For maximizing our all around play, what is the ideal percentage of different games, 7 stud,HE,Omaha8, that we should be playing? I see many players at one game only. Do you play your favorite (best) game all the time?
Gary,
To make the most money play in the game that you feel has the highest hourly rate. To enjoy life play in the game where you feel happiest in at the moment that you can still beat. There is no set formula. Just play in different games and you will be a well rounded professional in no time. Good Luck.
Since I've come to the Washington D.C. area I've found most of the games worth playing in
feature three or more types of poker in rotation (the HOSE concept). Some games are exclusively
high variations, some exclusively high low, and some with both. I'm sure this has been good
for my overall poker game.
A good example of why I want to be able to play a number of different games came at the World Series this year.
I had planned to play nothing but pot limit holdem but when I got out there, I found the holdem lineups tougher
than dirt. Routinely there would be seven or eight very tough pros anchored in the main game, and the must move
game would have nearly as many toughies.
So, although I did play some pot limit holdem, I played mostly pot limit omaha and seven stud eight or better,
against much easier competition. I stayed two weeks and did well. I also had a good time, which as Ray Zee points out,
is essential.
I've now gotten to the point that I much prefer to play in multiple variation formats - after all if you are catching
nothing but low cards you can be in trouble in limit holdem, but in a multiple format you just need to be patient and wait
for the omaha hi low, or stud eight or better rounds
In Las Vegas poker rooms, in games above, say, the 5-10 limit, most of the players are quite competent. Most of those players also play the same game, in the same poker room, day after day. It follows that if you play in the same game repeatedly that some of these players may get a 'read' on you despite your best attempt to camouflage. Although a stud addict for almost 20 years, and although the learning process has affected my win, I have widened my game to be able to play all poker games routinely spread (especially those at the major tournaments). Other reasons for playing all games include improving your possibility for a major tournament win, and, on those days where the poker room may be packed, being flexible (and competent) enough to take a seat in any number of games for the stakes you are seeking to play. I don't know who said it first (Brunson perhaps?), but your poker skills are transferrable from game to game. In fact, a book like Sklansky's "Winning Poker" espouses fundamentals that apply to all games.
I notice that on most Fridays & Saturdays, poker rooms
are in full swing by 8 or 9PM. As the night wears on,
the games begin to dwindle, but some stretch into the
daylight hours of the following morning. My question is
this. Is there any additional positive EV in waiting
till 12 or 1AM to start play in hopes of encountering
tired players?
I've tracked my win/loss rate on an hourly basis for many years,
and without a doubt the most lucrative hours are between midnight
Friday and 8am Saturday. It can come out to near double the usual
hourly rate. For some reason, lots of live ones beam in at that time;
it's a beautiful thing.
This only applies to my specific locale, but it's a good idea
to track your own results on an hourly basis to learn about
your game conditions as well as perhaps your condition. This
is infinitely more valuable than anecdotal analysis of the time
you had a rush at 4am.
One school of thought _is_ to do the vampire thing,
but there are some drawbacks:
1) You might not get a seat til many bad players bust out.
Nothing like turning your life upside down, just to watch the
half-wits fleece the patzers. Sometimes you have an out if
you can talk other hopefuls into short-handed, but your
options may vary.
2) _You_ are the zombie, because you've thrown your brain for
a loop, sleeping then getting up at a time you're not normally
accustomed to. Meanwhile, the seated players are in some kind
of mental poker groove that you gotta find. If you are willing
to this everyday, then it might work for you, but it doesn't make
for much of a life outside of poker. One very strong player
at my cardroom shows up at 6am to prey on the big games. I never
see him there at one in the morning. This seems like a pretty
good lifestyle -- no good game, go play golf.
3) Spotting the ensconced players an info overlay. The good
players will already have lots of reads on folks that you
have to catch up on. Additionally, that frees them up to
focus on one player -- you. If your game is populated from
the same fifty players week in and week out, this might not
be so much a factor.
My biggest fear is (1) above, so I plan accordingly. I find that
the best formula is just to be strapped into the game and wait
for it to get sweet. Hope this was useful!
Regards
Jim Geary
My experience is that late night poker is generally much better. There are several reasons for this. They are:
1. The winners go home and the losers stay. First, the winners tend to be the better players -- they were the winners -- and some of the losers will now be very tired and steaming.
2. Most pros who frequent cardrooms on a regular basis play standard day time shifts. They are aware that they are giving up some expectation but they prefer to have a normal life.
3. Open seats are frequently readily available late at night. This means that a tourist who won't wait a long time to get in a game now gets right in. Often during the day the games are full of regulars because they are the ones who will wait for a seat. But late at night I have seen many people who have little conception wander in from the pit and sit in a poker game because there is an empty seat. During the day these potential players wander off.
This hand came up yesterday afternoon at the Horseshoe after the Sklansky freezeout. It was a full $10 $20 HE game. Most of the players were too loose before the flop and called too much after the flop. Pre-flop raising occurred about 35% of the time. In this particular hand, I had 9s 2s in the big blind. 8 players saw the flop for one bet. The flop came Qs Ts 6s. The small blind checked, I checked, the next player checked, the next bet, four players called, and I just called. The turn was the 3h. I bet out and three players called. The river was a 2c. I bet out and got two callers. My flush was good.
My questions concern play on the flop. Is checking after the SB checks the optimum play? And once having done that, is just calling the field and waiting to see the turn better than putting in another bet on the flop? I thought that betting out would not likely drive out an As or Ks. A bet could have caused a raise by someone holding As or Ks on my left, which could thin the field, and allow me to put in another raise. On the other hand, my bet and a subsequent raise could drive out players drawing to a straight or a smaller flush. I felt that I wanted to see the pre-flop action, and possibly the turn card before deciding where I stood. Did I lose too much value playing this way? How strong is my 9 high flush against 8 players? Does the fact that my hand is somewhat disguised (by not raising on the flop) have value? In otherwords, what was the best play on the flop?
Jessica
Sounds like a good game. I wish I didn't know the outcome but here goes. The only other spade that you could have possibly driven out that would beat your 9s high flush was the Jack. So I don't think driving out higher spades was a valid concept here. I would have check raised on the flop and lead the rest of the way. It may have been valid to check raise on the turn, however, if you did expect the opponent on your immediate left to bet which may have happened here. It is more of an assesment of the probability that the player on your left would bet, how many callers he would have, etc. I believe that your flush was a strong hand on the flop. You could have waited to the river to try a check raise, but, for a lot of reasons I don't think that would have been the right play. As far as disguising your hand, when the 3h comes on the turn and you bet out, a lot of players would put you on a very good hand because the 3s did not fit into the flop at all. The pot was protected because of the multiway action and the size of the pot so it would be doubtful that someone would expect a bluff. Once you get the players "hooked" on the flop, then they are much more committed to calling all the way. If another spade had fallen you may have been beaten but a fold wouldn't be automatic. I will now defer to the experts for their analysis.
I thought the above analyis by Tom Haley was quite good. The only thing that I would add is that when I am in this situation, that is flopping a moderate size flush in a many handed pot, I frequently wait until the turn before initiating any action. This way if the fourth to my suit comes on fourth street I have saved money, and if it doesn't I sometimes can punish those people who stay to the river by making them put in two double size bets.
Check raising on the flop is certainly an option as is check calling the flop, leading on the turn, and then trying to check raise the river. Which of these plays is right would depend on many factors that you would have to consider at the table. Tom mentions many of them in his analysis.
I would like to quote a response to a guy who complained in rec.gambling.poker about an article that David Sklansky wrote for Card Player
Never mind that he promoted a "tight" mentality that has been
adopted, perhaps subconsciously, by nearly everybody who posts
here. This has made whole generations of poker players more
predictable, easier to read. No doubt some of which David
himself may have been able to capitalize on at the table.
The ignoring of "fast" playing strategies, for example, was a
stroke of genius!
That is an outrageous statement for someone to make. It is hard for me to believe that one man has "made whole generations of poker players more predictable, easier to read." I didn’t think the poster of this response was serious when he made this statement as I got into a debate over this. My position is that I believe the number of people reading David’s books compared to the total number of poker players is small. To me this man was implying that the vast majority of players have read David’s books, adopted his strategies, and are now easier to read as a result. I think it is safe to say that there are millions of poker players. Have you sold millions of books ? How many players do you think read and study poker books ? What effect has the Limit Hold’em strategies advocated in Super System had on the games ? By the way, I don’t agree with the predictable and easier to read part either. Any comments ?
At the lower stakes there are far more Sklansky and Malmuth students at Holdem than seven card stud.
No doubt because the two cards reminds them of happier days at blackjack.
Tom,
The big change in recent years is that the poker players that used to "grind a living" can no longer win. Only those that have read and studied and thought about the game are able to compete with the new breed of player. I have many friends that have not kept up and it is a shame to see them fading away. As players study more they become harder to read rather than tight and easier to read. It just makes sense. The more you know, the easier it is to deceive someone about a situation. Tight play in poker is generally important. The only non-tight players that I know that are winners play in shorthanded games.
Since it was a piece of my posting to the rgp
newsgroup that Tom Haley snipped out of context
and moved over here, I guess I need to note a
few things: (a) Bobby Baldwin is also a
historic figure in limit Hold'em, but that was
not relevant to the thread (b) whenever most of
the players at a table are following the same
guidelines for how to play their hands, they are
by definition more predictable (c) a large
percentage of the best pre and flop plays in
holdem were both written up primarily by David
Sklansky in the 70's, and expanded upon later,
and have also become the widespread basis for
table talk during live play today, even among
players who have never read his writings, but
(d) optimizing deception in play, also a subject
of poker theory but NOT the major focus of S&M's
Advanced Holdem, for example, is less well
understood or part of table talk today: people
understand and can remember "tight" and
"aggressive" play, primarily. At any rate, these
comments have little or nothing to do with the
rgp thread either.
Dick Taylor
In our current home game (mostly 30-60 and 50-100), there are
eight regulars; four of us are avid readers who have read and
thought about the major books on poker (and who continue to buy the
new books and actually read them).
I don't think it is any coincidence that the four bookworms are
the consistent winners in our game, and also hold our own in casinos
against the professionals. I have little doubt that the book knowledge
that we've gained (and will gain in the future) is our main weapon to offset
the experience of folks who play full time.
Of course it is likely, as some posters have contended, that many readers merely
memorize starting hand guidelines and strategies like raising to get a free card
on a draw. In this case, the result is unimaginative and predictable play.
However, if the reader really thinks about the implications of the material read, and
builds on the tips to develop and fine tune his or her own strategy, the result is not a
predictable rock.
I don't know whether our game's ratio of readers to non-readers is typical, but I'd bet the
number of regular and effective readers is in the thousands. I am certain in any case
that there are a lot of successful players today who owe at least some of their success to
knowledge gained from reading (and thinking about the material read). I also think
that Ray Zee's point is correct - that those professionals who don't read and constantly
think about new approaches and new strategies, will increasingly fare poorly against
the better armed (through reading)
I have David Sklansky's video and he says "in loose games high cards go down in value and small pairs and suited connectors go up. He also says to keep the pot small so as not to build up pot odds for players to draw out. Can you be more specific on what hands to play before the flop and what to do after the flop. If you know that 4 or 5 people will probably call what hands would you want to bet, raise check raise etc. I am speaking of a loose passive games.
>>>I have David Sklansky's video and he says "in loose games high cards go
down in value and small pairs and suited connectors go up. He also says
to keep the pot small so as not to build up pot odds for players to draw
out. Can you be more specific on what hands to play before the flop and
what to do after the flop. If you know that 4 or 5 people will probably
call what hands would you want to bet, raise check raise etc. I am
speaking of a loose passive games. <<<
In late position, meaning the button and the position next to it, I will play the following hands in late position if there are at least 3 people who have voluntarily entered the pot without a raise:
Any suited connector such as 4 5, 5 6, 7 8 suited.
Any small pair from 2's on up.
Any suited ace.
If on the button maybe any suited king (but this hand really needs to have 5 or more callers plus the blinds - Exhibit caution if you flop a king fold if it's bet early).
I will also play any 2 big cards such as Q 10 or J 10, suited or not.
Of course I will play all the premium hands but will not bother raising with AK, AQ suited or not.
I agree with not raising with these premium hands when there are so many callers as all you are doing is tying them on to the pot.
I WILL raise agressively with Aces, Kings or Queens. If it is raised I will 3 bet it unless I know the player who raises will only raise with premium pairs -then I will call and just play the flop.
Hands I dont play in late position (even with lots of callers) are any 2 suited cards, any 2 sequenced cards that are not also suited.
I like to raise multi-player pots with hands like 9 10 suited in late position about 20-30% of the time. This way my more observant opponents will hopefully get to see my hand and showdown and not think I am a total rock.
good luck
steve
Here are my comments on Steve's starting strategy:
>In late position, meaning the button and the position next to it, I will play the following hands in
>late position if there are at least 3 people who have voluntarily entered the pot without a raise:
>Any suited connector such as 4 5, 5 6, 7 8 suited.
>Any small pair from 2's on up.
>Any suited ace.
If the game is loose passive and you can anticipate many players in each pot I will play all pairs and ace-little suited in early position as well.
>If on the button maybe any suited king (but this hand really needs to have 5 or more callers plus
>the blinds - Exhibit caution if you flop a king fold if it's bet early).
I play any suted king in late position as long as I can anticipate several players. Five or more is too many. The advice on what to do if a king flops and there is action is good advice. You do not automatically call.
>I will also play any 2 big cards such as Q 10 or J 10, suited or not.
If a tight solid player has limped in early I do not play these hands.
>Of course I will play all the premium hands but will not bother raising with AK, AQ suited or not.
You should raise with large suited connectors such as AQ suited. These hands play well in a big pot.
>I agree with not raising with these premium hands when there are so many callers as all you are
>doing is tying them on to the pot.
But you frequently want to ty them on when you have a large suited connector.
>I WILL raise agressively with Aces, Kings or Queens. If it is raised I will 3 bet it unless I know
>the player who raises will only raise with premium pairs -then I will call and just play the flop.
>Hands I dont play in late position (even with lots of callers) are any 2 suited cards, any 2
>sequenced cards that are not also suited.
In games where players routinely play too many hands and go too far with their hands I throw away hands like 98 offsuit and 87 offsuit even if I am on the button.
>I like to raise multi-player pots with hands like 9 10 suited in late position about 20-30% of the
>time. This way my more observant opponents will hopefully get to see my hand and showdown
>and not think I am a total rock.
Against the right players this is good advice but I rarely make this play. There are many playing advantages to being perceived as a rock later in the hand. Namely your raises will have more meaning and you will be able to eliminate some players from the large multiway pot when you want to do so. Also, in games which feature many players who are unaware, and these games are common at the lower limits, all that these raises do will cost you money.
Can someone explain the Kelly Criterion in terms of why
and how often you'll go broke if you keep re-calculating
your bankroll and therefore raising your units?
How do you calculate the percentage of time you'll go broke
and how what's the best thing to do to keep it from
happening (pull back x amount of dollars when your
bankroll gets to certain amount or what?)
Many thanks
There is going to be a new poker room in my town, Shreveport in a couple of months. There are none now. I would like to learn to play Texas Hold'em as I have read that a hard working, studious player can gain an advantage. I have been barred for playing blackjack and think I need a new game. I know nothing about poker. What two books do I read and what software do I purchase? Is the Fool-Proof book all it's cracked up to be?
Bert,
Poker is much more complicated than bj. Two books will not cut it. For a couple hundred bucks you can get thousands worth of info. Of course we recommend all 2 plus 2 books. There is no profession that I know of where two books give enough knowledge to put you ahead of your opposition. If you put the effort in you will make more per hour at poker and have fun doing it . Good Luck.
I understand that poker is more complicated and that I will need to build a comprhensive library. However, I need a good starting point. What texts make the best primer?
My advice would be to start with a book that recommends tight play so that you don't get hurt too bad initially. (I'm not ashamed to admit that the first book I ever read on poker was one called "Winning at Poker" by a virtually unknown writer named John Archer. The book gave me the rudiments of stud and were sufficient to keep me out of trouble against low-limit opponents.)
Once you've gotten your feet wet, perhaps no two books have stood the test of time better than Sklansky's "Winning Poker" (I think it is now called the Theory of Poker) and "Super/System" by Doyle Brunson and his cast of all-star collaborators. At this point, more detailed questions about particular games would lead you to read Mssrs. Malmouth and Zee.
For more anecdotal poker info, I recommend "Total Poker" by David Spanier, "The Biggest Game in Town" by A. Alvarez, Tony Holden's "Big Deal", and "According to Doyle" by the man himself. While these games *may not* improve your game, I think the ability to internalize others mistakes and how they handled difficult situations can be just as instructive as a book that tells you how to calculate odds and outs.
But really, I think to take your game to a different plateau, you need to think about gambling in its totality, not just study poker. Andy Beyer is the greatest horseracing handicapper who ever walked the face of this planet, and his books (i.e., "Beyer on Speed" and "The Winning Horseplayer") discuss the highs and lows of winning and losing -- which are much more dramatic in that game than in poker. Additionally, books on stock market speculation, such as Gerald Loeb's "The Battle for Investment Survival" will give you some insight into the big picture. Finally, it wouldn't hurt to read Mike Caro's Book of Tells and perhaps a good psychology primer to better understand not only your opponents but yourself.
Bert, When is the new room(I assume its the Horeshoe) opening? I am coming to SPORT soon.
It's my understanding that the Horseshoe will be opening their new boat on November 1 to coincide with the opening of their hotel. I've heard the cardroom will have 11 tables. I haven't heard anything on what games will be spread or what the rake will be. I can only hope the rake will be less than what the Isle of Capri had in their cardroom.
Bert, in addition to the Two Plus Two books I would recommend Lee Jones' Winning Low Limit Hold'em and Doyle Brunson's Super/System. The limit hold'em section in Super/System was written by Bobby Baldwin. Doyle Brunson wrote the no limit hold'em section. The book has excellent information on other card games with contributions from David Sklansky, Mike Caro, Chip Reese and Joey Hawthorne.
Regards,
Leigh Davis
I agree with Leigh's comments on Super/System. However, take note that there is a printing error in the Duece-to-Seven section. Other than that, Super/System is a great book.
I also have several of the two-plus-two books and like them all.
Once you get past the basics you should take a look at "The body language of Poker" by Mike Caro which deals with Tells. The video tapes by Mike are also very good.
Later,
Matt
I have been reading conflicting info. on when to try to move up in limit, eg) 5/10 to 10/20. Any guidelines?
Gary,
Just a doubling of the limit will find yourself playing with similar players. Move up only when you know you can beat your own limit first. Then find games at hte next higher limit that fit your style. Risk only what you can tolerate to lose and can win back relatively quickly back at the old limit should you not win. You will be able to feel if you can beat a game if you judge it objectively. Set aside a fixed amount to risk, say 50 top bets and stick to it. If you lose it go back for a while till you are ready again. Good Luck.
In an earlier post on this forum I wrote the following:
>In my book POKER ESSAYS, VOLUME II there is an essay entitled "Moving Up" in which I
>give five criterion for moving to a higher limit. They are
>1. At a higher limit your bankroll should be relatively larger.
>2. You should be a proven winner for a reasonable length of time.
>3. You should have a distinct reason for making virtually every play that you make.
>4. You should be able to observe numerous errors in the play of some of your opponents.
>5. You should be willing to move back down if your initial run is unsuccessful or if the bigger
>game is currently tough.
Notice that this is consistent with what Ray Zee has posted. However, requiring that you win at a rate of $20 an hour in a $5-$10 game for $500 hours is probably a little too steep. I would think that if you are averaging $12 an hour (in $5-$10) for this length of time you are probably ready to move up. However, do keep in mind that if you are not successful you can and should move back down.
On the contrary, there is an excellent test to
take.
Don't move to $10/20 unless you have verifiable
long term profits at $5/10. Meaning an average
of $20+/hr over 500+ hours. If you can't pass
this entrance exam, you will not understand
the subject matter in the next course.
There are 2 relevant quotes here from Roy West. I'll
paraphrase:
1) Don't play in the game you'd *like* to beat
instead of the game you *can* beat.
2) It's a short walk over to the higher limit tables
you want to play in. But it's a *long* walk back
if you lose.
Secondly, don't move to the next level without
an adequate bankroll. If you're new to a higher
limit, you probably should have 500 big bets
as a starting bankroll. For $10/20 this would
be $10,000. This sounds like a lot, but trust
me you can drop multiple racks quite easily if
you have several bad sessions in a row. And as
a beginner at a new limit, several bad sessions
in a row is a distinct possibility.
The move to $10/20 from $5/10 is fairly dramatic
with respect to the level of play. You will find
some weaker players, but they are much better
weaker players than you'll find at $5/10 and down.
Aggressive players are very common at $10/20. $10/20
is the first level where you will encounter
significant semi-bluffing. If you don't know
what's going on, you'll be up against it. You
should have completely internalized "The Theory
of Poker" by David Sklansky before moving
to $10/20 or higher.
Another problem with $10/20 games is that they
frequently become a temporary residence for:
1) Higher limit players waiting for a game.
2) Higher limit players with a short bankroll.
When this happens, there is a lot of randomized
play which you'll have a hard time reading
without a lot of experience. The result will
probably be losses.
Having said all this, if you like the competitive
aspects of poker, you'll find $10/20 to be
the entry level of truly rewarding play.
If you beat this level consistently,
you're on your way to becoming a very good
player.
Other's responded well. I might add that you
do NOT have to stay at the higher limit. Play
you're lower limit regularly and check out the
higher games. Play when you see one you like.
Over a couple months you should be playing there
more and more, and will become familiar with it.
Set some reasonable bank roll limit. Play 5/10
if your bankroll is less; venture only if its
more.
Start the 10/20 while you are still a "5/10"
player in your head.
Guess I'll have to be the dissenter here ;-) Not having won a big no-limit tournament, I suppose my opinion should be taken with a grain of salt, but I will add that my win percentage in the no-limit satellites is approx. 35% win/split, so maybe I know a few things ... So here goes: If you had the choice of whether or not to play the hand, obviously you wouldn't in that chip position. When you got a flop that helped your BB hand, how many other people could've been helped, and what were their likely holdings? Granted, late in the tournament, I'd be looking to get it all in on your hand (I suppose that's what's called a "style" of play, as others may not). The bottom line to me is that your initial impression is correct: it is too early to take chances on that hand. Was it Amarillo Slim that said, "whoever can't quit the best hand in no-limit can't play?" Season that with McEvoy's advice, "you can't win it if you aint in it" and you'll see why I would play it cautiously.
I have read that "non-tight" players only win playing short handed and yet very aggressive loose play advocated for final stages of tournament, also to play tighter when faced with table full of tight players and play looser in loose aggressive games. I am coming to the conclusion that the best strategy is to alternate depending on position and the flow of betting before me. Am I confused?
Can computer games such as "Turbo Texas Hold em"
improve your game? Are they worth the investment?
Thanks in advance,
Cole J.
I haven't looked at all the computer games so I will only comment on two of the.
First, I don't recomment Turbo Texas Hold 'em. Even though a lot of programming effort has gone into it I have found the play to be totally unrealistic. (For example, the last time I looked at it, it never checked raised.) In addition, the advice that it offers is extremely poor. Unless there is a new edition that is vastly improved, if you follow its advice I believe that you will quickly lose all of your money.
On the other hand if you are very new to poker it may have some value to get you use to how the game plays. But it needs a great deal of work before I would recommend it.
The other program that I will mention is the World Series of Poker Computer Adventure put out by Masque. I spent a great deal of time working on it so you know that my opinion of it will be better. (By the way, my timne was donated so I don't get any royalties from it.) I believe that the limit hold 'em games that it offers are pretty good practice. The stud and the no-limit tournament are weaker. (We ran into time constraints and menory problems.) It does not offer any "pop up" advice but it does have some book excerpts.
Great work on the WSOP game -- it is better practice than playing against most humans.
Hmmm. After winning 5 WSOP Championships in 5 attempts,
I gave up on that game. Too bad I couldn't cash in my
millions. Rather than burst the illusion of realistic
play by revealing it's flaws here, however, send me
an e-mail query to find out: dtaylor@monmouth.com.
You will quickly take everybody's money. But, then,
it quickly becomes a throw-away. So, I guess I'd have
to personally recommend Wilson's Turbo series
myself, where you can actually manipulate the
strategies your foes use against you.
Dick Taylor
I agree that the no-limit tournament in the WSOP game leaves a lot to be desired. But if you play the limit hold 'em "side games" in the computer game you will see that they play fairly realistically. My guess is that if you do well in these computer games then you should be able to hold your own, that is play at least break even in a typical $10-$20 Las Vegas game.
If you find that the Turbo Texas Hold 'em program helps then that's great. But I don't believe that it can get you to where you can win in virtually any real hold 'em game. What has been your experience? If I'm wrong I would like to know.
In the limit side games on the WSOP poker software,
do the computer opponents play better (i.e.
more skillfully, more sophisticated) as you play
higher limits? When you select for example $100-
200, do you face better competition then say the
$10-20 game? Or is just different color chips?
Also, Mr. Malmuth, can we expect better and more
realistic poker software in the immediate future,
maybe from 2+2?? It's frustrating that there isn't
poker software on the level and sophistication of
current chess and backgammon software. It would be
great to have a Texas Holdem software that you
could really use to train and improve your game on
instead of just "fooling around" with.
I believe the players play the same no matter what the limit.
We are not working on any software but I believe that eventually a good player who also has programming skills will put something together.
What game do you have on the market ?
Haven't seen ASOP C1.
But playing Turbo Texas, a few years ago, was abismal. Stud was worse.
It had some uses as a "research" tool (because I had nothing better); since
you can theoretically "program" a player to use a certain strategy, and set
him up against opponents, play a few million hands, and tomarrow look at
the results.
But... It uses some sort of decision tree, based on players styles, to
detemine what a player will do. With the exception of the "pot odds"
and a couple other settings, a player will do the same thing in the same
situation all the time. There is no ability to "semi-bluff" 30%. And the
programmers have to code in all the possible choices; an impossible job
for even those who know poker in and out; which they do not.
And...There are countless tedius settings you go through to define a style
of play, and they do NOT cover the basic situations. You could not, for
example, Raise with a hand that you won't call a raise with. You cannot
play suited connectors if "3 or more players call". If you cap it with
a K flush on the turn, you will cap it again on the river against the
obvious A flush.
And...There is not the slightest hint of "judgment" that can be programmed.
The bad advise exists because one of the pre-defined "good" players is
assigned as adviser, and he is just going through HIS decision tree with
your hand, and advising based on that. Which is hopeless.
Computer AI has bypassed Wilson SW; as of a few years ago.
So I generally used it to tweek the simplest of strategies and run a bunch
of hands, and look at the results with a grain of salt. And to run simple
hot and cold comparisons. But even that was too salty, so I gave it up.
Its best use would be for beginners to learn the mechanics of the game in
a safe fast paced environment at home. Many would find it fun.
There appears to be new Windows versions out; but I doubt they could possibly
have fixed the fundamental problem of fixed decision trees and defining
styles with a preset finite set of choices.
There is regular discussion about late position raises with quality hands such as A-Q.
The Nay-Sayers say don't make the pot so big that the bad players are getting the right
odds to chase you down if you flop a pair; and don't give away the strength of your hand.
However, please argue against these points:
1) With quality hands you're going to win more than one time out of the number of callers.
E.G. if you raise with A-Q and get 5 callers, I claim you're going to win more than
one time in 6. So the raise itself is profitable.
2) Such raises disguise your premium pairs.
3) The raise itself INCREASES the chances of you winning, since a bet on the flop is more
believable, and they tend to check-to-the-raiser often giving you a free card.
4) If all the hands were turned face up, surely SOMEONE would want to raise before the flop?
Wouldn't this person be the one with the "best" hand?
My first thought is to wonder whether or not A-Q is truly a "quality hand." A-Q suited, yes, but an unsuited A-Q (assuming you are discussing LIMIT hold-em)? Sure, it has high intrinsic value pre-flop, but if you are playing against 5 players, the value of that hand is going to vary dramatically post-flop. Precisely, for that hand to have value, you must either pair the queen, hit a perfect straight, or flop three cards suited to your Ace. Otherwise, YOU are not going to be a favorite and you are going to get beat much more than 5 out of 6 times. Consider how hard it is to hit a straight when you are holding the closed end on the bottom, i.e., A-3. Would you consider A-3 unsuited to be a "quality hand"? It can be in certain circumstances, but surely not in those you've described. I'd rather hold J-10 in late position versus five callers. As far as raising with A-Q in late position, I think you have to consider the reasons to raise (and we'll assume you are not going to drive anyone out): 1) build the pot? why?; 2) Deception? Possibly if no one hits the flop, but someone *will* hit the flop a high percentage of the time (even if it is only 2nd or 3rd pair); 3) to save bets on later rounds? this might be the best reason if you don't hit the flop, but get on a raggedy draw -- maybe you can get a free card or not have to call the double turn bet; 4) reducing caller's odds? doesn't do any good because you are last to act; they are calling two single bets; 5)raising to gain information? perhaps this might be the best reason to raise with A-Q -- to find out if someone is holding A-A, K-K, or A-K, in which case they will raise you back; 6) raising to disguise your hand? it seems pretty iffy whether a late position raise disguises ANYTHING; if you have raised in late position and the flop doesn't hit the five players in front of you, but it hits you, the hand may be over right there, so your pre-flop "disguise raise" had only the effect of building you a small pot.
You state that "wouldn't [the] person ... with the best hand" "... want to raise before the flop"? Staying with the motiff that A-Q shouldn't necessarily be considered the best hand in late position, of those 5 callers, surely some of them are playing connectors -- isn't their chance of hitting the flop higher than yours?
I tried to refrain, but I must respond to Earl's post
regarding AQo and why one shouldn't raise it in late
position.
First off, he seems to feel that AQs is a MUCH better
hand than AQo. AQ, suited or otherwise, will win the
pot much more often based on high card strength than
on the flush possibilites.
Next, he says that you need a Q, straight, or flush
draw on the flop. What about an A? Why not a staright
draw? Unless the flop looks particularily dangerous
you might even be able to run a bluff (which you probably
can't do unless you raised pre-flop).
If anybody else has an A or a Q, then it's almost like I
am not playing against them so my chance of winning
goes from better than 1 in 6 to better than 1 in 5 or 4.
Another point: Earl seems to feel that my chances
are perhaps not as good as 1 in 6. Unless he puts
T9s as, intrinsically, a better hand than mine, then I
do not see how this can be.
In his responses to reasons to raise he says that building
a pot is not a good idea ("why?"). He unknowingly
suggests an answer later: if you do hit the flop nicely
you are not going to get any action post-flop, so get it pre-flop.
Same if everyone misses.
Unless you never raise AA etc in this situation, then
you must raise with hands like AQo also, otherwise
the opposition can bleed your Aces when they are
ahead and can fold comfortably, knowing when they
are losing.
I am not claiming that AQ should always be raised in
this situation, but I do not think that Earl's
arguments are sufficient to stop somebody.
Just my own two (Canadian) cents.
One very important reason why AQs is better than AQo is that some of your wins when you flop a flush draw are by pairing. With the AQo you may not be around when this card comes off.
I'll try and comment on this post as brielfy as possible. It's the kind of topic that can go on forever with everyone thinking they are right. My comments apply to any typical game, excluding very loose or very tight games.
>>>1) With quality hands you're going to win more than one time out of the
number of callers.
E.G. if you raise with A-Q and get 5 callers, I claim you're going to
win more than
one time in 6. So the raise itself is profitable.<<<
One point you are fogetting here is how much money it will cost you when you lose. If you win 2/6 times you may also end up losing some big pots in the pots you have lost. Since the size of a pot at the river is always different you can in no way say that winning a certain percentage of pots will justify raising with what is basically a premium drawing hand, not a true premium hand. If only 1-2 players have called in front of you, then the raise is important because it will hopefull knock out the blinds and give you the best hand pre-flop.
>>>2) Such raises disguise your premium pairs.<<<
If you are only raising with premium pairs then you are giving away a huge advantage to your oppponents. I'd rather wait for a hand such as AK or AQ suited to raise a large field. If you are raising in LP enough with lots of different hands (which you should be doing, assuming not too many callers) than no one will think you only raise with premium pairs and there is no reason to "disguise your premium pairs".
>>>3) The raise itself INCREASES the chances of you winning, since a bet on
the flop is more
believable, and they tend to check-to-the-raiser often giving you a free
card.<<<
Unless your game is really passive I wouldnt expect ot be checked to if the flop has any paint on it. There are games when you get checked to because of a pre-flop raise, but with 5 or more callers it is VERY likely that someone flopped a good hand that is worth betting.
>>>4) If all the hands were turned face up, surely SOMEONE would want to
raise before the flop?
Wouldn't this person be the one with the "best" hand?<<<
Your basics are a little screwed up here. If you had ACes, kings or queens this concept would apply, but with 4-5 callers, that AQ is worth nothing if you dont hit an ace, a queen, or a draw. It is almost guaranteed that if you dont flop a hand someone else will. Once someone pairs their hole cards then your AQ is garbage unless you hit the flop as well.
I'd go with the current theory of NOT raising with AQ before the flop into a field of 3 or more. I DO AGREE with raising with it if there are only 1-2 callers in front of you and the blinds will fold.
Everybody's got different opinions on this one but I got to go with Mason Malmuth's advice that he has written many times. I cant think of anybody in the world who has as much professional experience that he has, so I'll go with his line of thought.
good luck
steve
I certainly will buy most of your agruements, and in fact, I tend to raise a lot with A,Qo but there are a lot of situations where I would like to look at the flop in late position before I commit more chips than necessary. In my opinion, if your chances of winning with A,Qo without a flop are very small and/or the raise helps players read your hand, and they are capable of acting on the information, you have to use more discretion when raising. I believe that it doesn't take too long to find a tough hold'em game where you need to balance your strategy such that your raises and calls, for that matter, don't give your opponents a lot of information. In a hold'em game that has a lot of players playing inferior hands from any position, if there are a lot of callers pre-flop and I am near the button I tend to call a more than raise. Hopefully I will continue to find more games with the players playing inferior hands, than the tough ones.
How many hours per week do you play ?
Over the years, David and Mason have played many hours of poker. Right now their hours vary depending on how busy we are promoting Two Plus Two's books. Lately we've been giving informal poker and gambling seminars at local bookstores. We'll be in bookstores all over California in late September. (Check our calendar page for dates.) We hope to have time to play in the California clubs while we are there.
I have almost every single book you guys have produced. They have saved and made me hundreds of dollars. Thanks, keep up the good work. I am not a professional - I posted my first message today to Mason. If there is a better way to do any of this, please tell me. I don't want to look stupid. How long does it take you to post and answer a message?
I have decided to study poker seriously. I live in
the L.A. area so there are many card rooms available
for me to play. But, I would like to keep my COL (cost
of learning) down. My strategy is to learn the game
that gives me the most favorable technical edge, e.g.,
which starting hands to open or call with, and when to
drop. I played at a Club in both 7 Hi-Low
split and hold em games. I did okay because I played
very tight until I won a pot and then loosened up so as
not to appear I would only bet\raise with very strong
hands. I played in ultra low 1-2 games.
After this short time I intuitively believe that
7 Hi-Low would have the best technical edge if for no
other reason that you see three cards instead of two
and that the subsequent playing decisions would involve
less sophistication that hold em. But, I am a neophyte
so I could be wrong, big time. Which game should I
choose to start with and which books should I study,
especially if the answer is 7 hi low. I know there are
a lot of books about hold em, but the only book I could
find mainly on the subject of 7 hi low was the book
by Ray Zee for advanced players.
This is the kind of site that make the internet
worthwhile. I would really appreciate your insightful
responses to my question.
Thanks,
Cal
The best game for a technical advantage is no-limit hold-em, i.e., a playing mistake will be punished severely and great play is (usually) rewarded dramatically. But I don't think that's the answer or the game you are looking for. I learned stud first, so naturally my preference would be to say that any form of stud is the most "technically advantageous." And, truly, 7-stud requires a much higher degree of concentration and mental ability than limit button games. On the other hand, while swinging downward in a 7-stud game where I'm playing well but taking bad beats, I've often thought that I'd much rather be playing hold-em because the drawout factor is less. My advice is still to learn them all, so you have your pick of the best games and situations (regardless of the game, always remember that there are no great hands, only great situations).
I believe that a new poker player is best off starting with small limit hold 'em. I discuss this topic in an interview that I did with THE INTELLIGENT GAMBLER. You can get this from ConJelCo.
Quickly recapping, the skills you need to beat middle and high limit stud do not apply very well at the lower limits. Because of the relatively small ante in these games it becomes a trapping game as opposed to a game of knocking people out.
Small limit hold 'em also frequently plays differently from the higher limits. But this is more of a function of the players. That is you use the same concepts, it is just that they will bring you to different conclusions.
I wouldn't emphasize seven-card stud high-low-split since it is not widely played. Once you get "good" it is worth learning, but not when you are starting out.
Stick with hold 'em, and once you start playing at $15-$30 or higher begin to learn seven-card stud.
My apologies for butchering Mr. Malmuth's last name in an earlier post ("Advice for a beginner"). Additionally, after seeing the post, I realized I'd made several grammatical errors -- it's pretty difficult to edit in these little message windows. For the webmaster: any possibility we can get the message window set wider or have the paragraphs wrap (that may actually be the best solution)?
Thanks for your suggestion. Mason and I spoke to Chuck Weinstock (who put up these pages for us) about improving the forum editing features. He's got some ideas, and hopes to get to it soon. We must also decide how to archive posts after some period of time. Anyone with suggestions can e-mail me directly. In the meantime...bear with us.
These omnipresent web browser editing windows are just this side of functional, but there is a way to work around them without waiting for Netscape 8.0. Just compose your message in a word processor like Word, or even your favorite text editor, and then cut and paste your entire message into the little edit window. Each paragraph will show up as one line, and it'll all get wrapped properly when it posts. i think you have to leave a blank line between paragraphs.
dan
I've increased the column width for this area for
future posts.
By popular request, I've reset the column width. The larger column width for
posting was making it too hard to read the original pages.
In its place I've added the ability to preview your message prior to posting it.
Chuck
Having just found this website, I have been very
impressed with the quality of the questions and the
answers. There is one thing that is bothering me
in that once I have looked at a question and any
followups, when I click on the back arrow, I am
returned to the beginning of the questions, not
where I left off. This requires arrowing down for
a long period of time to get to the next question
I want to look at. Is there any possibility of
having the return arrow take us back to the question
we just clicked on. Otherwise it is a great site
and I am learning a great deal about holdem and why
I loose most of the time.
How do you folks behave at the table?? Do you chat it up like one of the guys, or do you site there in silence? I try never to talk about poker, but I want the players to think as me as one of the guys and feel comfortable playing with me so I am not afraid to talk it up. I dont like the idea of sitting there and saying nothing as it can bore you to death and will tend to inhibit the amount of "action" you get. Sometimes I tend to talk to much though and inevitably someone gets angry at something I have said and they mis-interpreted.
what do u think?
steve
One thing I've identified as a deficency in my game is "talking at the table." While you are at the table you should be totally involved in the game. You cannot know if an opponent is calling too much on the end, or bluffing too much on the turn if you are talking too much. I'm a social person, and it's been hard for me to keep quiet at the table. I like people, and meet all kinds of interesting folks playing poker. I try to resist the urge to talk because I've realized (and friends have pointed out to me) how much it hurts my game. When I've really concentrated in a 5 or 6 hour session, I'm totally exhausted. It takes a lot of energy to figure out what your opponents are thinking, so that you can squeeze out every advantage available. Besides, you are probably getting plenty of action in the typical game. If they start to give you too little action, instead talking, start bluffing.
I agree very strongly with Jessica's comments. The very best players all have one thing in common, they pay attention to what's going on. When I play I don't talk much and don't like to sit next to a talker. I try to pay attention and stay focused on the game.
The art of reading hands is without a doubt the real seperator between the marginally good and great players. If you don't follow the game closely, you will lose out in this area.
This being said, there are a few people who can talk a lot and still pay attention. Ray Zee is one of them and I have watched him manipulate top players out of pots or into calls. But he also has incredible focus on the game. This is why his talking can be so effective.
So I believe that paying attention and focus come first. If you can do those things well, a little (or a lot) of talking won't hurt.
Based on this brief thread, I have a theory about talking at the table I’d like to throw out for comments.
I’m going to assume that if you’re talking, someone else is listening. That is, that you’re not just talking to yourself, but either conversing with other players, or at least bothering them.
Okay, my somewhat narrow theory is that you should prefer to talk least against really tough competition, somewhat less against really weak competition, and most against medium-strength competition. Where your cutoff is depends on how well you can talk and play at the same time.
Against really strong and really weak competitors, you’re going to suffer from chatting more than them. Against weak competitors, they couldn’t play much worse anyway, and strong competitors will likely have games that are more automatic and therefore less susceptible to interference than your own.
Against medium-strength competitors, assuming you’re generally stronger than them, you should be glad to chatter, because their games will likely be a bit more fragile than yours, and will likely suffer more with a bit of noise.
For the visually inclined, I’m picturing a sigmoid function mapping skill, adjusted for the environment, on quality of play. If you’re on a flatter part of the function than your opponents, you want to make the environment less conducive to good play. This will generally happen when you’re either well above average or well below average at a table with medium-strength players. Obviously in the latter case you have more to worry about than fine-tuning your talking practices.
Anyway, this has to be qualified a bit because some people do dual-task better than others (i.e., get slid over farther on the x-axis for every bit of decrement in the environment), but I think it might be a good rule of thumb. It also jives a bit with the observation that some well-intentioned players tend to loosen up as they get talking.
Thanks in advance for comments on my bizarre theory du jour.
dan
I'm reminded of the late Jon Bradshaw's description
of Amarillo Slim in conversation with an English
journalist who was analyzing a hand (Fast Company).
Notwithstanding all that, I'll opine that some
folks can talk their opponents to defeat; the rest
should probably do as Ann Landers advised the woman
who was getting married, had dentures, but didn't
want her fiance` to know, "keep your mouth shut."
I have the problem of not talking enough. I have had players and dealers needle me in a good natured way about this. Over the years I haven't changed too much but occaisionally I'll engage a player in conversation after a hand. I try to ask questions like "What did you put me on, Aces ?" or make statements like "I thought I was going to lose that pot." Hopefully with the type of question I'm asking or the statement I am making I can encourage bad play. I am never, ever critical of other peoples play. I think this goes without saying. As for subjects unrelated to poker, I don't get involved when I am playing. Occaisionly when I run into dealers and floor people that I know that I might be playing against in a tournament I'll talk about the card rooms where they work.
In the latest issue of Card Player, Mike Sexton wrote
"The truth is that the high -stakes side game players
($75-$150 and higher) who play at least three days a week
and are consistent winners year in and year out are better
players than the top tournament players." Coming from
one of the best tournament players himself this statement
seems valid to me. I'd like to congratulate Mike for
making this observation. He goes on to observe than if
these players entered a lot of tournaments we would be
reading about them all the time in Card Player
Game is 3-6 holdem, with an old gentleman to your right flashing his pocket cards such that you can't help but see them :). Your hand pocket A's one behind the button, old guy has A,8 suited. Raise before the flop is called by 4 including the old guy.
Flop 10, 9, 7. Player in front bets, one call, old guy, calls, you raise. First player cold calls, other two fold,
Turn another 7, checked to you, you bet, first player calls.
River a third 7, checked to you, you bet and are raised by the one other person in the pot.
I called though I'm unsure now first whether I should have stayed in that long knowing one of my A's was out. You know the rest I suppose 7's full of A's beaten by 9's full of 7's.
Did I play this hand correctly?
Regards-
The most interesting thing about this hand
is that I'm not sure seeing the "old guy's"
A-8 was significant -- for both of them to
come along after the flop, it would occur
to me that there was a reasonably good chance
that one of the players had a straight draw.
More significantly, the player in front
called the raise pre-flop -- what did you
think he had; what would he call with in that
position? After the flop, instead of
checking, he bets out. What did you put him
on at that stage?
You don't give us his "texture" of play, but
in this case, he played the hand to receive
maximum return at minimal risk. When he bet
his set on the flop and got raised, he
recognized the possibility of a made straight,
or a higher set and just called. Unfortunately
for you, it appears that he apparently
put you on Aces instead of Tens (either
before or after the old guy folded), since
he wasn't afraid of a higher full house when
he check-raised you on the end. In my opinion,
that final bet and call were the only mistakes
you made.
Chapter 21 of Sklansky's "Winning Poker book",
"Head Up On The End" illustrates the two key
points that are at issue here:
1) you have to be at least a small favorite
if you expect to just get CALLED when you make
that last bet; and
2) you have to be a 2-1 favorite in order to
bet if there is any risk at all of getting
RAISED (because you are risking a double bet
if he check-raises).
Excellent response Earl.
Lone Star,
Of course you played it right. There is only so much you can read into a hand. The only bet you can save is the one on the end if you are very sure that this particular player would not raise without being able to beat sevens full. You kind of got what you deserved for looking at someones hand. The proper thing to do is tell him to keep his cards down. Good Luck.
Low limit Omaha is dying a fairly quick death at the Bicycle Club, and is being replaced by 3-6 Crazy Pineapple Hi/Lo with a Kill if there is a scooper totalling $60 or more. It seems that at least 1/3 of the hands are played at the 6-12 "kill" level. I decided to play this game after watching several players blow off several racks in a relatively short period of time. Unfortunately, it seems that the really weak players go broke very fast, and are starting to avoid the game. There is very little literature on Crazy Pineapple. The only book I could find was one written a couple of years ago by two guys from Washington or Oregon. I have created by my starting hand criteria, utilizing some basic holdem and Omaha concepts. I would like to know if David, Mason or Ray have any insights they can share regarding the proper play of this game, which seems to be growing more popular every day? I should mention that the games I play in are extremely loose. It is not unusual for 8 or 9 players to see the flop in in a 9 player game, and for 6 or 7 players to see the turn. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
Larry,
In games this loose the best way is just to play very tight before the flop. Then play towards the nuts after. Good Luck.
I wonder if you could elaborate on this game. What are good starting hands, how is it different from holdem, etc? This game crys out for a good book.
> .. Help Crazy Pineapple ..
There are 3 times as many good hands in Pineapple than Holdem. Effectively 4 times as many in Crazy Pineapple. So play only the top 1/4 hands you would play in holdem.
Play only PREMIUM holdem hands; group one only. Play them selectively before the flop in early position.
You may also play good 3 card hands, such as JdTdJs.
Top pair second kicker is not a calling hand. Be prepared to discard top pair top kicker vrs a bet. Low flushes will get beat often. Low straights will get beat often; so long as you flopped the draw.
Judgement is very important in this game. Does she have the nuts? Draw?
- Louie
Awesome website!
In a recent local tournament I found myself with T$500
left after posting the big blind (T$200). There were 12
players left in the tournament, and 9 would be paid.
Everyone passed to the player immediately in front of
the button, who raised. The button and the small blind
passed and I was alone in the pot with the raiser, T$200
to me. I had KK. What was my best play here? I had no
experience whatever with the other player, having just
moved to the table. His stack was only a little bigger
than mine. If I play and lose, I'm dead. There were a
couple of other distressed stacks out there, but mine
was probably the lowest. If I throw my hand away, I have
a chance that the other small stacks will tap out before
me. I could go one more round for sure, a long shot to
go more because of the clock and higher blinds coming
up. Could that be my best option?
Thanks,
Joe M.
Wassup, Ray?
First I think you have to play. You have picked up an awfully good hand and it is doubtful that you will get anything close to it again in another round.
Second, you should put the rest of your money in. No matter what hits your money will probably go all-in anyway so you might as well get it in now.
Third, you must realize that if you pick up these chips you will be in a much better situation to play the rest of the tournament. I would not try to survive by throwing two kings away.
That's the sort of hand most of us dream about
having when we get short-stacked late in a
tournament. The fact that you are heads up makes
it even more powerful. Think of it this way:
you are going headsup with the 2nd best possible
hand for a piece of the prize money -- you win,
you're likely in; you lose, you're out. I like
your chances.
But this question brings up an issue that has
been bothering me for awhile: some mathemagicians
would rather weenie out for a few crumbs instead of
being bold and trying to WIN these tournaments.
Since when did tournament play become *only* a
survival contest? Sure, survival is important in
any lengthy event (even the Indy 500, about as
fast of players as you'll find), but the goal should
still be to win.
When playing poker or a poker tournament, your goal should be to maximize your expectation. Sometimes late in a tournament this means that you should throw a hand away that would be marginally profitable in a ring game. This is one aspect of surviving.
However, throwing two kings away in this example is clearly not maximizing your expectation. They should be played.
I agree with the comments from Earl and Mason.This is a very powerful hand for heads up play. I would re-raise and try to double my stack at this point.
The only hand better is pocket aces and even if your opponent has them, with 5 cards to be seen, you may still improve and win. If you re-raise him, he might fold and you win some checks right there.
I would add this thought: How much did 9th place pay? If I could coast to 9th and get a big enough payout (maybe 3 or 4 times my cost of entry, rebuys, addons), I might play for that.
If the payout for 9th is just enough to cover my cost of the entry fees, rebuys and add ons, then I would try to make a move and put myself in a position to be more competitive.
Regards,
Leigh
This is a general question which I will illustrate by
example:
You sit down in a 'typical' Hold 'em game. You
past-post behind the button. A player you have no
knowledge of raises two to the left of the Big Blind.
The hand is shown down and the raiser wins with A6 off.
On the next hand the same person raises. Everyone
folds to you. You look down and find XY.
For what values of XY should you cold-call? Reraise?
Specifically, would you reraise with AJ, AT, A9 ?
Cold-call or reraise or fold with KQ, QJ ?
Pocket 5's or 6's?
Clearly the more players still to act behind me the
tighter I must play, fearing someone yet to act has
a quality hand.
And in maniacal games where many people are raising
and reraising with trash I want to play pretty tight.
But I was in a game the other day with one very bad
player who I observed raise with J5 off. The game
was not otherwise maniacal. Typically there were
2,3 or 4 people to see the flop. Acting after this
person in a moderately sane game, how much can I
open up my play? Or is it best to simply sit and
wait for real quality hands with which to punish
said bad player? (Assume it is OK to trade higher
variance for any reasonable gain in EV)
From seeing that one hand you know the raiser will raise with way too many hands, and you know that this is not a "variance" play since A6 offsuit is the wrong type of hand for this kind of play. But you now have him raising under the gun.
Without any other knowledge I would reraise him with only a small number of additional hands. They include AQ offsuit and pairs down through eights. (I would throw AJ offsuit away.)
One concept that most players don't understand is that when someone raises and you are next, there are very few hands that you should be calling with. It is generally either a reraise of fold. I would still call with AJs and KQs, but not much else.
Mason Malmuth Wrote:
> From seeing that one hand you know the raiser will raise with way too many
> hands, and you know that this is not a "variance" play since A6 offsuit is
> the wrong type of hand for this kind of play. But you now have him raising
> under the gun.
This is very insightful, as the main concern with the small sample size is
that the player is just mixing up his play. I think there is more that can
be added along these lines. When the player made his early position raise, it
is likely that he felt this was the "correct" play (i.e. he wasn't just
"taking a shot"). As many players have fixed criteria to make certain plays,
he probably belongs to the "open for a raise with any ace in any position to
trim the field" camp. This being the case (and the fact that it worked so well
the hand before), this player will not hesitate to do so again when the same
situation arises in the very next hand (but if he were taking a shot, the raise
in the next hand is much more likely to be "real").
> Without any other knowledge I would reraise him with only a small number of
> additional hands. They include AQ offsuit and pairs down through eights. (I
> would throw AJ offsuit away.)
Based on what was stated above, I think that it may be a mistake to throw away "If an ace flops and I'm leading the betting all the way, will I be able to bet There are many other useful questions to ask, such as, "Will he raise me back Tom Weideman
AJo here. The reason is that the field of hands that the opponent could hold
is very large, and a large number of these hands are of the Ax (x
possibly A9o playable here, if I am ALMOST CERTAIN that my reraise will make
the pot head-up (otherwise I'd get away from these hands). One method I use to
to help me decide on how to play here is to ask myself the following question:
the river for value if I don't improve, and will I be able to get away from it
if it's clear his Ax has made 2 pair?"
with AK or AQ?", or "Will he give up on his AK or AQ if he misses the flop
(and/or turn) and I fire at him (i.e. will my preflop reraise put him into
'hit-the-flop-or-dump-it' mode)?", as well as others. Unfortunately, I don't
yet have the information on this player to answer these questions, so they are
not particularly useful here.
In Mason Malmuth's essay "A Few Decisions", there's a small oversight. Mason held 8d 8c and the board was Qc Jc 8s 8h. He wrote:
"I now held the nuts. I could only lose if someone else held a higher set and also caught the perfect card on the river--two unlikely events."
Actually, someone could also make a straight flush if they held AcKc, AcTc, KcTc, Kc9c, or Tc9c. So on the river, the following 10 cards could conceivably make someone else a better hand: Ac Kc Tc 9c, any Q, any J.
Since none of Mason's opponents is likely to have folded any of the hands that could beat him, recognizing this additional possibility effectively doubles the chance that he could be beaten (notice that KcTc has two outs). Assuming that by the turn we can eliminate from consideration 75% of the starting hands his opponents could hold, the probability that Mason could lose rises from about 1 in 400 to 1 in 200.
This doesn't seem like enough of a difference to alter the decision about what to do.
Mason then wrote:
"The betting surprised me. It was checked around to the player on my immediate right who bet creating a dilemma for me. ... If anyone was on a flush draw, which
I felt was a likely possibility, they would come for two double-sized
bets."
From my experience, this isn't necessarily true. I was playing in a game recently where a player who had been playing quite loosely folded his nut (ace in hole) flush draw to two double-sized bets on the turn with a pair on the board; the situation was slightly different because the betting sequence on the turn had gone: check, bet, call (the player with the flush draw), call, raise (by the player who had checked first), re-raise (by the original bettor).
One indication of this player's looseness was that he seemed to play any suited hand in any position. He also was involved in many showdowns. Mason has written elsewhere about how it might be possible that players who play small pairs out of position might develop a better feel for set over set confrontations than book-smart players who rarely encounter this situation. It appears that some of those who play all suited hands develop similar noses for trouble.
I have been playing holdem for years in colorado, vegas and
Los Angeles, typically in 5limit or 6-12 stakes games.
I will be in vegas 8/19-23 and want to begin the venture
into tournament play. Can anyone A)give me advise on how
to prepare for tournament play and B)give me some info
on where I might find a tournament on those dates. By the
way I have read texas holdem by 2+2 and can personally
say that it has improved my play dramatically. I recommend
it to everyone that wants to play the game.
Thanks in advance
I returned from LV two weeks ago and played in a couple of tournaments at The Orleans and Rio. The Rio has a daily HE tournament at 10am. It's a $17 entry fee with $15 returned as prize money. There are no rebuys or add-ons. If you bust out and there are no alternates you can "re-enter" by paying an additional $17. It's a winner take all tourney.
The Orleans has one or two tournaments per day. They have (I think) HE, Omaha and 7stud tourneys. The HE tournament I entered was Thursday with a $20 entry with $10 rebuys and a $10 add-on. The final table was paid in this tournament.
The Luxor also has a daily tournament. I think it's limited to 20 players and has a $20 entry with no rebuys or add ons.
Pick up a copy of Card Player for a complete list. You can get a free copy at many card rooms. e.g. Mirage, 'Shoe, Orleans, MGM Grand.
Regards,
Leigh
I just wanted to write to thankyou for a super book in 7card stud for advanced players. I've read it 4 or 5 times and I think I am know getting a firm grasp on it and it shows in my winning expections now. Just last night I won $1100 on the cruise ship playing 2-10 seven card stud in only four hours and this i directly attrubute to what i've learned in your book. Thankyou very much.
Jerry,
Thanks for the nice compliment. My guess is you will make a million. Good Luck.
mr. sklanski, i am sorry about misspelling your name. thanks for a great book. your holdem book is great too.
I've heard of a way to play 5 card draw that's different
from the way I've always played it. Essentially, the
rules are the same, except that there HAS TO BE A BET
after the draw or else it's a redeal. In other words,
if everyone checks after the draw, you leave the pot
and redeal the hand. Anyone else ever hear of playing it
this way? If so, could you provide some sort of
documentation (i.e. rulebook quote or something of the
sort) so my friends won't think I'm making this up?
Thanks.
Many years ago (in a church building I might add), I played in a weekly dealer's choice game with a group of hometown players who dealt a wide variety of games -- and their infamous permutations -- including the variation of draw that you mentioned. I don't think you'll find any rules or discussion for this game in what might be considered a "serious" poker book, but for draw variant discussions, check out the old books by Scarne and Morehead (both only marginally worth reading), and Winning at Poker by John Archer (a decent beginner's book with variants). While neither of those books may explicitly show you how to play your game, the other variants described will give you food for thought about how to play when that game is dealt. A final thought: these types of game are for the REAL gamblers.
Strategicaly I would suppose you should consider some of these points;
comparing them to a "regular" draw strategy you may have:
Expect, of course, much more action on the river.
Avoid hands that like to check on the river, such as two small pair.
Draws go up in value since you can expect suspicious callers.
Position goes up in value. WAY UP.
There should be plenty of tells distinguishing those who bet because
they want to and those who bet because the HAVE to. Watch and learn.
So if the first player who must bet is under the gun (position fixed
like holdem) then play near the button and avoid like the plague
early seats.
Or if the first player who must bet is the OPENER then YOU WILL RARELY
if ever, OPEN. You will sand bag shamelessly. You will study opening
tells. You will stall when in doubt. You will fold often when opened
on your left. While holdem has 4 betting rounds, this game looks like
position is more important.
If you play high draw a lot then get John Fox's old book "Play Poker,
Quit Work, and sleep 'till Noon", if you can find it. Yes, he's a
biggotted ass with stories to make you puke; but the advise is great.
Your interesting book doesn't discuss 5 card Omaha h/l. Can you give me some adice on the differences? Thanks.
Broncosauras,
I have not played it but with the extra card you can be sure the nuts will be out there most hands. Ace, two, and at least a third wheel card are probably minimum. Many more high hands will be backed into so play much tighter for high. Good Luck.
Please give me 3 or 4 examples of the worst hands you would call with either on the button or one seat to the right. Three or four callers in front.
20/40 Hold'em, average game. I have a complete library of all your books and many more but I can't find this information in your books.
Generally you can play Groups 1-6 if not on the button and Groups 1-7 if on the button. Tighten up a little bit if a good player or someone who like to limp with aces has limped in up front.
In Southern California, when you come into a new
game you have the option of letting the blinds pass
you and coming in behind the button for the BB
(unlike Las Vegas, where if you put your chips down
and you BB comes to you, you have to take it or
past-post the BB + a dead SB).
Generally it is felt that past-posting for the BB only
is an advantage. Is this perception correct?
How many hands should you expect to receive before your
BB comes to make it correct to past-post for just the BB
as opposed to just waiting for your blind?
(I.e., if the game is full I will receive 6 hands
in S. Cal, 7 hands in LV. Is five enough? four?)
Suppose two of you are past-posting and you are
rightmost (i.e., two off the dealer button). Given
the additional $10 from the other past-poster, I
assume you would be more liberal in your decision
to past post even with the one less hand you get.
Is this correct reasoning?
Given a full 9-handed game, is it better, if you know
you have to miss two hands, to miss the blinds and
past-post behind the button for BB+SB, or to miss
your last two hands before the BB comes to you?
If you 'know' that the game you are sitting down at
is a great game (EV >= +2BB/hr) is it better just
to take your BB and play the three additional hands
rather than idling waiting for the button to pass?
(On the theory that because the game is so good your
EV on the button and 1 off the button without the
past-post more than makes up for the additional SB
money)
(These questions assume BB = 2*SB. If there would
be a significant difference for 15-30 structure,
please note this)
While these may seem like almost trivial questions,
if the difference in EV in making the right decision
is, say $1, and you make that decision twice a day,
and you play 200 days a year, that's $400.
While this question may be of theoretical interest it cannot be answered precisely. Furthermore, the overriding consideration may very well be your table image. Players who are obviously trying to gain minute advantage by posting blinds in a mathematically correct way might find that they get a lot less action from their foes.
It is generally agreed that hands like Axs and JTo can be played in late position,
and the statement is made that they do well with a lot of callers in front since
it results in proper odds for the drawing hand. Suppose the game is pretty tight
and you only get a couple of callers in front of you? You don't need to worry
as much about being raised since you are in late position, but your implied odds
for the drawing hands are reduced. Thoughts?
>It is generally agreed that hands like Axs and JTo can be played
>in late position,
That's true.
>the statement is made that they do well with a lot of callers
>in front since it results in proper odds for the drawing hand.
I agree with that Axs becomes a very good hand in this situation,
but I don't agree that is also true with the JTo. In HOLD 'EM POKER
FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS we discuss why unsuited high cards go down
in value in multiway pots. The JTo is still usually playable, but
it is only marginally so. If one or more good players have also
limped in up front I frequently throw it away. They will often
be holding the type of hand that it would be easy for you to make
a second best hand. This may also be ture with the Axs, but the fact
that it is suited gives you additional ways to win.
>Suppose the game is pretty tight and you only get a couple of callers
>in front of you? You don't need to worry as much about being raised
>since you are in late position, but your implied odds for the drawing
>hands are reduced. Thoughts?
Again if one or more good players are in early that JTo may hit the muck.
In a tight game these hands should probably be folded except on the button. Not only because your implied odds are less but also because it is more likely that tight callers in front of you have you in bad shape (eg: AQ, AJ, KJ or QJ)
> It is generally agreed that hands like Axs and JTo can be played in late position
>
For what its worth, the first thing that I consider is "can I make money if I flop
top pair?" That is will I get called by lesser hands. If the answer is "No", then
I will usually fold.
A reason to play is if you can confidently fold on the flop if you DO make top pair.
A reason to play is if stealling opportunities abound when you flop a draw.
A reason to fold is if you are likely not to know where you are at, if someone bets
of even if they call.
A reason to fold is if a tight player has called in early position. Or a tight player
has opened from middle position.
A reason to fold is if the callers are solid players. This also means find another game.
Considering the actual game is much easier and useful for me; but that's because I do
not play against sound game-theory opponents; and because my simple brain cannot do
it with speed and precision. If you play in such a game, then you need more sound
advise, as has already been given.
- Louie
Rich,
Let's all get in on this one. If the game is tight fold these as they are already beaten. If the game is loose or the players already in the pot are bad loose players call or raise depending on the various factors. Good Luck.
There is a popular theory going around that says that a player can "run bad" for
a substantial period of time, such as 6 months or so. Some people say that you can run bad for years! I personally think that if after 6 months of 40 hour playing weeks if you are not beating the game for at least a half of a big bet an hour than there is something inherently flawed with your play. Whad do you think?
steve
I agree with you Steve. As far as I'm concerned, anyone losing that long has a gambling problem and is not a professional. I don't have a huge amount of experience, but I do know how not to lose. I have always been able to minimize losses-and while that may decrease the size of my wins, I've always felt that big losses are simply not acceptable. They can put your entire game on tilt and destroy your confidence. I feel that long term there are two types of players: winners and problem gamblers.
40 hours * 25 weeks = 1000 hours...it can happen but very unlikely (if you play a winning game)...buy Schlesingers book Blackjack Attack...among a zillion other things it has some tables on expectations of the game...such as after 500 hours one guy out of 50 will still be behind...scary...
/g
In my book GAMBLING THEORY AND OTHER TOPICS I derive the following
equation:
n = [3(sd)/wr][3(sd)/wr]
where n is the number of hours that you can be a loser
sd is the standard deviation,
wr is the win rate
Now let's suppose that your win rate is 0.5 bets per hour and your
standard deviation is 12 bets per hour. (I believe that this would
be a typical number for many of you.) Solving for n we get
n = [3(12)/.5][3(12)/.5] = (72)(72) = 5,184 hours.
Now let's look at an expert who has superb card reading skills that
will up his win rate (1 bet per hour) and lower his standard deviation
(8 bets per hour).
n = [3(8)/1][3(8)/1) = 576 hours.
As you can see there is quite a difference. In fact, the difference is
amazing.
For more discussion, see the book.
Truly an amazing difference. There seems to be two things that any serious player needs to try and improve on, the first being to increase one's hourly rate and the second decreasing standard deviation. It would seem that lowering the standard deviation would be more important than increasing win rate assuming you are a winning player. So the three pronged approach would be to adopt strategies and tactics that make you a winning player, minimize your standard deviation and maximize your win rate. Question, what are the best ways to minimize your standard deviation while maximizing your win rate ? It would seem that game selection would be awfully important in this area.
Has anybody used Texas Holdem (v4.02) by WorkWare? I have it and
believe there are a few bugs in it, but am interested in what
DS or MM think about it. I have attempted to locate the authors
to no avail. It has programmable players, check raises, and seems
to create valuable(?) stats for perusal. If anybody has any info
or insights concerning this program please post!!
thanks DanDeMan
I want to thank you for initiating this forum. Something like this was
needed in order to allow poker enthusiasts to interact with each other.
My question is why does it take so long from the time I hit the
Due to popular demand, you'll now find threads started
in July in http://www.twoplustwo.com/forum/july97.html
You can still browse those messages, but you won't be able to
add to the threads.
Archives are now accessible from the link at the top of the Forum. Also, only whole threads are archived. There should no longer be any "dangling" responses.
Thanks for the great job you are doing. We really appreciate your efforts.
This question is probably as old as Dave, I mean the hills
but it is still debated at the poker table. To be
specific it is a typical 20/40 HE game at the Mirage, I am
the only one not chopping. This gives me advantage over
the little blind but I take the reverse when I am the LB
So, therefore, and somewhere, etc., Should I chop or not
chop????
May the flop be with you
Nevadalary
Nevadalary,
This was answered back in the july questions. Good Luck.
The biggest reason to chop in a $20-$40 game is to avoid the rake. So in Nevada you should probably do it unless you want to portray an intimidating image. In non-rake games, you shouldn't chop if you are an excellent player or if one of your prospective chopping partners plays badly. Even here chopping in OK if your game plan is to portray a friendly image.
Another reason to chop is that your overall variance
goes down a little. I believe Malmuth mentions this
in one of his essays.
One reason not to chop is to avoid being angled:
Someone agrees to chop with you, then sometime later
refuses when they have a good hand, making up some
sort of bullshit excuse.
While I have almost never experienced this, two of
my friends here in LA have encountered this enough
to make them swear off chopping any more.
Chopping is for wimps. Dont do it.
steve
When you start to get old like me, Ray, remembering
what I read last month is a real effort. However, I must
say that Dave's perspective on the subject was the
logical reinforcement to my thinking. However, I have
instituted a twist to "chopping" and that is if either
blind has pocket Aces then they win both blinds. I have
only been doing this for about two weeks and have had
pocket Aces twice to win the blinds AND in both cases
I was in the big blind and had just finished explaining the
"winning with Aces" concept to my opponents on my left
and right, while the hand was being dealt. Both times
everyone folded to us blinds and BINGO I had pocket Aces.
A BIG COINCIDENCE OR WHAT????
May the flop be with you
Nevadalary
Lately, on more than one occassion, I have made an ace high straight or a high flush on fifth or sixth street. I then begin to bet it strong. Inevitalby, I seem to always end up getting raised on seventh street by a full house and loosing. My question is: is it wrong to max bet when going for a high hand when that bet makes it obvious what I have. It seems that with so many tending to stay playing low hand possibilities that can turn into high hands that the big bets won't drive them out, costing me plenty. It has happened enough that I am begining to feel snake bit.
Paul,
Sure you are snakebit I thought I saw you with one in the casino. All kidding aside, you lose plenty of these hands in split because of the number of players trying to outdraw you. But rest assured after making them they will show a tidy profit. In 7 split not many times should you be in the pot playing for ace high straights. A hand like jack,queen,king is not normally a playing hand. Better read my book. Good Luck.
It seems to me that a non-answer was given. My question is this. What game gives you a better advantage by playing by the book, Texas Hold'em or 7 card stud?
Joe,
Texas Holdem. Good Luck.
Mr Zee, thanks for responding to my question. Its incredible that a player of your caliber actually answered my question. I shall follow your advice. I think Hold'em is the best poker game. I have another question. Can you be a winner by playing only and I mean only, the best hands such as groups 1,2,3? When I ask this question I' m referring to playing for a living. I play very tight.
Joe,
You probably must play looser and better to win. But why try to just win when you can win and win at a much faster rate? If you are smart enough to get a computer you are certainly smart enough to improve your game. I bet you have computer games with weapons that in order to do well you must use all your weapons properly. Same with poker, to win you must use all the weapons well. Good Luck.
Erik:
The type of analysis that you are trying to make
is completely unnecessary. Here's a simple way to look
at this problem. It's 7 1/2 to 1 that you flop a set
which will usually but not always win. Thus it should
be reasonable to assume that you need to get a little
better than 7 1/2 to 1 for your set to be profitable
in the long run.
I frequently try to decide if my set, assuming I
hit it and it wins will produce a profit of 10 bets.
That is 10 times my initial investment. When this is
the case, it must be profitable to play that particular
pair. Now anyone who plays a fair amount of limit hold
'em should know that sometimes when you hit one of
these hands and win the pot your profit can go as high
as 30 bets. That is 30 times your original investment.
Notice that I didn't need any sophisticated
analysis or simulation data. There are many spots where
throwing two deuces away before the flop is very
expensive. In fact, I would argue that there are very
few before the flop situations where playing a pair of
deuces can be wrong by a lot.
There is no question that they should not be
played all the time. But the advice that you reference
above is very wrong, and it is easy to see that this is
the case. And, I do practice what I preach.
I'm at a loss to see how this analysis takes into account the amount you will
lose if you flop the set and it gets cracked (which is what I presume is the
crux of Erik's calculation). It's very likely that Mason has a more intuitive
grasp of this than I do, but it's not at all obvious to me that the fudge-
factor of pushing the implied odds to 10-1 from 7.5-1 takes care of those
unfortunate times when the baby set is no good.
I'd like to see some numbers crunched on this as well, though I feel pretty
confident that the small pairs will be playable in the situations mentioned.
Tom Weideman
Sets don't get cracked that often. Remember, even if
someone makes a straight or a flush you may fill up.
In fact, I believe that in most cases 9-to-1 is all
you need, not the stated 10-to-1.
Let me give an extreme example. If you are
against the right two players, and you know that no
one else will come in it has to be correct to call
with a pair of deuces for two bets cold. So that
there is no confusion, if the right person raises, the
right person calls, and you see that everyone else
is going to fold, this call can be right.
Of course these would have to be players who are
capable of capping the betting without making anything.
Now I recognize that this situation won't develop very
often, but it occasionally does happen.
Making sets in the right spots are some of the
most profitable hands that you will play. They are
not only deceptive, but with small pairs you just
throw them away unless you like the flop.
(On a related note the fear of flopping a small set
when someone flops a bigger set is totally unfounded.
I can't even remember the last time this happened
to me.)
The type of analysis that you are trying to make is completely unnecessary. Here's a simple way to look at this problem. It's 7 1/2 to 1 that you flop a set which will usually but not always win. Thus it should be reasonable to assume that you need to get a little better than 7 1/2 to 1 for your set to be profitable in the long run.
I'm still not convinced. I generally trust the "poker intuition" of players I respect, but in this case two of those players disagree. That's why I was looking for a more quantitative discussion.
(On a related note the fear of flopping a small set when someone flops a bigger set is totally unfounded. I can't even remember the last time this happened to me.)
Hmmm. I remember the last time it happened to me, and I don't think I play as much as Malmuth. But the length of our memories is irrelevant to the subject at hand. Being robbed of your entire bankroll may not happen often, but when it does it is disastrous. By this I mean to point out that low frequency alone is not a convincing argument.
Also, note that it is not necessary to FLOP set under set to lose to a higher set. A higher pocket pair can make an set (against a small set) on the turn or river. And any time you are against a higher set or full house you are in a major losing situation since you will put in a lot of bets with probably only 1 out. The question in my mind is the relative magnitudes of the quantities of interest: getting beat by a higher set, amount lost when getting beat by a higher set, amount won when you win.
Sklansky and Malmuth recommend playing any pocket pair in late postion--with many callers and
no raise. Malmuth also says he will play the small pocket pairs in early position in an extremely loose
game.
Mike Caro says you should never play the smallest pocket pairs (22-55) in early position, and you
should probably not ever play them in any position except possibly calling cheaply in the blinds. His
argument is that, if you were guranteed to finish with the only set with these hands when you flop a
set then they would be playable; however, in reality these low sets will be beaten expensively often
enough by a higher set that the low pairs become unprofitable.
This is a case where the poker argument is not about philosophy or logic, but rather about an easily
quantifiable, but perhaps difficult to determine, value. Namely, the average amount of money won or
lost when flopping a set with a small pocket pair.
How can this number be determined? Careful record keeping and analysis of statistics from real life
games. This would be the most convincing argument, but who has recorded the number of hands
necessary to resolve the argument with sufficient statistical certainty? No one I know has this kind of
data.
That leaves simulation or hand calculation. Caro claims to have done some of this, but he doesn't
give any details. I would be most interested to see any simulation or calculation data that anyone
reading this has done on the subject. Especially from Sklansky, Malmuth, or Caro.
Given an unpaired board on which you have bottom set, the probability that a given player who
stayed to the river has a higher set than yours is 1.2%, and the chance that at least 1 of 9 players
was dealt a hand that would make a set higher than yours by the end is about 10%.
If the board has a pair above your bottom set (giving you a little full house), the chance that a single
opponent has a bigger full house or quads is 2.1%, and the chance that at least 1 of 9 players was
dealt a hand that would make a bigger full house (or quads) than yours by the end is about 18%.
I haven't yet tried to account for getting a set beat by straights or flushes. Also, not all of the
percentages calculated above will actually play the hand to the end, so the actual losses due to
bigger sets and full houses will be somewhat less than given above (dependent on number of players
calling to the flop...river). Once this is accounted for, an estimate must be made for the size of the
pot won or lost (again highly dependent on the number of players seeing the flop). I'm thinking about
how to do these estimates, but before I stumble further along I thought I'd try to stimulate a
discussion.
In games where players will call on the flop with only two overcards or even just one overcard, all pairs are profitable before the flop if you can get in cheaply. As the game gets tighter, it becomes more debatable for the reasons mentioned.
> Mike Caro says you should never play the smallest pocket pairs (22-55) in early
> position, and you should probably not ever play them in any position except
> possibly calling cheaply in the blinds.
I have seen the same Caro advise. But I believe he is describing play assuming
you are playing against other solid knowledgeable players (specifically those that
play as he advises), rather than against typical opponents. This situation is
different that those described by Malmuth.
I believe they are both correct. When playing against Caro advised opponents
(tight) small pairs rarely do well. When playing against lower quality
opponents which can be found in real games, they become profitable.
- Louie
Ladies and Gentlemen...please excuse me if I seem confused but...is not 7 1/2 to 1 to flop a set or BETTER....Whereas it is 8.3:1 to just flop a set????
I am unclear if there is a difference in strategy in the following two situations:
(assuming holdem with two blinds):
1) Three handed holdem and you are on the button.
2) Ten handed holdem, seven fold, and you are on the button.
Considerations:
- the fact that people choose to fold slightely increases the %age of better cards
in the remaining hands. I had CRUDELY calculated years ago this bunching factor
to be no more than 10% (e.g. blinds are no more than 10% more likely to have AA).
- Psycologically the blinds EXPECT you to steal in the short handed games.
- If you amortize the blind costs over the whole table, the three handed game
costs you more to fold (1/3rd of the total blinds, rather than 1/10th).
- However, I have only ever seen calculations for EV that imply there is no difference.
- Louie
>>>I am unclear if there is a difference in strategy in the following two
situations:
(assuming holdem with two blinds):
1) Three handed holdem and you are on the button.
2) Ten handed holdem, seven fold, and you are on the button<<<
There is definitely a difference. The main difference is that in a 3 handed game the button must attack the blinds more agressively or the blinds will eat away at your stack very quickly. What this means is that the button raiser could have anything and the SB and BB absolutely must be willing to call with weaker than usual starting hands and see what develops on the flop. When the game is short handed it is more of a showdown game with lots more bluffing. If you are afraid to call someone down with bottom or middle pair than you will get destroyed in a 3 handed game.
When on the button and 7 people have folded in front of you it is important to attack the blinds as well (but not as important as 3 handed) Dont ever just smooth call on the button if only the blinds are left. This is definitely a raise or fold position. If you have a hand like 9 10 suited, you must raise - you can win the pot either by both blinds folding, or by hitting the flop. If the blinds are regular defenders though you might want to alter your strategy and just occassionally smooth call. But even with a hand slightly above average, such as any hand with an ace, you must raise and make them pay to see the flop.
good flops
steve
Thank you. Your arguments make sense and I believe them (and play by them), but I am still very
unsure why it is correct.
Ignoring bunching and blind psycology: if a hand has value in a 3-handed game (say 9-8s) then
doesn't it also have the same value after 7 people have folded? If calling down with 2nd pair
is correct 3 handed then why isn't 10 handed heads up, with exactly the same hand?
Surely someone can quantify "blinds will eat you up", if its really true.
If what we intuitively understand is really true, the only reason I am able to think of is that
before the flop you must amortize your COST of the blinds for all positions. So in a $10/$20
you divide $15 in blinds by the number of players (adjusted for position if you like), figuring
each hand costs you $1.5 to fold in a 10 handed game, or $5 to fold 3 handed. Then you would
play more hands 3 handed because each had a smaller negative EV (say minus $3) then the cost
of folding. Such a hand is not played 10 handed because it costs MORE than folding.
This, however, doesn't sound quite right either. So I'm still confused.
And this argument conflicts with the "EV of Folding = $0" argument implied in most analysis.
- Louie
Ignoring bunching and blind psycology: if a hand has value in a 3-handed game (say 9-8s) then
doesn't it also have the same value after 7 people have folded?
I probably don't know what I am talking about but it does have the same value basically.
If calling down with 2nd pair is correct 3 handed then why isn't 10 handed heads up, with exactly the same hand?
Again I must be crazy, but yes it is the same.
In a 10-handed game, the probability of *anyone* holding a higher hand than 9-8s is much higher than it is in a 3-handed game.
It follows then that the probability that you are beat when you pair 9-8s in a 10-handed game is higher than it is in a 3-handed game. Study the tables in the back of Super/System to see the probability of catching particular hands based on number of players in a hand. If that doesn't convince you, simply think about how many Aces were in the 7 hands that were discarded (likely none).
Put another way, card odds must come before pot odds or expectation.
In response to Louie Landale's original post:
Your first factor would mean you should loosen up slightly in a three handed game. Your second factor means you should tighten up slightly in a three handed game. Your third factor is fallacious reasoning. Since the first two factors tend to cancel each other out, your button play should be approximately the same in both games.
>>>If calling down with 2nd pair is correct 3 handed then why isn't 10
handed heads up, with exactly the same hand?
Again I must be crazy, but yes it is the same. <<<
These 2 situations are completely different and here's why. In a 3 handed game you've got to expect players to be starting with weaker starting hands simply because if they dont they will "blinded away:. In a 10 handed game players start with stronger starting hands because the cost of each hand is less than when 3 handed. In 3 handed play, middle and botton pair will often win, whereas middle or bottom pari will hardly ever win in a 10 handed game especially if there are 3 or more callers in the pot and there is any action on and before the flop.
steve
When I said I must be crazy I meant that I must be crazy to answer this question.
From your analysis you are implying, in my mind, that theoretically the button should play tighter in a ten handed game when everyone has passed to the button than in a 3 handed game. Did you read David’s answer to Earl ? I believe that Louie’s question really was, In terms of EV, ignoring psychology, should the small blind, big blind, and button play looser in a three handed game than in a ten handed game when everyone has passed to the button ? The answer is simply no. I am quite sure that your next response will be, "You can’t ignore the psychology of the situation." Who doesn’t know that. I don’t see the blinded away factor here either. Let’s say you are in the big blind and you are playing against a player who is on the button and who uses the same strategy against the blinds in a three handed game that he does when everyone has folded to the button in a ten handed ring game. Would your counter strategy change in the three handed game because the blinds come up more often ? Your statement regarding 3 or more callers in a ten handed game is totally irrelevent. Read my post in response to Louie’s excellent question. That’s my take and I’m sticking to it.
I'm sure I must have misread both Louie's original post and Mr. Sklansky's reply, as I didn't understand how his thread related to my observation, which is simply that in a 3-handed game, you would play looser on the button since the starting hands are going to be of lower quality and the blinds come around more often. If you don't believe that to be true, I look forward to meeting you in a satellite when there are three of us left.
Louie,
In a loose game if 7 people pass then the blinds have a better chance of a good hand. This is because most loose players come in with any ace or king with something. With tight players the makeup of the deck probably is close to random. For the psycology the blinds are probably playing tighter in a 10 handed game so they are less likely to adjust for defending against a steal from the button. It is the same whether 10 handed or 3 handed when only the button is left to speak. It costs you the same to fold 3 or 10 handed. You pay nothing for that particular hand unless you have a blind. Think of it as only the blinds pay and all others play for free. In a 3 handed game the blinds just come around quicker. The reason you must play more hands shorthanded is because your opponents do not have to have as strong a hand to enter the pot. Playing 10 handed a player will open first to act with almost no hands, and as the players reduce in number you play progressively looser until the button is first to speak. At that time it is usually profitable to open almost every hand with a raise. Now the blinds must defend themselves frequently where as in a full game the blinds may not have to play very often.
Ray, I don't understand the following that you posted.
"With tight players the makeup of the deck probably is close to random."
What difference does tight players have on the "RANDOMNESS" of the "DECK?" With loose players would the "DECK" be NOT RANDOM? Unless your meaning is that the deck would be richer in big card, since in your example the first seven players folded. Thus there would be a more randomness of high cards to low or middle card rankings?
May the flop be with you
Nevadalary
> Ray, I don't understand the following that you posted.
> "With tight players the makeup of the deck probably is
> close to random."
The discussion is about "Bunching": the fact that people fold increases the number of high cards in the deck, since these players must of had a higher percentage of lower cards, which is why the folded.
When loose players fold the effect is important since they would have played most any cheese; certainly any hand with an Ace. So if they didn't call there must be more Aces in the deck; available for you and the blinds.
Ray is saying with tight players this particular effect is almost negligible since they play few hands any way and fold plenty of big cards. So infering big cards in the deck is not very useful; and so the "deck is almost randon". That is correct.
Louie,
Thanks that is exactly correct. But remember this bunching does not matter at all in your normal decisions. It is just not a factor that is to be considered. Worry more about how the players that have not yet acted are perceiving you and what is their playing style currently.
This is definitely a more interesting issue than playing 6-2o. When you are playing in a 10 handed ring game, a lot of skills are required usually to take down the money. A subset of those skills is playing in the blinds and playing on the button against the blinds. The importance of playing against the blinds and playing in the blinds is magnified in a 3 handed game because they happen all of the time. If you are in a ten handed game and you don't play very well when the button puts in the first action with a raise then it may not matter a lot if this situation does not come up very often. It would matter a lot in a 3 handed game. Ditto for the other positions.
The bunching factor is the idea that as people throw away their hands it tends to leave a remaining deck that is better in " good" cards. Years ago I did some programming on draw lowball and was able to show that the bunching factor did have a noticeable effect once many hands were passed. However, in hold 'em I have always felt that the bunching factor's effect would be insignificant. This is because you are only dealt two cards as opposed to five and many of the hands that you throw away will consist of a "good" card and a "bad" card.
Recently, Wayne Russel did some programming for us and he essentially verified our results. That is despite what you may occasionally read elsewhere, the bunching factor has essentially no effect in hold 'em. Put another way, if you are on the button in a full game and everyone passes, the distribution of hand strength that you will face from the blinds will be approximately the same as the distribution of hand strength you would face if you were on the button in a three handed game.
The thread is gone. But I will attempt to solve this problem with as much objectivity as I can muster.
I am very interested in expert opinion as to my approach to this situation and judgments about
its conclusion. I am not interested in nit-pick comments about my rounding or precision.
First I DISCUSS then issue, then I pass JUDGMENT, and finally are the detailed CALCULATIONS.
To summarize, you are in a good 1-4-8-8 holdem game with blinds $1-2. Four people call, and it
cost you $1 to play 2-6 in the small blind. How good are your positive implied odds? What to do...
DISCUSSION:
You cannot steal in this game, so you must make a bitable hand before investing any further.
A betel hand is two spit pair, trips, straight, full, or quads on the flop or turn. One pair
and gut draws are worthless to bet or call. A "flush" is out of the question. As shown in the
assumption filled calculations you are a 20-1 dog to make a betel hand (on flop or turn).
Which means you must net at least $20 when you do make a betel hand in order to balance
out the $1 you lose the other 20 times. $20 is twice the current pot of $11. We need,
and expect, unreasonable action after the flop.
Calculating EV in this situation is impossible for me, so I will assume:
- two people will call you down,
- you are a 2-1 or 3-1 favorite (66.6% or 75%) against the two combined,
- there is $11 dead in the pot now,
- X is the amount YOU bet and get called by these two people,
- you need to expect at least $20 out of these situations.
When you win you win $11 plus 2$X. When you lose you lose $X:
If you are a 2-1 favorite:
.666*($11 + 2X) - .334*(1X) > $20
$7.326 + 1.334X - .334X > $20
X > $12.674
i.e. if you are a 2-1 favorite then two people must each give you $12-$13 in order to justify
your $1 investment. This is about what can bet on the flop ($4) and turn ($8).
If you are a 3-1 favorite:
.75*($11 + 2X) - .25*(1X) > $20
$8.25 + 1.5X - .25X > $20
1.25X > $11.75
X > $9.4
i.e. if you are a 3-1 favorite then two people must each give you $9-$10 in order to justify
your $1 investment. This is less than the $12 you can bet on flop ($4) and turn ($8).
If 3 people will call you down you need only expect (calculations not shown) $7.6 if 2-1
favorite, or $5.75 if 3-1, per player. (Notice that the $5.75 from each of 3 players
= $17.25 is less than the $9.4 you must get from 2 players = $18.8. This is reasonable since
you need to risk LESS when getting 3 to 1 for your money.)
JUDGMENT:
The biggest problem here is the estimation of being between a 2-1 and 3-1 favorite.
It seems reasonable that in these loose games 2 players may very well call you down. However,
we are only interested in those times when two or three small cards come, and this should reduce
the number of takers. How much action can you get when it comes T-6-2? or J-6-6? or 6-2-2?
or 5-4-3?
With bigger shit such as Q-8 then you will get more action, lose more often because of it, but
you have some chance to win with just a pair. With suited hands or closer connectors you win
more often because you will flop more betting hands, and get to play (or bet) legitimate draws.
While my calculations make it much closer than I thought, I assert my OPINION that the action
you need to justify such a terrible hand 2-6 in the small blind is unreasonable,
except in the best of the 1-4-8-8 holdem games.
- Louie
ASSUMPTION FILLED CALCULATIONS:
Your 6-2 only has value if you flop two pair, trips, a straight, or a full house/quads; or if
you flop a pair or a gut shot, everyone checks, and you make it on the turn. I am ignoring the
chances of making it on the river (since its unlikely to get checked that far, AND its not worth
much money if you do) and ignoring the chances of winning with just a pair or a steal.
Calculating your EV when you flop (or turn) the goods is impossible, at least for me. So I
will assume you will bet and two people will go to the river with you. Two people seems to
be about the best you can expect overall. Your chances of winning with two pair against a
bigger pair is about 3-1. Chances of winning with two pair or trips vrs flush draw is about
2-1. You are a big dog if someone flops a better hand than you do. Your chances of winning
when you make a full house is very large. The overall chances of winning are difficult to
calculate, so I will ASSUME that when two people call, you are a 2-1 or 3-1 combined favorite
against them both, on average considering all your hands.
Now we can calculate.
There are 50 unseen cards, so the number of different flops is
(50 choose 3) symbolized (50~3) or (50*49*48)/(3*2) = 19,600 ==> Total Flops.
You flop two pair when one 2, one 6, and one other card (of 44) comes, or
(3~1)*(3~1)*(44~1) = 3*3*44=396.
You flop trips when either 2 2s come or 2 6s come, and one other card,
= (2~1)*(3~1)*(44~1) = 2*3*44 = 264.
You flop a straight when a 3, 4, and a 5 flop, or
= (4~1)*(4~1)*(4~1) = 64.
You flop full or quads when all three cards are 2s and 6s
= (6~3) = 6*5*4/3*2 = 20.
So the number of ways you can flop a betel hand
= 396 + 264 + 64 + 20 = 744.
Out of 19,600 hands 744/19600 = 3.8%.
You can also flop a pair or gut shot, every one checks (I'll say this is 25% of the time),
and you make it on the turn.
You flop 1 pair when you get a 2 or 6, and two other cards
= (6~1) * (44~2) = 6*44*43/2 = 5676. 5676/19600=28.9%,
times 25%, times 10.6% chance to catch a 2 or 6 on the turn
= .289*.25*10.6 = .0077
= .77% of time you flop pair, and improve to a betting hand on the turn.
You flop gut shot when two of 3, 4, or 5 comes and one other card:
= (3~2)*(4~1)*(4~1)*(44~1) = 3*2*4*4*44/2 = 1056. 1056/19600=.0539, times 25% every
one checks, times 8.5% chance to make gut shot on the turn.
= .0539*.25*.085 = .0011; or .11% chance to flop gut shot and make the straight on turn.
So pair and gut shot flops contribute .0077+.0011 = .0088.
You make a betel hand if you flop it or turn it, = 3.8% + .88% = 4.68% of the time.
You do not make a betel hand 100%-4.68% = 95.32% of time. So your odds of making a
betel hand is 95.32%-to-4.68%, = 20.36-to-one.
Call it 20-to-one against making a betel hand.
Another way to look at 20-1 is that you are going to lose $1 20 times, so you need to make $20
NET when you do make a betel hand, in order to break even.
So, if we assume
- two people will call you down,
- you are a 2-1 favorite (66.6%),
- there is $11 dead in the pot now, and
- X is the amount YOU bet and get called by these two people,
- you need to expect at least $20 out of these situations
(Final calculations are shown above).
I don't have time to work my way through all of your calculations, but there does seem to be some mistakes in your assumtions.
First you say
>if you are a 2-1 favorite:
.666*($11 + 2X) - .334*(1X) > $20
$7.326 + 1.334X - .334X > $20
X > $12.674
i.e. if you are a 2-1 favorite then two people must each give you $12-$13 in order to justify
your $1 investment. This is about what can bet on the flop ($4) and turn ($8).<
You seem to have forgotten about the bet on the river. That's another $16 if both players call.
Later you say
>Your chances of winning with two pair against a
bigger pair is about 3-1.<
That's correct.
>Chances of winning with two pair or trips vrs flush draw is about
2-1.<
These numbers are wrong when you flop three of a kind. You are about a 3-1 favorite over a flush draw. I suspect that you are forgetting that you can improve when your opponent improves.
I suggest that you rework your numbers and then get back to us.
Mason:
I did not forget about possible calls on the river. I just pointed out that $12 is
the amount of bets you can put in on the flop and turn; only as a matter of reference.
"One small and one big bet" has more relevance in discussing future action than does "$12".
That was obvious. Next time, I guess, I'll have to add a phrase "for reference ...".
How much you can expect to get called is a matter of judgement; unless there is a
bunch of statistical evidence on the 1-4-8-8 of which I am, of course, unaware.
So obviously I'm suggesting that you need to judge if on average you can get two
people to give you a bet on the flop and one on the turn; again on average.
I did not forget about the chances of improving your trips vrs the flush draw. It just
doesn't matter in the context of the discussion. So what if its "about" 3-1 when you
flop a set, really? How does that affect the overall "2-1 or 3-1" estimate? Yes, it
would matter if we were calculating the chances, but as stated it was not. Those numbers
were given only as a matter of reference when judging your overall chances of winning with
your whole range of hands vrs two other players, who also have a full range of hands.
This was so someone wouldn't intuitively estimate that two little pair or bottom set is
perhaps a 5-1 favorate against the field. Again, that was obvious.
I had hoped you would have something relevant to say about the post.
Such as whether my approach is sound, accurate, or useful; whether "2-1 or 3-1" is a reasonable
subjective estimate of your combined chances with your low bettable hand; whether perhaps you have
solid objective evidence on this regard; or whether you can realisticly expect $12 or so from two
people on average in these games.
I'm VERY disappointed that you decided to ignore my statment: "I am not interested in nit-pick
comments about my rounding or precision", or couldn't project that to include "inconsequencial
estimates for subjective judgements."
It appears that today, you are looking at the trees and ignoring the Forrest.
- Louie
It appears that today, you are looking at the trees and ignoring the Forrest.
Shouldn't that be "forest" (lowercase 'f' and on e 'r') ? Or perhaps you refer to one of these:
Forrest, Edwin. 1806-1872.
American actor noted for his portrayal of Othello. His rivalry with a fellow actor resulted in a riot at a theater in New York City that left 22 theatergoers dead.Forrest, Nathan Bedford. 1821-1877.
American Confederate general who was active at the battles of Shiloh (1862) and Chickamauga (1863). He was a founder and the first leader (1866-1869) of the Ku Klux Klan.
:-) couldn't resist
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to blast me on our own forum. Don't worry I'm use to it.
I guess the question as to whether the 6-2 is playable for $1 in this game is dependent on whether you expect to get a lot of action if you make a good hand. I guess that this is where my view point diverges from some of you. In my opinion, almost all games at this low limit will provide that kind of action. I would think that in most cases you will easily get two calls right through the river.
Now if his is not the case the hand would become unprofitable in the long run. But I believe in almost all cases it is.
An interesting thing has happened in hold 'em over the past few years. The games at all limits - including those that I play at - have in general become very loose.
When we wrote HOLD 'EM POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS way back in 1988 that was not the case. There were many "weak tight" players around and you had to account for them in your strategy. Today almost all of them are gone and the predominat player is way too loose.
I'm now going to say something which many of you will find arrogant. When I play limit hold 'em almost all of my opponents use a strategy that leaves much to be desired. In general they are way too loose and some of them are also much too aggressive.
So getting back to the question at hand I believe, based on a great deal of playing experience, that this hand will almost always be profitable as long as you play it fairly well. The exception would be a tight game - and I hardly ever see any of these anymore. Another exception would be if the player in the big blind was a compulsive raiser.
I didn't go through your calculations in a lot of detail so I apologize. I think you need to factor into the equation how many times it will be checked around on the flop and turn (implying a passive game). Example, say you play your 6-2o in the small blind, it costs a dollar to call, there are 5 players other than you. The flop is Q 5 3 rainbow. Everyone checks the flop. A four comes on the turn putting two suited cards on the board. You bet out with your straight. Is it that hard to imagine getting a call from a player in the big blind with a Q,2 and someone who picked up a flush draw ? The other point is that you say you won't be able to steal. If the flop is T-6-2 and you won't get action with your 6-2, then doesn't that imply that you could steal with a 5-3 if you had it ?
Tom:
I did factor the chances of you making a bettable hand on the turn when
everyone checks on the flop; as shown in the dredges of the "Calculations".
I suggested there was a 25% chance of everyone checking when you flop a pair
or a gut shot, giving a chance to make it on the turn. Yes, 25% is a VERY
ROUGH guess, but it matters little in the overall scheme of things, the
scenario being rare. If its really 50% then you need to get about $11 from
two people rather than $12, which does not substantially alter the ball park
subjective judgements. But perhaps it does...
I suggest that you only consider stealing if you make a pair or a gut shot,
then a steal makes a little money if ABOUT 25% of the time no one will call.
In that case, your EV with a bettable hand goes down; since you will only get
a chance to get your callers 75% of the time. A quick calc assuming you win
$11 25% of the time, shows you need to expect $15.7 from two people rather
than $12.7; a serious difference in my opinion; especially since the nature
of the game allows for no calls 25% of the time.
Since you need all that unreasonable action to even consider the 6-2, I thought
is prudent to hope you are in a game where you will not consider a steal.
Also, calcujudging the effects of the steal are way beyond my abilities. (What
to do on the turn if called, will you improve to a bettable hand, how will the
steal itself effect the other players, etc.). I also ignored the effects of
others stealing FROM YOU, when a threat appears and someone bets. This has
a much greater affect on your EV than the scenarios where YOU steal.
Its very common in these games vrs 4 players to get two calls on the flop and
one on the turn. This situation is unpleasant for stealers, except those with
nerves of steel. :)
No, not getting much action with a bettable hand does not mean stealing must be
a reasonable option, although it often does. An extreme example is if you are
sure to get exactly one caller to the river. Then your hand isn't worth it,
and neither is a steal.
By all means, if you can calcujudge stealing then give it a whirl!
I really thought that presenting my calcujudgements in terms of how much money
you must expect from callers to be particularly USEFU in analyzing this situation,
or situations like these. It turns the ambiguous "I need a lot of action" to
"I need $X from Y people, or thereabouts", which lends itself much better to
educated judgements.
That's what the post is really about.
- Louie
I took a closer look and I think you still didn't factor in the times when it is checked on the flop and the turn but it probably doesn't make much difference.
i.e. if you are a 2-1 favorite then two people must each give you $12-$13 in order to justify your $1 investment. This is about what can bet on the flop ($4) and turn ($8).
So, if two people call you down on the flop and turn, and you get one call on the river, then the hand is profitable in your worst case (2-1) scenario. Looks to me like your calculation supports playing the hand.
It seems reasonable that in these loose games 2 players may very well call you down. However, we are only interested in those times when two or three small cards come, and this should reduce the number of takers. How much action can you get when it comes T-6-2? or J-6-6? or 6-2-2? or 5-4-3?
I find that there are often callers for this sort of flop in loose games. I think they are often playing 1 overcard or a little pair, and/or calling just because they are "suspicious" that such a ragged looking flop helped the bettor.
While my calculations make it much closer than I thought, I assert my OPINION that the action you need to justify such a terrible hand 2-6 in the small blind is unreasonable, except in the best of the 1-4-8-8 holdem games.
I interpret the situation differently. It looks to me that at worst it is a break-even proposition. In reality, it may be better than that, especially if you think you can outplay your opponents after the flop, which should be the case for a good player against the type of players who frequent this sort of game.
By the way, I went through your calculations carefully and they looked logical and well thought out. I like the way you came up with a range of values for the least well known of your parameters (between a 2-1 and 3-1 favorite), which I think is an important technique in making poker estimates.
It seems to me that the most critical element in this question is: What is the flop? Once the flop is seen then you can make a decision to keep playing or not. If it hits you, you make a concealed hand. If it doesn't you let it go and get away.
I would suggest this somewhat similiar to playing small, suited connectors. If you make a hand, the deception value is great. If you don't, you throw it away in the face of a bet.
I like the idea of getting a look at the flop for $1 with 4 callers and only the big blind remaining to act. 4 callers at $2, your $1 SB and a $2 BB (assuming no action from the BB) is $11 you get a shot at for only $1.
Regards,
Leigh Davis
Louie,
I cannot believe you did all this work on the problem. Your approach is very sound and accurate within its perameters. By doing the calclations as such it is useful for grasping concepts. I have believe you do not call in this spot if you need two pair or better to play on as it is possible to get your odds only if the players go much too far. If that is the current action then 6,2 can be played, but it is close. In real life games I have found that when you flop the better hands they call drawing almost dead. This increases your winning percentage. Also many times you will win by flopping just one pair and it improving because of it being checked on the flop. Some times it is the best hand and you realize it and can bet and get called to the river or narrow the field so it can win. That is the difference in playing ability that separates good and better players. For all out there to understand this example is in a game where the bet is one unit to 8 units unlike most games that are 1 to 2 units. Good Luck.
I'm in a semi-tough 20/40 HE game at the Mirage. Three callers in front, I'm on the button with 96o. I know I have a terrible hand but I'm trying to be deceptive so they can't put me on a hand. If I miss the flop, I fold.
I admit sometimes I'm a live one, so I called.
The flop was K 6 6 2 3 One player had AK, another KQs, I won a big pot with a bad hand! I know I was lucky! But is it o.k. to do this maybe 5% of the time?
Do you always play exactly like the book? Hold'em for Advanced Players states I shouldn't play group 8 or worse hands. Please tell me why a hand like Q8s, Kxs, 43s is worth a call when you say don't play Group 8 hands: like 87o, 76, 65, 54. They aren't suited but they are connected, deceptive, and unlikely to be in opponent's hand. I've been told that a suited hand is only worth 3 to 6% more than unsuited hands. You say it's o.k. to call with a group 7: hand like 98o - this looks like a trap hand if you flop T J Q, you may easily be beat by AK.
I trust your advice - I just don't understand the logic. Please explain - Thanks
I've been told that a suited hand is only worth 3 to 6% more than unsuited hands.
The above statement is not true. It is even more untrue for hands that are only liking to make decent hands with a flush, such as Q5s vs Q5. Think about it!
>I'm in a semi-tough 20/40 HE game at the Mirage. Three callers in front, I'm on the button with 96o. I know I have a terrible hand but I'm trying to be deceptive so they can't put me on a hand. If I miss the flop, I fold. I admit sometimes I'm a live one, so I called.
The flop was K 6 6 2 3 One player had AK, another KQs, I won a big pot with a bad hand! I know I was lucky! But is it o.k. to do this maybe 5% of the time?
>
I would never make that play with this hand.
>Do you always play exactly like the book?
To deviate from the book you need to be an extremely good player or it will probably cost you money in the long run.
>Hold'em for Advanced Players states I shouldn't play group 8 or worse hands. Please tell me why a hand like Q8s, Kxs, 43s is worth a call when you say don't play Group 8 hands: like 87o, 76, 65, 54. They aren't suited but they are conected, deceptive, and unlikely to be in opponent's hand.
>
Being suited makes a big difference in multiway pots.
>I've been told that a suited hand is only worth 3 to 6% more than unsuited hands.
This would only be true if there was no betting after the first two cards. That is not the case.
>You say it's o.k. to call with a group 7: hand like 98o - this looks like a trap hand if you flop T J Q, you may easily be beat by AK.
If you had 98o and you knew the flop was going to come TJQ you would want to take your chances. Plus you don't call a raised pot (for two bets) so your chances of running into AK are diminished.
> I trust your advice - I just don't understand the logic. Please explain - Thanks
>Hold'em for Advanced Players states I shouldn't play group 8 or worse. Group 8 hands: like 87o, 76, 65, 54. They aren't suited but they are conected, deceptive, and unlikely to be in opponent's hand.
Is there any situations where you would play these hands, if so please give examples.
Would you call on the button with 3 callers in front?
>Hold'em for Advanced Players states I shouldn't play group 8 or worse. Group 8 hands: like 87o, 76, 65, 54. They aren't suited but they are conected, deceptive, and unlikely to be in opponent's hand.
Is there any situations where you would play these hands, if so please give examples.
Would you call on the button with 3 callers in front?
>
They have a little bit of value and may be worth a steal if you are first in on the button. Otherwise I don't play them.
While traveling recently, I ran across a rather strange game:
12 handed, $1 to $5 spread limit Hold Em with a single $1
blind. The action before the flop varied, sometimes you
could limp in for $1, other times it was capped with max
bets.
I could see no advantage to intermediate bets, so anytime
I bet or raised, $5 was the choice. Other players seem
to make this choice also, although occasionally a $1 or $3
bet was made.
The only strategy change I made was to limp in with marginal
hands for a dollar when in late position, then dump the
hand quickly after a flop without major improvement.
My reasoning was that $1 was a cheap investment for possible
$5 bets and raises later. Any flaws in this approach?
George,
Sure this is a good strategy but remember the ante is small and the bets are large in relation to it. You would also fool around with some partial bets to see how they work. For example, bet $3 instead of 5 somtimes to see if it may induce a raise. If not maybe you can save by betting smaller when on a draw or calling hand.
You should limp in for $1 in early position also. Usually with weaker hands (e.g. J9 suited) that you will fold immediately if someone makes it $6, but also sometimes with a monster hand. A $2 or $3 bet may be right to make on the flop, especially in unraised pots. This is best done with your best hands and also with some bluffs.
1-5 holem with $1 blind.
Usually bet between 1/2 and 2/3 the size of the pot; so start betting $5 when the pot reaches $8. Also, if you really have the hand you are obviously representing, a surprise $4 bet on the end will induce a call from people who are distracted by your strange bet. I've heard this refered to as a "psycological" bet and it is. This also may induce a fold when you are stealing. I notice they tend to make mistakes when something unusual happens.
Bet $1 less when the board is paired or there is an Ace out there.
Yes, limping for $1 and dumping for a raise or a missed flop should be routine. This is especially true for trouble hands: fold against the raise.
However, you must consider what the action will be like after the flop. If its typically heads up when one player has the solid one pair, then suited connectors go WAY down. There is no sense calling now just to flop a draw that loses money. But small pairs go way up in this sort of game since you are often getting the right odds now before the flop. Multi-way action before the flop cause trouble hands to go down in value. But
I typically raise rather liberally in late position in order to "punish" the $1 limpers and I believe I can control the game. But I suspect the authors will have a more precise comment on that, and for good reasons.
- Louie
I have the fool-proof poker course and I like the way it is written. The author obviously put a great deal of work into it.
I agree with Mason that deception is useless in low limit games, but I would like to know what Mason or any people on this forum think about it's on the flop and beyond advice. Some of foolproof advice sounds good but other parts don't. If anyone has studied fool-proof I would like to hear their opinions.
Sklansky and Malmuth recommend playing any pocket pair in late postion--with many callers and
no raise. Malmuth also says he will play the small pocket pairs in early position in an extremely loose
game.
Mike Caro says you should never play the smallest pocket pairs (22-55) in early position, and you
should probably not ever play them in any position except possibly calling cheaply in the blinds. His
argument is that, if you were guranteed to finish with the only set with these hands when you flop a
set then they would be playable; however, in reality these low sets will be beaten expensively often
enough by a higher set that the low pairs become unprofitable.
This is a case where the poker argument is not about philosophy or logic, but rather about an easily
quantifiable, but perhaps difficult to determine, value. Namely, the average amount of money won or
lost when flopping a set with a small pocket pair.
How can this number be determined? Careful record keeping and analysis of statistics from real life
games. This would be the most convincing argument, but who has recorded the number of hands
necessary to resolve the argument with sufficient statistical certainty? No one I know has this kind of
data.
That leaves simulation or hand calculation. Caro claims to have done some of this, but he doesn't
give any details. I would be most interested to see any simulation or calculation data that anyone
reading this has done on the subject. Especially from Sklansky, Malmuth, or Caro.
Given an unpaired board on which you have bottom set, the probability that a given player who
stayed to the river has a higher set than yours is 1.2%, and the chance that at least 1 of 9 players
was dealt a hand that would make a set higher than yours by the end is about 10%.
If the board has a pair above your bottom set (giving you a little full house), the chance that a single
opponent has a bigger full house or quads is 2.1%, and the chance that at least 1 of 9 players was
dealt a hand that would make a bigger full house (or quads) than yours by the end is about 18%.
I haven't yet tried to account for getting a set beat by straights or flushes. Also, not all of the
percentages calculated above will actually play the hand to the end, so the actual losses due to
bigger sets and full houses will be somewhat less than given above (dependent on number of players
calling to the flop...river). Once this is accounted for, an estimate must be made for the size of the
pot won or lost (again highly dependent on the number of players seeing the flop). I'm thinking about
how to do these estimates, but before I stumble further along I thought I'd try to stimulate a
discussion.
In a recent essay, "Limit Hold'em Quiz - Part 1," Mason says that in the typical $20-40 games in which he plays he would call up front with hands like A8s, 66, and KTs. He says, "The typical $20-$40 game almost always has enough multiway action to make all of these hands profitable. When the game gets more aggressive than usual, I don't play the [A8s] and the [KTs]. The game needs to be tight for me to fold the 6-6."
Because I'm interested in comparing these games to those in which I play in Reno, I'd appreciate some guesstimated parameters on Mason's usual game. How often would he expect to have to call a raise? How many players on average would be seeing the flop? How aggressive is "aggressive," and how tight is "tight"?
Maybe -- by more or less following the "For Advanced Players" guidelines -- I'm playing too tight!
>>In a recent essay, "Limit Hold 'em Quiz - Part 1, Mason says that in the typical $20-$40 game in
which he plays he would call up front with hands like A8s, 66, and KTs. He says, "The typical
$20-$40 game almost always has enough multiway action to make all of these hands profitable.
When the game gets more aggressive than usual, I don't play the [A8s] and the [KTs]. The game
needs to be tight for me to fold the 6-6."
Because I'm interested in comparing these games to those in which I play in Reno, I'd appreciate
some guesstimated parameters on Mason's usual game. How often would he expect to have to
call a raise?
>>
About 40 percent of the time.
>>How many players on average would be seeing the flop?
Five to seven people will see the flop two thirds of the time.
>>How aggressive is "aggressive," and how tight is "tight"?
Aggressive would be 70 percent of the pots are raised preflop and tight would mean 3 to 5 players see the flop two-thirds of the time.
>>Maybe -- by more or less following the "For Advanced Players" guidelines -- I'm playing too
tight!
Probably not. When we wrote the book we received some criticism for offering such a loose strategy. Also, to be able to play these hands profitably you must have the ability to play very well throughout the whole hand.
Since you are willing to call with 66 in this "typical" $20-40 game, do you also call with 55 or below i.e. all pocket pairs?? Also, since you are calling early with A8s, do you call with Aces-anything-suited?? Axs is classified as a group five hand like the A8s.
Also,how can you gauge when it is "safe" to play speculative hands like these (A8s,66,KTs) when you are first to enter the pot from an early position?? What are the criterions and factors to consider? Even though, most of the time the game may be seeing 5-6 players taking the flop...if you are first in from an early position...can you consistenly play hands like these with the possibility it might be raised immediately behind you---thus limiting the field and you out of position with a weak hand?
And finally, should you occassionally (25%??) raise with these speculative hands or just about *almost* always only call?? Thanks for this insight on early speculative hands. Your essay "Limit Hold'em Quiz - pt 1" has been very informative and excellent reading.
>Since you are willing to call with 66 in this "typical" $20-40 game, do you also call with 55 or below i.e. all pocket pairs??
>
No. The game needs to be looser. However, some games are.
> Also, since you are calling early with A8s, do you call with Aces-anything-suited??
> No. A8s is the minimum hand.
>Axs is classified as a group five hand like the A8s.
>Also,how can you gauge when it is "safe" to play speculative hands like these (A8s,66,KTs) when you are first to enter the pot from an early position??
>
This is mostly based on experience. Unlike many other poker writers, I have played a lot of poker and have put a great deal of time in at this particular game and limit.
>What are the criterions and factors to consider?
This answer will probably surprise you. My main criterion is how well I believe I play in relation to the other players at the table. Specifically, you need to play the hand very well all the way through to play this loose. Most players don't do that. The fact of the matter is that in today's hold 'em games how you play your hand on the later streets should contribute more to your profits than playing correct starting hands.
>Even though, most of the time the game may be seeing 5-6 players taking the flop...if you are first in from an early position...can you consistenly play hands like these with the possibility it might be raised immediately behind you---thus limiting the field and you out of position with a weak hand?
>
Yes.
>And finally, should you occassionally (25%??) raise with these speculative hands or just about *almost* always only call??
Almost always call. The game needs to be tighter to do some occasionally raising. Furthermore, A8s is not a good hand to be raising with.
I've heard of a way to play 5 card draw that's different
than the way I've always played it. Simply, the rules
are the same, except that there MUST be a bet after the
draw or else the pot stays and there's a redeal. In
other words, if everyone checks after having taken
cards, then the hand is redealt. Could anyone having
info on playing this way forward to me some sort of
documentation or rule quote so I can show my friends
I'm not full of it? Thanks...
>>>I've heard of a way to play 5 card draw that's different
than the way I've always played it. Simply, the rules
are the same, except that there MUST be a bet after the
draw or else the pot stays and there's a redeal. In
other words, if everyone checks after having taken
cards, then the hand is redealt. Could anyone having
info on playing this way forward to me some sort of
documentation or rule quote so I can show my friends
I'm not full of it? Thanks<<<
This is a way to play if you want a more exciting 5 card draw game. Regular 5 card draw can be boring so this method of play will definitely make more action once the pot doubles. Better yet, just play holdem instead!!! The reason 5 card draw has gone the way of the dinasaur is because it is boring as heck!!! Instead of leaving the pot for the next round when there is no bet after the draw, play the game with a no limit structure - limit 5 card draw is about as exciting as watching paint dry.
steve
I own several of 2+2's books. They are all excellent. However this is what I need help on. In Poker Essays Mason mentions "weak tight players". He says that this "condition" is the first step towards winning. When I have played in AC, I have observed that an awful lot of players ignore that fact that you are playing very tight. In poker you are supposed to search out the weak players and beat them. Why would you want to play against other good players with little to gain? The great Scarne once said that you must wait until you have a strong playable hand before entering a pot. What happened to that advice? One last question? How much can a weak tight player expect to earn in a typical loose 10-20 Hold'em game?
Joe,
Weak tight is a phrase that denotes a player that plays tight but does not bluff much or make aggressive plays at you. It may be a good style to play when you are first learning to play poker. Playing like this in very loose bad player games one can win while learning. Once you become a better player these people are dead meat for others. Against a good player a weak tight player looses too many bets or partial bets by missing the correct plays. Weak tight players are not good players, they are the next step up from a beginner. In the larger stakes games of 20&40 and above most weak tight people lose their money slowly but surely. A table full of weak tight players is preferable to loose aggressive players for a seasoned good player. Best of all though is a table full of loose players that are not agrresive, then it becomes hard to lose. Please do not become just a weak tight player when it is easy to play tight and aggressive. As for Scarne, I looked for his book in my collection but could not find it. I wanted to see how long ago it was written. I must have used it up while I was camping. His advice was bad then and it is worse now. A strong playable hand is needed only in certain positions. Please find better books to follow. A person should read everything written on the subject, but must separate the good from the bad as the bad costs to follow. As you progress from an informed beginner to an advanced pro you can expect to go from break even to one to two top bets per hour depending on game conditions. Good Luck.
As Ray Zee points out not only was much of Scarne's advice questionable, he came from an era where the games had a much smaller structure. By this I mean that the antes and/or blinds were smaller and the bets were not always as large on the initial rounds. This created a game where you could just sit and wait hoping that a live one would join you and start playing every hand.
Today's games are different. With bigger blinds and higher antes you can't just play the nuts. You should still play less hands than most people, but you will need to learn to play your hand well all the way through. Something that many old timers never mastered.
You are falling into the trap of so many low level "pros" and typical little old men.
What the heck, its the "Scarne" trap: the ONLY thing that matters is playing selectively
before the flop and trying to win the pot by making the better hand in the show down.
A good indicator of a "Scarne" player is one who mumbles "he played that?": it gives
away their attitude; not just their strategy.
This is a sound BASIS for strategy, but sticking to it religiously makes one "weak tight".
There is a whole lot of money to be made along the way. Beside bluffing and semi bluffing
there is betting weak hands that are judged to be best. There is calling with just a pair
of 22s against someone who is betting is a situation where the bet is inconsistent with their
past actions and previous behavior.
Have you noticed that you pretty much know what to do when the weak tight players bet? Or
even call? Have you noticed that you also know what to do when the very aggressive players
bet? Have you noticed that you do NOT know what to do when a selective aggressive player bets?
Yes, she PROBABLY has the hand she's representing, but....
Study the 2+2 books; observe your opponents. Play selective hands that win often: "tight".
Play them in a manner that maximizes their (real or imagined) value: "assertively". You will
then take the money from the poor players, and be "dangerous" in the minds of the better players
(those that are aware), which is very good for you.
Thanks Lou for responding. How I love this forum! Do you play for a living or do you aspire to? I have found that to play for ones living is very hard however I think so much respect should go out to one that is suscessful because this is much harder then alot of careers but much more enjoyable.
>> . Why would you want to play against other good players with little to gain? >> The great Scarne once said that you must wait until you have a strong playable hand before entering a pot. What happened to that advice? One last question? >> How much can a weak tight player expect to earn in a typical loose 10-20 Hold'em game? <<<
It's hard to put a number on it, but I would say a WT 10-20 player in a truly loose game can win 1 small bet an hour. Once you put a WT player in a game with players who know how to play though, he will be eaten up.
steve
Steve T wrote:
<It's hard to put a number on it, but I would say a WT 10-20 player in a truly loose game can win 1 small bet an hour. Once you put a WT player in a game with players who know how to play though, he will be eaten up.
I think that this is about right. At the higher limits they may not win at all.
Mason, all of your books are great. However I feel that you should write a book solely of tournament play. How do you feel about this?
Mason has provided some excellent advice on tournament play in several of his books. I believe that the slight controversy about how to play in the blinds and the button in a three handed game as opposed to a ten handed game when everyone has passed to the button has significance for tournaments as well.
I have already written extensively on tournament play. In my book GAMBLING THEORY AND OTHER TOPICS there is a section called "Poker Tournament Strategy," in POKER ESSAYS there is a section called "Tournament Notes," and in POKER ESSAYS, VOLUME II there is an essay on tournament play.
These sections contain almost everything that you need to know. The rest is up to you.
Once again I thank you for replying to my questions. However there one thing that I want to say. I stated that I play tight. The thing is that when I do play a hand that figures to be the favorite I play very agressively. I love check-raising. In fact back in NY where I played at a private club I earned the nickname "predator" because I loved to check-raise and especially slow play great hands. I have never been a calling station. I like to bet or raise. Several people have told me that I can never win because I play too tight. Can it be true that there is a best playing style for each player ? Can some people better handle the complex decisions required when you play a loose style. Mason has said that by playing tighter you can avoid these mind-grating decisions. Can either one of you give me a exact as could be possible figure on what a tight agressive player who does not like playing loose marginal hands can make in 10-20 hold'em? There lies my problem. I do not like playing marginal hands at all because I feel like I'm not getting the best of it. Thats what the blinds are for!
Joe,
If you play like you say you may be able to make between 1/2 and 1 top bet per hour. Providing you play only in very good games and do everything else right as well. But playing that tight you give up great situations not just marginal ones. If you are a winning player for sure open up your game just a little each month to see how you do. Good Luck.
Ray, thanks for your reply. I played again on the curise ship the other night and won 600. would have won 8 or 9 but we played the last ten hands 5 -25 spread and i had two draws that cost me a couple of hundred. Plus this game was much tuffer as it had a few real good players in it and i all but had to give up the ante steal. Seemed as though they called the physic connection or something because every time i was on a steal, i got called and eveyy time i bet a pair of aces or kings they folded. Anyway thanks again and I was reading some of the other replys to other people and one i found funny is when you said that scarnes advise was bad then and worse now. i read one and a half of his books and quit. i really loved his advise to poker players when he told them to buy in for twenty bets or 200 whatever and then when they win 200 or lose 200 quit. what a poker bankrolling system huh? anyway thanks.
Sorry for the double messages but after reading everything on you page, I had one more question before I signed off. When I started playing poker, I started playing holdem, and probably was a weak-tight player. I spoke to a friend of mine, his name is Jerry too but his last name begins with an R.(dont want to put it in) Some of you probably know him, we live in Fl and he collects and sells autographs. Well you probably know which Jerry I'm talking about now. Anyway, he told me to get the holdem book with the rankings and 7stud for advanced players. From this point, I've played nothing but stud just because I think that the stud players in this area play worse and more tourists play the game here. But the question that I have is this. I was tring to understand some of that math that Louie guy and Mason and others were using and it greek to me. Another reason I play Stud is that I beleve I you can read hands and remember cards studs your game and this is my strength. Because my math isnt on that level, should I stay away from holdem? Should I stay away from poker in general? And at what level should a persons math level be at for stud? For holdem? Thanks for any imput.
Jerry, I too live in Florida. I know that there are Seminole gaming clubs here but I heard that the pots are capped at $10. Is this true? Since I have little knowledge here, I ask you where can you play medium stakes poker in Florida?
I have heard that there are some $1-4-8-8 hold'em games being spread in AC. I have not been able to find any when I have been in AC. Does anyone know it it's true or just a rumor?
The Sands in A.C. has spread $1-4-8-8.
I've changed the underlying software to provide for more a more flexible and (I hope) user friendly forum.
One change involves the use of "cookies" if they are enabled in your browser. The cookies are only used to keep track of forum preferences and for no other reason. However if they make you uncomfortable feel free to disable this feature in your browser.
If you have any feedback on the changes, please let me know.
The archives have also moved. They are accessible via a link at the top of the Forum.
Chuck Weinstock
There has been some confusion over our use of network "cookies" for the forum. For those who don't know, a cookie is a method for a website to keep persistent data on how often you visit, etc. Through the use of a cookie, a website can track your visits and build up a database of what files you browse, etc.
I want to make it clear that we are not using cookies in that manner for the forum (or for any other purpose). We have no interest in tracking our visitors or anything else about them.
The sole use of cookies here is to help you to keep track of what messages you've seen on the forum. The mechanism isn't fully in place, but when it is you'll be able to tell exactly which of the new messages you have not seen and be able to go directly to them.
If you have any questions or comments about this, please let me know.
Chuck
Cookies are now working on the forum.
Joe, I play ofter at the semonle indian reservation that you wrote about, and it is true that the have a pot limit of 10 per pot, but they also have tuna ments (tournements) there and on thursdays they have either a 1000 tourney or 750 tourney and they play very very loose there. I play a couple of home games that I lerned about at the reservation, if you go and ask around Im sure yo uwill find them, but the best place is the boats off johns pass at maderia beach. There are two. Please, if you get sick easy at all, go on the Europa, not the flat bottom on as it is a MUCH better ride. Thery have a 2 10 split and a 5 25 spreas 7 stud and they also p;ay holdem 2 days a week. The rake is 5% or 5$. that is it if u need anything else write back and ill anwser or email at ugot the 8@aol.com. cya goodluck.
I would greatly appreciate some insight into DISCIPLINE. In all of the books that I've read by Poker experts, they all mention that you have to have discipline. But none go beyond merely mentioning that fact.
What is it? Why do I seem to have it in great quantity one day and on another I can't muster up one iota? Is it pathological, or can it be learned? If it is pathological does that mean that those who don't have the "gift" will always be at a disadvantage to someone who has the "gift?" If it can be learned, how does one hone it? I recognize that this is a hole in my game that I desperately want to close.
>>DISCIPLINE....In all the books I've read by Poker experts they all mention that you have to have discipline.... What is it?
...Good question. It's basically being able to hold your emotions in check. Being able to survive long (LONG) hours of being dealt nothing but rags without losing your concentration and playing hands that shouldn't be played; being able to maintain the same level of play even though you've just been drawn out on twice in a row by idiots playing hands they should have mucked before the flop; being able to stay within yourself even when you're on a rush and pulling cards--a situation that can provide (highly illusory) feelings of immortality.
>>Why do I seem to have it in great quantiy one day and on another I can't muster up one iota?
Same reason you have a headache on one day but not on the next; have depressions, anxieties, emotional highs, and all that. It is, alas, a symptom of your final condition: you're human!!!
>>Is it pathological, or can it be learned? If it is pathological does that mean that those who don't have the "gift" will always be at a disadvantage to someone who has the "gift?"
It certainly isn't pathological--in the sense that pathology refers to an abnormal condition (see my Dictionary of Psychology, the 2nd ED. of which was published by Penquin Books earlier this year). And, of course, it can be learned--although my guess is that people with an easygoing disposition find it easier to learn than high-strung folks. But surely, anyone can learn it.
>>If it can be learned, how does one hone it?
Basically, practice. Try to think back over a session of play and see if you can recall where and when you lost your discipline. Try to learn to see the signs. If you are self-reflective you will begin to spot them. For example, you start feeling angry or you find your attention wandering or you suddenly realize you've made a couple of poorly judged plays, etc. As you learn to spot the clues you will learn to make changes in your behavior. Little tricks help. Here's one: Last month in a $20/40 7-stud I was holding a Kings full house on 6th street. There were two other players and I was raising like there was no tomorrow. The pot was huge (over $800). I got beat by a guy showing J, 10, 2, 6 who produced three dueces from the hole! I knew I was useless for at lease an hour so I cashed in my (few remaining) chips, took time out for a nice dinner and only returned to play later. This was my way of maintaining discipline since I knwew I would go on full tilt if I stayed.
>>I recognize that this is a hole in my game that I desperatley want to close.
Good luck in closing it.
Arthur Reber Author of "New Gamblers Bible"
Paul,
One hour of stemming or bad playing can ruin 8 hours of good play or more. If you can not control yourself quit or take a long walk. Best is to get a system to stop and control your playing emotions. Find a routine of something to do that reminds you to stop the bad behavior and replace it with good behavior. Good Luck.
Before I started playing poker, I played pool on the road for a living and that is where I learned about discipline. And as mentioned on another reply that on of the writers thought that someone that is high strung would have a harder time learning control and self discipline. Well I come from the highstrung mold and although I dont know how easy it is for mello guys to not let emotion cloud their judgement I found it very hard! I tried everythingfrom medition to zen to beer to anything else you can imagine that may "calm you down". And then the strangest thing happened. One day in the middle of a set of nineball I was playing for about 250 dollars(hotel for the week and dinner that night and gas to get the hell out of town) and the pressure was on and I was sweating and my face was flushed and my heart was pumping and I knew that I had to not only play, but I had to play at the top of my game to beat this guy. Well, all the sudden, the strangest thing happened, the whole world just went away, and nothing mattered to me on the planet, except that set of nineball. Nothing could distract me. No amount of bad luck could down me out. Nothing could stop me. At that moment I knew I had that set, that game, (pool in general) and life dicked. All the chocking of the past was now gone, and I now thrived on the pressure of a important set or game and played well and other things away from pool in day to day living was better and people started saying that jerry sure has a lot of patience. Well trust me its learned! In short, it"s just put yourself in pressure situations enough, and it is a thing you will learn and if can stay sane long enough to teach yourself, it is the most satisifing thing on the planet.Good luck!
Please, if someone could give a response to the queston I left about math and poker I would appreciate it. I would really like an anwser from someone who's math is on that level. Nardo didn't respond, he just asked a question. Thans again.
Jerry,
You do not need to be much of a wiz at math. The proof is that in the big games I play in most people cannot do more than basic algebra. This is true. You need to be able to count the size of the pot and be able relate it to your chances of winning. Most of the odds for the various hands and situations are published, so that you just have to memmorize them. Learn expected value and how to turn percent to odds. 3to1 equals a 25% chance for instance. Buy a couple of books on basic probability theory and that will put you light years ahead of the field. Holdem odds are easier than stud to figure and you may have more time to make a decision.
This situation occurs often enough to provoke this question. You are playing a typical 10-20 hold'em game. You are 1st after the big blind. You have AK of hearts. You raise and are called my two people whom you note to be average opponents. The 1st person who called is in middle position. The other is in late position. The flop is a complete miss. Say for example 2c5d9s. What do you do here. Do you bet for a semi-bluff? Do you check? I think checking is the worst thing to do. I know that this situation is rather a dumb one but I'm often confused here. What is the most profitable play?
Check-raise.
I think all of the readers, including me, would like a little more anaylsis than "check-raise." Do you mean that "check-raise" is always the right play ? Personally I could thing of many situations where other alternatives are correct. I certainly can be persuaded otherwise.
Certainly I had a little tongue-in-cheek when I posted that response, but the play is correct: if you bet, you are likely to be called by someone flopping a middle pair, especially if they hold a big kicker.
Despite all the poker knowledge available, a check-raise is still one of the strongest plays available: your opponent, at the very least, will likely give you a free card on the next round, and just as likely will dump the hand immediately if all they hit was some cheesy little pair.
If, on the other hand, you had the best hand after the flop, a check-raise may slow down this opponent from trying to steal later when garbage flops. Poker remains a game of tactics and situational analysis instead of cold probability. But from the math standpoint, you still have plenty of outs to hit your hand.
The only other option is to check and fold. I'd have to be really convinced that Rocky was serious.
Lets see here, $15 of blind dead money, 3 players put in $20 pre-flop. Neglecting the rake, $75 in the pot pre-flop. You have A,Kh flop comes down 2c5d9s. It would seem to me that an A or K on the turn or river would give a very good chance to have the best hand if you don't already. Without assumptions about the other players cards your odds of making the A,K on the next card is 41/6. Less than 7 to 1. If someone bets you are getting 8.5 to 1 for the one card only. Doesn't seem like check and fold would be a good play here. Your assumptions about check and raise are at least open to debate. I don't understand your comment "Poker remains a game of tactics and situational analysis instead of cold probability." Thanks for the analysis.
Your analysis illustrates precisely the point I'm making: you would have to believe that "Rocky" had a big hand before you could lay down the A-K. Mr. Malmuth again points out that you want the player to fold. I agree with the result he seeks, I would just go about getting that same response with the check-raise. In the last few years it seems like fewer players will lay down a hand for an early single bet. Differences in tactics is why we still play the games instead of letting computers do it for us.
How would you play an overpair ? The same way ?
Earl sorry to jump in before you had a chance to respond but I wanted to make some last comments as I am headed out of town and won’t be visiting this site for a while.
I am going to assume a couple of things about "Rocky." Lets say he will re-raise with Aces or Kings although I will concede that he might call but that is not the kind of "Rocky" that I know. "Rocky" called a raise cold before the flop so lets say that he is highly unlikely to have Aces or Kings. Therefore you have a pretty decent chance pre-flop. After the 9,5,2 rainbow flop. You check to "Rocky" and if "Rocky" bets you know that your pot odds are not correct because you can read "Rocky" well enough to know that he has a set. I doubt if "Rocky" would call a raise cold with A,9; A,5; A,2; 9,5; 9,2; 5,2; K,9; K,5; or K,2. I guess "Rocky" could have any piece of the board but since this is "Rocky" I would doubt it in this situation (is this how a computer plays ?). I’ll admit that does display an unusual and extraordinary ability to read hands. Also you have just given "Rocky" a free card when he doesn’t have a set. I don’t think I would want to give "Rocky" a free card to beat me if he doesn’t have a pair.
If you always check after you raise pre-flop when a raggedy, rainbow flop hits the board. Hmmm. Doesn’t sound like the way I would want to play my overpairs but then maybe I am playing just how a computer would play. Perhaps you don’t raise with T,T, J,J, or Q,Q pre-flop in this spot. Perhaps you only raise with A,K; A,A; or K,K. If you play this way I would call you "Rocky II."
If you play such that when you have an overpair you bet and when you have overcards you check. Hmmm. I wouldn’t want to be read that easily but then maybe I’m just playing how a computer plays.
Earl, someday you and I will have to get together and have a beer. I would pay money for you to show me how you can determine that someone has a set after you check and that person bets. I’ll let you have the last word on this post Earl as I am out on it. See you in Vegas this weekend, I’ll be at the 4 Queens Poker Tournament.
Joe,
It really depends what u call average. Would an average player stay with cards in that range, and is the game loose or tight? But if you check, and it goes all the way around in most cases I think u will get drawn out on. If you know there is an agressive player to your right and u expect a bet from him with almost anything, then check raise and if not, then betting is the right play. As you see in your example by betting you thinned the field to two other players and yourself. Now with your example there are no straight or flush possibilities on the flop and if these players are playing a small pair to your overcards i like your chances and in the end you will charge them for playing shit, and if they were one the steal you have got the 3rd best hand in group one, I like your chances even better. I would think you would only have the worst of it if someone had a pcket pair of 2 5 or 9 which in any case, you would have almost certianly been raised, which in your example you were not so at least on the flop, your situation dos'nt stink, I think you got the best of it. In my opinion, the most important thng in a situation like that is to accuratly be able to clock what you think other players @ the table will do.
I think the answer really depends on the players you are against. If they are very passive I would probably go ahead and check hoping they check also. If they are calling stations, then go ahead and check as a semi-bluff is pretty much worthless. If they are tougher players, I think you need to mix up your play a little.
I see many players always do the same thing in this situation which is bet the flop then check the turn when no Ace or King hits.
If you check raise then this can help you get free cards in the same situation next time. If you bet then show down at the end you may get some more action on you stronger hands.
Good Luck.
Rob
This is a common situation that is easy to play. You should bet almost everytime. The reason is that with this poor flop there is a reasonable chance that your AK is the best hand and you do not want to give a free card that may beat you.
One common misconception in this situation is that if you bet and everyone folds you have stolen the pot. This implies that you have made a better hand, such as middle pair fold. I believe that that will virtually never happen. If you bet and everyone folds it is because your hand was best
Notice that when you bet someone else will be getting approximately 8-to-1 to call. Lets suppose there is someone in the pot with a hand like QJ. He is a little over 6-to-1 to catch a pair on fourth street and if he knew for sure that all you had was AK he would be correct to call. Thus you want to bet and you want him to fold.
If one decides to play on the professional level and assuming one has a ample bankroll for either, which game is better? Tournaments or ring games? Or perhaps both?
I have definitely decided to go the ring game route. There are many reasons for this. Some of them are your bankroll requirements are smaller, you don't have to travel as much, the income is steadier, you get to specialize in one or more games, and the tournament winners tend to lose much of the money they have just made in the side games.
You won't get as much fame if you become a side game player, but I believe that the best poker players are the side game players and as just mentioned these are the people who get the money.
Day in and day out, the side game players have the best of it, but in the end, your decision is determined by your personal goals: do you want to grind out a living or work toward one big score. While it's certainly possible to do both, I will advise from long personal experience not to attempt to do both in the same day. In particular, while it is profitable to go from a side game into a tournament or satellite, I strongly recommend against doing the opposite.
There is a whole range of different size tournaments so I don't think that you should limit your play to one or the other. You should definitely try playing in some lower buy in tournaments and see how you like them. I don't play for the highest stakes around but there are some tournament situations that I have encountered that are really sweet. Basically it has been when the Casino running the tournament has kicked in a huge amount of money relative to the total prize pool and there aren't too many players. There are some overlays. I do think that there is a big luck factor (higher variance) in a lot of tournaments so they can suck your money up pretty fast if you don't cash in. Also I have made the most money in Limit Hold'em tournaments by far because that is probably my best game. So there is skill involved. I actually prefer side games myself although I do play both. I personally think that the side game action revolving around tournaments tends to be really good. When it is all said and done, I gear my play to the side games but I do play in both.
I have played many computer poker games and have beaten them all. However the computer hold'em games have something to be desired! I have beaten Turbo Texas Hold'em at the 5-10 level for over $15000 at 730 hours! But there is something wrong! I recently bought Masques World Series of Poker. While that games hold'em is alittle more realistic there still is something wrong! It seems that computer players never change their style. There is never a variance in the way they play thier hands. While these games are fun it seems to me that that is all they are good for. The only thing I can see that they help is perhaps to allow one to practice their play before the flop. I'm not an expert at this but neither am I a unimformed computer player.
Joe,
Computers are programed to do certian things incertian situations and they dont think. That is why they are easy to beat. I have found although, that they are great practice for learning to read hands (once you know a little about how they are programed) and if you are a stud player as I am, they are great for helping you to learn how to remember cards that are out. Like what Ray told you about Scarnes advise. Find out what you can use from everything and use that and discard the rest. Good luck
When I bought Ken Warrens book I was at first pleased. It seemed to provide a very solid approach to the game. However one error at once made me displeased with it. I assume that I am not the only one to have caught this glaring error. I shall mention this error but I will leave it up to you to find it. Ken writes that you cannot make a lock hands afther flopping trip aces!. That is totally wrong. Explain to me what is the lock on this flop? Ah2cKc9s7d Why he would make this error is beyond me. It is no printing error. Anyway I would be interested in knowing what some forum readers opinions on this book are including Ray Zee,Mason M. and David S.
I have no idea who Ken Warren is, but his observation is correct: when you flop a set of Aces, you can be beat on the next card. The reason is because an Ace and any other 2 cards either makes a 4-straight A-high, 4-straight wheel, or the two cards will be in the 6-9 range, which could also fit someone's medium straight. Re-read the No-Limit discussion in Super/System about how to play when turning a set of Aces.
Incidentally, you showed us the *complete* hand instead of just the flop, which does *not* illustrate the point I assume Mr. Warren was making.
If you read his book it implied that a set of aces cannot make a lock after the river card is flopped!
You tell us what Ken Warren implied without an exact quote from the book. It looks like Earl tried to respond the best he could with incomplete information. I'm sure this could generate some good discussion if all the information was posted.
The Gambling Forum August 1997 Archive Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo