Ah on 5th. Therefore, they have no low draw and tough full house draw, especially since SP has As2sAd3s on 4th street.
Based on what I've read in my first pass, shouldn't the LI have mucked his hand in the face of what I'm sure are SP's raises? Is there a solid case for hanging on, even as SP continues to improve?
B) O8- LI starts with 9d3d9h3c, flops trip 3's but 2 spades and two overcards, including K. LI has no low draw, so best they are hoping for is 1/2 pot- and it seems shaky.
Again, based on what I've read, I don't see the justification for drawing out that miracle hand... is there one?
Our books with these covers have been available for years. HPFAP was originally released in 1988. Yet in all of this time very few people have noticed the bad beats that appear on the covers. It's good to see that some of you who participate in this forum are observant poker players.
Waznt thee "8-3" haand zupozed two rapreznt thee zame ting as thee gunn? A 38cal revulver?
I thought that the cover of HPFAP was hilarious when I first saw it, but had trouble explaining it to my wife. She just didn't get it. However, what I've always wondered about was the gun. Was it used by the guy who got sucked out on to shoot the other player, or did he use it on himself? Frank Brabec
The June issue of the popular men's magazine, Cigar Aficionado, has a five page feature on Mason and David. The article discusses their careers, their books, and the affect they have had on the world of poker.
We cannot reprint the article on our webpage because of copyright laws. However, Cigar will have the article on their web page in a couple of weeks.
The issue is on the newstands now. When you read the article let us know what you think.
It's nice to see a non-gambling magazine print accurate information about gambling. Hopefully more people will become interested in games of chance that are possible to beat. Then casios will be more inclined to support them. A few less slot machines and a few more poker tables wouldn't be a bad thing.
And I agree that having accurate information available on gambling is better in the long run, as it generates more players. I also think that David and Mason sleep better at night knowing that they're doing a service by publishing accurate information about a subject so many charlatans publish incorrect information about.
Finally, the public perception of gambling can only become better with articles like this, as opposed to articles about gamblers with phoney names who hide their faces and claim to make millions gambling.
I've got one negative comment though. David's starting to look old. What happened to that young kid in Brunson's book?
George, I have a feeling you won't be winning anymore $100 prizes, no matter HOW brilliant your answers are!
Since I know George Rice fully understands the concept of Getting the Best of it he probably has little or no life insurance. After all it is usually a bad bet. But there are exceptions and this is one of them. So go to the Prudential office today George. Don't wat until Monday. It may be too late.
Yikes! Perhaps the money would be better spent on beefed up security. Anyway, if you saw the things I eat, you'd know I have plenty of life insurance.
As far as winning more prizes Jessica, the new tournament book arrived in the mail today. I'll be savoring it for a few days, no matter what the publishers think of me. So I won't be needing prizes for a while.
By the way David, I've seen you in person and you look much younger in person. If that doesn't get me off the hook, then you should be advised that "George Rice" is a pseudonym. My real name is Gregor Ruzuki.
And if that doesn't disuade you, then perhaps a grudge match is in order.
George,
You and David can have your grudge match at BARGE. All you have to do is win the satellite. Of course you have to be one of the winning bidders to get into the satellite, but that's probably cheaper than life insurance.
If David's hoping that I'll get past 9 top BARGE players to get his revenge, he may have a long wait. Besides, isn't it written that grudge matches are to be held no limit hold'em? And in a grudge match, David would have to donate to charity if he lost. Rules are rules. But David's known as a limit player, so I'll understand any apprehension about playing no-limit.
As far as the charity satellites go, I think it's a great idea and will definitaly make a go at it if I have anything left of my bankroll. Hopefully, I will have dealt with David by then and will have my sights set on Mason. ;-) [Drat, I don't know when to shut up!]
But all of this is moot, as David hasn't indicated a willingness to settle the issue over the green felt. So back in hiding I go. Now what did I do with those C-rations?
Gregor Ruzuki
Work is intefering with my ability to keep up with the discussion of poker strategy here, but since the weekend is coming up, I would like to throw out some general questions for the readers of the forum.
Is middle limit hold'em more like low limit than high limit?
Is high limit hold'em more like limit--any level--than pot limit?
Is pot limit more like no limit than high limit?
Enough of these "Should I limp with Ace's" posts. Bet or raise! All responses are welcomed.
no yes yes
Two things that bother me: 1) It used to be, I believe, that you had to make a raise in "one smooth motion." Now, many players will take enough chips in their hand to raise, throw out enough for a call, usually with an exaggerated motion of two or three fingers, retract the fingers, and then throw out the rest of their chips for the raise. It seems some players I have noticed are sizing up the players behind them in the half a second or so between the first and second motions. Anybody else toubled by this? 2) Many players will throw their hand away just as the player to their immeidate right is acting without waiting to see whether this player is just calling or raising. For the protection of other players, wouldn't it be better if players were required to wait to act until the player in front of them has completed his action? Appreciate any comments.
It would be better if players waited until the previous player completed his action, but how do you enforce it? It's hard enough getting players to act in turn.
As for the first part, some players make that move just as a matter of style, whereas some do it as an angle shoot. Some cardrooms would call that a string-raise, others will not. If a player waited for the previous player to finish his act, then that would solve the problem. However, most won't, unless they're going to raise. [Did you ever notice how some players (including myself, I must confess) wait until they're sure all calls and raises are in the pot before raising with the nuts or near-nuts? On the other hand, when players are bored (including me) I can't wait to muck my hand. I avoid this tendacy on the first round of betting by waiting until it's my turn before looking at my cards.]
I guess the best thing to do is to except the way players act and try to take advantage of it where you can. One such way would be to raise to steal the blinds with one or two players yet to act when these players are unintentionally indicating they are going to fold. Just beware those who do this to lure you into raising so they can re-raise.
Waiting until it's ones turn before looking at ones cards is also beneficial in that no tells can be given during the betting up to that point. This good habit has become automatic for me, and I get to watch the players up front without having to think about my starting cards. This is a very useful technique out of the blinds.
There is a regular player in my game who does just this. At first, it irked me for the same reason you mentioned, but in time, I realized it was a tell, putting his hand on a certain range. It may be he's stealing EV from others, but he's giving it to you.
1) I'd use that to try to take advantage of the "slick" player, if possible. That's the only workable way to get 'revenge'...
2) I'm not sure why this bothers you. If the folder is moving that quickly to muck cards, why would the call/raise action make any difference? They were going to fold for a bet but would call/reraise a raise?
What are the remaining players, which you want to protect, gaining if the mucker is forced to wait? Unless the caller will raise instead, since s/he knows at least one person is folding, I don't see how this significantly "protects" the remaining players...
Easy E wanted to know what difference it made when a player folded quickly as the player before was making an unknown call/raise.
Probably not a significant difference, but the other players will know that the mucker would fold to either a call or a raise. If the mucker waits and the previous player raises, then the other players won't know if the mucker would have called otherwise.
Eric
It might make a difference to the big blind (which may be you). If I was considering calling, and was 1 or 2 seats from the button, I would seriously consider raising if I noticed that the player(s) behind me were all going to fold. This would then prevent you (the big blind) from seeing a free flop.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg Raymer's point is exactly what bothers me: a player in late position has enough chips in his hand for either a call or a raise. When he sees a player (or two) behind him folding as he is putting in chips, he can then raise, instead of just call, and possibly steal the blinds. I have seen this happen more than a few times in the game I play in (20-40).
I think that I have angered Mason and Ray with that infamous spelling post so therefore I apologize to all users. However, I still hope that people will try to spell correctly.
Joseph,
I didn't take your post seriously and judging by most of the replies, neither did the others.
Correct spelling is important, but a forum member's life has just been threatened, so I think that things should be kept in proportion.
Etienne
Who has been threatened?
Joseph,
Please read the entire thread "Cigar Aficionado Features Mason and David" dated 23rd April.
Etienne
I missed that post it seems all the good ones that may create some controvery im out of town.
What is Baye's theorem, and how does it apply to poker in general, and to Hold'em in particular?
Roger,
"An essay towards solving a problem in doctrine of chances" (published in 1763 after Bayes' death) presented what is known as Bayes' Theorem which correlates probabilistic statements about hypothesis H and data D as:
P(H|D)=P(D|H) x P(H) / P(D)
Left-hand side represents probabilistic statement of belief (PSB) about H after obtaining D. On the right-hand side P(H) is PSB about H before having the data. If we are able to specify P(D|H) and P(D) the theorem provides a solution to the problem of HOW TO LEARN FROM DATA. Various interpretations of the equation have generated lots of interest and controversy during the last two hundred years.
In "The Theory of Poker" p.216, there is a reference to using Bayes' Theorem "to determine the chances an opponent has one or another hand." There are other '2+2' publications by David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth dealing more extensively with the subject, which unfortunately I haven't been able to purchase yet.
This can be heavy stuff, and it's applied in fields from medicine to finance. Needless to say, one has to have mastery over both the applied field (in our case, poker) and probability theory. So, there's only 2 people I can think of that can answer your question.
Etienne
Exactly, and since I see that both check the questions on the forum regularly, I am hoping for a reply. I have TTP and will review p. 216. I also have their more general books on my purchase list. Thank you for your reply, and also to David S. for rsponding to my query about the similarities, or lack of, for hold'em games at each level. Very interesting.
Since I don't get to head west until May 3, perhaps I can rekindle the controversy over how many opponents we would prefer with A-A in Hold-Em.
As Mason noted, this is not simply a matter of how many opponents we want pre-flop, regardless of other factors. In fact, the most important aspect of the question is how much money can be bet after the flop. From a practical standpoint, it also relates to how big of bankroll you have.
Playing No-Limit, if you could get all of your money and your opponent's money into the middle before the flop, you would make a very nice *long-term* profit facing a whole field (approximately 2-1 against, getting 9-1 payoff). The question becomes how long of a term can your bankroll stand -- few of us have the resources of a casino. Further, if you are in a tournament, you would really really rather not be 2-1 against a field even with a potentially large payoff -- I'm not concerned about the long-term, I want to win THIS hand, RIGHT NOW. Thus, I don't want to face more than 1-2 opponents with that pair of Aces, even with no more betting to come. (Okay, okay, let's say you're playing some rinky-dink $25 buy-in tournament and it's early, then it would be correct to take on the whole field and not be as concerned about losing the hand as becoming chip leader.)
In both NL and PL, a big part of the play is getting the implied odds to play some piece of cheese, in order to break the folks who believe in playing Aces against a large field. Since the reality is that no more than a few players are going to call an all-in re-raise, the issue of additional money is moot unless only a few people limp, including you with your Aces.
With a Limit game (and to some extent, a PL game), now the issue of additional money to be bet is nearly always a key factor. First of all, even if the pot gets capped pre-flop and this is a "no-fold-em" game, then your Aces have a long way to go against a full field where someone surely caught a piece of the flop. Now you are laying all of your pre-flop "half-bets" against paying off several "full-bets." Maybe there is a way to put your chances of winning into a quantitive value, but my intuition and experience says that even the long run doesn't give much of an edge -- if at all. Which goes back to the bankroll issue -- how long of a run can you survive when Aces get cracked repeatedly going to the river against a big field. As Jimmy implies, you are going to get your head busted an awful lot facing a big field. If you've got the resources of the Mirage, and do nothing but spend your life playing poker, then maybe the "long run" will reward you for playing Aces against a full field.
But if you take the short run, and those Aces against 1 or 2 opponents, then you will be getting, at worst, even money before the flop and given pot odds of 2-1. A relative consistent payoff -- and there isn't going to be much of a long run to wait on. Playing only against 1-2 opponents, the chances of them hitting the flop is significantly reduced, and if you play well after the flop, you will win a high percentage of the time with those Aces.
The key issue in "how many opponents versus Aces" is really how much money can be bet after the flop, i.e., what are your opponent's implied odds. The higher they are, the fewer opponents you want.
Earl, you're right on.
Earl,
You know my views and I don't want to get embroiled in this argument again - good luck for your trip west next week! While there, if you happen to get into a game where you're continuously getting dealt pocket Aces, I have this nagging suspicion that your bankroll or the number of pre-flop opponents will be the least of your worries.
Etienne
In the limiting case of a one table satellite, I think I'd like 2-1 odds of winning the whole table right there (as opposed to only facing a couple of players). So at least in this extreme case I'd have to disagree.
The question here is: how likely are my opponents to fold for a pre-flop bet or raise. If likely, bet or raise with the Ace's. If not, limp, and hope to trip, or get a trash flop; then bet or raise. The longer the hand goes, the more likely someone will crack the Ace's.
Tom McEvoy's book about tournament play refers to satalites as the place for middle tournament strategy. Agression pays off there, as you point out. He also recommends taking risks with drawing hands if you get the pot odds you would wish.
I must be missing something here. This is gambling right? Wasn't it established that your odds of beating the entire table are still pretty decent even with just the aces? I get the impression that many people consider it their God given right to make some money (however small the amount) any time they are dealt aces. Why is this? It's just a hand. You obviously are not beat with this pre flop so bet the hell out of it. The more people that call the better. You have a positive expected return against every one of them. Hopefully you'll get a raise. If that happens I'll often try to lay low and give the impression that I'm screwed by the obvious monster that just raised me, then snap off their AK or whatever they raised with. AA obviously plays really well against most hands that people might raise with. In the games that I play in almost regardless of the flop, the pre flop raiser will bet and your raise will be hard to figure out since most people have now put you on something other than a premium pair with the no re raise pre flop. I play aces after the flop just like any other hand. If someone bets or raises and it looks like I'm beat I throw it away. I just keep track of the few aggressive types that are out there and I won't give up as easily against them. What is there not to like about aces? Just don't stay with them if someone outdraws you. How many people would call with pocket 8's against say 7 other people. Most would cold call two bets with that. If you like the 8's against that many people why not the aces? As long as you don't put a sign on you head that says what you have, you've got to like both your odds and your implied odds. In a raised flop, with lots of players, if an ace hits the board, you'll still get plenty of callers and even raisers. Two pairs, straight or flush draw, the other ace, a lower set, etc. I normally play low limit hold 'em because it's hard enough for me to make money at that and I don't want to just donate at the higher levels. But I usually win and quite often it's against better players who are waiting for a seat in a higher limit game. Being tight (unwilling to gamble) with their premium hands is one of the fairly consistent weaknesses (at least against the prevailing competition) that I see in a higher limit player's game. The other weakness is getting frustrated when scrubs outdraw them a few times in a row, and getting overly aggressive against the solid players that are at the table. But I digress. Anyway, if I had a dollar for every time someone cried over losing money on pocket kings or aces, I could afford to get my ass kicked in some of these higher limit games. My two cents worth....
Ben, you're right on.
Actually, I think he is only partially on...
Your odds of beating any one particular hand w/ AA is not the question. What are the odds of your AA being the best of ALL of the 5-9 other hands after the flop? I believe (w/o doing the calculations) that your disadvantage is somewhat cumulative as you add players, as it is more likely that your useless flop actually helped someone else.
Against 1-2 people, this percentage catch is not as high as it is when you talk about 6+ hands (almost 25% of the cards available). I think that's why, pre-flop, most people argue that you'd prefer less competition.
Rebuttals?
Easy E, you're right on.
(Reminds me of the story about these 2 guys who go to their local rabbi to resolve some dispute. The first one walks into the rabbi's room and presents his case, to which the rabbi replies "You're right". The first guy leaves the room, the second guy then walks in, gives his version and the rabbi responds "You're right". After both men had left, the rabbi's wife, who had overheard everything from the kitchen, asks her husband "How can both of them be right?" The rabbi ponders a little and retorts "You're also right".)
Your odds of beating any one particular hand w/ AA is not the question. What are the odds of your AA being the best of ALL of the 5-9 other hands after the flop? I believe (w/o doing the calculations) that your disadvantage is somewhat cumulative as you add players, as it is more likely that your useless flop actually helped someone else.
Correct.
Against 1-2 people, this percentage catch is not as high as it is when you talk about 6+ hands (almost 25% of the cards available). I think that's why, pre-flop, most people argue that you'd prefer less competition.
Correct.
But there's also the corresponding "cumulative advantage" of additional money in the pot to consider.
Etienne
Etienne, you're right on.. :)
I sorta assumed that everyone was implying that it was meeting the proper pots odds-to-players ratio, whatever their answer to "AA # of players" was... if the pot odds aren't right, the whole argument doesn't matter.
Odds are, the cumulative advantage of $$ goes down in general vs. a rising ratio of the cumulative disadvantage of additional players.
or CA$$< RRCDAP as RR >1, on alternate Tuesdays with a full moon....:)
Folks,
I am currently playing around the side games at the world series and would love if any forum readers came by and said hello. I wont be reading too many posts or answering any till i get back home. Good Luck.
Good Luck!!!
Dice
As one presently benefitting from your advice, GREAT LUCK!
Ray, by the time I get there, you're probably gonna need some help carting away all those racks ....
Now that the Charity casinos have been shut down in Ontario. Does anyone know if there are any Hold'em games near the Toronto/Hamilton area.
Thank you.
I believe there is an Indian Casino east of Toronto in "Port Au Perry" that has the same limits as the charity casinos at roughly 10 tables. I don't know the actual name of the casino and I don't have contact info. If anybody does have such info could you please post it? I asked the editor of the Canadian Poker mag but he didn't respond and it isn't listed on his web page.
So, have ALL the charity casinos in the Windsor area closed? I understand that the new Casino Windsor will have poker. Any scoop on what the spread and rake will be?
As far as I know there will be no poker at Casino WIndor, but Fundtime is opening a permanant charity casino in Windsor. They will have 40 table games, any number of which may be poker.
All the roving charity casinos in Ontario (much less Windsor) have closed. In working out the deal for the permanent casinos the province managed to leave the municipalities out of the loop. So, after the various organizations had bid for local casinos, something like 40 of the 44 municipalities refused (including a referendum in Toronto). Since then the province has been playing shell games with the money and a VLT vs. Slot Machine question, but AFAIK not really gotten anywhere. Last I knew the casino by Diamond in Kingston was a go for mid to late summer and the one in the Ottawa area by Carnival Cruise lines might happen as early as August.
If anybody has more recent data please post it or at least a reference.
I found the Indian Casino that offers hold'em that I ref'd in an early post. It is in Scugog (Port Perry) Ontario. Its called the "Great Blue Heron Charitable Casino and Bingo". The phone number is 905-985-4888. A small ref to it is at http://www.scugog-net.com/tourism/attractions.html. It has a poker reservation line so things are looking up. Hopefully I'll be going out in the next few weeks but if anybody makes it out before me it would great to see a report on the room.
We are in the Golden Nugget, Suite #434. Stop by and say hello. I've been taking photos all day, so look for them on the site in a week or two.
Will 'Sylvester Suzuki' be answering questions on this forum about his new book?
I highly doubt it. He doesn't own a computer.
So, uh, how did he write his book?
On one of those weird contraptions you stick pieces of paper into that have a funny keyboard without ESC, CTRL, F4, UPARROW et al? And most importantly, DELETE.
What were they called, way back when? Oh yeah, typewriters, I think. And the spell checker? That was referred to as 'whiteout', right?
No wonder Bill Gates is rich beyond all sane boundaries of wealth...
(-: (-:
(smiley faces included for the humor impaired)
I played in the Orleans no-limit hold 'em tourney today.
(I use the rgp notation of Txxx for the value of tournament chips)
The structure is: $30 entry fee, T250 in chips. 1 rebuy of $20 allowed for T250 if below T250.. *IF* you survive the first hour (blinds of 5-10, 1st half hour, 10-15, 2nd half hour) you can then add-on for $20, getting T500 in chips.
After a few hands, I had lost maybe T20 and a couple of stacks had doubled or tripled. Should I have rebought at this point? Assuming I avoid going broke because I get no playable hands and slowly attrit money, should I ever rebuy, or just wait for the addon.
Waiting for the addon has the advantage that I am buying twice as many chips for the same price as the rebuy. Taking the rebuy has the advantage that if I do get a powerful hand, I may have a chance to double-through with a bigger stack. Taking the rebuy has the downside that if you do go all-in and lose, you are out in the cold (actually the wind, given current LV weather conditions!).
(I got no hands, attrited slowly away, and simply took the addon after the hour. I had about T560 when the next round started, made it to the final table, and chopped in up 5 ways)
McEvoy's advice is reasonable, i.e., one rebuy plus the add-on. However, I prefer to just take the add-on, and will do so even with a big chip lead.
Why is it either/or on the rebuy/add-on? I think you can rebuy and add-on. If not, you were probably right to wait being only down T20. If I'm right, then you should have bought a rebuy and an add-on, with your stack so low near the end of the rebuy period.
With only one re-buy, there's no point in "wasting" it early, and risk getting knocked out early when only down T20 as you summized. However, if you find yourself down low, and can both add-on and rebuy, then you should re-buy before the rebuy period ends. Some places allow you to rebuy and add-on at the same time.
As far as rebuying for the purpose of giving yourself the option of doubling-through your opponent, you're only half right if you have the option of rebuy or add-on. That's because you will still double your smaller stack, and buy a double stack with the add-on. The real advantage is that you will take more chips away from your opponent if you double through with the big "rebought" stack (and force him to use his rebuy, adding to the prize pool). Also, if you rebuy early, you have the option of doubling through twice, or three times before the rebuy period ends. So if you find yourself low early, it's probably wise to rebuy, even if you can no longer add on later. This would be especially true if you figure that you're better than the other players--you might as well give yourself as many opportunities to take their chips as possible.
A good rule of thumb would be to rebuy early if low on chips whether or not you'll be able to add-on later. If you find yourself low on chips late in the re-buy period, then only rebuy if you can also add on later. If not, then it's better to wait for the double add-on later, as you did.
Regardless of whether you have rebought, you may add on.
The trick is that if you rebuy and then lose all your chips before the last hand is dealt before the break, you are out.
IMHO, you were right not to have re-bought when down T20. But I would have re-bought as well as added-on at the end of the re-buy period.
I hate to pimp for 2+2 on their own forum, but this exact topic is excellently covered in the new book. I read this particular chapter last night, and the analysis is logical and the explanation clear. This book is a must for players playing in the daily low $ rebuy tournaments.
What section/page are you referring to?
Page 24 seems to suggest that you would just make an add-on.
(I will admit that I have only read the book quickly once, having gotten it just two days ago)
When you are only down $20 I don't see the point to taking the rebuy except in extreme situations such as a bad player with a big stack going all-in much too often. For example in a WSOP super satellite two years ago I was up against a bad player with a big stack who would go all in every time he had an ace. I did the rebuys and maximum add ons and soon found myself with AJo. I went all-in with him. It turned out he had A4o, hit a 4 and knocked me out. Ouch (but that doesn't mean my decision to buy chips was incorrect).
The double-value add-on seems so valuable that you don't want to risk going busted. By avoiding the rebuy, you can take a little more risk (such as calling with AJo in the above situation, which was far from a lock) with your remaining chips and try to build a stack, without fear of being knocked out.
In a constant-sized rebuy tournament the 2+2 book claims that it is always correct to rebuy whenever you have the opportunity.
So in the SS you described it should have been 'correct' to rebuy whether or not there was a particular kind of nut at the table.
I agree that in the Orleans tourney it seems quite silly to risk busting out before the addon is available. The more interesting question is under what conditions one should both rebuy and addon, instead of just adding on. Also, at what stack size should you forgo any additional buy of chips?
The 2+2 book recommends taking the addon in all cases except where you have a 'huge' stack. My intuition says this is incorrect, but I haven't worked out the math. It would be nice if there were a fairly simple rule of thumb that would work in most cases.
JP wrote:
"In a constant-sized rebuy tournament the 2+2 book claims that it is always correct to rebuy whenever you have the opportunity."
This is not correct. Our book says "For constant stack rebuy tournaments, it is recommended that you make a rebuy whenever you are low on chips."
This is different from whenever you have the opportunity. Specifically, if your stack falls just below the threshold in a constant stact rebuy tournament our book does not say that you should rebuy.
Also, for those interested. The rebuy advice is different for a progressive stack rebuy tournament.
You are correct.
I was thinking of the advice given for the progressive rebuy tournament structure for the 3rd twenty minutes (when the rebuy amount had reached its maximum).
There it says "If you are eligible to make a rebuy... it is always correct strategy to do so." (p 21)
(by the way there's a typo in the next sentence. It says 'third thirty minutes' when it means 'third twenty minutes')
JP-
What book is this? I am looking for a good no-limit HE tournament strategy books. Any suggstions?
'Poker Tournament Strategies' by Sylvester Suzuki. Newly published by 2+2 Publishing.
The book discusses NL Hold 'em only briefly. I don't think there is a good NL Hold 'em tournament strategies book.
I think the 2+2 advice is correct in most cases because I think the math is mostly irrelevant. If you are a significantly winning tournament player then except under very strange conditions, any money you put into the tournament gives you a positive return. It might be a smaller return than you are already getting from the cash value of your tournament chips, but it is still positive. Another way of looking at it is that you want to minimize the chance of busting out of the tournament because after you bust out you aren't making any money. So another exception would be if there are very profitable ring games you can play after you bust out (but then it probably would have been a mistake to play in the tournament in the first place).
So many times I sit at a table that is a good one for my style which allows me to be winning nicely,when all of a sudden here comes a madman who has had a few drinks and starts raising every hand. When this happens I adjust my play but it never works. I start playing looser since this guy is playing every hand. Everybody at the table crushes him but I get conked on the head. My options are to leave,play really tight, or to gamble which is something I don't like to do. This situation happens enough to warrant thinking about. What can you do to at least hold off this type of player?
I just play tight-passive until the maniac goes broke or leaves. Playing looser can work too, but I don't like the larger variance involved. The chips everyone else picks up are still going to be there for you to go after later in the session.
Joseph Nardo wrote: "When this happens I adjust my play but it never works. I start playing looser since this guy is playing every hand. Everybody at the table crushes him but I get conked on the head."
The optimal strategy adjustment is not necessarily to play looser in this circumstance. It depends upon the type of maniac you're up against, and the way everyone else is reacting to him.
If the maniac is playing every hand, and raising with them preflop, you can play looser preflop, AGAINST HIM. However, if everyone else is responding to this by tightening up, then you've got to worry more about the other hands you're against, or you'll end up being squeezed between the maniac and the real hand. If everyone else has folded, or if a reraise by you can make them fold, then you should consider playing some much less than optimal hands (KT is a GREAT hand when heads-up with position against a random hand). Just be sure you can get it heads-up before you enter with less than your normal starting requirement.
If the maniac has loosened up the entire table, then you've got to adjust your starting requirements by folding more big unsuited card hands (KQ, AT, etc.), and playing more hands that tend to make the nuts when they hit (like pocket pairs, even little ones, and Axs). In this situation, you're going against a big field, so play hands that can beat a big field, or that can be folded properly postflop.
The good thing about all of this is that the maniac will not be able to completely peg you (assuming he's a regular), because you'll play differently against him depending upon the table conditions. If he's a typical maniac, he's a 1-note instrument, and never plays any style but full-steam ahead.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg Said "(KT is a GREAT hand when heads-up with position against a random hand)"
Greg, could you elaborate? I mean sure it's a decent hand in the situation you describe, but I think not as good as A-K through A-T, K-Q, K-J, possibly A-xs, and probably Q-J, and certainly any big pair. (Note that it's often easier to take the ace or pair hands to the river.) Were you just using it as an example of a hand with some reasonable high card value, or is there some logic that I'm missing regarding this specific hand?
John,
You wrote : Greg Said "(KT is a GREAT hand when heads-up with position against a random hand)"
Greg actually wrote : If everyone else has folded, or if a reraise by you can make them fold, then you should consider playing some much less than optimal hands (KT is a GREAT hand when heads-up with position against a random hand). Just be sure you can get it heads-up before you enter with less than your normal starting requirement.
He was referring to heads-up play against a maniac, where less than optimal hands like KT (clearly KT is not as good as the ones you mentioned) should be played. KT is also particularly notorious for being a very poor multiway performer ie. heads-up or fold.
Etienne
Well, I understand what he said. I asked, "Were you just using it as an example of a hand with some reasonable high card value, or is there some logic that I'm missing regarding this specific hand?"
Apparrently you're saying he meant it as just an example of a hand with some high card value. Still, I'd like to hear from Greg. I asked because there are hands in hold'em which, in some situations, have value which is not immediately obvious. (e.g., some experts are of the opinion that in a multiway pot J-Ts is better than Q-Js due to its greater straight potential.) I just wondered if there could be anything about this hand that I was missing. I doubt there is; he probably just meant it as I guessed, but it never hurts to be sure. :)
Now you've also got me wondering ... let's wait for Greg.
Well, I'm a little behind here, because I got to play golf with some clients yesterday, instead of surfing the net.
Etienne is correct. KT is not a "special" hand, but a good example of a hand which I would normally fold to a raise without hesitation, but with which I might reraise the maniac (if I think this will get me heads-up). Because the maniac is coming in with a raise so loosely, a high card hand like KT figures to be a noticeable favorite (especially with position). You could substitute a variety of other hands here, like Ax (x is small), K9, QT, small pairs, etc., that are much better than a random hand, but with which you don't want to play against 2-4 opponents. Heck, I almost always fold KQ to a raise, so I guess you can put that hand in here as well.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Thanks for the clarification, Greg. That's what I thought you were probably saying. But wanted to be sure in case you knew something about K-T that I'd never considered.
For the original poster I'd just like to add that when you are thinking about reraising a maniac with a hand you would not play against a normal player's raise, some types of hands are better than others. Specifically, medium pairs and hands containing an ace have one very important quality for play against a maniac: you can frequently take them to the river unimproved - which is often worth doing against a real maniac.
But a note of caution: I would reraise a maniac with, say, 9-9 or A-Q (In routine situations, it is usually correct to fold either of these hands when faced with a raise from a decent player.) from all sorts of positions if I thought it would give me a reasonable chance of getting it head up against him/her. But I would not reraise a maniac with something like A-xs, K-J, or Q-T except in good position, under fairly optimal conditions. With such hands, I want to be almost *sure* it will be head up. (The last thing I need if I'm going to reraise with a hand like this is a good player coming in behind me with a "real" hand.) It would also need to be a maniac who is really at the extreme low end of the spectrum in raising standards. Also it's better if he/she doesn't play so well after the flop (some do), preferably becoming less aggressive on the flop or fourth street.
I suppose one possible scenario is:
I suggest that a game that suits your style is loose passive, allowing you confident value bets of weak hands, easy lay downs, and frequent free cards. Thus, I suspect you are intuitively playing more hands profitably. There are many such hands that show a slight profit; and improve the profit of your real hands.
Against the maniac these hands are no longer profitable. These many hands are now losing alot .. err .. a lot.
Against the maniac you must play hands ONLY that will win showdowns often when there are bets on every round. Play no looser than the 2+2 requirements.
I have the same problem.
- Louie
PS. The "diabolotical" part of the Madman is NOT evil. He is giving you the opportunity to scrutinize your starting requirements and acknowledge which hands are playable in the SPECIFIC game you are in: In a loose game; you can call early with 44, but be sure to remind yourself that you can do it only in this sort of game. <<-- Sweet BS, eh?
Joseph,
The advice on this forum has been to actually tighten up some rather than loosen up some. I think this would depend on the situation. For the most part I think it is correct to play tighter in a game with a maniac. If I could get heads up with the maniac I would actually loosen up a little, be more aggressive, and take the maniac on. I know I’m gambling but I would think the odds were in my favor which is when I like to gamble. Hold’em for Advanced Players has a chapter on playing against the maniac. One thing that Mason Malmuth writes about in one of his Poker Essays books is that the games with maniacs tend to tighten up in general. It’s inevitable that you will suffer some bigger losses than you would like. In the long run playing against the maniac should be extremely profitable however. My advice would be to get up and leave if you are on a short bankroll.
Tom Haley
Mason has said that hands fit two catagories:small winners and big losers. I believe this to be very true. Small suited connectors like 23,34,45,56,67 are hands that I don't like to play except on blinds. I think that these hands are losers in the long run. However they hold some deceptive value for advertising purposes. Hence the deceptive deception of small suited connectors.
That's nice, but I think you are cutting out some profit (paraphrasing MM) when you treat these hands this way...
If you would play these hands in the blinds (ugh!), why wouldn't you play them elsewhere if the conditions match? i.e. I assume you'd only play from blinds if many callers and no raises from strong players, correct?
The higher of your selected connectors 76, 65, 54, should be better off in late position, when you can INSURE callers/no raisers before you decide to play them. Given the proper conditions, you should be able to play them a little more often..not just as "deceptive" advertising, but as potential profitable hands.
I personally wouldn't want to play 43 or below, unless I WAS in the BB for free... except if I was WAY ahead, needed some advertising or to loosen up a table... and I might even raise with them once. That would hopefully give some ROA (return on action) that would presumably offset the ROI for that particular type of hand...
I would be interested in some perspectives on laying down big hands. The following three cases occured in a single three hour session of a somewhat loose and aggressive $10-$20 hold'em game. Specifically, at the "moment of truth" for each case: 1) Would you laydown, call, or raise and 2) Why? I will try to provide sufficient context and will post the results later if there is any interest.
As a back drop, most of the regulars in this game respect my play as aspiring solid-aggressive MM/DS style. I was having a run of poor-to-mediocre hands up to the point of this series of hands, which may have been interpretted as rockishness.
Hand One: Pocket Aces in the Big Blind
Early Position Expert Player ("EP Expert"): Raises
(This guy is a regular expert-style player who generally plays tight up front, but takes some liberties with position, particularly to exploit weaker players. He had been victimized by some bad beats, and seemed to be looser than usual.)
Middle Position Average Player ("MP Average"): Calls
(Average player who mixes up his play just enough to make it difficult to get a read on him.)
Late Position Rusher ("LP Rusher"): Reraises
(Very solid player who was having a big night; seemed to be playing better than usual for the session, assisted by some nice hits on the flop)
ME, with Aces in the BB (so far, so good): Caps it at 4 bets
All three call to see the flop of 789, with the 7 and 9 both hearts, but not matching my black Aces.
ME: Bet; EP Expert Raises; MP Average folds; LP Rusher cold calls; I reraise; EP and LP both call.
Turn comes a scary Jack of Clubs
I check; EP Expert bets; LP rusher folds to me.
It is the moment of truth, but I will say thay the EP Expert probably thinks I play tighter than I really do, and just might be capable of a move here.
Hand Two: AKs Under the Gun
I raise AK of spades under the gun. Average player from hand one above ("Average") calls from early position. Late position regular calls (This guy is solid-tight, but unimaginative, call him "LP Tight". Button (a loose, aggressive, coffeehousing oaf) also calls to make it a four-handed flop, and warns the table to "watch out".
Flop comes AJ9. A and J are hearts, 9 matches my spades for a back-door flush draw.
I bet first. Average raises. LP Tight reraises. Oaf-on-the button caps it.
So it's three more bets to me at the moment of truth.
Hand Three: Kings on the Button
It's folded to me with KK one position before the button. I raise and buy the button, with both blinds calling. SB is a new player, and BB is the "Average" player from the first two hands described above (Is this guy in every hand?)
Flop comes a ragged QT2 rainbow. Perfect for me to win this small pot, with some bonus action from top or middle pair trying to snap-off my apparent steal.
SB Checks; BB bets out; I raise; SB folds; BB calls.
Turn is a non-threatening 7, which matches the suit of the ten on the board.
BB checks; I bet; BB calls.
River is a Ten, which I am not crazy about when the BB leads out with a bet. It's the moment of truth to me for a single big bet.
Double T,
These are very interesting situations that seem to be somewhat common. I have some opinions but I think a better way to pose this would be:
Here is what I considered, did I consider the right things?
or alternatively
Here is my analysis, am I missing something or is it faulty in some way?
In question 1 you are on your way to doing this. Also you have to evaluate your plays earlier in the hand to see if you should have played things differently. For instance on the turn, in hand 1, you may want to reconsider your check. A bet on the turn may be more inline with what is recommended in HFAP. However, you may have had a very good reason to check. I would say that David Sklansky's book, The Theory of Poker, should be very helpful here. Especially the chapter titled, Analysis at the Table.
Another thing that I would like to mention, is that the right play may not be supported by the result that occurred. It doesn't necessarily make the play wrong in the long run.
Tom Haley
Good suggestion, but I consciously didn't want to extend an already long posting that might begin to sound like rationalization or just another bad beat story.
It is interesting that you reference HFAP in the context of my decision to check on the turn with the Aces against J987 board. I have studied this in detail and the one philisophical (and empirical) difference that I have with MM/DS strategy is that they actually recommend MORE checking on the turn than I would be inclined, particularly against aggressive opponents. I don't think they offer overwhelmingly compelling rationale for this type of play, but have been trying to work it into my game when circumstances seem appropriate (aggressive players, little fear of overcards, etc.) However, I have recently been burned a few times by the miracle free river card (pairing a weaker kicker etc.) against opponents that would have probably folded to a bet on the turn. I think that "When to check the turn after showing strength on the flop" would make an interesting discussion topic.
Back to the hand I described. I checked the flop for two reasons: 1) I was suspicious of the Rusher, (who cold-called two bets on the flop) and put him on either a slow-played (misplayed?) two pair, a straight draw, flush draw, or possibly taight-and-flush draw with a hand such as ATs. 2) The expert player to my left was quite aggressive and I figured he would bet out with likely holdings I could beat (KK, QQ, AK or AKs)as well as hands I couldn't beat (JJ or TT), so I wouldn't miss a bet from him if I was ahead and would save a raise from him if beaten. (FYI- I didn't put him on a set or he would have reraised the flop given the suited, straightening board). If raised by the cold-caller, I was planning to fold to an apparent straight or two-pair as he wouldn't try to bluff out both of us given the action on the hand. Despite the drawing odds against two-pair, there was also the risk of getting trapped between two big hands and absorbing four big bets to the chin.
I would appreciate your assessment of this analysis.
Double T,
I think you need to go a little deeper into the analysis.
I believe the HFAP recommendation is that you should tend to bet if you don’t have outs and check if you do have outs. In this situation you have to decide the likelihood of your opponents raising you without a straight. A lot depends on the caliber of your opponents and how you play. If the chances of your opponents raising you without a straight are remote (which they probably are), you can save a bet by betting because you don’t have to call twice. If you get raised on the turn you throw your hand away because you know you are beat. If they call on the turn and call on the river I would guess that most of the time you are going to show down the winning hand and win more money than by checking on the turn. So imo you lose less when you have the worst hand and win more when you have the best hand in the long run.
The other thing that I would like to mention is that as the caliber of your opponents improves, the more complicated the situation gets. If your opponents are capable of reading your hand accurately, are capable of thinking about what you think they have, and maybe thinking at higher levels, then your play may change in all of the hands that you describe imo. You just have to step up to their level of thinking to find the correct play. This is not easily accomplished in the heat of battle. I think most players have to prepare for this away from the table.
Tom Haley
Hand 1: I agree with most of the thinking you provide in your second post. Though some case could be made for betting the turn, it looks like a situation where someone might decide to make a move, representing the straight. Since you perceived the "EP expert" to be someone who might do so, *and* would bet one pair type hands as well, I think the check is not a bad play. Once the "LP rusher" folds, Your chances start looking reasonable. I would call it down from there on. If he doesn't have a T (or J-J), you're likely to collect two bets on 4 and 5. So you're not losing any value on the hand. Also, just in case he does have J-J, by checking and calling on 4 you retain the small possibility of redrawing on him.
Hand 2: Here I think you have to fold. You get raised, then the tight unimaginative player reraises, before the "oaf" caps it. Someone (e.g., the tight player) may well have you beat with A-Js for two pair, or with a set(jacks or nines). Someone else is probably drawing to hearts or possibly a straight. Given the combined possibilities that you're drawing nearly dead already, and that someone may make their draw even if you make, say, two pair on 4, a fold seems in order.
Hand 3: I think you *must* pay off here unless you really know the player would not bet without a T. Lots of players would bet a Q there figuring they're going to call anyway and, just maybe, they can get you to fold a better hand by using the paired card as a "scare card". I think I'm *way* ahead on such calls.
John-
Interestingly, you called these situations almost exaclty as I did.
HAND 1: Like you, I felt obligated to call down the expert after the late position player folded for fear he was on a move (or even betting out with QQ or KK after I showed weakness on the turn, which is not my standard M.O.) Somebody above made the case that if I bet and was raised by either player, I could have laid down right there and saved a call on the river. On further reflection, I think this is probably slightly more optimal. By the way, the expert showed down TT, but did thank me for paying him off.
HAND 2: Again, you were right on top of my thinking. I did lay down without much hesitation because I immediately put the unimaginative tight player on AJ, and both of the others were on the flush or straight. I wasn't even convinced I had ANY outs. RESULT: The tight player dragged the sizable pot with AJo (I guess he wasn't so tight) and got paid off by both busted draws. (Is a penny saved a penny earned in Poker?). Before the showndown, the expert who snapped off my Aces earlier with the TT turned to me before the showdown and said "I think AK was good, my friend." I guess that's sort of a moral victory that I "outplayed" him on this hand.
HAND 3: I called the guy down, although I would not do so again, because I am convinced he will never be clever enough to bet a Q on the end in this situation. To pour salt on my wounds for this bad stretch, the guy turned over the ten with a KING, so he was drawing nearly dead.
Thanks for your response. Here's hoping your premium cards hold up better than mine did.
1. Call, or raise. It is unlikely the player you describe has the straight. 2. Call. (You have two cards to come, if I understand the example) 3. Fold. Player you describe has a ten.
I am sure that you will get completely different advice from other experienced players, and given their understanding of the situation, their guess is as good as mine--in some cases, better. But I would do the above. Interesting examples.
Roger-
Thanks for your thoughts. I posted my analysis of these hands and the unfortunate results above. In reponse to your recommendations: 1) You are right that this guy is unlikely to have a ten, unless he has two tens, which he did. 2) Couldn't justify a call as I was convinced the unimaginative guy was on AJ, leaving me only two dubious outs, not counting runner-runner miracle cards. 3) Right on. I should have saved the bet.
You never know. 1. I did not think the player you described would raise utg with pocket tens. 2. I overlooked AJ, but should not have. 3. Okay, I got one right. This forum really helps sharpen your senses.
Hand 1. AA T98J, pre-flop tricky player bets heads up...This clever player can easily be betting one pair or combination pair/draw. Pay this one off. This is the easiest decision of the 3.
Hand 2. AK. AJ9, you bet, and its capped.
Let's see. Tight player says he probably has you beat. Unimaginative player says he can beat the tight player AND you. Oofus has you beat or has a good draw. If you hit your King you may lose to a made straight but anyway give up a straight draw. I would be tempted to call if it were 3 maniacs. FOLD. This is the easiest decision of the 3.
Hand 3: KK QT37T, you had the lead heads up all the way, opponent bets into you on the end.
If this is any kind of "tricky" player I would routinely raise. Surely this player would check-raise if he had a Ten. Many players, with some justification, would bet any hand they intend to call with, when any threat comes.
Against the rocks I would routinely fold. Except that this kind of rock is likely to have folded Tens on the turn. ...
Against the vast majority of players, especially "average" boneheads who like to call raises cold and often, I would not so routinely call; considering raising instead. This is the easiest decision of the 3.
Hand 2 involves 3 players who say they have you beat; and the OTHERs beat. That's VASTLY worse than hand 1 or 3 where only one player says he has you beat.
- Louie
LL-
Appreciate the thoughtful analysis. I posted my analysis and results to JF above. To your comments:
AA T98J- Pay off the two big bets I did, to be shown TT. Thsi was actually not that easy on the river, since I think the guy knew I was set on calling down.
AKs to AJ9- This WAS the easiest hand to lay down. I was vindicated by the AJ shown by unimaginative guy, who was paid off nicely by the others.
KK QTxxT- You lost me a bit on this one. It was precisely BECAUSE this guy was an average bonehead that I should have saved the bet to this -lousy call the preflop raise from a tight player and then absorb a raise on the flop and call a bet on the turn only to miss the chance to check-raise my ass after he sucked out on the river with a lousy two out KT-. I'll not pay off his lousy play again (unless he reads this message board, grows a brain, and tries to put some moves on me.)
-T (Only slightly bitter after this lousy session)
I would pay off in scenario 3 in most circumstances, or against most players. Given the size of the pot at the river, you don't have to snap off all that many bluffs to come out ahead. Plus, as Louie stated, a lot of players will bet out on the river when a scare card comes (even when their play throughout the hand has not given any indication that they're holding cards that match the scare card). The only players I can fold to here are those who are VERY predictable, and those are pretty rare.
Unlike Louie, I would not raise here. Most hands that you can beat will not call your raise. For example, I can easily see a player, good or bad, taking a shot at the river here while holding something like QJ. They've called you down with top pair, and now see a small chance to steal the pot. Or, they've got KJ, and were calling with the nut straight draw, and took a shot when the board paired. However, if you raise again, they're more likely to fold than pay you off with these sorts of hands. However, when they've got the trip tens or better, they'll either call you down or reraise, in which case you've lost more money than if you had just called. When you consider all possible hands, you'll lose more and win less when you raise here (IMHO).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
In Atlantic City, the low-limit players are terrible. In holdem, I was the only person who didn't see every flop. The player to my right raised every single hand, regardless of what his starting cards were. I three bet AA before the flop, and eventually lost to 65off when a second six fell on the river. To adjust for this, I play more hands like Axs, and fold things like KToff. Despite the quality of opposition, I haven't found the game to be profitable. The idea that many bad calls are bad due to having virtually no chance against a small number of dominating hands, while being perfectly sound against most holdings would partially account for the lack of profitability of the game when I don't get the better hands. Another significant factor is that a weaker hand may get pot odds when several even weaker hands call. In aggregate, they seem to make a much stronger hand a major underdog. When people are playing every suited hand, high pocket pairs may lose anytime the board has three suited cards. Likewise, even pairs of threes on the board are dangerous when people actually play 63off.
In stud, I have found that the reverse is true: players are overly tight. Due to the structure of 1-5, it appears difficult to take advantage of certain mistakes of bad players. First, poor starting calls only cost them $1. With a starting pair of aces or kings, you have to check, since any raise, even $2, will usually make everyone drop. Starting aces need to improve to win, and checking means giving a free card. When holding a hand like aces, a player is thus unable to adequately penalize drawing hands. When you do have a stronger hand, you can't raise more than $2 or $3 at a time. Large pots are rare, since people almost always prefer to check.
So far, I have found stud to be marginally more profitable. In general, the strategies of the games seem to break down at these minimum limits where the play is SO bad. You can't narrow the field with raises; early raises either don't change the field(holdem) or eliminate the field (stud). Raising for value is also constrained: in holdem, someone will often have a hand better than your top pair, top kicker, and in stud, everyone will fold when you raise more than $2. Even check-raises often don't get anyone out in holdem. In theory, these games should be lucrative, but they just haven't been.
What is the best game to play against bad players? What about Omaha-8 and stud High/Low?
Those two games would in fact be best.
Presumably because: 1. You would not commit very many chips if you did not expect to show down the best hand at the river. 2. You would play marginal hands out of position if you were unlikely to be raised before the flop or 4th street. 2. You would raise or reraise early with top pair only when you were fairly certain the opposition would run. Winning a small pot, or even stealing the antes, is better than losing. 3. You would raise or reaise according to the expected strength of your hand at the river. 4. You would abandon your hand if the cards coming out indicated it would be second best at showdown, unless you were heads up with someone already losing. 5. You would restrict semi bluffing until you had established yourself the most formidable player at the table. Comments? ( And by the way, those of us attempting to imrpove our skills by participating in this forum are very appreciative of the attention given by the world champions to our questions. Thanks!)
If I had a choice to play either stud or hold-em against bad players, my choice would certainly be stud. For one, you will have a greater variety of starting hands that are viable, and can also see much of your opponent's improvement. In a spread limit game, you also can manipulate the pot odds to some extent (in the 70s, I remember once playing in a 1-20 stud game at the Nugget -- the play became similar to that of a pot-limit game). You've hit on the key; if the players will fold to any raise, it's not too difficult to work out the math in order to create profitable situations. However, I'm not sure that low-limit games are worth the effort in the long run; it would be better to move up at least one more level and learn fixed-limit.
I currently play the 2-4 holdem in AC. and one of the books I have is Low Limit Holdem by Lee Jones. The number one rule is 'If the Flop doesn't fit Fold'. If everyone is in and there are raises before the flop you can't play trash hands like everyone else and should refer to Sklansky's book about which hands to play and fold if the flop doesn't fit.
I don't raise before the flop, then only check or call on the flop unless I think I have the best hand then I bet if checked to. On the turn and river I check and call, If I have or think I have the best hand I bet or raise. With high pair and a possible straight on the board with three or four players in your best bet is to check and fold.
If your going to play low limit holdem you may want to find a table that has less raising before the flop.
I'm sorry but I'm going to take some of this one apart. David wrote:
"I currently play the 2-4 holdem in AC. and one of the books I have is Low Limit Holdem by Lee Jones. The number one rule is 'If the Flop doesn't fit Fold'."
This advice is completely inaccurate. In large pots you should call with many weak hands. This includes bottom pair and hands as weak as three flushes.
"If everyone is in and there are raises before the flop you can't play trash hands like everyone else"
I agree.
"and should refer to Sklansky's book about which hands to play and fold if the flop doesn't fit."
Again the idea of fit or fold is very inaccurate.
"I don't raise before the flop"
You should raise routinely with hands that play well in big pots such AQs.
"then only check or call on the flop unless I think I have the best hand then I bet if checked to."
You should be betting or raising with hands that might be best if it helps you win the pot. It also makes sense to put raises in with your good draws if you are getting more than 2-to-1.
"On the turn and river I check and call, If I have or think I have the best hand I bet or raise. With high pair and a possible straight on the board with three or four players in your best bet is to check and fold. "
Most of this is probably correct.
"If your going to play low limit holdem you may want to find a table that has less raising before the flop."
I agree.
Do you mean the nut three flush, or just any?
I think Lee Jones might not include bottom pair as 'missing the flop'. In this type of game, I certainly wouldn't. I'm not going to bet it, but I'm going to see which way the wing is blowing before I fold. Also what about overcards like AK with a flop of Qs-9s-8h? I don't play these (with positional exceptions) in loose-passive games because there are just too many ways to lose even when you hit. Also about the only time I would play a three-flush would be in a pot capped before the flop and 1 bet after.
Stud: Perhaps I didn't read your post correctly, but you may have said that you can't bet big pairs on 3rd or 4th since they won't call; but complained because you need to make trips or two-pair to win. If so, DOH!
Do NOT give free cards with big pairs in stud. Its much better to bet and take the pot. You need two pair to win because (it appears) you are giving <884> and <566A 3-flush> free cards. Check only if your check-raise profit RIGHT NOW is good.
To compensate for this lack of action, you should figure out the amount to raise ($2, $3, $4?) that will make them tempted to call. "Tempted" is the key word, since it will make them hesitate, and that's BINGO! for predictable play.
You should also be stealing liberally whenever you have the high card. If you vary the amount you raise, they won't notice that you tend to raise $1 more when stealing. Keep your observation on the pulse of the game, and once you can expect to get called, be prepared to jump back into your standard brain-dead big pair strategy that works so routinely against the low limit tourists, who like to call. Do NOT give free cards.
- Louie
I suspect that part of the problem that you are having is in your hand selection. Let's look at hold 'em. In games where you are against many players who not only play too many hands but go too far with their hands it is important that you play hands that can make big hands. Al pairs are good and hands like A-7s become better hands that AJo. Try to play those hands that can make monsters.
I'll be in Phoenix next week and might have a chance to play poker, probably on Sunday.
Can anyone recommend a good poker room. I play mostly mid limit stud and holdem.
Gila River casino. South of town on I-10. Queen Creek exit. Guaranteed 10-20 and 20-40 kill holdem on weekends. Usually 10-20 stud. Some chance of mix games with the right interest. Say hi to youngish guy with real short hair in 20-40 game if you're there on a Friday night.
My understanding is that the bigger stud action is still at Fort McDowell.
That is so. But nowadays, the only game you can be sure they'll have is 15-30 stud. The $2 Jackpot drop has killed 10-20 holdem there. Bigger games are spotty now that most of the lineup is at WSOP. If a player is sure he wants to play only 15-30 stud, he should go there. If you want any flexibility tho, the Fort is not your best option.
Gila river is definetly the best poker room in Phx. The room is huge and the games and dealers are great. I spend about 30 hours a week there during the summer and christmas breaks when i am not in school at NAU.
Queen Creek exit will take you to the wrong casino. Fortunately, I didn't take my own advice and somehow found my way to the casino last night.
Last night there was one 20-40 kill HE, one 10-20 kill HE and one 10-20 stude. Thursday there were two 20-40s and a 30-60.
To David Sklansky, in hold em for advanced players you recommend on the button- if many players are in you can play all hands in groups 1-8, and even a hand as weak as Qxs, because of the implied odds. In the l997 revised edition of the original hold em book you suggest keeping to groups 1-6 in the same situation because it coasts too much too call. While I would prefer Qxs,to say 43s, im just wondering if you have changed your mind about the very speculative hands on the button with many in. reply appreciated.
Weak hands show a slight profit inthese situations, but only if you are an advanced player. Thus the discrepancy.
I guess I'm in a fog. I didn't know the book had been revised. What kind of changes besides the one just mentioned are there?
I'm from Sweden and wonder the follows in Texas Hold'em tournamentplay:
If I have AK. What is the odds to get any pair (AA or KK) if I go all in preflop?
If I have TT preflop and I go all in, what is the odds to get trips on river?
How do I calculate the odds?
If I'm headup against one player preflop (potlimit), what are the 10 best hands?
Thanks
two to one on the flop to hit aa or kk, 7.5 on the flop to hit a set. best hands if i had to guess, aa, kk, qq,jj,aks,...to calculate 52 minus exposed cards. not a very good answer, a little tired, will answer in full tomarrow. playing pot limit and wondering about odds, admire your courage
The odds of pairing AK by the river is 1.05:1. This includes improving beyond one pair, but doesn't include straight or flushes, which lower the odds even more. If you're all-in before the flop, then the odds to improve by the river are the relevant ones. These odds apply to any two cards, except pairs.
The odds of improving a pair of tens by the river, or any pair for that matter, is 4.21:1.
The ten best hands pre-flop if you're all-in is the ten top pairs. With betting after the flop, then the smaller pairs go down in value. As for pot-limit, someone with a lot of experience in that game should answer that. And the values for no-limit would be different still. Generally, having betting after the flop allows the best hand to be bluffed out, so good, but not great, holdings lose some of their value. You can't call a bet with a pair of eights if the flops comes three overcards, as you're probably beat.
To calculate the odds for the river when all-in pre flop:
First calculate the number of possible 5-card combinations: (50x49x48x47x46)/(5x4x3x2x1)=2,118,760
Then either calculate the number of combinations that improve, or that don't improve (which ever is easier).
For example: To calculate for AK:
There are six cards which can improve your hand (ignoring the straight and flush combinations). That leaves 44 cards which will not improve your hand (52-2(AK)-6(the other AK's)=44. Then calculate the combinations which do not improve your hand.
(44x43x42x41x40)/(5x4x3x2x1)=1,086,008
Therefore, the number of combinations that do improve= 2,118,760-1,086,008=1,032,752
The odds are the ratio of not improving to improving= 1,086,008/1,032,754= 1.05:1
George,
Nice post. I'm having difficulty understanding one thing, though. You wrote : The ten best hands pre-flop if you're all-in is the ten top pairs. If the basis of comparison is how the hands match up against each other, then indeed these are the top 10. If, however, we compare how each hand performs against a random hand, then the top 10 hands are : AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, 99, 88, AKs, 77, AQs. Why is the former definition accepted over the latter?
Etienne
>Nice post. I'm having difficulty understanding one thing,
>though. You wrote : The ten best hands pre-flop if you're
>all-in is the ten top pairs. If the basis of comparison is how
>the hands match up against each other, then indeed
>these are the top 10. If, however, we compare how each
>hand performs against a random hand, then the top 10
>hands are : AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, 99, 88, AKs, 77, AQs.
>Why is the former definition accepted over the latter?
Or: which hands have the best chance of winning against other hands that would actually go all-in? A player would only call all-in in most situations with a small subgroup of the possible hands, so the starting combinations which are best against pairs, high+mid Ax, etc. would be the best for practical purposes. Hands like 77 don't appear that strong, since there is a good chance that a calling opponent has a higher pair, and if not, a lower pair's advantage over two higher unpaired cards is small.
Let's say that you were in a tournament and were forced to go all in by the blinds against one player. Then the ten best hands would be the ten highest pairs. If the question was what were the ten best hands to go all-in with, then that's a whole different situation, and depends on a number of factors. And if the question was what are the ten best hands to call a big all-in bet with, then that's a different thing still.
Depending on the size of the bet, and other factors, an opponent should only call a big all-in bet with hands that can beat the medium and semi-large pairs. In fact, many players won't call with QQ. The situation is that if you call with a medium pair, you're probably a small favorite (to two overcards) or a big underdog (to an overpair).
Making a large bet all-in has the advantage of stealing the pot. Also, in this situation, AK may be a better hand than JJ, as you still have a good chance to win if your opponent calls with QQ. With JJ you're a big dog. With AK you'll have 6 outs against QQ and 3 outs against KK. With JJ you'll only have 2 outs.
The question has more relevance in a tournament type situation where you're forced to play hands you would rather not. If someone brings it in for a raise (which could be with a large range of hands) then you might move all-in to steal the pot.
In live play, you probably are going to see the flop before commiting your money on anything less than AA. Even with AA, you'll probably not be all-in pre-flop unless you raise and were re-raised. Then you can come over the top all-in.
Most of my no-limit experience is in tournament situations. Perhaps someone with extensive live game experience can shed some more light on the subject.
Dan,
I can understand your reasoning in limiting the hands to be compared, but by doing this you are indirectly influencing the answer (which probably would be the same anyway). You wish to define a small subgroup of, say, 50 hands. What gives you (or me) the right to include hand Y in these 50, but not Z? To get the top 50, you would need to look at all the hands.
Finally, you have answered the question yourself. You wrote : Hands like 77 don't appear that strong, since there is a good chance that a calling opponent has a higher pair, and if not, a lower pair's advantage over two higher unpaired cards is small. That's why 77 is ranked after all the other higher pairs, and, apart from AKs, is ranked above all the other higher unpaired cards. All advantages here are small, but that's our only yardstick.
Etienne
Dan should consider the hands that his opponent will call with when considering going all-in. In that situation, a hand like AKs gains over a medium pair because of its better chance of improving when called with a better hand (Except with AA, of course. In that case, the pair is better). In that situation, I would rank AKs above TT, and maybe JJ and QQ too.
But if you're already all-in before the flop, why do you rate AKs better than any pair? I haven't done the math, but does the flush and straight possibilities make it favorite? If so, then it should probably be rated above 99 also. Possibly TT, JJ and QQ too. What's your reasoning?
George,
The hand rankings I mentioned can be verified by simulation or calculated by hand. Jazbo Burns has done the latter, and you may see the results plus other interesting stuff on Jazbo's Home Page, details of which appear in 'Favorite Links' to the left.
Etienne
I've been playing poker for about 500 hours so far and I am just above being a break-even player. I seem to have many fluctuations in my chips during any one session. It seems to me that the players that I know are good don't seem to fluctuate that much and in fact seem to consistently build their winnings virtually every time I watch them play.
Is this what happens when you become an advanced player?
Are my fluctuations indicating that I am playing too many hands, pushing them too far?
Is there a specific skill that anyone has found that seems to have gotten them over the hump of being an average player to being a great player that consistently wins?
Two advanced skills that both increase win and decrease fluctuations are making good "laydowns" and not pushing small edges early in order to allow more expert play later on. Both skills are highly related to the ability to "read hands". Another skill, more mathematical, is knowing when and how to limit the field with certain hands. Again this will increase win and decrease swings.
Could David, or anyone else, define what "laydowns" mean
A laydown is when you fold with the expectation that you are beat thereby saving a bet
It also implies that you have a relatively good hand that you would normally expect to win, but you "know" you are beat THIS time, so you "lay down" your strong hand.
Many people pride themselves on their good "lay downs". I, for one, "layed down" a pair of Kings before the flop in limit holdem.
As evidence to the "strong" requirement, It does not sound right to "lay down" a pair of deuces.
- Louie
Be advised, as Mr. Sklansky implied, that good lay downs are for very good players. I know for a fact that there are lots of break even players that would do quite nicely, except that many of their good "lay downs" are against obvious bluffs from players who know the opponent feels calling is for losers. At 5/10 and 10/20, you CAN adopt a quality strategy of routinely semi-bluffing very aggressively against these players (raise AGAIN with the big flush draw), and not bluff anybody else.
David, could you elaborate a bit on what you mean by, "not pushing small edges early in order to allow more expert play later on"? I'm not sure I know what you're referring to.
BTW, very much enjoying the forum!
See my upcoming column in cardplayer.
See my upcoming column in cardplayer.
Jeff What level are you playing at? Sounds like it could be the lower limits... what games?
From what everyone has written, and my own experience, wild fluctuations at the lower levels, especially when you are a newer poker player (I'm around 300-400 hours myself), almost are a cost of doing business/getting training.
Obviously, paying attention to all of the edges/effects of your play, as DS and others have said, will make a big difference also...
Not that I can claim this yet, but the good players seem to avoid pushing those small edges too much- they wait for better % at the lower levels (if they play them at all). Odds are you are playing too many hands, but I'm being presumptuous there....
I play any where from 4/8( which I consistently win at) to 10-20(I only have about 100 to 130 hours under my belt at 10/20-mostly at the Mirage, which I beleive is probably one of the toughest games in the world*especially during the weekdays*-----someone tell me if I am crazy!)
I think I get caught pushing small edges too far. Yet, I seem to notice that good players that the table fear consistently pull off wins with hands I get afraid of and throw away. I also get lazy after playing too long and stop paying as much attention. Unfortunately, I dont have poker where I live and when I finally get to play I want to play as much as possible. I end up not playing my best at all times due to fatigue. I believe I would be much better if I could play whenever I wanted to.
COME ON TEXAS AND MAKE POKER LEGAL!! KIND OF IRONIC THAT YOU CANT PLAY TEXAS HOLD EM IN TEXAS!!!
Although the items David mentioned are true, I will be the bad boy and tell you that the greatest players probably have larger fluctuations than the average players. The worse news is , that even if you play very conservatively, you are going to have some wide fluctuations. The game of poker is a game of small small edges, like blackjack. Read Mason's gambling theory book about the std deviation.
The great players have larger fluctuations than the typical pro because they play in tougher games and because they play marginal hands that the merely good player avoids. However it is not true that their fluctuations would be higher than an average player in the same game as that average player would probably play play at least as many hand and not play them as well.
In order to be a great player you have to be able to play those marginal hands skillfully, therefore as the player achieves this level his fluctuations go up. The great players might have a problem playing below their skill level and have just as much fluctuation as the good "PRO". Mason suggested that an expert playing 20-40 can expect to win 2 of 3 sessions on average in the long run. The fluctuations are large no matter the skill level, otherwise you would have much more than a handful or so of great players and highly skilled players that derived their total income from the game. Mason in his own books has written that most players are at risk to lose their bankroll because of the deviation, because they need much more than you would think just to survive. So my point to the original poster is that there is not a steady climbing of income in poker or any other gambling game. There are wide swings, ...... which most of us have a very hard time dealing with.
Dear Jeff,
I certainly think good players will have fewer fluctuations. I am a winning player, though with little experience in comparison to many of you players. I once graphed my bankroll over time and showed it to some pro players here and they all immediately replied that even though it is a good thing that I am ahead, I need to get the fluctuations out of my game. It will save your sanity if not improve your confidence and give you some kind of assurance about winning.
There are a couple of pros around here who've been playing for years and years at high limits and made a living out of it - Keith Sloan and Mel Judah, for example. Keith is always talking about money management. Money management as a principle is not quite right, because you could use the same principle to try to beat roulette, for example. But it is one way of ensuring that you will remain in front and moving forward for a long time. Even if you're playing 'tricks', it's a good thing to have stoplosses and suchlike.
I've also noticed that the players with the smallest swings are the tightest. This makes a lot of sense. But they also tend to be the players viewed as the 'best'. You may know about Kelly betting from Blackjack. One of the ideas is that to make your bankroll increase as fast as possible, you don't bet maximum amounts on small advantages. This could mean that tight players, who wait until they have a big advantage before they jump in and gamble, will make their bankroll increase faster, or at least have more confidence of jumping off a winner.
Maybe David Sklansky would know: Can you apply the principles of Kelly betting to poker, to prove that to play the best game possible, you should be a little bit tighter than you would need to be to simply win?
Play well,
Richard Cavell.
The Kelly criterion only works if there is a limitation on your bankroll (or no limit on your bets). If the house limit is well within your means you should bet it with ANY edge. Similarly if you can easily afford the poker stakes you are playing there is no reason to play tighter than optimum. However there are reasons not to push small edges early in a hand if that will cost you a bigger edge later on. I discuss this further in my upcoming Card Player article.
For most situations, Kelly doesn't apply to poker.
Kelly deals with investments (wagers) that can be sized proportionally to your bankroll without changing the underlying advantage on that particular wager.
The minor tinkering that the 21 experts applying Kelly do in certain situations to lower risk is because their wager does not actually fit the ideal Kelly model, it's potentially larger when accounting for doubles and resplits.
If you are playing in a poker game where an individual bet is a serious consideration for risk of ruin calculations, then you are overplaying your bankroll.
After dabbling extensively with Blackjack, I've decided it's not for me. For a number of reason, I feel poker may be a better fit. However, beyond recreational 5-card draw and 7-card stud games, I have no experience. I have the extensive "recommended book" list from the FAQ, but I'd like someone to let me know what 1-3 books are the best for a complete beginner to start off with. I live in NYC; it's my understanding that the only games available at Foxwoods, Mohegan and AC are stud, Texas Hold'em, and the occasional Omaha. Please advise, and thanks in advance.
Eric-
There are two good books for starting hold-em:
1. Lee Jones' "Winning at Low Limit Hold'em" (or something like that)
2. David Sklansky/Mason Malmuth "Hold'em" Poker
Both are quite good, although the Jones' book is clearly directed more toward a novice-level 1-3 table. For most casino-type games in AC or Foxwoods, even the low limt tables will have some players that are familiar with the more thoughtful strategies that are in DS/MM. Iwould also suggest DS/MM "Hold'em Poker for Advanced Players" once you have gotten your feet wet.
Also, there is a good private club in NYC for $4-8 and $10-20 limit hold'em. It is very professionally run and on hte level. The competition, even at the lower levels can be pretty tough, comparable to the middle limits at AC. Call 727-1956 for details. Tell them Mike T. sent you, so I can get some free chips. Good Luck.
>Also, there is a good private club in NYC for $4-8 and
>$10-20 limit hold'em. It is very professionally run and on
>hte level. The competition, even at the lower levels can
>be pretty tough, comparable to the middle limits at AC. Call
>727-1956 for details. Tell them Mike T. sent you, so I can
>get some free chips. Good Luck.
Do they spread anything besides holdem? What's involved in getting a membership? How high are the rakes and time charges?
Dan-
The membership is a cost-free formality (I think to keep out the riff-raff). There is no rake, just a time charge that covers club expenses (food, sodas, overhead, etc.). The dealers work soley for tips, so tokes are fairly generous- a minimum of a dollar a pot. Time chareges are $3 per half hour for $4-$8 and $5 per half hour for $10-$20.
They usually spread two or three tables of hold'em only. There is a stud tournament on 5:00 on Saturdays and a hold'em tournament at 5:00 on Sundays. As those tourneys wind down at about 8:00, there is usually some good ring action, which sometimes includes a forced rotation table (HE, stud, and Omaha-8). I also believe there is a regular forced rotation table on Wednesday nights.
Good Luck! (except against my pocket Aces)
Sklansky's "Theory of Poker" is Book #1.
"Sklansky On Poker" and Malmuth's "Poker Essays" are excellent; as is I presume "Poker Essays II" which I haven't read yet.
If the above rank "A" in poker theory, I think there are NO "B" theory books, just a few "C"s, and far too many "D"s and "F"s.
The other 2+2 books on particular games are the best overall, but there are also some other "A" or "B" books on how to play a particular form of poker. While some of 2+2's stuff is not excellent, NONE of it is bad. Excepting big bet poker, 2+2 offers comprehensive coverage of poker strategy.
Caro makes generally good SUPPLEMENTAL material, but it generally lacks cohesion and completeness. He's not the only one that puts some ego in his work. He's the only one I know that publishes learning material ("becoming" rather than "being"). Once you know that your solid play is routine, get Caro's "Book of Tells". Like the 2+2 authors he explains things quite well (sometomes a bit too well ...), and allows YOU to consider their point's applicability.
Caro and 2+2 disaggree quite a bit on approach and relative importance of different aspects of Poker, and therefore on some strategy, but the distinctions are clear and you are encouraged to determine your own ballance. For example I am in the Caro camp when it comes to early position hand selection in solid holdem games (VERY tight), but generally in the 2+2 camp for all other pre-flop situations.
IMHO, the 2+2/Caro differences are BENEFICIAL over all to poker lore (they promote thinking, discussion, and learning). Differences associated with other authors are generally not (they rarely promote anything, except occasional ill-will).
I advise when reading any poker book you must think and consider rather than believe and memorize; and this will be trebbly (tripply?) true for any non 2+2 or Caro material. I have some books that are MOSTLY wrong (Kind of like "The Art of Makeup" by Tammy Fay Baker...). One author is ROUTINLY wrong those times that he chooses to discuss a particular hand in his column. One famed excellent player writes terribly. Besides Brunson, Sklansky, and Fox, I don't think there are any 20+ year old poker books worth reading and believing, as a whole.
- Louie
I still pick up "The Education of a Poker Player' by Herbert O. Yardley and reread it from time to time, because it is both entertaining and educational. Granted, the advice contained therein is sparse (compared to HPFAP) and some of it out-of-date, but this was the book that opened my eyes about what was really going on in a poker game, and it must be forty years years old.
Does card reading tend to save you more money when you’re destined to lose a hand than it adds to your win when you figure to win a hand?
If this is so, and because everyone is dealt more loosing hands than winning ones, it appears that any cardreading ( good or bad ) would lead to more folds and automatically reduce standard deviation.
I agree that this is one advantage of being a highly skilled card reader. An example from hold 'em is when the flush card gets there on the end and you know that you are against a flush. Now you not only save a bet which will increase your win rate, but you have put less money in the pot which should decrease your standard deviation.
I know that being strong enough to dump in that situation is an expert play, but don't you think it's a high-volatility play as well?
True.
But won't good card reading also cause you to play "marginally" when you would otherwise fold, except you have reason to believe the opponents are weak THIS time. Calling down with bottom pair and semi-bluff raising AGAIN are going to increase your STD.
If the above is relavant, how does it compare to saving of bets due to good card reading, and thus reducing your STD?
- Louie
Possible missed point here. I'm saying that someone who imagines that he is a good card reader and is not will reduce his std dev about the same as someone who thinks he is a good card reader and is. Comments welcome.
This could possibly be true, but I doubt it. Good card readers can play a few more hands than "typically tight" players. So someone who thinks that he is a good card reader may beging to get in too many hands which should drive his standard deviation up.
On the other hand, if his questionable card reading skills are causing him to frequently fold early in a hand when he shouldn't, it will lower his standard deviation, but his win rate should also drop a lot, and he will probably lose. (I'm reminded of advice that says that in a big multiway pot if you don't make at least top pair you should fold if someone else bets. But that's another topic.)
This is actually a very interesting question. Let's hear what others think.
With all due respect, I think Mason Malmuth is wrong, and the original poster is basically correct, for at least one kind of game. In a tight game, where many pots are heads up, getting a good read on a player will more often than not result in higher variance, not lower. Examples:
* Your opponent check-raises you on the turn. You have top pair. You have a read on him that he has a flush draw, so you reraise. A player with a poorer read might fold or call.
* You raise with AA and only the big blind calls. You get a tell that he's not happy about calling (and not acting), and the manner in which he checks on the flop suggests he is checking with the intention of folding, so you check the flop and check the turn, with the intention of raising him on the river if he bets, since he probably has at most one pair by then and may call out of curiosity. A player with a poorer read would would bet the flop and take down the pot right away.
In a loose game, most people know that unless they are very sure, they cannot lay down a hand that might have any significant potential to win in a big pot. Players with poor reading skills probably realize their skills are poor, and thus probably err on the side of calling. Only very good players can squeeze out a bit more e.v. by making marginal folds (because mistakenly folding from a big pot can be very costly), and their marginal laydowns will often save them several bets with of variance as well. So Mason is correct there, in my opinion.
Even so, I think the lower standard deviation of pros relative to nonpros is due mostly to tight preflop play, rather than tight postflop play.
-Abdul
Actually, I may have missed the point too. But if a player thinks he is a good reader but is a bad reader, he'll probably increase his variance in a tight game by making suicidal reraises, and he'll lower his variance in a loose game by making bad laydowns. When I think I'm becoming too predictable, I reread Mike Caro's Book of Tells, and then all the extra *false* tells I start picking up cause me to do some wacky and mostly variance-raising things in heads up pots. If there are many other players in the pot, they keep me from getting too out of line.
-Abdul
There were some interesting posts about rushes down below, so I thought I'd try to continue it and see if we can get some more responses. There seems to be many points of view about what rushes are, and do they exist etc.. I had stated that someone who is on a rush and someone who is playing their "RUSH", are two different things. Greg stated that he believes in past rushes and not future rushes, so if he sees someone who is playing their "RUSH" after winning a couple of hands, by playing any two cards and pushing it, he wants to get in there with them since they aren't playing to the long run probabilities. A couple other posts stated that although many people believe in rushes there is no such thing. Well, It's hard to define a rush in simple terms as it takes on various forms. The underlying factor is the player and how he/she plays their cards. A rush for me would be a much higher than average run of quality starting hands that win at a much higher percentage than normal.. for a short period of time . From 5 minutes to a few hours. For other players a rush means getting in there with any starting hand and winning a high percentage of the time for the same time period listed above. Although it's hard to tell when they start and when they end, I have no doubt that clusters, or runs, or rushes or whatever you want to call them exist. greg says that he likes to play against the so called "RUSH", when a bad player is playing any two cards and on a rush. To me, it's just the opposite. When this type of player is on a "RUSH", I stay away. They are more dangerous too me than a solid player getting a strong run of cards. For those that say that rushes don't exist, I would ask them if they believe in losing streaks. Most players will admit to a losing streak which is the same thing going the opposite direction. I could go on but I'm hoping to hear some other points of view. SEeya
Dear Al,
I believe that rushes exist in the same way that I believe that UFOs exist - they exist by definition, but there is really no grand revelation proved by their existence.
It is a function of the randomness ('luck') inherent in poker that sometimes players will receive a cluster of good cards. But this cluster cannot be predicted. If you are in the middle of a rush, you cannot predict that for the next half hour you will continue to receive good cards.
I have often watched a very bad player win a number of hands in a row with bad beats, thinking that they're geniuses, and then once they've gained confidence, alter their style of play to coincide with that of an expert.
When a player is 'on a rush', sometimes that will affect their ability to play for the future. If a player is winning, he/she will be more confident, will be more aggressive (thereby gaining more value), will do things such as betting on the come and win pots with semibluffs, intentionally or otherwise. Other players will be more likely to fold the best hand, be more timid to extract proper value, be less likely to bluff/semibluff the winning player, etc.
Noone tries to push it through a guy who's on a rush. Similarly, people will often try to push it through a guy who's having a bad day and has tightened up. I will stay away from a guy who's on a rush because I can't trust myself to play properly against them. Whereas I do know that that person is more likely to put moves on me, be less readable, and is ahead enough so far in the game that they won't chase me with bad cards.
Therefore, I would be more likely to stay away from a player who's 'on a rush'.
The point I'm trying to make is that rushes exist simply as a necessary element of a game with random factors. But the psychological influence of these rushes can make a big difference to the outcome of the game.
Al,
I would not say rushes don't exist. But I would argue that you cannot say a rush exists as something happening now. It only exists as something that *did* happen. That is, you can only see it in retrospect, and can't predict what's coming next.(I would say essentially the same thing about losing streaks. As long as you don't start playing badly, thereby increasing your chance of losing, there's no reason to say "I'm *having* a losing streak.)
Consider tossing a coin repeatedly. If at some point you notice that it has come up heads 11 times in a row, are you going to start laying odds that it will come up heads again?
That said, I do acknowledge that it can (but may not - depending on the players) trigger certain psychological factors in a game, both for the player who has been on the rush and for the other players. But as long as you have an idea how the rush is likely to affect the rusher's play, I see no reason to stay out of his way. (e.g., If he/she is going to start playing garbage, you play against him/her with that in mind. If he/she is going to play more tightly or deceptively, you adjust for that...)
Of course I haven't said anything new here. Mason M. has written some similar stuff on rushes, as has Mike Caro.
I have been playing down at Horseshoe during the WSOP and have noticed a plethora of Omaha 8 or better games. They usually have two 50-100 games and one 100-200 game. I have also noticed plenty of HOSE (Holdem, Omaha 8, Stud, and Stud 8) and other mixed games. Because of this, they have been struggling to get a big limit holdem game going at times. I've noticed this too at the Rio tournament in January. However, it seems that they can only get a big limit Ohama 8 game during major tournaments. I play at the Mirage just about everyday and they can only get a 10-20 game with a half kill going. My question is whether Omaha 8 or better will fulfill its promise of being the game of the future. Also, what future do mixed games like HOSE have? When I was down at the Commerce Casino in February for the L.A. Poker Classic, a favorite big limit mixed game was a Ohama 8 and Holdem combo. What chance do we have of seeing mixed games spread at the medium limits?
>What chance do we have of seeing mixed games
>spread at the medium limits?
Ask for the house to start a list, or recruit players to start a table and insist that the house accomodate you. Remember, accomodating players isn't the houses first priority, its spreading the mix of games that ensures them the most tables operating to make the most money.
The Gambling Forum April 1998 Archive Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo