![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
You might want to consider (as an aside) going back to the rule book committee (eventhough you had a limited role) and convince them your suggestion is a good addition to their rule book. As with many rules (laws) there are ones you would enforce every time and others that you selectively enforce (nuisance laws). I've been in situations where somebody would make a remark occasionally (every few rounds) and it wasn't a big problem. I've been in other situations where remarks were made often (every few hands) and it would have been nice if the floor man had soom leverage to castigate the player. My personal philosophy is to encourage the table to have fun (have a party). By (as MM hinted at) nodding/smiling/NOT argueing with the ones that think the poker table is just a slot machine while encorageing any table conversation to go another direction is the right thing to do (you win).
The best thing you can do at a humorless table is get up and leave.
SOAPBOX:
I'm not sure what other players, those who regularly berate bad players and ridicule their play, are thinking. They must know that nobody likes being ridiculed or embarrassed, but they do it constantly, driving people away from the games and out of the cardrooms for good. Their rudeness and unsolicited criticism result in tension filled games and cast a pall on the entire poker industry. Why do we tolorate it?
I am a constant talker in the games that I play in. I tell stories, jokes and do everything it takes to get the others talking and having a good time. The games I play in get a lot livelier when I am playing. I have a good time when playing and I want the others to enjoy themselves also. After thirty minutes or so, the players who are trying to "grind" an income from their play have been isolated and exposed. They aren't having a good time and aren't participating in any of the talk and laughter. It is obvious, even to the newbies, that these are the sullen sharks that they were warned about. Time and time again I've noticed a tendency for the action of the game to slow way down when one of them enters a pot. When they aren't playing, the action becomes heavier and more playful. When one of the "pros" enters a pot, someone, perhaps even I, will make a remark that warns the table that standards for play have been raised by his entry.
This works in holdem games and in lowball at stakes from 1-2 to 15-30. I've never tried doing it in other games other than NL holdem, where it doesn't work at all. My point, (yes, I do have one) is that if we can do things to actively create a pleasant atmosphere for people to play and enjoy themselves, poker will thrive and enjoy robust growth. Most people don't consider grim contests to be that enjoyable unless they are winning, and most new players don't win.
New players who come into a cardroom for the first time should take home the impression that the games were fun and people can and do go there to enjoy themselves. I envy the traditional casinos that offer "21", craps, baccarat etc. because they have had the good fortune to sell their client base on the idea that gambling is fun and that gambling losses are just part of the entertainment costs associated with that fun. I've heard hundreds of people discuss the "few hundred" that they lost in Vegas, not at all concerned that they lost it, convinced that this is a normal part of the Las Vegas experience. Those of us who play frequently in cardrooms should make attempts to be friendly and pleasant while playing. We should be contributing to the idea that poker is a game that can be played without grimness or desperation. If poker is your business, why make it difficult for your customers to enjoy themselves? Do whatever you can to make poker at your table a happy and enjoyable game.
I couldn't agree more.
To those of you who play professionally, the poker table is your place of business. Just like any other venture, customer relations is a key to profitability.
I am always amazed when a professional poker player calls someone an idiot for calling $40 cold to draw to an inside straight or whatever. The fact is that this player may well have a very successful career who plays poker purely for fun.
I am a litigation lawyer by trade. It would be downright silly for me to criticize a layman for not knowing certain elementary evidentiary rules in the courtroom. Hell, it would be obnoxious. The same goes for professional poker players. You are the real idiot if you call a live one an idiot.
So, what's the solution? Well, take it upon yourself to educate these boors. See my post below in response to Rick's post on a thread with a similar theme. Do it but do it in a calm, nonchalant manner.
A while ago, I also began a thread about going easy on new players. In particular, do not rely on technicalities (such as string raises, minimum buy-ins etc.) that are bound to further confuse the already bewildered green felt rookie. Some may disagree with this statement but I would even go as far as taking it easy on these new players by not checkraising when heads-up etc. A loss of a bet here and there is something I can live with if it will ensure that the new player leaves the game at the end of the night without a bad taste in his mouth.
Big John stated: "When one of the "pros" enters a pot, someone, perhaps even I, will make a remark that warns the table that standards for play have been raised by his entry. "
Big John:
While I aggree 100% with the rest of the post, I do take major exception to your above statement. To me it is completely wrong for us to comment or warn players during a live hand.
S. Doyle
I thought about that myself after writing it. I would only do it if I were coming into the pot myself. I would usually say something like "I normally raise when both my cards are bigger than sixes, but if seat six is coming in for a raise I think I'll just call." I would say this only when it was my turn to act. I might also reraise myself saying something like "Seat four only plays one or two hands per session, so let's make this a pot he'll remember."
I have also been known to tell a player that I wish that I had the patience to play as selectively as he does. I might ask him whether he has ever played two hands in succession. I am usually smiling when I do this, having a little fun with the player in the hope that he will laugh and get into the spirit of making the game enjoyable. If someone is laughing, talking and having a good time, I don't care how he plays. If someone is being somber, sullen and a real drag on the mood of the game, I'm going to make an effort to change his table demeanor.
Big John,
Great Post! (However, I do agree with S. Doyle's point posted above.)
A friend who plays full time and is known to be good for the game (in terms of his personality) likes to say he is in the "entertainment business" in regards to his poker play. Despite his winning style, his sense of table politics is excellent and the weaker players love to play with him. This makes him money as well as making him a happier and more decent person. We need more like him, "skp" and "Big John".
Regards,
Rick
I somewhat agree with Big John's attitude but disagree with the implication that selective players are boring. I'm selective but very talkative on the table and truly enjoy the social aspects of the game. I have a career and life outside of poker and play only on weekends. A couple of weeks ago I sat down in a game where a young man was taunting players especially an older man who was having a big run and played almost every hand. It was obvious he was trying to solicit people to go after him by running off his mouth. I saw this behavior when I was a kid playing cards behind the garage, and I find it despicable in adults. What bothers me is that there is a fine line between what Big John does to spice up the game and what this kid does. I guess its all relative.
Merle,
I'm lost. Who said or implied that "selective players" are or have to be boring. "skp" in a post in this thread referred to a so called "professional player" who gave his opponents a hard time for their draw outs as a "boor" but this is a different use of the term.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I hope you noted "skp"s profession. I would consider him a top poster to this forum yet he clearly does not play full time (Note: This comment is in regards to a thread Merle started today which expressed his anger over a comment by Mason).
Rick,
Big John - "I have also been known to tell a player that I wish that I had the patience to play as selectively as he does. I might ask him whether he has ever played two hands in succession. I am usually smiling when I do this, having a little fun with the player in the hope that he will laugh and get into the spirit of making the game enjoyable."
I guess I need some help from Big John on this one. What is he saying here? I see players on the table that play every hand and are sullen and miserable. I apoligize if I misread this. However, the rest of my post still stands. If I didn't know what a standup guy Big John was I might construe that he is trying to goad me into playing more hands to get into the spirit of making the game more enjoyable. When I kid around like this, it is usually with some player I know well and we'll both have a good laugh, but I would never say this to a stranger.
Merle,
I differentiate between a selective, pleasant player and a selective, grouchy player. When a player is making comments deprecating the play of others who drew out on him and isn't contributing anything positive to the quality of the game, I do tend to give them some little hints that I think they should lighten up and try to make the game more pleasurable.
I admit to having a big mouth and a willingness to attempt to impose my standards on others. It has long been my belief that players owe a certain social amiability to their game. At a bare minimum, they shouldn't be allowed to act so surly and miserable that they drive players away from the table. It is the last category of player that I tend to pounce upon with my wry wit and gentle barbs.
Just this afternoon I mentioned to a player that his deranged running commentary and gratuitous insults during the play of every hand was starting to make me concerned. It was obvious to me that he was a true "nut case" and was really out of control. His spewed venom was starting to scare me, and I'm not that easy to scare. I got up and left the game after it became obvious to me that he wasn't getting any better and the floor people didn't seem to notice or care. I had requested a table change and waited for at least a half hour before getting up and cashing out.
I am willing to admit that making the game pleasant is more important to me than respecting the rights and feelings of players who create stress and strife at the table. Poker in a public cardroom should be a pleasant social experience. If someone is detracting from that pleasantness, they should be encouraged to stop.
I love to yak it up during a session. It's part of the fun for me. I also believe I have the ability to put people on tilt. I'll say things like " I'm all over that flop" "You've got a piece of that too" ect. I want to stress that I never ever personally insult anyone. I also will never ever berate a player for making a terrible play, for obvious reasons. Most of the time people playing at my table are having a great time, however once in awhile some people do get testy. I want to continue to chatter during my sessions, but I also don't want to get out of line. What is considered out of line?
Personally, I think it is just fine as long as comments are made about the cards or are positive remarks about the other players. I like to turn to my neighbor and throw in comments when people draw out like, "wow, that guy's on a roll, better not play too many hands with him." Of course I say it loud enough for the drawer to hear and feel good about himself. I have found such comments draw no criticism from other players and improve conditions at the table.
Danny, in my mind, what you are describing is out of line.
There's nothing wrong with yaking it up with the table so long as the yaking doesn't affect your concentration. But yaking it up about what you have at various stages of a hand is "coffeehousing" which I believe is out of line and in fact is prohibited in the cardroom that I play in.
Coffeehousing can also lead to you giving away some tells that likely will be picked up by your observant opponents.
"I love to yak it up during a session. It's part of the fun for me." I could have written this myself therefore I don't think it's out of line. But if another player objects to the chatter I respect him/her and curb my chatter.
"I also believe Ihave the ability to put people on tilt. I'll say things like " I'm all over that flop" "You've got a piece of that too" ect" I think this kind of behavior is out of line and childish. I also think it makes the game unenjoyable for a lot of social players. Most people concentrate during a hand and don't want any uncalled for interuptions when they are thinking. Some find it very anoying and others (like me) find it unfair to social players. I always confine all of my chatter to between hands. I will even chastise other players for talking during a hand!
IMO Vince
Out of line would be talking about a hand that you are not in. The rest who cares. Do what you think is best for your game.
Others have taken either side of this issue... Let me add another one to your repetoire.
I like to announce "The kick is up..." the pause then occurs while the dealer burns and turns the flop... "it's good!" and I bet out or "it's wide!" and I check.
Regards, Dave Scharf
Danny H,
I'll vote on this one. I'll vote that your "coffee housing" is acceptable. I would hate to see poker become a game like bridge where such behavior is strictly prohibited.
Tom Haley
I like a chatty table as it is generally an indicator of a good game. However, commenting on what others may have when you are either not in the hand or in a multi-way pot is inappropriate. Heads up, anything within reason goes.
As for myself, my chat is almost always concerns topics unrelated to poker (i.e., good movies, books, places to travel, etc.). Like Vince, I also do most of my talking during the shuffle and avoid talking over someone who is concentrating on the hand.
There is one last type of conversation that is always inappropriate and that is a "sotto voce" conversation. By this I mean any conversation done "under the breath" with a neighboring player. IMHO, it is functionally equivalent to speaking a foreign language at the table. In addition, players at the other end of the table tend to believe you may be talking secretly about them and this will tend to generate bad feelings.
Regards,
Rick
Back in the 70s, I recall being in a game at the Fremont late one night with two guys who were simply hilarious. They were making obviously fake "moves" when they were heads-up and making statements that were so riotous that the entire table was laughing so hard we were literally about to fall out of our chairs. While that kind of action may not be appreciated in a bigger game, I vote with Tom on this one: if it helps lighten the mood, it's likely to be appreciated.
I players get up and leave as you coming to play...... Seriously if someone tells you to "shut-up" at the table consider if he will go on tilt as the result or comply if he is fishy and may leave or just play by ear.
Socializing between hands is completely acceptable. Trying to put someoneont tilt is inappropiate, people come to a casino to enjoy themselves, is it worth that extra bet you might pick up to cause it to be a less enjoyable so they won't want to return. Also if you are the type that likes to talk all the time consider if you are making an ass of yourself. There is a player in Ohio called Cabby that talks all the time and thinks he is getting an edge, but what he is really doing is causing people to play better against him and the particularly fishy players will quit after a while because they are tired of listening to him talk. SO I would say that the bottom line is make sure your chattter is welcome and enjoyable. Also if you have aggrevated someone to the point where they ask you to shut up they are probably very upset since most people put up with some discomfort before telling you to shut up.
Randy
I have never been told to shut up. If it ever got that far I would know I'm out of line. I'm not at the table talking every second of every hand that I play, but I just wanted to get some reactions as to what is out of line. I think I'm basically a gentleman at the table. Thanx for all the responses Danny H
A funny incident occurred in my game on Saturday. The BB (a stranger who seemed to be a fairly good player) indicated that he did not want to take his option to raise. At that point, the dealer told him that there already had been a raise. He then looked up and saw that the raise was made by the live one at the table who was making questionable raises all night long from any position. The BB then said "Well, I'll call only because I am sure that you don't know what you are doing".
To be sure, the line was a funny one and came with "a great delivery." In fact, the whole table started laughing loudly. BB then goes on to win with a pair of tens. He had called with 10,6 off.
As you might guess, the live one was thorougly embarassed by the line and the reaction of the others to the line. He played a few more hands and then decided he could have more fun elsewhere.
I was sitting next to the BB. I waited for an opportune time to comment to him on his line. I conveyed to him the message that he should in the future avoid doing anything to chase away the live ones. My comment was made to him nonchalantly and in a non-condescending manner. He agreed that it was a dumb move on his part.
I often see this in our games. If the player doing the criticizing is someone I know, I will always take him aside at some point and let him know that he should be thankful that there are live ones in the game. I tell him "would you rather have that guy in the game or would you rather have so and so who never gives you any action when you have the nuts?". These reminders do indeed work. Just make sure that you don't sound too professorial; obviously, no one likes to be lectured.
Bottom line: Take it upon yourself to remind players not to criticize live ones. Do it every time this happens. But don't do it right away. Wait for an opportune time when the player has had a chance to recover from the bad beat that the live one has just laid on him.
Re: John Fox's Sleep 'til noon ...
Please expand.
The book I refered to was published by Bacchus Press in 1977; the title was "Play Poker, Quit Work and Sleep Till Noon". Probably out of print. Try Gambler's Book Shop in LV.
I find myself, with to much frequency, loosing trips or straights to flushes, AND mucking winning hands to players of whom I thought had a flush but who did not.
Basically, one of my leaks I am trying to plug is identifying when opponents have made a flush, any thoughts or ideas would be greatly appreciated.
S. Doyle
When they turn their cards over on the river is the best time to determine if they made a flush! Seriously though, anytime there are three flush cards on the board there is the danger your opponent may have made a flush. If you have trips and are first to act it is usually better to act. If you get raised you usually should put the opponent on a flush. If you act after your opponent and he bets you may want to just call although there are reasons to raise here. I am speaking mainly of turn and river plays. One thing to keep in mind is something either Sklansky or Malmuth has said: That third flush card has to look just as scary to your opponent as it does to you! Knowing and guessing are not the same. The best you can hope to do is make an "Educated Guess" based on the information available at the time. Knowledge of your opponent should be a key factor in any decision you make. Because you are guessing (educated or not) you are going to be wrong sometimes! The most important thing to remember is to not beat yourself up over any decison you make. Just make a mental note of it. Analyze it later and if you find you made a tactical mistake try to make the correct play the next time.
Vince writes: "If you have trips and are first to act it is usually better to act. If you get raised you usually should put the opponent on a flush. If you act after your opponent and he bets you may want to just call although there are reasons to raise here. I am speaking mainly of turn and river plays."
I think there needs to be more defining between 4th Street and River Plays here. ie. Check Trips if first to act on 4th street, but possibly bet if the 3 Flush doesn't come till 5th street, you are first to act, and your opponent will only raise you if he has made the Flush. Quite Complex. I think a good place to learn how to play these situations is HPFAP "Fouth St. Play" and "Heads up on 5th St."
CV
I gotta disagree.
When first to act, I have never ever checked a set when a flush card hits on the turn. I just can't afford to give a freebie in this situation. If I bet, there's a good chance that players holding anything up to a Jack or Queen of that suit will fold. The guy with the King may call but may fold. The guy with the Ace will definitely call but that's ok too - you need to charge him for his draw.
What happens if the flush is already out there and I now get raised? Well, them's the breaks but the error in betting only costs me a single bet which is a lot better than an error in checking. Besides, I still have 10 outs on the river.
If someone bets into me, I will frequently raise (for the same reasons stated above) if there are players left to act behind me unless
(a) The bettor is someone who I know would never bet unless he already has the flush;
(b) The players left behind me are solid players who based on the betting on the flop figure to have been calling on the flop with a flush draw which they have now completed;
(c) A simple call on my part will make the players behind me think that I am slowplaying the nut flush in which case they will likely fold their single suited card draws even without a raise from me.
My reasoning is one that I am perhaps repeating ad nauseum of late: The raising error has a penalty much smaller than the calling error.
SKP Wrote: "When first to act, I have never ever checked a set when a flush card hits on the turn. I just can't afford to give a freebie in this situation. If I bet, there's a good chance that players holding anything up to a Jack or Queen of that suit will fold. The guy with the King may call but may fold. The guy with the Ace will definitely call but that's ok too - you need to charge him for his draw."
I Disagree.
Its more than likely that someone who called the action on the Flop with a Kh, Qh, or Jh will not Fold for a 4th St. Bet just because there is a 3 Flush on board. Unless you were slowplaying Trips you probably got a Raise or a Check-Raise in somehow, most likely knocking out any weak hand that would have Folded on 4th St. There are allways exceptions though.
So most of the time I don't think you have anything to gain by betting your Trips in first positon on 4th street against a 3 Flush, but can gain if you check on 4th and Fill-up on 5th.
What ever happened to the 4th st. rule of: Checking Hands with outs, but betting Hands that if already beaten have no outs.
CV
Chris,
your write:
>>What ever happened to the 4th st. rule of: Checking Hands with outs, but betting Hands that if already beaten have no outs.<<
I like that rule!
Tom Haley
I would say that this is a guideline but not a rule to be followed slavishly.
I don't think that it applies to the situation we are talking about here.
Here's an example where I believe it does apply:
I have 10s,9s on the button. I bet on a 10d,7d,6s flop. 2 or 3 people call. The turn is the As. Everyone checks to me.
I would apply the "guideline", check and take the free card.
The principle would also apply if the turn card was say the 9h giving me top two pair.
skp,
I wouldn't follow any rule slavishly and what Chris is referrring to certainly is put forth as a guidline for 4th st. play in HFAP rather than a hard and fast rule. As always the right play is determined by a whole host of factors such as the size of the pot, the number of players involved, the players tendencies, your read on the players, the players read on you, the strength of your hand, the number of outs you have if you're beat, your position, etc. I'm sure that you could think of situations where you were first to act with a set on the flop and a card completing a flush hit on the turn where checking and calling would be the right play. I'm also sure that you could think of situations where you were first to act with a set on the flop and a card completing a flush hit on the turn where betting out would be the right play. I'm sure you can think of situations where check raising is the right play. Possibly even checking and folding with a set of trips might be right! So I wouldn't say that checking is always right and I wouldn't say that betting is always right.
Tom Haley
Tom, point taken.
If I bet and a player holding a Jack, Queen or King calls, he is making a mistake because I obviously could also be betting the nut flush. If players are willing to call when there is a fair chance that they are drawing dead, then I want them in my game.
Besides, if these guys will call with a Jack etc., I don't mind. Most of the time they will miss so my bet clearly has positive EV.
If I check, they only have to call a check. No one's going to turn down that opportunity. IMO, checking is a big time error unless you have some strong evidence that the flush is already out there.
When I posted my initial response, I just somehow assumed that the situation was that I came out betting on the flop with my set and got 2 or 3 calls. If no one has raised, you must bet again (IMO). On the other hand, if there has been all kinds of raising on the flop and you are certain that the flush card hit someone on the turn, then perhaps there's an argument for checking. I say "perhaps" because generally if I've got a hand that's worth calling two bets cold (and a set and particularly top set would definitely qualify if the pot is big), then I've got a hand worth betting.
Generally, I find that good things happen when I bet and the unthinkable happens when I play a check and call game.
As for the 4th street rule you speak of, sometimes poker strategy rules clash. In this situation, I believe that the dominating rule is to make the less costly error. i.e. bet or raise instead of check or call.
Obviously, we seem to be at odds on this one. I would be interested in hearing other opinions. Perhaps, I am alone (and wrong) with my reasoning.
I've gotta take your side on this one. If no one has a flush yet, there is a good chance that if you check it's going to get checked out and you're going to give a bunch of people a free card to beat you when you have a really big hand. This is a small disaster.
I disagree with Chris when he says that if a jack or queen of the suit called the flop they are also going to call the turn. Those hands obviously weren't calling the flop to try and hit a running flush - they were calling with some other value (maybe a pair, or a straight draw) that they will abandon on the turn. And don't forget that a free card also gives the deuce of that suit a shot at beating you for free - that's a big error.
Don't forget you are also giving free cards to straight draws that would definitely fold to a bet.
Also, if you bet in this situation it's going to help you get paid off better the next time you make a flush and bet it. If people know that your bets don't always represent what's on the board, you get more action.
Dan
I also concur with skp here. Generally bet or raise the turn until any subsequent action indicates you don't have the best hand. You just cannot give anyone with a hand like a pair and a flush draw, or an ace/king flush draw a free card. Playing for a checkraise against an agressive opponent is probably wrong here too, even though you'll know where you are if it's three bets back to you and can act appropriately on the river.
I probably should have added: You don't have that much to lose by checking since that High Flush card will most likely call anyway. That plus the possibility of being Raised and having to Call I think make the Check a better option.
But I would be interesting to see what some other people think. Post Flop situations are allways tricky in Hold'em. Thats why I like to discuss them so much.
Chris
One of my early flaws (since corrected) was counting down the pot in a too-obvious way, to determine my pot odds, especially when heads up or 3 handed. This sent the message to my opponents that I was on a draw of some type, and that I was calculating the outs versus cost and pot size. This only works against beginners, but occasionally I've encountered opponents who are literally counting out loud, and most of the time the draw is obvious ie straight or flush. Larry
I play hold-em in northern Nevada once or twice a month, in a game that has about a dozen "regulars" in it. To keep everyone straight I have a detailed check list that I printed up and reduced on the copier, until it is tiny, smaller then a dollar bill. It is formatted like multiple choice; I just have to circle the appropriate response. Using a separate sheet for each player, I track starting hand (groups 1-7 from HPFAP, from early, middle late positions) and about 15 other situations on the flop, again from early, middle and late positions, and only in "average" circumstances (eg: in a 3-6 handed pot, not heads-up, nor a jammed pot).
For example, I track whether they will bet into a flopped pair on the board if they have the third one, or if they bluff at a flopped pair, but never bet the made set on the flop. Also how they bet top pair (with or w/o a kicker) how the bet 2 pair flopped, etc. I do not keep track of situations beyond the flop.
Likely you will find (as I have) that most players fall into a prdeictable pattern, especially on the flop. For example, I have learned that preflop Player X will never raise with AK either suited or unsuited. Others will always check a flopped set (with the pair on the board). Still others never bet or raise a 4 flush, they just check/call until they make a hand.
One other thing I learned is that other players get very unfriendly if you write anything down at the table. I just keep mental notes and then go to the men's room every 45 minutes or so to quickly record them.
If any forum correspondents who are not poker prodigys (and who have to learn habits of others the hard way) have comments on what I can do to improve on this method, TIA for your help. Larry
Thank you Larry. This is on the right track and I believe this process can be refined and extended beyond the flop. For example how people play on the turn seems very important to me. I welcome further observations on this theme from other players. Thanks again.
Neil,
I think that Larry's disciplined approach has a lot going for it. The reference to John Fox was in regards to a poker book that he wrote called, Play Poker: Quit Work and Sleep Till Noon. It is a book about 5 card high draw strategy with some information regarding reading players. It's a good read.
The other thing I would add is that I try and observe how a player plays a hand when they bluff and semi-bluff especially on the turn and the river. One thing that you should be constantly trying to do to improve your hand reading is think about what your opponents think you have. In other words, constantly try and step up your level of thinking so it is higher than your opponents thinking level.
Tom Haley
Tom Haley
you should be looking for general tendencies. The first would be to see how often a player enters a pot. You don't always get the luxury of seeing what the players cards are, but if a player is playing alot of hands, you can make some assumptions.If a player is not playing many hands, you can make assumptions.To t5ry to categorize players by every situation that comes up as larry says he does, borders on the ridiculus. You should be able to at least get the flavor of how players play cards by observing, and instead of writing every thing down(try using your brain). is the player a loose raiser, or does he only raise with quality hands. many times if I know how one person plays, this helps me to judge others. If someone raises who you are not familiar with and everyone is folding everytime he gets aggressive, what does this tell you? Making notes and categories is nice, but your gut will tell you if you listen to it, and observe.
I was late in position, 2 from button w/ 10 players, By the way 4-8 structure. I was delt Ad 7d. Pre flop 8 people called no raises. Flop came 10c Jd Kd. It was raised by seat 3 and re-raised by seat 6 I call and it was capped again by seat 3. (The player in seat 3 was on a serious rush) I again called, beliving both players to have flopped strights. To my suprise, there are still 6 players. The turn comes 9s. Once again, the same players cap the betting.
1. I am on the nut flush draw, I think that I should call all the way and see the river. I figure 5-1 that My diamond falls?
Is this the correct play? do I make every call? I know if a diamond falls, I have one a nice pot, but any other card and I have just lost $52 on one hand. Please I would like to hear any comments.
I will withold the river card till further notice.
Walleye
I hope you called. You've already got 52$ in the pot. It sounds like there are other diamond flushes out there too. That might take away some of your outs, but you must call. Also a Queen will probably get you half the pot. If a Queen or diamond does fall on the river, you'll probably make alot of extra cash. I think hitting your river card is closer to 3-1, although I could be wrong. I can't calculate exact odds on the spot but usually can get pretty close. Hope that diamond fell.
I count $128 in the pot before the turn card. The most it can cost you on the turn is another $32. It will cost you nothing on the river because you will throw away unless you hit your diamond or a Queen. You didn't say how many people were hanging around for the River card. I'll assume there were 4 players including you. Thus, after putting in $32 each, the pot will be $256.
That's too big a pot to get away from. Even if you figure that at least two Queens are busy and perhaps one other player is on a diamond draw and that perhaps the Qd, 10d and 9d are no good, you still have some outs which will give you the nuts. Specifically, the 2,3,4,5,6,8 of diamonds will give you the nuts. The 9d,10d and Qd may give you the nuts. As well, the other 3 Queens will give you the nuts but you will likely have to split the pot (and hopefully not 3 or 4 ways).
The one thing though is that you did not say how the betting went on the turn. Sometimes, when you know that you are going to get whipsawed, it might help to put in a raise yourself. This can (a) stop the whipsawing because the whipsawers may now just call instead of taking it to the max number of raises (although that is a bit unlikely with the type of board you have described) and (b) it can disguise your hand (i.e. If you are going to have to put in 4 bets in any event, why not put in a raise yourself to throw them off a little).
In sum, I would not fold but I wouldn't get too excited if a 10d or 9d fell. I would still raise a bettor if the Qd fell unless the bet came from my immediate right in which case I would just call and look for overcalls behind me.
skp: Since you are one of a small group of forum respondents who's opinions always seem the most thought-through and well reasoned, it is re-affirming to know our opinions overlap neatly. As someone still learning, this made my day. Larry
Well, what can I say, yours made my day. Good luck.
I like the idea of slowing the action down with an unlikely raise. It's just that this play works best if done on the flop so that the action on the big bets is limited if the play is successful. This is best accomplished with a reraise or cap after having just called an early position bet on the flop. You don't gain much with a raise on the turn when you're planning to check/fold the river if you don't complete the draw.
Given the "shoot-em-up" nature of the hand, it sounds like you would get some action on the river if you hit your nut flush. This is important because IMO this draw is not as good as it first looks. You are up against 2 made straights, and probably a smaller flush draw, and probably a set, or at worst 2 pair. In a standard textbook case, you have 46 unseen cards, of which 9 make you a straight, and the 3 non-diamond Queens get you a share of a split pot. (Roughly the 1 in 5 ratio you mentioned)
But realistically, you could hit a 9d or Td and lose to a full house, or the Qd and lose to a straight flush. And since its very likely 2 diamonds are held by a small flush draw, worst-case you may have as few as 4 diamonds and 1 queen, as winners out of 39 unknown cards. Now this is only a 1 in 8 win ratio, not good enough.
But on average, this is a marginally profitable situation.
One point is that, rather then simply be a calling station on the flop and Turn, had you been one of the raisers, you would now be able to raise on the River if one of your cards come, without immediately having your raise announce to the world that you have caught the flush. In my opinion, this is the more important point here, rather then the nuances of the odds calculation.
Walleye, This is a question that reflects inexperience and the need for more technical study on your part. If you play no-foldem holdem and the game sounds like this type you will be constantly faced with situations of this type. If you haven't read Sklansky's "Theory of Poker" and "Holdem Poker" , then you need to do so immediately, especially if you desire to be even moderately successful at this game. That is my "advice on this hand".
Vince BTW isn't a "Walleye" a fish? Is that how you think of yourself? You must know that poker players use the word "fish" as a less than favorable description of poor poker players. Just a thought!
Yes a walleye is a fish, I am a tournament fisherman, and I use walleye for my Cyber name, It has no reflection on my Poker skills or whatever your opinion, If your name was Dick, would anybody consider you a penis? I dont mean to be rude ,just making a point.
I have read Sklansky's Holdem Poker But yet to have read Theory of Poker. I plan on buying the book.
The reason I made this post is to further my knowlege of the game of poker. I thought about this hand for sevral hours after the hand took place, because I know I played it wrong because when the 4d fell on the river it was checked I bet and had only 1 caller. Which had the Qd and 2d. If I had raised on the flop and the turn maybe I could have squeezed a few more bets out, but in this case I did not, and maybe lost money I could have had,who knows. But I did score a nice pot and made my night on the plus side. I do appreiciate the advice, but I really wanted to know was the opinion of some of the other players, I think I did learn from this post.
Thanks Walleye
"I am a tournament fisherman,"
o.k. This makes sense.
"It has no reflection on my Poker skills "
O.k. This is good to know.
"would anybody consider you a penis"
The word they use to descibe me is the vulgar form of penis!
BTW I stand by the poker advice I gave you in my response!
Vince(Formerly "BAD" Concept)(Now Dick the P....) Lepore
Given the "shoot-em-up" nature of the hand, it sounds like you would get some action on the river if you hit your nut flush. This is important because IMO this draw is not as good as it first looks. You are up against 2 made straights, and probably a smaller flush draw, and probably a set, or at worst 2 pair. In a standard textbook case, you have 46 unseen cards, of which 9 make you a straight, and the 3 non-diamond Queens get you a share of a split pot. (Roughly the 1 in 5 ratio you mentioned)
But realistically, you could hit a 9d or Td and lose to a full house, or the Qd and lose to a straight flush. And since its very likely 2 diamonds are held by a small flush draw, worst-case you may have as few as 4 diamonds and 1 queen, as winners out of 39 unknown cards. Now this is only a 1 in 8 win ratio, not good enough.
But on average, this is a marginally profitable situation.
One point is that, rather then simply be a calling station on the flop and Turn, had you been one of the raisers, you would now be able to raise on the River if one of your cards come, without immediately having your raise announce to the world that you have caught the flush. In my opinion, this is the more important point here, rather then the nuances of the odds calculation.
Reading hands in my estimation is the single most important skill in poker.
I do not bother keeping a notebook. I don't know. Perhaps I ought to give it a try and see if it helps. But to be sure, I keep a mental notebook. Here are some of the things that I look for (in no particular order of importance. I have listed them here just in the order that I thought of them):
1. Does this player bet on the flop from an early position when he hits trips (i.e. there is an exposed pair on the flop) or does he always look for a checkraise. I absolutely love the players who always try for the checkraise here. This is because once they bet, you know they don't have trips and you can use that knowledge to not only outplay that player but also other players involved in the hand who do not have the same read on that player. In a recent post, I gave an example of a hand in which I was able to use this tell to my advantage. I will not repeat it here.
2. Does this player always wait until the turn before he raises with a set. Again, this is valuable information. Let's say I have KQ in an unraised pot and the flop comes K,8,5. I bet, a couple of guys fold and this player raises. Well, I know I have got him cold. I can now play the hand in various ways to maximize my profit.
3. There are some players who will not raise pre-flop with Pocket Aces. That's pretty useful info when they do raise pre-flop.
4. There are some players who will always make it three bets before the flop with Pocket Queens, Kings or Aces but never make it three bets with Big Slick. If I am holding a hand like pocket Jacks, the best flop for me (other than hitting a Jack) is Axx. I will checkraise the flop here. The three bettor's chances of having Pocket Kings or Queens are 4 times as great as his chances of having pocket Aces. Plus, this is the type of player who will be willing to lay down his pocket Kings or Queens once I bet again on the turn. Against this type of player, I am definitely mucking on the flop unless it has a Jack or unless it is Axx.
5. Does the player understand position i.e. position not just as it relates to where the button is but positional play as in where he is seated in relation to the likely bettor on that round of betting.
6. Does the player only bet on the end when he has either a monster or is bluffing.
7. Does the player raise a lot on the flop in order to buy free cards. If so, one adjustment you must make is to bet into him again on the turn.
8. What hands does the player raise with from the blinds? Is it restricted to the premium pocket pairs or does he occasionally jack it up with pocket 5's or something in a multiway pot.
9. How does the player play AK on the flop when he gets no help. Some guys always raise. Some guys never bet if there are more than 4 or 5 players in the pot.
10. There are some players who will never play small cards or a small pocket pair up front. So, if the flop comes with three extremely low cards and this fellow bets, you can probably put him on a medium pocket pair i.e. 7s, 8s, 9s. A call with a marginal hand like QJ or J,10 can be worth it.
11. Is this player capable of making a move on you. If so, it might be advisable to check behind him on the turn if you have say AK and the board is something like 10,7,7,3. Be prepared to call his bet on the river. Conversely, against a tight player who is unlikely to raise you on the turn unless he really has a 7 (which in itself is unlikely because he is tight), it might be better to bet again on the turn.
12.
Well, I'll add more as I think of them. I hope others will comment on the above and add their own.
Thanks to all I appreciate these comments. Keep 'em coming!
Skp; This is quite a span of control problem with all the inter-reactions betweem players. How do you generlize each player for future use? Since people are usually consistent in their comfort zone; How, do you adjust for stress? How do you adjust for the fight or flight?
I have been toying with these problems utilizing matrix sets and Monte Carlo to develop rules of engaugement. These rules work at one session but the table composition at the next session with the same individual yields different results.
Any insights would be helpful.
Major, you will have to pardon me for not responding, but I really am not sure what it is you are asking here. Please rephrase.
SKP; Thank you for asking the question, I appreciate questions that make me re-think how I am expressing myself; because if I can't frame the question properly to be understood by others I probably won't/can't reach the proper ans.
When I sort it out I'll re-post under Fuzzy Logic.
Maj.
5-10 game which is fairly tight but agressive. I have been sitting quietly for an hour, and am from out of town (regulars have no idea who I am). Finally have KJ 2-off the button. 2 early callers, I call, players between me and the SB fold. SB and BB check. Flop is Qxx rainbow. All 4 players check. Should I bet in this situation? I had seen a check raise a couple of times earlier, but by none of these players. I hesitated, then checked, and folded to a bet on the turn when another small card came out. Given my position, and the fact I had been very quiet, I think I made the wrong play. A bet may have gotten me, even though possibly second best, at least heads up against one of the other players with good position.
Any advice for the rookie (me)?
For what it's worth I picked up a nice pot shortly thereafter with AQ playing much more agressively in late position to a similar flop (Qxx).
For what its worth, I don't think you were. Now if you were in early position with say K,Js and that same thing had happened and it was Checked to you on 4th St. I'd think taking a Shot at it would be a good play. But since someone hit the Launch Button before you could you are now forced to fold your hand.
CV
In respones to bluffing on the turn. When you check on the flop and bet on the turn it is a very weak play. Most good players will see this as a bluff and pick you off with a call or a raise. When you check on the flop you are saying you don,t have a Q If you had a Q you would not give a free card. When you bet on the turn I would take the pot away from you . My only worry is that you where slow playing a monster or hit a set on the turn. Remember you have to think about what the other players think you have. When you bet the turn I would think you are bluffing.
"If you had a Q you would not give a free card."
Have you heard of the "Check-Raise". Also, most players that I play agaist see me as Tight, Agressive, and not too Imaginative (just how I like it) so Stealing in this situation is profitable for me. I would be happy to see you try to take the Pot away from me in this situation. I'd most likely show you a Queen with a High Kicker. Smiling as I rake in the Pot.
CV
Most players don,t check raise as much as they sould, me included. If you check raise a lot and have this image it will work to bluff on the turn, but most player don,t. Before a player makes this move he needs to know what his image is and this is what poker is about, thinking what the other players have and thinking what they think you have.
I still think a new player should try this play, when the timing is right, even if they are still struggling with the concept of Poker Psychology. By getting out there and trying these plays they will be helping themselves understand how people think at the Poker Table.
I think the first time I used this play, I was in a 4-8 game, knew the table was tighter than normal, and the Flop and Turn action was perfect. I think I was able to Steel two times before I was caught, and then I didn't try it again for a while. By trying I was able to learn more about my game.
CV
Last time tried a "check-raise" from dead-last position (which, regrettably was not that long ago) I called it a "check-DOH".
If everybody checks a Q high board it is safe to assume that the last player does NOT have KQ. If an assertive such player bets on the turn after a nothing card comes, this player will routinely have no better than 2nd pair, usually worse, and is therefore subject to check-raise bluffs from players known to be willing to attempt a second check-raise when the first one failed; or check-and-calls/raises from non-brain-dead types with any pair.
Yes, MAYBE they made trip 6's or 6s&4s ...
- Louie
.
Kevin,
I would have raised pre-flop hopefully knocking out the blinds.
Tom Haley
Perhaps, but I am new and trying to play as close to L.Jones and Sklansky Hold'Em as possible (ie. not too fancy). With 2 callers in early position, and me not really capable of putting them on a hand (new table, I'm a new player with not much experience at that), I figured a call was the right play. With more experience, knowledge of the table, perhaps a raise may have been correct.
Kevin,
IMO a raise is consistent with HFAP strategy. No better time to get the experience than the present. The other players don't know you either and a raise like this can be right for more than one reason.
Tom Haley
Kevin, Ask yourself why you didn't bet and try and pick up the pot! If the answer is because you were afraid then my advice is to force yourself to make the bet the next time you are in a similar situation! I read in your other response that you were trying to follow Jones and Sklansky as close as possible. Remember that Sklansky recommends a tight but AGGRESSIVE strategy. Your post indicated that you waited for the right situation to enter a pot (Tight play) and the other players probably made you as a tight player. A raise (Aggressive Play) coming in may have won you the pot on it's own. If nothing else a bet (Aggressive Play) on the flop gets you information and maybe the pot! Don't be afraid of getting check raised! Get used to it! It happens all the time!
Vince
I would raise with the marginal KJ if all the callers are aggressive and the 1st is not tricky; meaning I was confident they did not have a hand higher ranked than mine. However, 2 early conservative callers usually indicates KJ is dead meat. Consider folding.
Anyhow ... the best time to routinely out-right bluff is in a pot when no-one has indicated any strength, you have a tight image, there is a Q or J high raggedy board, you are in late position and aggressive opponents have checked. The next best is when you are in the blinds and everybody checked the previous round. If you had a flush-draw, this situation would be SCREAMING for a semi-bluff.
Players check A/K pair with bad kickers much more often than they check Q/J pair with bad kickers, and rightfully so. Also, blinds often check-and-call/raise with a single pair with all point cards on the flop, and rightfully so; figuring that tight callers did not make a pair but may bet anyway. Thus, Q/J high boards make for great bluffs.
You are getting 5:1 for your outright bluff, and if called you can still win. If you wait until this bluff PROBABLY will succeeed you are not bluffing nearly enough. So what if the blinds check-raise once in a while? So what if you lose a single bet once in a while?
Try focusing on the 5 bets you can win more than the 1 bet you can lose.
- Louie
>>Also, blinds often check-and-call/raise with a single pair with all point cards on the flop, and rightfully so; figuring that tight callers did not make a pair but may bet anyway.<<
Point cards? Please define. Thanks.
Non Ace, Non Face cards; 2-10. I think I got if from Craps lingo.
-
I have KK and raise on the button, 3 callers. Flop comes A,2,4 rainbo. Check to me, bet, only UTG player calls. Turn is 3 rainbo. UTG checks. I checked with the idea of inducing a bluff. River is a blank. UTG checks I bet, he calls, I win. I don't know what UTG had.
Is this a reasonable application of the inducing a bluff idea? I would have called any bet on the river. I perhaps gained the extra call on the river and there were not too many cards that could have hurt me.
Any thoughts on this hand?
David
David,
I would not have induced a bluff in this situation.
The reason is that the UTG player didn't bet, or check-raise on the flop. Now it's very likely that he didn't hit the ace and since he is under the gun it's very unlikely that he has a 5 in his hand. It's a rare player who would check-call on the flop if he hit the ace in this situation. (Remember, he entered the pot UTG, which means that if he hit the ace, his kicker is probably quite good.)
So, on the turn it is very likely that your hand is best. Giving a free card in this situation can be very costly if your opponent hits a miracle card. Remember, when you have the best hand you don't want to give any free cards. Save the inducing of a bluff to a hand when the risk is bigger that your opponent has a big hand.
He would probably have called you on both the turn and river with his pair of 8's or something like that.
Sincerely,
Emil
Emil,
I thought David played the hand well although I wished I knew more about UTG's playing style. Where I play (mostly Los Angeles County), many players play a weak ace up front and tend to check-call against the late position raiser.
I agree that UTG could also have the middle pair you described. In this case, betting the turn and river is indicated. However, Dadid didn't know this when it was checked to him on the turn. If the UTG player is both loose and a bit tricky, David's check on the turm seems an appropriate application of inducing a bluff, since he is either beat at this point or UTG is drawing slim (about 22 to 1 to hit his middle set). Clearly checking the turn makes it much more likely that UTG will come out betting his middle pair or call with it on the river.
UTG could also be an extremely loose caller and be in there with a hand like KQ, QJ or KJ (especially if his cards are suited so he has a chance to catch runner-runner for a flush). Since the turn was a rainbow, UTG has no outs and the check on the turn makes it much more likely he will call the river or perhaps make a hopeless bluff. Anyway, my experience is that this type of player will often make the call on the "cheap street" and lay down against a bet on the turn. Therefore, I like David's play in the absence of more information.
Regards,
Rick
I disagree with much of this post. Here are my comments.
"The reason is that the UTG player didn't bet, or check-raise on the flop. Now it's very likely that he didn't hit the ace and since he is under the gun it's very unlikely that he has a 5 in his hand. It's a rare player who would check-call on the flop if he hit the ace in this situation. (Remember, he entered the pot UTG, which means that if he hit the ace, his kicker is probably quite good.) So, on the turn it is very likely that your hand is best."
Why can't he have an ace? See below.
"Giving a free card in this situation can be very costly if your opponent hits a miracle card."
The best time to check on the turn is when you are not sure that your hand is good, but if it is the best giving a free card is not likely to hurt you. Given your above argument isn't this the case?
"Remember, when you have the best hand you don't want to give any free cards."
But you are not completely sure that you have the best hand. Can't your opponent have something like AJ or AT which he is afraid is bet.
"Save the inducing of a bluff to a hand when the risk is bigger that your opponent has a big hand."
I think there is more here than just inducing a bluff. If you do have the best hand you have created doubt in your opponent's mind by checking.
"He would probably have called you on both the turn and river with his pair of 8's or something like that."
I don't know if this is true. He may have folded on the turn, but your check confused him. Furthermore if he calls on the turn, being afraid of an ace are you going to bet again on the river?
There are many ways to play this hand, and you should play it many ways in order to mix up your play. The way you played it sounds fine... It's probably not optimal, as I don't like giving a free card away when I probably have the best hand, but you've got to do stuff like this once in a while to keep people from stealing against you, and this looks like a pretty good situation for it.
Dan
David, you better listen to Mason Malmuth on this one. I will only add one thing I believe that you should have shown down your hand on the river (not bet).
IMO Vince
That I don't agree with. If it's checked out on the turn, I'd bet my kings for value. As Mason pointed out, one of the values you gain from checking is to induce doubt in your opponent's mind about your hand. Take advantage of it!
BTW, I think one of the most common weaknesses in otherwise good player's games is failing to bet enough hands for value on the river.
Dan
Vince, assuming that I do not know anything about UTG's playing style, I agree with David's play of the hand in its entirety.
I too would bet for value at the end. It's a rare player who will check twice with a hand better than pocket kings. Furthermore, it's a rare player who will fold even a pair of deuces at the end because David's check on the turn will naturally arouse some suspicion in UTG's mind that David may be bluffing.
The situation is tailor made for a value bet.
I agree here. I too would typically check the turn. Either I am losing on the turn or I set up a value bet on the river. There are very few hands that would call the flop and bluff the river. Most smaller pairs will check call.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
albert
A poker game is a group dynamic. Of course there are always players sitting in their shell blindly throwing chips away, but there are many other players who will play loose when the table is laughing and everying is 'gambling', but will tighten up when things go the other way.
Another thing a lot of bad players will do is play better when there are players they respect at the table. They don't want to show these guys bad hands. So, a player who trys to impress everyone with his skill winds up killing his own action.
Dan
> Andrew Wells has written
> Put up a $100,000 prize, and I'll put some serious effort into designing
> a hold'em program that I can't beat.
There is a group of folks offering a $100,000 prize when you write a Hold'em program you can't beat.
They're a bit fussy about programming style.
They will only award the prize if you write your program as an expert system and not a neural net.
They don't like to see big look up tables or lots of arithmetic they can't do in their heads.
They like to see hundreds and hundreds of They like to see some of the rules fire randomly.
You'll find this group when you finish your program.
An interesting proposition, but one that appears to be loaded against anyone who tries. The key clause is "They don't like to see big look up tables or lots of arithmetic they can't do in their heads". Well, that's what computers do, it's the only advantage they have. It's important to remember that no computer can do ANYTHING which you couldn't do yourself with a pencil and paper PROVIDED YOU HAVE ENOUGH TIME (ie potentially millions of years). I expect you already know this but it was a point I wanted to make.
Another is that, for practical purposes, it is not as useful to have a program that plays "well" as one that plays at the same level as the opponents you face in real life. If some of your opponents play badly, then to simulate the live environment some of your computer players must play badly in the same way if you want to perform useful strategy experiments. This is a point that a lot of people seem to miss.
Andy.
*Big look-up tables* are the practical method of coding the pre-flop decision making process. However, post-flop decisions are better handled through the heuristic approach. Thus I would have hundreds of routines to handle specific situations like: Two-flush board with pair; using variables like position relative to button, number of opponents, their matrix of hand potentials (updated through a seive from the betting action - modified from past performance tracking).
Orleans Monday Night NL Holdem Tournament. Situation 3 tables remaining. Stack $850. Blinds $200-400. Position 6. Pass to me. Hand 8,8. Action. Raise all in! 7 position reraises. Hand A,A. Me: Knocked out of tournament. Question was my play correct? What if I knew this player was relatively weak and saw him reaching for his chips to raise before I made my raise! Then, what is my play?
Vince (Learning NL Holdem) Lepore
Vince,
Did you have a read from this player reaching for his chips? It usually is a sign of weakness rather than strength being represented. I like the all in raise here, but it is too bad that your stack was so short you were almost guaranteed a call from someone. 88 is a good hand from middle or late position to try to get the blinds and antes. I would certainly take it up against three or four random hands where they have to look and determine whether to call your all in bet or not. Keep on trying with the NL tourneys, you'll get there one of these times.
Your play, in general, is fine here.
However, if you see someone behind you who wants to play, I'd fold here. With 88, there are only 3 hands that someone else might compete against you with. They can have an overpair, an underpair, or 2 overcards. Because some people won't play hands like 22, 33, etc. unless they can get in cheap and try to flop a set, among the pair hands I'd rate an overpair as more likely than an underpair. Two overcards is the most likely hand for this guy to be holding. If he's a weak player, he is going to play any hand that he thinks is worth playing whether someone has already come in or not. Thus, the steal portion of your all-in bet is not going to work, and there's little chance that you're a big favorite here, so I'd wait and hope for a better opportunity in the next couple of hands. While 50:50 opportunities must often be pursued, I think that you're a little worse off than that here.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
All of this is based on assumptions. If he would play any pair and that is usually the case with a weak player, You must go in. You are being given 1.7 to 1 odds on the money. You are even money if he has any pair and you are a favorite if he does not have a pair. Plus the blinds are going to eat you up unless you win soon in a few hands and its hard to imagine a better spot. If he would not grab for his chips without a big hand then it gets closer to folding here. If you were sure he would not grab his chips without a big pair then surely you would fold. It all goes back to reading players as the most important thing in poker. Good Luck.
One thing the other players didn't mention is that the number of players at your table is a more crucial element than the number of tables remaining. At a full-handed table, 8-8 is ... well ... a middling hand. Short-handed, I'd go all-in from any position.
The excerpt from _Pokerfarce_ made me think about how silly poker analogies abound. There are these apochryphal stories of poker-playing generals who use their poker skills at war. Good poker players don't make good generals any more than good generals make good poker players.
That may be true no-a-days but in the days when personality made a difference in battles ...
Poker is truely a conflict of opponents and "strategy" is needed to beat the opponent; relying on "tactics" to play the cards is inadequate. As was war.
Except for Fredericksburge, all of Lee's victories were due to his defeat of the OPPONENT general, and certainly NOT due to the inferior tactics he used with his army against the enemy army. He knew if he adopted these bad tactics against Grant, who he could not defeat, his army would have been crushed.
- Louie
20/40 Hold'em.
I am in the big blind. A fairly new player sits on the button (he's only been at the table for 10 minutes and played two hands, but not all the way through). I am not familiar with him, although this is not that unusual since I have not been playing much lateley. Everybody folds to the button. The button raises. The small blind folds. I find I have AQ, unsuited. I figured there's a high chance the guy is raising to steal. I just call (thinking back, I probably should raise in this case, what do you think?).
Anyway, the flop is 835, unsuited. I check, he bets. And here, I think is an ok opportunity to do a semi-bluff check raise. However, that would make me have to lead the next two rounds, assuming I want to carry the semi-bluff through. So I decide to wait for the turn to check-raise. What do you think of this decision - provided the decision to semi-bluff has already been made?
The turn comes a 9. I check, the button bets, I raise. He pauses for three seconds and calls. So I figure maybe he has two high cards (since he called) or a pair. With a pair, he'll call on the river, but with two high cards, he'll probably fold. It seems at least 50/50 for him to have two high cards, maybe even a small favorite.
The river is another non-threatening card ... another 3...the board is 83593...no three flush.
I bet, he calls.
He shows down QQ.
My questions are : What would you have done differently? If you had done anything differently, do you think it would have made much of a theoretical difference versus how I played it? and lastly, but more importantly ... was this an example of Fancy Play Syndrome or the right use of it?
Everything below is predicated on the assumption that you are not considering folding at any time. I have assumed that you have decided to play this hand through.
Play Pre-flop
I would generally reraise a late position raiser with AQ in the BB. Calling puts me in a guessing position when he makes the inevitable bet on the flop. By reraising pre-flop and taking the lead on the flop, I put him in a guessing position.
Play on the Flop
I would often bet on the flop (particularly against a player I don't know and one who doesn't know me). It's a cheaper way to find out where he is at instead of checkraising. Of course, a bet ain't going to work against a tough player who might be able to figure out what I am doing (But if I am up against a known tough player, I would definitely not just call preflop, I would reraise for sure).
Play on the Turn
A checkraise bluff on the turn is of course something one has to do now and then in a tough game. But I don't think it is necessary here against a late position raiser who has just joined the game. A checkraise bluff will be the play of choice only if he has AK or an underpair like pocket fours or something. Would a new player who does not yet have a feel for the game bet AK or an underpair on the turn?
Once again, I believe that a cheaper way to find out where he is at might be to bet.
Play on the River
Having made the checkraise bluff on the turn, you naturally must (in the majority of cases) follow through with a bet on the end. The pot is now too big for you to give up on your bluff.
Were you exhibiting Fancy Play Syndrome...maybe...no biggie unless you have a tendency to do it excessively.
skp, thanks for your input. I have one comment.
skp wrote:
"Would a new player who does not yet have a feel for the game bet AK or an underpair on the turn? "
I think so. Especially when shown no raises yet. Maybe I'm too aggressive, but generally I would bet on the turn with AK, hoping for a fold. Sure, a raise is possible, but with AK, if I bet, and I get check raised, I would fold.
T.P., I too would generally bet AK on the turn. If I check, I will generally be prepared to call a bet on the river.
You lost the hand because you chose to play it safe/weak. This allowed the other player to suck out on you on the river. I would have folded on the flop/preflop or raised and reraised till the fat lady sang as they say. But hey, I'm a nut case some days and other days, just a good ol' rock. I've heard that is why it is dangerous to play against me. Win some/lose some. Get back in the game and you'll get em next time pardner. Doc-
Playing over cards out of position heads up into a raiser seems to be over the long haul a losing proposition. Why not give it up on the flop?
20/40 Hold'em.
Different table than the first question. I got moved to the main game, and I have been there for half an hour. For the first 20 minutes, I just fold every hand. Then in the last five hands, I raise and collect the blind on three of them, in varying positions.
Then comes the hand in question.
I get KQ unsuited, in the 6th seat. 3 through 5 fold, I raise. 7 and 8 folds. The button calls (this is 9 handed). In the last hour, the button has played very judiciously, been in few hands, and winning the one or two hands he's been in. I was surprised he just called, versus raising since he is on the button. So I put him on two high cards or AA/KK, trying to trap me. The big blind (loose player) calls also.
The flop is 8Q3 rainbow. I have top pair with a good kicker. Big blind checks, I bet, the button raises. Big blind folds. I call. I thought about raising, but with this particular opponent, I thought a raise was indicating, possibly, that he was indeed trapping me by just calling pre-flop. Anyway, there didn't seem to be too much danger, I was either beat by a good margin, or I was ahead by a good margin. If he was bluffing, I'd let him bet, and I would call him down (versus raising and getting him out). If he had the goods, I didn't want to put in more chips.
The turn is a 2 of Hearts, making it two hearts on the table. I check, waiting for him to bet so I can call. He does bet, and I call.
The turn is a 7 of hearts. Three hearts on the board, although i wasn't particularly worried about a flush. I check again, following my strategy of letting him bet. He does, and I call.
He turns over 89 of hearts. This shocked me. Not only was it surprising that he would call with that hand preflop, when no one else had called in front of him, but also that he had made the check raise on the flop.
I thought about it....and figured that maybe he was trying to put a play on me, since he had seen me raise 3 out of 5 hands and collect the blinds. He probably figured me for a too-aggressive player. That would explain the raise on the flop (and maybe he called preflop with the strategy to raise on the flop). The turn gave him a good draw, and a bet is called for at that time, with middle pair and a flush draw.
At first glance this seemed to be a show of Fancy Play Syndrome, but now I'm not so sure.....maybe it was good play by him after all. What do you think?
Nothing fancy there. Just good play by both players. The button was a bit luckier that's all.
The button raised on the flop with his one pair. You just called (I don't blame you there given your thinking of what this fellow likely had).
On the turn, the button has now put you on 2 high cards and therefore was quite correct in betting again to avoid giving you a free card. Once again, I don't blame you for using a check-call startegy here. As you say, he's either hanging himself or he's already got you beat. Had the flop been two-suited, I would have suggested that you bet on the turn.
Then of course he hit on the river. C'est la vie.
T.P.,
You are thinking and playing well throughout the hand although there are some alternatives that are close (anyway, this isn't the point of my post). Your concern about a player wanting to check you out or trap you because of your recent play is valid in my experience ***.
However, the hand he chose to make a stand with (98s) is not the type of hand he should play against a single aggressive raiser who may not have much and probably a blind since he just called. Note that at this point this is probably how he perceives you. His hand should have been mucked before the flop. Much better for him is a hand like AT offsuit (which in many situations is considered weaker but not this one). In addition, he should reraise pre flop if he thinks he can get one on one with you.
Regards,
Rick
*** Sometimes you get the opposite situation. Let's say you have been winning but have been sitting on your chips for a while and your opponents are observant. If a folder is in the big blind and the game is not too loose (or the loose have now folded), consider a raise from the middle with a hand that normally would hit the muck like A9 offsuit. You really just want to steal the blinds (and you should more than you would normally). However, watch out if someone behind you calls or re-raises.
I thought that I would make a general comment about FPS. If you make these plays, and don't do it too often, what are you costing yourself? At worse, only a theorectical fraction of a bet.
In fact, by only doing it occasionally and in the right spots, you may be adding to your long term win. Furthermore, if you couple it with a good effort to read hands and thus really do a good job of picking your spots, these plays will deffinitely add to your bottom line.
What you notice is that when they fail, they may cost you two or three bets. But you may be forgetting is that when they work you may win a big pot that you don't deserve.
Addressing this play specifically, your opponent's call with the 9h8h was wrong before the flop. But who says you have to have a queen in your hand. His hand of middle pair (on the flop) can easily be the best hand. Thus his raise. One of the reasons to make this raise is to try to find out if middle pair is any good, and if it is, he wants to bet again on the turn so that you will fold your two overcards (to his pair.)
It seems to me the consensus is the following:
My play, for the most part was ok.
My opponents call on the flop was incorrect. My opponents raise on the flop is at least neutral, to maybe slightly good. My opponents bet on the turn is good.
I would agree with this. Thanks for any comments.
Yes, well-enough or good play on your part. Checking and calling is good vrs an aggressive opponent who thinks you have little. Unfortunately, this wasn't usually an aggressive opponent; but MAY be for this hand against you considering your previous steals. Consider check-raising on the turn and encourage a lesser hand to fold; since a reraise by the opponent is extremely unlikely; 3-8's being about the only hand he could do that with.
Opponent's call B4 flop marginal; better to have reraised. You gotta do this once in a while against the stealing maniac. :) 2nd pair on that flop is a big favorite against the maniac who is sure to bet no matter what, but not strong enough to slow play. Raise on the flop mandatory; MUCH better than just calling ("please beat my pair"). Bet on the turn routine after picking up the draw with what may be the best hand anyway.
- Louie
How many times per hour do you make such a fancy play? I would guess about 1 play every 2 or 3 hours on average. Am I anywhere close?
"Then in the last five hands, I raise and collect the blind on three of them, in varying positions." This is probably why he decided to challenge you with this hand. Plus the fact that he had the button.
"So I put him on two high cards or AA/KK, trying to trap me."
You began convincing yourself that you were beat!
"I bet, the button raises. Big blind folds. I call. I thought about raising, but with this particular opponent, I thought a raise was indicating, possibly, that he was indeed trapping me by just calling pre-flop."
Now you have just about convinced yourself that he has you beat and you it negatively influences your play! He may have folded here had you raised. He probably put you on A,K and raised to find out! Put yourself in his place, When you don't come back at him what does he think you have. Obviously something that can't beat Queens. An he has second pair.
On the turn he picks up a flush draw on the turn. He is now less afraid of a check raise because he has increased his outs so he bets to prevent you from getting a free card (He may believe you have A,K and will fold om the turn). You just call. If he doesn't improve on the river he most certainly will check behind you. The way you've played this hand it's a pretty good bet that you won't bet the river no matter what!
Fancy Play Syndrome! Hardly! You miss read your opponent and it caused you to flinch!.
The problem you had with this hand was that you failed to be aggressive when you needed to be! On the flop! If you reraise and he calls he wins money on this hand but will lose money in the long run to you in these situations. Your play is to reraise the flop and bet the turn and river even if a small heart comes (although the river bet when a heart comes is a toss up and other factors need to be considered, like what happens on the turn when you bet). Just remember: Fear is the poker players worst enemy and best friend!
IMO Vince
The live ones may not pay attention to things that would help their play, but they most definitely do care what the other players are doing. If they can't have a good time, they'll go elsewhere. If the table is like a morgue, they won't be able to have any fun.
Action players give action to players that give some back. They may give more action than is warranted to the rocks, but they won't give them anywhere near as much action as they would to someone that was "participating" in the game and discussions.
>Action players give action to players that give some back
I just don't see that. I see the "action players" being oblivious to this. Nor do I see any sort of "fear" of being ridiculed for playing "bad cards". Quite the contrary, it seems that these guys know that they are playing poor starting hands but get their jollies from beating big cards with their 5-2 offsuit.
Naturally, your mileage may vary...
Chris,
On Monday in this thread you said: "I don't think the "live one" is going to notice nor care what the other players are doing... ". In this post you have a similar observation.
I couldn't disagree more. Even if the "live one" or any sort of lessor skilled player doesn't immediately notice that he is playing differently, or that he is swimming among bigger fish, it eventually becomes apparant for most of them. Their game usually improves faster than it would if opponents used thoughtful table politics.
Another classic example of horrible things many players do (besides criticism of opponents - a capital crime in my opinion) is to show their good laydowns or be careless about exposing the hands they throw away before the flop (especially Ax offsuit). When I point out (away from the table) that they are giving free lessons to players WHO HAVE NOT ASKED FOR THEM, I often get responses such as "these players never learn anyway so what is the big deal" and so on. I assume your answer would be along these lines based on your posts.
In my experience, these players do learn to varying extents. It just takes more time for them than it does the studious and serious types. And this costs us all money.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Try my "Table Politics Quiz" posted today. I'm curious about how you would answer.
>On Monday in this thread you said: "I don't think the "live one" is going to notice nor care what the other players are doing... ". In this post you have a similar observation.
Sorry, next time I'll try to be less consistent! (grin)
I'm angry at Mason's comment on a recent post - "It takes too long to explain here, but in poker it is important not to let recreational players get the idea that there is more to this game than it appears ..." Mason, I take great exception to this. I happen to be a recreational player and have a very high batting average at the hold em tables. I'm a PhD economist who holds a steady job, and I even coach high school hockey in the wintertime. Obviously these posts are directed toward "professional" players so I suppose that I shouldn't be upset. I'd just like to make one comment - From what I've seen, as a group, most professional hold em players or wanttobe professionals are the most pathetic unhappy bunch of people I have come across in a long time. I'll let you in on a secret. There are very few people who can make a living at this game and 99 percent of the people who buy your books are recreational players. I wouldn't be so quick to insult them.
Merle,
I'm sure Mason will quickly clarify his post himself but I believe what he meant when he said "recreational players" is the type of player who does not take the game seriously and is just there to gamble. I don't think it has much to do as to whether or not a player is a part time or professional player (although a full time player can at least be counted on to be trying most of the time).
There are part time players who study and think about the game in a serious manner and it shows in their results. There are many so called professionals who never work on their craft away from the table. In my experience, these types are the ones who go broke and are often the miserable people you describe.
You also said: "Obviously these posts are directed toward "professional" players so I suppose that I shouldn't be upset."
If you look closely, many of the top posters on this forum are what I would call serious part time players with decent jobs, a business, or a career outside of poker. They just take their "hobby" seriously just as some people always strive to improve their golf game while others are content to goof around on the course and be happy if they break a hundred once in a while.
Perhaps a better word(s) than "recreational player" would be "casual, gambling type player" but I'm sure Mason and the rest of us are open to suggestions as to the most appropriate and politically correct term.
Regards,
Rick
"Recreational" and "Professional" refer to ATTITUDE not VOCATION.
If so, Mr. Malmuth is quite correct. Table talk that helps a "professional" figure something out is not nearly as detrimental as table talk that convinces a "recreationite" that such things CAN be figured out. The latter mistake often removes one contributor from the poker world forever; and that's -EV table talk.
- Louie
PS. I think you confuse "pathetic and unhappy" with "crotchety". :)
Post deleted at author's request.
Thanks Rick and Louie,
Mason,
I'm glad to see that you and Gary Carson have made up. His posts really are insightful. I guess the term "fish" or "sucker" might be better than "recreational player".
Gary,
You can't fool me. I know your a professional player. I just hope you show some mercy on me if I get into a game with you.
merle-
Stop whining about what Mason thinks about you and just take his free advice. Where do they confer a Phd in economics to people who don't know the difference between "your" (the posessive form of you) and you're (a contraction for you are, as in "you are a professional.")?
Dear Grammarpolice,
Probably conferred at the same place where they spell "possessive" as "posessive."
Merle,
Maybe he should have put it this way,
"It takes too long to explain here, but in poker it is important not to let unskilled and non-thinking players get the idea that there is more to this game than it appears ..."
This seems like nothing more than arguably a poor choice of words.
Tom Haley
If you and I were better at tells we would have known this was not going to be a rational thread. So much for empathizing with the other's reality.
Perhaps I shouldn't be so pathetic and unhappy. ... Naaaa.
- Louie
What Mason really meant was is that you don't want to tell a player at the table he's a lousy player and don't come back until he's read a book or two on how to play poker. As in, don't give the other players any ideas on how to play better.
S&M have stated that you make most of your money from other people's misstakes. So Merle, since you've read a few books on poker you're not one of the people Mason is talking about. Most poker players don't read and study poker on a regular basis and this is where you make your money.
Merle Baby, Way to go! Let'm have it! Don't sugar coat it! Let'm know how you feel! Are you sure your PHD isn't in Behavioral Sciences! The reason I (High School Grad. Everett MA. Class of '64, 1299th out of 1300)ask is that I fit your description perfectly: "wanttobe professionals are the most pathetic unhappy bunch of people". If you had only contributed this post last November I wouldn't have quit my job and moved to Vegas. That's me "patehtic" to the end!
Thanks for letting Mason Have It! BTW is wanttobe really one word! Or is it wannabee! Confusing, I must say!
Vince
Vince,
I knew you were a city kid from your posts. I'm from Gloucester (Class of '67) so I'm sort of a wiseass myself. We just beat you in hockey last thursday 3-2. Everett's not bad but Arlington still dominates the GBL just like they did when we were in school. At least your in Vegas and not hanging around Foxwoods with Myron and the other wantobes. BTW if you ever play with Danny Conte, a Gloucester boy who's out there rubbing shoulders with the rich and pathetic, be careful, he plays nothing but AA,KK.
Myron is NO wannabee. He's just like Gnish in Rounders.
I'm a recreational player. I play once a week. Three years ago I was playing at the Taj and had just busted out of a game. The local hotshots, the kind of players who think they have a license to take your money, made a snide remark under their breath as I was leaving. I was able to make out the comment. They called me a "fish". I had no idea what this meant but it didn't sound good. I soon found out. Needless to say I wasn't happy. I began to religously study poker. I still play once a week but these same players cringe when I sit at the table Danny H
Perhaps they cringe because you still SMELL like that fish that died 3 years ago.
But seriously, this is an excellent example of -EV table talk.
They appologize. Now you can be a fish again. :)
- Louie
Merle,
Isn't it ironic that you protest how offended you are by Mason's possible insult, and then you turn around and lambaste the pros and wannabees, even mentioning one of these players by name in your follow-up post, someone that any Hold'Em regular at Foxwoods knows?
I'm not a regular at Foxwoods, but you're right, and I do apologize if I offended anybody. At least I didn't mention you, Ray, and you're ten times the player any of those people are. Not kidding! I never lambasted the pros or wannabees but simply made an observation that by and large they don't seem to be to happy in their work and few of them are able to sustain a living.
Just looking at Mason's comment out of it's original context, I would have to disagree. Recreatioanl players, who have no knowledge of poker, beyond the basics are the reason, poker rooms in Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan have become cash cows for riverboats. I wish some of those players would "wise-up", to at least consider the impact of the rake, not to mention some of the strange structures, and games that are being spread. The lack of informed, knowledgable players, has resulted in a situation, where a "pro", finds the rooms are not being run, in manner conducive to earning money.
I'm happy.
Why do other people have to defend Mr. Malmuth? How come he doesn't answer himself? Actually, I didn't think twice about his statement, it seemed fairly neutral to me, and I read it as most people did. Still, you would think if you ran this group and wrote these books, that you would be quick to respond to someone who was bitching about you. kinda odd
Why should he? There's no conflicting *theory or strategy*, just an opinion of semantics at issue.
Post deleted at author's request.
I didn't respond because I felt that some of the other comments covered what I would have said.
I've always thought my Phd ment Piles Hurt Demoniaclly, and that Cheese, Sourdough and Whine at a pkr table ment a good place to have a banquet!!
Well so much for grad. school at Berkely during the 60's.
I have been playing for a couple of years and just cant seem to get ahead. I reviewed my play and determined that I was playing too loose and now I have tightened up. As a result, I seem to be doing worse! I don't get paid much when I have a hand. Additionally, when I do get action on my made hands I usually get snapped off and loose a ton which sends me into an even bigger shell of conservatism!I am beginning to wonder if I can beat this game. Any suggestions????
other comments/questions:
1. I assume if your in a game with players that are all pretty good then there is virtually no way to get ahead. Do you agree/disagree?
2. I have begun to fold the following hands to raises: a/10, a/j, k/j, k/q, is this too conservative(additionally in tough games I dont even attempt to play these hands early)?
3. Does winning holdem boil down to being ultra conservative?.....i.e. raising in any position with premium hands and waiting to play all drawing hands until you feel you wont get raised and expect or have at least 4 players call.
4.The significance of varying your play for deception doesnt seem that important because the games I have played in are constanly changing, in other words new people are coming and going all the time so you might as well play straightforward and tight. Do you agree?
5. I have seen some guys call or raise a raiser with a small pair with the intention of taking the pot when an ace, king or Queen doesnt come on the flop or turn.....is this a profitable play?
6. I seem to be a conservative person by nature and dont like to loose at anything, does this lack of a "gamble" in me prevent me from being successful?
Any other suggestions or tips would be greatly appreciated!
I have played about 1300 hours and am up about $3000, no complaints as its better than losing, but hardly exciting given the fact i play mostly 10/20.
1. You could get lucky. The game might change characteristics to that more favorable to your prefered style of play. Some of the good players can go on mini-tilt for awhile. You might change seats to give you better position relative to certain players who give you more trouble than others.
2. I assume these hands are unsuited. If you find these hands (and they are indeed trouble hands) hard to play, I don't think you are giving up too much by refusing to play them for a raise except under some specific conditions. First, understand these hands play much better against just a few opponents, so if I'm on or next to the button and there's only one or two players (other than the blinds) in the pot, then I'm going to play for sure. If there are no cold callers between me and a late-middle or late position raiser, and the raiser was first to enter the pot (everyone earlier folded) then I'll make it three bets here. There are more situations than I've described where playing these hands is o.k., but the point is you're alright giving up on them until you know more about the game and the players you're against.
3. For every hold'em style there is a counter style which will defeat it. You don't have to play ultra-conservative to win, yet this style is preferable against loose/agressive players. Continue to be very selective of your starting hands, particularly from early position, as this is crutial to long term winning. If you are perceived as a tight unimaginative player then take advantage of this table image and raise the blinds with weaker hands than you'd like to when you're in late position and everyone folds to you. Also, a reraise is more likely to leave you heads-up with the original raiser (acting last on future rounds) when you have a tight image so you may want to consider doing this with some of the lesser pocket pairs. This is necessary when you have a tight image so that they don't run over you at every opportunity.
4. Agreed. Checkraising is not deception however, use it primarily on the flop in loose games with hands like top pair strong kicker and two pairs, from early position - a tight player especially needs to move the riff-raff out of the pot. Bluffing and semibluffing is not deception, with a tight image you can be more successful taking the small pots away from one or two opponents more often than you might now believe. If they aren't giving action on your good hands, why should they give action on your semibluffs? Slowplaying and backraising are forms of deception that become more important as you gain experience, or have to face the same crew every session.
5. When I three-bet the small pocket pairs, it is because I think there's a good chance that I'll get it shorthanded with position on all subsequent betting rounds. When the flop comes without high cards and it's checked around to me, what's happening when I bet is that I'm representing a big pocket pair (which is sometimes advantageous). What I really want is a flop with one high card (preferably not an ace) so that if I'm checked to, a bet on the flop has a reasonable chance of winning the pot right there. If it's checked to me and the flop is unfavorable, I can check - try to get lucky and turn the set. All of this assumes that the players I'm trying to isolate against are going to tend not to bet into me on the flop (weak passive types).
6. On the contrary, I expect this would be the driving force that would compel you to gain the fundamentals to succeed. There are many card players who can't or don't learn enough to even beat the casino rake. Your results after 1300 hours of 10-20 are respectable. It sounds like you have the patience to beat this game for more, but just lack experience and/or textbook knowledge. Don't give up on hold'em - your questions show intellegence and aptitude that's encouraging.
Just these words of advice: A TIGHT player may be ahead in the long run, but will never be ahead much in the end.
Hell, I have as much as a 1000.00 deviation playing 1-5 on some back to back days. (What is with the people who BRAG about +1 or 2 BB per hour? I get 30+ most days. REALLY!)
Yes, I am WAY UP! But I play aggressively and I play to win TONS, not just a little. I am the IN YOUR FACE guy you hate! I suck out on the river, I make insane bets that hold up and I lose sometimes TONS TOO! But the next day I'm back in your face! Quit being afraid to lose! Then you will win more. Hey, its only money, right? If money means so much to you and you say you are conservative then take up some other hobby that fits your lifestyle.
Two questions and the answers: Q:Are you playing with the rent and grocery money? A:If yes, then wait till you have a bankroll you can gamble some with. A:If no, then what's the problem?
Hope this helps. DOc-
Less is better. Good players are easier to read than bad players. You have a great start 3000 in 1300 hours. You may need to learn how to read players better and take advantage of positional play. At this point, you should experiment a little bit especially in sessions when you have the lead. If you sit with the same nine people for two hours, you should be able to describe them exactly in poker terms, gambler or player, passive or aggressive, confident or shaky, etc. Take advantage of your knowledge and run them over, punish them. No mercy. By the time you leave the table with their money they'll all be passive, shaky, spineless jellyfish.
"1. I assume if your in a game with players that are all pretty good then there is virtually no way to get ahead. Do you agree/disagree?" This is true in Omaha-8. It's not entirely true in holdem. If the opponents are all good, they will often play too tight, meaning that aggressive play in the right spots will be very profitable. A player who excels in shorthanded play and in opponent reading will do well in this type of game. I have found that games with nine solid opponents are rare, and that some of the players you might initially think are good are "just playing tight" and are easy to push off their hands.
"2. I have begun to fold the following hands to raises: a/10, a/j, k/j, k/q, is this too conservative(additionally in tough games I dont even attempt to play these hands early)?" This is generally correct unless loose or maniac players make the raises or unless they are possibly steals. You should rarely play those hands up front unless your opponents are very passive, loose and weak.
"3. Does winning holdem boil down to being ultra conservative?.....i.e. raising in any position with premium hands and waiting to play all drawing hands until you feel you wont get raised and expect or have at least 4 players call." Yes. But it's important to mix up your play. To be a significant winner, you must be disciplined in your preflop play and muck fairly good hands when something strong is probably out there. When you aren't getting the odds, many draws belong in the muck.
"4.The significance of varying your play for deception doesnt seem that important because the games I have played in are constanly changing, in other words new people are coming and going all the time so you might as well play straightforward and tight. Do you agree?" Don't get carried away with deception, but don't always play strong hands the same way.
"5. I have seen some guys call or raise a raiser with a small pair with the intention of taking the pot when an ace, king or Queen doesnt come on the flop or turn.....is this a profitable play?" No. Don't call raises without strong hands. If the raiser does have an overpair, you're screwed.
"6. I seem to be a conservative person by nature and dont like to loose at anything, does this lack of a "gamble" in me prevent me from being successful?" No, as long as you can still bluff effectively.
"I have begun to fold the following hands to raises: a/10, a/j, k/j, k/q," This my friend is your problem! You are a "Card Player" not a "Hold'em Player". All the (good) advice in the world won't help you. You have learned how to play your cards now you must learn how to win! Believe it or not once you learn the technical part of the game You become your own best teacher! Any Holdem game can be beat, but you must find your own way of winning! When you do you will be a "Hold'em Player" and will be the favorite in any game you sit in (except mine of course)!
Good Luck! Vince
Let me start by saying, I am a recreational player. For the first time in twenty years, I've started reading "the experts books." My problem is that I live in Florida and the only legal games are on the casino ships. The game I usually play on the ship is 5-10-20 Seven Stud Hi/Lo 8 or better.
The limited stuff I read says to sit back and watch your oppents for awhile. Unlike a casino, this game is only 2-1/2 to 3-1/2 hours in duration. How can I maximize my chances of winning with a set time limit game. And please be gentle.
"How can I maximize my chances of winning with a set time limit game" Make sure, I repeat, make sure that time constraints do not influence your play in any way! If your lucky it will influence the play of others at the table. Take a full session just to observe the effect that a time limit has on others at the table. Then adjust your stategy accordingly. If, as I suspect, the action increases near the end of the cruise, tighten up a little bit here and you may find yourself a big winner in the long run. You may even want to limit your play solely to this time period, playing extremely tight during the period when other players are relaxed. My guess is that time constraints will cause players (others I hope) to play too many hands and make other similiar poker mistakes. (Read Sklansky's essay "The Eight Mistakes of Poker", essay section of this forum).
Good Luck! Vince BTW what's the rake on the ship?
Vince
Thanks for the reply. I've not notice (or paid attention) to the last hour for more action. The one problem that you face is someone hitting big and then leaving for the craps table. Low card is forced in for $5. The rake is either 5 or 10% maxed at $5.00. They use to require an ante of a dollar, but people stopped playing because you lost more in antes then in the pots. They also play the same game once a month at 10-25-50. With Holdem and Stud tournaments twice a month with 1k first prize.
"I've not notice (or paid attention) to the last hour for more action."
George,
This is crucial to your success. You must get a good feel for the action flow in a time limit game.
"The one problem that you face is someone hitting big and then leaving for the craps table." This is not a problem, except for the guy/gal that is going to the craps table. Being a poker player I like the money to stay in the poker world not get lost in the craps world but you can't let the mistakes of others influence your play. Winning Poker is aided by the bad play of your opponents. Look for the mistakes of others. Hopefully the time limit will work in your favor and emphasize the mistakes of others. Keep in mind that you can always come back for the next cruise! Don't let the time limit affect you!
Thanks for the Ship Info!
Vince!
How true. Keep in mind that on or two huge pots can make you a winner for the day. I rather wait and play one or two hands and walk home( or swim) a winner. The problem is if you get stuck or drawn out with this time limit can hazard your game. BTW I hate to play this way. I forgo playing live games when I want to play tourneys - before or even sometimes after. before naturally will give you this limited time horizon. Playing low limit to make the entry can be of benefit but I play very careful more tight than if I had all night.
In Stud H/L 8 or better, the opponents matter relatively less than in other forms of poker. In forms of poker played for high only, to come out ahead you need to win many pots without having the best hand, and you have to do that through bluffing and aggressive play in the right spots. What those spots are depend greatly on your opponents. In high-low split poker (and particularly stud H/L-8 where they see some of your cards), bluffing opportunities are much rarer, and you become a winning player primarily by making good folds and taking maximal advantage of opponent mistakes. (Although a general idea of what types of hands each specific opponent plays is useful.) The play is somewhat more automatic than in other games, which means that it's important to not get into bad situations in the first place. Play a solid game, and you'll get the money. One common mistake that I see a lot in stud H/L-8 where I play is that players neglect the high hands. (They may be more familiar with the non-qualifier game, where high pairs were much weaker.) A high pair can be a very good hand in many cases, especially if raises narrow the field significantly on the opening round. With a bet of 20 on the end, the high hands would weaken slightly, but you have to charge the low(s) while you have the advantage. While these hands should not be played in certain situations, if you always pass a pair of kings or queens, you are costing yourself a lot of profit. Get "High-Low Split Poker for Advanced Players" immediately if you don't already have it. It's an excellent, comprehensive guide to the strategy of stud-8 and Omaha-8.
Iceman,
Thanks for the info. I have the book, but am still reading (what I consider) the primers before I read that. (Theory of Poker, Super System, Caro's Book of Tells, etc.) I want to get a broad understanding of the finer points of the game before looking at specific game advanced theory. Hopefully, this is not a costly mistake.
George, If your main game is stud 8-or-better, and you have Ray Zee's book, I urge you to read it immediately. It is a stand alone book, you'll get something out of it no matter what you feel your level of experience is. Later on, sure, you'll understand more, but it will definitely improve your game right now. I am a regular player in a 25-50 half stud/8 half Omaha/8 game. I literally read it EVERY day (not the whole thing, of course, but read a little, think, play). Read-think-play, read-think-play, read-think-play, eventually (and sooner rather than later) turns into read-think-play-WIN! Come to think of it, It's really read-think-play-think. But anyway, George, Read The Book! Frank Brabec
Dave, I recently happened to run across the January issue of Poker Digest (I assume it is a fairly new publication because this is the first time I have seen or heard of it). In any event, let me say that I thoroughly enjoyed your article where you drew an analogy between poker and tennis. It was entertaining, thoughtful and a very effective way to convey your message to the reader.
Well done!
For those of you who have not read it, I suggest that you find a copy. It is sure to help you particularly in low limit games.
Sorry SKP but I strongly disagree with any article that draws an anaolgy between tennis and poker. Between Poker and any sport for that matter. Poker is a totally mental/psychological effort. Physical prowess plays no part in our game. I could prepare myself mentally to face Pete Sampras but my body would just laugh at me! If two atheletes in any sport where physical prowess plays a part are able to adequately mentally prepare themselves the more physically capable will normally win! Although I believe Michael Jordan is one of the most focused atheletes of all time the thing that made him better than Larry Bird was his physical ability not his mental attitude. Bird had the same level of desire to win! Winning at poker is a much greater challenge than winning at any other endeavor that I can think of. There is no comparison. Even Chess, poker's cousin, doesn't offer the same level of psychological challenge. When you make a mistake in Chess the game is usually over. A mistake in poker may cost on bet or your whole bank but you still must be dealt in the next hand if you can scrape up the ante. When a tennis match is over it's over. Poker games are never over! Each hand is independent of the previous million that you may have played! You must be totally focused at all times to play poker correctly! You must be able to take the beats that probability predicts in poker. Not so in sports! A beating in a sport can usuallly be attributed to a cause and effect of the participants efforts. Not so in poker! I could go on but....
No, My friend there is no human endeavor that compares with a "Poker Game"!
Vince
Post deleted at author's request.
"Did you read the article?"
No, why would I?
"It's the best piece I've seen yet in Poker Digest."
The saving grace this magazine "Poker Digest" has is the Sklansky's "Fighting Fuzzy Thinking Column" and Malmuth's Column on various topics. If I were them I would seriously consider quitting this magazine and going back to "Card Player" or better yet have 2+2 publish their own "POKER OUR WAY" magazine!
"POKER Digest" (emphasis on POKER). Vol.2/No.3 (Whatever that means) Jan. 29-Feb. 11, 1999. Published an article: Is Bridge like Poker? -No! by Danny Klienman. The article begins: "Poker, among other things, involves gambling, bluffing, and tells." It then proceeds to go down hill from there! In defenses of the article(if it needs one) it is mainly about Bridge. Well if I want to read about bridge I will read "Bridge Digest". I have more than a few times been disappointed with material presented in "Poker Digest". So I don't need to read the about the analogy between poker and tennis!
I will tell you quite frankly none exists!
Vince
Your first posting about the physical tennis being nothing like poker didn't even come close to the analogy Dave made. Dave discussed adjusting to your opponents. In that way there are comparisons between tennis and poker.
WRT Poker Digest...it is currently lighter in content then Card Player. Hopefully as it matures things will improve.
Vince,
SKP posted a very nice summary of the article. In a nutshell the article suggests: "If you are playing against lousy players then minimize your own mistakes and don't try anything fancy, much as if you might do if you were Pete Sampras playing Dave Scharf at tennis."
I choose tennis becuase of the convenient use of the terms "forced" and "unforced errors" which I thought applied nicely to poker.
There is not, I don't think, any great or original wisdom in my article. Rather, my hope is that the new player will clearly understand what Mike Caro might refer to as "Fancy play syndrome" as it applies to little-skilled low-limit games. In my own experience starting out I found the books excellent, but not thorough enough in explaining certain fundamentals to me. I hope that "The Amateur Hold'em Player" will accomplish that for some beginning players.
Thanks to Gary and SKP for your kind words.
Regards, Dave Scharf
Vince Lepore writes:
<< "POKER Digest" (emphasis on POKER). Vol.2/No.3 (Whatever that means)...>>
what it means is that the magazine has already completed one year of publication (volume one), and has now publilshed the third issue of its second year.
for whatever it's worth, i'll note that virtually every athlete who has ever been interviewed manages to say, somewhere in the interview, that the game (be it baseball, football, basketball, soccer, badminton, tiddlywinks, or 43-man squamish) is mostly mental. tennis players are included in this list.
dave scharf's article did not intend to say (and did not say) that poker is identical to tennis. dave drew an analogy between the two about the idea of "unforced errors."
what's wrong with creative thinking such as this?
tiger
Vince, believe me, it was an interesting article which I'm sure you would enjoy. Dave was not comparing poker to tennis. Perhaps my original post was misleading.
Essentially, the gist of his article as I remember it is as follows:
1. Suppose Andre Agassi is playing Pete Sampras at Wimbledon. Both players will likely make several unforced errors because each has to try and get his share of outright winners to emerge as the victor. Neither can afford to just lob the ball over the net and hope that the other will self-destruct. They are both too good to make unforced errors; their errors if any will be forced errors.
2. Now suppose Pete Sampras is playing me. He can just lob the ball over the net all day. He never has to try and do anything fancy. Sooner or later (probably sooner), I will self-destruct.
Now, for the poker analogy:
1. If David Sklansky is in a game with a whole bunch of weak poker players, He can "just lob the ball over the net" and let his opponents make all the mistakes. The fact is that they will make these mistakes even without David pressuring them into making mistakes. In other words, they will make a lot of unenforced errors.
2. Now suppose that Sklansky is in a game with Malmuth, Zee, Chan, Cloutier, Brunson and Lepore (with his bad concepts and all), he can no longer afford to just baby the ball over the net; rather, he now must try and hit a few lines.
Now, my paraphrasing of the article is admittedly amateurish; I certainly can't duplicate Scharf's excellent prose. But, I think the message is clear: Don't try and get fancy in games where the calibre of play is decidedly weak. You don't need to "go for the lines". Just get the ball over the net and let the other guys hit it out of bounds. Hell, sometimes, they will even put the ball into the bleachers.
"If David Sklansky is in a game with a whole bunch of weak poker players, He can "just lob the ball over the net" and let his opponents make all the mistakes."
With all due respect Skp. If Sklansky or any great poker player found himself in a situation as you describe above he would have to play the best poker of his life to win any money. The minute he got into the "lob" mode it would be game set match Weak guy and luv Sklansky!
"Now suppose that Sklansky is in a game with Malmuth, Zee, Chan, Cloutier, Brunson and (exclude Lepore (with his bad concepts and all)my parenthesis), he can no longer afford to just baby the ball over the net; rather, he now must try and hit a few lines."
Now believe it or not this is precisely the situation in which a great player will make his moves! Ask T.J Cloutier if you doubt me! Or read his (McEvoy's) book on NL an Pot Limit Holdem. I am sure you will find I am correct.
For these reasons I stick by my criticism of drawing an (incorrect IMO) analogy between poker and any other endeavor.
IMO Vince
Vince
The article is called Make NO Mistake,I agree with skp,it is a very good piece.I think Dave is trying to tell new players to play their best at all times,making fewer errors translates in to more profit.I think the analogy between poker and tennis was just a way for new poker players to understand what unforced errors can cost you when playing a hand.
I thought I would comment as someone who has played a lot of tennis over the last 35 years. I started playing as a kid and there were many days when I spent a minimum of 10 hours at the tennis courts.
I have always felt that those of us who became fairly proficient at tennis would make good poker players simply because tennis is a game that you do on your own as opposed to a team sport. You don't get much support from the other players since everyone else is trying to beat you, just like poker.
Many of the other mental aspects are different since the luck factor in tennis is quite small, and it is a game of complete information -- the better player almost always wins.
I do disagree with the idea of forced and unforced errors to some degree. There is some analogy in terms of forced errors. In poker opponents can make plays that you misinterpret and thus make playing mistakes. In tennis you really don't misinterpret a shot, you just can't handle it.
The idea of unforced errors really has no relationship to poker. In tennis you occasionally miss a shot that you shouldn't, but you do know what you were doing and why you tried it. In poker the poorer players tend to make plays that they just shouldn't. These are errors but they are not really unforced, they were just from a lack of knowledge.
Poker and tennis are both games of:
strategy adjustments mental toughness concentration and effort.
"strategy adjustments mental toughness concentration and effort."
Come on John, this can be said of numerous endeavors (games). What's your point! Poker is purely a mental effort unless a player foolishly plays marathon sessions. Playing too long may even be the biggest mistake a player can make. Even in marathon sessions, though, the effort is mental. Physical prowess has little effect on the outcome.
I haven't even read the article in question. My comments were in no way meant to demean the efforts of the author. From all accounts he is a very competent writer. My main purpose was to convey the uniqueness of poker and the challenge that the game offers. I certainly was not comparing the merits of particparing in one or the other. I agree that both are games of; "strategy adjustments mental toughness concentration and effort." as you state. But in my IMO just because you find some similiarities in two distinct efforts does not allow arbitrary analogies.
One of our fellow posters, whose opinion I respect, stated something to the effect that if Sklansky were in a game with a lot of weak players he could just relax and win the money. Nothing could be further from the truth. He may have to play the best poker of his life to get the money in a full game of weak players. You can never let your guard down when playing poker. It seems that as soon as you do the big cat takes his bite. Mason, in his response is perhaps more elequent than I in defining the differences between tennis and poker and I yield to his experience. I've never played tennis. I was only an interested observer. I will only state that I have yet to see any other endeavor that one can seriously compare with poker playing!
Now I will step down from my soap box and leave you with this: Big John (and all other readers), Have a nice game! (Poker Game that is!)
Your Posting Buddy Vince
Vince,
When you sit down at a poker table you don't know exactly how you are going to play. It depends on the nature of the game and the players. As you play you gain greater insight into what strategy will get you the money. You make your adjustments and continue to do so as the complexion of the game changes. In tennis, it is the same thing. You have your physical tools and your opponent has his. You need to find out what, if any, weaknesses he has. Forehand, backhand, coming in, side to side, stamina, patience etc.
Tennis is a game of finding and exploiting weaknesses. Poker is a game of finding and exploiting weaknesses. In tennis, sometimes the inferior player will win by outsmarting the superior player. Years ago Brad Gilbert beat John McEnroe in San Francisco. The loss so unnerved McEnroe that he made some comments that I'm sure he now regrets. I think he also went into a mini retirement right after, but I'm not certain. Gilbert definitely outsmarted and out-tried McEnroe on that occasion. Poker is competition, so it is going to have many similarities with other types of competition. For you to assert otherwise would be incorrect. I hope that you realize this isn't criticism of your post but an assertion of my beliefs.
There is only one point here with which I do not agree:
"In poker the poorer players tend to make plays that they just shouldn't. These are errors but they are not really unforced, they were just from a lack of knowledge."
I would divide the world into multiple categories of poor players. There certainly is one group that simply does not know any better. But, there are a LOT of little-skilled low-limit players who have read (some even extensively) and studied and simply continue to make error after error. They KNOW that KTo cannot be played in early position and yet the ALWAYS play it. Lots of players make countless plays that they KNOW they should not make, but the gambler in them takes over and they go for it anyway. It is this sort of player that the concept of forced and unforced errors is meant to address.
Regards, Dave Scharf
Lot of guys know the way to get there, but they can't drive the car.
This week there have been several threads concerning keeping the game good. In keeping with this spirit, I submit the following quiz:
You hold A3 of hearts in the small blind and you see the flop for one bet against many opponents. The flop is Qh Th 5s. There is a lot of action. You miss your draw on the turn and river. A player at the other end of the table shows down the winning hand. The "strategically challenged" player on your right shows you his 72 of hearts and shakes his head in disappointment, obviously looking for commiseration. What to you do or say?
A) Nothing.
B) Show him your high flush draw to let him know he saved money.
C) Say something such as "You would have won a monster if a heart came".
D) Say "Don't you know that hand is unplayable before the flop".
I will provide the scores for my take on the correct answers in a separate post later in the day. Please don't peek at the other posts until you take the quiz.
Regards,
Rick
My quiz is in multiple choice format. If you have a better answer please submit it. Answering in essay format will not count against you.
Regards,
Rick
B
I usually won't say anything, but he's looking for a response from me I'll usually say, "Oh, you had a nice draw."
A(yes)- By far the correct answer.
B(no, but interesting) - Anyone that thinks it is a mistake to educate new players is wrong! Showing or telling what your cards were may have the effect of educating (they can draw their conclusions) the "strategically challenged", as you so unkindly refer to a fellow poker player. But I question if it is proper to educate a player while in a live game. If he is next to you as you say and you show only him your cards others may get upset, some may even believe there is collusion between you two. This action certainly can't be in the best interest of keeping the game good. May be better to recommend that he read HPFAP when your both away from the table.
C(look at yourself if you do)- This is the most prevalent remark sarcastically uttered by losers (not necessarily losers at poker) and one you will hear most often at the poker table.
D(no) - Too harsh criticism and would be counter productive. Another loser comment! May also disrupt a good game.
How did I do teach? Vince
"You needed only ONE heart to win that big pot, the cards sure are sadistic at times, eh?"
Should I say anything at all, it would most likely be "tough hand."
A) Nothing. C + D are too phony, and I don't think that really keeps the game good. Showing my cards is what I would probably really do, if I was friendly at all with my neighbor. But if I was just trying to keep the player as live as possible, trying to keep the game as good as possible, I'd choose A.
tsk tsk, sigh, oy vey,
I can't go wrong by keeping my mouth shut.
Some may offer some false words of sympathy. Probably the best thing to do but I have a tough time pulling that off. If the guy was obviously looking for some sympathy, I would probably show some with body language.
I would definitely not say "you would have won a monster if you hit". I just can't pull off such B.S. so easily.
I would definitely not tell him to stop playing 7h2h.
I would definitely not show him my cards either. Generally, I never show my cards to anyone unless I have to by the rules of the game. Furthermore, our hero is probably steaming a little at missing his draw. Why make him feel good by showing him that he was lucky in not hitting. Let him bemoan his "bad luck". It might lead to worse play on his part.
I as well would say nothing at all.
I had a simular hand last weekend, I held A7d flop was Jd Kd 10c. I hit my 4d on the river, and one of the other players had a 7d 5d, we both limped in on lots of action.
I think had I not hit my 4d on the river and the guy next to me showen me his 7d 5d I would have just shaken my head and said nothing. If you show him your hand, other players may pick up on this and use that information aginst you. This is an easy way to telagraph your hand and how you played it. Not just to the guy you showed, but anyone that was wacthing!
Walleye
C. Encourage him to continue to play these types of hands. You want him to think he was just unlucky.
A: I don't want to show my hand, B: I do want to indicate to him that he was drawing dead. So, I say something to the effect of "No good" when he shows me his hand. He'll say "You had a better flush?", I'll nod and say "That time you were lucky." This method allows me to keep my holding standards to myself but still make him feel good because he got lucky. I see many positive results of this exchange. One possible: He may ask me for help later in the game (and I will give it - to some extent), which may lead to him respect my game and my bets which may lead to successfully bluffing him out of a pot if we find ourselves heads-up. No, I don't see anything unethical about setting someone up in this way.
D is definetely not the correct answer. We have a guy that plays consistently poorly at one of our home games (as a matter of fact, if 2 deuces hit on the flop, we all assume he has trips). But he has the money to lose and has a good time so it's win-win for everyone. It's not my job to make the players around me better. "You had a good draw" would seem like the better answer.
Well, I wouldn't choose "A" because I think I *can* do something to keep the game good here. I wouldn't choose "B" because it might actually cause this player to think more about his starting standards. I wouldn't choose "D" for the same reason. I would come closest to choosing "C", but I wouldn't actually lie and tell him that he would have won. Rather, I would probably just shake my head in commiseration, and say something like, "Well, you just never know."
BTW, if this player were truly hopeless (and underfinanced), to the point where I thought he would lose so much that he would not survive the limit being played, I might actually go with a choice closer to "B" or "D". i.e., I might opt to educate him just a bit. Better to have a player who loses a modest amount over time, but who continues to play, than one who loses a lot quickly then quits playing altogether.
John Feeney
I'd just respond with a sympathetic smile and shrug. I'm not going to wisen him up, but I wouldn't b.s. him with a phony "hey, you sure came close" kind of reponse...
"A" Say Nothing(Remember no lessons at the table)
A-say nothing
I'm gonna go for E (a derivative of C) which goes something like this (btw it requires saying it very sincerely, in a fatherly tone, with a straight face, loud enough for all the fish at the table to hear):
"Ya know, many people underestimate the strength of 72 suited because not only do you have a flush going for you, but if you get a flop of 772, it will be really deceptive and you will win a monster pot"
or, alternately,
"If you had raised on the turn, you might have taken it down right there"
A Poker Guy!
Rick---is this a trick question? How did the guy to my RIGHT (the button) show me his hand? Did I still have cards, or had I folded out of turn? I don't like either answer.
To get back to the spirit of your question: I think SOME response is needed. All of you "put on your game face and say nothing" players are being way too serious (perhaps pathetic or crotchety) in this situation. The guy is a bad player who probably looks up to you as a good player. Don't rebuff him with your silence. Say something---even "ya missed it".
I thought it was clear that he showed the hand on the river. However. I should have indicated that the action was checked and he showed everybody. Note that I never give strategy lessons at the table except I often point out ettiquette violations to a neighboring player when I am the one who gains(i.e., his violation of show one show all principle).
Anyway, good answer. You get an A.
Regards,
Rick
Class,
I have tried to grade the answers but most answers make my question look bad. Thank God I have tenure. Plus, my browser/ISP is too slow in the morning and I got to go for a few days. Everybody gets an "A" just like in those grade inflated fancy colleges. I might comment on a couple posts after the weekend. Anyway, it was all in fun and I apologize if I used a poor choice of words regarding ""strategically challenged". We need a better word for "live one".
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I believe even David Sklansky got berated a few years ago (by I think Linda Johnson) for using the word "Sucker" in a column.
P.P.S. Doyle Brunson in "According To Doyle" wrote a great piece on some pro scratching out 40K or so a year criticizing a brain surgeon who just happened to be blowing off some steam in the poker room. He pointed out if the surgeon devoted his time to learning poker, he would easily outplay his critics.
C) Say something such as "You would have won a monster if a heart came".
This is the correct strategy. And, of course your hand is in the muck and not shown.
Too many times I hear one player spout out, "you wouldn't have liked it if a heart had come, I had Ace King." First I want to give as little infomation as possible to what kind of hands I am willing to play, and second I don't want to make them quit playing weak hands.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
I started to write this as a response to Tad's posting in the "I'm angry at Mason's comment" thread, but I thought it would be more appropriate in it's own thread.
Tad wrote: "Recreational players, who have no knowledge of poker, beyond the basics are the reason, poker rooms in Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan have become cash cows for riverboats. I wish some of those players would "wise-up", to at least consider the impact of the rake, not to mention some of the strange structures, and games that are being spread. The lack of informed, knowledgeable players, has resulted in a situation, where a "pro", finds the rooms are not being run, in manner conducive to earning money."
I have to respectfully disagree with most of this statement. I play regularly on the boats in Indiana, and I believe that these are some of the best games (for making money) in the country, despite the oppressively high rake. I used to live in Las Vegas and I still return 4 to 6 times a year. I go to Atlantic City and other places (Tunica, St. Louis, Los Angeles, etc.) several times a year. I play mostly Hold'em, anywhere from $6-$12 to $20-$40, and I rarely find a game at these levels anywhere, where I do not feel like a favorite (and I have a pretty good win average.....+1 BB/hr). I don't play for a living (I administer computer networks), but the games in Indiana are, IMHO, easier to beat than anywhere east of LA. I'm not sure what you mean by wishing the players would "wise-up" to the impact of the rake. Almost every hand has at least the $50.00 required for the house to take the full $5.00, and usually several times that amount, even at the $6-$12 games. Would you prefer the games to be so tight that most pots were less than $50.00? The average player in these games are so weak, that a skillful player can just play unimaginative, solid poker, and get a good share of the money most of the time (with the corresponding increase in Standard Deviation, of course). Unfortunately, the games are slowing becoming worse, as the less skillful players are being busted by the large rake.
As far as the games being a "cash cow" for the boats, this is just not the case. In fact, the tables make so much less than slot machines or other table games, that the management of these boats are reluctant to promote the games much or do anything to attract or keep players (let alone increase the space devoted to poker). I'm sure that this is what you refer to when you say that the rooms aren't run in a manner "conducive to making money". I believe that, for poker to be a continued success in the Midwest (and Indiana in particular), an effort needs to be made to educate the management of the boats to the additional benefits of spreading poker games (e.g.: players often play the other games, they bring others with them, etc.). Additionally, it would be helpful to convince the legislature to relax some of their regulations (the mandatory rake rate, restrictive boarding times, etc.).
Thus my question to the group (sorry it took me so long to get to it). Does anyone else in this vastly knowledgeable and experienced group have any thoughts or opinions as to what players in the Midwest can do to ensure that these games a.) keep being spread, and b.) help some players become at least skillful enough to beat the rake, while not making the overall games any tougher than necessary to ensure that the base of players continues to grow? I appreciate all thoughts and comments on this subject, since I am very concerned that the games will die off (and I'll be stuck driving to St. Louis or Tunica like the bad old days).
Thanks,
Steve
I lived all over the country and the only merit I see of poker there that it may give some reason to someone like me to host a non-smoking home game (I may rake 2) and get a dealer to deal for tips only (game would be over 10-20) by players choice. There is no reason why those 'boats' charge that kind of rake and run it like they do (like idiots). Those rules (some boats) to start only at 4pm) boarding on-off) it is stupid !!! Any local who does not offer home games is lazy or paranoid.
All river boats that wish to operate in any state are required to set sail a certain amount of hours in a year when the weather permits. If they did not do this, then they would just be regular casinos, and thus illegal. Many states as a result have boarding times and other rules as well to fit the laws for riverboats. Let's be real, if you ran a riverboat casino, would you have boarding times? Of course not. This is not a decision made by the casino. I agree with you however, that home games are an excellent source of revenue for any serious poker players. The problem is establishing relationships with REAL poker players, otherwise you invite people asking to play games like anaconda and no-peak. Of course, you can find these future home game players at riverboats! It's a vicious circle!
I have been playing in NL tourneys for a year. My local club has just started a baby nl game which i have played in twice. 2/5 blinds $300 buy in. You can only rebuy when you have under 150 dollars
Tuesday I cashed out for a 1K win. I was lucky. I have just ordered Mr McEvoys text. However I would like somne advice or to be pointed to specific articles/texts for some specific questions
1.I slowplay KK (someone put in a small raise preflop) flop is KJx. I check, aggressive player behind me bets 75. I push all in . He calls. He has AK. I win Question:this seems to be a huge mistake on his part. should he have not folded? it seems that on an all in bet the only hand he could beat would be KQ. opinions on how to play or boook that address this issue
2.I call a small raise w/ pocket fives. Board is J10(h)5. He bets $50. I raise all in he calls. I end up w/ a full house on turn ,quads on river. he a had Q9(h) so a big heart draw and a straight draw. It seems to me he should have also folded.Should you go all in heads up w/ a draw.?? again:opinions or places to study.
3.In the above hand we did three flops, How do you figure the odds on this? when should you do it and when not to?
thank you all for your attention. Mike
Mike,
Get Ciaffone and Reubens "Pot Limit and No Limit" book.
As for your examples, how much money did you and your opponents have in front of you? That makes a lot of difference in how the hands are played.
Good Luck.
Item 1: He probably should have folded. However, if I just sat down and didn't know you, I would have to consider the chances that you have KQ, that you have a draw (e.g., QT), or that you are bluffing with little or nothing. Sometimes, against some players, going all-in with AK in this spot isn't bad at all.
Item 2: His draw is a favorite over all made hands except for a set. So, unless he can put you on a set, he wants to get all his money in the pot. Plus, by the time he can confidently put you on a set, there is so much money already in the pot that he probably has pot odds to call.
I presume you mean 3 turns/rivers. You can always do this, and you'll never gain or lose much expectation by doing so (surprisingly, you do lose or gain a little depending upon the situation). I've never been offered a chance to do business myself, nor asked, but doing 2 or 3 boards for equal portions of the pot always seemed like a good idea.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
As I've said in a previous post, I am new to casino style play in poker. I have explained the options we have in the Sunshine state. What I would like to know is:
Where is the best 7 Stud Hi/Lo 8 or better low limit (10-20)game east of the Mississippi (if any)?
Thanks for any info.
I generally play a small NL tournament a couple times a week. $25 buy in gets you $300 and it starts out at 10-20 increasing every round. 3 re-buys and only first place is guaranteed beforehand which is $300.
In general I wonder what to bet when I flop a set against 3 or more players and there is a flush or straight draw(or both). I have been usually making a pot size bet or bigger but wonder if that is the best play? It seems that I shouldn't be worried if there are callers since I am the favorite right now. However, I don't want anybody to get a cheap ride. Then again, do I even want callers?
Thanks in advance,
bjpro
A correct answer to this question requires more information. 1)What stage of the tournament?
2)How big is your srack?
3) What do you know about your opponents? BTW 3 or more players in a NL hand seems like an awful lot unless it's very early in the tournament!
In general if you flop a set against 3 or more players with a flush draw on the board you want to thin your oppopsition so I would make it very expensive for them to play. On the other hand if I only had one or maybe two opponents and I believed I had the best hand at this point I would make a small bet hoping for a call which would tie one of them to the pot. If a flush card comes on the turn or river you must be prepared to muck your set if the situation calls for it! You must also consider the possibility of a higher set depending on the board. This is why knowledge of your opponents play is so important in NL Holdem.
IMO Vince
Assume you hold 8-8 and the flop comes Qh-8c-7c (we'll assume clubs). Now assume you get a bet to your right by someone with a flush draw; let's even assume he has the 5-6 of clubs. He's got 2 clubs to nut you (4 and 9), and 6 other clubs to beat you (obviously the Qc doesn't win for him and you may still fill on the river), as well as 8 outs to make a straight on you. So out of 45 cards left in the deck, 16 win for him and 29 win for you on the turn: slightly less than 2-1 in your favor. Since he's got two draws to get there, the actual odds are slightly less than 3-2 in your favor.
But this is an extreme case: usually you'll be up against a nut flush draw such as Ac-Kc with the flop shown above. Without the straight possibilty working, you are a big favorite (3-1) to win the hand. Against a straight draw only, you are also 3-1 to win the hand.
In a tournament, this is no math exercise -- it's a strategic decision whether or not to put it all in with any hand, even a set. Once, in a NL satellite, holding 10-10, I flopped 10-9-3 and moved all-in on a man to my right holding 7-8; he got there, I was first out. In the WSOP, I was getting short-stacked on Day 1 and moved all-in holding 6-6 and a flop of 8-6-2 and was called by a man on my right holding a flush draw -- he took a walk and I finished the day as one of the leaders. In one of the Rio NL tournaments, I was getting short-stacked, flopped a set, and moved in on a man holding the 4-5 of clubs and 2 clubs on the flop -- it was my turn to take a walk.
The point is, when you are short-stacked, it appears to be a no-brainer and you just have to live with the fact that you are going to get beat about 1 out of 3 times on average. Late in a tournament, there might be some scenarios where you don't want to jeopardize a huge amount of chips on ANY hand. Still, I'm a gambler, so I'd be hard-pressed to envision a scenario where I wouldn't want to get it all in with the best hand that is, at worst, a 3-2 favorite.
1. Imagine that you go all-in on the flop by calling another bettor. Everyone else folds. The board is Kh,7d,6d. The bettor shows the two black Kings.
Which hand would you rather have (a) 8s,9s or (b) Qd,Jd
2. True or False: In the long run, flopping a set of deuces will make you the same amount of money as flopping a set of tens.
3. True or false: A bad flop to bluff on is one with three different low cards that probably did not pair anyone.
4. You have the red Aces. You raise. 2 players cold call. Blinds fold. Rank these five flops from best to worst:
(a) As,4d,4c (b) 9d,10c,Jc (c) Ks,4d,4c (d) Js,10d,10c (e) 7s,4d,4c
Suppose the betting was capped. How would your rankings change?
5. In a seven-handed pot limit Jacks or better draw poker game, player opens in position 5. The opening bet is $7 because each player had to ante a $1. You call with QQ487 (BTW, a bad play but assume that's so). Man to the right of the opener also calls. You draw three cards to your Queens and the others draw one. Opener checks. You check blind. Third player bets $28. Opener calls the $28 and raises another $84. You look at your hand and find that you have drawn 3,3,3. Both players have plenty of chips. What do you do?
(Note: This happened to me the third or fourth time that I ever played any kind of poker. Imagine that, clueless and playing pot limit).
OK I'll try. Be nice. I'm tryin to learn here.
1. I'll take the flush draw. Less there is somethin tricky I'm missin, I've got one more out that way.
2. False. Tens are better. Therefore they will win more often. Maybe having a ten on board is bad cause it allows straights. But once I flop that set I'm either going to win a lot or loose a lot anyways. I'd rather have the tens and make striaght draws pay than have the twos and be drawing almost dead against bigger trips.
3. Games I play in, all flops are bad to bluff at, except very rarely for advertising/confusion value. I'll guess false though for the "real answer".
4. no re-raise ---> a, e, c, b, d
capped ---> a, e, d, b, c ???
5. I do think I would fold the Q's before the draw. After that it does depend on the number of cards the opener drew doesnt it. Seems to me to be a decision between calling and folding. Seems like if I raise I'm either gonna win the same amount that I would have won by calling, or I'm going to lose alot more than I would have lost by calling. (I'm assuming the first bettor in the second round is gonna fold here if I call. If he reraises, and opener stays in, I think I've got an easy but painful fold).
If he drew one, I've got to give him credit for a boat don't I? so I fold. If he drew two, I'm gonna guess he still has the same three aces he started with, so I'll call, then feel stupid when I lose. If he drew three I call and don't feel so bad.
Also it depends on what I think of the guy who put in 28, and what I think the check-riaser thinks of him. I'm kind of assuming that the 28 bet is basically just a steal attempt. If he is some kind of tight ass, and the check-raiser knows that, folding gets alot easier.
1. B - With the backdoor straight draw is better than eight outs.
2. FALSE.
3. No answer is possible without at least knowing the size of the pot.
4. C E A D B and capped E A C D B
5. Call.
skp,
I may of ruined quizes for this forum with my dumb one written below. I thought you would be flooded with responses by now. Anyway, I'm having trouble sleeping which gives me time to write a bit. I haven't looked at Chuck Harris's answers yet so I'm not "copying".
1) a. Reason: The hand has eight outs like any other straight draw. The flush draw has seven outs because any diamond that pairs the board is no good.
2) b. False (IMO). Reason: The arguement for "true" may be that the set of dueces will get more action and be less vulnerable to straights. However, set over set is so devestating (and I disagree with Mason's recent statements that this is so rare you don't have to worry about it) that I believe I'll stick with false. This is too close to be a true or false question plus game conditions matter.
3) c. False (IMHO). Comment: The playing style and number of of your opponents really matters here as well as your position. If you are in the blinds against a few tight opponents it is an excellent bluff. If you are up front against players who often call with weak overcards it is not so good. Here I would like one of the cards to be a King. Once again this is close and I need more information.
4) A simple quiz? You should see the movie "A Simple Plan". Simple my rear end.
First case - two cold callers:
(c) Ks,4d,4c - you may get action from a king and the two 4's are not that dangerous.
(e) 7s,4d,4c - you will also get some action but from high pairs and high cards but watch out for seven's full.
(a) As,4d,4c - you won't get action but you will almost never lose.
(d) Js,10d,10c - a rainbow but a ten is far more likely than a four and there are draws out there that could beat you, then again they are going to have to pay to get there.
(b) 9d,10c,Jc - you could be already beat plus there is the flush draw. An the other hand you will get action more often than any other flop.
Second Case - betting was capped:
(e) 7s,4d,4c - you will get action from other high pairs and it is very unlikely someone could hold 77 or a four.
(a) As,4d,4c - you will get action from AK half as often as the next hand and a little from other high pairs and will almost never be beat. Since the pot is big this is important.
(c) Ks,4d,4c - you will get action from AK and a little from other high pairs but watch out for trip kings.
(d) Js,10d,10c - you are vulnerable to some draws (primarily KQs - a capping hand were I play) along with jacks full. The ten is less likely to be there capped.
(b) 9d,10c,Jc - vulnerable to club draws, the KQ, and sets already made. You don't want this with a big pot.
(5) I'm not qualified to play draw so I won't answer. In Southern California, the minimum age requirement to play any draw game appears to be around 90. I'm only half way there.
Now that I've taken this quiz I'm more tired than ever, I am too agravated to get back to sleep, and even if I could I have to get up in two hours.
Thanks and Regards,
Rick
skp
I looked at Andrew Wells response and I realize I overlooked the running straight for the QJd. I haven't had enough sleep (thanks in part to your quiz) to do the math before my coffee but a rough calculation down in my fuzzy thinking head indicates he is right.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I probably would like to take more answers back except I gotta go. Once again, "Simple Quiz - my _ss". LOL
It's even closer than it first appears. A blank on the turn doesn't take away an out from the straight draw, but it does from the flush draw. Nevertheless, picking up the backdoor straight draw gives hand B enough extra outs to more than compensate for this shortcoming.
OK, I'll give it a shot....
1.) b - without question
2.) False - 2's will probably make MORE than 10's, because of opponents being less fearful of a duece on the flop, and for being less likely that the duece will help complete a hand that ends up beating you.
3.) I don't believe there can be a correct answer to this question without more information. Specifically, it depends on the pre-flop action (particularly your's), your position, and the likely hands of your opponents. If you got a free ride in the big blind, this could be, depending on your opponents of course, a great flop to bluff into (especially with a check-raise). It could also be a great flop to bluff into if you raised UTG with a hand like AKs (representing an overpair). OTOH, if you limped on the button, you should probably (in most cases) save your money for better bluffing opportunities.
4.) A, E, C, B, D capped PF - A, E, B, D, C
5.) I don't really play draw, but I would fold here.
How did I do? Remember.....I didn't study for this quiz :-)
Keep Shootin'
Steve
Ooops.....One correction. I noticed (on re-reading my answers) that my second example for question #3 isn't really a bluff, since you are very likely to have the best hand, and a bet here is almost mandatory.
1. 98--the straight because the flush loses if one of the diamonds pairs the board or is the Kd. 2. This is tougher than it first appears--you are likely to have more money in the pot preflop because you will raise more with the 10's. OTOH you will get more callers with the 2's post flop. On balance, I prefer playing the 10's fast preflop and that would suit my game better. Also, the danger of set over set is not great percentagewise, but is also likely to be *very* expensive. 3. This is very dependent upon table position and image. If you are perceived as a tight player then this is a good flop to bluff at. If you are perceived as a loose player then your bluff can be easily read and hammered. 4. ecadb and if capped eadbc 5. Any good PL player would fold this hand if he respected his opposition at all. The player to the right of the opener checked and didn't check raise so he has a drawing hand, either straight or flush, and everyone at the table knows it. When he bets he is saying very loudly to the other two players that either he has hit his draw, or that he is bluffing. The opener has to have either two pair or a set to open (remember that it is jj or better) because he drew one and would definitely draw three if on a pair--his later raise confirms this. When the opener raises she is saying that she doesn't care whether the raiser was bluffing or not, she has a hand--clearly a FH or better. Your odds of beating her are about 11+ to 2 against with your 3's full. If you call here you are bleeding off chips most of the time--if you raise here you can be prepared to GHN.
1. In both cases you must make straight or flush draw, and opponent cannot improve. Flush draw offers 8 winners on turn, only 7 winners on River. Straight draw offers 8 wins and 8 wins respectively. 8s9s is better draw.
2. Since set over set is very rare, the set of deuces is not as weak as it looks, as a 10 on the flop allows many staraights, that involve hands opponents will call the flop with.
3. Assuming no raises before the flop, IMO its better to bluff at a flop that has 2 small and one large (but non-Ace) card, since a bet at such a pathetic flop looks like a bluff, and your opponents will usually have 2 overcards.
4. I have trouble with this. Scenario 1: (a) is too good, long term, I think c is better. With 2 cold callers I would fear (b). Scenario 2: (a) is best, the pot is big enough to win right away, and I still do not want to see flop (b). The others I need help analysing.
5. Never having played draw, nor pot limit, this is a (likely flawed) guess:
Opener has a hand, not a draw, or he could not have opened. So 2 pair is likely. Third man is probably on a draw, or he would have opened. After the draw He bets representing he made his hand. He would also bluff here, because the other hands have represented that they did not improve.
The Opener by check-raising represents a made full house, but he might also raise unimproved, to force out the draw to a pair. (If this is so its because his two pair must be small. Opener would just call with a big two-pair since in that situation he would welcome an overcall from the 3 card draw, hoping the 3 card draw improved to 2 smaller pair, and that the Third man was bluffing.
With QQ333 if you reraise at this point, I believe both opponents will fold. Also, a reraise will lose you a big pot if the Openeractually has a full, since his would be likely bigger then yours.
Please everyone critique these answers.
Larry, I like your answers for the first 4 questions.
On question 5, the clear answer is "fold". The opener almost certainly has a full house. The key here is that the man in position 4 couldn't open himself but he did call and draw one card. He is therefore on a straight or flush draw. It is unlikely that he has two pair or trips because he would have opened. Even if he had a tell that the other guy would open for him, it is likely that this fellow would have then raised the opener before the draw if he had trips.
In any event, it is highly likely that this fellow is on a draw.
He now bets the pot after the draw.
He is either bluffing or he made his draw. If he is bluffing, the opener has to merely call to pick off the bluff (remember that he drew one card indicating that he likely opened with two pair or trips); he does not have to raise. Perhaps, there is an argument for raising if say he opened with two small pair and wanted to squeeze me out in case I made two pair and overcalled. But that's a pretty dangerous play on the opener's part because the drawer may have made his hand.
Thus, the most sensible explanation for the opener's raise is that he filled up and had no trouble raising the fellow who completed his draw.
Since my full was the second lowest one possible, I should have folded.
1. In both cases you must make straight or flush draw, and opponent cannot improve. Flush draw offers 8 winners on turn, only 7 winners on River. Straight draw offers 8 wins and 8 wins respectively. 8s9s is better draw.
2. Since set over set is very rare, the set of deuces is not as weak as it looks, as a 10 on the flop allows many staraights, that involve hands opponents will call the flop with.
3. Assuming no raises before the flop, IMO its better to bluff at a flop that has 2 small and one large (but non-Ace) card, since a bet at such a pathetic flop looks like a bluff, and your opponents will usually have 2 overcards.
4. I have trouble with this. Scenario 1: (a) is too good, long term, I think c is better. With 2 cold callers I would fear (b). Scenario 2: (a) is best, the pot is big enough to win right away, and I still do not want to see flop (b). The others I need help analysing.
5. Never having played draw, nor pot limit, this is a (likely flawed) guess:
Opener has a hand, not a draw, or he could not have opened. So 2 pair is likely. Third man is probably on a draw, or he would have opened. After the draw He bets representing he made his hand. He would also bluff here, because the other hands have represented that they did not improve.
The Opener by check-raising represents a made full house, but he might also raise unimproved, to force out the draw to a pair. (If this is so its because his two pair must be small. Opener would just call with a big two-pair since in that situation he would welcome an overcall from the 3 card draw, hoping the 3 card draw improved to 2 smaller pair, and that the Third man was bluffing.
With QQ333 if you reraise at this point, I believe both opponents will fold. Also, a reraise will lose you a big pot if the Openeractually has a full, since his would be likely bigger then yours.
Please everyone critique these answers.
I have a couple question about some short stacked play at a final table last night. It was am 80 person touney and I was at the final table (9 players) with about 4 chips. The leader had about 50.
The blinds are 2-4, limits 4-8. So I have one small bet. I am on the button with A7s. There is a bet and a raise. It comes to me, the blinds appear weak. Naturally the decision to call depends on the opponents, the people in the pot are somewhat tight. Is this a good place to through in the last chips?
Later I have 4 chips UTG with 95s. Should I go after it with these two cards or wait for the "dumb" luck of my blind?
Thanks,
Paul
The payout structure makes a big difference in determining optimal strategy. That said, I'm going to assume a payout to everyone at the final table, with the amounts going up gradually until you hit 3rd, where the final 3 get paid 40%, 20%, and 10%.
No way do you play A7 with a call and raise in front of you. There is a huge chance that you are facing a better A or a pair higher than 7s. In such a case you're a big dog to win. Since you're in such late position now, you get to see a lot of hands before you're forced to play the big blind. You are much more likely than not to get a better hand, or at least a better situation, than this before hitting the big blind. Also, while you're throwing marginal and bad hands away, other folks might be getting themselves eliminated, moving you slowly up the payscale.
BTW, this sounds corny, but it's worth considering. Let's say you get a decent hand like AJ, 99, etc. in the next few deals. When you do come in, loudly announce "I raise all-in!" Let the dealer or players indicate that you only have enough chips to call. By making a lot of noise, you may convince someone behind you to fold with a hand they might have called with, which is exactly what you want. The fewer hands against you the more likely you are to win.
No way do you play 95, suited or not, UTG. The average hand is SIGNIFICANTLY better than this. Quietly fold, and put up your chips for the next hand. Also, someone else might go bust now, in which case you move up the payscale simply by folding 95. Finally, let's say you call and everyone folds (except for the big blind, of course). This is your best chance of winning, and if it works you'll now have 10 chips, 4 of which are immediately going into the big blind. If you get a decent hand and are raised by a late position player, you're in a spot where you probably should call, since this would give you a chance to build up a decent stack, enough to fight back with. In such a spot, you might play the 95, get lucky and win, and still go bust the next hand. If you wait for a random shot in the big blind and win, you'll have 8 or 10 chips, maybe more, and losing just 2 of them by folding your small blind will be relatively easy. So, by folding 95, you are significantly more likely to survive the blinds in their entirety, and therefore much more likely to make more money.
Later, Greg Raymer
This is why we play the games. I read Greg's post before I wrote this, so I'll give you a different perspective on the first question. First, I'm looking to make some money, not just survive -- even if it means running a dog uphill. You've got 2 + 4 + 4 + 4 (not counting side pot) to your 4 .. you are getting 3 1/2 to 1 on a hand that, arguably, might even be marginally ahead!! You are very unlikely to be that big of dog to win the hand and if you do, you not only are back in it, but you are back in it to win.
On the other hand, I agree that 9-5 suited is crap even under the gun with case chips. I would play a Queen in that scenario though.
Earl,
I started to respond to Paul's post with a lot of the same comments that Greg had about the A,7s. Then I started thinking along the lines that you presented and it seemed pretty darned close because you can significantly enhance your near "chip and a chair" status.
I think I would muck the 9,5s and take a chance that I would get a better hand in the BB.
Tom Haley
Earl,
I've got to go with Greg on folding the A7s. You are getting good pot odds, but both the caller and the raiser are tight players. Against a limp and a call, I take a shot, but with the raise I have to believe it is best to fold and wait for a more favorable situation.
I think its already been covered, but for what its worth:
1) A7s - What cards would you expect someone to raise with that you would be ahead of at this point? Do they frequently raise with worse hands? Someone would have to be raising every hand before I would wanna think about calling their raise with this. Most likely you will be looking at a better Ax or a pair higher than 77. So I say wait.
2) 95s - well the suited really adds very little value in this situation, and the straight potential about the same. It is not a whole lot better than 94o in a heads up or three-way situation. You should just take your chances on the blind hand, you almost can't do any worse.
A Poker Guy!
Against two Kings, A-7s is 2-1 dog. Against A-K, A-7s is 7-3 dog. Only if up against A-A is the A-7s not getting the price to call (8-1 dog). Having one Ace in the hand certainly diminishes that possibility, so the strongest most likely hand to be up against is something along the lines of K-K or Q-Q. While there are certainly two perspectives to take, depending upon objective, the price is there.
This meshes quite well with my post above re J9 in a NL HE tournament. Earl may be right that the price is there (although here, I don't think so, as there is more than 1 opponent to beat out). However, in this thread, we have a player at the final table. By the mere act of folding this hand, he might survive while someone else is eliminated, and thereby move up into a higher paying position. Given that, I think that a fold is almost mandatory.
In my thread above, I am VERY far away from the money, and am getting 2:1 where all the betting is over with. As long as I'm not a 2:1 dog, then a call is probably the right play (although no one seems to think so, see thread above).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Good points. If 2-1 is the correct odds (somehow I come up with something closer to 3-1, but don't have time to do the detailed figuring right now) you have odds, but still go home at least 2 out of every 3 times to a pocket pair of 77 or greater. There are still potentially 7 more hands before you have to play a hand, and there is a good chance that you will be dealt Ax or better during that time. So the choice becomes to play a hand that is almost certainly behind but has odds to call, or wait for a better hand and hope that, if nothing else, people bust out while you are waiting. Position is virtually worthless when you have to go all in for one small bet (except that you may give somebody behind you odds to call a marginal hand if they have position on you), and I put very little value on the suited aspect of A7s in that situation.
So I think it comes down to what chance you want to take. The chance that you can get a better hand if you wait and/or move up the ladder by other bustouts, or the chance that you can catch up with this hand, and be in a stronger stack position. Though I can see arguements for both, personally I would prefer my opponents take the latter strategy and I would probably almost always take the former.
A Poker Guy!
There is something that others have not mentioned regarding the 95s question:
"Later I have 4 chips UTG with 95s. Should I go after it with these two cards or wait for the "dumb" luck of my blind?"
Fold and wait. In the first place you will get something at least as good as a blind hand and secondly... if you put those chips in UTG and it is announced that you are all-in, my experience is that this is a big spotlight shining on you that is shouting out to the big stacks... CALL. As the big blind, they at least have to figure out that you are all-in AND think about what they're going to do. They can't go up against you with crap since someone else might come over the top. In other words, I think the psychology of being all-in is better for you if you behind your potential predators (when you are the BB) than when you are in front (UTG).
This, of course, does not apply if you are able to raise UTG and put some pressure on the opposition.
Regards, Dave Scharf
Today. Bellagio. 15-30 Holdem. 2nd position. UTG raises. Me: Ah,Kh. Reraise. Me and UTG. Flop: Qh,Jd,Td. UTG bet. Me:Call. Turn: 9c. UTG: Bet. Me: Call. River Ks. A bunch of raiseses. UTG Hand: A,A. Chopped Pot.
My mistakes Please!
Vince
The 9 on the turn makes a big difference. I assume that you put UTG on a hand like Pocket Aces, Pocket Kings, Big Slick, KQ or perhaps a set. If UTG has Aces or a set, he may check the river if he does not improve. In that case, it is better that you raise on the turn when you have a chance. If UTG has pocket Kings or KQ, it is still better to raise on the turn because not only will you get paid off on the turn but also on the river. Plus, there's a chance that UTG may make it three bets on the turn. He will not likely make it three bets on the river with KQ if a brick hits because he will now smell the trap that you have laid for him.
Of course, if he has AK, you have nothing to gain by raising on the turn and everything to possibly lose if he has AdKd.
Suppose UTG is just on a wild bluff i.e he raised preflop with pocket 7's or something. Then of course you are better off calling and letting him bluff again on the river. Obviously though, this is an unlikely possibility.
A further danger to waiting until the river card is that a scare card may land which may deter you from raising. e.g. Board pairs, diamond hits etc. Of course, on those occasions when he does hit say his diamond on the river, you will be glad that you hadn't done any raising but once again this is probably an unlikely scenario. Also, if UTG has Pocket Kings, he may check on the river if a diamond hits on the river because that is now a scare card for him. This too can preclude you from getting any raises in when you have the best hand.
All in all, I would have popped him on the turn.
Oops, my ride's here. Wanted to say more but gotta go.
Today. Bellagio. 15-30 Holdem. 2nd position. UTG raises. Me: Ah,Kh. Reraise. Me and UTG. Flop: Qh,Jd,Td. UTG bet. Me:Call. Turn: 9c. UTG: Bet. Me: Call. River Ks. A bunch of raiseses. UTG Hand: A,A. Chopped Pot.
Thanks for the brief summary... it helps.
I tend to raise right on the flop.
If we assume that he has a big hand then you may get a lot of action (he flops top set?). Depending on the type of players that he is it may even work well as deception. If he is the sort of player who himself would never raise the nuts on the flop then he may simply *never* believe you have AK. Against that sort of player is it more deceptive in a weird sort of way to play your big hands strongly.
Otherwise, for the reasons given by skp I think you have to raise on the turn.
In any event, I doubt that you get any different result in this hand unless he is real tight or you have a real tight reputation. Regards, Dave Scharf
Ya, I didn't get a chance to finish my original post but I wanted to add that I would often raise right on the flop. Usually (at least in my games), a raise on the flop gets no respect. It is taken as a sign that the raiser has a pretty good hand but not a monster. Many players then reraise even if their hand doesn't warrant it. You then can of course call the reraise and pop him again on the turn. If the stars are right and UTG has flopped a set, he might even attempt a checkraise on the turn if a brick hits.
So, in sum, I do think that you waited too long Vince. With the range of holdings that UTG probably had given his actions to date, I would have raised on the turn (with a raise on the flop as a possible choice as well).
I'd add that often when you just call the flop with the intention of raising the turn the opponent checks to you on the turn anyway, taking away your opportunity to do any raising.
So... I'd definitely be looking for a raise on the flop OR on the turn. Which one I choose depends on the nature of the players, my position, how the pre-flop betting went, etc.
The one thing we all agree on is that you can't wait until the river to raise. If there are players on a draw, you have to make them pay while there are still cards to come. If they miss the draw on the river, you lose a bet.
Dan
Vince,
Maybe a more profitable way to play this pre-flop is to call the UTG raise instead of reraising. Your reraise is meant to isolate the action. But do you really want to be heads-up with an UTG raiser? If UTG has AA, KK, AKs, AKo, or a decent pair, (and unless you have reason to think otherwise, he most likely does) then why raise? If your hand is weaker than his, you'd be better off calling. If it's equal to his, or even a little better (say he's got AKo) still isn't it better to call and let 1 or 2 people in. AKs plays well with others, and considering your relative strength to UTG, why not let a person or two in. Probably cost you less when you lose and make you more when you win in the long run. I realize that when you raise the UTG you have position on him, and that makes your play sometimes correct, but usually I think the call is more profitable. Ray
UTG raiser could also have AQ AJs even KQs or some out-of-line holding. Only Vince knows the line-up, we have to assume typical opposition for this milieu.
I would have raised after the flop, and turn. I would expect him to hold AA AK KK Maybe even QQ. There is a good chance he holds the AKd. If that is the case, he is the Favorite.
I would rather have the whole pot on the turn then chop it at the end. How well did you know this player? would he call your raise cold on the flop, and turn, for the draw? As long as a diamond Does not hit the board, I would have keep on pumping him.
IMO...
Next time Vince, dont post the results till a few have responded, it would make us think a little more.
Walleye
You're trying to represent a hand you couldn't possibly have when you call on this flop after having reraised from early position. If I'm the player UTG, I now have to think you could very well be slowplaying the nut straight. If you had a pocket pair AA through TT I'd have expected a raise on the flop since your hand would be vulnerable to all sorts of draws, and you could easily convince me if I held AK to reraise back which lets you become reasonably sure you're the one who needs to draw out. If you had AQs AJs or KQs I'd also have expected a raise. Again if you're reraised you probably need to hit on the turn, or at least have picked up extra outs if I lead into you, but you'd know where you stand. So, you either have 99 or AK when you call my bet on the flop. If the flop were unsuited, slowplaying broadway heads-up would become a viable choice because there are now fewer possible draws that can beat it. Perhaps when the turn brought that off-suit nine you just smooth called because a raise would too obviously have marked you with a made hand; you wanted to suck another bet out of him on the river and were concerned he'd muck if you played back. Yet just about the only hands you're going to get extra bets out of on a blank river card are KK or KQs. You have the nuts on the turn and are bet into, the only thing superior to your hand right now is AdKd. Raise, (don't start to get concerned about being freerolled at this point) hope to win the pot right there or make him pay to beat you.
Vince, I was at that table when that hand was played. I have tried slow playing big hands to try and get more bets and this strategy just doesn't seem to play out very well for me. One problem with this strategy of just calling with a big hand is that you may be up against asecond best big hand, which in this case you were and he wasn't going anywhere with pocket Aces. UTG bets you should have raised IMO. Why not? You are aginst one opponent who has raise coming in, they could have flopped a set and now you are just calling, same with the turn. Bad luck struck when you the King fell and now you have to split the pot. I would have raise every chance I could. He may have given up on the turn, but I doubt it.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
I had a similar situation over the weekend. 10-20 HE-UTG called, 2 man raised 3 dropped out and I cold called in 4 with AhKh. The game was middle of the road - not very loose but not very tight either. I had 3 or 4 people come in behind me and won a monster pot when three hearts dropped on the flop. I'm not so sure reraising with AhKh is the only play here. Its a powerful hand in multi-way action and I would want customers, but I'm only a novice so what do I know? I can see that you tried to isolate UTG and possibly the blinds - a typical professional play, but I think you would have won a monster if you sat on those cards pre-flop. As in the hand I hit, I gambled up front. You on the other hand gambled post-flop by slow playing. The expected returns (EV) for your gamble were relatively moderate, mine were high.
I had a post last week where I asked what EV was, the only person to answer it was wrong. You can't increase or decrease EV but you can take steps to improve it. It is not a long term phenomenon but the results, which may be long or short term, of an immediate action. Sklansky will you jump in and explain to your posters what EV is or tell me that I'm wrong.
Suppose I'm only going to play blackjack with a match play coupon, and only for the minimum wager. How radical a change in basic strategy is called for when you're getting 2:1 on your bet? I tend not to hit certain stiff hands like 12 or 13 even when the dealer has 10. Is this a mistake under these conditions?
You should stick to perfect basic strategy as far as staying and hitting decisions. Where you will possibly want to stray from basic strategy is in your decisions for doubling down and pair splitting (as I assume that you'll have to put up $10 real money to double down when you've put up $5 real and $5 match play initially). As to exactly how you should vary from basic strategy, I have no idea.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
abdul doesn't post here anymore as far as I know. I believe he is feuding with the boys. he posts on rgp
Andrew,
On June 15, 1998, in a post entitled "Blackjack", Boris asked a similar question. I then replied that according to my sims there were 4 occasions to depart from basic strategy and to double down : 11 vs A, A7 vs 2, A8 vs 5 and A8 vs 6. Boris was referring to some "bus" coupon worth $10 in a 6 deck game, and in ensuing private correspondence, I pointed out to him that his increase in expectation due to this departure in BS was a small fraction of a cent.
Etienne
"Blackjack" What variation of Poker is this?
Vince
I apologize for the previous sarcastic response. I forgot that the name of this forum is "The Gambling Theory and Strategy Forum" not the Poker Forum. Again my apology!
Vince
Thank-you for straightening me out here.
in mason's recent article about players who steam, he suggested playing excellent poker, which in turn will help you not to steam. hmmmm,... okay. then he cites an example of a situation where a player thinks that he is playing well, but Mason states that it is not good poker. But he doesn't talk about what the player should do in this example. Not one of your better written articles Mason. Although I understand the point that he was trying to make, I would like to post this example and see how other players would play this typical hand, and maybe we'll hear from Mason as well. Here goes: it's really quite simple; you are in early posistion in a large multiway pot. you hold JQ of spades and the flop is Jc 7d 2h." of course you bet because you don't want to give a free card", writes Mason. The turn is a blank. "You bet again for the same reason and you get four callers". On the river another blank hits and you lose to a player who makes two small pair. Mason states, " You didn't play it right because of the size of the pot you were going to get lots of callers and you knew this." " Furthermore anyone with a small pair was correct in calling due to the number of bets in the center of the table.""Thus you used strategy that was inaccurate for this situation"
Okay ,I understand that for this hand there were alot of players, but still it is not clear-cut how to play it. Do you check and fold, just bet the flop, then check and call, or check and fld? With no raising going on at what point should you not bet or not call???? What is the expert play here? all comments are welcome.
Check with the intention of usually raising (preferably some late-middle or late position player will bet), even check-reraise (trying to slow it down for the turn). If there is alot of action up front consider folding, although this is not clearcut.
Al,
The idea is that your opponents are not making a mistake by calling when you lead. You want to finesse your opponent into making a mistake such as betting when they are not supposed to so that you can check raise and eliminate players from the pot.
Tom Haley
Post deleted at author's request.
Lesser of two evils (giving a free card vs. not cutting down the field). It's o.k. to checkraise when you're fairly sure you don't have the best hand as long as you significantly increase your chances of winning the pot. If you get reraised, treat the situation like you would if you semibluffed and got raised (call and look for one of your five apparent outs). DON'T let yourself get beat by bottom pair with an ace kicker (for example) that you let in on the flop for one bet.
Post deleted at author's request.
I think he meant betting out into that large a field with top pair and a decent kicker was a mistake. Certainly you are correct in considering the opposition, and letting that guide you into the right action. I simply answered the question as I would play it having never seen the competition.
this is why I posted his statements. he clearly stated that betting twice in a row was incorrect against 4-5 players even though there was no raise etc. So if it is incorrect what is correct? Checking the flop just doesn't seem right, even with the intention of check raising. I think it was simply a poor example without taking it further in his article. We all know that betting a one pair hand into a large field can be dangerous, but it seems to me that it is a neccessary evil inorder to try to thin the field as well as eliminate free cards. So, Mason are you going to please respond and clarify. I also have a request. the request is that you post your articles after the issue has run its' course, so we can see what you are writing about in publications that we aren't familiar. seeya
Gary,
You write:
I respond: Yes I agree. You and your opponents can be making the right play.
>>Who was going to bet? That's a pretty key question. Sometimes it's nobody. Sometimes you're more likely to get a raise if you bet then a bet if you check. There is no way at all to determine the right thing to do without having some specific information about the opponents. Just looking at the cards isn't enough here.<<
Yes it can and often does get complicated.
>>In many cases, the likely better is going to be that player with the short pair who ended up winning. If you check and that player bets, then I don't think a check raise is going to win it for you against most opponents. And what are you going to do if he makes it three bets? (the opponents I'm thinking of that I can count on to bet for me are very likely to make it three bets).<<
Again it can get complicated if they will three bet with a variety of hands. Although I do think that eliminating weak draws is desirable. Wouldn't "Mortens Theorem" apply here? The one that the late Andy Morten developed that showed that in a multi-way pot the 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. place hands are putting money in the 2nd place hand's pocket at the expense of the first place hand. So it would seem that it would be desirable most of the time for the best hand to eliminate as many hands has possible in a multi-way pot. Of course the pot size and the likelihood that your opponent will three bet would still have to be considered in light of this.
>>I havne't read the article yet, but I don't see anything here that determines one way or another whether the bet on the flop was right or not.<<
True but I am guessing that the important point Mason was making was that a highly skilled player will be adept at judging when the play of going for the check raise is right and will be cognizant of the fact that when they lose the pot at least they played their hand correctly. An unskilled player won't recognize or have the knowledge that there is a better play than betting out (I agree that going for the check-raise isn't always the right play) and thus costs themselves money. If the unskilled player is costing themselves money through their unskilled play then they are susceptible to tilting especially if they don't know how unskilled they are. Whew, I hope this didn't come across as rambling.
Tom Haley
tom, you're right. this article just didn't do it. I thought I was missing something , but I think it was just a bad example. thanks for your post
I thought the key to Mason's message was "Control of the enemy within".
Playing a QJ suited in a multiway pot is accepted as a quality hand for these conditions. But the next step is the texture of the flop with this type of hand. The flop discribed is not the type of flop you really want, top pair with a Queen kicker.
You have the possiblity of a KJ and even AJ against you
You don't have any "back door" flush possibilies and str8's are not looking good.
You wanted a flop like QQQ-JJJ-QQJ-QJJ-Q-J-2(different suits)-Ts-9s-8s----Ts-9s-8d, etc.
With the flop and 4 callers on the flop after betting, then your hand is in real danger. Almost any card off could be bad for you and now you are playing a guessing game on whether you are leading the pack with this hand or have fallen to 4th place.
I would make one bet on the flop and check it the rest of the way, unless I got some big help, like runner runner Jack, or even caught a queen on the river, I would still be cautious.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
nvlrry, would you call if there was a bet on the turn and river.? At what point would you let it go? I agree with playing it similar on the flop, and I would check the turn, but would i fold? I guess this is what mason's implying .
Amen
NL HE tournament, still a long way from the money. You have an average stack of T20,000. 8 players at the table have anted T500, you post the big blind of T2,000, and everyone folds to the button, who raises all-in for T10,000 more. Small blind folds. The pot is T19,000, it will cost you T10,000 to call. If you fold, you'll still have T17,500. If you call and lose, you'll have T7,500. If you call and win, you'll have T36,500.
You have J9off, what do you do and why?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Not a close decision, it's a clear fold. Too many players at the table (re: "bunching" chances), and he could have anything -- you are either a minute favorite or a big dog. Your stack isn't in any jeopardy and you have plenty of time to maneuver after this hand.
I throw the hand away because there is too big a likelihood that all in bettor is stealing with a better hand than I'm defending with. I would be crippled somewhat if I lose, robbing myself of the chance to float into the money if other players are taking aggressive chances and busting out due to the large blinds and antes. I want to have enough chips in front of me to protect my ability to steal the blinds and antes when I have position. Being first in with a sizeable bet at this stage is strong. Calling an all in bet when you have a poor hand and no compelling need to is a mistake.
If your opponent would make this play with any hand You are a small favorite. If he would make this play with a hand like ace king but not a big pair you are getting pot odds. Only if he may have a bigger pair or a hand that contains your cards and a bigger kicker are you in trouble. If its an aggressive player who will give you trouble in the future you may want to take a chance to get rid of him. If you win then nobody will steal your blinds for a while and you can get some chips from that situation. I dont say you should call here but it is not a clear cut fold. Good Luck.
Fold! (No question). If you lose you will put yourself in the unenviable position of being forced to gamble! You will not be able to influence the outcome of your next hand in any way with only 7500 (1500 of that goes to your sb and ante) especially against average stacks of 20,000! Fold, with 17,500 you still have a lot of potential to cause harm and the other players know it! Pick and choose your own time to go to war! Be the aggressor not some passive caller! Do not let others dictate when and how you do battle! If you knew the bettor had 7,2o it might still be better to fold! (J,9o can't be much more than a 2 to 1 favorite even over this killer). The only power you have in tournament play are those chips. Use them wisely!
Vince
"long way from the money." fold
Well, I guess I'm in the minority, as I called. I felt that of all the possible hands against me, it added up to me being a much less than 2:1 dog, probably along the lines of about 3:2. Since we are very far from the money, I think that I need to go after almost every possible edge, and cannot afford to give up this situation. If we were closer to the money, where survival has significant benefits, then I'd change my mind. Here, where I still have to accumulate a ton of chips to make the money, I feel I should take a chance like this.
For those who hadn't guessed, this is the WRGPT8 NL HE tournament that we're discussing. No money is on the line, just pride. There are almost 400 players left out of nearly 1,000 starters, and I only care about winning, not coming in 17th or some other high finish. My opponent turned out to have JT, one of the worst hands for me to be facing, and he won. Oh well, I'll just have to get a little luckier from now on to win.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Firstly, let me apologize for a brutally constructed quiz: Question 1 had an error, Question 2 is not really a true or false question and question 3 did not have enough info.
Nevertheless, here are my answers (not necessarily correct which is another problem with some of the quiz questions: no definite correct answer):
Question No.1
I should have had something like Ad2d in the example instead of QdJd. Using Ad2d, Rick and Darrell are correct in stating that the straight draw is better. Both draws offer 8 outs on the turn. The straight draw offers 8 outs again on the river but the flush draw will only offer 7 outs.
However, Andrew and Rick are correct that the possibility of the back door straight makes the flush draw better than the straight draw. I haven't done the math but my intuition says that they are correct.
Question No. 2
This one is probably a matter of opinion but I agree with Steve's response. Personally, I will take the set of deuces. With a set of tens, the 10 on the board is way more likely to make someone a straight. I disagree with Rick that a set over set possibility tips the balance in favour of the set of tens. I agree with Mason when he says that these set over set confrontations are very rare. In over 2200 hours of Hold 'em play, I have been involved in set over set confronations less than 10 times in my estimation.
Question No. 3
Terrible Question. Not enough info. Generally though, the point I was trying to make is that a bluff on an xxx flop is not likely to work. It's too easy for people to call with nothing because they will have 2 overcards. Generally, in late position or from an early position in an unraised pot, a Kxx flop is a much better one to bluff at.
Question No. 4
2 bets - My order would be c e a d b capped - My order would be e a c d b
I agree with Andrew and Rick in this regard and fully endorse Rick's reasoning.
Question No. 5
Chance Harris and Darrell have got it right (IMO). You should fold because the opener surely has a full house which will almost certainly be bigger than your 3s full.
I remember this hand as if it was played yesterday even though it was actually played some 10 years ago. In many ways, it was the turning point for me in poker.
I had the 3s full and reraised the opener. The only thing I thought to myself at that time was "wow, I've got a full house and I'm gonna rake it in". It never occurred to me that the opener must also have a full house. Luckily, he had opened with AA55 and drew a 5. Thus, he correctly just called my raise. Had he drawn an Ace, he would have reraised again (over a $1000 raise). I would have called (we used to allow markers and no one could go all in). I was a struggling University student back then and that kind of loss would have probably finished my poker playing.
The hand also taught me my first real lesson in poker which we all know: Poker is not about the absolute strength of your hand, it is about the strength of your hand relative to the other hands. What you think your opponent holds and what he thinks you hold are more important than what you actually hold.
Anyways, glad to report that I quickly picked up a great book on draw poker by Nesmith Ankeny and became a regular winner at our pot limit draw poker home game.
While Hold 'em is a marvelous game, I sure do miss PL Jacks or Better. Too bad, the game is virtually dead now.
I have just started to learn about hold em. I would like to buy a computer simualator but am not certain which ones are good. Could somebody recommend?
Regards A.N
This was a fun quiz and thanks for posting it!
After further thought I felt that the question about a set of 2's or 10's deserves more careful analysis about the preflop action prior to the decision about how to proceed. Most of the discussion dealt with the amount of money to be made going forward, but it should probably also include the amount of money in prior to the flop of the set. Any time you have a pair of 10's the preflop action is likely to be more aggressive, either because you are the aggressor, or because you are willing to mix it up with some your looser opposition. This is not so with a pair of 2's. In consequence, you will be in more and larger pots preflop with your 10's. Flopping a set of 10's will garner you a lot more of the preflop money--much of which wouldn't be there with those 2's, either because preflop you folded them to a raise or failed to raise yourself. Given the question as stated I think that the set of 10's will garner more money over the long haul if you count the preflop action, but this is only intuitive on my part and I don't know what the math analysts might say about this. Anyone able to comment?
I don't see this as a given at all. You are usually going to play pocket 2's in 'volume pots' where there are a lot of callers. Pocket 10's will be played in those pots as well, but they are also going to be played in a lot of heads-up and 3-way pots, because if you're first into the pot you're probably going to raise with them, and that's going to restrict the action you get when you do hit a set.
My personal opinion is that pocket 2's will win more money when they make a set. And I simply don't worry about set over set - it's pretty rare. I think the fact that a set of 10's is more likely to be beaten by a straight more than overcomes any set-over-set losses that pocket 2's might endure.
Dan
You're going to have to explain why the opener couldn't have had a hand like jacks with an ace high four-flush, correctly split his pair drew one and caught, or at least show mathematical proof that the probability of being dealt two pairs is substantialy greater than being dealt openers with a four flush or four straight (open-ended), before you can begin to convince me that Fold is the correct answer to #5.
Easy. If the opener splits his Jacks to go for a flush or straight, he must announce it by turning over the Jack he is throwing away. In other words, if you throw away openers, you have to inform the table.
Sorry. I should have mentioned that in giving my responses to the problems.
When I played this structure, the opener used to slide any discards under a button marked "Opener". If the draw did not connect, the discards and hand would be examined together for openers after the hand was over. This now explains both our answers. Also, you didn't screw up on question #1, it is more interesting the way you originally posted it.
I was told this morning (Sat) that I've won a seat in a WSOP qualifying tournament. My HE experience consists of about 400 hours of 4-8. Since reading S&M's HFAP in late Oct, I'm plus 300 BB in the last 200 odd hours. My tourny experience is nil. I need some advice please.
Tomorrow's format: Start with $1,000.00, 10-20 limit HE (5-10 blinds) increasing every half hour to 20-40, 30-60, 50-100, 75-150, 100-200, and finally, 200-400. 16 to 18 contestants will start at noon Sunday and the final four will win seats in the next stage. What do you think is the best strategy to follow in order to survive to the final four? Thx in advance.
What is the meaning of life?
Well okay, your question can be answered easier than that. But learning how to play tournaments in one night can not be done. Even the best of advice will not be retained by then.
You're playing limit, so avoid playing drawing-hands (small/medium suited connectors or small pairs)unless you can get in cheap against many opponents. Play only premium hands, such as high pairs, high suited connectors, high connectors, etc.
With that format you will have two hours or more before you have to worry about taking chances should you not be catching any cards. Don't try to win the tournament early, it can't be done! Worry about building your stack for later on.
Be aware of the total number of players alive, as well as the total number of chips in play, so you can gauge your stack size against the average stack size. Should your stack size be less than half the average, or there abouts, then you might start taking some chances by opening up a little. Be more inclined to take on the small stacks, who may be desperate, or the big stacks, who may be bullying, than an average stack who is probably playing straight forward. Don't try bluffing a big stack if you have a small one.
Remember that you only need one chip when down to four players to qualify. Be aware of the small stacks and their relation to the blinds. If you're one of them, know for sure if you should be taking any chances, or waiting for the blinds to eat up your opponents.
If you have a very big stack with less than one table to go, avoid playing hands. Here is a situation where mucking AA before the flop could be correct! Always remember what your goal is--to finish in the top four!
There is a lot more to tournaments. And some might recommend a more aggressive approach, especially early on, or with a big stack. But following the above advice will, hopefully, give you a better shot than you would have had otherwise.
Good luck.
Boy have I opened myself up with this advice. ;-)
Situation:
I'm playing 5-10 and I was an unknown player. I was up considerably and after beating the player two seats to my right for two big pots he started raising my small and big blinds.
Initially, I didn't care as he was making my decision to throw away poor and marginal hands away easy, but I was finding it rather irritating that I never to see any flops.
I was then dealt 3C-2C in the small blind and once again he raised (I was the only one who he kept raising the blinds on). I considered calling and even re-raising. While I am aware that re-raising this hand from the small blind is normally not a good play I did want to stop him from continously raising my blinds.
As it turned out I mucked my 3-2 suited, it flopped a set of two's and made a tight on the turn.
I ended up staying until I won one more big pot and then left as I was getting really iratated by him. I did get a lot of satisfaction when I asked the the dealer colour me up and he realised a lot of his money was leaving the table.
I would appreciate comments on the following:
- Various techniques used when an individual keeps raising your blinds.
- Should I have called or re-raised with 3-2 suited to try to restrain him in further hands.
S. Doyle
>>...made a tight on the turn.<<
Ah, this was in Canada? That explains it!
Just kidding. Actually, my advice would be first to make sure you have a good set of standards for what hands you'll defend your blinds with. I think those in HPFAP are pretty workable. (You may need to tinker with them a bit as, e.g., sometimes something like A9 may be a better hand to defend with than, say, QT, even though the latter is ranked higher. i.e., just be aware of hand values in head head up pots...)
Alternatively, in the archives, around August I think, are a couple of long threads on the topic of standards for defending blinds and postflop strategy. Some of the standards discussed were pretty liberal - certainly more liberal than my own. But the threads are worth reading.
I get a lot of players trying to steal my blinds as I'm seen as very tight. And in fact I *don't* defend as often as the average player. But I find that those occasions when I do defend tend to more than make up for the blinds that I give up. So don't get overly concerned when, by chance, you just get garbage cards in the blinds for several rounds, and have to give them up to apparent steal attempts. It's something like what happens in short-handed play when you keep picking up hands like 6-2. So what if you have to fold for a while. The cards will change. If you try to force it with garbage, you'll probably just make matters worse.
That said, I do try to let an habitual stealer know that he's going to get played with if he keeps at it too much. I may sometimes reraise from the small blind with a hand like 87s, knowing that I may be able to steal after the flop, but that I may also get lucky and make a real hand. And if I get to show it down it will send the message that I don't need AK to play back. Still, you're generally better off with big cards and hands you can take to the river - particulary against an habitual stealer against whom your blind defense will probably share much in common with typical short-handed play. In the big blind you can reraise these stealers with medium pairs and hands like AQ. You can call with mediocre hands like A7, T9. (Bob Ciaffone has a decent essay on this called "Countermeasures" in his _Improve Your Poker_) Keep in mind how this opponent thinks you're playing. So, e.g., if he thinks you're playing very tightly and not betting unless you have something, you might defend a little more liberally in some spots as you'll have more leverage for stealing.
I wouldn't have defended in the small blind with the 32s. But I'd have reraised with hands such as K9s, Axs, AT, 77, QT...
Those are just a few thoughts. I'm sure I've overlooked a lot and that others will add more.
John Feeney
You might also consider changing seats, unless your seat was otherwise too good to give up. He probably won't try to steal your blinds from across the table.
It seems to me he may have been doing this for the purpose of annoying you and putting you on tilt. Since he succeeded in annoying you, you now wanted to put him in his place, instead of playing your best game. You showed good discipline by getting up. A similar response would have been to get up and go for a walk or meal (and let him stare at your stacks for a while ;-) ).
I'm not saying that you shouldn't stay in a good game and defend your blinds if necessary. Just that there are other options available that shouldn't be overlooked.
You didn't mention two important factors:
1. Was he the first person in in these pots?
2. When he had to show down what sorts of hands did he have?
Some people will raise to steal with anything on the button when they are first in. Against these people you don't need much to protect. Also you may get a better read on what you need based on what sort of hands he was showing down.
Danny S
When I finally got the opportunity to play full time, after retirement, I thought I had arrived in the "big times." I had read all the books, studied videos and played as much as I could while awaiting retirement. Once I started playing on a daily basis my ego kept getting in my way by wanting to impress the "tourists" at the table with my knowledge of odds and playing strategy. Hey, I was a full time pro now. Well, long story short, Mason Malmuth help me see the errors of my ways, and now I try to keep my mouth shut at the table. For some people this can be a very difficult experience. But, over time I have settled down and now see why it is important to just smile and keep saying "nice hand."
I also discovered that some "recreational" players are damn good players.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
Consider silently "impressing" the spirit of your favorite author that you imagine is always looking over your shoulder. That'll help with the testosterone AND discipline.
Unfortunately for me, Tolkien doesn't care.
May the decisions always be with me...
- Louie
PS. Consider "nice determination" or "Dang, I KNEW I wanted you out" with a playfully exaggerated grimace instead of "nice hand" with a false patronizing smile.
A short time ago JP Massar posted the results of some simulations that he was gracious enough to perform illustrating the effect of the "bunching factor" in hold'em. Refer to JP's post for the details of the simulation. Basically it was to illustrate the effects of the bunching factor when 7 players have folded to the button in hold'em. I took some time to do a rudimentary analysis of the results of JP's bunching factor simulation for hold'em. I used the results where the bunching factor was the greatest to reach some conclusions about the bunching factor in hold'em.
First I examined the results for paired hands. One result of the simulation indicates that the likelihood of being dealt a pair is 5.93% for deals affected by the bunching factor. For random hands dealt to three players, the likelihood will be 5.85%. My conclusion is that this difference is not significant. Second I determined the median pair dealt for deals affected by the bunching factor. The median pair was 9,9. The median pair for the 3 players only with the cards dealt at ramdom is 8,8. The next thing I looked at was the increased frequency of a pair of Aces. Without the bunching factor the frequency of Aces is .45% and it nearly doubles to .84% with the bunching factor. I still don't think that this significant increase will be that important to your bottom line because Aces are still dealt infrequently IMO. Generally speaking I would say that the impact of the bunching factor on paired hands is very slight and you may want to tighten up a little with your medium to small pairs.
Next I examined the frequency of an unpaired Ace. For three players dealt hands at random the frequency of a hand that contains an unpaired Ace is 14.4%. For a deck that is affected by the bunching factor where 7 players fold to the big blind, the frequency of a hand that contains an unpaired Ace is 19.2%. This difference appears to be significant to me. One immediate conclusion that I drew is that if you are one of the last three hands after 7 players have folded to the blinds and you don't have an Ace it is a lot more likely that one of your opponents does. Therefore if you are on the button and don't have a hand containing an Ace, you could get yourself into a lot of trouble against a good player who could defend their blind well with just an Ace high hand. Also if you are in one of the blinds and don't have an Ace then you probably should tighten up some against a knowledgeable player who raises your blind. All corrections and comments welcome.
I agree with your conclusions. I'll repeat that the most likely place those single Ace plays are most significant is in the latter stages of fast-action tournaments and super-satellites.
And ... the opponent is much more likely to have an ace when several loose players fold, indicating no aces in those folded hands. So steal less?
And ... a raise or a call after opponents have folded increases the chances of an Ace, so you will often have good bluffs when no Ace flops. So steal more?
Steal less? ... steal more? ... Hmmmmm.
- Louie
Louie,
It does depend on your opponents and how they play.
Tom Haley
Quick thought. In light of Mortens Theorem, is raising with the second best hand correct? If opponents loose calls with third, fourth, fifth, etc. place hands gains equity for the second place hand at the expense of the first place hand, I would think that knocking the third place hands and worse would be a mistake by the second place hand. I am sure it would depend on the size of the pot. Also it seems that if a fifth place hand could eliminate a second, third, and fourth place hand they have gained tremendously. All thoughts and comments appreciated.
"Quick thought. In light of Mortens Theorem, is raising with the second best hand correct? If opponents loose calls with third, fourth, fifth, etc. place hands gains equity for the second place hand at the expense of the first place hand, I would think that knocking the third place hands and worse would be a mistake by the second place hand. I am sure it would depend on the size of the pot. Also it seems that if a fifth place hand could eliminate a second, third, and fourth place hand they have gained tremendously. All thoughts and comments appreciated." Loose calls do not automatically help the second-best hand. When you have a vulnerable best hand, extra callers may primarily help a strong drawing hand rather than your hand (although this isn't certain either - the extra callers can overlap, and it's rare for their mistakes to not help your hand somewhat). Often it's a bad idea to knock players out when you have a strong drawing hand in a multiway pot. But if you have a hand like middle pair-ace kicker, the other hands calling do not help your hand, and can reduce your chances of winning. If the pot is large, you might raise even though you know your hand is second-best, since you are increasing your chances of winning the pot enough to compensate for the lost value of the raise. If the flop is something like KhTd7s, and the pot is large, your AcTc wants to get rid of gutshots and bottom pair. Which hand is currently in fifth and which is currently in second doesn't usually matter much. What's more important is your chance of winning at the river, and the extra value you would receive in those situations where you do hit. Bottom pair-ace kicker would often benefit from narrowing the field. If opponents #2, #3 and #4 were likely to fold to a raise but not to the original bet, I would sometimes raise with bottom pair-ace kicker if the pot was of sufficient size.
Quiestions: at what limits do you find that this works. My experience is up to 10/20 and i cant imagine it working there. Also what size does the pot have to be ? thanks Michael
In Foxwoods, where I play, even 5-10 can be tight. In that type of game, there will still occasionally be hands where five or six people are in, and if there is a late position preflop raise, the pot can be quite large by the flop. If the pot is even $80 in 10-20, many players with bottom pair, middle pair-lower kicker and gutshots would fold to a raise but not to a bet. And the raise might get you a free card on the turn. In any case, I would only make this play against certain opponents and with certain boards.
Dan,
It would seem that in the situation you describe that if you had the third button on the flop with an overcard kicker, a check raise is probably the right play when the pre-flop raiser in late position bets.
Tom Haley
The regulars play back at your checkraises from early position quite often on the same betting round. Therefore, I would only do this with additional backdoor flush draws to the nuts when holding bottom pair ace kicker. Top pair ace kicker is usually enough though.
It depends on the texture of the hands you are up against. Typical situation: You have A5d. The flop is QsTd5s. You have bottom pair, plus a 3-flush, plus an overcard. The first person bets. You should raise if the pot is very large, or there is a good chance that the original bettor is betting a draw. Now let's say that the original bettor has a Queen. If you can get a hand like AT or AJ to fold, you have just given yourself 2 more direct outs to win the pot, even though you are currently behind. Buying 2 outs with one small bet against a large pot can be a pretty good tradeoff, since the cost of the raise is only a a fraction of a bet anyway since you already have a number of outs to win the pot.
A raise can have other nice side-effects. If the original bettor was betting a queen with a weak kicker, he may lay it down. If a scare card comes on the turn and you continue betting, you may win the pot uncontested. And there is tremendous deceptive value in this raise - if a five lands on the turn, it's going to be pretty hard for your opponents to put you on it, and they start to make fundamental theorem errors.
Of course, there is the possibility that you are raising a set, which makes this a losing play. Or, there could be a big hand behind you. So it is important to use good poker judgement in this situation. The game may be highly agressive, or the opponents still to act may be lunatics, or your read of the situation may tell you that a raise isn't warranted.
Dan
The 2nd best hand must improve to win. So, it matters whether the 3rd etc hands can improve to beat the hand that I must IMPROVE to; not the hand I currently have. It doesn't matter to me if the 3rd place hand beats the 1st place hand. Assuming a large pot and folding is out of the question...
Stud: 1st=AAx; 2nd(me)=KKx; 3rd=QQx. The only way QQ can beat my KsUp is with the long shot trip Qs, so I would keep this player in unless the pot was huge.
Stud: 1st= AAs; 2nd(me)QQx; 3rd=22K. My QsUp can easily lose to KsUp, so I would be inclined to knock that player out.
- Louie
Not sure if this is proper here or in Exchange so I apologize in advance
Having just re-read this book, I have two questions which I hope the authors would answer.
1. The book says that Pai-Gow Poker is beatable, but that you would not discuss it in depth because you said you were not thrilled with it. Why aren't you thrilled with it and how beatable is it in relation to the other games you discuss?
2. Your tablwe showing expected hourly win rates for poker players at various levels is handy but it would be helpful if you could define what a very good player is versus an excellent player. For lack of a better way of putting it, what are the traits of one catagory versus another versus just a "good" or "average" player?
Thanks!
Hi everyone,
Iam keenly interested in sports but do not know where to start. Could somebody recommend a couple of good books to me?
Thanks A.N
Gambler's Book Club has the best selection on sports betting - if a novice the proprietor will offer his advise as he is a avid sports bettor.
I believe the only winning pai-gow strategies involve banking fairly often to only get to a tiny 0.25% advantage. I'd imagine the variance is high due to the banking alone much less the game.
I'd imagine win rate is one catagory ;)
here's a little tip for you. All gambling games( including poker, blackjack, sportsbetting,horseracing,paigow,video poker) CANNOT be beaten for a living. This book is really going to mislead some people. Unless you have some kind of edge.. even though the MATH says it can be done, it is virtually impossible to make a living at these games. What the math does not take into account is the human factor. Since this factor cannot be accurately measured, they fail to talk about it much. S&M are very good for the math and probabilities but that's it. Take poker, (since evryone thinks it can be beat) on paper it looks as if you could make a living.S&M say that experts can make 1-2 big bets an hour in limit games.But where are the experts?? they are writing books, that's where . Reality is so hard to swallow sometimes. The reason there are so few true proffesional poker players is because the negative swings are very very difficult to handle. yes, there are probably a few people that make their money gambling. Some are playing poker tournaments, some are playing the horses, some might be even betting sports. Your chance of doing it is extremely small.Play these games for fun and try to earn some extra money on the side, but DO NOT TRY TO EARN A LIVING THIS WAY! goodluck
ALL games can't be beaten you're right. The house edge is too great to overcome on most of them. However, I know of many professional blackjack players who make a living playing blackjack. I'd say virtually impossible would be too strong of a phrase. I was doing it for a while myself. It can be done and it's being done right now.
I also wouldn't recommend it because it is NOT an easy way to make a living. Most people can't handle the swings(which are more extreme in blackjack) and not many people are cut out for this kind of work. I decided to get a real job and play part time. After all, that's why I went to college. I think that's the best way since you can't really depend on any money on a week to week basis.
bjpro
While I would never recommend to anyone that they go out and get business cards with the words "Professional Gambler" embossed on them, I certainly dispute your statement that it is virtually impossible to make a living by gambling and, in particular, by playing poker. It can be done and is currently being done (and not necessarily by experts) in every city in Canada and the US where there are regular poker games (10-20 and up).
Is it tough to do? Yes, no doubt about it. That's why I agree with your advice that most people should rely on poker merely to supplement their income and should not rely on it to put bread on the table.
I have often wondered how I would fare at the poker tables were I to play poker for a living. I suspect that my hourly rate would be a lot lower as I am sure that I would lose some of my "devil may care" attitude which I believe is a vital component to successful play. Perhaps that's shoddily put. What I mean to say is that the pressure of playing for a living would likely lead to poorer decisions and thus less favourable results. For that reason, I offer my kudos to you professional poker players. You guys must be truly great players to be able to withstand the natural swings of playing poker.
there are far fewer people making a living playing poker than you might think. I'm certainly not saying that people aren't out there doing it... all you have to do is look at some of the top tourney players, or someone like Ray Zee who as I understand it made enough to semi-retire. But these people are rare. I love to play poker and I love to study the game etc., but play for a living??? no way. I think the authors with all their intimate knowledge of gambling, should go out and try to earn 100,000 in one years time simply by playing the games outlined in their book, and see if they can make 100,000. They should start out with no more than 20,000. That should be plenty, and about 2-3 times as much as the normal new pro would start with. If anyone can make 100,000 it should be them, right????? Okay, so I'm a little pissed. I object to them implying that with a few years of studying, you can go out there and do it, just so they can sell some books.
Al,
I wrote my thoughts on Gambling For A Living back in October of 1997. Some of the criticisms that you put forth were pretty much the same as mine. There were some interesting responses to my post as well. David Sklansky responded to my post by starting a thread of his own. You may find these threads interesting as they are in the October 1997 archives.
Tom Haley
I played poker for a living for several years, then I went back to consulting. I'm currently playing poker for a living once again. I have four good friends who at some time in their lives have played poker for a living for an extended period of time (several years or longer). One made about $60,000 a year, another made about $100,000 a year, one played lower limits and made about $25,000 a year.
Most of the people I know who can play poker for a living choose not to after a while, simply because the kind of person who has the ability to play poker is probably highly intelligent and fairly well educated. And for people like that poker gets BORING after a while. I suspect that's why Sklansky and Malmuth and Stanford Wong and the rest of the top-tier gamblers also do things like publish books - not because they have to, but because people like that are always seeking new challenges and new opportunities.
I don't recommend playing poker for a living simply because it's not very rewarding. You spend your time in smokey cardrooms with people you often don't like, doing something that has no potential for personal growth, community status, job satisfaction, etc. As you go through life and get older, the cachet of being a pro poker player wears off, and it becomes increasingly embarassing to have to explain to in-laws, bankers, neighbors, children, etc. just what you do for a living. In a lot of people's eyes, gambling for a living is seedy and immoral. And anyway, most won't believe you and will assume that you're just another problem gambler blowing your kid's college fund in the cardroom.
Dan
dan, i'm sure you are a great great player and all that you said is true. but you are kidding yourself if you think that S&M don't play full time because they are bored with it and need new challenges.They don't play full time because they can make much more money writing books and articles and inventing games and such. I have yet to meet a player who has made the same money you state for over 3years in a row. that isn't a very long time. Show mw one pro other than the highest no limit players, who has made 50 -100k a year for 10 years or more.I'm betting there isn't such an animal and if there is, there is no more than a handful on the planet. And dan, if you are that good, down here in Calif. there is no smoking allowed and the card rooms are large and clean comon down. seeya
S&M have written that most of their income comes from playing poker and not from writing books. I have no reason to dispute that statement (at least when it was made). I suspect that with their growing notoriety in the publishing business, that statement may no longer be true. Now, they may be making more with their publishing work. If so, more power to them.
I personally know several players who have averaged more than 50k per year playing poker (over several years). I know one who was averaging more than 75k for a spell of about 5 years. Incidentally, this fellow is one of the brightest individuals I have ever met and he did get bored with poker. He has now stopped playing completely and is coincidentally also in the publishing business now (not poker related).
I do not dispute for a moment S&M's claim that 100k a year is attainable by the TOP players. Having said that, I think that this is a difficult target for those who play well but at less than the expert level. In my estimation, 60K to 75K is a more realistic number for these types of players.
Don't forget that 60K to 75K is not exactly chump change. In this day and age, you have to be pretty competent to make those numbers in any walk of life.
Incidentally, I agree with Dan Hanson's comment that those who are capable of making 100k/year playing poker probably come to realize that they are bright enough to make even more in other vocations. They thus head to greener pastures. This may explain why you do not see many perrenial 6 figure men (and women) in the cardrooms.
In southern and (esp.) northern california 60-75k _is_ chump change. If you are smart enough to win at poker you should be makeing a lot more then that. I'd imagine that eventhough the competition is tougher in LV the overall amount of disposable income that a poker pro ends up with is significantly higher due to a lower cost of living thus 60-75k might be reasonable.
To the orignal poster...to posit that most players that start out with a bank less then 20k fail is not a really radical statement. Not having read the book in question I can't say for sure, but I'd BET that S&M discuss bankroll size and trying to push less then 20k to 100k in a year isn't suggested.
I don not live in Calif. I defer to your opinion that 60K to 75K is chump change there. But I gotta think that it's still better than the average household income there. Is it not?
But yes, I do agree with your point that most of the top poker players have what it takes to make more money in other arenas. That's why you don't see guys who consistently make 100k a year in the cardrooms. They may do it for a couple of years or so but then go on to make more money running their own business or whatever.
horse pucky! S&M have never derived most of their income from poker. Sorry, skp to give you the hard reality. In fact as far as poker is concerned Mason was a pretty good draw player but he is a very average hldm and stud player.You might be better. But as theorists, they are above reproach. The several players that told you they were making 60-75k, well, I have some beautiful land for you down in Arkansas called Whitewater. What happens is that these people make money for a while and then the cold streak hits and they quit the game and go elsewhere.What are you guys smoking up there in Canada?(just kidding) I don't be;leive half the posts that come from you and dan. dream on guys.
I'm still trying to figure out why your posts are so filled with hostility. Suffer some bad beats lately?
yesdan, my posts have been hostile as of late. no I haven't suffered any bad beats. I just have a very hard time believing that the poker in Canada is so vastly different than here in the us. You know several pro players who do so well and you did so well that because you are intelligent you decided to move on to part time. Sorry Dan, but that just isn't the reality of the poker scene here in the US. In the medium 15-30 to 40-80, stakes games there are very few REAL PROS that derive their income from the game, and they quit because they lose, not because they are so intelligent that they get bored.I also have the upmost respect for S&M, but they are flesh and blood not poker gods. they write good books from which to launch from, but they derive most of their income from the writing etc. There is nothing wrong with it, or secret, it is just the way it is. I'm sure Mason makes money at the tables, but he makes money because he makes fewer mistakes than other players, not because he is some sort of genius player. He would be the first to tell you that most of the so called pros don't make it.That's why when you and skp spout that you know several pros who do quite well,.. well I just have to take acception. seeya
Al, you say:
"I'm sure Mason makes money at the tables, but he makes money because he makes fewer mistakes than other players, not because he is some sort of genius player."
Almost all poker pros make money from their opponents' errors and not from their own brilliant play. C'mon, Al, you know that.
If I were to play the world's best player heads-up for a 8 hour session and then play a very bad player heads-up for a 8 hour session, I will show a profit after the two sessions. That should tell you something.
Let's face it, the game of poker is not exactly rocket science. I would think that there are very few genius players out there. The difference between the world's best player and the world's one-thousand-ranked player is simply not that great. Both need bad players in the game to make their time spent at the tables wothwhile.
I think you can find full-time pros in just about every cardroom. Most of them are young, with low expenses, and are basically using poker as an excuse to slack. Most of them bust out at one time or another because they don't have discipline, and/or they aren't as good as they think.
There are a few guys who make a solid living at poker in this area. I don't feel like I have the right to name their names, so you're just going to have to trust me on this. One of my best friends was a financial analyst, and he got bored with it and decided to play poker full time while he made some life decisions. He played for 2 years, never making less than $30,000/yr, and then decided to go back to school to earn his MBA. He is now paying his way through school by playing poker part time.
Another friend is a professional player who has a degree in Computing Science. He played professionally for 3 years, earning something like 50-60K a year, and then was offered a job doing gaming research, which he accepted. He now plays very little, but has a sizable nest-egg provided by poker.
I played blackjack as my sole source of income for about a year, then I moved to poker and played for another two years before I went to work as an IT director for a local company. I recently left there, and I'm back to playing poker full time while I decide what to do.
I will grant you that for the few players I know who succeed, there are scores that come along, try it for a while, bust out, and vanish. I suppose you could argue that the successful ones have just been lucky and are eventually going to have the hammer fall on them, but that would be pure speculation on your part.
Dan
You win. Can't beat that logic.
I think you vastly overestimate how much money you can make from writing books.
I wasn't trying to blow my own horn. I was just offering examples of people that are doing what S&M claim is possible.
And I know several people who have been professional poker players, on and off, for most of their adult lives. They occasionally foray into business ventures and such, but not because they have to.
Dan
Post deleted at author's request.
Exactly. The poker-book industry is very small. Mason probably does fairly well, since he owns a publishing company and has a lot of books. But any individual author is just going to make some nice added income.
I've heard the figure bandied about that a popular poker book author might make $25,000 over the lifespan of the book. I don't know if that's accurate, but it seems like a possible number.
Dan
Two Plus Two is now a successful publishing venture. But it was almost seven years before I could say that we had covered our printing costs. Even today we are still on a tight budget. This is mostly because of the large production costs (that include printing, art work, professional editing, promotions, storage, insurance on the inventory etc.).
But in the world of publishing we are the lucky ones in that we are now successful. This is partly because we happen to have a good product (that we have worked very hard on), and partly because gambling/poker has grown a great deal since we started writing books.
By the way, the reason that Two Plus Two Publishing LLC exists is that my original publisher (back in 1985) failed to put out my first book Winning Concepts in Draw and Lowball. I had to hire an attorney to wrestle the book back from him and was forced to self-publish myself.
So in 1987 I put out three books (including the original versions on Blackjack Essays, and Gambling Theory and Other Topics). They were xeroxed not printed, terribly type set, unprofessionally written, and are probably collector's items today. But they contained some information which had never been published before and I actually sold almost 1,000 books my first year at it in 1987.
The following year I expanded these texts and had them printed instead of xeroxed. In addition, David and I wrote Hold 'em Poker for Advanced Players which to our amazement sold very well. (Hold 'em had come to California and we had a new market.)
In 1989 we united all of our books, some of David's had been out of print for several years but we brought them back, and Two Plus Two was born.
The reason I do this is simply because I have found publishing and writing something that I enjoy along with playing poker. But if it wasn't for some success at the poker tables I guarantee you that there would be no publishing company in existance today, and that includes this web page.
That sounds like a pretty familiar story. I'm glad you've had some success with 2+2 - you guys deserve it for the work you do making sure your information is accurate.
"you guys deserve it for the work you do making sure your information is accurate."
Thanks. We spend a lot of time making sure that what we say is extremely accurate. It is comments like this that makes it all worth while.
I estimate that there are about 400 players making $30 an hour or more playing poker in public games around the US. That is 60K a year. If these same players take advantage of casino promotions, good quinellaa bets, liberal blackjack rules, progressive slot overlays, and the occassional great sport bet or middle opportunity, thats your 100K. It is not easy but it absolutely can be done. And while you have to be somewhat smart and talented and have a good work ethic, you certainly don't have to be a genius.
Al,
There are many poker players who make more than $30,000.00 per year playing. The majority of these do not play poker for a living. There are at least 20 players who grossed in excess of $500,000.00 in tournament payouts last year. This is probably more than the cumulative total of all the possible tournament buy-ins on the major tournament circuit last year. Assuming that they entered and played every tournament, they must still be money ahead from tournament play. I believe there are virtually no professional ring game poker players who can sustain an earn greater than $100,000.00 per year on a consistant basis unless they are legendary players like Chip Reese or Doyle Brunson. There is no one capable of earning $100,000.00 per year gambling that couldn't earn ten times that much in another line of work. These are my opinions only.
finally some sanity. I am making close to 30k playing part time. But dan says he knows several players who make their living playing poker. ... NOT!>>> It's just not true.. sorry I know about the tourney players. But i'm talking about ring players.
Hold on. Now, you say you're making thirty grand playing part time. But you say Dan is a liar, when he says he's personally aquainted with people making sixty grand full time?
Do the math, Al. Thirty part time is the same as sixty full time. Either YOU'RE the liar, or you've got some vendetta/grudge against Dan which DOES NOT need to be voiced on this forum.
He apparently has some kind of vendetta or grudge against me, but it's totally one-sided. I have no idea what I may have said or done to deserve the hostility being fired my way by Mr. Al.
Al, what good reason would I have to say that I personally know players who make more than 50k/year playing poker if it were not actually true? (BTW, these guys do it playing mostly 10-20 games. One of the local casinos has just recently started to spread a 15-30 game but only twice a week).
And GD makes a great point: If you are making 30k playing part-time, why do you think it impossible that there are several individuals out there who make 60k or more per year playing full time?
I really don't understand where you are coming from on this one.
The fact is that you are absolutely wrong.
P.S. What's the price on that Arkansas land?
Well, I have no great desire to make my living gambling. I would not supplementing my income that way but I have a great career and no imminent desire to leave it.
But for the most part, I still don't know the answer to the two questions I posed in my original post. David or Mason? Can you clarify your writings on these matters?
i see, so you bought a book on how to make 100,000 a year gambling because you don't want to ????????? excuse me, i have to sneeze, ahhhhhhhhbullshittttttttt. excuse me.
no, like I said, I would not mind supplementing my income. But I noticed that Sklansky and Malmuth's HOW TO SUPPLEMENT YOUR INCOME BY GAMBLING was out fo stock at the local Borders, so this seemed to be a good second choice.
sorry brett, it's just when I see someone asking these kind of questions my radar goes up. So many people new to gambling see books like this and think that maybe they can make some money full time. pai gow , the rake is too big for one , and there are other problems with the game.
Brett,
I asked your question number 2 a while back and never got any response. My input would be that differentiating skill levels has everything to do with knowledge of the game and the frequency of making the correct play. An excellent player will have a total knowledge of the game and manages to make the correct play very, very consistently. A good player may not possess this complete knowledge and/or makes the correct play much less consistently than the excellent player.
Tom Haley
I did not see that before. Sorry on that. Wish there were some way to quantify the skill levels though--some objective criteria to measure against.
Brett,
I only mentioned it because I have wondered and speculated about the same things you have.
Tom Haley
True, there is no way to objectively measure it. But, I think there are a few plays that players of a higher caliber tend to make; namely, the tough laydown. I can't be sure, but I'd bet that most so-so players would see their EV skyrocket if they could just learn not to overcall on the river w/ top pair bad kicker, and lay down top pair on the turn when they are raised.
O.K, slow down boys-- I know I'll take some heat for this, and there ARE some obvious exceptions (and, of course, pot odds, knowing the other players, etc. etc.). But these are, I think, good rules of thumb.
Or, if there not, my original point still stands, which is that the best players don't pay off nearly as much.
Just wanted to thank David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth for their books and everyone who posts here. I played Casino Poker for the first time the other day and walked away a winner. I learned some good lessons and although I did well, I made plenty of mistakes. It was clear there is still a lot to learn. But, thanks to all of you I held my own.
Thanks,
rjk
I'd like to say the same... had my first poker session about 3 weeks ago. Lost a fair amount, made a bunch of stupid mistakes, learned from that and have held my own since then. I really appreciate this forum. Now, I actually have a question: Where I play you can "kill" pots; that is, if someone wins twice in a row, the stakes double (3-6 becomes 6-12 etc) and the person that killed the pot has to post a big blind.(In the above case, 6 dollars) How does this effect my overall outcome, if at all? (I hate posting that 6 dollar blind; it not that I can't afford it; but I feel like I'm being punished for winning 2 pots in row!)Any comments will be greatly appreciated! Thanks!
Haven't you also been rewarded for having created a rush when a hand you wouldn't normally play but for the kill-post connects with the flop?
Not yet; my playing experience is too limited. But your point is made. Thanks.
If I know certain opponents will steal my big blind every time against me because I am a conservative player. Still when I try defending against him with marginal hands I don't think I do well and are better off letting him steal. 1.What questions do I need to ask myself in these situations? 2. What is the average hand if someone raised my blind every time.
Ron,
You should be making more re-steals which I suspect you aren't doing. They should be successful since your opponents have got you pegged as a weak-tight player. . I would also induce more bluffs on the later streets when you had a reasonable hand. If your going to pay it off anyway go ahead and try to induce your opponents to play more hands against you. I would still be somewhat selective regarding the hands played. The archives have some good threads on what hands to defend with and how to defend. Posts by Abdul and John Feeney come to mind immediately. HFAP covers this topic as well. Ciaffone's book, Improve Your Poker, also covers play in the blinds.
The idea is to make yourself harder to read and more difficult to play against and of course make more money.
Tom Haley
Tom Haley
against a habitual stealer, the question is will he continue to bet if you call pre-flop. If so, then it really doesn't matter too much what's in your hand. You need to call and check raise on the turn. If he is after the blinds as much as you imply, this will stop him. You simply have to do this, and if you wait for a premium hand then nothing has changed. Also, many players play back pre-flop, but imo it won't detur future steal attempts as well as check raising after the flop. But the main point is NOT to wait for some specific hand. This is not the normal defense of the blinds, it is a special situation when you have someone that raises you that much. This is a perfect illustration of poker being a game of people, not cards. good luck
I'm probably going to be swimming upstream on this one. There are many people (most people in Low Limit, in fact) that do not know how to defend the blinds against a habitual stealer. They make a tremendous and costly mistake by trying. The habitual stealer is usually damn good at it, and knows how to play this situation profitably. These guys don't sit to your right by accident. They look for someone that can't/won't defend. It's not a coincidence when they casually change to a seat that is second from your right. They love to find victim and keep pounding the BB til he goes on tilt and tries to play their game with them. It takes a lot of experience to beat them at their game. Sure, you can play back at them from time to time and hope that they decide you are not defenseless and go bother someone else, but that doesn't always work. If he is habitual, just change seats.
I had a guy last week try to get his revenge on me when it was folded to me and I raised his BB with AJs. I had been raising his blinds a lot, so he was on tilt. He called. Flop was J high rainbow, I bet, he called. Turn gave me 2 to my suit, I bet, he called. The river gave me the nut flush (no pair or str8 flush potential). He had K3s and rivered the second nuts. He wanted so badly to teach me a lesson that he re-raised me 4 times on the river before finally just calling. He played the whole hand horribly, from start to finish because, I guess, he was imagining that it was a complete bluff and that his K was going to be good from the start. Oh yeah, even though I was ahead from start to finish, he referred to it as a bad beat.
A Poker Guy!
Would it not be more advantageous to get even with a blind stealer by attacking someone elses blind or three betting a weak player to your right. why attack someone who is skilled. why not go after some one that you have position on. Financially this would seem to a wash with the added edge of being in proper position. just a question
Well, maybe I didnt state it well enough, but that is exactly my point. Don't mess with someone who is habitually trying to steal your blind. Move to a seat that is less likely to have a habitual blind stealer in position. Dont try to get advice on how to play back at them, as this will just cost money in the long run. It takes a lot of knowledge and experience to play heads-up, out of position and a word or two of advice just wont cut it.
A Poker Guy!
There are two ways that I look at this equation.
1) What is the cost of me defending my blind versus my savings, when I have better position on this player and can attack him/her later? I would rather let the blind money go and get ready for the next hand, while they think, "boy have I got easy pickens."
2) My nomal strategy is to look at by blind not as a blind but as my "collective antes." And ask myself, would I play this hand, from this position if I didn't already hhave any money in the pot?
Defending blinds is probably the biggest money loser in the game. You will have opportunities to attack this culprit at your convience and when you have better position and stronger cards. The thought of having put money into the pot in the form of a blind is like you thinking that all that money you have put into the pot is still your money and not community money so you "chase" your money instead of folding. Wrong.
They want to steal my blind, steal it. I will get that money and more back when I have the best of it working for me.
Bottom line...Forget that "defending the blinds" is a "sacred" honor that must be up held at all costs. Give a little and gain a lot later.
Actually if the truth be known, this act of "defending" blinds was probably advocated to entice players to play hands that are loser from bad position just to prove a point. "my blinds are sacred. Why? because I 've told they were, that's why. So there!
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
I thoroughly agree with nevadalarry on this and play with the same attitude. When I first started playing hold'em, after reading all the books, I noticed that I was booking a consistent string of small losers. I was also defending my blinds, especially the big, with any loose connectors, small pairs, etc. I knew that I had to stop leaking chips, and when I stopped defending blinds I started to book wins. I think many holdem players fail to take into account small leakages in their stacks over long sessions at the table. One might say to himself ' it only cost me $5 or $10 dollars, but if you add this up over time I'm convinced that it could have much more of an impact than the casual player realizes. If I had a perpetual stealer in the game, I would sit on my blinds, like sitting on a pitch in baseball, wait for good cards, and then whack him good.
sorry nevada, but your missing the point. This is about being up against a habitual raiser who trys to steal very very frequently. At the least you can loosen up your starting hand requirements against this player and beat him by check raising, since he will be weak most of the time. We are not talking about defending your blind against a raise in normal play. READ THE ORIGINAL POST! When you are up against someone who raises almost everytime from late posistion, you can loosen up your requirements drastically since he/she is and it's only half a bet to call. it's a money making opportunity for you, not a defensive play. Think it over. seeya
I understand Nevadalarry's point, and would add that most players probably defend their blinds too liberally. But Al is right here. When the stealer is quite habitual about it, it can't be much different from playing in, say, a 3-handed game in which one player attacks your blind *every* time. Here, you need only play hands that average a bit better than his average hand. That's a lot of hands. You do need to account for his having position on you. And you might want to tighten up some if he plays well (or you don't play so well) after the flop. But as Al says, he's presenting you with a money making *opportunity* by constantly saying, "Here, I'll bet on this piece of garbage against whatever you're holding."
John Feeney
bless you my son
No problem, Pop!
A couple of weeks ago I was playing 5-10-20 7 Stud HILO 8 or better. The player is seat one asked the table if we would agree to change the game to 5 to 10 up to sixth street and 20 on the river. His reasoning was that the force in could bet 10 to protect his hand. The table declined. I didn't like the image the player was giving off. I felt that I was being hustled (no particular reason, just the hairs on the back of my neck). My question is: Did I make a mistake? The game is fairly loose with no jamming until the hands are made.
Forgive me: "5-10/20" means bets are $5/5/10/10/20 fixed? "5-10-20" means $5-10/5-10/5-10/5-10/5-20 range limit?
I guess I should have been clearer. 5-10-20 means $5 until an up pair or 5th street, then you can bet $10 and twenty on the river. 5-10/20 means 5 to 10 dollars anytime and twenty on the river.
Post deleted at author's request.
Thanks for the info. While I was clueless about the reason, it just didn't feel right.
I always like to learn things. So hang on and get ready for some great questions.
I understand that there is a forced bring in bet, by the lowest ranking card. In you illustration I am not sure what the manditory bring in bet was in you game? Five dollars? Five up to ten?
Did he want to change the forced bring bet in to, ten up to twenty?
What mannerisms about this player did you sense that made you feel uncomfortable? I ask, because anybody can sit down and try their hand at poker and that is what makes poker so unique to any other game on earth. They can be rocket scientists or Igor the scientist's helper.
This brings up an interesting situation that I chuckle at in cardrooms. Player A wants a table change. His/her name is called and they immediately say, "let me look first." What are they looking for signs hung around the players necks reading "Hi, I am a sucker." I know they may recognize some players as being good players. but in most situation, like during a tournament's side action games, the players know nothing about 98% of the players, yet they want "to look first."
A little side bar there.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
The low hand is normally forced in for five dollars. What seat 1 wanted it to be 5 to 10 anytime, with the force in being able to bet anything between 5-10.
As to the mannerisms of the player, I sensed he was looking for an angle. As the ship was leaving port, he was talking with other players about the lines on various games, and the craps table, and other things. It may sound strange, but I have been a trial attorney for ten years, and I've learned alot about people by the way they talk about things. When I pick a jury I only have alimited time to find out about them, so I've become a great listener. Of course, I could have just been lucky.
May I be so bold as to rephrase the question: for identically blinded games, which sorts of players have an advantage (or less of a disadvantage) with structured betting, and which have an advantage with slightly larger spread limit?
The greater implied odds of structured betting reduces the detrimental effects of loose play.
Larger pots relative to bet size reduces the detrimental affect of bad play. I think the rare times a good player can steal (half) a big pot does not make up for the loss of the reasonable option to fold. Structured betting offers larger pot-bet ratios.
Structured betting favors draws; spread betting favors pairs.
Spread betting encourages more "tricky" plays such as slow playing.
I would say spread limit is better for the more conservative solid player. You get more money in on early rounds, which are the rounds you are most likely to have the best hand (if you play the hand at all).
- Louie
Post deleted at author's request.
This weekend I was in a good 4-8 Holdem game, there was some good action, but every now and then everyone kind of played real conservative, I have never seen so much chopping in a 4-8 game. But there were enough bad players at the table to keep the game intresting.
This one particular hand, I had only been sitting at the table for about 45 min, I was delt KToff. I was 1 from the button and there were 3 callers in front of me. I though that this would be a good time to bluff my hand.
(Is this a good situation to bluff?)
I raised, and the button folded, SB folded, and BB called. When the flop came K 9 8 rainbow, and the BB checked and the player in seat 5 bet and it was folded to me I again raised. BB folded leaving me heads up w/ seat 5. He called, a little background on the this player. He is the type of guy that is easily tilted. The turn came Q, I liked to see the Q It opened the door for the gut-shot.
The river brought a 2 and the guy checked, I bet and he called. I knew this guy to be an average player, and have seen him in hands he shouldn't have been. I laid my cards down and said I just have the Kings, he looked at me funny and threw down his 89s. He raked a good pot and I said good hand. I felt good about the bluff, cause I knew later I would get that money back.
A little later I got my chance, I got QJd in the BB and there were 6 player to see the flop. Flop came K 10 5 rainbow. I bet and the same player called. and the button called. The turn was a A. I checked Same player bet, button called, I raised, Same player re-raised, button folded. I capped it. The river brought a blank. I bet. And he looked at the cards on the board for a short time, And I knew he thought I was bluffing, he raised, I re-raised. And again he looked at his cards and at the board for a short time. Then he called. I put my cards down, and he shook his head and grumbled somthing and mucked his cards. but when he threw them in a 10 flipped up. So I put him on the trips.
I really knew this player well, Had played a lot w/ him and seen him do some good and bad things. I just thought about this set up a lot this weekend and how well it worked, not just against this player, but for my image at the table that night.
If anyone would like to give constructive input as to how this particular hand(s) were played, please post away.
Walleye
Walleye,
You wrote: "This one particular hand, I had only been sitting at the table for about 45 min, I was dealt KT off. I was 1 from the button and there were 3 callers in front of me. I thought that this would be a good time to bluff my hand. (Is this a good situation to bluff?)"
You are not bluffing here. Instead, you are overplaying a very weak hand that probably should be thrown away before the flop. This is especially true if the pre flop callers in this relatively tight game will call with a better king (there are many players where I play who limp with KQ KJ suited or even off suit and some even limp with AK quite a bit).
I have no major problems with how you played the other hand. However, don't overestimate the amount of action you received based on the "advertising" you did on the above hand. With a set of tens against you, you were sure to get most of the action once you made your straight. Gotta Go.
Regards,
Rick
The player to the immediate right of the button is called the "cutoff" seat. I have no idea way, but that is what I have always heard it called. "I was in the cutoff seat and raised and..." Bringing it in with a raise and no other callers I don't think is a bluff, but just a strong play with two big cards. Purpose of the play is to get the three remaining players to fold and win the blinds, but if you get called then you still have a position, unless the button calls, and big cards.
However, many players view anyone raising from this position or the seat immediately to its right as "steal" positions. Meaning that you could be holding just what you are holding, a weak hand. Thus they will call, especially out of the blinds. Also, if the button is a strong player, they might three bet it to drive out the blinds and put you into a very bad situation.
Be careful about what kind of player is on your right and how well the blinds play, when making this play. If they are good players then just make this play when you have a stronger hand like AQ, AJ, KQs or even ATs. 66-AA. KJs and Kts. but you will noticed I indicated suited. other wise you may be trying to push a wet rope up a steep hill.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
If there is no significant bunching in holdem, it would be better to be first in with specific marginal hands like KJo, QJo or JTo in middle position, as opposed to playing those hands with tight limpers already in. I would also be more inclined to steal from the button against the right players with otherwise worthless hands like A7o and K8s. (While if there is bunching, you would expect later strength when no one is in yet, and be reluctant to get involved with mediocre holdings for your position.) If there is no bunching in tight Omaha-8 games, then you would often try a steal from the button with hands like A4KT, KQQ4 or JJ52 double suited, which you would never/almost never normally play. An overpair or even AK with a weak low draw is a solid holding heads-up against most hands (HLSFAP: "various two-way hands have a lot of value" heads-up, and high hands are stronger one-on-one). However, if a strong hand were more likely, you would tend not to raise since a reraise would be devastating when you hold semi-trash hands like these. (Omaha-8 games at Foxwoods are frequently this tight.) Bunching definitely exists in certain forms of poker, such as deuces-wild 5-card guts. In addition to needing stronger hands in early position, the fact that several players have passed means that deuces and high cards are more likely to be found in the later hands. (It's possible that they had hands that would be playable in later positions that they folded in early position, but on average they would tend to be folding weaker hands, and these are much less likely to contain good cards.) After six players have passed, being first-in with two players left to act when you have a hand like 77794 is very different than being the first to play in a three player game with that hand.
While I agree with many of the conclusions from those who support the idea that "bunching" occurs, I'm not as confident in applying those ideas to cash games, where players aren't under the same pressure to find a hand to play as they are in fast-action or super-satellite tournaments.
In a game with these class of players who (or whom) are the most likely to get up winners, after say 6 hours and an average run of cards all around. player 1....weak loose player 2 .....average loose player 3....average tight player 4...aggressive weak loose player 5...weak tight. player 6...all around average
I playeed in a game with these types of people ( I would consider myself the tight average player) I won, and the other winner was the weak loose agressive player (who won slightly more than I). it obviously was a real loose game and I think I may have been playing too tight or I could have won a lot more. I was able to see through a lot of his plays. Like he always bet out on the end and many of the weak loose players who missed draws folded, and he bluffed his way into many pots. I on the other hand never found myself in the situation of having a hand and having him in the pot to trap. Is it normal for an agresive player to win in a loose game, even if they themselves are weak and loose?
It is rare for ALL bad players to lose. The aggressive ones give themselves the best chance to win a lot; at the expense of losing a lot.
You will win much more OFTEN against a table of weak tight players. Only terrible luck (frequent good 2nd best hands) will prevent you from winning a little. But, I don't think you should care how OFTEN you win.
You will win the MOST against a table of weak loose players.
I think the desireable order is: 1-weak loose 2-average loose 3-weak tight 4-aggressive loose 5-all round average 6-average tight.
Perhaps there are 3 worthy catagories:
technique: skilled, average, unskilled assertiveness: weak, sensible, aggressive frequency: loose, sensible, tight
(A skilled aggressive loose player lacks discipline, but can still put you on a hand.)
- Louie
Post deleted at author's request.
Given your descriptions of the playing styles of the other players at the table, it only stands to make sense that versus the competition, you came out on top. I would have liked to see you post a description of their playing styles and present in quiz format "which 2 players come out on top?", and see what the responses would have been? My response:
1.weak loose player
Against this type of table (any table?), this player will not hold up. Loose and weak is a horrible combination (except for opposing players).
2.average loose player
Same as above. His chances to win increase against very weak competition
3.average tight player
You describe half of the players as loose, so biding your time for the 'right' cards not only seems like it was profitable, but with your style of play, it seems like the perfect table.
4.aggressive weak loose player
I don't know how this player made dough except to say that the cards were with him, and I'm willing to bet that he stole a few blinds (or antes) with his style of play. Against weak players, he may have been jamming the pots, then got challenged by a weak player, and made a solid had that beat them. A weak player might become intimidated then and not call with normal calling hands.
5.weak tight player
This person has a chance of winning simply because half the players were loose.
6.all around average
See above.
Had I taken the quiz, I would have given 3 (you) and 6 the odds on taking money from this table. Good luck in the future.
First I question what you mean by an agressive weak loose player. The terms aggressive and weak are contradictory. I suspect that you mean an aggressive bad player who also plays too many hands.
Without commenting specifically on your question, you raise another question which is what hands should you play in loose games. The answers is those hands that have the potential to make big hands. Thus pairs, suited connectors, and hands like Axs go up in value. If the game tends to be passive, give more weight to the suited connectors. If the game tends to be aggressive, give more weight to the pairs.
I'd also include KXs under these conditions provided there were also a few calling stations to go along with the agressives.
The other night, 20-40 HE. 7 Players, 5 of them tight and 2 loose guys. I was second after the blinds holding AKd. First Player folded, I raised, everybody folded but both blinds (SB loose player, BB tight player) called. Flop came 3 diamonds. Both blinds checked, I bet, both fold.
The reason for betting was not, that I was scared to loose the pot, but I thought, that both knew, that being in last position I would bet anyway, no matter, wheather the flop helped me or not. That´s why I thougt, that slowplaying would be to conspisious under these circumstances. But obviously, I was wrong, because I didn´t get any money. And it´s well possible, that by checking, I could have induced a bluff and get some extra money.
Any comments appreciated
I see no fault with the way you played the hand. Sometimes with AKs from your position if the game was on the agressive side, I'd choose to call and hopefully reraise pre-flop though. No one with a singleton diamond is going to be real thrilled with their hand since they can't have the ace or king. The loose player in the small blind, if passive might check/call all the way with the queen though. Anyone with two pairs or a set is going to play with you regardless, but if you slow down on the flop or turn you'd be making it inexpensive for a board pair to crush you. There could also be a made straight or lesser flush out there which would be dead this time (but why wouldn't these hands have bet out on the flop). So, I see no hands which suddenly become agressive on the turn that are second best (and likely to remain so) to the nut flush. You're going to need to be checkraised on the flop before you can think about slowing down, and that just didn't happen this time.
M.A.
I agree with Andrew's response and just want to add a few more points.
You said: "the reason for betting was not that I was scared to loose the pot, but I thought that both knew, that being in last position I would bet anyway, no matter wheather the flop helped me or not. That´s why I thought that slowplaying would be to conspisious under these circumstances."
You are right. Not betting would not look right. In addition, if you never bet the nuts when the pre-flop action indicates a bet by you, you lose the ability to steal flops when you really want no callers.
You then said: "But obviously, I was wrong, because I didn´t get any money. And it´s well possible, that by checking, I could have induced a bluff and get some extra money."
You didn't get any post flop money because the loose player probably had no diamonds or pair and the tight player had maybe at most one pair with no diamonds. Unless the loose player or big blind was very agressive, there was no bluff to induce. You bet hoping for some action but when you don't get it realize that overall the bet was correct in the grand scheme of things since you can't know what your opponents have (in this case). Next time, better luck.
Regards,
Rick
In this mostly tight game stealing should have high priority. To steal regularly you must BET good/great hands regularly.
Likewise, unless they are completely brain dead, expect to get called a lot in situations where is it clear you can't have much, and are known to be in the habit of checking when you don't have much.
While you are correct that you MAY have lost a double bet by betting, you can easily have lost a couple future stolen pots if you showed them the nuts you checked.
While optimizing you EV for the current hand is a routinely correct approach, it is not ALWAYS the best one.
Consider avoiding evaluating a strategy based on a single outcome. Had you gotten into a raising war with someone who assumed you would slow play the nuts, would you now be saying "great play!" instead of "bad play?"? How does that help make future decisions?
Which leads to another point: a great goal of evaluation is improving future decisions. A detrimental goal is credit/blame for the past. Considering specific outcomes increases the later and reduces the former.
You will routinely make several great plays per session that fail. Associating even a little blame for each will eat you alive.
- Louie
You have to bet.
You probably routinely bet with AK even if no help arrives on the flop (IMO, the proper thing to do against a small field). If you don't bet when you flop the nuts, observant opponents will outplay you on those flops that are disappointing to you.
The fact is that there are a lot more disappointing flops than there are fantastic ones.
In general, I do not slowplay in limit hold 'em (an exception might be if I flop Quads or something). If I have AA and the flop is A,10,10. I will still bet and hope like mad that there's a 10 out there. I do not check in this situation. Inducing bluffs MAY earn me one bet. But not betting when there's a 10 out there can cost me a lot of bets.
As many of you know, I am a novice player. I see the term EV used frequently by posters. Could somebody explain what the term refers to? expected value? estimated variance? equivalent variation?
Expected value, defined as how much money you expect to earn on a given play.
Here's a hand that I recently played in a $15-$30 hold 'em game at The Bellagio that I thought would be interesting to talk about. To set the stage I was sitting in a game that had no top players, but which did feature several very aggressive players and several players who played too many hands and went to far with their hands.
Five players had limped in and I held a 9s7s on the button. I called and the player in the big blind raised (after the player in the small blind folded). Seven of us saw the flop which was 8s7h4s. I had flopped middle pair with a flush draw. (Also notice that a 65 is the current nuts.)
The player in the blind (who had raised preflop) checked. A player to his left bet. The next player raised, two people called the raise cold, I called the two bets, the initial before the flop raiser then called the two bets, the on the flop bettor reraised to three bets, and everyone else in the pot called (for a total of three bets.)
The Ks came on fourth street which gave me a flush. The preflop raiser checked, the person who made it three bets on the flop bet, the two players to my right called, I called, the preflop raiser also called.
On fifth street a 9d hit making the board 8s7h4sKs9d. The preflop raiser checked, the aggressor on the flop and fourth street checked, the next player bet, the next player folded, I called, the preflop raiser raised, the on the flop aggressor and fourth street bettor folded, the player on my right called, and I called.
The preflop raiser turned over a Kc9c for top two pair, the player on my right showed a J10 for a straight, and I won the pot with a flush.
All coments are welcome.
I would think that the extra aggresive player only had a big pair or two pair, maybe a set. The way he came out right on the flop indicates that he didn't have a drawing hand, doesn't it. After I hit the flush, I probably would have raised. I wouldn't be scared of another flush, but a free card might do it for someone else. Besides, the way you described the players, you have callers regardless. I really don't understand just calling on the river. The betting pattern screams that best hand is a straight.
I have no problem with the call on the river. You were probably best and would likely get some overcalls from the two early position aggressive players. Plus, you save money if the chap who bet in fact had a bigger flush (unlikely but possible).
The play on the turn and flop are more interseting to talk about.
By the time the action got to you on the turn, there had already been a bet and 2 calls. Thus, I too would just call (As you did). The situation would have been different had there been no callers between you and the bettor. In that case, I would definitely have raised to make it difficult for anyone behind you to call with a single Queen or Jack spade. Of course, you will not lose the player if he happens to hold the Ace of spades but that's ok too, you need to raise to charge him for his draw.
On the flop, I don't think that there's a definite answer: either a call or a raise could be correct.
Advantages of raising are:
1. It might buy a free card on the turn.
2. If you happen to hit a seven, you may get a lot more action than you would by just calling on the flop.
3. I would think that a 9 might also be good because if it improves another hand even more, that person would have had to take all that heat on the flop with a gut shot (of course, in this hand, my thinking would have been wrong because there was J,10 out there).
4. You may get hands behind you with a single high spade to fold. This is very important given the size of the pot. You avoid the possibility of hitting a flush card on the turn only to have a fourth flush card hit on the end to give the fellow with the As the pot.
5. You have 14 outs (in theory), there is more than a 50% chance that you will improve to two pair or better. The pot is huge. It is a good opportunity to show everyone else that you are capable of ramming and jamming with the best of them.
Actually, come to think of it, after listing all of the above reasons, I think that the better play would have been to raise on the flop particularly given your description of the field that you were up against.
Mason,
You write:
>>Here's a hand that I recently played in a $15-$30 hold 'em game at The Bellagio that I thought would be interesting to talk about. To set the stage I was sitting in a game that had no top players, but which did feature several very aggressive players and several players who played too many hands and went to far with their hands.
Five players had limped in and I held a 9s7s on the button. I called and the player in the big blind raised (after the player in the small blind folded). Seven of us saw the flop which was 8s7h4s. I had flopped middle pair with a flush draw. (Also notice that a 65 is the current nuts.)<<
I respond:
The chances of a player having something like AKs or AQs are small from the middle and late position players because they didn't raise. Lesser suited hands are more likely but the fact that there was no raise diminishes their likelihood IMO. Maybe the BB has some high suited cards but we'll see how the hand develops.
You write:
>>The player in the blind (who had raised preflop) checked. A player to his left bet. The next player raised, two people called the raise cold, I called the two bets, the initial before the flop raiser then called the two bets, the on the flop bettor reraised to three bets, and everyone else in the pot called (for a total of three bets.).<<
I respond:
I would eliminate high suited cards from the BB so your call is o.k. to be honest I would have worried about all the calls made with a 2 flush showing. I would think that players trying for a straight would have sense enough to realize that a flush draw was probably out there against them with that many callers. So if a flush card hits they should be cautious and should find it pretty easy to get away from their hand IMO. I would put the better who re-raised on 2 pair or A set, less likely an over pair, or maybe even top pair with an A or King kicker (I have seen players player a hand like this aggressively in this situation). The player who first raised on the flop and then only called the re-raise is hard to read here. Again I would put this player on a decent hand or perhaps was trying to eliminate weak flush draws. I would be somewhat worried about the other caller has a higher flush draw but the pot is laying you enough in current odds and implied odds to continue on with your hand.
You write:
>>The Ks came on fourth street which gave me a flush. The preflop raiser checked, the person who made it three bets on the flop bet, the two players to my right called, I called, the preflop raiser also called.<<
I respond:
If someone has a nut flush they would have played it by now. You can't be all that thrilled about your flush with all the callers but in the long run against poor players it is right to show it down. The guy to your right who keeps calling is a concern.
You write:
>>On fifth street a 9d hit making the board 8s7h4sKs9d. The preflop raiser checked, the aggressor on the flop and fourth street checked, the next player bet, the next player folded, I called, the preflop raiser raised, the on the flop aggressor and fourth street bettor folded, the player on my right called, and I called. <<
I respond:
No reason to worry about the guy who has called all the way now. The guy who bet probably doesn't have a flush and the way the pre-flop raiser played it he doesn't either. Seems like the pre-flop raiser tried to run somebody with a little flush out of the pot. A desperation move no doubt and a losing play. You're in this deep you've got to call it.
>>The preflop raiser turned over a Kc9c for top two pair, the player on my right showed a J10 for a straight, and I won the pot with a flush. <<
And win it. Overly aggressive? Yep. Going too far with their hands? Yep. Ship it!!
Tom Haley
this is a case of balancing your hand against the type of players you are up against and the pot odds. You were getting such an overlay that you basically had to stay. there is no way that I would have raised with the cards you had. you just hang on for dear life and hope it holds up.
Wow. That was a good game.
Post deleted at author's request.
"No wonder you said the game didn't have any top players in it."
Somehow I just knew that Mr. Carson would have something obnoxious to say.
Carson's comment is completely wrong. Perhaps someone would like to explain why.
Mason,
I'll give it a go. The first thought that comes to mind is that your flush may not win even if it hits. It is not at all clear to me that you have the only flush draw. Also if runner-runner hits for your suit you'd have a tough call on the river. If the board pairs a flush may not win. Your trip sevens may not win if you hit that and two pair probably won't be good enough if you spike a 9. I think you want to make a flush here as cheaply as possible. Call me paranoid but all the multi-way action would indicate that there are other good hands out there. Anyway that's how I'd play it.
Tom Haley
Post deleted at author's request.
Gary,
I'm not getting bored with it. I mentioned a few of the clues about possible higher flush draws. If this still interests you, for my own edification, what others are there? Also if this possibility did exist does this make the call correct? Thanks in advance.
Tom Haley
Actually, everything Tom Haley described is exactly the way I saw it, but it is also a little bit worse. The problem with raising is that it is fairly likely that I will be reraised. The original bettor was an aggressive player who made a surprise bet into a bunch of players. This frequently indicates that he is looking for action. Given the way the hand played -- he did raise gain -- my guess is that he floped at least top two, probably a set, and possibly the nut straight.
In other words, my hand is not as strong as it first appears. In many situations flopping middle pair and a flush draw is the type of hand that you want a lot of action with and you should make the raise on the button. I don't believe that this was one of them.
I probably would have raised on the flop. You're getting big odds on the raise, and a re-raise, especially from you, is going to have tremendous deceptive value. It may even slow the maniacs down and prevent them from putting you in a bad situation on the turn (i.e. bet, raise, everyone else folds, and you get to call 2 bets cold with 3-way action, with re-raises possible).
Given the fact that you're a known and respected player, if I were you I probably would have raised the flop.
Other than that, it seems like there was not much else for you to do. The smooth call on the river is what I'd probably do, since I can get worse hands to overcall behind me, and I don't have to worry about getting re-raised by a maniac and facing a tough call. I don't like making trouble for myself on the river, if the two options are close in EV.
You lucked out. You should have raised or folded. But you ARE the expert. My 2 cents worth. Doc-
Raising on the flop can only be justified if there is a good chance it will buy you a free card on fourth st. There is too good a chance you are drawing almost dead to be happy getting 5-1 odds on that raise. On the other hand the call on the flop is getting about 13-1 so is clearly worth it.
You don't have to get a free card to make the raise worthwhile - if all you achieve is to prevent a raise on the turn, then it was worth it.
As I said in my other message, a re-raise here by MASON MALMUTH may get even maniacs to slow down a bit. The re-raise may be the difference between paying 3 big bets on the turn or only one (or perhaps none at all).
Dan
I consider middle suited connectors equivalent to one-gaps in terms of net worth. I like to make the first raise with these hands on the button against three to five callers quite often. However, you said "several very agressive players" which would risk running into a backraise/cap situation that's preferable to aviod. There is also very little possibility of being checked to on the flop, so I'd have called and obviously called the big blind's raise for one more small bet.
10.5:1 to catch a spade, seven, or nine on the turn which may be second best or worse, and it could be reraised behind you. Fascinating place to be, as button on that flop - two cold callers in front! Let's look at the spade first, and generously give it a 50% chance of making you the best hand on the turn. You can easily get redrawn (fourth spade or board pair) but four of these spades gives you an average of 1.5 further outs if needed. So you have about a 35% chance of winning the pot with a spade. I'd rate the sevens as giving you an 80% chance of having the best hand on the turn with a 50% chance of winning the pot. A nine on the turn has about a 20% chance of taking it down. These are of course all rough estimations, but no one's going to be able to calculate anything here with precision in just a few seconds at a table anyway. I don't mind taking five or ten seconds to complete a decision since I occasionally pause with an effortless call, just incase anyone is truly alert. Otherwise an expert player will take me off certain hands like the nut flush draw or a set in this spot. Are your opponents capable of realizing this? Effective outs I can quickly count though. 1/3 * 9 for the spades, 1/2 * 2 for the sevens, and 1/5 * 3 for the nines makes about 5 effective outs. You would therefore seem to have more than enough pot odds not to be concerned with a possible reraise, so I'd say good overcall.
The decision on the turn is whether to call or raise for value. It's time to count bad cards. 8 spades and 11 pairs, four or five of which are probably in someones hand makes you a 3:1 favorite if you have the best hand. At this point it has become no more likely that you don't have the best hand since I'd expect the agressor on the flop to have played the nut flush draw the same as a set. The big blind could have found his set on the turn, but that's already accounted for. If I believed I was a 3:2 favorite in this spot I'd make the raise and charge the drawing hands another bet. If you called here hoping to induce action on the river from a lesser hand since you could already be dead, I'm sure it's agressive enough to be looking for a reraise on the turn from someone with a set (which might be enough to knock out a player in the middle with JsTs facing two bets and a possible cap behind him). The big blind is a good candidate for pocket kings if you thought he was playing for a checkraise on the flop and didn't want to follow through when so many opponents cold called the raise.
Great river card, only an off-suit jack could have been nicer! I'd have to muck 87s and probably even a set were I one of those opponents, plus I'd have played it badly unless I were the big blind or flop agressor. With your small flush I'd also call, (maybe someone with a JT will raise, even a 65 might be persuaded since no one raised on the turn) unlikely to be facing the nuts (the bettor on the turn could have QsJs QsTs JsTs or any JT though). When the big blind raises it doesn't matter that I now flat out believe he has JsTs, I've got 26:1 pot odds I'm wrong.
I prefer the raise on the turn, but you're watching these players and I'm not.
Would you not raise on the 4th st to probe other flushes ? I mean we are talking about these 'signs' of other flushes but besides of someone raising at this point or re-raise you how else would one know ? If you smell a rat and just want to play easy you just call all the way (and pray). Some players would raise a 'come-come' i.e. four flush draw but just smooth call a made nut-flush. But if you raise they put you on a Q high and start to squeeze you back.(if having the A high)
I went out to play at San Manuel Indian casino today. Biggest game was a 9-18 Hold-em which started while I was waiting for the 6-12 HE. Drop of $3.00 per hand plus $1.00 jackpot taken from the $9.00 Big Blind, but drop refunded if pot has less than $27.00 in it. Small blind is $3.00.
I've been playing for about three hours with nothing special happening. I'm up about $60.00 and having a conversation with player on my left about how few hands he and I are getting to play. He is solid and aggressive when in a hand and the one player in the game that I rate above me. (Yes, it is a weak field.)
I'm the SB and pick up AA with two limpers, ( UTG and button) so I raise it up. BB three bets it and limpers fold so I make it four bets and get called. There is no cap when head's up. I know this player has watched me for the past three hours, so I know that he is putting me on a big hand. Flop comes 10-8-6 rainbow and I bet and get raised. I call him and right then decide to check the turn unless it is an A. Turn is a rag, I check and he bets and I call. River is another rag,I check and he shows down KK. He had slowed me down and lost the least he could possibly hope for.
I knew he probably didn't have 10-10, the only hand that he might possibly have me beat with and still three bet pre-flop. I lost two big bets and one small bet the way I calculate it, and played the whole hand from the flop on in a wimpish manner. I think I just gave him too much credit when he raised me on the flop. He outplayed me and turned me into the exact type of player I search out to play myself. I booked a fair win in the game though and I think I'll head back there tomorrow to try to redeem my hurt pride. Go ahead and let me have it, I deserve it.
Test
Big John,
Your'e right. You played the hand weakly when more aggression was warrented; however, after the hand you thought about your mistakes in an astute manner, and probably won't make the mistake again for a while.
What you need to do is forgive yourself and go on. You can "redeem your hurt pride" anywhere. Go back to San Manuel only if the game is likely to be good and you think you would once again enjoy the long drive from Los Angeles (although not having to drop a collection dead on the button pays the gas money and more). Final thought: We all make mistakes - only the best players disect their play in a thoughtful manner afterwards.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I just realized this post sounds like one of those "wrap ups" Jerry Springer does at the end of his show/circus or whatever you call it. Maybe I could do something new where I can make his money.
IMO=LEVEL 3. (Imo level message as defined below)
Mason is their any way 2+2 could define the expected content of the Theory&Strategy forum as to IMO's based on:
1. Table Tested Statistical analysis.
2. Table Tested Hypothesis based on "paid dues" and logic.
3. Antidotal evidence.
4. Judgement calls w/o tested data.
5. Wagmar's
IMO [Level 1&2] the 2+2 authors (S,M&Z) present info. in the first two categories. The thinking in 3&4 should be tested so it could rise to a higher level if valid.
Perhaps: (a) Each Author who submits to T&S should lead off with a lable from the above categories; OR (b) 2+2 should define another forum.
Another advantage to either (a)or(b) would accrue to the neophyte.
"The resolution of conflict brings progress" A. Lincoln.
Just one question here, did you consider reraising on the flop? While you won't know for sure that your opponent has two pairs or better if he just calls this reraise, if he does make it four bets some thought should be given to laying it down. I would want to try to clarify the range of hands he could be on, before the bets double. By just calling on the flop, you can't discount anything from middle pair through the big overpair. Yet these are the hands which you have a huge overlay to, and would like to be facing. Having made such a probe-reraise, I would be more certain of finding the correct move at the turn or river. Also, if he were trying to steal the pot with a weak draw (four or five outer) by semibluff raising, you might win the pot at this point or confuse him into checking behind you (perhaps he could be induced to bet the river now, which you easily snap off) on the turn.
Andrew wrote:
"Just one question here, did you consider reraising on the flop? While you won't know for sure that your opponent has two pairs or better if he just calls this reraise, if he does make it four bets some thought should be given to laying it down."
Even if the other player makes it 4 bets on the flop, laying down pocket aces with that board is simply out of the question.
Many players would make it 4 bets with pocket Kings or Queens in this situation. Furthermore, many players would wait until the turn to raise if they flopped a set (likely tens).
You don't have to worry about two pair given that the other fellow made it three bets pre-flop. In any event, even if the other fellow showed you his top two pair hand after putting in the fourth bet on the flop, you still have to call. After all, you have 5 outs on the turn and then eight outs on the river if your opponent doesn't fill up on the turn.
If there were 4 bets on the flop, I would check and call the rest of the way but I definitely need much better evidence that I am beat before laying down my pocket rockets.
I didn't say I would fold AA on the flop, just that I would begin to consider mucking it. I'll probably play it out too, but at least I have made check/call vs. check/raise on the turn an easier decision. I've been reraised by T8s before the flop in a similar situation, but I agree that two pairs is the most unlikely hand he could have here.
"On fifth street a 9d hit making the board 8s7h4sKs9d. The preflop raiser checked, the aggressor on the flop and fourth street checked, the next player bet, the next player folded, I called, the preflop raiser raised, the on the flop aggressor and fourth street bettor folded, the player on my right called, and I called."
"The preflop raiser turned over a Kc9c for top two pair, the player on my right showed a J10 for a straight, and I won the pot with a flush."
I read a response stating that a raise on the turn was in order. I believe that you and others had some disagreement with a raise on the turn. If I'm not mistaken you and others went through a little analysis explaining why a raise was not correct.
As I read the above statements from your post I had to ask myself why would anyone bother arguing the merits of a raise after observing the results of this hand.
"I was sitting in a game that had no top players, but which did feature several very aggressive players and several players who played too many hands and went to far with their hands."
This has got to be the understatement of the year.
How could you ever put anyone on a hand in a game like this! You did say 15-30? This kind of play is most often observed in limits below 10-20.
My final comment on this hand: Mason Malmuth, I repeat, MASON MALMUTH was reduced to a "Calling Station" on this hand. The results speak for themselves.
IMO Vince.
Let me make two comments on this post. First, I constantly read, usually on the other forum, that David and I only play in tough middle limit games and have no idea what it's like to play in games which are like the one that I described. As this hand shows, nothing could be further from the truth.
Second, there is a concept that most players do poorly with. It is the idea that when you have a strong hand that is probably best but not necessarily the best it is frequently better to go for an overcall. If I had raised on the river and my hand is best I probably only gain one bet, but I might also lose two. If I call, I probably do at least as well and may gain two bets in this spot (I actually gained three) yet I won't be at risk as often to lose extra money.
If my memory is correct, I believe that there is a discussion of this idea in THE THEORY OF POKER.
"David and I only play in tough middle limit games and have no idea what it's like to play in games which are like the one that I described"
In no way can I understand how anyone can infer this from my post!
"It is the idea that when you have a strong hand that is probably best but not necessarily the best it is frequently better to go for an overcall"
Nor should this be inferred! Quite frankly when you said there was a bet and a raise I thought your goose was cooked. and wasn't "probably best...".
I obviously am not very good at getting my point accross. I certainly was not criticising the play of the hand. In fact I agree with the play "in total". My point was and I hope I can explain it better this time is that in a game full of weak players the good or even the great player must drastically adjust his game. A Hold'em game in which the play of a hand as you described unfolds can be described as "no fold'em holdem". How often do you see play like this at the 15-30 and above limits. Infrequently in my experience but I grant you that it does occur. Quite frankly I try to avoid games this poor. To emphasize my point, on the river in this hand the K,9 BET! The straight RAISED! The flush only (and correctly could only) call! This is what I meant by the Results Speak for themselves. As far as referring To MASON MALMUTH by name it was done in this manner to emphasisize my point of the great players need to adjust (although I admit I did not explain it very well and adjust may not be the correct term) their play drastically in a weak game. No disrespect was intended.
I made a response in a previous post on the comparison of Poker to Tennis where I stated that the great poker player must be at his best when in a game full of weak players. This hand speaks greatly for that statement.
IMO Vince
david,Ilearned how to play poker from your books,which have no equal,I fully comprehend your point in theory of poker ane I think you will agree your hand could only be played differently,to get more moneyin the long run,onthe turn. Yes raise here,the initial raiser being the worry in theory-p.s. please write more books,andhow about the best of you and Mason on computer or book, thanks jimmy
See "NEW" under your 2-10-99 post
"For you to assert otherwise would be incorrect. I hope that you realize this isn't criticism of your post but an assertion of my beliefs. "
Big John(ny), Me Buddie!
I'm an older now, thick skinned and running against the wind. Positive criticism should be listened to and though not your intent, even if it were criticism it would certainly be welcomed from you.
"Poker is competition, so it is going to have many similarities with other types of competition."
I believe I yielded this point in my response to you although in some what of a circumventing manner. I recall saying something to the effect that your statements could be true for a lot of endeavors when comparing them to poker.
"Tennis is a game of finding and exploiting weaknesses."
All this means is that both games require strategy and tactics. Well, so does War, life and all other games of skill.
But poker is not tennis and poker is not War or life (contrary to what others may think)! Poker is Poker! The only way to relate another endeavor to poker play is in general terms such as they both require strategy and tactics. But to compare one to another with specific examples of play in one vs play in another is IMO incorrect and counter productive. Especially if the example used is confusing and could be interpreted in multiple ways.
Thanks for your opinion. I'm sure by now we are able to agree to disagreee. Have a good game in the never ending game of poker!
Vince
We all play weakly from time to time. I think more important than this single hand, is to make sure that if you aren't feeling aggressive, or you are playing alittle cautious early on, you need to get up.The hard part is recognizing when you are feeling a little passive. good luck
I'd appreciate your take on the point count systems used in Wilson's Omaha-8 software. Do you think they are worth learning and applying in a live game? Any idea where the presumably expert input came from to design the systems?
If there is some utility in the systems, I wonder whether the point counts are more or less applicable at lower vs medium vs high limits. At least in the games I play in (mostly 30-60 and 50-100) it seems to me that the general hand selection guidlines in your book are applicable, but (as you pointed out) within those parameters hand value changes with the number and skill of opponents, how they are currently playing, the position of bettors and callers, etc.
Basing a raising/calling strategy on an arbitrary point count seems a little too mechanical to me, and I've never been too impressed with the point count systems that I've seen advocated in the past (such as the Cappelletti model), but maybe I'm missing a bet here.
If this has already been discussed on the Forum, please direct me to the relevant archive.
Jim,
I'm sure Ray Zee will respond here with his expert opinion but I remember Mason Malmuth wrote something in Card Player a few years ago concerning this subject and he essentially stated that other factors were so much more important that he wouldn't want to waste one bit of energy keeping track of a point count. I agree with Mason and am also curious to see what Ray says.
Regards,
Rick
Ray is on vacation right now and we probably won't hear from him on this topic. However, in my book POKER ESSAYS, VOLUME II one of the essays is called "A Note on Starting Omamha Hands." In it I conclude that these point counts have essentially no value for Omaha eight or better.
"I'd appreciate your take on the point count systems used in Wilson's Omaha-8 software. Do you think they are worth learning and applying in a live game?"
The Wilson Omaha-8 point count is inaccurate. Just some of the mistakes: 32 and A3 count the same, middle and low pairs are way overvalued, middle straights are also overvalued, and the computer doesn't give enough value to counterfeit insurance or redraws.
"If there is some utility in the systems, I wonder whether the point counts are more or less applicable at lower vs medium vs high limits." Low-limit games with players who play too many hands and take them too far do play more mechanically, since you virtually always need the best hand to win and that hand is usually a lock or near lock for its side. I have played in some very tight 5-10 Omaha-8 games though. "At least in the games I play in (mostly 30-60 and 50-100) it seems to me that the general hand selection guidlines in your book are applicable, but (as you pointed out) within those parameters hand value changes with the number and skill of opponents, how they are currently playing, the position of bettors and callers, etc." Yes, as in any game. But they don't change much unless the game is so tight that the pots are usually 2-3 handed by the flop.
"Basing a raising/calling strategy on an arbitrary point count seems a little too mechanical to me, and I've never been too impressed with the point count systems that I've seen advocated in the past (such as the Cappelletti model), but maybe I'm missing a bet here." HLSFAP is by far the best thing written on Omaha-8. Focus on HLSFAP and ignore all the garbage sources. The "Basic Strategy", "High Hands" and "Multiway vs. Short-handed Play" chapters should answer your questions. You can't play this game with a point count since too many things vary.
I don't like point counts for Omaha high or Omaha-8. None of them do a really good job of accounting for the interactions between all cards in the hand. Anyway, Capelletti's point count for Omaha high is incorrect. For example, he values a king-high flush draw as being worth almost the same as an ace-high flush draw (6 points vs 5). In reality, a king-high flush draw is much weaker than that.
Dan
This was recently posted and misstates the facts: "Wilson's Omaha-8 point count is inaccurate. Just some of the mistakes: 32 and A3 count the same, middle pairs are way overvalued, middle straights are also overvalued…"
I don’t know which point count system he’s referring to, but it is not one used to give advice in Wilson's Turbo Omaha High-Low Split for Windows.
Based on the tightness of the game, the program automatically uses 1 of 3 different point count systems for advice; 1 each for tight, average and loose gcmes. Except as noted, the point values in each are identical:
1. 32 = 12 points and A3 = 16 points. (32 and A3 count the same?) 2. For pairs, 2-8 = 3 points, 9’s=4, 10’s=6, J's = 9, Q's = 13, K's = 18 and A’s range from 24-30 depending on the tightness of the game. (middle pairs are way overvalued?) 3. The highest points any 2-card straight is given iq 4 for J10. "Middle straights" are worth 2 or 3. (middle straights are also overvalued?)
In some other posts on this subject, there has been some general discussion about the overall value of point counting. In the absence of a valuation system, how do you judge which starting hands to play? High-Low Split Poker for Advanced Players puts forth some concepts for playable hands. These concepts are fine, so far as they go, but they are not sufficient to help most players determine when to play, when to raise and when to fold.
Good point count systems are very useful for determining which hands to call with and which to raise with. In addition)to assigning point values for the card combinations, the Turbo system assigns points for position and penalty points for extra flush cards. The result is that the system assesses the profit potential of each hand.
That’s quite a claim. To measure this, Turbo Omaha High-Low Split for Windows tracks profitability by point count. Each hand is worth a specific point value and either wins or loses an amount of money. These are summarized by point count. Shown below is a portion of the point count statistics report from a 10,000,000 hand simulation. If point counting did not do a reasonable job of accessing profit potential, the numbers would not look the way they do: the higher the point count, the higher the profitability.
POINT # OF WIN AVG $ COUNT HANDS RATE PER HAND 15 544855 1'25 -2.89 20 373517 5% -1.57 25 203547 5% -0.71 30 141993 28% 0.67 35 120819 36% 5.67 40 82364 41% 12.41 45 73672 46% 21.84 50 51774 50% 29.52 55 31557 53% 37.73 60 22350 58% 48.30 65 19466 60% 51.82 70 10144 61% 53.35
The table of data did not post correctly.
POINT____# OF____WIN_____AVG $
COUNT____HANDS___RATE____PER HAND
15______544855____1%____-2.89
20______373517____5'25____-1.57
25______203547____5%____-0.71
30______141993____28%____0.67
35______120819____36%____5.67
40______82364_____41%____12.41
45______73672_____46%____21.84
50______51774_____50%____29.52
55______31557_____53%____37.73
60______22350_____58%____48.30
65______19466_____60%____51.82
70______10144_____61%____53.35
Bob Wilson wrote: "1. 32 = 12 points and A3 = 16 points. (32 and A3 count the same?) 2. For pairs, 2-8 = 3 points, 9’s=4, 10’s=6, J's = 9, Q's = 13, K's = 18 and A’s range from 24-30 depending on the tightness of the game. (middle pairs are way overvalued?) 3. The highest points any 2-card straight is given iq 4 for J10. "Middle straights" are worth 2 or 3. (middle straights are also overvalued?)
In some other posts on this subject, there has been some general discussion about the overall value of point counting. In the absence of a valuation system, how do you judge which starting hands to play? High-Low Split Poker for Advanced Players puts forth some concepts for playable hands. These concepts are fine, so far as they go, but they are not sufficient to help most players determine when to play, when to raise and when to fold."
You sure have most of this wrong. Once you have a good understanding of Omama eight-or-better the hand to play should be fairly obvious, but they will vary depending on the situation. See Ray Zee's book for discussion.
You certainly are overvaluing middle pairs. There are many situations where pairs like sixes, sevens, and eights, should be given a negative value. This is because they put one-third of a low on board when you flop a set. Nines has a similar problem because when you use a nine to make a nut straight you are frequently putting a low on board. (We say in the book that 9988 is close to the worse four cards that you can be dealt. But according to your count this is certainly not the case.)
Should JT really be given higher straight value than KQ? I agree that JT will make more straights than KQ but one of those straights is putting two low cards on board while a straight using KQ can only put at most one low card on board.
What about a hand like A255? Are you giving it the same value as A277. Here the fives are clearly worth more than the sevens because of the potential straight value they give the hand and the fact that the 55s have more low value than the sevens. (Perhaps you are also adding value for the A5 combination.)
We even point out:
"Concept No. 7: High pairs with two other big cards are usually playable. In fact, in a multiway pot, a hand like
Kc Kd Qs Jh
might be slightly better than a hand like
Ac Ad Ts 9h "
I don't think that your point count would show this.
Now despite my criticisms, I think that all the Wilson programs have value as long as you consider it game. If you are new to poker they can be great practice tools, and if you are an experienced player they can be just plain fun. But using them as serious research tools or "religiously" following the advice of the advisor, as one of our posters has already shown, can be a mistake. (See "Home Computers and Poker" on our essay page for more discussion.)
dan,gary, sorry guys. in a multiway pot with aggressive players raising with a 9 high flush draw is a mistake. as I stated in an earlier post, he had a huge overlay to call, and then just hang on and hope no one had a higher flush. even though the action might have suggested that the players had other holdings, you certainly couldn't rule a flush draw , or for that matter trips, out.he had good odds to call only and go for the ride. By the way, these type of 15-30 games are pretty common here in LA.
You missed my point. The intention of the raise here is to slow the action down on the turn, precisely because the hand is not as strong as it looks. And I suggested that this might work only because Mason undoubtedly strikes a little fear into even the reckless players, simply because of who he is.
This is an example of intelligent use of table image. I've thought about this before with respect to Mason and David. Having a certain amount of notoriety in the poker community can be used to your advantage from time to time.
Of course, if these guys simply didn't have a clue, then the raise may not be worth it. Only Mason would know the exact demeanor of the players that day. That's why I merely suggested it as an alternative.
If it was Dan Hanson, an unknown player, holding that draw, I would have just called as you suggest.
Dan
Dan,
I think you're giving Mason's reputation too much credit. Although all of us, of course, know his reputation well, I would guess that most of the players he competes against don't know it, especially the maniacs, as they are much less likely to be regulars (in LV, not true in LA).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
That's a big unknown to me, which is why I said that Mason would be the one to know... I can see scenarios where Mason and David would get all kinds of respect, and I can also see scenarios where they get run at so that someone can tell his buddies how he chewed up Sklansky or Malmuth, or I can scenarios where the players are oblivious and don't care.
However, regardless of who he is, he's probably been playing fairly tight, and that alone might have gotten his raise some respect.
Dan
Obviously call the bet and then the raise B4 the flop.
I like your "go for the extra calls" call on the flop; a play that has MORE +EV than a raise-for-a-free-card raise +EV; if it is indeed +EV. I don't think there's much extra EV in knocking out players that will outdraw your 9sUp or Trip7s, since that hand must be best when you make it (possibly likely), the checkers must not have it beat now AND be able to beat it when you do make it (very unlikely), and they would call two bets and not three (very unlikely); altogether a very unlikely scenario.
I like the "call for the extra calls" call after you made the flush less, but if a raise is better its not by much. "Just" calling in last position gives you disguise equity for the river, when the board does not pair nor 4-flush; for whatever that's worth.
The river situation is "go for the overcall" heaven. Your right neighbor could easily have a big flush and other handS will call that one last bet but probably not two. It appears you read that section in your book.
However ...
Aggressive Big Blind players will ROUTINELY bet a big flush draw on the flop when they raise B4 the flop. So when this player fails to bet the flop, fails to raise on the turn, but does raise on the river; then you must assume he has NO FLUSH. When the Right Neighbor (who does not understand "go for overcalls") JUST calls then you should assume he has NO FLUSH.
So I would say your flush-under-flush paranoia should be substancially reduced, and a ReRaise was CLEARLY (at least to me) in order. You gain 2 bets for a risk of 2 bets (you reluctantly call the ReReReRaise); and you probably have the only flush. You could have cashed in on the "disguise equity" I suggested you may have had.
- Louie
How often are such games there? ... err ... I mean when you are NOT there?
I find games with Mason in them (granted I have only played with him 3 times) are very good. Either Mason selects the best games to play in or the strong players recognize him and go elsewhere.
Mason,
About what per centage of players recognize you when you are in a game. My guess would be that the stronger players know who you are, but the type of players that were in this 15-30 game probably do not.
I would say that one-fourth to half the players recognize me when I sit down.
What about the big blind playing less than a big flush draw in this hand? If I were the big blind, JsTs would get played just the way the action was described. I'd be looking to checkraise on the flop.
there is quite a difference between somone like me who plays part time and somone who plays poker for their total income.I play probably 80-90% of the time that I suppose I'd play if it was my sole source of income. But the difference is my attitude going to the tables. A full timer has a huge amount of pressure to face since this is his/her living. If you don't think there is a difference, well go ahead and try. Just one tid bit more. What happens to many full time players is that they don't know how to manage time, because there is always a game. They end up playing too many hours their play deteriorates and they lose eventually. Look at the numbers that Mr Sklansky posted. 400 players out of how many playing the game?
Also, I do not have a vendetta against Dan. In my first post I stated that there might be maybe a handful of players that make very good money and have lasted longer than three years. He then replied stating he knows several players who have made 60k a year but they quit because they are interested in other things. Well, I contested this strongly and finally dan mentioned a few of these people. Not one that he mentioned, by his own words played longer than three years, and he himself did not as well,... My point still is the same.
The point was that not one of these players busted out. They quit the lifestyle voluntarily, with lots of money in their bankroll.
I do *not recommend playing poker for a living. It sounds a lot better than it really is. I've know a lot of very bright guys who 'dropped out' and became poker players, and to a person it damaged their lives either because they lost their money or because they lost their place on the ladder to a career.
I also agree with your point that there's a huge difference between playing for fun and playing for a living, even if you play the same number of hours. The pressure you face when you HAVE to win X dollars is tremendous.
Gambling for a living does several other bad things - it puts tremendous stress on your family, if you have one. Even the most understanding wife is going to start questioning you when you're down several thousand dollars for the month.
The last thing that gambling for a living does is devalue your sense of money. It's really hard to go back to work for $10/hr when you're used to winning or losing thousands based on the turn of a card.
Dan
Hey All,
No Bells and fanfare here: just a brief intro. 29 yo engineer, completed grad school and took job in upstate NY 18 months ago. I have been playing BJ at local store, and have nursed a 1k roll to 10k at in ~1200 table hours of kelly betting.
And I'm bored stiff. I've been almost _trying_ to get backed off lately, just for some drama. Anyway, during my last few trips to AC, I played HE. Thank god for the internet FAQ, otherwise I would have just steadily lost and found it boring. As it was, I lost steadily and found it interesting. :-) (Results: -1.8 small bets/hr in 8 hrs; 2/4 HE and +1.5 small bets/hr in 18 hrs at 3/6 HE, +.8 sb/hr 10/20; 9 hrs) Anyway, S&M and Caro are in the mail, and I have a new hobby. (Others included Chess: rated ~1900, and Bridge: ~150 MP.)
Anyway, the reason why I posted was Dan's great comment:
> The last thing that gambling for a living does is devalue
That's the first time I've seen that in writing, but it really struck home. To be casual about betting $100 would have been unthinkable 2 years ago, and has really changed my world view. I've tried to keep BR and living expenses formally seperate, but when you add in the fact that this is my first salaried position after the ramen noodles of grad school, money can certainly seem surreal. I would enjoy hearing how Pros compartmentalize the orders of magnitude of difference in game playing conditions and deciding whether you want Roman Meal or bakery bread.
All the best,
Buzz
You know, it's funny but I see guys betting several hundreds on each hand of baccarat while at the same time asking the waitress how much the B.L.T. sandwich is before ordering.
I guess money is money but chips are worth something a lot less.
You compartmentalize by thinking in terms of expectation and hourly rates.
do you know more than 2 people , or even one person other than yourself who is doing this, David??
I know of at least 10.
I counted 14 small bets before the flop (ignoring the small blind's 2/3 of a bet), and seven small bets on the flop for 10.5:1 at the decision point. Why do you assume everyone else will just call when making an implied odds adjustment (for just this round) up to 13:1 here? I would think it's just as likely in this agressive game someone would reraise.
Am I crazy? My first reaction when I read this hand was that it was right to just fold on the flop. 4 players have shown some sort of strength; a bettor,a raiser and 2 cold callers. Isn't it more than likely that one of them has a better flush draw? What percentage of the time does yours need to be the only flush draw in order for a call to be correct? Keep in mind that you may also lose to a higher one card flush draw, or a full house.
Danny S
The other possibilities for improvement, primarily a seven which I'll agree may need to redraw, plus about a 50% chance that the small flush would be the best hand on the turn, minus the chances of a set or two pairs filling up, give Mason enough to see the turn for two bets cold in my judgement due to the pot size and multiway action. I think I answered this question in my first post by approaching the problem from a different direction (calculating effective outs), rather than asking "What percentage of the time..." which is too difficult to answer conclusively.
Big John: This hand brought back some memories. A couple of months ago in Wendover, I'm in a low limit HE game. A decent player in early position raises. I'm in middle position with KK. I reraise and he calls. The flop comes T83 rainbow. He bets, I raise, he reraises. I'm worried about a set. But he could have QQ or JJ. Anyway, I called, then checked and called to the river. Perhaps I should have folded when he reraised me on the flop. I don't know.
So if you're a wimp, I'm a wimp, too. But he did show down TT.
Steve Pierce
Hey Steve,
I am almost over the pain you inflicted on me by trouncing me in the NL Hold'em Match Play at ESCARGOT. I know I played that hand badly, but I just couldn't bring myself to play it as strong as I knew I should have. I try to tell myself it was a maximum of $45 not won, but that doesn't help that much. I went back there this afternoon and booked another win, playing some hands very well and others not so good. The game was tougher today with three or four young turks who were able to push things pretty strongly. My chance finally came to isolate and milk one of the weak maniacs and leave with a few extra dollars. Tomorrow I'm going to head back to the Commerce and try to play some 10-20 stud/eight or better. Too smoky at the Indian Casinos.
I cited the following as a possible (albeit secondary) reason for raising on the flop.
"You may get hands behind you with a single high spade to fold. This is very important given the size of the pot. You avoid the possibility of hitting a flush card on the turn only to have a fourth flush card hit on the end to give the fellow with the As the pot."
Does anyone out there strongly agree or strongly disagree?
"Does anyone out there strongly agree or strongly disagree?"
skp, are you serious, you must know that I'm out here and I always strongly agree or disagree!
In this case I refer you two the original post by Mason Malmuth. I believe that if you read his play of the hand given the results (5th street play) you must conclude that he played this hand in the most correct manner that one could play it. He was in a game where you could not expect any tactic, especially raising to thin the field, to have the desired effect!
In games where people play as they played in this hand the solid or expert player must be cautious. Even though the solid player is a favorite to win in the long run he may experience huge fluctuations in his bankroll. If he constantly plays with weak players of this type his hourly Standard Deviation will be off the charts! The number of "Bad Beats" a solid player will experience in games of this nature will be very high and may lead to extreme frustration with a very possible end result of going on TILT!
IMO Vince
Vince, I have played in this type of game for about 3 years now. Used to be loose passive but now it has become loose aggressive.
While a loose passive game would be my first choice, a loose aggressive game is my second.
15-30 game on Sunday was a perfect example. The second pot of the night was a $1400 pot which a guy with pocket Aces took down after running deuces came on the turn and river. The flop was Js,9s,8d (turn was the 2d). There were two pair hands and draws all over the place and everyone was jamming it.
In that game, pots between $500 and $800 are the norm.
You gotta bring your seatbelt to the game. Bad Beats are the name of the game. Every River card comes with a drum roll...I love it.
Yes, there are huge fluctuations but in the long run, if you play good position, read cards exceptionally well, and don't go on tilt (this as you intimate is critical), you will win and win big.
It's as simple (and as difficult) as that.
I have heard that the games in California are pretty wild but I don't know if that applies at the 15-30 level. If you are looking for wild 10-20 or 15-30 games, I gotta think that Vancouver is the place (albeit at badly devalued Canuck Dollars).
It really comes down to a style of play. A tight aggressive player like Mason or me would call. A loose aggressive player such as yourself would raise. There is no one right answer. Mason's example (which may be why he used it) showed a close decision for a tight aggressive player that would have been a virtual no brainer for a loose aggressive player. I play with one loose aggressive (successfull, most are not) player. I actually enjoy watching him play, sometimes even when I'm in a hand with him.
Given my position and the action that had already taken place it appeared to me that if I raise again I might be able to knock out one player who may or may not fold anyway.
It would only make a difference if none of the current two-bet players have a big spade, AND each player yet to act that has a single big spade will call two-bets but not three, AND if the better has a single spade he will call one bet but not two, AND you are not already drawing dead to a bigger 2-flush; AND you make your flush with runner-runner spades; AND someone doesn't also make a full house (wait, they can't since you have the 7s); AND you do not hit a straight flush; AND I won't get carried away with silly bluff scenarios.
I suspect this scenario only accounts for only a tiny fraction of a bet in EV.
"Strongly Disagree" for this situation.
- Louie
Ha! Well put!
Give the first of the two cold callers on the flop Mason's hand, and I would be in complete agreement with your suggested reraise move on the flop. In that scenario there would be more players who, holding the singleton ace or king of suit as part of overcards to the flop, might be persuaded to release their hands. Who are you trying to move off the pot from the button position? The two cold callers aren't going to fold for your reraise, nor is the flop raiser. This leaves just the player in the big blind and the bettor on the flop as candidates. I read Mason's reply, and he thought he'd only have some leverage against just one of these two. I suppose you might be able to move the big blind off overcards (given what he showed down though, this would turn out to be misguided thinking). I read the bettor for a good draw, top pair, or better hand rather than overcards since he didn't raise pre-flop. Yet I suppose if he had limped with As8h or some other trash that happened to flop a pair with a big overcard kicker there might be some small chance a reraise could stop him from chasing, but Mason doesn't even have a hand at this point, just an assortment of mediocre draws. Two cold callers ought to be like a slap in the face not to get caught speeding on the button.
I agree in principle; but I take nit-pick exception to the phrase " ... Mason The "value" of his hand is not relevant: (8h7h) board (6h5h5s) vrs hand (2s2c). The draw "doesn't even have a hand" but is a big favorite vrs the "hand" (any 4,6,7,8,9, or heart or running pair gives a probable victory).
Since he is not reraising for "value", it doesn't matter if Mr. Malmuth has the "best" hand now or no pair. Fundamentally it matters if the expected cost of the reraise (at least one bet) is less than the increase in his chances of winning (if any) times the size of the pot.
- Louie
Okay Louie, you're right. That wasn't the proper way to say that a pair of sevens behind a raise and two cold callers is extremely unlikely to be the best hand at the decision point on the flop. It's still a mediocre hand with multiple mediocre draws and reduced positional advantages.
I didn't mean to disagree that this hand was just several mediocre draws, which it is. 77 is NOT the best hand and is therefore a draw. I meant to suggest that that is not a reason to just call: raising to narrow the field can be valid when you do not have the best hand.
"Turn is a rag, I check and he bets and I call."
"Sorry Charlie" (Big John) a (check) raise is in order here! What you afraid of man!
Fear: A poker players friend/foe! His friend your foe in this instance!
"I lost two big bets and one small bet the way I calculate it, and played the whole hand from the flop on in a wimpish manner. I think I just gave him too much credit when he raised me on the flop"
Sometimes thinking too much - no good!
IMO Vince!
What if the BB folds to a re-raise? or to a bet on the turn? In that case you made the most money possible while risking the least. You showed him respect and you already stated he deserved it. Also, you are aware that you played the hand timidly vs. him and only him. The rest of the table likely won't make that distinction. I'll bet you capitolized on this mis-conception about your playing style and made more money than you normally would have vs. other players whom you had much less respect for. Perhaps a +EV play given the situation.
Good point, Spitball! Lets ask a follow-up.
OK, you wimped out on THIS hand. You show your AA and all the good players at the table see what happened. Now____, how can you take advantage of this during the rest of this session? What kind of situations should you look for?
All you good player/posters (above) said he should have been more aggressive. But now that you've seen him do this, how can he trap you?
I found out after playing HE with a certain guy (not a real strong player) that the only time he raises pre-flop is with a pair. In a certain hand he raised, so I knew he had a pair, and found that I had AKo. I reraised to get it heads up (mistake?) figuring I most likely had two overcards and better position. It worked. The flop came rags, he bet and I folded. I did this because I wasn't sure if he had made the trips, since he came out betting (he usually checks and calls if he doesn't make the set). I also thought I might have made a mistake by playing this hand knowing I was going in as a dog, and didn't want to waste the big bets on the hand. I asked him what he had, and he showed two 10's, top pair at that point (I think 9 was highest on the board). Should I have reraaised to to get a free card on the turn? If the turn or river paired me or even showed a J or Q. I could have bet and he probably would've laid down, What is the proper thing to do?
By raising to get heads up, you set yourself up to be a dog in a small pot. Even if you stay through to the river to hit one of your outs, if you get played with you at all are looking at a set, and since an A or K on the board will scare off your opponent, he has an easy lay down. So IMO the raise to thin the field is incorrect.
A call preflop is likely correct. Given that you know your opponent has a pair, with AKo you want to look at the flop as cheaply as possible, and one or two other limpers shouldn't be discouraged in this situation. Although I can't think of one, others may even suggest situations where a pre-flop laydown of the AKo is correct.
I strongly disagree here.
I almost always (say 90% of the time) three bet with AK off if there are no callers between me and the raiser. If there are callers in between, then my decision is less clear.
One of the reasons for making it three bets before the flop with big slick is that they are the two best unpaired big cards. As such, they'll win unimproved against one or two other players somewhere from 15-40% of the time. Against two live players, Mason has posted here that he expects AK after reraising and buying the button to win him the pot about 1/3rd. of the time without improving. When one of these players is *known* to have started with a pair, this is harder to accomplish. I'm inclined to make it three bets before the flop in this situation also, but I don't think it is as obviously correct as when both players could have anything reasonable. Also, just calling with AK might be the better play for someone with less experience playing just overcards to the flop, since they'll need to be prepared to remain agressive and still recognize when to pitch'em (a narrow path here).
Assuming you do not have any tell on the original raiser, then I agree that making it 3 bets with AKo is almost always correct.
In the situation described, however, my thinking was this: Since Gator was certain that his opponent had a pair, there is no chance the AK will win unimproved. Since the pot was already raised, it is less likely that a trash hand will call pre-flop, so a re-raise to accomplish this has reduced value. And finally, by reraising, the pot is now large enough that after the flop it will be more difficult for the unimproved AK to use his position to fold the pair.
Since others disagree, I'm rethinking this now.
I could also be off the mark with my thinking here too.
"What is the proper thing to do? "
You did it! (Given the information you relayed in your post) You made no mistake on this hand!
Vince
When I first read your response I missed something that after rereading it forced me to change my opinion. What I missed was that you folded on the flop because you weren't sure if he had made a set. This makes the hand a lot more interesting and the answer much more complex. You seem to have a good read on this opponent's play. I wonder if you had ever seen him in a similiar situation where he had made a set. It is unusual for a fair to good player to bet the flop heads-up when he makes a set. Consequently, if you are not sure what is your best course of action?
Conventional wisdom says to put him on a pair. Then what. If you raise and he is avery good player and has a set (or even Aces) he won't raise you back. He'll try for a check raise on the turn. If he is a fair player and because of the read you have on him I can't rate him any better than fair he will not reraise the flop (unless he has Aces, maybe Kings also) and will check the turn (if he doesn't reraise the flop with Aces in which case he may bet the turn) unless he improves. Since you have A,K and he didn't reraise preflop he most likely has a pair below Q,Q.
Now think about the reasons for raising. Without listing them all the appropriate one to think of here is getting a free card. With two over cards on the flop the proper play is to maximize your chances of winning the hand. Included in that is minimizing the cost of your doing that. The correct play in this situation is normally a raise. Try for a free card. There is also the possibility that he may throw his hand away which is an added reason for raising. If he is the type of player that will lay down if a higher card than his pair is on the board you should bet the turn if an A,K or Q shows otherwise take the free card. And fold to his bet on the river or check if you don't improve. You may want to bet the river if a Q falls. Tough call on that one but I would bet a Q also.
The one word that deeply troubles me in your response is "afraid". You said you were afraid that he might have a set. Whenever you are "afraid" just whistle a happy tune and face up to your fears. Challenge those fears. What was the worse that could happen; you lose a bet or a couple of bets. If you are afraid of something the only way to conquer that fear is to fight it, face it head on! If you don't you will always lose to it by default! Learn from your mistakes and triumphs. To play poker correctly requires a lot of experience. Making plays like raising in situations like this will give you that experience.
Fear: A poker players friend/foe. In this case it was your foe and you opponents friend.
Opinion by Vince
A very good post.
I particularly liked and endorse the last paragraph on "fear".
I agree with the way you suggest after the flop. I'm still not sure I should have gotten involved in this hand I think AK is about a 6:5 dog to a pair of 2-Q's if you take it to the river. I guess there was about 4.5 bets in the pot when I a reraised. I think it is a marginal hand to play and best, and I havent aquired the skill yet to make it a profitable play.
I the last few Holdem sessions I have had the good fortune of flopping 4 Aces when holding AA, 4 deuces when holding a pair in the big blind, and (unbelievably) flopping a Royal Flush in spades, when holding AsKs.
Since I get a stunned "deer in the headlites" feeling when these flops match this neatly, does anyone have hints on how to quickly pull myself back down to earth? I miss bets on these hands and want to take full advantage. TIA
Flopping monsters invariably leads to slowplaying by most players. This may not necessarily be the best thing to do. A lot depends on whether the board offers something for others to call or (gulp) raise with. If it does, you should bet instead of checking it.
For example, if I hold the red Aces and the flop is As,Ac,Kc. I would bet. A check is sure to make the other guy think that I have AK (Obviously I would have raised pre-flop with the Aces).
A bet may in fact be taken as a sign of weakness by my opponents. One of them may even try to scare me by checkraising. Also, the board does offer gutshot and flush draws which people will try for if the pot is big enough. So, I'd bet it and probably get callers.
In fact, there have been times when I have raised a bettor to my right on the turn with Quads because I figure that the players behind me have hands which are (a) not worth calling for 1 bet, or (b) worth calling 2 bets cold. So, why not raise?
Of course, if the flop is something like As,Ac,5d, a check is probably in order.
Similar considerations apply when you flopped the Quad deuces in the BB. What was the third card on the flop? If you believe that people will call your bet... well, then you should bet.
The Royal Flush flop is one where I might slowplay because the only hands that can call me are two pair hands; some players may call with a King. Here, I'd give them a chance to catch up or raise some suspicion in their mind that I don't have much when I bet the turn. A check here on the flop (after a pre-flop raise) probably won't look as fishy as a check would on a A,A,x flop (IMO). But I don't know because I've never flopped a Royal. In fact, in three years of play, I have only hit a straight flush twice (i.e. after all cards are out). That's quite the run of monsters you've been having there. You ought to run out and get a lottery ticket right about now!
On second thought, I'd probably bet even after flopping the Royal. It's not much different from the example set out below in the "Inducing Bluffs" thread. In fact, I will probably get more callers after flopping a Royal Flush than I would if I merely flopped a nut flush. Obviously, when flopping the nut flush, you would rather have As2s instead of AsKs but I'd bet even with the latter.
M.A.,
I wasn't going to get involved with your post because everybody basically gave you the same advice and mine is different. For what it is worth here goes. Inducing a bluff is more applicable to action on the river. What you would be doing if you check would be a slow-play. The question is, "Would a slow play be correct in this spot?" Lets look at the criteria for a slow play from HFAP:
1) Your hand must be very strong.
This is certainly true.
2) You probably will chase everyone out by betting, but you have a good chance of winning a large pot if you check.
I would use the word larger but I think this criteria is satisfied.
3) The free card that you are giving has good possibilities of making second-best hands.
Very true.
4) The free card has little chance of making a better hand for someone or even of giving him a draw to a better hand with sufficient odds to justify a call.
True. Even with trips the pot would not be laying your opponent enough on the turn if you bet.
5) The pot must not yet be very large.
This is also true and this is the most important factor IMO.
IMO all the criteria for a slow-play has been met. IMO you will win more money in the long run by checking your big flush on the flop.
Tom Haley
Tom,
IMO, this analysis only considers maximizing your EV on this one hand; it ignores maximizing EV for that particular session or week or month or whatever if you happen to be playing with the same players.
Of course, if your cardroom constitution constantly changes (how's that for some alliteration?), then I agree with you.
I would also agree with you if you were up against non-observant players who just play based on the strength of their own hand and don't bother analyzing your actions.
skp,
I hope this doesn't come across as being a smart-ass because it is certainly not intended to be that way. I think this forum has really gotten to be quite interesting and I think you have contributed a lot. I appreciate your intense interest in poker. I always enjoy reading your thoughtful and insightful posts.
The only way that I know of to maximize my EV for a session, week, month, year, etc. is to consistently make the play with the highest EV. A lofty but worthy goal to say the least. I realize it is correct to sometimes play a hand incorrectly especially when you play against the same people all of the time. However, I also think it is -EV to overdo it. In the posts about this particular hand I haven't read the word "image" but I think the responses that I read are certainly alluding to it. The "image" that I perceive the other posters to this thread are seeking to portray is of a player who is hard to read that bluffs their fair share of the time. As Mason has pointed out, the image of being a tight player who doesn't bluff very much when in reality you do bluff your fair share of the time in hold'em has a lot of benifits as well. Comments appreciated.
Tom Haley
Yes, as the authors have pointed out Caro's "wild is best" claims are incorrect for games that tend to get large pots vis-a-vis the size of the bets, such as hold'm and 7stud: Bluffing/semi-bluffing in big pots has more potential +EV than value betting in them.
And that supports betting this nut hand. It reduces your bluff-bet/value-bet ratio making opponents more inclinded to fold next time.
This is NOT "playing incorrectly" once in a while. Adopting a correct frequency for playing differently in similar situations or similarly is different situations, such as bluffing 12.8% of the time in xyz situation, is "playing correctly" all the time. It doesn't matter if THIS hand is a 12.8% or a 87.2% hand.
Similarly the "correct" technique here may be to bet 79% and check 21%; or versa-visa.
"Playing incorrectly" once in a while, or "advertising" is used to make your techniques APPEAR differently than what they really are, in the minds/hearts of your less-than-perfect opponents.
- Louie
"And that supports betting this nut hand. It reduces your bluff-bet/value-bet ratio making opponents more inclinded to fold next time."
This implies that betting any nut hand is correct in situations like this. It also implies one should bet flopped sets in this situation. It further implies that no matter what flops one should bet! I can't imagine that being true. Since I am having difficulty with this concept would you please elaborate. Also, how does an uncalled hand reduce your bluff-bet/value-bet ratio in the mind of the opponent?
"Similarly the "correct" technique here may be to bet 79% and check 21%; or versa-visa."
This really confuses me. Does this mean that one should bet the nut hand %79 of the time? If so doesn't it contradict your first statement, which implies betting the nut hand %100 of the time.
"This is NOT "playing incorrectly" once in a while. Adopting a correct frequency for playing differently in similar situations or similarly is different situations, such as bluffing 12.8% of the time in xyz situation, is "playing correctly" all the time. It doesn't matter if THIS hand is a 12.8% or a 87.2% hand."
This one is just too much for my simple mind to comprehend! And I'm not even sure I want to understand it!
The way I see this is that we have a simple question here :To Bet or Not to Bet (Da Nuts) in this hand.
The simple answers are: 1) Bet 2)Slow Play
Your answer: 1) Bet. Because it will allow you to more effectively bluff in the future. Am I correct?
My answer: 2) Slow Play. F... the future, maximize you win on this hand.
Vince
< == This implies that betting any nut ... implies set ... implies always bet! ===
My statement implies no such things. It appears I caused you to confuse the notions "good reason" with "compelling reason". Sorry. Support of an aggressive style is an excellent reason to routinely bet the nuts. That doesn't say "always bet".
== Also, how does an uncalled hand reduce your bluff-bet/value-bet ratio in the mind of the opponent?==
One uncalled hand doesn't. But if they SEE that you checked the nuts, or notice that you routinely check the nuts, then they know that your ratio is higher than it should have been to the detriment of you semi-steals. And who says this is going to be an un-seen hand? Certainly seeing you bet the nuts improves your ratio.
Imagine a very tight player who only bets the nuts, but who otherwise bluffs about the correct proportion of the time. It should be obvious that you should routinely CALL this player, since MOST of his BETS will be bluffs.
== bet 79% ... check 21% ... ?? ==
I'm sure the best technique is to bet in these situations a certain %age of the time: I suggest that it would be incorrect to ALWAYS either bet or ALWAYS check.
== ... too much ... to comprehend! ===
I suggest that once you determine the correct frequency for a particular play, you are playing correctly when you use that play at that frequency. Just like bluffing in a situation 15% of the time can be a correct strategy.
== The way I see this is that we have a simple question here :To Bet or Not to Bet (Da Nuts) in this hand. The simple answers are: 1) Bet (Louie: set up bluffs) 2)Slow Play (Vince: maximize this hand) ==
((( side note: if routinely slow playing will "maximize this hand" then you should be stealing these paranoid whimp opponents blind on other hands)))
And the way I see it is that this is a key concept in the complicated notion of strategic approach to the game.
- Louie
But then again, I do have to admit that I routinely see things differently than most people. I don't mind. But I forget that others sometimes DO mind, and perhaps this creates friction from time to time. Sorry.
"But I forget that others sometimes DO mind, and perhaps this creates friction from time to time. Sorry. "
Louie, I really think people posting on this forum needlessy apologize to often. If you think that I am not open to anothers opinion you are mistaken!
I thank you very much for your response and quite frankly I love a vigorous debate! Even when the other guy may be right!
BTW I am of Italian descent. Growing up in an Italian family is an experience in "argument land". I can dish it and I can take it! I hope we continue with friendly interchange!
Vince
Sometimes pots can be too small to slowplay, since the free card you're giving should it make a second best hand for someone else, may not be enough for that player to call a bet on the turn anyway. With this hand, someone has to catch a lesser flush on the turn, or two pairs to pay for the slowplay otherwise the board is still just as scary as it was on the flop. The bet from last position on the flop is also the beginning of a trap for an opponent who's check/calling or check/raising with a made smaller flush, while not giving a card that could allow someone a full house draw. The free card you're giving not only must have good chances of making someone a second best hand, that second best hand must be relatively good enough to pay off your bet on the turn and possibly the river.
One point where I was wrong here was that your opponent would be getting the correct odds to call a bet if he had trips when he spiked a card to his pair on 4th. However, I still believe that if your opponent picked up trips in this way you will gain more money in the long run because you will often be bet into on 4th and your opponent will often call on the river when they don't fill. Therefore I still believe checking is the right play. Looking at it another way, when you bet on the flop did your opponents make a mistake in folding? Give them a chance to make a mistake.
What books are recommended for playing heads up or short handed. Thanks Ryan
If you do find a good one, let me know please so I can read it too. Sklansky and Malmuth have writen that they could probably write an entire book on this subject. I'm still waiting to buy it.
We will be putting out some information on how to play short handed and how to play in very loose games. Most of this has never been published before. Look for it approximately about mid-summer. That's all I'll say for now.
There are none, but if you search through the 2+2 Archives you will find lots of discussions on playing heads up and short handed, also final table play. Use the search option for key words. Mason could fill a book on this subject with just the stuff in the archives.
Big John,
You sais it yourself:you played the hand weak tight. But I know from your posts this is not your style. So I see no problem, unless you have been having a bad run of cards and undo caution has crept into your game. You know you should have check raised him on the turn and bet on the river if he called the raise. That's Big John.
Doug M (the poker player formerly known as Dman)
Doug,
I've been experimenting with trying to obtain better results in ring games where the game isn't very good. I usually employed a very aggressive, high risk, "in your face" style that was calculated to make the game wide open and high variance. I would either win a ton or lose one. Lately, I've tried to "grind" my way to a low variance, but steady, winning style. It isn't as much fun or nearly as exciting, but it produces a steady profit for me. I'm getting all the variance I've ever wanted with my tournament play.
As my poker hobby has developed, I've been shifting the emphasis away from enjoyment and towards proficiency and profit. I am consciously making an effort to forgo the peaks in order to mitigate the valleys. I still enjoy myself and have fun, but now I rate myself on how well I "farmed" the game, not the size of the crop I harvested.
My weak tight post was more about my fear that I'm becoming too cautious, preferring to take my risks against the weaker competition and presenting a smaller target to the better players. In the hand I referenced, I was really playing badly, allowing myself to fear the worst and act, by my betting action, exactly like a weak/tight player. The more selectively I play, the more aggressive I need to be when I am a clear favorite to have the best hand. Had I played the hand correctly, the better player would have lost more money and been less likely to try to make me lay down marginal hands in future action. It is always easier to make moves on players who won't punish you sufficiently when they have the hands to do so. It will probably wind up costing me some money in the future against this player since I've now encouraged him to play me more aggressively. Had our hands been reversed, I'm sure he would have extracted every possible bet from me.
"Lately, I've tried to "grind" my way to a low variance, but steady, winning style."
Big John, I hope you don't mind me sticking my nose in where it wasn't asked to be but I have just ended what you have been doing "lately". (above). I'm only relaying this in the hope that you don't fall into the same trap that I did. First let me say a lot of my problems were my own fault. I will be the first to admit that I have a lot of problems dealing with frustration and have a tendency to tilt. Not a good thing for a poker player! I found when I adopted a "grind" style that whenever I was ahead a small amount of money I would quit that session and not play again until the next day, regardless of how good the game might be. I did this for about a week. In that time I played a total of 19 hours of 15-30 Holdem (might have played 2 hours of 7 stud in there). I was ahead about $1000. But the grind style really took it's toll on me. When ever I was ahead in a session I would quit out of the "Fear of Losing". It all came to a head during one session that even though I was slightly ahead, I believe $60, after about 3 hours I just lost it. I suffered a couple of bad beats and that was it. I won't tell you how much I lost but it was substantially more than the $1000 I had won. Plus I played a ridicullous marathon of over 24 hours. Not a good idea for someone my age. On my way to my home I felt disgusted with myself. Embarrassed at the way I played. I felt I couldn't go back to the Bellagio and play in the 15-30 game because there were a lot of solid locals in the game. I could feel them laughing at my play. I seriously considered quitting. Instead I decided never to play that way again. I made up my mind to never let my chip level govern my actions (except for influencing my play in a tournament). I also decided to not allow poker playing to become a job. After a long sleep I immediately played a session where I forced myself to not count my chips. I will never again allow the size of my chip stack govern whether I continue to play. I will say that I had a very good session. Didn't win back all that I lost but won well in excess of the $1000 it took me twenty (work) hours to win before. I cannot say that it was other than the luck of the cards that made me win. I can say that I sure felt better anf freer than I had in along time. Beside when I was in the "grind" mode it felt like I was working. I never again will treat poker playing as a job, regardless of what conventional wisdom says.
Now, none of what I have written may apply to you in any way shape or form. It may be totally useless information to you. But you know what, just in case it may help I thought I'd write you this song anyway. (For anyone else that might be interested, also).
Your Posting Buddy Vince
Vince,
I appreciate your post, but I think we are talking about two different things here. I'm talking about tightening my standards for contesting a hand, playing contested pots a skosh less aggressively when the question of who is ahead is still very much in doubt and concentrating my sessions into fewer hands played. A session usually amounts to four to eight hours of play for me, and ends sometime after I've decided that I've had my fill of play for that game. I try to leave at a good exit point, just when my big blind is coming up after I've had an up cycle that shows signs of being ended. I have no maximum win figure when I sit down, but wouldn't allow myself to get buried more than three racks in a limit game as I feel that is the high end of the range I would hope to win in a single session. I'm looking for a way to maximize my chances to win by playing better hands and putting a higher percentage of my total volume of bets into the pot when I have a hand capable of being showed down, at that point, as the winner. I am weeding out some of my gambling tendencies in order to smooth out my results. I'm confining my gambling to tournaments.
Big John, I can't imagine anything but positive results if you stick to the strategy you have outlined in your response.
"I'm confining my gambling to tournaments. "
One thing I didn't specifically state in my response to you relates to your comment above (which made me rethink my response). You may recall or may not recall that from some of my prior responses I'm not much in favor of gambling. I like to think that I play poker because I have the edge and that in the long run I will get the money. But sometimes I seem to lose site of the fact that even if I were as good a player as Malmuth and Sklansky and other top players the bottom line is that playing poker is still gambling! I believe that is part of what makes the game great to play. And that is one of the reasons that I now refuse to allow poker playing to become a job! I remember that before I learned to play poker (somewhat correctly) I loved playing poker and other games because I loved to gamble. Hell, I used to play BJ (UGH), craps (lightly) and roulette (which I absolutely loved until a read about Blaise Pascal and learned a little bit about probability). I now intend to treat poker playing as an intelligent (though not necessarily the way I do it) method of gambling! And I intend to have fun doing it!
For the rest of you that may read this post. I felt that it was appropriate for this post to be on the T&S forum rather than the exchange because one's psychological approach to the game of poker dramatically affects his play. I believe my gambling history has a lot to do with my sometimes getting frustrated during a poker session and my tendency to tilt! Mental state is an important part of playing poker! I hope you don't mind me sharing this under the guise of T&S.
Thanks Big John,
Vince
Tilting is like any other problem...the first step to correcting it is self-acceptance.
I am not suggesting that you walk around saying "Hi, I'm Vince Lepore and I am a tilter" like they do at AA but I commend you for realizing that this may be a chink in your armor which needs to be rectified (if it already hasn't been).
Go for a short walk if you feel that you are about to tilt. It's a cliche but also a truism.
In the wild games I play in, you won't believe some of the suck-outs that happen on a daily basis but I have found that the best way to fight it is to forget about the hand and go on to the next. At first, it was a struggle. Now, it is fairly automatic.
On this topic, I really recommend Lou Krieger's books. When running bad, I often read his stuff on "playing your best game at all times" etc. It really does help to be reminded of the horrors that tilting can bring upon you.
And I agree with you, poker is a lot of fun. Hell, I sure wouldn't be playing it or participating in this Forum if I regarded it as work.
Playing in HE last night, there was a player who continuely asked to see his opponents hole cards, when it did not come to show and tell on the end. Almost everyone does this occasionally, but this guy was abusing the privilege. He was not a particularly good player. He played too many hands, chased too much, and had the most blatant strong means weak tell (firing his chips onto the table when he was weak or drawing). I do not like to creat discord at the table, but enough was enough. I started asking to see his cards. Another player began doing the same. I don't know if the guy got the message, as I then moved to the main table. Was I right or being a bully?
"He was not a particularly good player. He played too many hands, chased too much, and had the most blatant strong means weak tell (firing his chips onto the table when he was weak or drawing)."
Why would you want to take the chance of upsetting and possibly changing the play of a player as bad (or good depending on your perspective) as this one. Or worse he may leave the game! Leave 'em alone. What the hell is the big deal about asking to see someone's cards on the end? A player this bad wouldn't know what to do with the information anyway!
IMO Vince
Doug,
I agree with what Vince said above but would like to add a few points. In my experience, the person who usually does this is a player who at least thinks he is good and is trying hard but has no sense of table politics.
As a player I never do this unless I suspect collusion (which is rare) as it usually just embarrasses your opponents into playing better.
As a floorman at Hollywood Park Casino, I often get called to the table regarding this rule. We allow it but directly state in our rulebook "Any player who has been dealt in may request to see any hand that has been called, even if the opponent's hand or the winning hand has been mucked. However, this is a privilege that may be revoked if abused." You can bet I come down on the rear ends regarding this rule to the extent that I can.
One time I had a problem player that I was eventually able to "encourage" to play at another casino where he could drive their customers away rather than ours. For example, one time he calls me to the table to enforce the rule regarding removal of chips for a guy who gave $5 to a friend for a sandwich from a stack of $300! This was in a 2/4 stud game! He did this when I was super busy so I gave him my best "Al Pacino - end of the Godfather - stare" and told him I would not enforce the rule in this case since that was not the intent etc. which worked at the time.
Unfortunately it didn't stop him from calling me a week or two later regarding the rule in your post. What happened was on the river a player bet, a player out to have a good time called, and "our friend" overcalled. When the lead better showed the nuts, our friend completely mucked his hand and asked to see the other caller's cards. The caller got upset that he was being asked to show his cards to a player who had just mucked his own hand so he threw his hand into the muck. However, it was still retrievable since the dealer protected the muck. I get called to the table and "our friend" and the caller are going at it. When I find out what happened I tell the dealer to muck the caller's hand and get on with the next deal. Our friend got up and tried to give me a lecture about the rules. I remember saying to the guy; "If you can't see why someone would be upset that you asked to see their hand while mucking your own then your vision doesn't extend past your nose (the guy happened to have a big nose and thick spectacles). Anyway, after that incident he didn't show up at our place for a couple of years so I figure we gained about ten customers by getting rid of him (plus he was a rock to boot).
Regards,
Rick the Insomniac
An alternative would be to ALWAYS tell ANYONE who asks what you had that you had A SET, regardless of what you folded or the betting action. Eventually they'll stop asking when it becomes obvious that you're the unluckiest, craziest, most unbelieveable player in the room. This response is more or less an inside joke for all of the aware players too. You'll need a warped sense of humor to enjoy doing this though.
I agree with the other responses but I thought I'd share a story related to this.
There was a player in our game (a grouch if you've ever seen one who also happened to play fairly well) who had the annoying habit of asking to see the hand of the caller even if he happened to have the nuts. One day, One of the boys decided to fix him. Grouch bets at the end with top pair. The other player taps the table (i.e. the usual gesture signifying "good hand") but hangs on to his cards. Grouch as expected tells the dealer he wants to see the other fellow's hand. This player then gives the grouch a cold stare and turns over bottom two pair and says in a real mocking tone "oh, what do you know, I've got two pair". With everyone splitting their gut, the other player took the pot.
As for the ornery fellow, he continued to ask to see hands for a little while (I guess he didn't want anyone to think that the other chap had succeeded in teaching him a lesson), but the ploy actually worked: grouch stopped asking to see hands after a while and hasn't done so now for a long time.
P.S. I hope Mr. Grouch ain't reading this because he is quite a bit bigger than I am!
I rarely ask to see a player's hand based on the scenarios described above, but I will always ask to see a hand that a player shows to his neighbor. I think this behavior is atrocious. There are players in the games that I sit down in who habitually do this, and I will ask to see their cards everytime. I think its downright rude to share your cards with selected players and not the table.
At the Tropicana in Atlantic City they put in a rule that if a player asked to see another players hand...that first a floorman had to be called....In other words the dealer couldn't just do it on his own.
This rule tended to put a little "social pressure" on the player asking to see the hand as now the whole table would be annoyed at the delay in the game while waiting for the floorman to show up.
I believe they put this rule in for the specific purpose of embarassing those persons who use this rule just to try to get a line on someone's play rather than to expose possible collusion...which is why the rule was put in in the first place.
I have seen this type of thing and usually it's one check, all check, till someone bets then others fold. Maybe you would have gotten one call on the river. But suppose that flop made someone else a hand. You bet, they raise,you call.They bet the turn. You call, then bet or raise the river, depending on what they do. You played the hand right.
Consider moving when possible to where you have the positional advantage. Just a differant suggestion.
" 1.What questions do I need to ask myself in these situations? " 1) How good a player is my opponent? 2) How good is my play after the flop? (Turn and River) 3) What are my opponents weaknesses? 4) How good is my opponent after the flop? (Turn and River) 5) How does my opponent react when I play back at him? (Mostly call, fold or reraise)
"2. What is the average hand if someone raised my blind every time."
This depends on whether the small blind calls the raise.
When SB folds (and you play o.k after the flop) you can call with almost any Kx or better. Try raising with any Ax and follow through (play it aggressively) with the hand the first time you do this unless your absolutely certain you are beat. Always raise preflop with any pair below Q,Q. Slow play big pairs and try for a check raise on the turn if the board is favorable. Mix up your play as much as possible.
When SB calls. You can call with just about any playable hand. You are now getting very good pot odds. The SB calling however complicates the play of the hand. You will now have to use your good judgement to play from the flop on!
You are not getting beat up on your big blinds because you are conservative! You are getting beat up on your big blinds because you are afraid! Your opponent is taking advantage of your fear! He can sense it!
Challenge him at every opportunity! He will soon learn to leave you alone or you will gain the upper hand (which is much better)!
Fear: A poker players friend/foe! Turn the tides on your opponent! Make fear your friend and his foe!
Opinion By Vince
The small blind against a possible steal raise would be better served by reraising with a playable hand. This makes a play/fold decision easier for the big blind, but makes it tougher when the big blind does play to make correct decisions on and after the flop. The small blind would rather be heads-up with a decent hand against the late position stealer in this spot.
fair enough.
The new NBA season started last week after a long dispute between the players and management over players pay. The result of all this is a compressed and reduced schedule with only 50 games. The frequency of games played is much higher than in a normal NBA season. One thing that has already come to light is that no team has won a game after it's third straight game (this may have changed by now) in as many days. Of course I'm not sure about how the point spreads are being effected by the compressed schedule but I would think that there might be some betting opportunities presented to an insightful sports bettor because of the compressed schedules. It also looks to me like the totals are real low this year. I'm sure the lines have reflected this but I wonder if this will change as the year goes on. The players started playing without the normal training camp preparation and a there was a lot of player movement between teams from last season. Just curious if anyone else has any opinions on the NBA this season.
West coast to East coast travel fatigue should therefore become more of a factor in this condensed season with fewer off days?
I thought the vegas sports books hit a new low last summer when I was basically barred from 2 sports for giving them a steady diet of steam,won't mention any by name,oh what the hell,Hilton and Ceasars,I wasn't actually barred just every time I called I was put on hold for an unbelievable amount of time then they would come back to me after they had the move.Then in college football totals I was limited to $300 on the phone,I was told if I wanted to bet them higher I had to come to the window,of course my money was already up just like the window customers.But every Vegas book taking the NBA totals down is the lowest move the books have ever made. Why not just put a sign out front that says "We're scared to death"?Maybe you can put up a long line in baseball this year,with all totals .20 of course.What's next spread lines? Vegas books do what ever the hell you want but stop whining when bettors take their buisness to the islands where the books have more gamble then you will ever dream of having. By the way the steam totals that the mirage,mgm,stardust were pissing their pants over so far this year are going down more than a crack ho the last week of the month,but I'm glad to be losing to books with some balls.I will never under any circumstances place a bet with a vegas sports book again.
Yes, these unusual situations will provide plenty of opportunities for the professional gambler to defeat the routine brain-dead sports better. Be sure to make a premise and THEN compare it to the results; and do NOT look at the results and project a premise.
I suspect one strategy may be: analyze the situation based on last years criteria (?power rating?) and this year's data. When the BOOK deviates a lot from this, you can expect the brain-dead types to "take advantage" of the book's "mistake", so you should bet in favor of the discrepency; making the presumption that the Book is much smarter and well informed than the average Joe.
- Louie
I have read all the responses to your post and it appears that I am the only one that disagrees with your play of the hand. Since you have the A,Kd there is little chance that if you bet that a player with one diamond will call. So who will call this bet from a early position raiser. Two pair or a set, maybe someone slow playing a big pair. Any other hand including a small straight draw will probably fold. You risk little by slow playing and allowing the others to catch up a little. If the board doesn't pair you are home free. If someone does have a set they will most likly check raise the turn which is a big plus for you. Or if they bet out you can raise and may now have him tied on to the hand. I believe the same can be said for two pair. With this hand your goal should be to maximize the size of the pot you win. Checking the flop is the correct play in this instance.
A lot of the responses tied the play of future hands to your decision. If you are correctly mixing up your play your opponents will have great difficulty putting you on a hand. I would not even consider my image when playing this hand. HPFAP recommends that with A,Ks in early position to raise 2/3 of the time to keep your opponents of guard. It works, try it if you don't already do this!
If you are concerned with your image or if you want to be known as a tight player I hope you showed this hand when they folded. Otherwise you totally lost on this monster!
Opinion by Vince
The original poster did not specify the flop but let's say it was 8d9dJd. In my game, most players would call with any of the following hands on the flop:
-any 10 who might even checkraise -any J who might even checkraise -any two pair or set who will definitely checkraise -A hand like Qc9c -Qd,x (you know, with his monster straight flush draw) -a hand like 7d,6c
Furthermore, if the turn is a blank, a good chunk of the time you will get calls again if you bet.
Now you know why I love my game and why I never slowplay.
This is a rhetorical question. I believe I have the correct answer (at least in my mind) and will share it with those of you that are interested. First I would like to hear the opinion of other posters. BTW my answer will be of interest to those of you that question whether Holdem is a better game for the professional poker player than 7 stud.
Vince
Well, there's not much blackjack strategy one can talk about. Everything is cut and dried.
As for 7 stud, I don't play the game but it seems to me that this is a tougher game to discuss on the Forum because there aren't enough interesting and different situations that come up on a day to day basis (if I am pissing off stud players, I apologize in advance and readily admit that I don't know the game and am merely speculating). It seems to me that stud play would be fairly cut and dried after 5th street. If you are in the hand at that stage, you are probably in the hand till the end.
I would guess that there are fewer opportunities for poor players to make mistakes in the big bet rounds in stud (as compared to Hold 'em). In other words, both the expert and the clueless character in seat 3 would play the hand the same way after 5th street. IMO, the expert will find Hold 'em more profitable because of this. (Of course, stud does offer one extra betting round which is an advantage to the expert).
One other reason why hold 'em might be more profitable to the expert is that he can see his opponent's last card. That's a huge advantage.
Finally, there are less drawouts in Hold 'em because of the community cards aspect of the game.
All right. Fire away if anyone disputes this. I am all ears.
History doesn't support your reasoning. Games where the expert has consistently held the upper hand have either died off or are now rarely played. Compare 5-card stud, 5-card draw, and no-limit hold-em, which get little of the support of the "everyone-can-play-it" game of limit hold-em. (It's been written that one man, Hall-of-Famer Bill Boyd, was so expert that he alone killed off 5-card stud.)
Compare also the entries to the WSOP, where some 600 people enter the limit hold-em event, totally dwarfing the entries to all other events. Would we say that since more players consider limit hold-em more difficult then more of them think they have a chance? More likely we would view that number of entries as similar to many of the "no-fold-em" games of S. California, where many players play as if any two cards have a chance if they can just see the flop.
Also look at another situation from the WSOP, where Johnny Chan has won back-to-back no-limit hold-em championships, and where Susie Isaacs has won consecutive women's stud championships. To the best of my knowledge this has never happened in the limit hold-em events.
There are other practical factors related to why hold-em is more popular. New players disdain learning how to track the deck (the non-community-card aspect of stud makes it a much more demanding mental game), and dealers hate dealing all those cards. Hold-em tables accomodate more players and with the use of blinds and community cards, hands are played out more rapidly, increasing the drop for the casinos.
If limit hold-em is a more difficult games to master than others, and this more "strategic" aspect of the game gives it a greater attraction to the masses, it would follow that the more strategic world chess championship would have higher TV ratings than the Super Bowl. More likely, the "power band" between good players and expert players in limit hold-em is ever so narrow and a lot of discussion is needed to find that slimmest of edge that makes the difference between winning and losing.
"History doesn't support your reasoning. Games where the expert has consistently held the upper hand have either died off or are now rarely played. Compare 5-card stud, 5-card draw, and no-limit hold-em, which get little of the support of the "everyone-can-play-it" game of limit hold-em." There are other factors as well. In Omaha-8, an expert has a huge advantage over loose players, but the high variance aspect of the game keeps the fish in action. The low variance in draw, lowball and 5-stud broke the bad players rapidly. However, draw and lowball do not give a large advantage to the master over medium players, which is why they died out at the mid and high limits as well. In games with limited skill, where there is no profit unless the opponents are very bad, the games won't keep the interest of players for long when better opportunities exist in other games. "(It's been written that one man, Hall-of-Famer Bill Boyd, was so expert that he alone killed off 5-card stud.)" Maybe I'll call this tonight in my dealer's choice game. "Compare also the entries to the WSOP, where some 600 people enter the limit hold-em event, totally dwarfing the entries to all other events. Would we say that since more players consider limit hold-em more difficult then more of them think they have a chance? More likely we would view that number of entries as similar to many of the "no-fold-em" games of S. California, where many players play as if any two cards have a chance if they can just see the flop." As above, the differential in skill between great and good is less in holdem, so more players think they have a chance. The added variance of a tournament reduces that differential even further.
"Also look at another situation from the WSOP, where Johnny Chan has won back-to-back no-limit hold-em championships, and where Susie Isaacs has won consecutive women's stud championships. To the best of my knowledge this has never happened in the limit hold-em events." Probably true. Although the larger fields in limit holdem tournaments may make it harder for the best players to do well. And stud play changes much more when the table is somewhat shorthanded, and also in response to the ante structure, which gives a player who can adjust a significant advantage.
"There are other practical factors related to why hold-em is more popular. New players disdain learning how to track the deck (the non-community-card aspect of stud makes it a much more demanding mental game), and dealers hate dealing all those cards. Hold-em tables accomodate more players and with the use of blinds and community cards, hands are played out more rapidly, increasing the drop for the casinos." All true. I would also add that the dumb structures in low-limit stud contribute to driving many new players towards holdem. No-ante 1-5 is boring, and usually devoid of action - the action players are in the holdem and Omaha-8 games, leaving the rocks to play no-ante 1-5. And 5-10 and 10-20 are spread with such low antes that they become games of trapping as well. If cardrooms spread, say 6-12 with a $1 ante and $2 force,(and replaced stupid no-ante 1-5 with 3-6 with a .50 ante and $1 force) it would resemble real stud, and be a much more exciting game. Instead, the new players flock to holdem and Omaha-8, which is where the good games are, which is where the better low-limit players go in search of good games, which means that many more holdem and Omaha-8 games get started, which gradually makes holdem and Omaha-8 take over the cardroom.
"If limit hold-em is a more difficult games to master than others, and this more "strategic" aspect of the game gives it a greater attraction to the masses, it would follow that the more strategic world chess championship would have higher TV ratings than the Super Bowl. More likely, the "power band" between good players and expert players in limit hold-em is ever so narrow and a lot of discussion is needed to find that slimmest of edge that makes the difference between winning and losing." I'm not sure if stud or limit holdem is the more strategic game. Players can't beat either a tough stud or a tough holdem game by "just playing tight." The opening round strategy in stud is more complex than in holdem, while playing the turn in holdem is a lot trickier than playing sixth street in stud. While stud hands are more sensitive to the number of players and constantly change value due to the upcards, in many chasing or drawing situations the play is fairly automatic. In a well-played holdem game, there are few post-flop decisions that don't require significant thought.
I think stud is a tougher game to play at an expert level. The community card nature of Holdem brings strategy decisions into sharper focus.
I think Holdem is more popular because stud is dealt slower, and the requirement to track cards makes it more tedious for the recreational player. Hold'em is just a faster, more exciting game.
Because stud is dealt slower, most cardrooms have a higher rake, making it more expensive for the fish.
One other thing which hooks the fish in Holdem - the composition of the deck doesn't change if a player folds, meaning he gets to see just what would have happened if he called. In stud, if you fold early, you won't know if you would have made the best hand. There's a strong psychological component to this.
skp,
I think both games are close in terms of the level of difficulty it takes to become an expert. Mason has gone into this in some detail in one of his book of essays.
However, one thing is clear. It is much harder to write about a stud hand then a holdem hand because you need to note and track the dead cards in stud plus descibe more available information. Stud takes talent, skill, and hard work (because of the need to memorize) to play well. Playing holdem well also takes talent and skill, but to me it just doesn't seem like "hard work".
Anyway, I get to play in L.A. where holdem dominates which suits me just fine.
Regards,
Rick
I played in a 4-8 HE game yesterday and had a few hands of small Suited Connectors in the blinds. (like 23 34 Is it correct to play these hands after a raise pre-flop? Would it still be correct to call a raise pre-flop if in late position? I guess what Im asking is, Is there any reason that you would want to play these cards in the blinds or late In position.
I played these hands 2 or 3 times out of the blinds. One time in particular, I was in the Big blind I had 23h. A raise from a player in the middle, with 5 callers. I decided to call the raise. The flop was Qh 9c 7s.
I folded, So I second guessed myself as to weather or not I played that right. I guess I paid 4 dollars to see a flop, with 40 in the pot. 10-1 pot odds? is this the correct way to count pot odds? and how does one compare Pot odds with drawing odds to decide where to draw the line?
I have read 3-4 Holdem books one Holdem Poker By Sklansky and Another by Ken Warren. I would like to know what book would be the best for me to buy that may explane these type situations.
Thanks for the help in advance.
Walleye
P.S. Later in the same game I had 34s and folded to another raise, flop was As 10c 5s. This really made me think when the turn was a 6s and the river was a 2s. There was a lot of action and a nice pot was taken down with a Ks 10d. It just made me think a lot about this situation.
I often call raises from the big blind with such hands so long as there are 3 or 4 other people in the pot and no or little risk of a reraise.
But you have to play well on the flop and beyond. Otherwise, these calls can turn out to be pretty expensive. What happens to many players is that they catch a small piece of the flop and decide to peel off a card. Everyone's still in. So, on the turn, they call again because of the "pot odds". On the river, if the leader bets and everyone else folds, they talk themselves into calling with a measly pair of deuces just in case the leader's bluffing. Well, that player has just blown off 6 small bets.
If this is a trap that you are unable to avoid at this stage of your game, I suggest that you not call with these types of hands from the blinds.
When you make these calls, what you are looking for (with some exceptions) is a special flop that hits you hard and is not likely to have hit anyone else hard.
You probably are not going to find much help in the poker books on this topic. You'll just have to learn by trial and error.
Oh, I should add that I prefer to call from the blinds when the raise is from an early position (ideally from the UTG player). This way, if the flop hits me hard, I am in a nice checkraisng position.
By the way, I'd stay away from that Ken Warren book. I've never read it, but everyone I know says it's worthless.
Assuming that your initial call was correct, if the pot is large and you have a piece of the flop it can easily be correct to call on both the flop and fourth street.
For example, you make a questionable call from the blind with 4h2h. The flop comes Kd 10c 2d. If you are getting something like 15-to-1 to call on the flop you should make it every time. In fact, 15-to-1 is probably too high.
This is the big problem with this situation, as I see it. The EV is small, but the variance is huge because the pot will often be laying you odds to call with some longshot draws. And if you don't take those draws, then the play overall becomes -EV.
Still, often it's correct to take any edge offered to you. If your bankroll is small or you don't play as well on the flop and later, it might be better to just fold.
Dan
I am reading Lou Krieger's book Hold'em Excellence. In the section"How to play smaller connectors" he makes the comment be prepared to release smaller connectors when you dont hit your hand and he explains why. He goes on to say"playing conditions like this require a good deal of playing experience,and if you're unsure of what to do,I'd suggest you erron the side of caution"
The idea of "fit or fold" is wrong. You also need to consider the size of the pot.
The main thing you want with these hands are big odds, and that's exactly what you're getting when you call for one more bet out of the blind when a lot of other people have called. I routinely make calls out of the blinds with suited connectors and gappers in these kinds of situations.
One exception would be if there is a chance of a re-raise behind you. So, if the raiser is near the button and there are agressive players still to act between you and the raiser, it might be best to just fold.
Unless your at an expert level I would be careful about playing those small connectors. If i don't get a good flop to these hands i am generally going to be done with them. I've lost more money trying to pick up the pot when the flop doesn't hit me then i care to mention. You just don't have many outs. I f you want to read a good poker book get the theory of poker by sklansky. It will give you the principles you need to understand to become a good player. Good luck. Iceman
This is a good point. There are many situations in poker which are slightly profitable providing that you play your hand very well. If you are relatively new to the game, it is frequently best to error on the conservative side in situations that are clearly marginal, and it is still very early in the hand.
Note that if you make this same decision late in the hand your play will probably become what we call "weak tight."
I'm not suggesting that you play these hands against a raise, but if you decide to do so occasionally, here's some very specific advice you're not apt to find in the books. To show a profit from a hand like 32s, you'll need to steal some pots on the flop in addition to (or even instead of) fitting perfectly with the board. If just about everyone is playing, I'll call for one small bet on the button against weak opponents and look for that favorable flop. Otherwise I'd need to be stealing with it, and that depends much more on who's my opponent. I would not want a drop-in player, beginner, expert, or action player heads-up. I'd want someone who is TRYING to play *correctly*, who knows about odds and position, and who'll release big overcards to the flop if he believes I have a pair. So, your job is to convince this player that you have that pair instead of a good draw or bluff. Here's where being the big blind has some advantages, as you could be betting a pair with any flop. Now, I'd prefer that this player had raised from early position assuming no one else is committed to seeing the flop, since I'll be more comfortable with a raggedy board *knowing* it didn't give the raiser a pair. If the raiser has a decent pocket pair then I lose a small bet before and after the flop, folding to another raise. Now if my opponent fits this profile, I also need to consider chip condition. Someone with a short-stack who raises before the flop isn't going to be laying their hand down, they expect to be going all-in and this is the hand they chose to make a stand with. Someone with alot of chips who's been winning is almost as bad. They've been playing well and/or have been lucky, so there's less pressure on them to fold when you bet out. You're also more likely to run into a *fancy* raise from a player ahead of the game. An exception would be if your opponent is an architect. A player who has COMPLETED building a structure with chips (pyramid, wedge, castle, but not a wall since it's too easy even it out with reconstruction) and who has some leftover chips (five to ten big bets worth) is a good candidate make a move against. Consider that they will be inclined to protect their display project, and not put themselves in jeopardy of breaking it down by calling bets with overcards to the flop. An ideal condition is someone who's a couple of chips over their buy-in and would then be temporarily losing for this session if they called you to the river with a mediocre hand. My contention therefore is that you should be less concerned with how your 32s fits with the board, and more concerned with finding a player with the appropriate attributes to play it against.
Andrew i agree with everything you said. However i got the impression Walleye was newer to poker and your advice is more for intermediate players and up. Iceman
Andrew,
I'd say your advice is for an advanced player which you obviously are.
I plead guilty to rambling. So many of these posts concern the mathematical aspects of poker and downplay or ignore the psychological. I think Walleye can decide if something is or is not appropriate anyway.
Andrew keep rambling i find your posts well thought out and give food for thought. Keep up the good work. Good Luck.
In a multiway pot when you call a raise out of the blind you generally want two ways to win. Possible ways to win are with a pair, a straight, or a flush. Notice that with a hand like 32s your pair won't be high enough, your straight chances are limited, and your flush, while probably good, assumng a fourth suited card does not hit the board, is still questionable.
Walleye, I read all the other responses. Since no one bothered to answer your questions I thought I would!
"I guess I paid 4 dollars to see a flop, with 40 in the pot. 10-1 pot odds? is this the correct way to count pot odds?"
Yes, The total amount of money in the pot compared to the amount of money you must put in yields the pot odds. In this case $40 (in the pot) to $4 (you must add to the pot) is 40 to 4 or 10 to 1.
"and how does one compare Pot odds with drawing odds to decide where to draw the line?"
I will use Holdem to illustrate how to figure pot odds. Mike Petriv"s "The Holdem Odds Book" is about the best you'll find on this subject. Anyway Let's say you have JdTd. Flop comes Ad,6d,3s. You beleive that if you make a flush you will win the pot. You have seen your two cards plus three cards on the flop. 5 from 52 (Total Deck) leaves 47 unseen cards. Of those 47, 9 (these are commonly refered to as outs) are diamonds. Take the total (47) minus your outs (9) leaving 38 non helpful cards. The odds of you getting a diamond on the turn are 37 (non helpful cards) to 9 (helpful cards) or 4 1/9 to 1. A method of approximating the odds of getting a diamond on the turn or river is to multiply your outs (9) by two (18) and use that as your outs in the equation. Thus for turn and river you have 37 to 18 or 2 1/18 to 1 (remember this is an approximation but it is close enough for figuring odds in holdem.
"and how does one compare Pot odds with drawing odds to decide where to draw the line?"
If your pot odds are greater than the odds of making your hand you have a +EV (positve return on investment), as other illustrious posters would say. So if pot odds are 10 to 1 and the odds of making your hand are 4 1/9 to 1, you should by all means take a card. Where to draw the line? You definitely want to consider pot odds when you play poker bur you don't want to make yhis your only criteria for the actions you may take. But it is a pretty good idea to always have greater pot odds then the odds to make your hand (if at all possible).
"I would like to know what book would be the best for me to buy that may explane these type situations."
The best book on odds that I can recommend is the one above by Mike Petriv. Although I believe that Lou Krieger explains this subject pretty well in his book "Hold'em Excellance".
Hope this helps! Vince
Vince,
I have asked this question on the board sevral times, yet I get a bunch of rambling on other ways to play how to do this...how to do that. I want to take the time to say thanks for the info on Pot odds, I have been trying to figure out this +EV thing for some time, I think now the door has been cracked open. I plan on buying those books you have stated in the post. I am reading HFAP right now, some very intresting stuff, I think of myself as an avreage player, trying to get better. anything that I can learn fro I will read.
Thanks again
Walleye
Anytime Pardner! Keep on givin it your best!
Vince
There are a lot of variations in game types but it has been suggested that in No-foldem games you may be able to get higher EV with a higher SD. But is the higher EV really available?
I seems to me that your major advantages in a no-foldem game, full of terrible players, are these skills: better starting cards, using check-raises, buying free cards, giving-up some hands early and staying with some draws longer based on pot-odds.
In a game with some non-terrible players you can use the above skills plus many others such as bluffing, semi-bluffing, reading hands, inducing bluffs, generating and taking advantage of your tight image, isolating the maniac etc. Since these skills usually depend on the individual players and how the hand is developing, they are also much more interesting and fun to use.
Perhaps the availability of this extra set of skills gives you a higher EV then for No-foldem conditions ( and of course the SD is definitely lower).
David
My feeling about true no foldem games, or very loose games is that the frustration level is too much for mere mortals. I understand from reading other posts that S&M are writing a book dealing with these games. I'm a little skeptical about many things so keep that in mind, but this is a situation where in theory it looks like if you make a few adjustments to your game, you'll do fine, but I always go back to the fact that it is a very rare person who can ride the negative swings that are going to come along,... and always at the wrong time.The swings in these games are going to be wide, and it's very difficult to smile and say,"nice hand", after you've been drawn out on for the 6th time by some un earthly hand that only a total nit-wit would play. Doing this day after day will soon lead to a prescription for lithium. seeya
Lithium carbonate is used exclusively in the treatment of Bipolar disorder,aka Manic-depression,which as we now know is genetic and cannot be caused by a wildly flucuating poker bankroll.
Duhhh, manic depression is very high highs and extremely low lows. The same effect you will get playing in no foldem games. Do you get it now????????
Duhhh,I got it. I was joking. If you are unable to recognize a joke, I recommend upping your dosage to 600mg BID.
Nice Points.
I have to run and don't have time to respond in detail but let me just say the obvious: Most of the money I make will come from mistakes made by weak players. My "brilliant play" (?) -there's an oxymoron if I ever saw one - really is not going to add much to my bankroll. Hence, the greater EV in no fold 'em games.
David,
There are many points one could make here but I have time for just one.
A truly great player will not do a whole lot better in no foldem holdem than a very good player. In a normal game, the great player will do much better than the very good player. But the "earn" for both players will still be higher in no foldem holdem.
The lesson: If you are a great player expect to do well in most types of games. If you are merely very good, look for the no foldem games for the reasons "skp" mentions above.
Regards,
Rick
This all sounds logical. I've consistently done better in games where I didn't have to keep many routine strategies out of play. No-fold'em contests tend to narrow the gap between weak and strong players for sure.
If you really have an advantage over better players by applying these techniques, then they have that advantage over YOU.
But yes, you CAN get better control over someone who is trying to "play". If you DO get such control, then that is more profitable than having a no-foldem player in that seat.
I remember one weekend of Hold'em play in Canada in the loosest 5-10 game I have ever seen. The first day, perhaps 10 hours, I didn't drag one pot. I was fairly new to the game, and was simply applying the skills I had learned from successful low-limit stud -- that is, I was the tightest guy at the table. I didn't vary from Sklansky starters and didn't get very creative on the flop. I was perhaps the only one at the table playing in this way. I am amazed now how good my attitude was. I waited.
Around the middle of the second day, I make a nut flush and drag around a $500 pot. Later my AK traps something like A8 and middle pair and a gut-shot for a few hundered more. Into the evening, the best hand stood up about as much as it was supposed to, and when it did I would add another column to my building project. Long story short: I made the biggest 2-day win of my career and went out on the town, loving loose poker. That kind of win would be impossible in the games I routinely play in now.
It couldn't have been that loose if your AK held up. Seriously though I think anecdotal examples of the high variance of loose games don't really tell the whole story.
David
This morning, a friend who saw my last quiz on the Forum E-mailed me a quiz which he says he formulated based on stuff written in various poker books. You might find them interesting.
No peeking at the other responses before answering.
1. A solid player raises in Position #8 after 3 players limp in. Button cold-calls. Blinds and limpers call. The pot is 7 handed.
Flop: Kd, Jc, 5s
Everyone checks to our hero who also checks. Button bets. Blinds fold. One of the limpers calls. Hero calls. The pot is 3 handed.
Turn: 8h
Check. Check. Button bets.
Limper folds. Hero calls.
What is the Hero's hand?
2. You are on the button and limp in with Kd,10h. Blinds call making it a 5 way pot.
Flop: Ks,Qd,7s rainbow. Everyone checks. You bet. A good player would usually call with ___, usually raise with ____ and would likely have come out betting with _____.
Fill in these hands in the appropriate blanks: AhKc, Kc8h, Jc,10d.
3. Pot Limit Hold 'Em. Assume $5-10 blinds. You raise the max. on the button with Ac,10c after one player limps in. Big Blind and limper call.
Flop: Kc,Qd,Jh
Everyone checks to you. You bet the pot. Both Players call.
Turn: As
Big Blind bets the pot and still has lots of chips left. So do you. Limper folds.
What should you do?
skp,
As I answer I'll try to explain my thinking as I go along. Maybe I'll get partial credit for a good try if I'm wrong like they do in those modern math classes where they don't want to hurt the students self-esteem for getting the wrong answer.
Q1-first half: "1. A solid player raises in Position #8 after 3 players limp in. Button cold-calls. Blinds and limpers call. The pot is 7 handed.
Flop: Kd, Jc, 5s
Everyone checks to our hero who also checks. Button bets. Blinds fold. One of the limpers calls. Hero calls. The pot is 3 handed."
I would tend to think our hero does not have a set (KK or JJ) since if he slowplayed the flop there would be no reason not to checkraise once the button bet. He would also be unlikely to have AK or KQ since he would have bet it. I also think he would have bet QQ hoping to win it there. Now maybe he has a draw of some sort with big cards.
Q1-second half: "Turn: 8h
Check. Check. Button bets.
Limper folds. Hero calls.
What is the Hero's hand?"
I think AQ (probably suited in one of the flop suits) is most likely. When he doesn't bet the flop (which is too dangerous to semi-bluff at) he is hoping to see the turn cheap. When the button bets and there is one caller he is getting an easy call. When the turn comes a blank and the button bets he is now looking at 8.5 to 1 on his call to the nuts and the extra equity that hitting the ace would be worth a call (along with the probable call on the river if he hits the nuts).
Q2. "2. You are on the button and limp in with Kd,10h. Blinds call making it a 5 way pot.
Flop: Ks,Qd,7s rainbow. Everyone checks. You bet. A good player would usually call with JcTd, usually raise with Kc8h and would likely have come out betting with AhKc."
My reasoning is as follows: The good player is in the blind since he would never call with K8 offsuit plus there is no reason to raise out of the blinds with the AK offsuit against four players. He would bet the AK since the flop is too dangerous to give a free card. He would call with JT offsuit since he is getting odds for his draw and the flop is not the type to bet a draw at (with two high connected cards). He would check-raise with the K8 offsuit because it was the button who bet and there is a decent chance the button is betting something less than a better king (he would fold an early position bet and not bet himself because the flop is too dangerous).
I pass on Q3 because ER is about to come on and I don't play much pot limit.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I didn't peek, "gambler's honor"
#1. I'd have to guess AQ here. I think if the hero had a jack he'd raise a button bet. There are enough bets to call for the gutshot or an Ace.
#2. Call with JT, since you don't want to choke off your own action on the straight draw. Come out betting with with K8, raise with AK. I think it's easier to go for a checkraise with AK because the free card danger is not as great. On the other hand, I might try a checkraise with both of those top pair hands.
#3. It looks to me like you're either splitting with the big blind, or he's got a set of kings or queens. If you're splitting, he doesn't have a freeroll since it's a rainbow board, and if he's got a set, you're a big favorite. Put all the chips in. If your and his chip situation is such that you can't put him all in, then you want to bet enough money that he's incorrect to call to tighten up, but how much more depends on your read of the player and how much of a price he's willing to pay for the hand.
Remember I'm a novice and haven"t peaked at anybody's answers.
1. AdJd
2. Call JT
Raise AK
Bet K8
3. Raise what the big blind had left (probably wrong, this sounds like a trick question.
1. QTs or perhaps AQ but the pot seems a little short on the turn though not by much.
2. There are a lot of options here for the good player. He might check raise with any of the hands, possibly fold the K8 and perhaps just call with the draw depending on the position and number of callers already in.
3. Reraise - make it too expensive to draw to the full house he probably needs
1. Hero has AQ offsuit.
2. Call with K8, raise with AK, and have bet out with JT.
3. A pot sized raise offers your opponent 2:1 odds to draw for 10 apparent outs to a set, (disregard splitting the pot with another broadway). Give your opponent a reason to fold, or the worst possible odds to pair the board.
Please don't read this as a complaint: Could you maybe save the quizes for times when there are fewer interesting threads going on? It's tough to absord and reply to all the interesting posts with my limited time, so I looked at this one last.
Yes, you are right.
I put it up because I happened to receive it yesterday myself.
I'll put up my answers at the end of the day.
1. I'm in there with a 9 and 10 of d, c, or s. I need 9-1 to call the flop and I have it.
2. is confusing...rainbow or two spades? If rainbow, I expect a bet from AK, a raise from K8 (in the loose-agressive game I play in), and a call from J10. With two spades, AK will check-raise, K8 will muck, and J10 might call but more likely will start the betting.
3. I re-raise the max. I'm no worse than split and likely have no outs. I give BB credit for having at least four to beat me. I want this pot now and will try to push him of it.
Yes, I just reread Question no.2. It is confusing. The flop should have been a rainbow one and I should have specified that the good player was in the blinds.
Sorry.
(Geez, two quizzes this week and as it turns out, two poorly constructed quizzes).
I usually do my posts pretty fast in order to keep to a minimum my breaks from work. Obviously, I am going at it too fast.
I'll take more care next time.
Would you bet the hands differently if faced with a suited flop? I like the AK check-raise (or check re-raise)because in some instances it can be confused with a flush draw and in others it may thin the field. I'm also more likely to check and muck the K8 because the action will likely be heavier (a raise has to be anticipated) - thus the odds of being outdrawn go up, my outs decrease and I likely can't justify a call.
Of course, you need to mix up your play but generally, I would bet with AK from the blinds after pairing whether or not the flop was two-suited and check with K8. Usually, I would checkraise a late position bettor with K8.
I thought I'd share a hand I played in a 5-10 game today.
Situation: I'm under the gun, in a loose, mostly passive game, with two red 7's. I call.
The player immediately to my left is an excellent player, who has been playing for a living for probably 30 years. He raises.
Everyone else folds, except for the small blind (a loose agressive player) who calls. I call.
The flop: AcKd7s.
I check, excellent player (EP) bets, small blind (SB) calls, I raise. EP re-raises, SB calls, I cap it. EP calls.
The Turn: 9c. I bet. EP calls. Now the sb suddenly raises.
What do you do, and what hands am I looking at?
Raise. You're a 3/2 Fav over AK and Td8d.
I agree that you're looking at AK from EP, but the SB may have 10c8c. The question is, is the SB the type of player who would raise on a speculative straight without another draw? Club flush draw would seem to complete the picture. Raising at this point with 10 outs, and possibly no need to improve seems the proper play.
Bill
I suppose EP could have made it three bets over your checkraise with AQ, but I'd give him credit for AA KK or AK at that point. Now EP just calls when you lead on the turn after an innocuous card hits the board. EP should realize you have A7s or a set if you're playing tight/agressive, so I'd have expected a straightforward raise from AA or KK. It looks about 80% certain to me that EP is playing AK. SB seems to have picked up some outs on the turn, or was dealt 99 to begin with. A9 K9 JT or 99 are probable holdings with emphasis on the JT since the SB didn't make it three bets pre-flop and could easily be expected to have done so with 99. You sure don't want to improve on the river with anything other than the case seven in this spot, and I'd say there's about a 70% chance you have the best hand on the turn with your opponents drawing live. Raise, charge them for their draws, no one's going to fold at this point.
I put the initial bettor on Pocket Kings or even aces, Maybe even Big Slick. He is in early position, and has raised pre and post flop.
On the turn the Ep is now calling after you lead out, leads me to belibe he has AK or AQ.
As for SB Pre-flop He calls, I think he has hit part of the flop, say maybe a Kc9,Kc7c or J10. He may even hold 99, You probably hold the best hand, but you sure dont want the board to improve any?
At this point I would re-raise and see what you get from SB.
Walleye
P.s. sure is easy to say when I have 15 min to think about it!
I agree with the others that you are probably best at this point. But one thing bothers me. You classify this as a passive game. If all this raising is very out of place, you make be looking at other trips. If you had been sitting there for hours with very few raises, and all of the sudden someone is betting like they really have something, they might.
The game was passive pre-flop, but there were several players (myself, my wife, and the two I was against) who play agressively once they hit a flop.
I haven't looked at the other answers but here's my take:
SB: A,9 (unless he's crazy enough to call two bets cold on the flop with 99).
EP: He doesn't have a set (Given the size of the pot, he would have definitely raised again on the turn).
I think that he probably would have raised you on the turn if he had AK. However, he may show some respect for your capped bet on the flop and just call (slim possibility of this).
So, my guess is AQ.
What should you do? My guess is that EP is drawing dead to your hand and SB needs to improve and he probably only has 3 outs.
If you just call, EP may also call. Your call may signify to EP that you are not all that strong. Further, he too probably has got SB pegged as a loose aggressive player who he has to pay off.
If you raise, you knock out EP but open yourself to a reraise in case SB was slowplaying KK or AA before the flop (but again this is unlikely).
AS I see it, if you raise, you will make $40 the rest of the way (assuming SB calls on the river) but may lose a lot more if SB has a bigger set.
If you just call, you stand a good chance of making $60 the rest of the way (i.e. EP calls the turn and both of you call Sb again on the River).
The EP has every reason to raise on the turn with AAA or KKK, unless he has a splendid tell and knows the SB is about to raise.
The aggressive SB surely would have reraised with AA or KK before the flop. If the SB called all those bets with the underpair 99, then more power to him.
Raise, and force AK to face a double bet.
- Louie
I raise. I'd like EP to further define his hand. If he now raises I muck. More likely he folds. I don't think he'll call given your description of him. I think sb is on a flush and either open ender or double gut-shot draw. If EP folds I expect sb to cap. If I make the tight I expect I'm good, if a club other then the K or 7 fall I'm toast and have to pay off - likewise if he hits his straight.
you are looking at a9 + should call and raise on the river or 2nd choice raise now.
As it turned out, both other players held AK.
When the small blind raised, I just called. And it was a mistake to just call, IMO. I should have raised and put pressure on the other player. My judgement was a little colored I'm afraid, since I had lost set-over-set TWICE in a 15-30 game on Monday night.
I just called, half-expecting the other player to come over the top with a raise. If he had, I would have mucked the hand. But he didn't, so I figured my set was good and bet again on the river. They both just called.
Dan
I am not so sure that a call is incorrect for the reasons I stated in my original post.
Of course, if you knew that EP had AK, a raise would be correct as it's a hand that he likely can't get away from even if he is required to call two more bets cold. He would likely call and be in a position where he is drawing very slim. If he folds, well that's not bad either given the size of the pot.
However, I am surprised that EP just called your bet on the turn with AK. I am sure that he respects your play. I too respect your play (from the one time that we played together along with your sparkling posts here on the Forum), but if I were EP, I would raise again on the turn safe with the knowledge that you can't possibly make it three bets because you have to now give me credit for a monster set. I may then showdown on the River. This costs me the same as calling twice (turn and river) but it has the added benefit of ensuring SB doesn't get in cheaply and hit some long shot draw.
If it was just the two of you left on the turn, EP might be justified in just calling but with SB still kicking around, EP erred in not raising your initial bet (IMO).
I would figure SB to be a weak player, who is in some sort of fog and doesnt really know why he is raising (which turned out to be the case). If I was EP, I would do the opposite of what you suggest. I would raise heads up for the reasons you stated, and call multiway because it isn't clear what SB is thinking, or if he is at all.
A Poker Guy!
That's an interesting take. I need to think about that one some more.
Generally though, I am a lot more aggressive in 3 or 4 way pots than I am in heads-up situations. It's that same old guiding principle again: make the betting (or raising) error instead of a checking (or calling) error. That principle applies less in heads-up situations (IMO).
"As it turned out, both other players held AK. ... I should have raised and put pressure on the other player."
Did I infer correctly that you are saying you would have raised if you KNEW they both had AD? If not, ignore the following ... If they both have AK than the second player is effectively drawing dead, as far as you are conserned; since his presence does NOT reduce your chance to win. Much better to have them both call a single bet than one call a double, since the payoff is the same (2 bets) but the risk is one bet less.
- Louie
OK, there is some benefit to having the bad player win half the pot from the good player ...
But there is some chance that they will both call a double bet... On the other hand, if I just call, then I can get two big bets on the river. If I raise one of them out, then I only get one big bet on the river. So I increase my exposure and lose a big bet in the process.
The key is whether or not the second player will call. It's pretty tough to lay down top two pair for even the best players when the pot is very large. It's probably 50/50 whether he would have called or not.
Dan
I would put EP on AK at this point. I would not put SB on 99, as he could not have played the flop that way. I say raise. They put you on at least two pair, and maybe a set at this point, but they still have to call your raise. Make them pay.
A Poker Guy!
Big John,
Here is my 2 dollar's worth of advice:
What you did was right or wrong 50 percent of the time.
Either you win or lose.
I make it a habit of reraising till the cows come home as they say in Montana.
It is a tough call though. Could of been he had 10-10-10, then the scenario would have been different.
Have fun and good luck playing today. Take me with you? 9 degreess and freezing in the North country of Montana. Doc-
I'm in the BB with 6 callers limping in - then # 9 raises. I don't expect a reraise behind me. I'm getting 15 to 1 odds - but my hand is 8c 4h.
A definite fold normally - however, with these odds should I call?
I'd want something with a little more value like 85s to play. Many of the *hits* for 84 on the flop, like a pair or a gut shot I'd really want to be able to semibluff with, and that just isn't going to be sound strategy in a large multiway pot. So, you're looking to flop a straight, set, or two pairs. I haven't done the math, but I'd say you're in the neighborhood of good odds provided you expect such a hand to remain the best. Nevertheless, even if you catch a miracle flop you're going to get drawn out on a fair amount of the time with so many customers, so I wouldn't hesitate to send that 84 back to the dealer with no further investment other than your big blind.
Bob, IMO, a very very marginal call if you are one of the best players at the table.
A definite fold for anyone else.
call, then only play if you hit at minimum two pair, and then, if it looks like it is the best hand continue. When you are getting those kind of pre flop odds you should call with most anything with the intention of folding unless you flop a big hand. because of the possible implied odds it makes it a call. This is for a limit game right??
I assumed 10-20 standard structured limit.
As I recall you are about 21:1 to flop two-pair or better; which will win, I guess, about half the time.
I'll call in a situation like this if I'm rushing, fold otherwise.
Bob,
What do you expect to flop? Two pair is about 50 to 1 against and is only about even money to win even if you do. A one pair hand cannot make money against that many opponents. A straight is a miracle and vulnerable to 98 in a multi-way pot. Flopping trips would be a longshot and you wouldn't get much action and if you did you would have kicker trouble (especially with the 8).
Change your hand to 86 offsuit (three good straights rather than one bad one) or any suited hand and it is easily worth a call. IMHO, 85 offsuit would be a marginal loser and 84 offsuit is a big loser and I don't care how well you play post flop.
Note that I would probably through this hand away agaist a large field even for one third a bet (i.e., small $10 blind in 15/30 holdem); however, I would play it against a short field because of the flops you can bluff at.
Regards,
Rick
86o: 2 nut straights and one non-nut straight.
Louie,
It is true that one of the straights is a non nut but it is still a good one. After all, we are not playing Omaha. With a board of T97, an 86 would have to be facing a J8, which is not played that often by most players (and the players that do play J8 are players that will give action with a lot worse hands).
Anyway, this is just a minor quibble with your quibble.
Regards,
Rick
We are moving twoplustwo.com to a new ISP. There will likely be some forum outages, probably over this weekend. Please accept my apologies in advance for any inconvenience that this may cause you.
Chuck Weinstock
The forum has successfully been moved. As expected there was a (brief?) outage, and a few glitches, but I believe that they have all(?) been fixed. If you experience any strange behavior, be sure to let me know and I will try to deal with it.
Thanks for your patience.
Chuck
Chuck,
I'm experiencing strange behavior with the site. It's very fast now, too fast for me to click on a link and go get a cup of coffee before the next message appears.
After months and months of research my partner, Bacon Malmuth and my self, have had a nervous breakthrough in the game of Holdem. Please be advised that what you are about to read has never appeared in print before. we feel strongly that if you do not approach the game of Holdem according to these new parameters that you will simply be left behind. We can't emphasize this point enough. In fact the other day Bacon and myself were having a talk,( and by the way, when we talk about poker, some of the most advanced concepts in the world float back and forth between us.) and Baco said," Ya know Skanky, anyone who doesn't follow our advise will surely be left behind". It was then, that it hit me, and I muttered to myself softly, " God I'm awesome", and I gave myself a gentle kiss on my hand and smiled knowingly at Bacon. Our conversations are exciting aren't they. Anyway, now for the new strategy breakthrough. As it turns out, we have been playing backwards as far as starting hand requirements go. Our parameters from our old book, "The Complete Idiots Guide to Holdem", still work, but should only be used for very, very, loose games. That,is in loose games you should be playing very tight in early posistion and loosen up in late posisition, depending on the action in front of you .But the real change comes from how you should play in a typical, or very tight game. As it turns out after months and months of research,(okay 1 month, I was busy trying to sell my new game to some sucker, oops,I mean casino) that you should be playing groups 1-6 in early posistion when you are the first one in, and raise with these hands. As your posistion improves you should actually be tightening up to groups 1-3 next to, and on the button, and reraise with these hands if there has been an early posistion raise. We have found that for a typical or tight game, you will do quite well. now that you are on your way to becoming an expert, you will need to study this material carefully, and get plenty of playing time. And remember that if we control the poker logic used by countless players, well, anything we tell you can work. So, obey us and remember that anyone who doesn't buy all of our books, and do as we say will simply be left behind. Do not even try to think for yourself, it will only get you in trouble. Remember that we have added exciting mathematical theories that won't help you at the tables but make us look smart, like the Standard deviation( Don't worry, it's impossible to figure yours out accurately) and many others. In conclusion, remember that anyone who has other ideas or disagrees with us is wrong, and doesn't know what they are talking about. Obey,Obey,Obey
Just kidding guys, I own all your books, you just don't need all the nutty self promotion and hype that permiates them. Are you going to edit this out again????????? Let people react to it themselves.
Well, it was kinda funny, I'll give you that.
But why are you so scared of revealing your real identity?
Also, have you ever heard of paragraphs????
Skanky? I thought your name was Dick.
It "The Idiot's Complete Guide to Holdem" since they did not want only the complete idiots to buy it. Why deliberately restrict your market?
But geez ... If I sold 100,000 copies of well respected solid analysis and advise I'd be a pompous ass. Heck, it wouldn't be much of a change.
And, since this is their forum and they give plenty of free advise, it seems reasonable for them to plug their products. This is America, after all.
- Louie
Ok, I'm off for the weekend so here were my answers to my friend's quiz (not necessarily correct and I therefore invite comment):
1. I thought there were two likely choices for the Hero's hand: 10,9 suited or A,Q with 10,9 suited being a slightly more likely possibility.
Some may say what's a solid player doing raising from position #8 with that hand after 3 players have limped in. Well, I think it can often be a good play if you succeed in buying the button. Notice as well that the big blind will likely call given the pot odds. Thus, by raising, you end up taking the flop 5-handed (i.e. multiway pot) and you effectively take the button.
On the flop, I would be more inclined to bet AQ but would almost surely check 10,9.
All in all, I believe the best answer is 10,9 suited with AQ a close second choice.
Note: I probably wouldn't raise pre-flop with AQ off in this scenario while I would with AQ suited.
2. I agree wholly with Rick's response.
I believe that most good players would bet with AK and checkraise a late position bettor with K8 (Although Dan's suggestion to checkraise with AK is also a fair one). I usually would bet with AK from the blind but once in a while, I will try for a checkraise just to mix up my play.
The J,10 is hand that I would generally not bet out with from the blinds on a KQ flop (I often will on a 9,8 or Q,9 flop). In the face of a bet from the button, the obvious play is to just call so that you don't thin the field.
3. I strongly believe that there is only ONE CORRECT ANSWER here: Just call on the turn. Do not raise.
All factors indicate that BB has a 10 in his hand and not a set:
a. He did not reraise pre-flop
b. He did not bet or raise the flop
c. He bet the turn when there was a clear possibility that the limper may have hit nut straight. Notice that if the limper had a ten in his hand, he would have flopped an open-ended straight and would be justified in calling the bet on the flop.
Perhaps each of these reasons when considered individually do not lead one to the conclusion that BB does not have a set but when viewed collectively, I think that that is the inescapable conclusion.
Thus, in all likelihood, BB has a 10. He bets the pot because he does not want to give you a free card if you happen to be holding a set.
Now, there is no two flush on the board. Thus, with a 10 in your hand and knowing that BB has a 10 in his hand, YOU KNOW that the worst you can do is tie no matter what the River card is. You have nothing to worry about.
On the other hand, BB will not have the same comfort level IF YOU JUST CALL; he will have lots to be concerned about. Specifically, if the board pairs, he has to think that he might me up against a full house.
However, if you raise on the turn, BB will surely call or reraise because he has the nuts. Further, BB will then surely put you on a 10 and will not be too concerned if the board pairs on the river. He will call your bet on the river.
Thus, the correct play is to just call on the turn and put in a pot size bet no matter what card comes on the river. If that card pairs the board, BB will be extremely hard pressed to call.
This is a case where:
(i) both you and your opponents have the nuts on the turn and neither has a freeroll
(ii) you KNOW that you can't be drawn out on the river
(iii) but where your opponent THINKS that he can be drawn out on the river.
Hope all of you have a good weekend.
skp,
You said: "Some may say what's a solid player doing raising from position #8 with that (T9s) after 3 players have limped in. Well, I think it can often be a good play if you succeed in buying the button. Notice as well that the big blind will likely call given the pot odds. Thus, by raising, you end up taking the flop 5-handed (i.e. multiway pot) and you effectively take the button."
Although the pot ended up seven handed, I agree that the more likely outcome would have been five handed after a raise as you indicated above. This of course is from the solid player who raised point of view at the time. Maybe I'm spoiled playing in Southern California, but when I make that type of raise (medium connectors or middle pairs in late position hoping to manipulate the size of the pot), I'm looking for a minimum of a seven way pot. This made me eliminate any hand not containing high cards.
"On the flop, I would be more inclined to bet AQ but would almost surely check 10,9."
Checking AQ when KJ flops is pretty reasonable considering that the flop is so likely to hit someone and get a call. This is especially true considering only the button was left to act. Also note that checking can scare some people since they often figure their opponents slow play their big sets (even thought they generally should not). But betting is not that bad either representing a good king.
"Note: I probably wouldn't raise pre-flop with AQ off in this scenario while I would with AQ suited."
I agree but here is something interesting. Let's say there were two players who limped instead of three, they limped in late (i.e., just ahead of you) meaning they usually don't have high cards, and you had good control over them. Now a raise with AQ off becomes much better.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I'm glad I did OK on question two. My "self-esteem" is now reestablished.
Rick, I agree with all of your comments.
BTW, I am surprised that no one's taken a run at my comment that there is only one correct way to play under problem #3. I hesitated before making that comment because as you know, the terms "always" and "never" really do not belong in poker jargon.
I'd like to hear *the answers* from the author of this quiz. I got the impression that there was only one correct answer possible to each question if I used good analysis.
Andrew,
Th Quiz is not from any book per se. My friend told me that he had constructed the quiz based on stuff he had read in poker books. The first question is from an essay from "Sklansky on Poker". I do not know the souce of the other two questions. If I find out, I'll let you know.
I don't believe that there's one correct answer to Question 2 but I do believe that there is only one answer to Question 3.
Yesterday I used the turbo 7-stud program to see just what I could get out of it. A hand came up that proved beyond all doubt that such programs are in fact worthless. I was dealt a Jup and a JT in the whole. The bring bet $2. I raised as my J was the highest card shown. Allright, nothing unusual here yet. All other players folded. The bring-in called with a 2. Next card the bring-in was dealt a offsuit 6. I was dealt a Q. I checked the advisor to see what it said. Incredibly it said to check. What did the advisor think, that the bring-in could have made trip 6's? Don't tell me that the advisor wanted to check-raise because on the next card it said to bet. This is a situation that you must bet. Now I wanted to play 1-years worth of hands at 30 hands a hour over 2000 hours using the advisor's advice completely. At the 10-20 level the advisor cost me $7000 worth of profit that I would have gained had I played hands my way. The advisor is incapable of seeing things that I or you could see and raise or fold or call as should be. At $89 this program is worthless and anyone who adopts the advice of the ADVISOR will become a loser. For this program to be marketed as a complete tool on how to improve your game is a sham. I have siad it before and I will say it again you cannot learn to be a winning player through computers. Allright yet!. Maybe one day.
I have only the Holdem version and I disagree with your conclusion. The Advisor may be weak in some areas but you can still practice your better play against a variety of players. I am fairly sure the advisor and many of the other profiles would easily beat most N. Calif. 6-12 games I see.
It is cetainly better to play in live games if possible but the program is quite useful as well.
David
My use of Turbo Texas Hold'em -
First, let me say that if you look at the advice of the Advisor, Joe is absolutely right that you would not want to play that way. And Mason has recently written that the games are not any good yet in approaching a high level of play.
Having said that, I have been able to use the game to more or less reflect the opposition that I have in my $3-6 game in Arizona. The things that either the Advisor recommends or that the computer player profiles DO are not as bad as I see at the table. I am against players who stay in, at least thru the turn and often to the river, with very low values such as bottom pair with low kicker, underpair, or even no pair with one overcard, against several opponents, one of which usually has something of value. In other words, a very loose passive game.
For those of you who own or have tried TTH, here is what I did. I took the player profile "Regular Rube," described in general as loose with little pre-flop raising, and I modified the tables to add staying pre-flop with any Ax or Kx unsuited and with any 2 suited cards, creating my custom profile "Loose Passive Rube." Then I filled the table with this profile. The play pretty much resembles what I get in real life!
I do not have a great amount of time that I can play live at the casino, but plenty of time at my computer. I have found that computer play helps me get an idea of how often flops hit me, how often loose passive players can draw out on me, etc. It also allows me to take my time to analyze interesting hands and pot-odds calculations when they come up. I also keep a spreadsheet of my computer results and get some idea of the standard deviation I can expect at the table.
My parting comment, to those who have read this far and are still awake, is that I do understand that this is not the same as live, and at the table I do have the table presence to observe other peoples' games, and I do modify my strategy as necessary for the live people.
Comments? Mason, does this sound reasonable to simulate the low level of opposition I have?
Dick in Phoenix
"And Mason has recently written that the games are not any good yet in approaching a high level of play."
I have no memory of ever writing this. I believe that I have commented that research conclusions which are attempting to identify small differences are probably not very accurate. This is because the inherent errors of a complex program are probably larger than many of the differences that some of the researchers are trying to measure.
As for your question, what you are doing is probably reasonable as long as you are aware of its shortfalls, and you certainly seem to be aware of its shortfalls.
Dick,
You are using the simulation in exactly the right way. Providing you keep in mind the points you have raised, practice should prove beneficial. You might also like to consider repeatedly dealing yourself the kind of hand you have problems with (I don't know, KQ off or something) to get a feel for how your play must change according to different flops and betting patterns. As I have said before, it is often more important that a simulation is accurately modelling the kind of play you come up against in real life rather than playing "good" poker. Good luck.
Andy.
Hey Joe,
I was curious...I had downloaded the Turbo 7 Card Stud Demo...which is a crippled version but didn't locate a table for the ADVISOR stategy.
The Developer, Bob Wilson, Informed me that ROSETTA STONE, was the "Best Player".
Also, did you put your strategy into the tables for this simulation?
Lastly, have you tried the Sozobon Product and can you comment on the diffences?
Thanks, Frank
Joe, I'm responding to your comment. I agree that such decision-making mechanisms in games cannot surpass the decision-making capabilities of genuine thinking human beings. It comes down to "I think, therefore I am," rather than, "I compute, therefore I ram."
No argument there "Terminator". The current state of the art isn't bad but it's not up to Deep Blue yet.
There are flaws in all the systems I've looked at that in my opinion (and I have a degree in comp sci and 15 years in the buisines at some very large installations)really come down to decisions by the designers to not push the development to the ultimate ends.
My guess is that it was the old "time to market" vrs "perfect product" issue.
However, every decision that a person can make can be done on a computer.
The problem is coding them all! The more complex the problem the bigger it gets. Probably exponentially.
So I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that cost, not possibility is the limiting factor. As with most things.
It is unfortunate that everything has to be measured that way.
Just as an aside, Even Sklansky uses Caro's Poker Probe. There is a mathematical underpinning to the whole thing.
I've been using Turbo 7-Stud for about 6 months, and I've found it a valuable tool for different reasons. The way my play is "rated" in the game is usually way off. ie. I play very tight and the "evaluation" still says I'm loose on third street.
I don't use the advisor at all, and I totally ignore the evaluation. I like the statistics feature, and I'm always creating new groups and profiles to play against. Since I don't live in close proximity to a legal cardroom (Ohio sucks), I use Turbo 7-Stud to practice and get used to making decisions and become comfortable with many situations. No, I can't see the players faces and tells, but I grow to know each player and learn how to better play my cards against different scenarios and opponents.
I feel that the software, although not incredible technically advanced (I'm in the IS business too), was well worth the money. And, the support from Bob is terrific.
Just my thoughts.
Aces, Scottro
One would hope that when one came to a situation one did not know what to do about, the advisor would give sound guidance and a reason for the advice.
However, I too have found the advisor doesn't explain the decision well enough.
I'm not really good enough to judge the given "fold, call, bet, raise, reraise" advice it gives.
I'm still trying to pin down what exactly good and bad strategy (or tactics) are. For example, when is a 3rd street hand (7 stud) playable and how so?
Dave's books give a lot of food for thought. I'd like to see more concise stuff or at least some solid method for either deciding at the table or calculating away from the table whether or not a move is "correct". Exactly how far to push a hand etc. And of course when to deviate.
As an example R. West gives solid guidlines like "the rule of 2" for straights. But then he leaves out the math that dave could probably fill in.
I think the simulation part is good if you wnat to try and table your startegy, but I found things I couldn't table, like different strategies for high and low rolled up trips (I think can't rememeber now...deleted the demo...suffice to say some very common strategies pieces couldn't be tabled).
Anyway, that's what I thought the advisor was supposed to do, that is advise you when you don't know, and eventually it would sink in.
I agree that the advisor is quite lacking, but the point in my post was that I think the software is worth the money simply because of the exposure to many different situations and the practice in dealing with them. I used West and Sklansky as my "advisors", and then practiced on the Turbo Stud game. I could play thousands of hands, literally for pennies, and get a better feel for the game any time I wanted. Living in Ohio makes it rather difficult to practice in a live game, and I think I owe a lot of my success of my last 2 trips to Vegas to Wilson software.
Aces, Scottro
Scott,
Don't get me wrong, having a programming background I can appreciate the practical problems of a good poker simulator and my hat is off to Bob Wilson and also the creators of the Sozobon product.
But having been in the software biz I also tend to be very critical of programs since "bug free" and "correct output" are the standards of excellence. Working in that field tends to breed criticality.
I have easy access to Vegas but still feel at least the Sozobon product has allowed me to practise reading opponents and remembering folded cards. However it doesn't do some thing I would like and it's advisor can give two differnt answers when asked for advise twice in a row in the same hand on the same card! It employs some kind of fuzzy logic.
I've only used the Turbo Demo and like it's table driven strategy construction for monte carlo runs as it can give you some idea of the value of a specific change.
But as Mason points out, the errors may be larger than the effect you're trying to measure.
Anyway, software creation and improvement takes time and is often an iterative process built on what you learned from the last try. :-)
Never Draw Dead, Frank
How it important is it really to defend your blinds? Is it really worth getting in a battle with a marginal hand against someone you think is trying to steal? It seems to me that maybe its best to wait for good hands and when someone tries to steal, slowplay and bang em on the turn if you hit or bang em immediately.
When i think about where most of my profit comes from it seems to be mainly from quality hands that hit and not from my marginal calls, blind defenses and tricky plays.
Any comments greatly appreciated.
i find that the biggest leak in my game is blind defense. i frequently hit part of the flop and then stay too long. why defend with marginal hands? there will be better hands coming. fold and wait for them!
+ EV is +EV. I take any that I can get. Blind defense is difficult. If you are in a very tight aggressive game, then routinely releasing non-premium hands in the blinds is a big mistake. I can't imagine folding most of my hands if I am being raised at every opportunity. It must be worth ~1 BB/hr if you don't defend at all.
"When i think about where most of my profit comes from it seems to be mainly from quality hands that hit and not from my marginal calls, blind defenses and tricky plays. "
Anybody can play the nuts. The truly great players turn those uncomfortable situations into +EV
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
for the most part ,you might be right. But I would suggest that you don't look at it as defending your blind. You want to try to look for different ways to make money at the table. If you have a player who is raising the blinds more than chance would allow, then you can turn it into a profitable situation. If you look at situations that give you a bit of a problem at the table , with the attitude of How can I turn this into a money making situation, then your thinking is going to shift a little bit. good luck
If you change your perspective the correct strategy will be relatively clear ... err ... easier to do:
Would it be any different if there was no BB and the total ANTE was the size of the bet, but the player in the BB had a one-bet "credit"? Would you now be defending your "ante"?
The blinds are not YOUR money to "defend". That money now belongs to eventual winner of the pot and there is no meaningful relationship between that money and your stack, other than the discount often giving favorable pot-odds.
That's easier said than psycologically accepted; but well worth TRYING to accept.
- Louie
A filly will win this years derby
but I can spell Kentucee
If I am dealt AAxx in Omaha, should I start raising immediately to knock people out, or do I just pay to see the flop cheaply, since usually a straight or better wins in the end?
Goodbye, Josh "Zero"
I'm assuming you are talking about Omaha high only?
It really depends on what your other two cards are. AA by itself makes the hand playable, but if the other two cards don't fit well and neither of the aces are suited, it's not as good a hand as you'd think. It certainly has nowhere near the strength that two Aces in Holdem have.
Generally, with nut-going hands you're not that interested in raising to knock people out of the pot, you're simply raising because your hand wins x% of the time and that makes it worth a raise.
An exception is when you have a hand like AQT9, with something like a suited queen and a suited ten. Here, a raise from early position may knock out some people with king high, queen high, and jack high flush draws and increase your chance of winning.
In general, I don't do a lot of raising in early position in Omaha. Since I'm going to be playing hands that make the nuts, I usually want lots of callers. In late position, I raise with hands that win more than their fair share of pots. 3 big cards with one suited, connectors like 789T, Ace high flush draws with other equity (say, AJ89 with a suited Ace), etc.
Dan
AAxx Omahaha high: Raise if you are likely to knock everybody out. Raise if you are likely to get it heads up. Sweat it if you are likely to play vrs 2 opponents. Fold if its going to be 3-4 opponents. Call and hope you flop a set if its going to be 5 opponents or more. <<--- comments welcome.
In holdem, the notion of "highest ranked hand at this time" has significant meaning. In Omahaha, the notion of "highest ranked hand at this time" usually only has meaning after all the cards are out. If you have (8732) board (Th9h6d) you have the "nuts" (the "highest ranked hand") and should routinely check and fold.
While Omahaha mechanics are like holdem, they are as strategically different as holdem is from stud. It is NOT Holdem with 4 cards.
- Louie
I don't agree with this advice. AAxx is usually playable against any number of opponents. The other two cards in your hand have value, no matter what they are. Of course, if they are reasonable cards (like, say AAT8), then the hand is an easy call.
I don't find AAxx to be any more playable heads-up than in a multi-way field. A pair of aces unimproved is going to be tough to play heads-up even if it is the best. Pot-limit Omaha is another matter, but we're talking about the limit game.
As for folding the nut straight on the flop, the idea behind the advice is valid, but I would take issue with the idea of 'routinely' folding the hand. You need several things to happen before you should ever fold the nut straight in Omaha - the pot has to be small, you need to have reason to believe that someone else may have the same straight, and there have to be several other draws against you. These conditions are fairly rare. If I were in a situation where the pot was unraised, and there was a bet, a call, and a raise in front of me, I'd drop the hand. Otherwise, I'd take a card off and see the turn. I might also raise, if I thought I could buy some protection for the hand or get a free card on the turn. This straight is in much safer territory with only one card to come. If a blank lands on the turn, I'd definitely call again for the river. If the board changes on the turn and there's any action, I'm done.
Much of the advice that is in print for Omaha is too tight, in my opinion. When the opponents get better, this won't be the case. But the average Omaha player is *very bad, and if you play too tight against such opponents you'll cut your win rate way down.
Dan
My reasoning is: I think AA72 is a favorite heads-up against all but the best starting hands (that do not include the other AA). It has a fair chance against 2 opponents. But against more it needs a set to win. You are not getting the odds to flop a set against 3-4 opponents.
With 8s7d3h2c board Th9h6c: you retain the nuts when both cards are a A-2-3-4-5, no heart and no two clubs. With 45 unseen cards there are 45choose2 or 990 combinations of turn and river. There are 14 non-heart good cards 14choose2 or 91 combinations to win, minus 6 runner-runner clubs or 85 combinations that retain the nuts.
So its (990-85): 85 or 905:85 or 10.65:1 against you retaining the nuts. Since it will cost you a single bet and a third of the time a double bet to "draw", you need to win (10.65x1.6666)= 17.7 bets when it does hold up to break even; not counting the chance for a slit and not counting the times it wins when it is no longer the nuts. There's gotta be a lot of draw-dead loose action before that's a good call; at least IMO.
Notice the fact that you HAVE the nuts is irrelevant; you are 10.65:1 against "MAKING" the nuts at the river.
But you are right that there will be times when a call, bet, or raise is in order; usually short-handed, or when you have additional over-card straight draws.
- Louie
The flaw in your reasoning is that you are including every possible losing card as an out against you. In real life, this is rarely the case. Against 3 opponents, I'm not going to be up against a set, a flush draw, and 3 different straight draws in all but the rarest of situations.
This is why Omaha has such a big edge for an excellent player - context is everything. There are certainly times when I'd drop this hand like a hot rock, and other times when I'd be raising it for value. Experience is really the only guide here. You have to know the players, know what kind of draws they would call with, raise with, etc., and make your determination.
I agree that AA72 is probably going to be a favorite heads-up, but it's tough to play. It sounds to me like you're equating this hand with playing a small pocket pair in Holdem - this isn't completely accurate, but they do share the same problem - even when the hand is the best, it's hard to play it that way. I don't agree that you have to always hit a set with two or three players - depending on your read of what they are calling with, it may be the best hand, or you can win if the board pairs low. But these are tough situations to be in, and judgement is everything.
Dan
I am in the "No-Foldem is a great game for sensible players" camp.
If we agree that the NF players are playing badly which is to their disadvantage, then would someone in the other camp please explain to me to whose advantage is it (other than the sensible players) to have NF players at the table.
- Louie
Yes yes, ... less hands per hour ...
One or two (preferrably one (1)) no foldem players at a table are fine. A table full of them! No thank you ma'am! Sure, theoretically (maybe even practically) the sensible poker player will get the money in the long run. But he/she will go through "Bad Beat Hell" (the mother of all frustration) to get it!
Opinion by Vince
This attitude towards no fold'em players has always mystified me. So you take some beats-- who cares!? If you play to make money, you want to play against the worst players around. End of discussion.
If that is true then you should only play 2-4 Holdem. Try it for a week or two and let me know the results.
Vince
Vince,
There you go again. If you can't sit at a table of weak players, no matter the limits, and figure out a way to play that will give you a positive expectation against them, then you aren't a complete poker player. I have had literally hundreds of discussions with players who claim to be big favorites in the 15-30 and above games, but who are unable to adapt a winning strategy in low limit games against weaker players. They have excuses that range from no one being able to overcome the high rake to not being able to reduce the field to protect their good hands. In truth, they have only a limited understanding of the dynamics of winning poker. They can beat certain types of games if the cards are running good for them and, if the other players are playing in a manner that they can relate to and exploit.
I would be willing to bet you a large sum of money that I can go to any cardroom in America, sit for 40 hours over the course of a week in any 2-4 Hold'em game being played and produce a net win of at least $160.00 for the week. 2-4 players make too many playing mistakes for a competent player not to win. If you watch to see how they are playing and observe the type of mistakes they are prone to make, it is a simple matter to employ a strategy that will cause you to win in the long run. The poorer their level of play, the shorter the long run will be. If you don't believe this is true, I invite you to accept my challenge. It is time that people stand up and expose the fallacy of the myth about no fold'em games not being beatable by competent players. You do no one a service by promoting this illogical conclusion.
Big John, 2-4 game, 40 hour week ...I'll guarantee $240.
Do I hear $320 from anyone...?
(just kidding).
But I agree with you. It is somewhat illogical to assert that a tough game is easier to beat.
Sklansky has adressed this issue in his essay "Why are easy games so hard to beat?"
Come to think of it, I can't remember what he said in that essay. I think I'll have another read of it.
"I would be willing to bet you a large sum of money"
John, I don't have a large sum of money. Perhaps if I were a better poker player I would. Please read my response to GD. I don't want to go through it again.
"no fold'em games not being beatable by competent players."
I know you are not attributing this statement to me! I have never even implied this! You are confusing "not being able to beat" with being hard to beat! Which is what I believe to be true!
"You do no one a service by promoting this illogical conclusion."
You obviously ARE saying that I have stated that a competent player can't beat a no foldem game. All I can say to that is: "You do no one a service by promoting this illogical (and erroneous my parenthesis) conclusion."
Have a nice game! Vince.
Vince,
I was reacting to your statement about trying to play 2-4 Hold'em for a week. Implied in that was your belief that it is difficult to beat. My statement is that bad players are easy to beat if you are a good player.
Today I managed to make a $500.00 proposition bet with a friend of mine. I am going to play 2-4 stud at San Manuel for a total of 40 hours this week. At the end of the 40 hours I have to be ahead a minimum of $160.00 after rake and tokes. (We set up a standard for toking) I had played less than 5 hours total of stud high in any cardroom ever before this past week. He is a believer in the dogma that these low limit games are unbeatable due to high rake and the unpredictable nature of the players.
Today, after 6 hours of play, I quit ahead exactly $60.00. There was never a time when my original $50.00 buy-in got below $30.00. My peak was being ahead by about $75.00, this was an hour or so before I quit. While I am not in the market for a $4.00 per hour job, I am pretty sure that I will win this bet. I could probably average about 3 big bets an hour if I weren't being very selective with the hands I play past fourth street. I can't afford to jeopardize the winning of the prop bet by taking chances on having a series of bad beats putting me in a major hole that might be difficult to dig out of in the time I have left to win the money.
After I win this bet, I'm going to try omaha-8 for 40 hours if I can get someone to take the other side of the proposition. Who knows, maybe I've finally found my niche within the poker world, Big John, the scourge of the 2-4 game!
Big John,
I hate to put a wrinkle in your efforts. But I don't believe anything can be proven in such a short sample size as 40 hours. Also certain biasis are inherent in proposition bets. For instance suppose in your next 3 to 6 hour session you win $300.00. This may affect the way you play from there on. You may decide (conciously or unconciously) to win the prop bet and just show up and sit at the table and not contest any hands.
What I do find interesting though is the variance you experienced. If you keep an hour by hour log of your bankroll it may prove of some value to others, including myself, when trying to evaluate low limit holdem play. Also because a game is 2-4 does not necessarily mean it is full with 8 poor players and you. You must be able to discern the total "no Foldem" game from that filled with mixed skill levels for your results to be valid.
"Implied in that was your belief that it is difficult to beat."
You are correct. I believe that a 2-4 "No Foldem" Holdem game filled with one expert and 6-8 poor players is extremely difficult to beat.
Vince
"I could probably average about 3 big bets an hour if I weren't being very selective with the hands I play past fourth street. I can't afford to jeopardize the winning of the prop bet by taking chances on having a series of bad beats putting me in a major hole that might be difficult to dig out of in the time I have left to win the money."
In a sense doesn't this jeapordize what the argument is about. No one ever said that tight unimaginative players who only play the nuts can't beat a low limit no fold'em game. What they said was that a godd player can't beat it.
If there is a strategy to satisfactorily beat these games (and there is, including weak-tight) then surely a player is not "good" if he sticks to some other strategy that fails; no matter how good that strategy is elsewhere.
Perhaps a better statement is "good plays that work against competant opponents often backfire in the no-foldem games".
And this appears to be the issue: many "good" players cannot/do not/refuse to adjust; to their frustration.
- Louie
BTW: People HAVE suggested that there is no successful strategy, which includes weak-tight.
Mason,
No, it doesn't jeopardize what the argument is about. The bet is that I can't play exactly 40 hours of 2-4 stud at San Manuel from 2/15/99 to 2/21/99 and come away with a net profit of $160.00 or better.
My friend, taking the other side of the bet, believes that nobody can be sure of beating that game for at least one BB per hour within a tight 40 hour window of opportunity. I claim that any poker player, possessing playing skills as good as mine or better, can accomplish that easily. I believe that if you put a grade III stakes horse in with $2,000.00 claiming horses, the stakes horse will usually win going away if it is healthy. In my case, the analogy would be putting an old rabbit in against assorted tortoises.
I ask you Mason, do you believe there is a 2-4 stud game in any public casino in America that you couldn't beat for more than 1 BB per hour if you only had a total of 40 hours to establish and maintain that win? My friend made a sucker bet and I'm going to collect.
I'm going to agree with Big John on this one. Generally what happens is that players don't adjust properly in these games. They make the pots too big and lower their chances to win them. For those interested, there is some discussion on why good players have trouble in easy games in GETTING THE BEST OF IT by David Sklansky.
"The poorer their level of play, the shorter the long run will be." Big John, that sums it up better than anything else I've read.
Try what? Only playing 2-4 HE? I don't understand your response- what your telling me to try, or what results I'm supposed to relay. If you're telling me to play only low limit HE, then I can tell you that I've already logged hundreds of hours at such games.
Your premise, which is that games with bad players are harder to beat than games with good players, is clearly outlandish. If YOU have problems beating bad players, then there's a major hole in your game which you need to fix. I've read a number of your posts, and I find you, on the balance, to be an energetic, entertaining and intelligent participant in this forum. But I'd also guess that you tilt fairly easy and let other players influence your mindset towards the game. Most of your posts, with the frequent exclamation points and short, sharp proclamations, suggest you're something of a control freak. This isn't bad, necessarily, but you've got to understand that in low limit games you will NOT BE IN CONTROL. You will NOT decide when other players will fold, will NOT decide what hands they will play pre-flop, etc. You WILL play a lot of hands where you simply chase, because of the pot odds. As you alluded to in an earlier thread, you hate chasing-- in fact, you openly defied the concept of pot odds, and maintained that anyone who chases, REGARDLESS of the circumstance, is destined to be a losing player. If this is, in fact, your attitude, then you've got no chance at beating a no fold 'em game.
Look at your post again, Vince. If you think that playing against bad players is harder than playing against good players, then your internal logic is in desperate need of some help. If, in fact, you DO find the tough games easier, than I'm sure it's because you tilt too easy, and prefer the calmer, more predictable nature of the tougher games. But this is NO excuse for avoiding the easy games IF you're purpose is to win as much as possible.
In short-- buckle your seat belt, tighten your athletic supporter, and don't tilt. This may sound crude, but in a way no fold em is just that simple.
"I've read a number of your posts, and I find you, on the balance, to be an energetic, entertaining and intelligent participant in this forum."
God I love that kind of talk! Nothing more need be said but...
"Your premise, which is that games with bad players are harder to beat than games with good players, is clearly outlandish."
I have previously said and restate here that in a game full of bad players with one expert player, the expert player will have to play the best poker he possibly can to win the money. He must be at his best at all times looking for ways to win! I stand by that statement! This also implies and means that in games that are typical, a good mix of poor to good players, the expert will have an easier time winning the money. What I mean by this is that expert play will have a profound effect on the outcome or results over a poker session. Mistakes by the expert in a typicl game will not have as dramatic an effect on a session as they would in a no folem game. I stand by this statement!
"Look at your post again, Vince. If you think that playing against bad players is harder than playing against good players, then your internal logic is in desperate need of some help."
I think there is a little confusion here about what I said. I am not saying that beating a poor player is hard. I am not saying that one, two or even three poor players are hard to play against. I am saying that in a full 9 or 10 player Holdem game where 7 to 9 players are poor and only one is an expert the game becomes extremely hard for the expert. I stand by that statement, faulty internal logic and all. I also said that I believe that in the poor game the expert gets the money in the long run but finds it very difficult to do so. I stand by that statement.
"it's because you tilt too easy,"
This is a truism!
"As you alluded to in an earlier thread, you hate chasing-"
Another truism (except that hate is a little strong)!
"in fact, you openly defied the concept of pot odds,"
Not true! I am a proponent of pot odds influencing play! I will admit that I don't like the Idea of pot odds, regardless how great they may be, being the sole deciding factor in making a play. However, I do bet/call/raise some hands strictly because of the huge pot odds I am getting. " and maintained that anyone who chases, REGARDLESS of the circumstance, is destined to be a losing player."
Another misstatement! REGARDLESS is not in my poker vocabulary!
"In short-- buckle your seat belt, tighten your athletic supporter, and don't tilt. This may sound crude, but in a way no fold em is just that simple."
In short this echo's my point about no foldem Holdem!
"I've read a number of your posts, and I find you, on the balance, to be an energetic, entertaining and intelligent participant in this forum."
I liked this so much I had to repeat it! Same to you by the way!
Thanks for the response!
Vince.
Vince-
Not saying you're wrong, but I'm still not sure why you think an increase in the number of bad players makes the game harder to beat. What "poker dynamic" is at work here?
There is the theory I posted that the experts edge decreases because so many of his skills are not available to use in these games.
There is also the point made by Mason in an essay that the money sloshes back and forth between the loose players too much. In that article he concluded that about 5 bad players was optimal. He also felt that EV flattens out beyond 5 bad players but I suspect it decreases.
Another problem that adds to the troubles is that the really low limit games (3-6 etc) have such high rake. Even Lee Jones on Usenet is not completely sure that 3-6 can be beat by much at all, luckily for him, his book covers up to 6-12.
>There is the theory I posted that the experts edge
Some skills go down in value. Hand reading is tougher, and bluffing is more difficult. But other skills go up in value. Hand selection, aggression, proper value bets... These can win you a lot of extra money.
>Another problem that adds to the troubles is that the
But the weak players make MANY mistakes. If a player constantly calls to make a gutshot on the turn when he only has half the pot odds to do so, he's making a full small bet error, and just paid for the rake all by himself. Many players will call all the way to the river while drawing completely dead (for example, in an 8-way field there are often two people drawing to the same flush, or one person drawing to bottom pair when someone else already has a set). These errors overshadow the rake, *if you can take advantage of them.
Loose agressive games are another matter. When there is a lot of pre-flop raising and many callers along with a couple of maniacs who will be agressive after the flop, I'm not sure the game can be beaten by anything other than hand selection, and that means ultra-tight play.
Dan-
In general I'm inclined to agree with you, although I think David and Vince make some excellent points. One point of interest that I thought I'd pass along is that poker in Canada (again, IMO) is VASTLY different from poker in the states. I'm a native of Detroit, and occasionally me and a few fellas would hop in the ol' Aerostar and pop up to Toronto for the weekend. All of us were a least fair to middlin' players, but my God-- NONE of us had ever seen the kind of action that we found in Toronto. Guys capping the preflop betting with 72s, three hundred dollar post being dragged by King high.. It was a whole different world. That said, I think the different playing styles between our two fine countries may account for the different strategies between, say, you and SKP and Al. I don't know what it's like in Edmonton, but in most of the places I've played in the states the games are more passive and the players more-- well, sane (although I'd probably be better off saying 'predictable). This isn't a slight on Canadian poker, just a comment on the different style. Anyway, this might be part of the reason why you've found low limit HE to be far more lucrative than most of us down here.
I've played quite a bit of poker in Vegas as well. In any event, I don't think there is a difference between "Canadian Poker" and "American Poker". You can find 3-6 games here screwed down tighter than the 20-40 at the Mirage, and you can find wild agressive 15-30 games in Vegas. It all depends on the particular composition of players in the game.
In general, the games here in Edmonton are not very agressive. Most of the low-limit games are loose-passive, with pre-flop raises only coming from premium hands. The games have gotten a bit tougher as players 'wise up'. When I was playing lower limits almost exclusively, the games were extremely loose-passive, with almost no raising (unless I was the one raising) and 6-8 callers in every hand with the odd 10 player hand). I don't play low-limit games anymore unless I'm waiting to get into a 10-20 or 15-30, which amounts to couple of hours a week in 3-6 or 5-10 games.
GD,
Actually, I think you are correct in slighting Vancouver poker. A lot of the players here are in fact not very sane. Most of these crazy players go broke but for one reason or the other they get replaced every few months by other crazy players.
Capped flop with 72s?...It really wouldn't shock too many of us here. We see it quite often. Don't forget, I am now talking 10-20 and 15-30 not 2-4 or 3-6.
Last Sunday, I lost with pocket Aces to 10d,4d when the board was As,Qd,3s,Ks and then Jd. Capped on the flop and three bets on the turn. Stuff like this makes the game here a real good one if you can handle the swings.
P.S. I am not relating the above to whine about a bad beat (although it's probably the worst one I've ever taken). I say it just to show how bad the play here can be at times and how that translates to a great game for good players in the long run.
GD, I will use the simplest example I can and hope that it is not misunderstood because of my inability to explain my point. First of all I believe that Sklansky or Malmut or both have written (correctly in my opinion) about this subject. I believe it is in an essay entitled Why Good Players Lose?
Anyway let's say you have a pair of A,A in first position and raise. In a typical game there is a good chance you will only get one caller. With only one caller you are at worst a 2 to 1 favorite (probably a lot higher in most cases). Now let's say your in a no foldem game and get 8 callers. You are still the favorite against each individual hand (given that no one else has AA) but you are now a BIG DOG to win the hand (I don't have the numbers but I have Caro's simulator if you would like the exact figures let me know). The combined strength of the other eight hands is much greater than your A,A. Granted that in the long run you win more than you lose but it now may take a long time before you see your profit. Big John says that poor players make the long run shorter (or something like that), I think that this is a very misleading and probably incorrect statement. BTW if we run the numbers for this example we should do it for 1 through 8 random hands. Each additional hand that plays against the AA reduces the probability that the AA wins the hand even though the AA is the individual favorite and wins the most hands in the long run. This is the reason that an increase in bad players is a disadvantage to the expert. More bad players is an advantage to both the other poor players and the expert player in that they now get greater pot odds for their hands. This advantage will be seen in the long run.
I hope this simple example helps explain my point! Please respond with your comments!
Again I would like to state that I believe that in the long run the expert gets the money in No Foldem but to do so requires him to be constantly at his best and takes much longer than in a typical game. Plus he will experience large swings in his BR.
Opinion by Vince
Caro's simulator shows that AA makes more money as you add more callers, all the way up to 9 callers.
I'm of the belief that AA is more profitable against 9 callers than against 2, as long as you made them all pay the maximum amount of money (i.e. I'd rather be up against 3 callers who paid two bets than 6 who paid one bet, but the best situation is to be up against 6 callers who paid two bets).
"Caro's simulator shows that AA makes more money as you add more callers, all the way up to 9 callers. "
That's not the point and you know it! I never even mentioned the amount of money that would be won. My point was that the hand goes from a favorite to a dog, probabilistically speaking. It was an example that I clarified in a later response(in which I refer to your own previous response on the no foldem games effect on expert skills). My purpose is to show that in no foldem games (one expert) even though the expert gets the money he/she must be playing their best poker at all times and that getting the money will take a long time.
I'm done with this topic!
Vince
Vince-
Huh. Well, I've got to admit that I didn't know that five bad players were the optimum number in a game. If that's true, (and I don't have any real reason to doubt you) then you are right and I am wrong. It's that simple- sorry I came down on you a bit earlier in this thread.
GD, After rethinking my example I certainly can see where I left out a lot of my position. I need to add a few things. Dan Hanson hit on many of the points I wanted to get accross in his responses. First in loose games, as Sklansky and Malmuth have noted, Small pairs and small suited connectors go up in value. High pairs and high unsuited cards go down in value.
What this means to me is that in no foldem holdem where 7-9 players are seeing the flop, raise or no raise, the experts Hand Selection skills must be finely honed. He will find himself playing small pairs and small suited connectors from any position. He may be forced to throw hands like A,Ko away in early position. No hand that the expert picks up will have a clear advantage over a no foldem field. He will find himself investing a lot of chips, correctly I must add, to get his eventual (and I am sure certain) win! But it will take a long run for these types of hands to pay off.
Others skills like raising will be reduced to one purpose getting more money in the pot. Check raising also! Pot odds will not be a factor because they will allmost always be there. High pot odds will make the poor players poor hand selection correct playing strategy.
Reading hand skills will not be of much use. The expert will never, never, be able to put a no foldem player on a hand.
Others may be able to explain this better. So I'll stop with the skills I mentioned.
I really do not know what the optimum mix is. I like a game where there are 1-2 bad palyers, 4-5 fair/average players and 1-3 solid player. In a game like this the action is usually very satisfactory and the play is at a level where HPFAP tactics are very effective.
Hope I did better this time!
IMO Vince BTW please keep in mind that my position is only an opinion and nothing more nor was it intended to be anything more. I do have some experience playing no foldem Holdem (6-12 games in California are unbelievable) and I've won in them but I do not have a record (log) of my experience so I am only going on memory. I must admit that some of those "wild and crazy" games were a lot of fun (with some pain mixed in)!
No. AA still wins 30+% of the time vrs 9 opponents. So 3 times you win 9b and 7 times you lose 1b: 3x9-7 = 20 bets in 10 hands, or 2 bets/hand. Heads up you win less than 1 bet. And with so many opponents the AA still has positive implied odds; greater than the implied odds heads up.
However, I believe your analysis gains merit as the quality of the "good" hand goes down.
In any case, even if you are correct and your normal bread-and-butter hands don't do as well per hand; you must not forget that normal marginal or bad hands become big winners, such as 44 and A2s. I believe the increase in value of these hands overshadows the decrease in value of your normal big card hands.
- Louie
Especially if you remove the brain-lock against playing KXs from any position in real no-fold'em games. There are plenty more hands that I'll want to see the flop with, as opposed to typical or tight tables.
"If, in fact, you DO find the tough games easier, than I'm sure it's because you tilt too easy, and prefer the calmer, more predictable nature of the tougher games."
It could also be that you are not making the right strategy adjustments for these games. For example, are you playing all pairs, or are you more inclined to play a hand like K9 offsuit than you would be inb a regular game. (Aoll pairs is good while the K9o is bad.)
By the way, the appropriate adjustments from the flop on can be crucial.
Vince, sorry to say that I disagree.
I suppose there is no correct answer; it is a matter of individual preference.
Personally, the best game for me is where 7 or more players see the flop for one bet (loose passive). The second best game is where 7 or more people see the flop for two or more bets (loose aggressive).
The short-handed pots that I have encountered in my trips to the Mirage are something that generally do not get me too excited about playing poker.
Contrary to popular belief, there is still plenty of room to "make moves" and "outplay" opponents in loose games. Furthermore, believe it or not, there are still plenty of opportunities to bluff. In fact, some of my biggest heists have come in loose games. Of course, these big time steals don't occur often. The more common occurrence is steals of small pots. I regularly manage to get my share of these smaller magnitude steals in almost every session that I play. You have to in order to maximize your hourly rate.
There are a lot of strategic tips particularly applicable to NF games. I am sure that the topic has already been discussed on the Forum and can probably be found in the archives so I won't bother setting out my ideas here.
In any event, I am looking forward to S&M's promised book on this topic.
For the last 2 years or so I have been playing in true No Foldem HE games, usually 4-8 or 3-6-12. These games have 5-8 people seeing every flop and preflop raises just encourage callers who want to participate in "a big pot" or say they came to "gamble". During this time I have come to believe that while the game is beatable there are going to be big swings. IMHO the more players who play any 2 cards from any position are in the game the bigger the swings will be. If you are catching cards these nofoldem types will pay you off but if your draws miss or your big pairs dont improve, there will always be one player at the end who calls "just to keep you honest".
Randy Collack
let's define no foldem a little. I see no foldem as having several players preflop, but also having several players playing to the river as well. I think we're off the track a little. it's not really a question off playing against bad players, it is a question of playing against multiple player almost every hand.It is correct that, with the right adjustments, and solid strategy, you will get the money in the long run, but it is also correct that having multiple participants in most pots will produce very wide bankroll swings.My contention is that these swings will stop an otherwise excellent player from succeeding.This is where S&M can't help you , or anyone else. It's not the size of the game it's the players in the game. yes you need to be able to adjust to the game you are in, but don't get mixed up between a game where many people see the flop, then fold, with a game where you are chased down to the end by 3-4 players every hand. seeya
I agree with some of what you say and disagree with other parts. No foldem is playing against multiple players post flop and to the river on almost every hand. Players like this are almost by definition bad players.The key to winning money in these games is to maximize your winning sessions while minimizing your losing sessions. I know this is a concept that my seven year old son would say "DUH" to but I think its a worth restating the obvious. Last year I won only 55% of my playing sessions at mostly no foldem type games. However my winning sessions averaged $175 while my losing sessions only averaged $130. This allowed me to win around 3K for the year. Sure your AK which flops top pair will get chased down on occasion by the player with K5s when the 5 hits on the river, but just as often the bad hands will miss or come in second, thats why they are called bad hands. The increased pot size on your winning pots should in the long run more then make up for the suckouts.
simple but correct logic and it has always been my strategy and can be summed up in (2) words "patience & punishment"
'The key to winning money in these games is to maximize your winning sessions while minimizing your losing sessions... "DUH!".'
That sure sounds and feels great. But like Clinton's speaches lets look a little deeper ...
To accomplish your goal, we can always adopt the strategy that you leave as soon as you are "stuck", even by $1; and stay while winning until you drop dead. This will maximize the chances of accomplishing your goal. DOH!
Oh wait! perhaps someone wants to maximize the NUMBER of winning sessions? If so, then quit when you get ahead, even by $1; and stay and play while stuck until you drop dead.
=== Embracing the notion of "winning/losing sessions" is -EV. Playing your best each hand as if you never count your stack is +EV. No Duh. ===
- Louie
It is ok to critique my poker playing or my poker recordkeeping, but please dont compare my post to a presidential speech. There is no hidden meanings or agenda. I was not using my record keeping as an indicator of my play. I never leave as soon as I am stuck and never get up when ahead just to post a win. You know as well as I do that table selection can be a major factor for a winning player. When you are at a casino such as Bellagio there are many tables to choose from if the table you are at isnt to your advantage. However I play in mostly private and not so legal home games. Usually there is only 1 table going. At times the table make up is to your advantage and there are times when it isnt to your advantage. I believe it is important to recognize the difference and to get up and leave when necessary. The bad nofoldem players play until they have no more money.
Sorry for the analogy. I'm just fishing for a scape-goat liberal... <-- my hidden agenda.
The obsurd nature of those suitable "strategies" was intended to show your goal was a bad one; not to suggest that anyone with two synapses was actually doing it.
Your game selection is sound; but you are simply playing when a favorite and leaving when not and rightfully so. You are avoiding loss and embracing win; not "maximizing your winning sessions and minizing your losing sessions". So it appears that the "way you said" the goal was bad, not your actual intention.
I emphasize this since such (appearant) bad objects since one cannot win when embracing detrimental objectives.
- Louie
As I said earlier, I don't think the fact that one continually gets outdrawn in no fold 'em is that big of a deal. But I will admit that there are certain aspects of this game that can get under my skin; namely, the gross inconsistency in the way people play their hands. Case in point:
About two weeks ago, and I'm two to the left of the button with A8h. One caller so far, and I raise, hoping to get it heads up (which I do). Flop wasn't what I was hoping for (Js, 4s, 3h), caller checks, I bet. Caller calls. Turn is a 9h- again, I bet, he checks. River is (sigh) the Kc.
What a quandry. I bet, hoping to get the other player off an unimproved mid/low pair, and he calls with a 48o. Now we can argue the way I played this (in retrospect I would have checked the turn and probably river), but the fact was that this was one of those games where people routinely folded the turn and river but almost always called the flop, so the betting didn't seem like all THAT bad of an idea (we also must factor in the possibility that the other guy was on a spade draw and picked up a pair). Further, there are many low limit games (this was one of them) where players will SOMETIMES call down the river with a low pair, and sometimes won't. It just depends on how they're feeling. This, coupled with the fact that they could have any possible hand before the flop, and it becomes virtually impossible to put them on anything, thereby making it difficult to discern the 'good' bluffing opportunities from the 'bad' ones. I'll still take a no fold'em game anytime, but this is one aspect of said games that I have a hard time dealing with.
I would suggest that the bad players them selves benefit because they are donating back and forth to each other rather then handing it over in a controlled way to the experts. Even though the bad players benefit, it only reduces their losses some and it all goes to the house eventually if nobody has enough edge to beat the rake.
David
Lets say its you and 8 lets-see-what-I-have-in-the-show-down fish and one empty seat. You suggest that its to the other fish's advantage if another fish sits down and is therefore NOT to your advantage.
This implies that fish do not wish to play with sharks; which has the corallary that sharks wish to play with fish; which would put you in my camp.
BTW: I agree the other fish want another fish, but that's because such a fish will distribute his loss to the other players, of which you are included. Yes, it is to the other fish's advantage, but it is ALSO to YOUR advantage.
EVERBODY wants a fish at the table.
- Louie
However, a fish can seriously distrupt any "control" you may have over other players especially weak-tight ones. So a single fish will suddenly make weak-tight play not so bad, which is to YOUR disadvantage.
1. Variance 2. Tilt
If you can handle both, then enjoy the ride.
=== 1. Variance 2. Tilt
=== If you can handle both, then enjoy the ride.
BINGO!!
If so, then there would be lots of +EV in learning to handle both.
- Louie
I have to agree also, I play in a 4-8 game where on the average there are 5-6 players seeing flops for one bet, and not very often do they fold from a late raise. I may not be a very experienced poker player, but for the last 4 weeks I have sit in this No Fold'em game and done quite well. 2-1/2 BB per hour, 10-12 hours per week. I will limit my playing time to 3 hours max, Only play when there are less than 3 "Good" players at the table including myself. Yes, I have my fair share of Bad Beats, but that's the name of the no fold'em game.
I think that if you plan to play in a no foldem game, one must scout your game thoroughly, know your "good" Players and your "bad" players.
Its just like a baseball game, the good hitters will hit >.300, the bad hitters will hit <.220, but nobody will hit 1.000! And every once in a while some "Bad" hitters hit a homerun. So dont get worked up over a couple of bad beats!
"Fish-on" Walleye
P.S. BTW, I don’t think of myself as Fish, just a fisherman!
The looser, the better.
If you're in a game where 8 people are seeing the flop continually, then you are seeing some impressive errors being made. Any time someone makes errors this big, the best players have to benefit. These players are putting money into the pot with hands that have maybe a 5% chance of winning. How can you not like that?
I've heard good players complain about not being able to beat the no foldem games. The reason? Because they don't change their pre-flop hand selection, the don't know how to make the weak players pay for their mistakes through check-raising and value raising big draws, and they make folding errors.
This last one is especially important. If you play too tight after the flop when the pots are large, then YOU are the fish. In games where there are 15 small bets in the pot on the flop, calling even for runner-runner straights and flushes is only a small fraction of a bet error. On the other hand, if you fold the best hand, you are making a HUGE error, one bigger than all the money the weak player is going to lose all night by chasing his weak draws.
As a consequence, it's important to play hands that flop big hands (pocket pairs) or big draws (big suited connectors and Axs). When you have a real hand, make your opponents PAY, so they aren't correct for calling. If you can check-raise the flop and make the guy who called with his small pair pay double to hit his set on the turn, you just turned his call from marginal to unprofitable. If I have top pair with the best kicker, I'll often go for a raise on the turn, to REALLY punish the gut-shot artists and the guys calling with a weak kicker to hit their 3 outs.
Years ago when I didn't have a bankroll, I played a lot of 3-6 holdem with a $5.00 rake. My average win rate was $9.83/hr after over 1000 hours of play.
Dan
anyone can quote an author, I think the truth and you have only met a few times.
Uh, what author did I quote?
And exactly what do you think I'm lying about?
Oh, and I almost forgot - bite me.
SEIZE THE DAY MR HANSON AND MOVE TO RGP WHERE YOU BELONG
AND BY THE WAY- PLEASE DON'T BITE ME.
Dan,
As usual, you made a very thoughtful analysis of strategy regarding no foldem holdem in a very entertaining thread. I don't have time to comment on everything but I'd thought I would expand upon one point you made.
Note that most of the posters are referring to the smaller limits as being the refuge of "no foldem holdem".
You said: "Years ago when I didn't have a bankroll, I played a lot of 3-6 holdem with a $5.00 rake. My average win rate was $9.83/hr after over 1000 hours of play."
I don't doubt the above based on some figures I am familiar with of people who keep detailed records. I am assuming the $5 rake in your example comes from the winner of the pot once a pot size threshold (or a series of thresholds) is reached. One problem here in Los Angeles is that the collection is taken before the hand begins and is dead on the button (i.e., it doesn't count towards your call and is taken even on a blind steal). Prior to 1989 the collection was taken from the winner of the pot as it is in most areas in the country.
Anyway, my friend averaged just over $11 an hour prior to 1989 in California no foldem 3/6 holdem games with a $2.50 collection. He kept track of wins and times the blind passed and he found he was winning about two pots every five trips around the table. I believe these figures are typical for a solid player in a real loose game. When the clubs were forced to collect up front, they originally instituted a 50cent "ante" in addition to the blinds. The collection was taken from this "ante".
My friend did some calculations. Assuming other things are equal for simplicity, every pot he played would cost him 50 cents more. Every pot he won would be $4.50 bigger (in a nine-handed game). Since he wasn't winning anywhere near his share of pots (nor should he have), his calculations indicated a win rate that would have put him way below minimum wage had the new system of collection been in place.
IMO, one of the paradoxes of the poker industry is that this new system of collection (modified slightly to a dead drop on the button) has cost the card clubs in Los Angeles a fortune. Why? Because collecting up front is hated by the tighter players, thus driving the bulk of them away. Consequently, the games have stayed very loose despite being legal for over twelve years. These super loose games reduce hand speed, increase swings, and make the game play bigger than it should. Players don't develop the types of skills enabling them to move up. And we don't have anywhere near as many games as we should relative to the population base.
Anyway, I've rambled on a bit more than I intended. I should have saved my energy on the post you started on no foldem holdem strategy.
Regards,
Rick
This is a fascinating post. I've written many articles concerning how bad structure can negatively impact the games in the long run. I'm not sure if you are correct since I've never thought about this. But I plan to do some thinking about it now, and if I agree I may try to address this problem in a future issue of POKER DIGEST.
Mason
Mason,
I'm glad you found this interesting. I have written on this subject in bits and pieces in many places on the rgp newsgroup except where the group is being flamed by Doug Grant. I also wrote a little today on this subject in reply to Dan Hanson under the subject "KJ" above.
When I get a chance I'll compile some of what I have done, fix it up a bit, and post it here. Meanwhile, I'll briefly describe the situation for low limit stud in Los Angeles. It will give you something to think about.
At Hollywood Park Casino, the collection for an eight handed, 3/6 seven card stud game is $3 (the Commerce may charge more since they have a small jackpot). The collection is taken from the 50 cent "antes" before the hand starts. So in a full game, you and I would look at it as a 37 & 1/2 cent per hand "fee" and a 12 & 1/2 cent ante (I don't put this in quotes since this is the real ante). Even if you were to scale these rates up to a 10/20 stud (normally a low ante game) or 15/30 stud (a more typical ante structure), this would amount to a very small ante and a very large fee. The small ante would dictate tight play but the large fee drives away tight players.
Also note that there is usually someone walking, especially since the smoking ban. Seven handed the collection is still $3 so the "fee" is about 43 cents and the ante is about seven cents. It takes a special type of player to frequent these games. I can guarantee they don't buy your books.
Los Angeles has nothing like the 1-5 spread limit stud with no ante and a forced bring in of $1. In Las Vegas, these games seem to be populated by local rocks hoping to prey on a couple of tourists who want to play a lot of hands regardless of structure. We have a reputation for looser games but it is because of our regulars, not the drop in tourist.
There is more I would like to write but I'm out of time for now. My final thought is although Los Angeles seems to be the poker capital of the world, no one knows just how big poker could be with benign regulation regarding rakes and a truly competitive environment. I for one believe poker could grow tremendously.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. This material regarding the method of rake is a bit long and contains a fair amount of math. It may be inappropriate for the forum. Is there a way I can send it to you without posting it? My email is ricknebiolo@earthlink.net.
P.P.S. You probably use this service already but a power search of the rgp newsgroup using dejanews.com and searching on my name and the word "collection" or "ante" will get you most of what I have written so far.
Mason,
The math and logic seem right on to me. Say you're playing $1-5 7 Stud and everybody is playing real tight. The casinos where I play don't rake real small pots. If the pots are all real small or even only $1 almost all of the time (nobody calls unless they have rolled up Aces). Then there is virtually no money dropped to the casino and no player loses any money. On the other hand with some sort of time charges with the same players and the same game, a "normal" amount of money is dropped to the casino and all the players lose money. Kudos to Rick as it is really valuable getting an "insiders" insight.
Tom Haley
The rake here is 10% of the pot, to a maximum of $5.00
I believe you beat these NF games that do not cap before the flop by a willingness to play solid draws (44, 87s) from any position, and being very selective with non-suited trouble hands.
And then, when you find a hand you like BET THE HECK OUT OF IT. Its +EV to bet a hand that will win only 25% of the time when you are getting 6:1.
I can without reservation say that I am WAY AHEAD betting Aces with a King ONLY into 6 opponents on the river. ... err ... of the times I choose to bet it.
It makes me sick to see tight players checking over-pairs on the turn after a scare card and everybody checks. Just because 6 calls means a flush draw is out in a tight games does NOT mean one is out in a loose game.
- Louie
"Just because 6 calls means a flush draw is out in a tight games does NOT mean one is out in a loose game."
Louie,
Just catching up on some past posts and wanted to say that the above is a splendid observation.
I thought I might start a thread discussing in particular some strategies that are useful for beating 'no foldem' games.
The raise is a valuable weapon in these games, especially on the turn. When you sit down in a passive game, you're often playing against opponents that never raise unless they have a monster. As a result, a raise can often frighten even the calling stations into folding. I've used this weapon a lot - 8 people call before the flop, 6 call on the flop, and then one person bets and I raise the turn with just top pair or even worse, and everyone else folds. I'm now heads-up in a pot with 22 small bets in it. This is a profitable situation to be in, if you've got even a small chance of winning.
Another factor in loose games - players who start with very weak hands often wind up with very weak hands, even if they go all the way to the river. This means that bluffs can be profitable on the end, even against several opponents. The pot is usually large enough that you only need a tiny chance of winning to make it correct to do so. (Of course, in these games you have to carefully evaluate the opposition - you'll sometimes run into players that WILL call with any hand, even one guaranteed to lose, just to see what you had).
There is a type of no-foldem game where lots of players call before the flop and on the flop, but a mass exodus occurs on the turn when the bet increases, leaving just two or three players to contest the river. These games are a goldmine, and bluffing opportunities in these games are wildly profitable.
Another important technique is to value bet your hands on the river. I've seen countless 'good' players play AK, hit an ace on the flop, play it agressively on the flop and turn, and then check the river because there are still 2 or 3 opponents left. If the opponents are calling stations, the range of hands they can have that they will call with and lose is generally MUCH higher than the range of hands that they will call with and win, when you have top pair with even a decent kicker. If you always check it down, you've giving up several large bets, which is a big time error (much bigger than the error they make calling before the flop with 72s). IF YOU ARE PLAYING AGAINST PEOPLE THAT WILL CALL WITH ANYTHING, VALUE BET MORE OFTEN.
The last one I'll mention is raising with big draws. In multi-way pots, extra callers often benefit the best draw at the expense of the made hand. If you are drawing to a big flush and you have 3 or more people on the flop, raise! If it's re-raised, cap it! If you have 5 or more opponents on the turn, raise again. You have to get full value for these draws to compensate for the suckouts you're going to get on your made hands. The trick to these games is to extract every bit of EV you can.
Comments and criticism welcome!
Dan
dan, you are probably the best player I have ever read. everything you say is right and I think the same way as you. You should write a book , or well maybe give lectures. Or how about , The best of Dan, posts from the past?
I just have this one problem. You're not talking about no foldem games, you are talking about loose games. Big difference. Your check raises won't get anyone out in no foldem since on the turn is where half of them pick up their long shot draws.
You're still the best babe. Let's do lunch, I'll have my people contact yours. bu- bye
Al, I don't know what it is about Dan's poker strategies that gets your panties bound up in a knot. In any case, your belief that raising on the turn won't get rid of people who've just picked up something is incomplete and in need of refinement. True, you won't shake anyone who picked up a goofy flush re-draw or an open ender, but you have an excellent shot at eliminating players with either a) mid/low pair with a bad kicker, b) players who just picked up a gut shot, c) players with overcards and d) underpairs. Factor in the possibility that you may get rid of someone whose holding the best hand, and a raise on the turn starts to make sense.
In short, one of the primary benefits of raising (and betting) is that it forces other players to make decisions, something which calling doesn't do. And the more decisions you can force upon inferior players, the better off you're going to be.
Al,
Perhaps there are many variations of what contributors to the forum are lumping into the catagory of "no foldem holdem/poker", but Dan certainly described a very common varient and his strategies are certainly well thought through for that type of game.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. What does it matter if a few people are making a lot of posts if what they write is generally well done and thoughtful?
Jeez, what grade are you in??
Grow up, man.
I guess when I said criticism welcome, I didn't mean character assassination.
And obviously, any strategy depends on the exact nature of the players you are playing against. Doesn't that go without saying? We're talking about general concepts here, no hard rules written in stone.
It baffles me why I still try to be civil to you.
Dan
In re-reading my original post, it occured to me that it sounds like I'm a bluffing maniac in these games. This is not the case. The strategies I suggested are for specific situations that come up infrequently. But when those situations arise you can sometimes win 10 or 15 bets, and this has a huge effect on your bottom line. Sometimes a situation like that won't come up at all in a night, and I'll just play the game by playing solid hands, betting them for value, and hoping they stand up.
For example, the suggestion of raising a bettor on the turn with a weak hand after many people call on the flop really depends on your read of the situation and the texture of the flop. Conditions have to be just right. One nice thing about weak games is that the players give off tells galore. They sigh and shake their heads when they miss, they look at their hands over and over again, they take a long time to call with a weak hand, etc. I look for all these tells and other hints that the field behind me might be weak before trying this.
I think the most important parts of my message have to do with not making folding errors and making sure you value bet your real hands on the river when you're up against calling stations.
STANDARD DISCLAIMER FOR AL RAISEYA'S SAKE: This is in my most humble of opinions, and I fully acknowledge that opinions may differ and I may be in error. I hope you accept this poor waif's offering of a message without thinking it implies that you are in any less of a player. Please sir, no more beatings.
Dan
"I think the most important parts of my message have to do with not making folding errors and making sure you value bet your real hands on the river when you're up against calling stations."
I agree wholeheartedly.
One other error that I see otherwise good players make is failing to bluff on the end. I agree that if the pot is huge, a bluff is unlikely to work but you don't have to succeed often to make the play worthwhile. As well, if you are heads-up (i.e. the mass exodus occurred on the flop or the turn), you may have a hand that can't call a bet when the bettor himself may be on a bluff. Sometimes, the first one in with the money wins even in these wild games.
The other day, I had a hand that offers a perfect example. Board on the turn: Ah,Jh,3d,3h. I bet from the small blind with Kh,10d and get raised by the big blind. 4 others behind BB fold. I call. River: As. The pot was huge. I bet $30 and BB folded. Now, I don't know if he was just raising on the turn with a draw, or whether he folded his flush on the river. I have no idea. The point is though that the pot was big enough for me to try and buy it for $30. If I checked, BB would certainly check if he had a flush, he would probably bet with a 3 or if he had nothing and I would have had a tough time calling with my King high hand. As well, by betting, there is achance that BB could throw away a flush. You sometimes see this: BB will pound his fist on the table, show his flush cards to everyone at the table and muck them while looking for sympathy for the bad beat he has just taken.
To be sure, such plays will usually result in a loss of one BB. But they can at times result in pot-sized steals that make the usual 1 BB loss worth it.
P.S. I've been running very very good of late and the cards were running all over me that night in particular. That probably also had a bearing on my decision to bet and his decision to fold.
If this post was raised pre-flop (and I'm going to assume it was if the pot was huge), then I can't help but wonder just what the hell you were doing in there with a KTo :).
Yes, I knew somebody would pick up on this. Congrats.
I called the $5 from the small blind and the BB raised. Of course, everyone called. I too called and we took the flop seven handed.
Now, I can tell you that I called because I was running pretty good at the time. But I probably would have called anyway given that the raise came from my immediate left and given the number of players in the pot. Normally, I definitely would not call with K,10 off from the small blind if the raise came from the button or a late position.
My bet on the turn is a little more questionable than my call pre-flop. There was no raise on the flop (BB bet) which led me to believe that no one was on a flush draw (this based on my knowledge of the players that were in the game many of whom played draws strongly). Plus, I have found that under these circumstances, if the flop bettor leads out again on the turn, someone with a non-nut flush is more likely to raise that bettor than he will be to raise a new leader on the turn. In other words, I thought the chances of a flush raising BB were much greater than the flush raising me (particularly since I held the Kh). In short, I did not expect to be raised on the turn but even if I were, I felt it would not be disastrous.
Turned out I was wrong. BB raised.
I am still scratching my head as to what BB had. I figure it had to have been a flush. He is certainly capable of raising pre-flop from the blinds in a multiway pot with a hand like Qh,10h or even 8h,7h and the like. I really doubt that he had something like JJ. He would have just called on the turn and probably would have called on the river too.
Let me make this clear: This type of play will fail most of the time. The only thing I am saying here is that some players never try these types of plays figuring they will never work. IMO, that's not true.
Here is another example of a bluff that worked in a loose game. It occurred in Omaha and Dan Hanson was in the game that day.
The flop was Q,8,3 rainbow. I had 10h,9h,x,x in late position (the game was over 6 weeks ago and I can't remember my other two cards). The flop was taken by 7 people and everyone checked.
Turn: 4h making two hearts on the board.
Early position bettor. 3 callers. I raised. One fellow behind me cold-called and the other 4 called the raise. I hoped for either an off-suit Jack or a blank.
River: offsuit 5.
I bet and took the pot uncontested.
I still remember Dan commenting to me at the end of the game "nice steal on that Q,8,3 flop". Lucky for me he had folded preflop on that hand.
IMO, bluffs do work in loose games. Not enough good players try it often enough in loose games. Other good players may be able to see through your actions and pick off your bluffs but weaker players wont.
Kill games also have some opportunities to (properly?) overplay a marginal or sub-marginal hand up front similar to skp's play of KT. The point being skp identifies player/situations and adapts, which goes beyond the *book* in a constructive manner. This independent thinking is something we should all be doing (at least as homework).
I try to avoid these games at all cost ! However having played a lot, here is my .02 $ worth. PLay killing drawing hands and play it for monster pots. if you don't flop trips with any pair fold unless it's AA KK QQ JJ and there is no overcard. any draw is better than the made hand cause it will pay off if you make it. Conversely any made hand will be dead if played multi-way and there is no chance in hell to avoid that !!!! The best advise is to avoid these games.
I the search for wisdom, Don't strike back at an unarmed poker player. Let his comments speak for themselves.
Keep-up the good Q's.
I have been thinking about how to minimize the trouble you can get into with KJ and still play it. Some advice on this example would help.
game: 10-20 HE not to passive, but not wild either
Someone limps in from early position, you are in middle position: call or raise?
Suppose you call, and the button calls, small blind folds, and big blind checks.
Flop comes A K 7 rainbow.
big blind checks, early limper bets. What to do?
Now what if you had raised pre-flop and saw the flop with just the big blind and the early position limper, and they check to you? What if the button is still in?
Steve,
You wrote: "I have been thinking about how to minimize the trouble you can get into with KJ and still play it. Some advice on this example would help. Game: 10-20 HE not to passive, but not wild either. Someone limps in from early position, you are in middle position: call or raise?"
These days it seems many players at the 10/20 level are often limping with a better king up front (in particular KQ). This combined with the fact this hand has little betting power makes this a fold in middle position in the game you describe. Too often you will be squeezed between the better hand up front and an agressive player behind. So my advice would be to fold this hand against most opponents from middle position (two or three players yet to act).
However, note that you can play it (and consider raising) in back against a weak big blind and an early position limper who is predictable and under your control. But be careful. In the wrong spot, KJ is a hand that either loses a lot or wins a little.
Regards,
Rick
"game: 10-20 HE not to passive, but not wild either "
"Someone limps in from early position, you are in middle position: call or raise"
Call.
"Suppose you call, and the button calls, small blind folds, and big blind checks. "
"Flop comes A K 7 rainbow. "
"big blind checks, early limper bets. What to do? "
Fold!
"Now what if you had raised pre-flop and saw the flop with just the big blind and the early position limper, and they check to you? "
Bet!
"What if the button is still in? "
Bet!
IMO Vince
It really depends on who the early limper is. If it's a tight player, fold. If it's someone who would call with all kinds of stuff like 87s, TJ, etc, call.
On the flop you have a tougher decision. Generally, it's raise or fold time, and which one depends on your understanding of the player who bet.
This is all in my humble opinion. I have to start adding that disclaimer so that Al Raiseya doesn't think I'm trying to be the Oracle of poker or something.
Dan
Dan,
You said: "It really depends on who the early limper is. If it's a tight player, fold. If it's someone who would call with all kinds of stuff like 87s, TJ, etc, call."
I agree even though I advised above to just about always fold based on my impression of the game Steve was describing and my own experience.
Southern Califonia has a reputation for loose games but there is one exception and that is 10/20 holdem. This is the bottom end of "top section" which collects time ($5 per half hour at Hollywood Park and $6 per half hour at the Commerce) rather than a per pot fee ($3 or $4). Because the 6/12 and 9/18 (9/18 is mostly played at the Commerce Club) games play much looser (in part because the per pot fee which is collected up front is shunned by tight players) than most holdem games, many players who are trying to play well have trouble stepping up to the much larger 15/30 and 20/40 games which are now far more popular than the 10/20. This absense of a stepping stone has hurt top section by making the entry point too tough.
My point is that if you play well in the super loose 6/12 and 9/18 games, you can overcome the collection but will not be able to practice skills that enable you to do well in 10/20 to 20/40. If you chose a tighter 6/12 or 9/18 game, the "up front" per pot collection will eat you up. Ten years ago, when the bottom end collection was taken only after a qualifier, the difference in style was not that great.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Don't worry about the disclaimer. Other than S&M&Z, Tom Haley and a few others, I always look for your and "skp's" posts first.
P.P.S. Sorry I once again decided to touch on the method of rake used in Los Angeles, but a better collection is something I hope to fight for if I advance in the industry. Meanwhile, you need to avoid 10/20 if you ever venture down here and clean up at 15/30 and 20/40.
In the tougher games I'd pitch KJo as well when someone limps in early position, even if the limper is not necessarily that strong, because people behind me will limp in with even better hands. (Especially worrisome is AJ and KQ - players around here will often limp in with those hands when there are already several callers).
Last night's 15-30 game was particularly tough. I found myself folding KQ in early position, and most pots were 3 handed or heads-up, and raised. These are the types of games where KJ will cost you a lot of chips. Unfortunately, I don't get to select my games - there's usually only one big game in the city on any given day.
BTW, thanks for the support.
Dan
I agree that you need to either raise or fold. If you raise then you hope to knock out the button, and maybe the BB, then get a free card. If you get reraised, then fold. If you get called, and bet into on the turn, then fold if the turn does not help you.
With all that can go wrong, is it worth a raise? The pot is not that big yet. If either the BB or the early position player is good, and can put you on a pair of Kings, then they will probably bluff you out if its heads up. If neither of them is aggressive, and the button does not have an Ace, then raising seems to be the best play.
Agree? any other cases where raising is better than folding?
btw, the game I play in has a $5 rake, and varies between super tight and maniacal.
Adios !! I find myself posting here sometimes just to try to save other readers from buying into what some of the more prolific posters are saying. Especially two new posters from Canada who seem to know it all. And of course they do since they have extensive 3-6, and 5-10 holdem experience. 99% of the stuff here is garbage, because so much depends on knowing players patterns. I will also admit to being one of the garbage dumpers at this sight.
But the garbage I'm reading lately just makes me want to puke.So, I give up. seeya
Whooops! Sorry, Al, but this is the theory and strategy forum. The whining forum isn't up and running yet.
I don't usually post, I normally just read them and try to pick up a thing or two here and there. But GD, I haven't picked up anything but shere cockiness from your posts. I have read several of Al's and although I don't always agree, it seems like he's trying to help other players. Anyone can become a wise ass on these forums, so why don't you think about offering something concrete, before you start popping off. if I'm reading Al's post right, he isn't going to be posting here anymore, and now I get to read your brilliant postings.?.?.? I think I might just puke as well.
Tim,
I can't understand how you can defend Al in this case. The reason why he doesn't seem to want to post here anymore is because he sometimes disagrees with Dan Hanson and skp (correct me if I'm wrong). Al is the rude agressor here. Those two canadians have written some of the more interesting posts lately and I hope they will continue to contribute to this forum. It's obvious that they spend a lot of time thinking about poker and they are kind enough to share those thoughts with us here on this forum.
If he doesn't agree with a post, why doesn't he explain why instead of "voting with his feet" and just quit posting?
Al writes: "99% of the stuff here is garbage, because so much depends on knowing players patterns."
He seems to think that poker strategy is impossible to ever discuss in print. I and most of you who have learned to play winning poker partly (or mainly) from reading books by Sklansky, Malmuth, Ciaffone, Caro etc etc know that this statement just is not true.
By the way, I think I have improved my game thanks to this forum and I will continue to read it and sometimes write a post.
Sincerely,
Emil
Thanks for the support, Emil.
One complaint: Why aren't you posting more often?
I think you'll find that paticipating will help your game even more. I know that my game and the way I approach it has improved since I began participating in this Forum and began taking in ideas from a lot of great poker minds out there.
I look forward to hearing more from you in the future.
This forum is basically as good or as bad as the posts that appear on it. I and the other Two Plus Two authors do our best to participate and give reliable, accurate answers. In general, I believe that the quality of the forum has been high. There have only been a small number of exceptions. Let's all try to keep it this way, and we all benefit.
Remember that all opinions and views are welcome. As a reminder here is our Acceptable Use Policy.
Acceptable Use Policy
Two Plus Two Publishing is pleased with the growth and overall quality of the Forum. On any given day, numerous sophisticated and engaging discussions are evolving on a wide variety of gambling-related topics. However, perhaps because of this growth, we believe it is time to announce an acceptable use policy.
Our main objectives are to:
1. Keep the Forum vibrant by not wasting anyone's time. 2. Encourage the exchange of viewpoints by not tolerating foul language or flagrant discourtesy.
In this vein, we ask all contributors to make their posts:
1.Gambling-related, 2.Strategic in nature, 3.Possess a minimum of courtesy.
We reserve the right to delete any posts that we feel violate these guidelines.
Mason Malmuth
Here! Here!
Vince
Mason, I would appreciate some criticism of the material I've written. It would appear that some think it is totally off the mark.
Contrary to what Al says, I don't think I'm a know-it-all in poker, or I would be bothering with this forum. Every message I post is written in the spirit of engaging in debate that will help improve my and everyone else's game. I'm perfectly willing to concede when I'm wrong, and I'd appreciate any feedback you might offer.
Dan
I agree. This forum is best when MM, DS, and RZ post more often.
Especially when their posts extend beyond four or five words.
Point noted, Mason.
My apologies to Al Raiseya and all Forum users for the post I put on last night. Sorry to say that I just blew a gasket. Now that I have cooled off, I would ask that you remove it as it obviously adds nothing of value to this Forum.
Another marvelous post with loads of constructive criticism.
Actually I've never played 3-6 or 5-10. I play 10-20, 15-30, or 20-40 but that's neither here nor there. Since you seem to think that I don't know what I am talking about, why don't you come on up and give our games here a try. Good luck trying to get my chips. Judging by your posts, you have got no balls and I figure that you are a couple of irons short of a golf bag upstairs as well.
"Adios" you say...well that translates to "good riddance" to me.
See ya...wouldn't wanna be ya.
I wonder why we all just can't get along....to much testosterone I suspect!!
In response to why I took Al's side, I never saw negative posts by Al until these with Dan and SKP. But I have only seen a few very cocky posts from GD, and that is what I was reacting to. I can't speak for Al as to what the problem is, but from reading his posts it looks as though he feels that Dan and skp are trying to teach, when maybe they should be trying to learn.
Tim-
One quick word on this before we press on. I'm not sure how long you've been participating in this forum, but if you've just recently joined us then you should know that this, the most recent installment in the Al-Dad/Skp feud, is the second or third act in a cruel drama that's been unfolding since December. True, my most recent post was in poor taste-- for that I apologize to you, and Al, and anyone else who may have been offended. But after three months of this constant bickering, I think it's time for everyone to return to thoughtful and intelligent criticsm-- something which has been sorely lacking in Al's posts as of late.
Guy
Did you not notice that after my messages describing strategies I use I say, "Comments and criticism welcome"?
How do you use a public forum for learning? The way you do it is to post ideas and let other people offer counterpoints and criticism. Just posting the ideas forces you to clarify your thinking, and then other people's viewpoints bring mistaken concepts into sharp focus.
I'll be the first guy to admit that I have a lot to learn about the game. And I think everyone else here, including Sklansky and Malmuth, would say the same thing.
Public forums are all about dialogue. If you just want to sit back and read what Sklansky and Malmuth and Zee have to say, buy their books.
Dan
This is exactly what we wanted when we started this forum, a place where all points of view concerning strategy could be discussed and critiqued. In general, this forum has achieved that. It fact I think that it is fair to say that it has been very successful in this area. However, there have been a few problems, but they seem to resolve themselves and we all benefit.
This might be a repeat post from me. I don't know what happened to the first one.
Tim,
I am just a keen student of the game. Nothing more and nothing less. I learn from others on this Forum and I believe that others do learn from me as well. That's what the Forum is all about.
As a part-time player who is fairly new to the game, I obviously am in no position to teach. If Al gets that impression from my postings, perhaps it's because of my writing style. Personally, I find it awkward to say "IMO, blah blah blah". Rather, I tend to just say "blah blah blah". Perhaps that then comes across as professor-like. I don't know. Maybe there are other resaons. Only Al would know.
Anyway, I hope the above clarifies my position on this.
It seems to me that some of us at times having a bad day 'on the green felt' and we attempt to take it out on the innocent. It is easier to bitch and moan on the net after a losing session versus going home to beat the wife. Please don't take out on us your dissappointement in life.
A graduate math. major at top Univ. put forth the following date based on 1mm Holdem hands being dealt in a ten handed game.
The object of the sim. was to determine if one hand was seeded with T8 of hearts how many other Heart 2 flush hands would the other 9 opponents hold during the hand.
The deck therefore had 11 hearts available to the other nine hands and the five board cards.
The distribution of cards in the nine opponents hands ranged from: zero to nine. [ie: 0&9=.6%; 1=1.2%; 2=11.8%; 3=22.3%; 4=27.3%; 5=23.6%; 6=9.3%; 7=3.1; 8=.6%;]
This data indicated that when a player holds a 2flush (T8h) three to five hearts will be unavailable for the flop 73.2% of the time, and if the player flopped a four flush hand he would 73.2% of the time have 4 to 6 outs.
Also the data indicates that 33.5% of the opponents in this 73.6% range would also have 2flushes [20.5%>ten and 13.0%
Q&A,
There is no need to supply any data. If you flop a four flush, you can see 5 cards, 4 of which are hearts. You have 9 outs from 47 unseen cards. It is completely irrelevant whether those unseen cards are in an opponent's hand or in the deck. I'm not sure what the proponent of this data was trying to demonstrate - maybe it was just an exercise in probability calculations. This mistake pops up every now and then, in fact no less than TJ Cloutier makes it in his Championship Hold-Em book. Not that I think I'd have a snowball's chance in hell against TJ on the table :-).
Andy.
Andy;
Thank you for taking the time to comment.
You gave the "unseen card math proof" which had always been my guide at the table.
The grad. stu. in Q? did receive an "A" from a top Fuzzey Logic Prof. At Berkeley. "T.J." also went to U.C. Berkeley. However these two facts do not prove/disprove that Fuzzey Logic simulations are not useful in considering how to play flushes.
Therefore; My Q? still remains: Is their some skewed distribution lerking under the name "unseed cards"?
I for one am not sure, especially looking the current state of "T.J's" table-craft.
Q&A?
I wonder about the 47 unseen cards. Is that correct or is it that you have n outs in 29 available cards (taking out 18 for the other 9 players). n would be the average # of hearts in those 29 cards. Why isn't that right? Or do the actual odds work out to be the same with either method?
Kate;
Thoughtful question!!
I'll have to check this out and get back.
Andy is precisely correct. Also, what Kate has suggested about n outs in 29 cards where n would be the average # of hearts in those 29 cards is also correct. Finally, yes, the actual odds work out to be the same with either method.
Dennis;
Are you stating that only bivalence exists in playing flushes and that a drawing hand is not multivalent brfore and on the flop?
As far as I am aware, I am not saying what you have suggested; however, since I am not familiar with the terms bivalence or multivalence, I'm sure you can decide for yourself.
A good read would be "Fuzzy Thinking, The New Science of Fuzzy Logic" Hyperion Press, NYC by Bart Kosko. This was the main Cite in the Stu's work.
I really did not understand everything presented by Mason in his early work without reading a few good ref. text's, Q? and inputs. This is the stage I am in now. I may later call it unworkable; As I often heard about Mason's early work.
I welcome all comments associated ref's/proofs that I may study.
I was playing my last hand of the night at Planet Poker last night in a 5-10HE game. I had to go to a ball game so I was playing until the blinds came around and was under the gun. I was dealt JT off and called. I normally wouldn't call with this hand in such a bad position but it was my last hand of the night. The pot was subsequently raised, reraised, and capped. I opted to fold against 4 players rather than make the additional $15 donation. Sure enough the flop came 4-8-9 rainbow and a queen fell on the river. Everyone keep raising like crazy and the final pot was $320. My question is if you decide to make what you know is a bad call before the flop should you be committed to seeing the flop if there are raisers. The winner had a queen with an ace kicker.
I've made questionable (after the fact) RAISES (such as AJ UTG) and folded when it was two more bets (capped) to me, because I didn't like my hand anymore seeing WHO did the reraising.
There are some rare times when you should fold for just one raise after you call; you are getting better pot odds than the 1st call. Often fold for two-raises since you are getting about the same odds as the first call, but you are up against two probably better hands and one pair is unlikely to win. Routinely fold for 3 bets.
The main quality "excuse" for calling weakly is because you are in a tight game and can get off this weak hand easily.
Situation: under the gun limper who plays only Grps 1-4 upfront limps in (sometimes limps with big pairs and AKs) 3-4 more players also limp in you are a) one to left of button b) on the button
Question: you are holding TJs or QJs do you call, raise or fold?
If these hands were offsuit I would fold immediately (even KJ) to avoid risk of domination by limper and fact they don't play well multiway. But how does fact they are suited affect the situation?
Hey--
I would most likely call to try to flop something decent. If I had any reason to think that the blind or button would raise, I would get out. This is an easy enough hand to get away from if you get a small piece or nothing at all. If the players were tight post flop, I might fold because your implied odds aren't that high. You have good position, good drawing hand odds, and good hand for high straights and two pairs. The suited helps, but I would be careful if things got crazy with a flush on board.
Ralebird
With all the limping, I would get in to see the flop. Dump the hand if the flop shows no hope.
If I was one off the button I would raise to try and "buy" the button. If I was on the button already I would just call
Jim Mogal
Maybe Majors post on 2-10-99 under ur Post on that date [Re: Questions ...S&M gambling for a living - 2-10-99 @ 11:11am] makes a lot of sence.
In the Feb 19 issue of Card Player, Barbara Enright was rated #1 in Limit Hold'em Tourneys, with 9 final tables. Obviously, she plays in lots of tourneys...but I am still surprised that she did so well in 98. I've played at the same table as her about 5 times, and each time, it seemed clear to me that her skills were nothing special, and maybe below average. I am not an expert player, but I think I usually have a decent read on who is a good player versus who's not, at a minimum.
What do you think? I guess it is possible for me to misjudge Enright's abilities when I've only been at the same table 5 separate times...probably less than a combined 10 hours.
I've played with Barbara quite a few times, both in tourneys and ring games (Oceanside Card Club was her, and my, home club for a while).
Basically, she is a gambler, and as such, tends to be erratic in her play. She definitely has great skill, and really seems to know when she can pressure someone off of a hand. OTOH, she sometimes is quite off in this skill, and appears to be some hopeless, maniac-type bluffer. Because she is so aggressive, and because there are still very many timid players in tournaments, she is able to push her way to the top relatively often. Just don't be surprised when she busts out quickly just as often.
Her stack is always ready, and you can watch her build up a mountain, go the bathroom, and by the time you get back she's busted. She also can go the other way just as fast. I think that she manages to steal even more pots than she should because players know that she is liable to continue pushing until the river. As such, they know that if they fight back at her, all, or at least a lot, of their chips are at risk. With someone more selectively aggressive, you might call from the big blind knowing that they will back off quickly if they don't hit the board.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Thanks for your response. From what I read, it seems you are saying that she plays a very good aggressive tourney play, one that may not be successful in ring games. Is that right?
...and if that is correct (that her aggressive play is good for tourneys), does that necessarily mean it may be good to imitate her (especially for someone who does not have a good tourney record - like me! ).
If it's not your natural style, it's very difficult to imitate her. You must be utterly without concern about busting out, your only goal is to win those chips in the pot right now! Also, you must be able to read the opponent well to know when (and how) you can pressure them to fold before the showdown. Barbara's main weakness (IMO) is that she is always aggressive, and seldom backs down. If she does back down, then she folds, and you can be pretty sure that she had no made hand, no draw, and was certain that she couldn't shake you off of your hand.
Also, as you stated in your first followup post, she is not so great in the ring games. I have played 10-20 with her a few times, and she wasn't in a serious mood ever. On all occasions, she appeared to be out for a fun night, not necessarily a profitable one. She was an all-out maniac on each occasion. While you might back her in a tournament, don't back her in a ring game (except maybe NL or PL HE).
There are many styles other than Barbara's that work well in tournaments. John Juanda is very patient, and folds alot while at a full table. When he does come in, he's aggressive, and certainly not weak-tight. Because of his reputation for tightness, he can probably bluff and blind steal more successfully than some other tournament pros. I prefer his style, and try to play this style generally. It can keep you alive through a run of bad cards, and then you'll still be there to capitalize if the cards turn in your favor.
Whatever you do in a tournament, don't play weak-tight.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Her style sounds very familiar to another great tournament player Stu Ungar. Apparently if you want to win tournaments you must play very aggressively and constantly force your opponents to guess if you have a hand or not. As Johnny Moss says guessers are losers in poker. I wonder if by playing selectively aggressive if you come to the final table with enough chips to win. It seems to me the super aggressive players when they get to the final table have bigger stacks and the shorter stacks are constantly in jeopardy. Any comments.Ice
Barbara has a combination of things going for her in tournaments: She is a great reader of other players. She has absolutely no fear. You have to pay her off because she has so many possible hands that would lose to yours that she'd play the exact same way. Like Stu Ungar was, she isn't afraid to bluff the flop, turn, and river, giving herself multiple chances to bet you off a hand. You never see her trying to survive to make it to the money, she is always balls to the wall, trying to take advantage of the more timid opponents who are only trying to survive. She loses just as spectacularly as she wins, high risk being an inescapable component of her playing style. Fear is her friend when she is at your table and playing with lots of chips.
"Fear is her friend.... "
All wanna be poker players (myself included) should make note of this inciteful statement! Fear is a tool or weapon that can be used for your benefit or just as easily used against you should you allow it!
Vince
Ming the Master says "'n'right,Terry!"
Here's what I think; hope it doesn't sound too self-absorbed.
The big question:
How many tournaments did she enter?
In 1998, I participated in 14 Limit Holdem tournaments with buyins of $100 or more, cashing in 8 of them. 1997 was similar, tho I don't have my records on this computer. Tho this probably isn't statistically significant, I know whom I think the better player is, but nobody will ever hear of him.
The poker publicity engine needs stars to feed itself. This tilts the scales to those who play much more frequently than others. Number of times your name gets in Card Player is not a function of your bottom line or knowledge.
Oh, and the other thing nobody will ever hear of is JG wondering about the Mirage asking who's going to put me in tomorrow's tournament...
JG
JG wrote: "Oh, and the other thing nobody will ever hear of is JG wondering about the Mirage asking who's going to put me in tomorrow's tournament..."
Then just what were you wandering around mumbling about?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I merely want to confirm my determination that I made the smart play in last night's limit HE tournament at Foxwoods.
Final table. 6 players. In the money, with a standard payout structure. 200 chips, I have 25 chips and am one from the button. Small blind is 3 chips, he has about 18 left. Big blind is all-in for 1 chip. UTG calls for 6 chips (17 chips remaining), next player folds, I fold 66. Button is chip leader with about 80 chips, and is aggressive, so I expected him to fold or raise, not very likely to just call.
Of course 66 would have won, and would have busted out 3 players simultaneously, but that's results-based thinking.
Would you have folded 66 in this spot, or called, or raised?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I would have folded and watched the rest of the hand with interest. Why would you want to commit 25% of your remaining chips to a hand which needs to flop a set to continue? IMO you don't need to think about gambling yet. If big stack has 75 chips, then you are average stack for what is left. With BB all in and UTG coming in for 6 chips, your call would certainly bring in SB too. I wouldn't like any flop with three other players unless it was 3,4,5 or had a 6 in it. Good fold, next hand please. How did you finish up?
Big John
(Born in New London, raised in Groton and Poquonnock Bridge)
Since you asked... ;-)
SB called for 3 more chips. Flop was K66 with 1 club. SB bet, UTG raised, SB called. Turn was a club, and UTG bet SB all-in. River was another club, and UTG busted out SB with Kc3c beating KTo (BB had Ax nothing).
Since UTG had the most chips and won, we lost 2 players. If I had played, I would have busted out all 3 players, and built up a stack about the same as the current chip leader.
I finished 4th. I had been chip leader previously, but the current chip leader hit a runner-runner flush while holding pocket fours to crack my AQ on an A-high garbage flop. This occurred when we were 8-handed, and if I had won I would have been holding about 55% of all the chips.
I finally busted out when raising from the button with K5 (blind steal, plus high card power if I get called). I then bet all-in on a flop of KT5, got called by Q7, who then caught AJ to make a straight and knock me out.
Woulda, shoulda, coulda. Interestingly, I only got "lucky" twice in the tournament. Both times I had a big chip lead, and got my big blind raised by someone whose raise put them all-in for only a couple of more chips. Both times their raise was so small that I simply called without even looking at my cards, and both times I beat a better hand. I guess you could say that I was lucky in that I didn't suffer any bad beats prior to the final table, and that I got dealt more than an average share of premium hands. However, except for the hands noted above, nothing remarkable happened the entire tournament. I merely played better cards and they either heldup, or it was clear on the flop that I needed to fold.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I think it was ok. It probably could have gone either way, I probably would have played it. I don't understand what you mean when you say it would have won and "busted out 3 players simultaneously." Did they not bust out anyway?
...Fold...
I don't understand when you said busting 3 players out. I sounds like all but BB had chips.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Fold!
Vince!
I guess fold is the correct play. In event #1 at the Rio I busted out on pocket sixes. I was short stacked, but still had enough for about 3 rounds of blinds. I picked up 66 UTG and the table was playing very tight-aggressive so I raised before the flop and was reraised. The flop was all below the sixes so we got all the money in there and the other player had QQ, so I placed 54th. I guess a pass would have put me a lot closer to the money.
Randy
You don't give enough details for me to suggest whether or not you should have played this hand. However, 54th is still a long way from the money (I am guessing that they paid 27, maybe only 18). As such, surviving a little longer is not an issue, you are going to have to win something before you get to the money, whether it's a hand like this played by choice, or waiting until the blinds force you in. If you thought that there was a good chance to pick up the blinds by raising UTG, then it was probably a smart play. Going multiple bets on the flop may not have been.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Yea, 54th is a long way from the money. They paid 27 places. It just was very frustrating to play that long (661 entries). I have thought about those sixes quite a bit and maybe I should have dumped them on the flop.
Randy
I played Let It Ride last night for the first time while waiting for a Holdem to open up, for about 40 Min, What is the genral consensus on this game? What is the house edge?
I did well in 40 min, won $40, but was up as much as $100 in a short time. But was really intrested in learning more about this game.
Comments Welcome, Thanks
Walleye
I don't remember what the house edge is, although I think it's somewhere close to 4% (but don't hold me to this). Either way, you're better off hanging out at the crap tables.
Yup, house edge is huge. 4.5% and that's if you play according to "perfect strategy", whatever that is.
Lance
Most casino's hold 30 - 35% of the LIR drop. It is only a good game to play if you deal it in a house game.
This is What I dug Up?
How to Play to Win
The biggest mistake most players make is letting all bets ride on a pair of 9s or lower. The game only pays for 10s or better, so holding a 'small' pair isn't justified by the possibility of getting trips or something more. You should let bet #1 ride only on the following hands (which will be the 3 cards dealt to you):
1. A Pair of 10s or Better 2. Three-of-a-Kind 3. A Three-Card Royal 4. A Three-card Straight Flush or Inside Straight Flush
Let bet #2 ride only on the following hands (which will be the three cards dealt to you, along with the first community card):
1. A Pair of 10s or Better 2. Two-Pair 3. Three-of -a-Kind 4. A 4-card Straight (with both 'ends' open) 5. A 4-card Flush 6. A 4-card Straight Flush (any type) 7. Four High Cards 8. Four-of-a-Kind 9. A 4-card Royal
You can see that it's possible to have a hand where you've pulled bet #1, but would let bet #2 ride, like 3 high cards which are dealt to you. You should pull back bet #1, but if the first community card is also a high card, you'd have either an inside straight draw, or the possibility of pairing one of the cards, so you'd let #2 ride.
Played this way, the house still has a 2.8% edge over you and that's pretty stiff. There is an 'optimized' strategy available for this game which will improve your edge a bit, so if you're a big LIR player, it's probably worth the investment. The strategy's in a book called "Mastering the Game of Let It Ride" by Stanley Ko which is available from Conjelco at www.conjelco.com and other specialty book stores.
I played Let it Ride in the Bahamas out of boredom (it was raining and I was in the doghouse with my girlfriend). I played for almost 90 minutes and didn't win a single hand. (I wonder what the odds are assuming that I was dealt at least 30 hands per hour or 45 hands in total.) I think this was God's way of telling me to stick to real Poker.
I can empathize. The only time I ever played was about two years ago at the Trop in Vegas. I was stone drunk, slumped over the table, and drooling tobacco juice into a chip bucket. I lost close to four hundred bucks in three hours. Not one of my better moves.
No Message
Sounds like: "Let It Go"
..would be more approriate...
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Vince
I agree with all the responses but I have to admit to having some affection toward the game. The first time I played I had four-of-a-kind and won $1500 !!! But I am quitting while I'm ahead !
Following is an excerpt from the rec.gambling.other-games FAQ entry on Let It Ride, which I wrote:
The optimal strategy for this game is as follows. On the first three cards, take back a bet unless one holds:
--a pair of 10s or better, or three of a kind; or
--three cards to a straight flush, provided:
----contiguous and 543 or higher, or
----one "hole" and at least one card is 10 or higher, or
----two "holes" and at least two cards are 10 or higher.
On the fourth card, take back a bet unless one has:
--a pair of 10s or better, two pair, or three or four of a kind; or
--a four-flush; or
--an open-ended straight draw including a 10 or higher.
The following bets are optional, i.e., expected return = 1.000...
----an open-ended straight not including a 10 or higher; or
----all cards 10 or higher (an inside A-to-10 straight draw).
Playing this strategy provides an expected return of 0.971352 per unit bet. The average bet per hand is 1.223707 units (where one to three units are bet per hand and no optional bets are made), and the average unit cost per hand is 0.035057.
No Comment!
In every other Card Player article, Roy Cooke writes:
"The recurring sum of the volume you bet, multiplied by the edge that you bet it at, added into a continuously recurring field will equal your overall expectation."
Whew...
Does anybody else cringe when they read this every month?
I'm not familiar with the technical discipline that uses this verbage. Seems like a string of incorrect usage. Units don't match. Either use correct technical terminology or even better plain English.
The standard "It's all one big game" makes more sense than "...continously recurring field..."
Just a little pet peeve....
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
I dont think he is quite saying its all one big game. I think his point is that there is no such thing as luck in the long run, and, because of that, your overall success will be determined by how good/bad your bets were. Anyone can win with stupid bets in the short term, or lose with good bets in the short term, but if played long enough, the cream will rise to the top.
A Poker Guy!
I agree that Roy's favourite saying could be better worded.
But I'll tell you one thing, his article is the first one I read every time I pick up an issue. IMO, Ciaffone's column is a close second.
IMO Ciaffone's column is the best. Taking the two magizines Card Player and Poker, it is often the only article with any strategy content.
David
John Maynard Keynes - "In the long run were dead."
I don't think we could live long enough to see luck even out. In poker, I think we might approach it if we play good, but my observations of the world lead me to believe that there are people who are lucky, and there are people who are not.
All Cooke is saying here is that overall expectations are the sum of the expected gains and losses of actions that we take at the poker table. In truth, most of the posters here confuse expected value with overall expectation, expected value doesn't increase or decrease, it is. Overall expectations increase or decrease with the choices you make at the table. As far as I can tell, the only time you can accurately compute an expected value is the last bet on the river, there are too many factors involved as a hand is played on especially if there are many players.
"All Cooke is saying here is that overall expectations are the sum of the expected gains and losses of actions that we take at the poker table. "
I don't think anyone is disagreeing with what Roy Cooke is *TRYING* to say...
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
I,too, ejoy reading Roy's articles as he often seems to convey experienced (i.e., himself )player's reasoning in a real life pocker game. Many readers find that type of narrative educational.
However, considering that the above quoted phrase, ostensibly Roy's favored, the fact that many individuals cannot agree as to its true meaning suggests that Roy is missing his readers in this instance. No writer in his/hers right brain wants to target only himself/herself. Enough said!
Greetings:
I was playing in a 5-10 HE last week and a guy who was sitting next to me had his reds stacked in a fashion as if he was trying to build the world's next skyscraper. What's your take on him, and any other little chip nuances one could key on in determining the "man behind the chips". Thanks.
GuangJoe
Forget the Chip read and watch his play to get a read on him!
Vince
He's probably very selective with his starting hands, not easily put on tilt, and has a definate idea as to how the game should be played (right or wrong). He probably doesn't make continuous adjustments based on how other players are acting or reacting. He's looking for some respect which he feels he's entitled to, but has not been getting. Does this player also line up the edge markings? If so, read him for being meticulous, patient, and straightforward. GuangJoe, only you will know if this assessment is accurate, so please post a reply - I need the feedback!
Inadequate manhood.
Psycologically I'm serious: the stack makes him feel good about himself. Perhaps Caro's "Poker for Woman" has some insights on taking advantage of this.
This player should be watching the action and not his chips; but isn't. I agree with Mr. Wells: expect this player to be unimaginatively disciplined; and is a good candidate for "weak-tight".
- Louie
I do this with my chips, too. I think Vince's advice is best. For what it's worth, I'm tight aggressive S/M type player. I don't tilt too easily, but I am prone to play inaccurately at times. I think that getting an initial read by "chip reading" can really only be helpful the first time you play with a particular player. From then on, you should be paying attention to how you see them play.
(P.S. - Louie is right; it does make me feel confident to have a tower in front of me. I find I play better when I am more confident.)
"I don't tilt too easily, but I am prone to play inaccurately at times"
Dennis,
I find this an interesting statement. I also don't tilt too easily but I do tilt (Well maybe too easily). I wonder why you say you are prone to play inaccurately. I'm reading into this that you usually understand the correct play but for some reason you don't follow through with it! Not making a correct play when one should is usually (in my experience) the result of being on tilt or fear of the consequences. I have recently been working on eliminating both of these negative behavior influences from my game. I feel that I have come close to accomplishing my goal. The problem that I see is that one who has exhibited negative behavior in the past may never be sure that he has completely eliminated it from happening again. There I go, off the beaten path once again. I would really like to hear from you about why you feel you are prone to play inaccurately, given that you don't attribute it to being on tilt. I believe this to be an important topic for discussion on the forum. Far more important than posts that go something like "I think I'm going to puke" (ugh)!
Opinion by Vince
Fear: A poker players friend/foe!
Vince... Three examples of errors that come readily to mind...
1. I'm in an "extra juicy" game but I have to leave soon...so...I play too many holdings, especially up front.
2. I'm trying to get heads up with the fish...so...I raise with hands that don't justify the investment.
3. I play too stubbornly...eg I call down the rock who capped the flop because I'm *sure* I'm at worst second best yet I'm also 95% sure he's better.
If these are the kinds of incorrect plays you were thinking about, I'm sure I can add to the list.
To me, "Tilt" means knowingly playing badly, but not being able to stop. That's different than making a mistake and recognizing it afterwards.
If so, its "tilt" if I try to bluff the sheriff because he bluffed me twice and I don't like him. Its a "bad" play to bluff the player not remembering that he's the sheriff.
- Louie
"I'm reading into this that you usually understand the correct play but for some reason you don't follow through with it!"
When I was referring to my inaccurate play, I was talking about those times outside of "usually", when I do not understand the correct play at the time, but then later realize my mistake.
"I was talking about those times outside of "usually", when I do not understand the correct play at the time, but then later realize my mistake."
Well Dennis, this statement emphasizes my belief that you're not the kind of guy I want to play against. BTW I don't think it's a mistake (nor inaccurate nor incorrrect) to make a play that you're not sure is correct at the time then later on revisit the play and find that there was a better way to play in that situation. I call that "Intelligence". This is the prime reason I would "leave you alone" at the table.
Thanks for answering my response!
Vince
There is an essay in gambling theory and other topics that covers this very topic. I think it is called building pyramids.
Interesting night tonight. Player to my right was a middle aged guy (I'd never seen him before) and for some reason couldn't stop raising pre-flop. It was like nothing I'd ever seen before. 46o, 39o, J5s, you name it. He must have raised at least seventy percent of the pots he was in. I'd been sitting next to him for about two hours, playing solid (though not spectacular) cards, when something occured to me (usually a bad sign)-- namely, if this guy insists upon raising every two bit hand that comes his way, then why don't I start re-raising with hands that are just a tad better? I picked my spots, of course (usually mid-late position w/ only one or two early callers) but I started pounding this guy with just about any ace, including such lu-lu's as A5o, and most kings with an eight or better kicker. The results were fantastic- I'd reraise, he'd call, and I'd bet on the flop. If he totally missed, he'd fold. If he got a little, he'd call, and if it got him fairly good, he'd raise. It was positively the most predictable flop strategy I've ever run across.
What a deal. About ninety percent of the time we were heads up, which made the whole thing perfect-- I couldn't have scripted it better. I didn't get much in the way of cards (there's only so many ways to get 'hit' with an unsuited ace), but it didn't matter; by the end of the night I'd taken this guy for almost seventy bucks, simply on these goofy little plays alone.
Has anyone else ever run across a situation like this? I'm not ordinarily in habit of jamming the pot with these kinds of hands, but at the time it seemed like the right thing to do, and I'm not so sure I wouldn't do it again. However, my enthusaism is tempered by the fact that these were simply short term results, so it could be I just got lucky. I'd like to hear from anyone who's ever found themselves in a similar situation.
Oh-- another thing about tonight that made the evening positively surreal. At around nine o'clock this woman sat down with about two hundred in chips, and over the course of the next two hours NEVER folded a hand. Call three raises pre-flop with a 94? No problem. Overcall on the river with an eight high? Again, no sweat. She played every hand, and played each of them all the way too the end. She never wavered. It made for some damn interesting river scenerios (on more than one instance I found myself betting an ace high for value), and I was sorry to see her leave.
Ah, but I digress. Anyway, I was 'hitting for the lines' tonight, and thankfully I got away with it. Curious to hear what you think.
Guy
If only we could find a game like this every night, we wouldn't have to work for a living.
"Has anyone else ever run across a situation like this?"
Believe it or not this happens more often than people think. Your reraise tactic is an obvious one and will work usually, for a short while maybe one or two times. What normally happens, in my experience, is that the initial raiser either stops raising or leaves the game. In the first instance this usually slows the action in the game and in the second instance his leaving is a disaster. Their is such a thing as killing the "Golden Goose" in poker. I have seen good games go sour because some "good" poker player played "cute" against an "action player". Just a word of caution. Overdoing anything in a poker game is usually a mistake!
Opinion By Vince
I wondered that same thing, whether or not the guy would catch on. Thankfully he didn't. However, I agree that at a point this sort of 'tricky play' begins to yield a diminishing return.
I guess what interests me most about this (and about poker in general) is the question of how far one can bend the parameters of good play in order to take advantage of particular players/situations. There is, of cours, the poker 'canon (as written by S&M, amongst others), but there're also situations in which the rules need (I think) to be bent radically, in order to accomondate a particularly lousy player, or one with laughably predictable betting patterns. Finding these 'exceptions' in the course of a game is what keeps me interested in poker. If the game (particularly no' fold 'em) was simply about sitting down, waiting for the coconuts, and betting the hell out of 'em, I'd probably just stick to sports betting.
Sklansky and Malmuth have written about this very thing. Sometimes errors by your opponents cause you to play incorrectly, according to strict poker theory. For example, game theoretic optimal bluffing is a disaster against an opponent who ALWAYS calls. Because he's deviating from proper play first, it becomes correct to deviate from proper play yourself in order to take advantage of his mistake. This is the difference between playing 'optimally' and playing 'maximally'.
If you knew an opponent only raised in early position with AA, and NEVER raised with anything else, would you still call a raise from him with any group 1 or 2 hand, as Sklansky and Malmuth recommend? Nope. Unless there were a lot of other callers, you would fold everything including KK against this player (assuming he played his aces well). Poker theory gives you a good general working platform. From there, deviations may be suggested as the situation dictates.
BTW, I agree with Vince about killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. Don't punish the transgressors too severely, or they'll start playing better or go elsewhere. I know good players whose strategy whenever someone straddles is to raise the straddler and try and get heads up with him. While this may be a good strategy for that hand, it has the effect of correcting the behaviour. Soon people stop straddling, and the game suffers. So I never do it.
Dan
You made a routine adjustment that paid off well for this ideal situation.
But don't lose sight of the fact that it was the OTHER players that let you control them that allowed this to happen. If I were in the game, I would be coming over the top of YOU with any old good hand, and a 55 or 87s once in a while to boot.
There are other such strategies that work against players who are quick to give up a What was the point of looking at your cards?
BTW: There are games where I raise with 75% of the hands I play; which are few. But I advise not coming over me with A5o.
Seen anything like this?
Well, my first venture into 5/10 lowball (many " ... err ..."'s ago) I found myself to the left of a player who would show me his cards, and 75% of the hands would get the last raise in B4 the draw and RAP PAT. He wouldn't even draw one card smooth! The other players didn't like me reraising, so I got to play most every hand with impunity; KNOWING I'd win it. Nothing like 4 betting it B4 the draw (letting him get the last bet in guaranteed he'd wrap pat) and 4-betting it after, knowing the player will fold eventually.
The humorous climax came 2 hours into the game, where my buddy raised and the lady called. He wrapped pat, she wrapped pat, he bet and she called; and SURPRISE she won with a rough 9. He said "How can you wrap pat with that after I wrap pat in front of you?"
- Louie
I have played in situations such as the one you are describing. The real kick in the ass is when a player like that hits every single flop. I have had that unfortunate situation happen more than once.
Its doesn't matter if its AKs to 27o he's always got two pair, a straight, a flush, trips.
That is very frustrating to continually get beat by the same awful player.
-paul
I can't play tight anymore. 10-20 is the game. I am a very loose aggressive player. I can only play tight if I am catching cards. I am a winning player. I love to shake things up. I don't know why I can't play tight ESPECIALLY in bad games. There is only one game where I live so if you want to play there are no other choices. Sometimes you have to play in a bad or very tight game in order to be there when the rocks quit and the working people show up later on. Otherwise you will never get into the game for hours. (And it is worth waiting for.) So, my problem, and the solution I'm seeking is how to surive with as little downswing as possible when the game is poor without being bored out of my mind! Very often I will be stuck badly, and then when the game gets good and I start to hit a few cards all it does is get me even or small winner. Now I am tired and it is time to go. What should I do? (By the way, I am the best player in the room. That is I make the most money and probably have the highest hourly rate. If I can patch this one leak it would be even higher.)
Wait for the game to get good. Don't play when the "Rocks" are at the table. I can't see why you couldn't sit on the rail, put your name on the list and wait for the "working people" to sit down. Otherwise I think you need to learn how to play a different style of game. Maybe the "Rocks have you pegged? switch your play up a bit, throw them off, play some hands differently. Maybe you'll catch them by surprise. If this is the only game in your area then these players know you just as well as you know them! If you have read HFAP then re-read it if you have not, then Buy it and read it.
I don't understand what your saying, first you say,
"Very often I will be stuck badly, and then when the game gets good and I start to hit a few cards all it does is get me even or small winner. Now I am tired and it is time to go."
But then in the next breath you say,
"By the way, I am the best player in the room. That is I make the most money and probably have the highest hourly rate. If I can patch this one leak it would be even higher"
I would think if you were the best player in the room then you wouldn't be posting this message, because if your a winning player, and have the highest Hourly Rate, you would already know the awnser to your question.
I don't mean to be rude or think that I know everything, I am not a great player I feel that I am a good player, yet still learning. I just thought there may be more details, but if not I think its a just a matter of switching up your game.
Good luck, Walleye
"I am a winning player. I love to shake things up"
"By the way, I am the best player in the room. That is I make the most money and probably have the highest hourly rate."
When I was in the military we had an old saying: "If it ain't broke don't fix it!"
Opinnion by Vince
Max Shapiro solved your Enright Problem on V. Day.
"Kid, isn't making the wrong move, at the Enright time, what winning poker is all about?"
Mozzel' to you both Max.
I'm not trying to be to self absorbed when I say I wish I could write as well as you.
Alex [The Key is knowing which is best: Fight or Flight]
In a thread below (Hitting for the lines), Dan Hanson wrote: "If you knew an opponent only raised in early position with AA, and NEVER raised with anything else, would you still call a raise from him with any group 1 or 2 hand, as Sklansky and Malmuth recommend? Nope. Unless there were a lot of other callers, you would fold everything including KK against this player (assuming he played his aces well)..."
This got me thinking: at what point does the knowledge of an opponent's hand become enough to overcome your playing an inferior starting hand?
Consider the following game: Player A and Player B play holdem heads-up, alternating the button and blinds out of fairness. Player A is dealt AA face-up, with normal structured betting afterward. Which of these two players would you choose to play? What would be the strategy of such a game?
Personally, I think that Player A's ability to raise pre-flop if too great for Player B to overcome, but I am not so sure... What if the game was 10-20-40 (structured 10-20 with $40 bets on the river)? That might turn the tables enough for Player B.
Matthew,
I think Sklansky addressed this issue in a Cardplayer article sometime ago. His conclusion was that the guy with AA would make more money even if he was precluded from raising preflop.
The message of that essay was that players sometimes go overboard with playing inferior hands thinking that they can outplay their opponents. Here, you know that the other fellow has AA and yet you are going to lose money to him overall. Your ability to play better than your opponent is not enough to offset the disadvantage in starting strength.
Anyway, I read that article a long time ago. If I've got it wrong, I am sure someone will correct me.
As for the 10-20-40 structure...Hmmm...Intuitively, I would have to say that you are now favoured because you of course will never lose any money on the river but can often gain $40 or perhaps even a $80 pot on a bluff (hee hee).
BTW, IMO, the best cards for you to have in this scenario would be the other two aces (you now have the added equity of bluffing) or 7,6 suited or 5,4 suited (in diamonds or hearts if your opponent has the black aces). I say that intuitively as well. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
On second thought, 76 suited would be decidedly better than 54 suited.
As A: Take the AA, and always bet or call and never raise (after the flop) or fold, and check if the opponent had the lead. Its a cynch win.
As B: I may play a little to see if A was an idiot and easily bluffed. I would play half the hands B4 the flop, and hope to bluff half the hands afterwards.
- Louie
When I first read this post I was going to discard it out of hand. I considered it purely an academic question with not much value in the real world. But in the real world there are times when you are > %99 if not %100 sure that a person has AA. From the other responses I can see that the general consensus is that the AA will have the best of it and one should just about fold all the time. Even Sklansky is quoted as saying something to the effect that trying to out play a weaker opponent is a mistake (I haven't read anything that I can recall by Sklansky on this subject, just repeating someone elses thoughts).
Without disagreeing with the premise that the AA has the best of it I do question whether calling AA is a mistake? Holdem Poker is a game of incomplete knowledge. The fact that we now gain complete (suit composition excluded) knowledge over the opponent (Player A) and the fact that his knowledge remains incomplete in regards to our hand must reduce his initial edge. The obvious question is how much does the knowledge reduce Player A's edge and/or does the knowledge of his hand now provide us (Player B) a + expectation.
I contend, without any proof, that the deciding factor here is both players skill level. If Player A is a novice, unaware poker player and Player B is an expert then I give the edge to the expert. I see the expert calling with many suited connectors and unsuited connectors as well! Because of his skills I believe that he will find enough profitable situations that he will eventually overcome player A's initial edge. I say this without proof because I BELIEVE that "KNOWLEDGE is POWER". A POWER extremely difficult to overcome.
Just a conjecture!
Vince
In my original message, I added the proviso, "Provided that the other player plays AA well." In the real world, there are players who will only raise in early position with AA. But those players are often weak-tight, and you can push them around pretty good if you get the right flop.
Dan
(I should have added in my original message that my post was not in disagreement with your statement, but simply resulted from it.)
I also think that if the AA player is the type that just can't ever seem to fold aces regardless of the board, and will often bet/raise them to the river, that might also make the play profitable.
I have thought about this before too. I'll take the pocket AA every time. I don't have the simulators but I believe AA is a ~3:1 favorite over the 67s, the best opposing hand. With a ~3:1 or 4:1 dog hand you can make a small profit over AA, if he doesn't know what you have or forgets everytime.
AA's near optimum strategy is simple. I would raise every time before the flop. Bet the hand all the way until raised. Call B down if raised. Check call the river. I believe this would be close to the game theory solution
B would get blinded away waiting for hands that are only 3:1 to ~5:1 dogs. Basically waiting for middle suited connectors. Pocket pairs are not playable. Not an enviable position. Hands that may have won may not survive the lead bets by A.
Obviously the 10-20-40 structure would be a little better for B, but still a dismal situation.
The more interesting game would be to give A a hand like QQ. Now B has some play. I sure one can derive optimum game theory strategies for A. My gut feeling says that A is still a favorite.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Hope I'm never drawing
""If you knew an opponent only raised in early position with AA, and NEVER raised with anything else, would you still call a raise from him with any group 1 or 2 hand, as Sklansky and Malmuth recommend?"
If you read our material carefully you should see that we don't recommend calling many raises.
Yes.
But that's both the strength and weakness of the book(s).
Reading them carefully.
The early Saints must have been like this.
"If there is a raise to your right and the game is typical or tough, you should limit your play to only those hands in groups 1 and 2. Against an extremely tight player in a tough game, it may be correct to throw away some group 2 hands". "If there is a raise to your right and the game is loose, you should be able to safely play group 3 hands as well" - HPFAP, pages 17-18, on recommendations for calling raises in early position.
If anything, your recommendations seem to be looser than my original message states.
Dan
This paragraph tells you what hands to play, not how to play them. Look on page 21 for more advice.
The number one error that I see at the hold 'em tables is calling a raise when you are not in the big blind and no one else is in. Genreally you should either reraise or fold. here are a few exceptions. If you hold a hand like KQs against an early position raiser and you are next and you play it, you should probably call. Also, if you can anticipate a lot of callers but it is unlikely to be reraised you can add some more hands to call with. But if you read the whole section on how to play the first two cards you will see that in most situations if someone has raised, you are next -- that is there are no active players between you and the raiser, you are not in the big blind, then you either fold or reraise.
By the way this error is present in most of the other hold 'em books and hold 'em reports.
The stu. in Q? seemed to prove that the results of his 1mm Sim. did not fit the "law of Averages" math.
If not why not? Is it possible that the "real world of poker is mulitvalent?
I think I made a terrible mistake the other night
Last Table of tourney, I'm on the button, I limp in with JT off suit after 4 callers. I've got about the 4th biggest pile of chips, Top 3 places pay off. The flop comes Jack high with 2 diamonds. It is checked around until the person in front of me goes all in (she has slightly mor than I do). I ask for time and start thinking... she could have AJ, KJ, QJ, or flopped a lower set. If she has any of the above hands, I figured she would have raised before the flop, even with a medium pair. BTW, there is no made straight on board. By the way this person plays, I figured she was on a steel. the flush draw didn't scare. I call and go all in.
The turn is a king and the river is harmless. She turns over KX of diamonds and I'm out. My thinking now is that I should have never called to see the flop as there are just too many over cards that could kill my hand. And all JT could do for me was get me in trouble, which it did.
Question: Did I make the right call before the flop and after the flop? Winning the hand would have put me far and away into the chip lead.
Depending upon what percentage of your stack was at risk, it may have been a good call before the flop. But a terrible call after the flop. J-10 is normally only playable against multiple callers if you flop the straight (or draw). In fact, that's what makes J-10 a much easier hand to play than J-K -- if you flop the Jacks there, you are probably going to get broke against A-J or better, whereas with J-10 you should be able to get away from the hand when you flop the Jacks. Tournament scenarios where you are short-stacked would of course add other considerations to that equation, but given your chip situation, it's a clear fold.
Now, consider what you do with Q-J when you limp in with only the big blind (who checks), and the flop comes A-Q-7 with two clubs. You are not yet in the money, but there is 6,000 in the pot and you have 35,000 versus the big blind at 150,000, and it is checked to you. What do you do with your Q-J? Assume you "know" you are not up against an Ace or an overpair, now what do you do?
In these posts, I often see references to pre-flop odds. Are these obtained by monte carlo simulations? Can I get a book or article listing these? I read somewhere that if you have AA against ten players you will win 40% of the time or if you have a pair you will make trips 14% of the time.
Also, in the preflop round of betting, if I bet and get 5 callers, some posters would say I am getting 5 for 1 odds. 5 for 1 odds to do what? Can odds be computed outside of simulations or guesstimates without knowing your draws, i.e. a flop on the table? Excuse me in advance for asking such rudimentary questions, but as a novice, its difficult to understand many of the posts made by advanced players.
Winning % of a given hand would be computed by a simulation, I believe, but chances of getting trips with a pair in the hole, or a flush after flopping a 4-flush, or drawing to a straight are all straight-forward probability calculations, and that is mostly where knowing your exact pot odds applies. For example, chance of completing a 4-flush on 5th street are 9/46: 9 times you win and 37 times you lose so you would need 37:9 = about 4:1 pot odds to break even.
Merle; Contact The Gamblers Book Club [1-800-522-1777] they have many MC Sim. based books. One even pre-dates David Sklansky's origional Hold'em Poker. I have found starting at the beginning and not with the "Pro's" allows you to take a fresh look at the game.
Happy Trails.
Warning: long post...
Theoretically ALL odds can be calculated, given a complete description of the situation.
There are plenty of odds that can and are easily calculated. The most common and sound approach is to COUNT all the "good" results and count all the "bad" results, represent them as #bad:#good = #bad/#good:1 and do your fractional arithmetic. This is your odds AGAINST a "good" result.
Often only the "good" OR "bad" results are easily counted, so you would count ALL the possible results and use subtraction to get to the difficult count.
Flopping a set when you have a pair?
"Total" flops: There are 50 unseen cards and 3 will flop; that's "50choose3" = (trust me:) 50*49*48/3*2 = 19,600 possible flops.
"Bad" Flops that do NOT have your rank: There are 48 unseen cards not your rank and 3 will flop; that's "48choose3" = (trust me:) 48*47*46/3*2 = 17,296 possible flops that do not have a specific rank.
"Bood" Flops that DO have your rank: (chance for exactly 1 to flop OR both to flop). Or: #Good = #Total-#Bad = 19,600-17,296 = 2,304.
Odds AGAINST flopping a set are 17,296:2,304 = 7.5:1 against. That one time in 8.5 or 11.76% of the time.
"Hand odds" are compared to "Pot Odds" to determine an appropriate decision: You need to average a return of 7.5 "bets" for every one "bet" you potentially invest, in order to embrace this situation (i.e. call B4 flop).
This was an EASY example. It gets geometrically more difficult as the # of factors increases. Don't want to flop set-under-set if you both have a pair? You flop a set and the overpair doesn't MAKE trips by the river? Flop a set, over pair doesn't make trips unless I make a straight or flush and he doesn't? Or an Ace flops and I bluff? A player behind me MAY raise increasing my cost?
Good luck. Not even I'm that anal (nor skilled) to attempt such calculations. Thus, the Monte Carlo method is used to ESTIMATE odds: set up the situation on the computer, and let it play many-many millions of hands and count the "good" results and "bad" results. This requires a suitable simulator; Turbo software by Wilson certainly qualifies.
With today's greased lightening computers and adequate software, Monte Carlo is routinely the method of choice. The poker program Monte Carlo methods have the significant advantage in that they routinely counts #pots WON and LOST; and NOT just #times you HIT or MISS your hand (you make it but still lose; I hate it when that happens). You don't need to care about those obscure scenarios (he makes a 1 card flush and I make a 1 card straight flush). Forgetting the difference between "hitting" and "winning" is the downfall of FAR TOO MANY decisions.
To answer your one question: if you expect 5 callers than you are getting 5 bets returned for you 1 bet investment; or a pay-off of 5:1. So you would bet if your odds against winning the pot are not worse than 5:1. (discounting whether your bet changes your chances of winning, image, getting raised .......). For this SIMPLE example, neither betting or checking wins or risks the pot, so it has no affect on the decision.
- Louie
I currently have Mike Petriv's Hold'Em Odds Book, but have not read throught it yet.
Anyone else have any comments on this book?
An "Academic Interest" only book. Nothing wrong with the content but none of it is really going to help you play any better.
As well, I have to say that the book is dry reading.
The first few chapters of Sklansky's "Getting the Best of It" is about all one needs to know about poker probabilities and odds while at the poker table.
When I started out, I memorized the odds for some of the more common situations that come up in play i.e. four flush or four straight draw with two cards to come, flopping a set, filling up after flopping a set etc. Now, I probably know how to do some more complicated calculations (although my ability to do so is nowhere close to Louie's ability). But the fact is that my newly found know-how probably doesn't help me one bit at the tables.
Thanks. But you've seen everything I know about it.
Even if we COULD do it at the tables the increase in efficiency of our decisions would be minimal. Not knowing whether a back-door flush draw is 23-1 or 25-1 can only make a difference of pennies; once in a while.
Considering whether the first caller is slowplaying a monster has much greater +EV for those precious moments you have to make a decision.
But leisurely doing such calculations at home for an interesting hand can be fun ... err ... enlightening ... err ... a double check of one's judgement.
- Louie
Louie, check out the Exchange. Someone wanted to know the odds of the final hand in "The Cincinnati Kid" happening in real life.
You may want to give that a go for some "fun".
I liked it.
I just started playing in a weekly game with 4 to 5 other players. Most of my poker experience has been playing in full-table low limit HE games in Vegas. Besides lowering starting hand quality, what other things should I change in this short handed game?
Also, present in this game is a rude and disrespectful character named "Charlie." How should I deal with his awful antics?
Advice???
Your POKER-PAL, Natalie R
"Besides lowering starting hand quality"
Be careful here. Just because you are playing short handed doesn't mean you can play a lot more hands. If you have HPFAP read the middle position starting hand requirements. This will keep you out of throuble. The key to winning short handed play is aggressiveness. Play you hands strongly and take over the table.
"Also, present in this game is a rude and disrespectful character named "Charlie." How should I deal with his awful antics?"
Ask him if he wants to get married! Just kidding!
I don't know how long you have been playing poker but you run into these types all the time. There are two ways that I usually deal with them. 1) I let them have it right back. This is usually disruptive to the game. Since your short handed already I wouldn't suggest doing anything that may break the game. 2) Ignore him, Ignore him, IGNORE HIM. This is probably your best course of action.
Have a good game!
Vince BTW make sure you don't go out of your way to beat Charlie. That would be a mistake. In fact playing a little tighter against him may reap mucho benefits!
Assuming a similar blind/ante structure, you should play short handed as you would in a full game after the first few players pass. Don't fret over the obscure exceptions. The "trick" is to consider how many players are still behind you (to the left), and NOT how close you are to the blinds (to the right): "Under the Gun" UTG with two blinds and three players is just "On the Button". You're doomed if you think you cannot play KJ "UTG" like this.
You are aware that after a few have folded, there are only RARE situations where a call is better than an attack raise?
Having said that, I would like to point out that many people INCORRECTLY assume you have to ATTACK and DEFEND LIBERALLY or get "eaten up by the blinds". You can therefore presume that your opponents play more loose and aggressive than they should. On this premise you MAY want to lower your standards A LITTLE. Or you may not.
In a casino game you can associate inadequate man-hoods with rude and disrespectful behavior, get the table to gang up and ostercise him, and you can get the floor to settle things down. You can have some fun at his expense.
Home games require delicate politics. You're objective in a home game is to insure that YOU continue to get invited back, the BAD players continue to WANT to come back, and the game does not die. Solutions to problems should be PLANNED with at least these three objectives in mind.
Do not shoot him. Do not embarrass him at the table. If he is just a twit then a few gentle words may suffice. If he's an ass and WANTs to irritate you (aka Maverick of RPG) than you need advise from someone much more serine than I. Getting the host(ess) to request better behavior may help, as may using the word "gentleman" (yeah, yeah... that's egotistical sexist thing ...).
- Louie
Natalie,
You wrote: "Besides lowering starting hand quality"
I think this statement is quite dangerous. You do need to make adjustments, but this does not necessarily mean that you should lowering your standards.
Let me give you an example to show you what I mean.
In a "full" game you can often play hands like 8h7h (at least if it's not too agressive). What you are trying to do is to flop a flush(draw) or a straight(draw). In a multihanded pot you frequently need a big hand to win and you get the right odds to try to hit the drawing hands. A hand like ATo is often not worth playing because even if you hit a pair your hand is probably already beaten.
In a shorthanded game on the other hand, top- or middle-pair on the flop are frequently enough to win. So in these kind of games you would prefer to have a hand like ATo. With these "high cards starting hands" you hope to flop a pair and often your hand doesn't even need to improve on the flop to be the best. 8h7h goes down in value because you no longer get the correct odds to try to hit your drawing hands.
This is only an example, but I hope you get my point! Do not lower your starting hand quality, adjust it instead!
Sincerely,
Emil
On the other hand, a pair of 8s or 7s is a likely winner heads up; and 87s offers plenty of opportunities for correct semi-bluffs.
In any case you are correct when you suggest that there are few "trouble" hands in a short-handed game.
- Louie
The easiest way to deal with rude and offensive players at the table is simply to use their antics to motivate you to continually play your 'A' game against them. I play pot limit poker in England, and some of the most effective players I know spend 90% of their time trying to wind other players up, and the other 10% of their time showing down the stone cold nuts against irritated opponents who are now out to get them. I don't know if this is Charlies purpose.
I don't find being rude back to these players very effective, normally their far to opinionated to take any notice of what other people say.
A possible benefit of playing really irritating people is that if your temperament is better than the other players in the game you can take advantage of the situation that they have created, i.e that other people are now no longer playing their best poker.
Hope this helps you, Dominic.
I heard that English clubs insisted on a level of conduct much higher than tolerated by us base Yankees. No?
I am lucky if I get to play 2x per week. I am playing holdem, mostly 6-12, some 10-20.
Here's my question. What do you do when you are sitting in a game with a few open seats, a larger stakes game breaks up and a group of the higher $$ players come to sit in your game.
I notice that immediately the raising goes way up, often to the cap, and yet the quality of starting hands is pretty poor. I know that these guys/gals are paying some respect to position and to the play of us smaller stakes chairs, but they really change the dynamics of what to play and how far to play it.
Quite frankly, I am too new and too confused to figure the right strategy. I have generally tightened up on starters and tried to play aggressively with high pairs, but what do you do with suited cards, etc. when the pre-flop is always going to the cap? It's like they bring their level of stakes to our game by cooperatively betting it up.
Help. In Illinois there are a limited number of tables so this is happening a lot.
Thanks
If there is a waiting list at my casino for 10-20 or 15-30, I usually wait for a seat rather than taking an open seat in 4-8 or 5-10 because try as I might, I just can't play my "A" game or even my "C+" game for lower stakes.
I suspect that the same thing happens to a lot of these high stakes fellas when they move to your table to play lower stakes.
What does that mean?
Well, they are probably not playing good poker which means good news for you. You really ought to welcome the opportunity.
Of course, there are strategic adjustments you will have to make. If the pots are getting capped and are generally contested by very few players, you obviously shouldn't be playing suited connectors etc. which thrive on the presence of a multiplayer field.
So, you do need to tighten your starting requirements. However, more importantly, you need to be very aggressive once you decide to get in the hand. These players are probably playing with loose starting requirements, so anytime you flop a hand, play it hard i.e. you don't need top pair/good kicker to raise on the flop. You can loosen your raising requirements a lot in this situation.
Of course, you also need to be extra wary of position. Tighten up considerably up front and loosen up considerably when in late position. Pre-flop, I might call two bets cold with many hands in late position that I would not call for one bet in early position.
Raises on the turn even with a draw can be a powerful weapon in this type of game. Many of the higher stakes players may be betting weak hands on the turn which they would be willing to release when raised.
Of course, if the excessive pre-flop raising makes the game too big for your bankroll or makes you very uncomfortable given your style of play, the best thing might be to sit out and get back in the game another day.
P.S. I see that Dan Hanson hasn't got a copyright on his standard disclaimer. I am adopting it here.
Paul A,
skp just gave us his (usual) good info. I will use it next time in that situation.
Here is something else I have noticed. The 20-40 players who are in your game "just waiting for their seat" will usually be tuning up and play serious. But, when their game breaks up and several go to 10-20 (or lower) then your description is accurate.
How have other posters handled this situation?
BTW Paul----is the 6-12 and 10-20 in Aurora or Joliet?
Joliet runs about two-three 10-20 and 2 bigger. Some are Omaha.
The situation I was referring to is always related to a game breaking up. They come to the table craving a level of action that the lower game wouldn't normally give.
I guess the only realistic answer is that they are increasing the standard deviation and I have to expect bigger swings.
However, I really appreciate the advice about which hands do best in this kind of action. I'm a novice and am trying to avoid any situations where I pay and hope.
Thanks
Hello! I am one of those guys who jam the table up like you are complaining about. I do this to the weak players who are so caught off gaurd by the money being bet, that they never play anything but the nuts. When the nuts hit, I fold. I ram and jam and then drop the nuke. I bluff, bluff, bluff! I show my cards when everyone folds and I have nothing. I then LAUGH and sate how BADLY I play! I win tons! 1-5 average 300.00 per hour. 1-3 100.00 per hour. WHy do I do this? The money speaks for itself. I pick on the timid weak players who hate guys like me. How do you beat me? Become a shark, not the guppy. Hope this helps your game. Now go get em! Doc-
You only average 300.00 per hour in 1-5?? And only 100.00 per hour in 1-3?!?! Why, I pull in upwards of 650.00 per hour in all but the toughest 1-5 games and at *least* 260.00 per hour in any 1-3 game. Man, you better plug some leaks in your game! You sound like nice juicy shark bait to me. Still, must be strangely satisfying to have ended up with such nice round numbers. :)
Ahh! What's up Doc! You been swimmin in your own saliva!
Vince.
This situation has happened to me several times over this winter. I like to play 5-10 w/kill into the morning and when the 10-20 games break up, they come fill our table. You should look at this as an opportunity to make some nice money. Keep in mind that most of these people coming to your table are "big" losers, the winners have already taken their money and split. Your seeing caps and wild action because their trying to recoup their losses. Wait! Be patient and play your best game. Don't be afraid to play tight and look for opportunities to gut them. No, I should say hang and dry them because they were already gutted in their own game.
Dear Vince:
You can think that Doc is full of it if you want to but he is not. I have seen him run over games many times. When he is there I just sit back and watch and laugh at what he does to people. The only way to beat him is just like he says. Play the high pairs, AK or AQ suited, Invest a bunch before the flop (because he will force you too), and than hope you hit trips or a flush. If you don't you better fold because he will wreck your pot odds and if your hand does not hit he will beat you with a K 3 or some other garbage hand and you will be sad. I have seen this happen to people many times. He is a expert on tells and knowing what the other guy has and he acts like such a nut that people just don't ever get him figured out. He throws his chips in like they have the value of Necco Wafers and he is a expert thats all. Stop.
I call with ace high, "Doc"...err..."you lose". ...Send it.
If you could win that much all the time...why would you ever play higher limit?
I must say that there are a few out there who have a hard time believing a person can constantly whomp on a lower limit game by using ultra agressive methods. If you don't understand how this is done, then you are not ready to play as a pro. My win ratios are true. I have posted many posts in the past stating that when I lose, I lose huge! This too is true. The saving grace to this style is that I have many more winning sessions than I do losing sessions. To emulate this syle you must do the following: Not care how others feel about you. Consider yourself a superior player. Change images constantly. Laugh out loud when you lose a huge pot you were in, then play the next pot just as badly. (LET EM KNOW HOW BADLY YOU PLAY) sucker strategy 101. (Yes, I set em up.) Know poker inside and out. Read players like you read your own mind. Plan and strategize when to nail the whole table. Make it your goal to win ALL the money on the table and break the damn thing. Do this constantly. Get a rep. Be the guy everyone dislikes. Get a rep. and most importantly, If a 500.00 win or loss is a lot of money to you, don't play against guys like me. Try this only when: You have a significant other who does not ask you if you won or lost. You can sleep good at night no matter what happened during your session. Have the resources to do so. Have the attitude of a bad rattlesnake on acid. For more reference, read CARO- He is the MAN! Doc-
And who said poker players suffer from a surfeit of testosterone?
"I have generally tightened up on starters and tried to play aggressively with high pairs,"
This is correct strategy when the high limit jammers arrive.
Be careful with small suited connectors. Play them from late position in an unreaised pot. Or from the big blind if you think there will not be a reraise. A Raise from late pos or SB/BB if a lot of callers is also ok with medium to big suited connectors.
AKs and KQs play a little differently against maniacs or Jammers from the high games. How you play these hands really depends on your position and if the maniacs/jammers are to your right or left. If they are on your right you will jam them when they raise. If on your left you may want to check raise if you think they will bet.
The number one rule is to not be intimidated! Players that make inappropriate raises are to be welcomed to the table not feared. Your number one defense is good solid play!
Fear: A poker players friend/foe! Play solid and these jammers will fear you!
Vince
Vince, I agree with you but if you don't mind I would like to clarify one thing in your post that can mislead players who are not as experienced as you are.
You wrote: "Your number one defense is good solid play!"
This statement is generally true. You should only play a hand if you have a good starting hand etc. But notice that since the betting is often capped pre flop, you'll often get terrific odds on the flop. So, if you have a hand like third pair with an overcard kicker or an inside straight draw, you'll frequently have the correct odds to continue the hand. This means that you should often play a bit looser beyond the flop than in your "normal" game.
I guess you can call this "good solid play", but what I'm trying to say is that "good solid play" is not always the same thing as tight play. As long as you get the right odds to play, keep playing.
Sincerely,
Emil
Aptly put!
Thanks Emil!
Vince.
You are right in that you need to be more selective. This is because hands like a middle suited connector or a small pair isn't going to get the implied odds that it needs. Also don't get caught with medium unsuited high cards like KJ. In the game that you are describing, proper strategy becomes very boring. You will have to throw a lot of hands away and some of them would have been winners.
Also, if you feel too uncomfortable, it might be best, as you suggest, not to play in the game.
Do you play at the Tulalip Casino?
Walleye
Do you play from Renton to south king county? how about the Muckalshoot casino?
I am in The North End
I play at Tulalip, and sometimes I will make a trip up to Skagit Valley Casino. Have played at Muckelshoot a few times, but %80 of the time Im at Tulalip.
Walleye
I was in a NL tourney the other day, when In the BB I was delt KJo. Blinds were 50 100 and I had about T1000, I was about 5th best at the table. It was folded around to the button, he raised it 250, he had about T1200 I would guess. I put him on a steal, And went all it. I thought since he was on a steal he would fold but he called. He flipped up AA, I allmost felt like crawling under the table. Flop came Q J 9. I felt better, but not much seeing how I had a 3 hour drive home, that was about to start!
The turn came T, and I felt like breakdancing on top of the table!
Can anyone guess what the next card was?
I felt that This player was on a steal, (I am not much of a NL player as a matter of fact this was my first NL tourney.) I didn't know if this desision to move all in to try to force him to fold? Maybe I should have called? , but I was trying to protect 10% of my stack.
When you think somebody is trying to steal the Blinds, what is the proper way to handle the situation?
Walleye
There wasn't necessarily anything wrong with your play, just your judgment (not that I expect that makes you feel better).
Don't take this as a putdown or insult. We all make mistakes in judgment, it's unavoidable. One of the biggest differences between good and great players is how often their judgment is wrong. Since this was your first foray into NL, you were pretty much guaranteed to make mistakes. Unfortunately, luck wasn't enough to overcome this mistake.
However, what you did was the perfect play when you put the button on a steal. You jam him back, and make him risk all, or at least a lot, of his chips.
However, be sure you know the chip counts when you do this (which it appears you did). Sometimes folks will raise most of their chips on a steal, and then when you reraise/resteal, the pot is so big they have to call with their few last chips. Thus, unless your hand is good enough that you don't mind a call, don't resteal. On the flip side, don't try to steal the big blind from a player who has most of his chips in the big blind, or if you don't have enough chips to put in a substantial raise. In either case, the big blind is getting such good pot odds that he can call with almost anything, so expect that call.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I'm guessing the river was a K -- split pot.
There are two successful methods of handling a suspected steal from the button. One is as Greg points out. Other players might use a delayed resteal, that is, call before the flop, and then either check-raise or move in on the flop. Hazards abound either way.
It's usually pretty sweet when a player mistakenly puts you on a steal. Especially when a person makes a normal size raise from the button, don't be so quick to read him/her for a steal -- more likely they've got something.
Here's what I mean: In a recent Rio NL satellite, down to 4 players. I've got 2100, the player on my left has 300, player in the small blind has 600, and the player in the big blind has 1800. I'd observed that the 4 seat was starting to make routine raises (800) to semi-steal with hands like J-10 off (blinds are at 100-200). I'd made up my mind that once I got a real hand, I wasn't going to make a normal "steal-size" raise, I was gonna move all-in on him so that he FOR SURE reads me for a steal. To make a long story short, I picked up a pair of Queens, moved all-in, he had a long think, then called it and went busted with a 10-9 of clubs.
Moral: sometimes the scariest raises are those that are designed to be the most normal looking. If I had raised a standard amount, he would likely have read me for a big pair and threw the hand away. As it was, he just HAD to defend that 200 big blind against a guy who was "obviously" stealing.
Can't be a split pot. AA had a straight to the A. Walleye had a straight to the k!
David Sklansky discusses some concepts concerning hand rankings in the latest issue of POKER DIGEST. (The date on the cove is Februrary 26 - March 11, 1999.) Some of you may want to look at it and then present your comments here.
Mason, we don't get Poker Digest up here in Canada (at least not the gratis copies you find in cardrooms a la Cardplayer).
Is it possible to post the article here or do you run into copyright problems or whatever?
I prefer not to post the column. The reason is that we receive payment for the article, and even though the magazine has only first publication rights, I feel that it is not fair to immediately republish what they currently have in print.
You can get a PD subscription in Canada. In fact PD doesn't hit you with the overcharge ripoff that CP does.
Well... According to their web site a subscription to poker Digest is $129 a year US, which works out to about $200 Canadian. That's pretty expensive, and more than double the US subscription rate. I can't imaging that it costs them an extra $3.00 an issue for shipping to Canada.
Either they have changed in the last few weeks or their web site is incorrect. They use to ship to Canada for the same price as first class US. CP use to lump Canada together with the rest of the world. I'd call and ask if you are interested and live in Canada.
The web site only lists two subscription rates: US and Foreign. Just like Card Player. And their foreign rate is much more expensive than Card Player's.
Well this thread has certainly gone nowhere, let's talk about hand rankings.
I have before me Vol 2 No 5 of Poker Digest, dated February 26-March 11, 1999. No article on modified Hold 'em hand rankings but an interesting squib by David Sklansky on "Brave Hands and Scared Hands."
I'll look at next issue of Poker Digest as revised hand rankings is an interesting subject.
5th Street Frank
Well, I had to call them the other day. There website is incorrect. The CDN price is something like 59US.
Oh, that's good news. Thanks. I'll get a subscription right away.
Dan
Its a fallout of the policy in recent years for the federal government to protect industrial technology, in this case intellectual technology. PD has to pay a big export tax to send the Canadians all that great information.
Actually its the socialistic Canadian government circumventing NAFTA and protecting one of their "key" industries, in this case Poker Writing. PD has to pay a hefty "import" tax to send the Canadians all that great information.
Actually its those "greedy" corporations deliberately sky-rocketing the price, getting great profits and can easily stomp out any competition since they can afford to undercut the price indefinately.
Actually Poker Writing is just another Micro-Soft dominated industry, and subject to the willy-nilly whims of the imperialist block-head whats-his-name.
Actually is a conspiracy by those Neon-Natzy Zion-Heads (who control the ... Shhhh ... "secret" government) teamed with everybody from big cities -- teamed with everyone who has more than 6 different great-grand-parents -- teamed with everybody who knows who their great-grand parents were -- teamed with everybody who doesn't have a close relative in jail -- teamed with everybody who doesn't leave a loaded shot-gun in the nursery for protection -- teamed with everybody who has a grand-parent born in another country -- teamed with everybody who won't let me shove my ignorant bigotted views down their pinko throats. And you thought the Lincoln assasination was big.
If Providence wanted that darn magazine there he wouldn't have drawn the US-Canadian boarder.
Actually, its because there's not much EV (see, this IS a strategy post!) in US companies advertising in the Canadian market, so there is little incentive for PD to subsidize their magazine there. Capitalism, thrrrr'pdt.
- Louie
Louie,
Lots of time on your hand lately, eh?
George
Just read the article in Poker Digest. Would anyone be willing to give some more examples of scared vs brave hands in holdem for this beginning player. Is this essentially another way of looking at pot odds, implied odds, dominated hands?
Thanks, Matt
Mason,
I have read Mr. S's "Brave Hands and Scared Hands". Three times as a matter of fact! I then went to the gym and thought about it for a while. I finally came to the conclusion that I need, from Sklansky, more clarification or definition of these types of hands. Quite frankly I miss the benefit to the palyer from categorizing hands in this manner.
The statement "how much much it welcomes the existence of future bets" also confuses me. This statement smacks of a simulation tool, something part of an expert system. "it welcomes" implies to me that the hand governs the action. This, to me, is not real world talk but computer simulation talk. I really don't know from the article if that is Mr. S's purpose or not. I also cannot see the association (comparison) with terms like "Semi-Bluff" and "Implied Odds". These are invaluable and defineable poker tools. I don't see that in "Brave Hands and Scared Hands".
Mr S. does say "This whole subject deserves a lot more attention." I reserve my opinion until I see more attention to this subject.
A Word about Poker Digest.
Since you directed us to this Mag I feel it appropriate to make a comment here. There are 2 saving graces to this magazine, in my opinion. 1) Mason Malmuth 2) David Sklansky. Plus the art design of Linda Barnett is commendable.
In a previous post that I won't elaborate on here I took exception to a Poker Digest Authors analogy between poker and tennis. In this latest issue (Feb 26-Mar 11) we have an article by John Snyder "The Ego Driven Player". We have here an author that feels he is the self proclaimed "Poker Psychologist". Maybe he should cange his name to "Sigmund Snyder". How can Poker Digest justify publishing unproven, misleading and downright foolishness about the game of poker, a game they proudly display in their title!
Listen to some of this garbage! "Women can take advantage of this guy because he can't stand losing to women" Where in the hell does he get that. Has he interviewed these players and found this to be true. "People tend to play poker as they act in the rest of their lives" Bullshit! Some people play exactly the opposite from the way they act in the rest of their lives. Especially some casual players. I could go on!
Well Mr President we finally have the definition of what "is, is". "Sigmund Snyder" says, and I quote "If you recognize yourself in this article, "you will not be able to change" (italicized). In other words: You is what you is and you is always going to be what you is! Very encouraging isn't he!
How about this, he describes an ego driven players wardrobe as if it is a sign: Come and get it! " He had a belt buckle the size of my head and a cowboy hat that had the circumference of a hula hoop". Well I don't know Amarillo Smith but I have seen a picture of him wearing a wide brim Cowboy (Poker) Hat, and Poker Digest published a picture of Phil Helmuth wearing an expensive (flashy) shirt. And I was at Bellagio the other day and in walks Puggy Pearson and if he is anything he is flashy or maybe he has a flair about him. How would you like these three "ego driven" (according to Snyders description not mine) guys at your table.
Mason, since you are associated with this magazine please ask them to screen material a little closer for accuracy before publishing! Better yet why not have you and Mr. S review all articles before publishing!
Opinion By Vince
I didn't think the ego article was very good either. But over theyears I have read so many stupid poker/gambling articles in many of these magazines that I have lost count. I do review some articles for POKER DIGEST. You should see some of the ones that I reject.
By the way, I am not part of their management and I do not have any ownership in it.
Finally, I don't believe that any of the three people that you mention can beat any limit limit hold 'em game or any seven-card stud game at any limit against any level of competition.
"Finally, I don't believe that any of the three people that you mention can beat any limit limit hold 'em game or any seven-card stud game at any limit against any level of competition."
I stand corrected! (About these three) Their reputations confused me! I still stand by my remarks about the article.
Vince.
"Wellcome future bets" simply means that the existence of future bets increases the EV of a hand compared to if it was all in. Those are the Brave hands.
Dave,
I recently read your article on "brave" and "scared" hands. I was short on time at the time I was reading it, so check me if I'm wrong but :
1. Brave Hand - A hand that you believe (or perhaps "in fact" rather than believe) in the situation is likely to win, so you prefer (or the hand can stand) people to bet,call, or raise rather than fold. I.E possessing this hand makes for(dictates?) brave actions.
2. Scared Hand - You estimate some threat (or the hand in fact is threatened) to winning the pot so you'd (the hand) prefer to see people fold. I.E. "Hmm better be careful might get cracked". I.E. possessing these hands makes for scared or defensive action.
Not very scientific terminology but the meaning seems intuitive to me.
Let me know if these are false interpretations.
It would be nice if a way of determining objectively which hands are which though clearly it is also related to what the other hands on deck are. (Actually you could probably tabularize all the possible hands and boards for every street. But it wouldn't be very useful due to it's size! A useful set of guidelines might be the pragmatic goal. I.E. a Pair of aces is brave if aces are live, but scared if dead... etc.)
Brave hands for whatever reason prefer not to be all in. Scared hands for whatever reason do. That is all there is to it.
David,
Ok, guess I read too much into it. Hopefully I didn't create a useless controversy. Pehaps I focused to much on the "welcomes future bets...doesn't welcome future bets" terminology.
Thanks, Frank
Frank,
I don't believe you are the only one having trouble with the concept of "Brave Hand.. Scared Hand". I would think that it would be obvious that most readers of the artivcle have problems with the concept. Elaboration of these concepts by the originator is needed if some of us are to be able to grap their meaning and value.
Opinion by Vince.
Mason:
Are you saying that these three (famous) players can only make money in No Limit HE or tournaments? Please clarify. Do these players not make money in ring games?
I'm not a big fan of hand rankings...I don't even know what a group three hand is, although I would be able to make a good guess. However, the rhyme and reason used to develop these rankings are extremely important. Rote memorization of hand groupings really only help the beginner from losing money too quickly.
That said, the recent D.S. article is one of the few that starts to teach players the thought process behind hand valuation.
I agree with most of what DS writes in the article. Brave/scared is a slightly different way of incorporating implied pot odds.
I definitely think 56s is a much better hand than KTo in a passive full game because it often encounters brave situations. I'll play it UTG in a passive game. I won't play KTo anywhere out of the blinds unless the players are really weak. for the same reason I think TJs is better than KTs.
One point, Some big drawing hands are so brave on the turn that they deserve a raise for value on the turn. Other drawing hands are so scared on the turn they must fold.
How about this concept. There are some player/situations that are so brave, that it doesn't matter what two cards you hold. The checkraise bluff comes to mind. The flush comes on the turn headsup and you checkraise your weak-tight opponent that obviously has top pair.He folds. the point: your opponent can turn a brave hand into a scared hand an vice versa.
My two cents since we really should be talking about the article....
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
albert
I just played my first no-limit ring game today. The blimds were 5-10. I bought in for $1000. Through the first few hours I picked up some small pots here and there playing tight after the flop. Then came the reason that I'm posting this. I was dealt KQs on the button. A woman who was a very weak player limped in for the blind. Everybody else folded to me. I raised $125. To my surprise the small blind called me. This is what I knew about the small blind. He tends to bluff more then optimum. He has nowhere the expierence in poker that I do. He will not lay down hands if he has anything to the flop. The lady also called my raise! The flop was KQ7 with two hearts. The small blind checked, the lady checked and the I bet $400. The small blind raised all in for my $400 plus $180. The lady called to my astonishment which left her with $70 which shows her weakness because she should go all-in if she is gonna bother to call. I then raised $70 to put her all-in. The turn was a T but not a heart. That card scared me. The river was a 3 with no heart. I won a monster pot with top two pair. They both had heart flush draws with no pairs. I cannot believe that they called my raise with nothing but flush draws. After about one more hour I got up and cashed in over $4000 profit from this 5-10 no-limit game. By the way I shall be moving to AC very soon.
"By the way I shall be moving to AC very soon. "
You better stay where you are.! You won't find a game like that in AC!
Vince
This is a pretty standard move-in bet from a 4-flush and (I'm guessing) an Ace overcard. If he just calls on the flop, he'll be stranded on the turn -- better to get it all in and let the cards fall where they may. Still, you'll win 2 out of 3 times, so of course you have to love their action. While I question the sanity of calling a raise before the flop with two suited cards out of position, after the flop, the draws marginally had the right price to be there. So where is this game ....
About how often is "optimum" bluffing in a no-limit game. What about "optimum" semi-bluffing?
Your $115 raise seems a bit stiff for a $25 pot; with a hand that figures to be beat if called. I don't know how much an "optimum" raise is but am pretty sure its not 3-4 times the pot.
Why would a Ten scare you? Maybe someone called that big bet with AJ?
The blind played it terribly considering his short stack; he should have bet out. But once you bet most of his stack, he should CALL and hope the lady also calls; by raising his last 180 he gets the worst of all worlds; unless you will lay down AJ for that small raise, or unless he has AKh.
So, where is this game?
- Louie
Well, they both made a tremendous mistake calling your preflop bet. But, given that they did, here's how I see the rest of the hand:
When you bet $400 on the flop, there was almost $800 in the pot. The first caller (well, raiser if ya wanna get technical) was getting 2:1 (not bad for a flush draw). The second was getting 3:1. Such is the nature of the difference between limit and no-limit games. The one that called with the low flush draw was an idiot. The one that called with (I assume) the nut flush draw, was probably making an ok choice, particularly if it was the middle position player. Of course, since they were both on a flush draw and didnt realize it, they significantly reduced the odds of another heart. Cha-ching for you.
But, lets get back to your bet on the flop. If you knew you were willing to risk enough to take them both all-in, why did you bet $400? If you wanted to induce a call, and make them pay for the draw, with the purpose of driving them out on the turn if a scare card didnt fall, you bet too much. If they called a bet that size, they were stack committed and going to the river. If you wanted to drive them out on the flop, a huge raise to cover the biggest of the 2 stacks would have been more appropriate.
A Poker Guy!
Do the dealers do a wash before the shuffle? How do they pull the hands into the discard?
Many studies have been done on the randomness of casino shuffles, and they all seem to indicate that anomalies like you are describing don't happen. For this to happen, you would have to postulate that there is some force at work that causes suited cards to wind up together in the discard, and that they then stay together throughout the wash, shuffle, strip, and cut. That's a lot of assumptions. There have been statistical studies that show that even bad dealers randomize a deck reasonably well for playing purposes after only a few riffles, especially if a wash is used and if discards are pulled into the middle of the pile as they should be.
Dan
I think the problem stems from the cards still in action at the end of a hand - players cards and the board cards all being pulled in together to the bottom of the pile. These remaining cards are typically related. In their haste, the bad dealers give a very poor/superficial scramble. The riffle is very rough and their strip pulls cards out of the middle of the deck and places them on top but the cards that are on the bottom of the deck remain unstripped. The dealer cuts the deck near the middle which means that the cards left unshuffled at the bottom of the deck will be card numbers 23, 24, 25 and 26. In a nine handed game, card numbers 24 and 26 are the turn and river cards.
I know that this sounds a bit paranoid but I am looking at back door hands constantly in the south Seattle casinos and I have never seen this anomaly occur in Nevada or California.
For what it's worth, there is one dealer at the Muckleshoot Casino in Auburn, Washington that is so bad that you get to see what is on the bottom of the deck and his shuffle never involves the bottom 5 or 6 cards.
I too have observed this situation at the Muckleshoot casino. I too have watched the dealer in question not properly randomize the cards. However, unlike Mr. Miller, I have used this information to make some back door draws in spite of the "poor play" it appears to be. While it may be unethical, this same information is available to anyone who takes the trouble to watch for it.
In addition, I have complained to the poker room manager, to no avail. This is not only at this particular casino, but at all in the area.
In response to Watchful's comments, I too have complained to the casino management to no avail. I prefer to sit at the end of the poker table and am not usually capable of seeing the bottom cards unless I make an effort to lean way over. Consequently, the players sitting in the 4, 5, and 6 seats have an unfair advantage.
What makes it even worse is this dealer has dealt at the final table of their weekly tournaments.
Awwww po wittle baby. Dey dwaw out on U?
I suggest that you quit Boeing and move out of Washington.
If that doesn't work...take the gas pipe.
Always a spire chucker in every berry patch!
I have read in quite a few books the recommended minimum bankroll for various limit games.I wonder if David, Mason or anyone else for that matter would like to give me their views on what size bankroll would be needed for the pot limit omaha game that I am about to describe.
In one of the clubs that I play at in London there is an omaha high game that occurs 2-4 days a week. The minimum buy in is £500, but the average buy-in is about £1000, and most players have both the ability and desire to rebuy for that amount 2 or 3 times if necessary. The game is played with a running ante of £5 rather than blinds, and a bring in of £10. There are usually enough agressive players at the table to ensure that 60-70% of hands are raised pre-flop, with an average of 2 or 3 callers, so the average pot with a pre flop raise is about £200.
I know that a players edge is important in estimating the size of bankroll necessary, but I have no idea what edge, if any, that I would have in the game. Most of the players in the game are decent professionals, but there is definitely value in the game as there are a number of players prone to 'cracking up' who are easily capable of losing £6-8,000 in one evening while playing far below their 'A' game.I normally play the game that is one level below this game, which has a £250 buy-in, and a £2-2-5 blind structure, and before moving up I am trying to guage how much money I have to be prepared to put into trying to play the game on a sustainable basis.
Any comments would be gratefully appreciated, Dominic.
Be advised that the calculations and recomendations by Malmuth are intended for players who wish to (virtually) "never" go broke. Those figures drop drastically if you are willing to have, say, a 10% chance of going broke.
And those figures are pretty meaningless if you are willing to play more conservatively or the lower limits as your bankroll reduces and losing your bankroll does not change your life much (such as if you have a job). As Mr. Malmuth has said, you MUST DETERMINE how much risk YOU can comfortably take.
If the above applied to me then I would need only 4 times what I was willing to lose in any particular night; which for me in a &500 (<-- darn Yankee keyboard) buy in game would be about &3000 (I'd be emotionally brain dead beyond that). If I would take a couple huge dumps in a row then I would play the lower level (after taking my frustration out on those space invaders).
If you are not a favorite than the size of your bankroll needs to be about 1000 times your willing risk, if you catch my drift.
- Louie
The other night I had a big night and won. Today I lost $1500 but thats not why I'm posting. A hand came up that I won but am not sure if I played it correctly. If this was a limit game then I know exactly what to do. I was dealt AKo with the Aof diamonds. I was in 7th position. I player limped in two positions after the big blind. Everone folded to me. I played this hand to pick up the blinds and the call so I raised $175. Everybody after me folded. The limper called me. The flop was 3 diamonds. He bet. Here is where I'm not sure what to do. When he bet he had $575 left. I thought that if a A or K came that I would win and definetly with a diamond. I raised $575 to put him in. He thought for a few moments and then folded. In this club game we rabbit hunt so they turned the turn and river cards up. The turn was the K of diamonds and the river was a 7 to pair the board. I don't believe in going all in with nothing but a draw. This hand I had a draw and two overcards. Did I play this right? My style of play tends to trap opponents and I love to fo for straights if they bet small like a Oak Post Bluff. I'm hoping to hit the hand and go for the stacks. This is the only type of game where I like to play small-connecters.
"He thought for a few moments and then folded"
I don't play no limit holdem (yet). Let me just say that if you made the bet without knowing that there was a good (or at least some) chance that your opponent would fold then you made a mistake. I take it though, that your reason for betting included the (good) likelyhood that he would fold ergo maybe a correct bet.
You must know what type of hands this opponent will limp in with. A,Ko may be one of them. Medium Pairs may be others. What were the three diamonds? Were they high enough that someone would limp in with a pair of one of the ranks? Were they close together in rank so that a limper who played suited connectors migh make two pairs.
"He bet"
How much did he bet? Is he the type of player that will try and steal a pot? If so wouldn't he put it all in for a bluff?
You never mention the limpers style of play. The single most important factor when playing NL.
Like I said I don't play NL but when I do I believe that I will have to take these type of things into account before I make a big bet with a drawing hand.
Vince
If he bet $300 then you are getting the rights odds to call assuming you need the flush to win; but a big pair may win. By raising you give yourself a very real chance to win without a showdown; and this chance is "free".
Obvious raise.
BTW: if you are confident that a big pair will win then you should raise no-matter what; since the opponent will have to be brain dead to call YOU with just one pair.
So, where is this game?
- Louie
You made a great raise. Your situation:
- You almost had odds based on the flush draw alone. If you were correct on an A or K scooping, you had correct odds. There was $400 or so in the pot, and either he folds or makes the pot $975 to your bet (almost 2:1). Of course, even with correct odds, it is a high variance play in NL. - the flop would be scary to any pair, even AA, and would be a difficult call. - even if you misjudged his strength and he had a set or a made flush, you were not drawing dead and had 9 outs to catch up. - You were forcing him to make an all-in decision.
I say thats how the game is played.
A Poker Guy!
So what was the hand that cause ya to walk out down $1500?
It was a combination of several missed flops and one hand where I floped two pair. The game was tougher then the first time I played. This game is in Florida.
5-10 game that I would call average in terms of tight/looseness. I don't really know my opponents and am first to act (left of BB). I have two black sevens and limp in. Two callers, button raises, blinds fold, I call, two additional callers behind me. Flop comes 10-3-2 rainbow. I bet, two callers fold, button raises. I call. Turn comes a six. I check, button bets, what do you do?
I think I'd have to fold here unless I knew my opponent better. The only draw on the board that he might have been raising with was a 45 straight draw, and it came in on the turn.
This is a play that really cries out for more knowledge of your opponent. Against some players it's an easy call - against others it's an easy fold. Given an unknown player and a lack of draws on the board, I think I'd dump it.
BTW, if you were thinking of calling his bet on the turn, you should have bet the turn. He may have been raising to find out if you're weak (either he's got a weak 10, like T9s, or he's got a pocket pair himself, or just a couple of overcards or something). If you bet the turn, you might get a better hand to fold. If he raises, it's an easy fold anyway and you save a bet over checking and calling twice.
Dan
Fold. You can only beat a bluff and don't know this player to be a routine bluffer amd you only have 2 outs. If he IS a routine bluffer I would have reraised for value B4 the flop.
You should have check-raised the flop unless you know the player to be a sensible whimp; in which case you should check-and-fold the flop. You do not want overcards calling against your 77s.
Small pairs UTG are only good when you know the players are generally loose-passive. Play "by the book" until you get a better read.
All of the above should include "At least, usually".
- Louie
I would usually muck.
Also given your position in relation to the preflop raiser i.e. button, I would have checkraised the flop instead of betting.
To clarify, my choice of play in order from most used to least used would be:
checkraise
check and fold
bet.
I believe that a checkraise is usually better than betting in this situation. For one thing,it has a greater chance of reducing the field. The limpers who might call one bet with a hand like KJ would not for two bets. In fact, a limper who may check a hand like J,10 "to the raiser" may well fold after you checkraise the button.
Note that giving a free card (if everyone checks to the raiser and button also chceks) is a risk but not a very big one because you could easily be beat anyways.
Furthermore, a checkraise more clearly defines where you are at. What I mean is that if you bet the flop, the button could make it two bets with AK and continue to apply pressure on the turn. You could be throwing away the best hand on the turn. On the other hand, if you checkraise the flop, very few pre-flop raisers would make it three bets with a hand worse than your 77. Thus, when they bet on the turn, you can muck without any doubt in your mind that you were trailing.
BTW, I agree with Dan's suggestion to bet the turn instead of checking and calling twice. Of course, if raised , you should probably muck. If just called, you should check and call on the river. A check allows your opponent a chance to bluff. Of course, if an Ace hits the river, you should seriously consider mucking. Generally, a pre-flop raiser who raises again on the flop but only calls on the turn and who then bets when an Ace hits on the River...well, he's probably got Big Slick or AQ.
I never addressed play on the flop, but I have to agree that a check-raise is the correct play here. One reason why I like it is that if you check, and there's big action behind you (say, a bet, a call or two, a raise), then you can just fold and you save a small bet instead of betting the flop and THEN having to fold when it's clear you're beat.
I disagree. If this is an 'average' 5-10 game, then a check raise on the flop generally won't tip any flags-- that is, you're not going to scare anyone. The button (who we can only assume 'knew' that you 'knew' he was going to bet) will undoubtedly look at this as one of those 'field' thinning bets, and probably put you on either a) two overcards, or b) what you have- i.e, and underpair. I doubt he'd put you on a ten, since you probably would have bet out with top pair, hoping he'd raise and you could re-raise (also, I assume you'd bet out since you can't risk this thing being checked around).
All of which brings up another interesting point, which is what one should do when you've got a weak top pair in a multiway hand on the flop and there's plenty of players in the hand. But we'll save that for later. IMO, the move here is to pull the old 'stop and go', whereby you call the flop and prepare to lead out on the turn, or check-raise the turn (providing there's no obvious draws and the fields already been thinned). By simply calling the flop, you get the advantage of representing trips if the board pairs on the turn (the pot was definitely big enough on the flop to call w/ something like A3s). Plus, if the other player is at all aware, he'll probably put you on a set on the turn, since the flop was so ragged and you called from an early position on the flop (you're basically announcing, with a check raise on the turn, a set of threes or deuces).
All of which is a long way of saying that a check raise on the turn will probably just be interpreted as a 'cute' play, whereas the same on the turn (either a check raise or leading out) has a decent chance of being interepreted as serious power.
All of this is assuming that you're going to play it. I think A Poker Guy makes a good case for mucking before the flop.
GD, Your posts on this thread have been interesting and have made me thinking, but I still don't agree with you.
In one post you write: "I think A Poker Guy makes a good case for mucking before the flop (with pair of 7's.)"
In another you write: "...when you called from an early position on the flop (you're basically announcing, with a check raise on the turn, a set of threes or deuces)."
If you are the kind of player who would fold a pair of 7's in early position pre-flop, I think it's very unlikely that your opponents will think that you would start the hand with a pair of 2's or 3's.
Instead, bet or possibly check-raise on the flop and bet on the turn (If you are interested in my reasoning, see my other posts).
Sincerely,
Emil
Excellent point. But since our hero's new to the game, and his opponents don't know what his playing philosophy is, these two statements aren't quite as contradictory as they might appear. As for me, I'd probably muck pre-flop if I was new to the game, since there's a large school of hold 'em players (found most frequently at the lower limits) who only raise with the premium pairs. However, if I was to play the hand, the aforementioned is the strategy I would employ. I think it's fundamentally sound, and it also let's the other players know that you're not going to get pushed around by cutesy little raises in late position, thereby allowing more hands to go unraised when you've got a mediocre holding in the blind, or have made one of those 'iffy' calls in early position (suited connectors, etc.)
All of which brings up a larger point, which is that IMO, before one calls, one should have a fairly good idea of what one's going to do when they miss the flop. If you've got KQ, for example, it's pretty easy to proceed if you've got top pair-- but what about when you miss (which you usually do)? I like to construct a crude framework of my subsequent strategy before I call (unless calling's a no-brainer). Otherwise I'll reraise or fold. But when you just call-- well, you know the story. Nobody's taking you seriously, and you don't have control of the pot. In this case I wouldn't call unless I felt somewhat confident that the button didn't hold a pair, and then I'd pop him pretty hard when the flop (and turn, hopefully) came with just rags.
Oh, I almost forgot-- what is it about my strategy that you don't agree with? Is it how you'll be perceived if you check raise the flop? The idea of committing so much money on the turn? I think this is a fascinating thread, and I'd like to hear more of what you're thinking.
Call if you don't know the button's style. The pot now Has $77.00. You have middle pair and since you didn't reraise the flop this button may be confident a bet will cause you to fold. He could have A,K-A,Q - A,J, a pair etc (There are not many hands that contain the flopped cards that are raising hands after three early position callers). You just don't know when the button raises unless you know the player. He may even have 45s but unlikley. You're play may have been to reraise the flop to gain more info. If he reraises you probably should muck but again not necessarily. If you call the turn and the river is favorable check/call! This is an excellent example of how knowing your opponent will have dramatic effect on your play.
If you know this player and he is solid then the hand plays differently. You should now try for a check raise on the flop if you feel he will bet. (If he is a tight player then a bet on the flop is in order.) In either case your bet/check raise serves three purposes. 1) No free cards. 2) Thin the opposition 3) Gain information. If you get raised by a tight player after you bet then you tend to muck middle pair with few outs. If you check raise a solid player in this spot and he reraises you may want to muck also. If solid calls your raise you have a dilemma but it is probably best to bet the turn when the 6 shows and if he raises you should tend to muck unless you have good reason to suspect he is bluffing (in this case with this board I would muck). If your still in on the river check/call the if no A,K or maybe Q shows. If one shows tend to muck if he bets!
Opinion by Vince
The preflop raise by the button, that took out the blinds, kind of made this a marginal hand to continue. The pot was laying 6:1 if you called the raise, and you are looking at around a 1:8 of hitting your set. If you are certain that you will not see a limp-raise behind you, then there are marginally enough implied odds to call the pre-flop raise. But you are really looking at the wrong number of players for a hand like this. You wont get odds to chase with so few players, but yet, there are enough players that 66 unimproved is probably a big dog.
Once the flop missed you, it is almost pointless to continue. With 3 other players, you stand a good chance of being behind already, you do not have odds to chase, and you are out of position to play this hand at all (which is why this is usually a bad limp UTG to begin with). If you invest any more money, you are basically committing yourself to go to the river. Why put yourself in that position with everything against you?
So, assuming you have taken all that into account, you might imagine there still is the possibility that you could drag the pot down with an aggressive play on the flop. You stand virtually no chance that the preflop raiser will not call one more bet. There is a chance that he will raise you. You could bet it, hope that your table reputation is such that they will be intimidated and all fold. Not likely, and probably not enough pot odds even to try it.
Then there is the check-raise. I think this is so horrible a choice with this hand and situation that I wont even comment on it. Why not wait for a better situation to invest your money?
Bottom line: Small pairs UTG are a bad limp unless the game is really loose-passive, so you have odds to draw for the set.
A Poker Guy!
I agree. This was a marginal hand to get involved with considering your position. Depending on your image at the time, a raise with this hand utg might be good if you think it might drive out most players. Unless your caller has a better pair, you are the favorite, and if you got this flop heads up against a caller or reraiser, you probably are out in front. Comments?
Driving out most players with a bet is not good enough. He needs to believe it stands a chance of driving out all players to make it worthwhile.
Here's my thinking on why its not worth trying to drive the button out with a bet after the flop missed: The button raised preflop with 3 limpers already in. It could not have been a steal, and he could not generally limit the field enough to make it worthwhile if thats what he wanted. What hand plays well against 3-4 people, but doesn't play well against 5? I would figure that he was building a pot with that bet, rather than trying to limit the field. He had some sort of hand, or at least 2 overcards (such as QJs) to the 66. He raised the UTG bet after the limpers had already dropped. He has no indication that UTG wont reraise, no indication that UTG will fold to a raise. He bet because he thought he was ahead or had odds to bet it. If he is behind to the 66 (such as with AK), he probably has overcards, and thus has odds to draw to the river. Why invest money betting where there is virtually no chance the button will fold in that situation.
A Poker Guy!
I don't like raising with small pocket pairs in early position, unless you've got a real chance of stealing the blinds. But what's usually going to happen is that everyone is going to fold except for the guy with a real hand, who is going to call your raise or re-raise. Then you're in a situation where you're going to be paying 3 bets to play a hand out of position against a guy who is either a HUGE favorite (if he has a bigger pair) or a small underdog. This is not my recipe for winning poker...
Dan
All good points. I think the debate over this emphasizes something important... Playing small pairs under the gun is tricky unless you're willing to just muck them if you don't hit your set, and that's a money losing play unless you're getting lots of callers. If you are going to play them in a game where the flop often only has 2 or 3 callers, you need to play them very well in these marginal situations in order to make them profitable. This is where reading your opponents is very important. I hate to offer advice as to how to play the hand, because IMO the correct action depends more on who the other players are and your knowledge of how they play. That's why I recommended just folding the hand, as you did.
Now, if you KNEW that the button player had two overcards, a check-raise on the flop would be a fine play. He's a dog to your hand, and the pot is giving you an overlay. However, if you combine his draw odds with the fact that he may have a bigger pair AND he has position on you, you may be making a money-losing play.
So... Unless you're in a game with few raises and 4+ players in most hands, you should throw away small pocket pairs under the gun, UNLESS you play them very well and your opponents don't play their hands very well.
Standard disclaimer about this being only my opinion, etc.
Dan
Mr Smith,
This is a situation where knowing your opponents and especially the player on the button is extremely important. As most posters have already said check-raising has a lot of merit on the flop in this situation and I would frequently play the hand that way.
But betting right out as a bluff (well, semibluff with 2 outs) might sometimes be an even better play (Technically this is not a bluff since you might very well have the best hand, but you do want your opponents to fold). You get almost 10 to 1 on this bluff. The reason why these odds are enough is that the two callers are squeezed in between you and the preflop raiser, who they may fear will raise again on the flop. Therefore the callers will probably not call if they don't hit the flop which they probably didn't since the flop was T-3-2 rainbow. So it all comes down to how likely it is that the preflop raiser will fold. Not very likely, but often enough to make a bet profitable with a big pot like this (otherwise you have a serious image problem).
If you choose to check-raise instead, your chance to pick up the pot immediately is almost zero. If the preflop raiser bets out on the flop the chance is slim that he is going to fold for a raise.
This was an argument for betting out. But as other posters correctly have pointed out check-raising (or check-folding) also has advantages. I don't think the right play is crystal clear in this case.
Sincerely,
Emil
I think this one is quite simple. You should have bet again on the turn unless you are sure that the raiser must have an overpair. Many players will raise on the flop with two big cards in an effort to get a free card, and sometimes they might bet it again as a bluff. Thus you put yourself in a guessing game if you check fourth street. If you bet the turn and get raised you should give it up. If you get called playing the river can be tricky, but it is probably best to check and call (given the size of the pot) unless an ace comes.
You're correct - since I felt the hand was good enough to consider calling with, I should have bet. But, realizing that I didn't - can I call the bet, or am I forced to fold?
Raise. You've come this far, which means you're going to have to show it down (unless the button reraises on the turn, in which case you can get out). By raising, you've given yourself a chance of checking down the river, plus you may win it right there.
Dan,
I can't tell you how much money I have won in this situation by playing a hand like yours like a wimp (including the flop).
Tom Haley
Let me preface this with the information that I am just a beginner at poker, but you can't learn if you're not willing to be critiqued. So, the way I would play this hand is to fold at this point. My guess is that you're looking at an overpair here, QQ, KK, or AA, and likely AA. You've got to hit a seven on the river, and the BB doesn't have to improve at all to win. The pot odds look very bad too.
Bill
Bill G.,
If you check in first position the money is going in the pot anyway because almost all players would bet behind you here. I think a check raise would be a better play than betting out. Bet the turn if nothing scary comes and usually if your opponent has overcards they will fold. Are they making a mistake by folding on the turn? If I did my arithmetic correctly the answer in this case is yes, they are making a mistake. So your check raise has gotten them to make some errors. If a scare card comes on the turn after you check-raised the flop you are pretty much forced to bet again and I submit you'll put yourself to another guess on the river. I think a check and call is the right play because you encourage your opponent to bet a worse hand all the way when they have one. I would use the check and call strategy against all but the weakest of players (and I still might use it). The money is going in the pot on the flop whether you bet or not. A good player will often raise you here after you bet unless their hand was totally hopeless and they now escape for a minimum cost. I think a check raise would be a better play but you allow your opponent to get away pretty cheaply on the turn if they don't have a hand. Of course it depends on the size of the pot and in this case it would be close but probably a call would be in order on the turn. There is $40 dollars in the pot pre-flop, if you check raise the turn it would be $60 after the flop, and if you bet it would be 7-1 to spike a card since there would be $70 in the pot. You will not run a better hand out of the pot with your check raise. Also there are two more cards to come and you will be forced to play a guessing game often when a scare card hits. Your opponent can get a pretty good read on you if you check raise the flop and check the turn when a scare card hits. Which means they probably will be able to extract an extra bet out of you on the river when you don't have a ghost of a chance. How about a check raise on the turn and a check on the river trying to show the hand down? You may even get a better hand to fold. A lot would depend on how your opponent plays on the river. From my experience most players won't try to bluff on the river after being check-raised on the turn.
If you get lucky enough to hit on of your pair cards on the turn or river you are going to more than likely extract extra bets from your opponent when they also have a hand and you checked and called on a previous round. Also your opponent will often bet again on the turn after you checked the flop and the turn to try and stop a bluff on the river because a lot of players won't call on the river without a pair. Their thinking is that if they bet the turn and the board is raggedy on the river they can simply show it down. Also if a scare card hits on the river often your opponent will try and bluff there as well out of desparation. I just think that adding up all the different ways you can win vs. lose that checking and calling is more profitable against most players. In this case you didn't know your player but the button's raising standards would be crucial in making the right play. Lets say the button would raise with any pair Aces through Tens and raise with any two cards that contained a Ten and above:
Ways your opponent has you beat:
J,T = 12
Q,T = 12
K,T = 12
A,T = 12
T,T = 3
A,A = 6
K,K = 6
Q,Q = 6
Total of 69 ways your opponent has you beat and is a big favorite BTW.
Ways you are ahead possibly not that far with backdoor straights and flushes:
A,K = 16
A,Q = 16
A,J = 16
K,Q = 16
K,J = 16
Q,J = 16
Total of 96 ways you have your opponent beat.
Tom Haley
Tom, once in a while I don't even agree with you.
First a detail, you wrote: "There is $40 dollars in the pot pre-flop". There is $47 in the pot pre flop since the blinds have folded.
If I read your post right you think the right play on this hand is to check-call on the flop and check-raise on the turn. I object to both.
On the flop you want as many of your opponents as possible to fold if they have overcards. This can be done by betting, since the callers are now squeezed in between you and the preflop raiser they will probably fold. Or by check-raising, because the callers are now confronted with two bets. If you just call on the flop the risk increases that one or both of the callers will call again (for example with overcards).
Now to the turn (assuming that you and the button are heads up, and that you check-called on the flop):
IF YOU ARE AHEAD:
If you choose to bet out your opponent in getting 6.7 to 1 for a call. This makes it correct for him to fold if he has overcards and you can pick up the pot.
If you check-raise, I would like to make one thing clear first. The pot has now become quite big, which means that you don't want to give any free cards. When you check he may very well take the free card that you are offering him. This free card might cause you to loose the pot if an overcard hits on the river.
IF YOU ARE BEHIND:
If you bet on the turn and are raised, you can quite safely throw your hand away. If you are called you will loose two big bets, one on the turn and one on the river.
If you check-raise you will loose at least two big bets on the turn and possibly one on the river (I think it's unlikely that your opponent would fold top pair or better heads up, with a big pot like this).
In short, check-raising on the turn in this situation could cause you to loose the pot if you are ahead (free card), and could cost you more money if you are behind. Bet on the turn instead!
Sincerely,
Emil
The only problem w/ check raising the flop is that you're representing either a) two overcards, or b) an underpair, with which you plan to get 'cute' on the later betting rounds. Had you a ten, I would guess you'd bet out on the flop, hoping the button would re-raise and you could make it three bets to the players inbetween (plus, since you're top pair is so weak, you've almost got to bet out to avoid giving a disasterous free card, should the pre-flop raiser decide to check along).
There are no obvious draws on this flop, which means, if you simply call, you are imitating a slow-play with a set (again, most players would figure you would check raise with overcards) or something like mid-low pair with a suited ace kicker. This gives you the advantage of popping it on the turn if the two or three pairs, since you'll now be representing trips or a full house, and putting the button in a precarious situation. If he/she calls, then bets on the river after you check, you can probably safely lay down.
The trick to this play is that there aren't any obvious draws on the flop, giving you a perfect chance to slowplay even a weak set. By check raising, you're basically announcing that you don't have much of a hand, and want to narrow the field. If the button is at all perceptive he's going to notice this, and in all likelihood punish you later.
GD,
Yes I agree with you the texture of the flop here is important. The psychological battle is often intense.
Tom Haley
Emil,
I am advocating checking and calling all the way in a heads up situation. I will admit that the bet on the flop may have gotten it down got it down to a two player contest so there is some merit to betting the flop. Most of my comments were addressed at a heads up situation. I am not advocating check-raising the turn most of the time but I think it is an alternative if a rag comes on the turn.
Tom Haley
I have been reading almost every Poker book I could find lately and would like to read more. However; locatating older books is a problem.
Why no Bibligraphies or Omnibus' for resources? If you know of sources pls post them.
Other than Super System (late 70's) the best poker material has come within the last ten (or so) years. I'm not sure exactly how "old" you mean when you say you want to read some "older books". Be careful what you are reading, as many books contain strategies that will get you started on a glorious career as a railbird.
The following "Poker Book Review Archive" has reviews of over 100 poker books, more being added daily.
http://cortex.med.upenn.edu/~kimberg/reviews.html
If you check our links, we do have a link to this page. In addition, in the bacl of my book GAMBLING THEORY AND OTHER TOPICS there are numerous reviews of poker/gambling books. Some of these reviews are on this archive.
Thank you Mason Fifth Street Frank
The biggest list of old poker literature that I've seen is part of this strange "book" by a guy named Wallace. Can't remember the name, but it's on-line at (I think) www.neo-y\trch.com/poker
The bibliography there includes books back into the 19th century. I remember he even has a comment on one of Sklanky's books...
At the upcoming WSOP the $2500 satellites will cost about $265 and pay $2580. According to my back of the envelope calculations the standard deviation for these events will be about $900 an hour! (Assuming you win one out of seven. If you win one out of five your standard deviation is higher?! This also assumes about a 1 hour average elapsed time. They usually take about an hour and a half but sometimes you bust out in ten minutes.) So you would need about a $55,000 bankroll to comfortably participate in these things. (60 standard deviations.)
I've had pros tell me they win about one out of 5. (This takes into account all deals and splits.) I think I can muster one out of seven. But I don't like the swings.
One pro told me he lost 15 in a row last year. (He also won 3 in a row.)
How do you compute standard deviation for such an event? What about bankroll size? Hourly rate? Are they worth your time, the aggravation? How far off am I?
"So far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain. And so far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality"
On the other hand, what does a Patent Office Clerk know?
"Albert Einstein (Geometry & Experience)"
You can toss standard deviation out the window for satellite play. So too can you toss the idea of "comfortably participating" as it relates to a satellite. When I sit down in a satellite, I don't think of what's come before or may happen ahead -- I aim to win this one.
Rick Mears was once asked if he was looking forward to winning his 4th Indy 500; he replied, "we never approach this race with any thought of how many we've won or will win -- we want to win THIS race and that is where our focus is." Since both are fast-paced, high risk endeavors where preparation pays off but you can still "crash," it struck me that this is the proper mental and financial approach to a satellite. Thus my occasional disparagement of the term "EV" -- while everything can be plugged into a formula, not every formula result is relevant or applicable.
It's been my experience that there are only so many satellites in a day that you can play and remain in good enough mental shape to win. For me, that number is approximately 5-6, depending upon how long each one takes. My style of play means that I'm usually going to at least be one of the last 3 or 4 if I lose, so in any event, each one will probably average an hour or so. Having said all that, I don't think you can play enough satellites in a lifetime to plug those variables into any statistically significant formula. You're going to have to go on your own evaluation of how many you can win -- if you think that is 1 out of 7, then I believe you have a good feel for what you will do on a given day. Most players who win more than their "share" of satellites win in the neighborhood of 1 out of 3-4, even taking into consideration splits. Looking at those numbers, obviously even a losing streak of 5 or 6 in a row is certainly possible (although if I lost that many, I'd put myself on the mentally disabled list for at least a night).
McEvoy recommends 3 satellites as the over/under that any player should play for a given event. This might apply if you are playing a game that is far from your best one, but clearly, if you look at the average number of wins even for your best game, you may lose 3 in a row but then win a couple -- so for those games, I wouldn't go by any hard and fast rules of an author, rather I'd go with whether I felt at the time that I was battle-ready.
The other side of playing all those satellites is the point McEvoy makes that you will be drained by the time the tournament comes around. If I already know I'm not going to play that day's main event, I'll just focus on my satellite game -- if I am going to play the main event, then I'll play just a few or none at all (for some people, it does help somewhat to get the mind working before you sit down).
For some great insight and unbiased opinions about what the players are *really* doing and what would be considered a high or low winning percentage, talk to the satellite coordinators, Becky Kerber and Barbara Lotief.
What game is more profitable, low-limit Omaha or low-limit Hold'em?
I was thinking that one thing I get sick of in low-limit hold'em is the huge standard deviation. Large fields draw out a lot. Although I have never played Omaha, it seems easier to punish calling stations and maniacs because the correct way to play is only with the nuts or a draw to the nuts.
So do low-limit Omaha players play the same way as low-limit Hold'em players? Lots of callers?
Low limit Omaha 8 (2-4 kill, 3-6 kill, 4-8 kill) in my opinion is the low-limit poker game in which it is easiest to control your chips by correct play.
Many low-limit Omaha 8 games are good games (by Cappaletti's definition, good games are those with 5 or more players in for the flop most of the time).
If you are in a game that does not meet the criterion of 5 or more in most of the time, it is usually not a good game.
Fifth Street Frank
I think I can speak to this issue. I have played low-limit hold'em and low-limit omaha for the past several years. It is much easier to make steady money in omaha than in hold-em. There is one catch however. The catch is that the omaha games must be good.
What tends to happen with low-limit omaha is that you get two kinds of games. The first kind occur at tournaments or during times of day when the "regular" crew isn't in the game. These games are the closest to a regular job I've experienced while playing poker. It's almost impossible to lose money if you play long enough and know what your doing. The second kind of low-limit omaha game occurs when everybody has a pretty good idea of how to play the game. You can spot these games by walking by the table and counting the collective money between the players. If it doesn't look like a lot then your probobly in a bad game. Can a really good player beat a bad game? Of course he can, but he won't make that much money.
Low limit hold-em in my opinion is a much streakier game. But there is one great advantage. The games are almost always great. However the skills required to beat these games are much harder to learn. I can attest to this, my hold-em results are much worse than my omaha results, (but they are getting better as I gain a better emotional understanding of the game.) I'm trying in Mason's words to "Really learn how to play well" , but it is very difficult.
Bottom line - If you need to make money, play in a good low-limit omaha game. If you want to progress up the poker ladder, fight it out in low-limit hold-em.
Good luck, Hope to make the world series this year
Tom B.
I think this is a very accurate post. An interesting result that I have noticed over the years is that the easier games like Omaha 8 or better, or razz are more profitable against absolutely terrible players. While the more complex games like limit hold 'em and stud are more profitable against those who play a little better.
I agree with you about Omaha-8, but I wouldn't extend that analysis to Omaha High. Omaha High can be played profitably at several levels. The first is to play very tight and play mostly the nuts. This works against average or weak opponents, and will get the money. When the games get tougher, Omaha High becomes a lot more complex, and expert players can still get a big edge over the merely good players.
The reason I believe that is because Omaha High is a very context sensitive game. The quality of your hand depends almost entirely on the cards your opponents are holding, unless you are drawing to the nuts. A player who can exploit this has a huge overlay. It is harder for an opponent to put you on a hand. You can credibly represent almost any possible hand on the board, so bluffing opportunities arise. In very tight games or in shorthanded play this becomes more and more important, and Limit Omaha starts to look more like Pot Limit Omaha.
In playing tough Omaha games, I often find myself with decisions that are very difficult to make. You can have several draws, which may all be live or may all be completely dead. You may have top and bottom pair, and be up against two draws or top set. These decisions involve pot-sized errors or full bet errors, so the difference in ability to make them has big implications.
Dan
Dan,
From a beginner Omaha player, how about commenting further on: "The quality of your hand depends almost entirely on the cards your opponents are holding" I would like some clarification on this point.
Also, " In playing tough Omaha games, I often find myself with decisions that are very difficult to make."
This statement is counter to my perception of a tough Omaha game. I believe the tougher the game (Omaha, Hold'em and Stud for that matter) the easier the decisions. Especially if you adopt the stategy (Omaha) of "Nuts with redraws". I don't claim any special knowledge about Omaha and pose this only as an area of discussion.
Vince
In a tough Omaha game, it doesn't take the nuts to win, since there will be fewer callers and fewer card combinations out there to beat you.
I have to run right now (late for the 15-30 game), but I'll post more tonight.
Dan
Ok, I'm back from tonight's game...
More on Omaha High
Let me give you an example of a tough hand... You have QsTs8d9d. Three opponents call, and you call (or raise) on the button. The flop comes JsTd3s. The first opponent bets, and the next two call. What do you do?
First let's look at the draws. You have a draw to queen-high spades. You have second pair. You have an open-ended straight draw, with a wrap on the low side. How many outs do you have to win this pot?
The answer depends completely on your opponents. If you're up against a bigger flush draw, you have to hit the straight, AND the flush can't re-draw. If you're up against a bigger flush AND a set, you have to hit your straight, and the flush can't come in and the board can't pair.
If no one else is on the straight draw or the flush draw, you can hit a seven, an eight, a nine, a queen, or a king to make a straight, but note that only a seven or an 8 make the nut straight.
Worst case scenario: You're up against a set or top two pair, a big flush draw, AND a bigger straight draw, in which case you would be drawing to only an offsuit seven or an offsuit 8, AND the board can't change on the river.
Best case Scenario: All three people are drawing to a straight. If you hit the low end (say a seven of diamonds lands), you have the nuts, with a freeroll to make a bigger straight, plus you have two flush draws, one or both of which may be good. A golden situation.
So, you are holding anything from a piece of scrap that should be thrown away for a bet to a gigantic hand that will win more than 50% of the time. And it all depends on your read of your opponents and the situation. In a loose game, you can assume that a bigger flush draw is out there and discount your flush outs. In a tougher, tight game that isn't always the case.
While these situations occur in Holdem, they don't occur with anywhere near the same frequency. So, the ability of an expert to tell where he's at with a drawing hand or a made hand can have more value in Omaha.
Another example: Two pair often wins the pot in Omaha. Top two pair is actually a better hand than bottom set on most flops. However, it's tricky to play two pair in Omaha, because the board often changes and brings in some sort of a draw. If you ALWAYS fold two pair, you're giving up way too much. If you ALWAYS call with two pair, you're going to get killed.
In very loose games where the pots are huge, you can simply play the nuts and get the money. You'll leave some EV on the table, though. As the games get tougher and the pots get smaller, you have to start picking up money in the more marginal situations if you want to beat the game. For example, when you make a King-High flush in Omaha you will be beaten by an Ace-high flush usually about 35% of time, assuming the other players would play any hand that had a suited Ace in it (most will). But that means 65% of the time your King-High flush will win. You you can't casually throw that draw in the muck. If the pot is big you can simply call and hope you win. An expert player, however, might be better able to determine if the Ace is out there. That's a huge advantage.
I was going to post more on redraws and some other stuff, but this message is getting pretty long. Perhaps I'll start a new thread.
Dan
Dan,
Yes! Start the new thread. This is the type of Omaha info (especially going high in Omaha/8) That I would like to see discussed.
Dan, you wrote:
"Top two pair is actually a better hand than bottom set on most flops"
I am assuming that what you mean here is that if you are playing 4 well coordinated cards, you will often have a straight draw going for you in addition to your top two pair hand and nut full house draw whereas when you flop bottom set, essentially a non-nut full house is all that you will be drawing to (unless you somehow fluke into a nut flush draw or something with your other two cards).
However, as you know, I have next to no Omaha experience and would appreciate your explanation of the above quote.
Thanks in advance.
Top two pair will win more hands in Omaha than will bottom set in a loose game (and most Omaha games are loose). The reason being that most of the time both hands will have to improve to win, and bottom set really has no way to improve without making someone else a bigger full house. It all goes back to the idea of drawing to the nuts. With top two, you're hitting the nuts with 2 cards, and the likely best hand with the other two. With bottom set, you only have one out to make the nuts, and when there is a lot of action that's typically the only card that will win for you.
I will often fold bottom set in a situation where I would call with top two pair (for example if the pot is large and there is already a made straight or flush on the board).
Mason,
This post is somewhat related to my post titled "I'm Not Skeptical At All" written Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 1:01 a.m. that you showed some interest in.
As I noted in the thread mentioned above, the up front collection is a major reason why the small limit (especially 3/6 and below) games in Los Angeles are almost unbeatable and ultimately bad for business. The one major exception is low limit Omaha H/L, which can be beat for fifteen dollars an hour or better.
I'm a day shift floorman in Hollywood Park Casino, and the section I am assigned to has more small limit (2/4 kill through 6/12 kill) Omaha H/L games than anywhere on Earth on a regular basis. My observation and experience is that the games are almost always good. I'm sure you will agree (refer to my post elsewhere in this thread) that a super loose Omaha game is much better than a moderately loose game which is not necessarily true for holdem and stud. In this case, our up front collection (taken before the flop and dead from the button) helps keep the game loose and very easy to beat despite the collection. I believe the fact that it can be beat gives many of the losing player's "hope", which contributes to the growth of the game in our casino. It also helps that the collection is the same ($3) per hand as it is in holdem (at least for 3/6 kill - our main game). This makes it less profitable for the house (due to the slowness of the game), but less of a drag on the bankroll of the players.
I've also played in other areas in the country. For example, while playing 10/20 holdem last year at Foxwoods, I noticed the 5/10 Omaha H/L behind me. The game could not have been more different than our game. Despite a higher posted collection (which was taken in the normal manner after thresholds are reached), the pots were super small and the game was very tight. Most of the time only the first collection threshold was reached if at all. Friends indicated to me that this was typical for that game except on weekend nights. I wonder what would happen to those players if they had to pay the collection "up front" as we do in Los Angeles. My guess is that that the players in that group would have tried to find another place to play.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I believe another reason the game at Foxwoods was tight was the fact that they used $5 chips. This made the pots look small. At Hollywood Park, we tried $3 chips for a while in the 3/6 kill (I did not have any say in this decision). It certainly sped up the game, but it almost cut our business in half.
I frequently play in that 5-10 game at Foxwoods. I don't think the chips or the collection are major factors in making the game tight. The kill rounds really tighten things up, since bad players will play much tighter for the raised stakes. People call less when they realize what it will cost them to see the river. In California, there are lucrative games at higher levels in holdem and Omaha-8. In Foxwoods, the holdem games are usually very tight also. So in California, the better players move up faster. In Foxwoods, they just stay in the 5-10 game, which often becomes rock filled. And without action, Omaha-8 doesn't attract new players.
Karpov-
What I know about Omaha can fit comfortably in a thimble, so I can't answer the question. One thing I can say, however, is that the swings in HE can be reduced considerably if you can lay hands down. I don't know where you are on this, since we've never played, but it's something to bear in mind. For example, you've got aces UTG and raise, four players call, the flop is two suited with a ten high, you bet, three players call, the turn pairs the t and the old man next to you raises. At this point, you KNOW he's got three (7's, 6's, whatever), and unless you're getting about 22 to 1, go ahead and fold. There's no hands worse than yours that he'd raise with on the turn but not on the flop.
There're literally scores of other examples like this out there, and I"m sure you can find them. The important thing to remember is to recognize early when you do get outdrawn, and then quietly muck. IMO this is the foremost mistake that low limit players at all skill levels make, i.e. not knowing when to lay down top pair.
Hope this is worth something to you. Good luck.
Guy
A typo. Where my post says "pair the t" it should say "pairs the middle card".
Karpov,
When the game is loose, Omaha H/L can be beat by the studious and patient player easier than any other at the lower limits can. As you mention, this is primarily because once the game is at least a little bit loose, you primarily draw to and play the nuts. Because you have four cards to start with, you will have many opportunities to play such hands (compared to holdem, where you probably will not show the nuts more than once a long session).
Another interesting factor in Omaha H/L is that once the game is fairly loose, you are always hoping whatever tight (even "weak-tight) players remain get replaced by loose players. As loose players are added, your expectation continues to go up in an almost linear fashion and your swings (i.e., "standard deviation" here in twoplustwo land) will hardly go up at all (unless there is a lot of pre-flop capping). Compare this to holdem and stud, where your expectation starts to flatten out and your swings increase a lot. (BTW, note that Mason has written about this in "Poker Essays". Check out the essays titled "Too Many Bad Players", "Do Big Pots Mean Good Games", and to a lessor extent "The Effect of a Maniac". Mason is right on; however, these essays do not apply to Omaha split.).
You may also want to read my post under Mason's reply in my thread. It discusses the Omaha situation here in Los Angeles and the effect of the rake on the lineup.
Regards,
Rick
After much talk about the 'killer rake' and me sweating it in small games I am permanently beyond 3-6. However I am not good at table selection. I live in the Bay Area and my casino and table selection is always one dimensional. I show up (like yesterday - Friday) wait for a long time and play 15-50 or 6-12. Now my table selection should be 'play the softest' game. But like most I am a 'limit' snob and excuse my limit by reminding myself of the 'rake'. Now 6-12 had never been my favorite, in fact I hate that limit for it is ok 'rakewise' and the players are sometimes livelier than 15-30. The funny thing, I seldom leave a casino to go a different one. I play very limited poker Holdem only - Omaha skills are bad, no stud here... so what can I do ?? Yesterday I was playing 2 table 15-30 and the 'feeder table' I could beat but the main game beat me and badly at that. Question is there any value staying when you know you are outmanned ? How does one get better if you always choose to play easy games ?? Financially I clearly should have put some token time in at the main game I left. Later I played my BEST poker, tight agressive and like a curse not only I was maybe the weakest at the table but my luck ran out too. I was struggling and I ran into a straight flush with my (so called..) nut-flush flop. Consollation I played with and beat some very good players but I am 1400 lighter and could have saved the night by leaving even or down a few hundred. I for one remember the book I have read about Johnny Moss - he used to say - "to learn any game, you have to play with the best; The ones who play every day" Now this seems direct contradiction to every 'smart' gambler tabel selection rule.
Game Selection is certainly a key skill for winning poker. But if it's the only game in town what is one to do! If your there to play poker then play. Let the other guys worry about whether the game is good or not. Learn to beat the best and you'll always select the right game!
Fear: A poker players friend/foe!
Vince
I think that if we de-simplify or separate a couple of things, you'll see that you can both choose the most profitable table, and learn by competing against the best. By the way, all of the comments below are made with limit poker in mind, and may not necessarily be applicable to PL or NL poker.
While the worst (least profitable) table may contain the best player around, it won't necessarily. I've always found that the best (most profitable) table is the one where the most gambling is going on, and often this is due to the presence of only 2-3, sometimes only 1, big contributors. These games are often very good even if every other player sitting there is among the most skilled around. The worst tables don't necessarily have the toughest individual opponents, frequently they simply have the tightest opponents. If no one is taking some chances preflop, then you can only squeeze out so much profit by outplaying them postflop, as their good cards are going to be tough to push around too often.
Thus, I have found some of my most profitable games to be made up of 5-7 good to excellent players, plus 1-3 very weak players. These are often the best games in the room to play in, and here you can both make money off of the weak players, and learn by observing the great players (preferably when you are out of the pot).
If you disagree with the above, then try this. Play in the best games, and then seriously observe the worst games. That way you'll make money first, and then learn from the best for free.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I made a couple observations the other night. During an evening of 5-10 HE, on two seperate occassions at our table there were very pretty ladies.
The presence of these ladies changed the play of some of the male players. The first lady did not appear to me to be at an advanced level as she was playing poor hands and did not seem to be aware of position.
The second lady appeared to be very savy and played very tight and aggressive.
In both cases, some of the male players seemed very willing to check down hands, or to warn the ladies when they had the nuts, other players appeared to act very macho, or dedicate more efforts to impressing the ladies.
I would be interested in hearing any comments people might have regarding a style of play to take advantage of the play of some of these "lovestruck" or "macho" guys. As well as the female perspective of how they might take advantage of these males' behaviour.
S. Doyle
Sounds like the ladies were well into taking advantage of this male behaviour. Must have been a great poker oracle who said "Never under estimate the power of a woman"
I used to date a very attractive lady who played poker regularly. While sitting on the same table as her I noticed two major ways that she was able to take advantage of her looks. Firstly many older guys seemed virtually incapable of folding against her. I don't know if this is because she was young and attractive or because she looked like a blonde bimbo (though she was actually very intelligent.)Hence she was very rarely able to bluff but always got paid off on her good hands. It was only after a while that it became clear to all the older players that she was both a decent player and had good values in terms of the cards she was prepared to commit her money with.
The second and more important way she was able to take advantage of being a young lady was that once she was no longer in a hand any of the guys sitting beside her were only to happy to let her see their cards while they played the pot. Of course this meant she picked up a handle on other players and their styles far quicker than any guy could - and she was a good enough player to use this information against them.
After seeing all this it surprised me that there aren't more young female players involved in poker.
You're right. I've noticed the same thing when playing w/ Huck Seed's girlfriend Dee, but she's a good enough player now that she doesn't get the same advantages from the regulars, but still does from the tourists.
I have a friend who is a attractive blond. She used to work as a prop, cardroom brush, dealer etc. Cardrooms like to hire props, brushes who are attractive females. Why ? Because they attract other players. She lately was working in a casino as a prop just to get games going. With males being the majority in poker it is not hard to see why a pretty face can start games and get things moving along all night. She, I wager to say has more gamblers call her or otherwise pay her off to see her hand. Mike Caro wrote a book geared towards a woman player - how she can take advantage of her femaleness at poker. Frankly I would just have a rich boyfriend if I were a woman - it's easier ;-) to play the 'pussy card' outside of the cardroom. Cheers
We have a regular pretty women that playes at our casino, and notice that guys warm up to her, shes too dumb to take advantage of it...Shes not a good player at all, but shes got money and she sure is pretty.
I like to sit in games that shes playing, somtimes other love struck guys raise and re-raise just to look good. I once had the Nut Broadway, I raised a bet, and was re-raised from a guy with 10's up and when I showed down the winner, she said "That hurts" he leaned over to her and said "That doesen't hurt, Im just getting warmed up" I about fell out of my chair right there. He was sitting right next to her and was also showing his cards to her during play. But again she was too dumb to take advantage.
I think that a women with good looks could have an advantage at a poker table.
Good Luck Walleye
I'm not responding to your question, but to the use of the word "ladies" to describe women who play poker. Inotice this in both Card Player and Poker Digest. It's not so much offensive as quaint, and doesn't fit the good women players I meet at the tables who are bright, verbal, assertive and every bit the modern woman. Why don't poker players use the word woman?
Dana
I used the word 'female' - is this alright with you ?????
When considering Limit Hold'em and Seven Stud books there is only one book necessary (for an advanced limit player) after mastering HPFAP and 7SFAP.
That Book is "Poker Essays II", by Mason Malmuth! If Mason can equal the value of that book in a Poker Essay III book, I will be the first one in line to buy it.
Almost every (maybe every) post on this forum regarding Holdem and 7 Studed is covered by an essay in that wonderful book. It is extremely helpful if you do not have an expert available to talk to about poker and it is a great review just prior to a session.
We owe a debt of Gratitude to Malmuth for this book alone! So I say: Thank You Mason.
Opinion by Vince
Are you Gary Carson's illegitimate son?
You got a problem with that!
Vince (Bad Concept-Illegitimate Son of Carson) Lepore!
I am a beginner in low limit 7-card stud at the casino, however I practice for several hours a day with a hand held game. I know it is not the same but I practice to try to stay sharp. My questions are 1. the last time I played at a casino I lost a fairly large pot at the beginning I had a straight but lost to a larger straight. I worked for 4 hours to break even, at the time I thought I did well to comeback but later I realized I had 3 full houses (3 jacks exposed one of them) 2flushes ( one caught in the river) and 2 straits. I play very few hands should I have come out ahead with those quality hands? 2.When I play for a while I notice other players playing fewer hands and some make comments under their breath that I am waiting for 3 of a kind (even though I am not) is a low limit game more for recreation then to win. I am not ready for higher stakes but I don't want to ruin a recreational game but I want to make part time money playing low limit games. I never really played untill my mid 30's but I think its a fascinating game. thanks.
This is a casino, not a home game (where you need to consider whether they'll invite you back). As long as you're not rude, insulting, or violent, you can play the game any damn way you please. If you think that your style will be profitable, stick to it (unless you develop an even more profitable style later). If someone at the table is upset because they think you're too tight, just calmly smile at their comments, and rack their money up when you win. When you do lose to them, just smile the same and say "nice hand, sir".
Keep up the good work.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I thought this hand was kind of interesting. I'd like to hear how people think it should have been played.
3-handed no limit freeze-out, $4000 buyin, 100-200 blinds with 3 players, 200-400 blinds with 2 players.
We've started a new game, I'm on the button with Q-10 suited and make it 600 to go. Both blinds call. Flop comes J-10-4 rainbow. Tight player checks. Good aggressive player bets 600. While considering my options, I notice that the tight player is going to fold. With him out of the picture, I start to consider what the strong player has. 600 seems like a very weak bet into an 1800 pot, so a jack seems out of the question. I could be facing a steal, a draw, a ten, or a monster. Since the former three possibilities are much more likely, I move all in. My thinking is that I'm probably ahead, the 2400 pot is worth winning, I may be able to get rid of some hands that are beating me (including tens with better kickers) and I'm making the draws pay or drop.
He called me with a jack-eight and won the pot. This call was borderline, but it was reasonable to put me on a ten. Nonetheless, I was stunned to see a jack, because I thought that, given my preflop raise, top pair has to put more pressure on the pot. We debated this afterward (a friendly debate), but didn't really build a consensus. How do you think each of us should have played our hands? In particular, how do you play jack-eight in his position?
Aren't the blinds you're playing with rather large for the buy-in? A $4000 buy-in with $100/$200 blinds. The buy-in is only twenty big blinds. And heads up you guys are playing with a massive blind. I guess you like a quick session huh? As for going all-in on middle pair, you were hoping for a fold and you didn't get it. That's no-limit for you.
I think that how good your opponents play is depends on how well he knows you. If he has a good handle on you and knows that you are likely to raise before the flop with that type of hand, and that you will pay the flop agressively then it may be a good play. If he doesn't have a good handle on you I don't understand what he's doing in the hand with J-8. What flop is he hoping to hit? The Jack high flop that he has hit is about as good a flop as he can get and even then he can be in all sorts of trouble. I always see no-limit referred to as a trap game and he seems to be intent on getting himself trapped.
Sounds like he had a good read on you and your betting patterns. Why else would he call with J-8 before the flop?
Perhaps. But keep in mind that this is 3-handed, with fairly large blinds. You can't wait for Group 1 hands in a game like this or you'll bleed to death. His call preflop might be sketchy, but he's getting good odds---his $400 call makes an $1800 pot preflop. His position there is also good. The weak-tight player acts before him, and he can steal by betting out, since will be reluctant to be trapped with another player behind me.
The reason I thought this was interesting (and the reason I like this game) is that these situations rarely come up in a no limit ring game. You rarely flop top pair with a weak kicker at a full table in a no limit ring game because there are few hands worth starting that allow you to do this. This is not so when you have to be in there swinging a lot in a short-handed game.
George,
the advice you always gave me at the 10 - 20 table.
Play tight and move the decimal place to the left!
Played Omaha for the second time ever tonight (actually the first, since my only previous Omaha experience was a ten minute session while waiting for a HE table). God, what a game. I had know idea what I was doing (I mean none), but once I quit raising with top pair on the flop I did fairly well. One thing I noticed, and I don't know if this is correct, is that it's impossible to play to tight pre-flop. Mason made mention of this on the exchange forum, that Omaha is all about either a) flopping the nuts, or b) flopping a draw to the nuts, but I had no idea how literal this advice was.
My next stop is ye ole bookstore for a copy of Herr Zee's seminal Omaha text, but I'm curious if there are any other Omaha books worth buying. Also, I'd like to hear from anyone who's got any advice whatsoever on playing the 'high', since this seems to be the trickiest part of the game.
BTW, one thing I noticed was that Omaha players, on the balance, are about the nastiest, pettiest, most mean spirited poker players on the planet. I asked a dealer, Gary, about this phenomenon, and he told me that in his experience Omaha players were the 'biggest a@@holes', bar none, that he'd ever come across. Is this true nationwide? We almost had two fights break out, and another big stink when one player accused another of stealing some of his chips.
Ah, but I digress. Anything you can pass on re: Omaha would be very helpful.
Thanks,
Guy
Bob Ciaffone has written a book on Omaha, its not the largest book in the world but I found it very useful when I first started playing Omaha.
G.D. Here's some good advice:
1. Go buy the Zee book (HLSPFAP) and study up. Its A+
2. Ciaffone has an updated Omaha book out now. But all you really need to know about Omaha/8 is on page 160 of "The Best of Card Player".
3. Don't become one of those loonies (yes, its the same everywhere) over at the Omaha table. Stick to Hold'em--you'll be a better person for it.
Don't make assumptions about players based on the game they like. In my experience, Omaha players are no different than anyone else.
Were you playing Omaha-8, or straight high? Ray Zee's book doesn't have a lot to say about straight high Omaha. Bob Ciaffone's book is the only one really worth reading.
My two cents on playing the 'high':
I think that high-oriented starting hands are SEVERELY underrated by most players. The beauty of them is that they're easy to play, and when you win you usually scoop. If your (high) end of the deck flops, you're golden. If it doesn't, toss it in the muck---it's pretty hard to screw up.
The trouble with the high hand is when you've got to split the pot. Be leery of drawing to half the pot, even if you have the nut draw; for example, don't get too excited if you flop the nut flush draw when the low is already made and you don't have it. Drawing to less than the nut high when the low is made (if you don't have it) is even trickier. A lot of these draws must be thrown away if you have to pay for the cards. These are two reasons why I think Ray Zee is right in condemning middle cards---it's hard to flop the nuts and the low will already be there if you do.
One other question before I let this drop. Does anyone know of any "fairly" comprehensive hand rankings out there for Omaha 8. I've got something of a clue on this, but there's no question but that my hand selection could use some improvement.
It there isn't anything like this out there, then someone needs to tell Herr Zee- he could clean up if he even published a pamphelt on this subject.
It's very difficult, if not impossible, to rank hands in Omaha, since there are so many of them. Point count systems try to do this, with mostly poor results, IMO.
A much better way to approach pre-flop play is to learn the concepts behind the game and understand the types of hands that do well and those that don't. Then make your own decisions based on the specific 4 cards that you hold at any given time.
For example, hands that can only win half a pot are garbage. This means middle cards are terrible holdings. Low hands without backup are very dangerous, since you can easily be counterfeited, and even when you're not you may only win a quarter a pot or even a sixth of a pot, IF a low comes in. Non-nut low draws are not very good (A3 is MUCH weaker than A2, and 23 is weaker than A3). Most playable Omaha-8 hands have an Ace in them, unless they are VERY strong in other areas (like KKQQ, or TJQK, or 2345). Watch out for non-nut low hands when a pot has been raised. Raised pots in Omaha-8 often mean someone has an A2. Therefore, I wouldn't play an A3 in a raised pot unless the hand was very strong otherwise (AA34, with a suited Ace, for example).
I'd recommend Ray Zee's book for Omaha-8. For Omaha straight high, the pickings are pretty slim. Ciaffone's book is good but there's not much material in it. The definitive Omaha high book has yet to be written.
Dan
Dan, I have enjoyed reading your well reasoned reply.
Thanks for caring and sharing your practical approach to the otherwise complicated game of Omaha/8. Please keep up the good work.
Ivan
I would appreciate any comments on the following 15-30 HE hand I played at the Taj Mahal last night. The game was loose but most pots were raised pre-flop. I was dealt Q-10 offsuit in middle position. There was one caller to my immediate right. I also called. The button and little blind called and the big blind checked the option. The flop came J-8-3 rainbow. SB checked, BB bet and the player to my right called. I also called. The button and SB passed. On the turn my miracle card hit, a 9. The BB bet and then, much to my surprise, the player to my right raised. I decided to simply cold-call with the nuts (see discussion below). The BB also called. Much to my chagrin, a 10 came off on the river. The BB bet out, the player to my right disgustedly threw his hand away and I called, splitting the pot with the BB, who held Q-J.
I have the following questions:
1) Did I make a mistake calling on the flop? The pot odds were not quite there for a gut-shot, but the implied odds were quite good (it was a draw to the nuts and my hand would be quite well disguised). Also, the BB is a very aggressive but not very good player-so I felt there was some chance that a Q or even a 10 might win the pot. On the other side of the equation, I risked a raise from the button or a check-raise from the SB.
2) Did I make a mistake by not 3 betting the turn? My analysis went as follows: If I make it $90, the BB will, in all probability, fold. However, I believe he is now drawing dead and I want his $30 in the pot. He is a weak player and I felt almost sure he would call $30 with as little as one pair. With respect to the raiser, he is a tight player and I gave him a set. My feeling was I could raise him on the turn OR on the river, but not both. If I made it $90, this conservative player would probably give me Q-10 and shut down (check-call). I decided to wait for the river to see if the board paired--if it did, I'd be sorry I had raised. I was also almost sure he'd bet the river if I didn't re-raise the turn. Obviously, the way it turned out, I'd have been better off 3 betting the turn (BB stated he in fact would have folded had I 3 bet it). Is this hand an example of an intermediate player(me) trying to make a great play and bollixing it?
One comment: I wouldn't have played QTo in middle position in a game where most pots are being raised and an agressive player is in the big blind.
I think after the flop you played it pretty well. The only mistake I see is not mucking your cards before the flop.
So much for QT in middle position an aggressive game against a tight early caller.
On the flop you are getting 7-1 right now for your gut shot and a pair of Qs can win and you can get a "free" card on the turn; and you have big implied odds against the tight-idiot slow playing the set with two big cards out; BEGGING someone to gut-shot him. Easy call; sometimes even raise if you are feeling real sporty.
On the turn and you assume the TI has two pair or trips. You don't mind the BB filling up if the board pairs since you are beat anyway, so it really looks like he's basically drawing dead as far as you are conserned; and appears to have a 3-card out for half the pot. He's not getting the right odds to call. And HE might 3-bet it. It looks like a good time to smooth call, hehehe. ** see previous thread on how slow playing can hurt your aggressive image **.
No, you are not trying to "play cool". You're analysis was sound and and I didn't detect any rationalization. That's the KIND of thinking you need to win.
"Obviously, the way it turned out, ..." STOP. All thoughts past that statement have big potential to be detrimental to sound analysis. I sure hope you would have posted this even if you got multiple-bets in against someone with a smaller straight. If you wouldn't have, why not? How does the river card affect the quality of your previous decisions?
Its just as important to question ... err ... post-evaluate your play in hands you win as in hands you lose.
- Louie
PS. Your QT can make 3 straights all the nuts. There are 7 ways you can flop a draw: AK, AJ, KJ, K9, J9, J8, and 98. 5 of them are gut-shots and only two are real straight draws. If gut-shot's are routinely out of the question then this reduces the number of straights you will ACTUALLY make by over a half; reducing the value of such hands before the flop. <-- I was going somewhere with this but now I forgot ...
So much for QT in middle position an aggressive game against a tight early caller.
On the flop you are getting 7-1 right now for your gut shot and a pair of Qs can win and you can get a "free" card on the turn; and you have big implied odds against the tight-idiot slow playing the set with two big cards out; BEGGING someone to gut-shot him. Easy call; sometimes even raise if you are feeling real sporty.
On the turn and you assume the TI has two pair or trips. You don't mind the BB filling up if the board pairs since you are beat anyway, so it really looks like he's basically drawing dead as far as you are conserned; and appears to have a 3-card out for half the pot. He's not getting the right odds to call. And HE might 3-bet it. It looks like a good time to smooth call, hehehe. ** see previous thread on how slow playing can hurt your aggressive image **.
No, you are not trying to "play cool". You're analysis was sound and and I didn't detect any rationalization. That's the KIND of thinking you need to win.
"Obviously, the way it turned out, ..." STOP. All thoughts past that statement have big potential to be detrimental to sound analysis. I sure hope you would have posted this even if you got multiple-bets in against someone with a smaller straight. If you wouldn't have, why not? How does the river card affect the quality of your previous decisions?
Its just as important to question ... err ... post-evaluate your play in hands you win as in hands you lose.
- Louie
PS. Your QT can make 3 straights all the nuts. There are 7 ways you can flop a draw: AK, AJ, KJ, K9, J9, J8, and 98. 5 of them are gut-shots and only two are real straight draws. If gut-shot's are routinely out of the question then this reduces the number of straights you will ACTUALLY make by over a half; reducing the value of such hands before the flop. <-- I was going somewhere with this but now I forgot ...
MaxRatio, by the questions you ask, it's easy to see that you have a sound approach to the game but anyway, here are a few comments.
I think it was a mistake to call pre-flop with a mediocre hand like QTo, especially when the game is aggressive.
I think your call on the flop is probably correct. You get 7 to 1 for the moment if you call. If you hit your straight you will win most of the time, and if a Q comes on the turn you also have a good chance (and some chance if a T comes). The odds are about 6 to 1 that a 9 or Q will hit on the turn. On the other hand you will not always win with a Q and only once in a while with a T, and you can get raised by the players behind you on the flop. But if we take into consideration the implied odds I think you made the right decision.
But I think it was a mistake not to make it three bets on the turn. You generally should play the nuts aggressively. Since the BB is a bad player I think there must be several hands that he would call your reraise with (for example J8, AJ, JJ, 88, 33, T8, JT).
The decisions on the flop an the turn are quite close, but at least you didn't loose much by playing your hand like you did. But I think it should be quite obvious that you should have mucked your hand pre-flop.
Sincerely,
Emil
I agree with the preflop muckers.
"Also, the BB is a very aggressive but not very good player-so I felt there was some chance that a Q or even a 10 might win the pot"
I don't understand the logic here about the not very good part.
Only you know the players. After the flop play seems OK to me. I don't think it is clear cut whether you want the BB in or out. If BB has 1 pair and a gutshot, then he does not have pot odds to call the single raise on the turn. Smooth calling to keep him is correct. Of course if he will call two bets than reraising is correct. I definitely want the open ender out or at least make him pay two or three more bets by reraising.
The error in your thinking was that you wanted QJ to fold on the turn. I want QJ in there to call or raise!!! I want QJ in the pot while you wanted him out. QJ does not have pot odds to call. I will only raise if he will call two bets cold, not fold!!! His call is +EV to you. That is unless the turn raiser will go nuts against me heads up. It was just a bad river.
It was a bad outcome, but not necessarily a bad play (except preflop). Don't be so results oriented.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
1) Did I make a mistake calling on the flop?
First, you should have folded before the flop. You need to be in late position to make this call and then you still don't want to make it against a tight player who comes in early. On the flop your call is correct
2) Did I make a mistake by not 3 betting the turn?
No, your call is okay. I frequently make the exact same play. Often it is best to get a sure overcall than possibly raising and getting nothing.
Enough with the preflop mistake already!
You must raise the turn. What if the player you don't think much about had K,Q instead of Q,J. Sklansky has previously said and I agree that it is sometimes better to win a smaller pot right away. Certainly you had the momentarily nuts but they were not the absolute nuts. Not that you need the absolute nuts to not bet in this situation. But in a multiway pot you must be a little more cautious about this concept of "not wanting to lose him". Tell me, if you raise and they both call are you not better off than with just a call. And if the original raiser (which my guess he will) is likey to call do you not get just as much in the pot from raising out the BB than if you just call. Also what was the suit of the 9. Could it have given someone a (back door) flush draw. Another reason for reraising. Also why would you think that a player (BB) that bets out with this board on the turn is "drawing dead". Hell, he could have had two pair or a set.
Again my opinion is that you MUST reraise the turn!
Opinion by Vince.
Opinion By Vince
One more reason for raising is that you do not want to be pegged as someone who doesn't raise with the nuts i.e. a slowplay artist.
I put in lots of raises on the turn. If I start slowplaying when I have the nuts, my raises are not going to scare many players. In fact, some of them may reraise feeling safe that I can't have the nuts.
Smooth calling with the nuts in order to elicit overcalls is something I reserve for the River not the turn.
Hi all,
First thing I'd like to say is that this is a great forum, and there's lots of great insight to various aspects of holdem. The other night there was this intersting situation which happened to me:
I'm in the SB with QQ, 4 callers before the button, button raises, I call, BB re-raises, and it gets capped by button. With everyone calling (7 players). Flop comes T 4 7 rainbow. I bet, BB raises, 2 callers to me, I reraise, BB caps it and everyone calls (4 players). Turn card comes another T. I check BB bets, Everyone calls. River card a 4, I check BB bets, 1 call, 1 fold, what do I do? I have the caller pegged as a loose passive player, who calls any pair down and can play any 2 cards. The BB I have pegged as a semi-tight aggressive player, who tends to overplay his hands. So I'm putting the BB on AK, AT, AA, KK, AXs. The caller, I figured he had a 4 or 7, since he was in there the whole time, and would have probably raised with a 10. So what should I do?
Any insight to this situation would be appreciated
His pre-flop re-raise of the button might have been to limit the field, so he doesn't necessarily hold AA or KK. Your QQ might beat his JJ. But don't expect him to have AT or AXs. The caller very well might have a seven, a four, a medium pair, or even an Ace. It's definitely worth calling for $10 with $280 in the pot.
AA, KK, QQ, JJ, and TT are 20 different hands the big blinds likely to hold, of which 6 you can beat and 1 hand ties. You're getting 28:1 on the call, so you have to at least call, even with the other caller. You're not the favorite if you raise and are called, and it's unlikely that the big blind will fold a better hand than yours for a raise with all that money in the pot. So just calling is the proper play in my opinion.
If you think he might have any other hands, then calling is probably even more correct.
George,
"AA, KK, QQ, JJ, and TT are 20 different hands the big blinds likely to hold, of which 6 you can beat and 1 hand ties. You're getting 28:1 on the call, so you have to at least call, even with the other caller. You're not the favorite if you raise and are called, and it's unlikely that the big blind will fold a better hand than yours for a raise with all that money in the pot. So just calling is the proper play in my opinion."
Incorrect bayesian analysis. AA, KK, QQ, JJ, and TT are ELEVEN different hands the big blinds likely to hold, of which THREE you can beat and 1 hand ties. Some players also play ATs, JTs,77 and 44 this way. The caller scares me. He likeley has a T,7, or 4. Knowing your players will swing your call one way or another.
That is a tough board to bet into for a tight aggressive player.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Incorrect bayesian analysis? I'm such a fool. I thought there were SIX different ways you can have a particular pair. Spades/Clubs, Spades/Hearts, Spades/Diamonds, Clubs/Hearts, Clubs/Diamonds, and Hearts/Diamonds.
AA, KK and JJ are 18 (6x3) combinations. QQ and TT are one each. That's a total of 20. There are six ways to have JJ, which hero beats with QQ. So hence 20:6 . . . Ooops! Make that 20/6 or 14:6, or 7:3. You're right, I goofed. It's much better than I originally thought.
I agree there are other hands that the big blind could have. But not enough of them to overcome the pot odds. Also, remember this is a 5/10 game. While the caller may have our hero beat, there are some hands he could have which hero can beat. The 28:1 odds is what makes this a call in my opinion. I'd give caller more respect in a 10/20 game and possibly fold, but not at 28:1 in the 5/10 game.
Sorry you are correct, I can't add!!!!! 20 hands...
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
"I have the caller pegged as a loose passive player, who calls any pair down and can play any 2 cards. The BB I have pegged as a semi-tight aggressive player, who tends to overplay his hands. So I'm putting the BB on AK, AT, AA, KK, AXs. The caller, I figured he had a 4 or 7, since he was in there the whole time, and would have probably raised with a 10. So what should I do?"
I doubt BB has AK or AXs. the other hands have you beat. What can the caller have? Most likely a T or a 4. He has to put you on likely high pocket pair or a T. He may be going for the overcall. One or both of them very likely have you beat. I would fold against most players.
I probably would have checkraised the flop.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
When a tight player re-raises from the big blind and caps it on a ten-high flop, you're most likely looking at an overpair. The most likely holding is KK or AA. Unfortunately, you're pot stuck. The pot is big enough to call for a queen on the turn, and once I've gone to the river and the pot is this big I'm going to call even there's even the tiniest chance that I have the best hand. With no raises on the turn or river I'd have to believe that I've got that chance. I'd call, expecting to lose.
There are some very tight players that I play against that simply would not re-raise out of the big blind unless they had AA or KK. In that situation, I'd check-call the flop if the pot was large enough, then fold on the turn unless I hit a queen. But those opponents are pretty rare.
Dan
Weird. I think you can fairly sure at this point that the BB has a premium pocket pair, which means there's an argument (of sorts) for raising on river, in the faint hope that you can get him off pocket K's or A's and maybe (big maybe) get the caller off a four. The only problem here is that you didn't really represent a ten on the turn, but then, nobody else did either (except the BB, and even then he could have been representing any number of hands), and there's a chance that no one noticed this. The pot odds are monstrous, so this play doesn't need to work very often, but this seems like a good place for it, since you're almost certainly beaten if you just call (the odds are slim to none that the BB has big slick or AQ and the caller has only a seven).
With all the pre-flop raising, I would put him on a big pocket pair. You have 2 choices: 1. If he normally is the type of player that would be aggressive with a big pair all the way through the hand, I would fold, 2. If he is a little more timid with a big pair, I would raise. You might be able to push him off the hand. Also, you may actually be best here.
The focus of discussion has entirely shifted to the BB hand, while the "lose" caller became wholly neglected. The originally expressed concern, if I am following the issue correctly here, is which one of the two remaining players can beat you and with what.
Let's step back here for a moment and try to analyze what could you have done differently, if anything, to improve your subsequent situation on the river. In your position, holding a pocket Qs in a SB, I would have re-raise the Button (though not knowing at that point that the BB will also re-raise) and thus make the players holding 7x and/or 4x face a cold call additional 2/3 bets. Speaking from experience, this seems to be the best way get these type of players out before the flop. Ultimately, the pre-flop betting was capped anyway, but the caller playing 'trashy' cards was not driven out. This may have turned out to be a costly mistake. As the 5-card board played out, all the 'caller' needs to hold is a 7 or a 4 to winn the pot.
Per your introductory statement, the BB has played his hand fast and solid, but he is only the half of a concern to you, and these type of players are easier to read the type of a player you described the 'caller' represented.
Given your predicament on the river, I would agree with the other gentlemen responding before me on the same point and call the river bet - however grudgingly - almost convcinced I lost this hand.
There is no way here that you can't at least call on the river here with so much money in the pot. You have to figure the BB for AA or KK, my guess being AA, with the pre-flop raising, and the raises after the flop, based on the fact that the BB may overplay a couple of hands. However, I might have checkraised the flop, hoping to represent trips. With the texture of the game that you've described it seems to me that this play might go unnoticed. The BB and the callers seem intent on playing their hands and ignoring others. By the way, does anyone think that it's possible that the caller also has QQ or perhaps JJ, along with the pair of 7's or 4's? Criticism welcome.
Bill G.
Well what happened was that I folded (yeah go ahead and shoot me here!!) because of the additional caller to the bettor, I figured there was a very good chance the call had a 4, or the bettor had an over pair. The bettor had A7s, the caller K7, and I would have won if I had called!!! I guess I was too entrapped in reading their hands; that I discounted the huge pot. Needless to say I learned from this mistake, and the lack of concentration won't happen again.
Well folks, fellow posters. I have arrived! I am now a full fledged feared BlackJack Expert! For you see folks, today I was barred from EVER playing BlackJack again in "The Orleans" Casino. I recieved a life sentence denying me the privillege of ever putting a chip to the green at an Orleans BJ table.
Why you ask! Well let me explain! I visited the "Orleans" today (Sunday) at noon to participate in their $30 NL Poker Tourney. After playing for three hours and finishing 11th (pay 9 places than you very much) I was "tilt-to-be-tied" or "tiltified" ( phrases I am coining right here before your eyes for the fist time in print anywhere, amen)! I wanted to GAMBLE! So I decided to go tho Bellagio and take it out on the 15-30 Stud players there (another of my brilliant ideas). Well Igot side tracked on the way out of the "Orleans". There was this 2 deck BJ table and since I was "tiltified" beyond your wildest imagination I decided to play BJ, a game I despise! (Self deprecation I'm sure).
But even though I despise the game I play it at an expert level (or so the Orleans seems to think)! Well I must have been betting $5 or $10 (real worrisome to the Casiono I guesss) for about an hour when this young floor person sat next to me and said. "I realize you have been playing only $5 and $10 but I can't let you play BJ in this casino. You can play any other game but not BJ." I protested but to no avail! I even talked to the head floor guy. I politely told him that I wasn't counting. But he didn't believe me. He was right, I was counting! I can count, very accurately by the way! I lied, felt guilty and probably should have been barred from the casino for lying! Fortunately I was $4 ahead when they barred me so I am a life long BJ winner at the Orleans.
This encounter with the Orleans Casino SS has taught me a sobering lesson! The way to stop playing BLACKJACK (Ugh!) is to get barred from all the casinos in Las Vegas!!! I therefore am going to make an effort to play BJ at each and every Casino in Las Vegas with the sole purpose of getting barred. I am going to have a sweatshirt embossed in the front with " I am a Black Jack Card Counter" and wear it while I play to speed up the proccess. The back will say "Go ahead Bar me! I dare you!" A ball cap with "Casino's Fear me, for I am a pro BJ player" will round out my wardrobe! Look for me and say hello but not at the BJ table for you see I will be barred!
I am sharing this with you for my own selfish reasons and don't care if you are bored or say "Duh" or wonder what the hell I'm talking about. I don't care what you think! However, if you find that you too can't keep away from the BJ (Ugh!) table then learn from the "Master" (yes me).
GET BARRED!
Vince
BTW I posted this on the Exchange but then thought since it dealt with gambling I would also share it with those that only frequent the T&S forum!
The floorman at the Orleans was an idiot for barring you if you were only playing $5 to $10. As you know, with a 2-1 spread you were playing a losing game.
Did they perhaps bar you because you were barred somewhere else and they knew who you were?
In my experience, it's tough to get barred from any casino for counting unless you start throwing black chips around.
Wrong. Two friends of mine got barred from The Orleans the same way. Maybe they quintupled their bets (from $10-$50) after they noticed no aces had come the first couple of rounds, but neither is a counter or even plays much blackjack. BTW Vince, I think your wardrobe idea is great and might even give you some cover. You could also add the name of each casino you're barred from to the sweatshirt. I hope you do it.
What cheap, petty, ignorant scumbags casinos can be. Don't offer the game, or else change the rules if you can't handle the fact that some people will beat it, even though you're making a HUGE overall profit on it.
Isn't the Orleans owned by the same company/people who own the Barbary Coast? The BC is well known as probably the worst sweat joint in the history of casino gambling. In Knock-Out Blackjack there is a story about several counters going there for a mass-barring at BARGE several years ago.
Vince-maybe a "Ken Uston is God" button would be a nice touch. Also, to speed things up, you could move your lips while you count. Or better yet, just count right out loud.
Hey Some great IDEAS! I'll consider them!
Thanks!
Vince
Here! Here!
Vince
I believe the Orleans, Gold Coast and Barbary all are owned or managaed by the same fools. Yes, they bar losing players all the time. They are way above the norm in casino paranoia and stupidity. No need to ruin your BJ playing invitation anywhere. There's no reason to believe they learned you were barred elsewhere, or anything similar, as they have no need to pay for such info - they'll bar you in no time anyway with even a hint of suspicion that you can play basic strategy.
Been asked to leave all 3 of those over the years - Barbary 3 times so far :-)) Never bet over $30 any of those times and was never up more than $50 at the point of being asked to leave. Barred solely on my bet spread.
VL,
... and don't forget the preprinted strategy cheat-cheats. You can make them bright colors and make multiple copies to hand out to the customers and pit crew...
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
I am still a novice at hold 'em and wanted advice on a low limit hand I was in. Had QK of spades one right of button...everyone called preflop and I called as well as did button.... Flop comes up T-J-3 rainbow and blind bets (no small blind in game) All call to me and I raise. Button, blind and one right of blind all calling, everyone else folds.
Turn comes up Q and blind and next person checks. I bet and button folds. Blind and next player call. River is a 2 and is checked to me. I bet and am called by both players. Blind shows 8-9 for low end of a straight, next player shows Q-J for two pair and I am left in third place.
I figure I must have done something wrong but being a rookie am not sure....looking for advice on what I could have done differently. I raised on flop because of open-end straight draw and the J was a spade ( maybe runner-runner flush?) Q on turn gave me top pair and river deuce was no threat. I did not think anyone had A-K for no raise pre-flop and on turn. Comments welcome but be easy on the rook
CW
CW,
Maybe you should consider raising pre-flop. KQs does great in multihanded pots, and your raise may also buy you the button, plus if you hit your hand your opponents will now get so good odds so they will be more willing to call you with hands that are practically drawing dead.
Sincerely,
Emil
Your play after the flop was fine. You have a big hand, with two overcards and an open-ended straight draw with a 3-flush.
I would have bet the river for value as well. Checking here would be a serious error, because the way the action went down you are going to have the best hand most of the time, and you're going to get called by weaker hands.
The surprising thing is the hands that you were shown. You should have seen a raise somewhere along the way. These players must be ultra-passive. Against a field like that you should be able to make a lot of money. Against those hands you should normally have seen two or three bets on the turn.
BTW, you should have raised before the flop. Being one to the right of the button makes raising important because you might get the button to fold and have last position. KQs is a great hand to have in a multi-way pot in this position.
Dan
I completely agree with everyting here. Also, by raising pre-flop, you've got a good chance on getting a free card on the flop, should you choose to take it.
It's clear to me that you do not understand how things change once all the cards are out than on the earlier streets where there are more cards to come. Generally, you do not want to bet the river unless your hand will win the majority of the time that it is called. (There are some exceptions.) Being the best hand on the river most of the time is not good enough.
If you have not read THE THEORY OF POKER by David Sklansky I suggest that you get to work. This is where this idea (plus many others) are discussed in detail. Best of luck.
You don't think that this hand will be best the majority of the time it is called? I understand the concept completely, and I would have bet the river.
Specifically, a player who had top pair on the flop would probably call. A player who had second pair or a pocket pair might call. In fact, I would think that if there were better hands out there, there would have been a raise earlier, since the card on the turn brought in any draws.
In my experience in the lower limit games, there are many players who will call with very weak hands. When this player bets the flop, and continues to bet when an overcard lands on the turn, many players will put him on a bluff and call with darn near anything.
Dan
Dan Puhlease! Malmuth is absolutely correct! The young man needs some study! Betting the river in this situation is a mistake! With nine people in the pot I don't like the turn bet although I probably make it! The only thing Malmuth needed to add in my opinion was to find another game once he advances in his skills. Playing Holdem "See you at the River" with 8 other players is not my idea of a skilfull game!
Opinion By Vince
Vince, I strongly disagree.
There were only 3 people in after the turn.
IMO, this is a clear value bet on the river.
No raise on the turn. If I had the pair of Queens, I certainly would believe that I am still in the lead after the blank on the river AND I fully expect weaker hands to call (at least in the games that I normally play in).
If a good player makes 1.5-2 BB an hour. Missing out on value bets such as this one is a huge mistake.
Another added advantage of betting is that you do not want to be pegged as someone who shies away from making value bets at the end. If you earn that reputation, players will find it easier to call you on the turn because they will know that they don't have to invest two bets to look you up if they happen to have a mediocre hand.
Anyway, this last reason for betting is a secondary one.
The primary reason I suggest to bet at the end is because you probably have the best hand and will in all likelihood get a call. Put yourself in the shoes of the BB. If you have a pair of Jacks and have called the turn, you will (should) call on the River given the size of the pot.
IMO, I would have bet without blinking.
I understand the principle that Mason is talking about. What I am saying is that principle would tell me to bet in this situation.
"Another added advantage of betting is that you do not want to be pegged as someone who shies away from making value bets at the end. If you earn that reputation, players will find it easier to call you on the turn because they will know that they don't have to invest two bets to look you up if they happen to have a mediocre hand."
Skp, I believe that betting a mediocre hand on the river is a mistake.
Now from the statement above and some of your other posts I get the impression that you have almost a paranoid (not meant derogatory) obsession with not letting opponents run over you! Your posts imply (to me) that you play with the same folks on a regular basis and you fear being "pegged" in one manner or another. My take on this is that even if you play with the same players day in and day out for the rest of your days the concept of "Varying your play" will keep you from being "pegged" as anything but a "player". To make plays strongly influenced by image or for potential future play is a mistake!
Opinion by Vince!
Vince, you wrote:
"To make plays strongly influenced by image or for potential future play is a mistake!"
You know, this is the second or third time that I have been told this on the Forum (I think Tom Haley said something similar to one of my posts).
You guys do make a valid point and as Frasier Crane would say "I am listening". I'll have to reevaluate some of my decisions at the table based on your comment.
Nevertheless, I stand by my opinion that I would have value bet with the pair of Queens here.
Skp, The song is "Stand By My Man" not "Stand By my Queen"("Hand").
Anyway, That's what makes Holdem a great game! And this forum too! Controvercies like this!
Keep on postin'.
Vince
For what it's worth,this is probably the first time I completely agree with Vince and completely disagree with Dan and skp. You value bet when you believe you have the best hand and here I don't believe it.
Doug,
I am sure that this wont be the last time we disagree either. As Vince says, that's waht makes the Forum interesting.
But...I have to say that the lack of a raise on the turn must make one believe that a pair of Queens is the best hand. Further, given the size of the pot, it is highly likely that a pair of Jacks will call. Hence, my suggestion to value bet.
Now, if the limper was a very tight player who you figure must have hit two pair or the bottom straight and is afraid to bet or raise the turn because he's not holding the nuts, I might buy into your argument of checking down the river.
The lack of any raises in this hand on the turn is (to say the least) very perplexing. As Dan points out, the game must have been pretty soft.
I didn't comment as to whether or not the river should have been bet. It was just obvious to me that the proper thinking about what to do was not done.
Sorry didn't mean to put words in anyone's mouth. Not betting the river is "my opinion".
Vince
After rereading your response one could easily interpret your remarks toward the bettor making a mistake on the river in this situation. Thus Dan's response and mine. However once again I take the responsibility for stating that a bet on the river in No Foldem Holdem with a mediocre Hand is usually (almost always) a mistake. I stand by that statement. Against Two opponents top pair only is a mediocre hand at best! Regardless of how weak they are!
Vince
Vince, players who start with weak holdings often end up with weak holdings. And by definition, if the game is "No Foldem", they don't have to have much by the time they get to the river. And since they are calling stations, they'll still pay you off. All that adds up to more value bets on the river by a good player.
Don't let yoursef get bent out of shape. If you never stand in the show-down with your pants down like that then you are not "playing" enough. I'd bet that nobody reading this has NEVER been "embarrased" like that. (I remember a hand that got checked to the river, so I finally bet from the button. It was capped with 4 players in by the time it got back to me. ... DOH!-for-1 in judgement on that one!).
KQs is a good multi-way hand in late position and is a candidate for a raise B4 the flop. Your flop raise and turn bet where obviously correct. The bet-for-value on the end was questionable ...
What jumped out at me when you described this hand was a few people called the blind bet but folded for one more bet after YOU raised. This suggests (to me) that the table generally understood you to be a conservative bettor.
Those perceived as conservative betters should bet less for value ON THE RIVER (and bluff more) than others.
The "Evoltion of levels of thinking" (rough draft) follows:
== What can I do (mechanics, betting, show downs...) == How high is my hand (two pair, flush...) == How good is my hand relative to the situation == What does the opponent have == What does the opponent think I have == What does the opponent think I think he has == ... == What is the meaning of life.
Dare I suggest that it appears to me that you have a grasp of the relative value of your hand and what the opponents are likely to have, but are not yet thinking of what the opponent thinks you have. If I am correct that they perceive you as a conservative better AND you knew it, you would probably NOT have bet the river, since you would know that only brain-dead types would call YOU with a lesser hand.
But then, it appears they are brain-dead types since surely the small straight should have raised, as should have top two pair on the turn.
The way that hand went down, only a maniac SHOULD bet that hand on the river; since it would be tough for anybody to call even an aggressive player with a lesser hand with that dangerous board.
Consider practicing this: when not involved, think about what player A thinks player B has. Also, consider how you are generally percieved.
- Louie
I'm writing to pose the theory that raising with this type of hand in a low limit game is fairly ineffective. In a session of about 7 hrs the other night, I had KK 4 times!!! The first time I raised and had 7 callers! Fortunately, on this round I won. The next time, 5 callers and lose the hand. Same scenario on the third. The final time, I am UTG and just call, the button raises and I reraise, which was the only time the raise was effective in getting the play heads up, but still lost. I would like some comments on other players experiences with big pairs in the low limit format.
Bill
I play in a 4-8 game, and a raise with big pairs rarely scares anybody out. I will every once in a while call with these hands so I won't be noticed pre flop, so when I hit the set on the flop, the other players can't put me on a set. We often have 5-7 callers pre-flop even after a raise or a re-raise.
I did this once with AA UTG I actually checked after the flop (with, An A rag rag flop) saw a bet and a raise and I re-raised. and these players all called, when another rag fell. I bet and was raised, I re-raised again, and won a nice pot over Queens up.
I have noticed this, I have adjusted some of my play, It really depends on the game that you're in. And what you see of your opponents..
Good luck Walleye
This is a problem with low limit. However, it become less of an issue if you can lay down an overpair on the flop or turn when there's a lot of action in front of you (or behind, depending on where you are). If eight of you are seeing the flop, and it comes something like Qs Jc 8s, then you're probably doomed. All you have to do now is make the adjustments, and be prepared to muck those purty aces (unless one of 'em's a spade, but you get the idea...)
I agree with GD's comments.
Although I haven't done the math, it seems to me that you probably showed a profit from your four Pocket Kings hands (i.e your profit from the one winning hand more than offsets your investment in the three losing hands).
Remember, it's not the number of pots you win that counts. The only way we keep score is money won or money lost.
If you are saying that you are now considering calling with Pocket Kings instead of raising, well then I certainly disagree. In such games, you will win fewer pots with Pocket Kings (as compared to a tight game) but you will make more money.
Besides, if you decide not to raise with Kings or Aces, what hands will you raise with?
Even in these games, your biggest money-making hands (by far) will be pocket Aces or Kings.
Bill, continue bombarding them with chips when you have the goods. The results will eventually show.
Bill,
When I was playing at the Bellagio early this month in a 1-4-8-8 game, a player sitting next to me told me that raising pre-flop was just increasing your exposure. I took that to mean that you stand to lose more because there are so many callers in these low limit games, most of whom call because there is a lot of money in the pot. Furthermore, many callers will play pre-flop any hand with an ace in it. He therefore advised me to never raise, since you are likely to be immediately facing a hand which beats you. The fact is, hands like KK and AA are going to have more winners than not, and if your raise simply serves to build the pot, then so much the better. You'll win bigger pots. And when the flop shows that you're an obvious loser, then you can muck.
Also, a lot depends on the texture of the game. When there are maniacs in there, you're right, the raise tends to simply build the pot. But in a game with a few more regulars (tighter players) the raise may cut down the field quite a bit. So, for the most part in 1-4-8-8, 3-6, and the like, the raise can be ineffective in reducing the field, but when you win a pot it can be huge. You just can't follow it to the end just 'cause the starting cards are beautiful. At least that's in my opinion. (And yes, I've had KK and gotten hammered after my pre-flop raise. It happens. Of course the worst is when in a loose game I raised preflop with KK only to find that I had two callers. A king came on the flop, and then one on the turn. They folded, and I had a weak win, but that happens too.) Good luck.
Bill G.
You've answered your own question.
On the 4 hands, if you hadn't ever raised preflop, you would have won 7 fewer bets the first hand, and saved 1 bet each the other 3 hands. That adds up to 4 extra small bets in my book. At a respectable win rate of 1 big bet per hour, you just made 2 hours worth of profit by properly raising with these hands.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Yes, raising in a small stake, lose game, is almost always troublesome, regardless of the value of your hand. It serves as a good pot builder to which most, if not all, callers become attached until the last bet on the river. This phenomenom puzzled me for a long time, because all my textbooks instructed me to raise pre-flop with pocket As, and Ks,irrespective of my postion to the button. The latter the position, the axiom holds, the lesser the quality of the cards needs to be in order to justify the raise.
After many hours of play in small stake hold'em, I came to learn that I am much better off raisning in the early position than in the middle, and least of all in the late position. Over the time I have observed that once the people have already called the small pre-flop bet, a subsequent raise, or even two, will not get the out. The three bets, likely will. But if they are facing raise before action comes to them, they'll think twice before calling. This behavior seems prevalent among the poor, or less-than-average educated, small stake poker players. Thus, if I face five or more callers and hold either of the two highest pairs in my hand, I prefer to call. Once I see the flop, I adjust my play accordingly.
However, I prefer to raise in the late position with middle or high suited connectors when facing five or more callers. These type of starting hands tend to pay off better for me as the drawing hands requires more callers.
This approach to playing small stake HE poker may run contrary to the teaching of the poker gurus such Mason, David and Zee, our generous hosts of this forum, but, I assure you, the play manners and participation in these samll games tends to be brutal. It gravitates towards a 'seven card lottery' play out on the river more than a classic poker game.
Ouch!
You're raising with suited connectors (I guess hands like 78s, 89s, etc.?), because these hands play well multiway, but just calling with AA and KK????
It may be true that suited connectors and small pairs play well multiway, but so do AA and KK. Even if everyone calls you down all the way in a 10-handed game, you'll end up with the best hand, having started with AA, a large portion of the time (a LOT more often than 10%). Since some folks will fold after the flop and/or turn, you'll want to get there money in early, by raising before the flop.
Failing to take every possible raise preflop when holding AA or KK in a no-foldem holdem game is almost always (99.99% of the time) a mistake.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I often like to call with a big pair early and reraise when the almost inevitable raise occurs in 1488. If it doesn't happen, then I am very deceptively positioned. As you know it is very difficult to drive many players out with one preflop raise in 1488. Of coarse you are also simply raising to get more money in the pot when you have the likely best hand.
In a post below, Mason said that you should not value bet on the river unless you are sure that you will be called by a worse hand the majority of the time.
Perhaps what I am about to say below applies only to a small number of games but my take on it is as follows.
Weak players will pay off a great number of times with abysmal hands. Accordingly, IMO, the principle that Mason states (which is of course a correct one) dictates that you make a lot of value bets at the end.
Here are a couple of examples.
You hold QQ. Board on the turn is Jh,8d,7s,4h
River is Kd.
Generally, I will bet for value on the river if I am up against only one player particularly if I have position and he checks to me.
In my experience, the player is much more likely to call you with his one pair hand than he is to either (a) fold his one pair hand or (b) have hit his King at the end.
If the flop had a two flush (i.e. change the 8d to an 8s), I would still be inclined to bet at the end unless the last card was the Ad instead of the Kd. This is because the player could have hit an Ace while looking to complete his flush draw. The difference between the Ace and the King is that players are much more likely to play Axs than Kxs. Further, the fact that the flop had a two flush may make him call because he believes that you missed your flush draw and are bluffing.
In general, I find that too many players put on the brakes on the river after an overcard hits. Sometimes, the safest card for you might be an overcard.
Example: Your hand is As8s
Board: 8,7,6,2
You have been leading the betting and have got two callers all the way.
River: Off suit Queen
IMO (at least in the games that I am used to playing in), checking on the end is a mistake.
That Queen is most likely a blank and I would probably get at least one call (perhaps two) at the end with a hand like 9,8. Heck, if the flop had a two flush, a player may look me up with A6 if he figures I missed my flush and was therefore bluffing.
Anyway, I realize that all of the above depends on the type of game that you play in. Different considerations apply in games where you likely will not be called by weak hands. But I generally find that there are emough weak players in most games to value bet a lot on the River.
As always, I look forward to your responses and comments.
skp,
Value betting is very tricky but very important. Your rate can easily be changed by ~2bb/hr. There definitely are no generalizations. Both you and MM are correct depending on the situation.
I must say , not value betting on the river is one of the most common errors one sees in a loose HE game. This especially important if you have a rep of bluffing. If you have a wild image, you are going to be called by any pair.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
"Value betting is very tricky but very important."
Value betting is neither tricky nor important in a "no fold'em Holdem" game. There is usually enough money in any pot your in to make "value betting" a useless concept! The main thing to Value in No Foldem is "Your Sanity". Protect it!
Opinion by Vince. BTW what's wrong with drawing dead every once in a while! Makes you remember your human like the rest of us!
I don't understand. What does the size of the pot have to do with value betting, other than to make it more correct? (It's more correct because when the pot is very large people are more likely to call with a weak holding).
Now and then, you are going to get burned by a goofy two pair hand i.e. someone shows J5 when a 5 hits on the river.
How do you fight this?
Well, you charge him for the times he misses by value betting because you can be sure that he will charge you when he hits.
In weak games, you will get called on the end by J5 even if an Ace hits on the river and you hold AJ.
In games where there are several fishermen out there, you have to charge them a fee to hold on to their fishing licenses. After all, most of the time, they will find the river dry.
Also, an error in betting can only cost you one extra bet (i.e., if you check you surely will call the fisherman's bet). An error in checking can cost you more than one bet (i.e. if 2 fishermen would have called with a worse hand. BTW, this is not an uncommon occurrence. When the pot gets big, I constantly see calls and overcalls from some ridiculous hands).
Now, some players can't take it psychologically when they get raised by a live one who hits a 5 on the end and shows J5. Such players may wish to ease off on value bets in order to prorect their sanity (but this WILL hurt their bankroll).
Actually, such players shouldn't really be playing in No fold 'em games in the first place. Caro's law of least tilt is particularly apropos in these loose games. If one can't withstand the bad beats (which are inevitable), one shouldn't play in that type of game.
Agreed. It's even more important to value bet the river if you raised pre-flop, since many opponents will 'figure' you missed if the board is ragged and call with as little as an underpair or a weak ace high.
Again, this is a tough thread to talk about, since everyone's opinion is based on anecdotal excperience. In my exp., however, value betting top pair good kicker on the river when there isn't a three or four flush or three or four card straight on the board is a real money maker, even with as many as three opponents. (Of course, this is for low limit games-- in a tight 15-30 game my criterion for value betting would, uh, go up).
"(Of course, this is for low limit games-- in a tight 15-30 game my criterion for value betting would, uh, go up). "
The reverse of this is True! In a tight 15-30 game you usually have a good idea of how your opponents play. In a tight game you are usually facing only one opponent by the time it gets to the river. Knowing how he/plays sets the criteria for value betting (usually not very high, top pair with good kicker). In no foldem holdem, players are playing everthing and anything. It's not uncommon to se J,5 suited win a pot with two pair. You can never rule out any hand especially against many opponents. Consequently the standard for value betting must be set higher than 15-30 tight games. If you value your sanity you'll play loose no foldem holdem very tight without the need to consider "value betting".
Opinion by Vince Vince.
That's not correct. Loose games are loose because the players are calling stations. If a person calls too much, you should punish him for doing it by value betting more hands.
In a tough game, people are more likely to make 'tough' folds, and the smaller pots make it correct for them to tighten up their calling requirements. Thus, the chance of being called by a weaker hand goes down.
Dan
I disagree with this, if only because in a 'decent' 15-30 game your chances of getting check-raised on the river have gone up exponentially. Plus there is a school of low limit players (a big school) who are hell bent to call with anything on the river. I can't count the number of times that I've bet a paif of queens with a jack high into a field of three, only to have the whole gaggle call me down with raggedy ass underpairs, king high, etc. Further, while it's true that you'll lose more of these river bets as the number of opponents on the river increases, you don't need to win nearly as many to show a profit.
Now, about this sanity issue--- Vince, we've been bantering back and forth about this thing for weeks now, and all I can tell you is that no fold 'em games don't bug me a bit. I don't mind getting drawn out on, I don't mind losing to some goofy two pair, etc. It doesn't faze me. In fact, it doesn't even get my heart rate up. Take tonight for example; after the Omaha 8 game breaks up (on which more later), I take a seat at the HE table. Two to the right of the button and I get AKo. Four limpers. I've got no idea how this table plays so I raise, hoping to thin them out, only (sigh) they all call. Flop, of course comes with an ace. To my astonishment the guy to my immediate right bets, I breathe a sigh of relief and raise, and-- yep, you guessed it- the whole table calls. Run down squad has been officially activated.
To keep it short and sweet, the guy in the five seat scoops the pot with a two pair (he's holding 96o) when a nine comes on the turn and the six on the river. Gorgeous pot, and there I am, sucking the proverbial hint t#t with a lousy top pair. This happens all the time-- ALL THE TIME-- and it really doesn't get to me.
It's a psychological thing, I guess, and the thing I've got going for me is that I'm positively tilt proof. Nothing gets to me. Four months ago I had a day where I had three nut flushes cracked, two nut straights, and six sets (two of which I lost to runner runner quads with wired underpairs). All in the span of nine hours. But to look at me you'd have thought I was doing just fine.
I would say that you don't need to be called by a worse hand a majority of the time, just half the time. You get extra equity from value bets on the river in two ways: Your bluffs go up in credibility, and you will occasionally get a better hand to fold.
I believe one of the primary tools for beating a no-foldem game is to value bet the river more often. Heck, I've put a value bet in on the river with top pair, and had three or four people pay me off.
Dan
David and Mason are two examples of con men. They sell obsolete books containing obsolete systems that are full of snake oil. Do not read their books. They teach you how to lose. Either provide the proof your systems will win or admit you two are con men.
Choo Choo!
Doug
You are absolutely correct. Now please spell my name right.
It's poker dumbass not your damn blackjack Grant. You can't prove a poker system. A moron like yourself could screw up even the best cards. So you're right...there is no system to guarantee wins at poker.
Welcome to the forum... Doogie...
Just keep your postings to a minimum... Downloading this page takes longer than the newsgroups...
;)
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
I'll put my money on this being a doogie imitator...
Hey pal-- this belongs on the exchange forum.
Who are these guys David and Mason you mentioned? Never heard of them. Thanks for the warning!
What is poker?
It seems there's two camps out there :
1. Dave and Mason are the gods of poker knowledge (an apparent majority - we'll call then Daveites.) 2. Dave and Mason (and other authors) are false prophets (We'll call them Doogyites for now.)
Now I'd guess the Doogyites come from a group who have found 2+2 stuff not to be the silver bullet to success and the Anti-Doogyites to be those who have.
In the interest of truth finding how can we objectively decide this issue?
No doubt Dave and Mason's stuff give one lot's to think about and is yards ahead of a lot of stuff out there in many ways.
Yet it can also lead to a "can't see the forest for the trees" syndrome and sometimes Dave's writing style jumps around and is unclear. Much like math text that state the infamous "thus it clealy follows...." and it doesn't clearly follow for us average folk! Another example is how some books jump around to different games for examples. Perhaps examples relative to each game could be presented.
Yet again it may not be avoidable. My own notes on the game span some 20 pages and I'm not any good, and I have read at least a dozen of the top books. (Probably means I have 20 pages of crappy notes! :-) )
Below you will also find and excerpt from The Exchange Forum where Dave admits he knew fallacies (refered to as "slight glitches) went to press and where know to hoim at the time of writing.
This leads to the questions? Do the Doogyites have some truth in thier rants? What other "slight glitches" are out there creating Doogyites?
I propose we collectively review strategy as best we can in this forum with a few objectives :
1. Give both Daveites and Doogyites a fair shake 2. Determine an optimal set of strategies that are actionable and recallable under real game situations. I.e things like (for each popular game):
a. Starting Hands
b. rules and tools to guide actions based on a positive EV goal
c. effective opponent reading
d. compile a list of effective board reading tools
e. Precisely define terminology and hands rankings
like, "Strong", Marginal, weak, Scared, Brave, Tight, Loose, passive aggressive etc. etc.
f. etc. 3. Determine the actual mathematical and logical underpinnings of (2) to ascertain thier correctness with forays into poker psycology where needed.
and come to a fair conclusion as well to a sound set of strategic principles rather than continue with the Dave is god/Dave in not pile of stuff.
Ultimately we should end up with two things. A valid stategy, and explanations for each point of that strategy in a two part document with concise and charts and tables to illustrate.
Now some will agrue Dave and Mason have done that. But it appears to me that there's no complete strategy document without the fluff and now separate point by point explanations. Some may even argue Caro's Pro 7 Card Stud report is such a document.
Truth is they've all written so much it isn't neccesarily possible to get it all down (forest for the trees problem). Further, Contradictions seem to be out there and Dave has now admitted to publishing "slight glitches". Now I'm sure all technical writers do some simplifications, having read a ton of technical material in other fields I can vouch for that.
Further, some folks will acertain that it "can't be done". I have to throw the guantlet down on that one...because every decision a Dave or Mason makes at the table is based on some thing. Therefore it is quantifiable.
It may be time for a distilation of what's what, an end of the Doogyite/Daveite stuff, and the clarification and solidification of the strategy and tactics of the game.
Perhaps "The Art of Poker (war)" or "On Poker(war)" etc.!
Maybe someone can suggest a process where we could collectively contribute to, review, and include points in such a document, which would no doubt evolve over time and be perfected, possibly online in this forum.
Thanks, Frank
P.S. : Now, that quote from the Exchange Forum :
Posted by David sklansky on Tuesday, 19 January 1999, at 2:18 p.m., in response to Poker, Gaming & Life - D.Sklansky, posted by Adrian Armstrong on Monday, 18 January 1999, at 2:07 p.m.
That article was technically slightly flawed for the reason you stated and others. I knew it when I wrote it. I simply did not want to muddy the waters with these technical issues since I believe the basic conclusions and the reasoning remain valid. But I do congrtatulate you and a couple of others who saw these small glitches.
I don't believe that it is necessary to go to any lengths at all to decide which camp I would want to be in. Good poker literature is like a map or a cookbook. Some people can look at a map and easily figure out the best way to get to their destination; for others, looking at the same map only serves to confuse. My wife can go to any page in any cookbook written in English and produce wonderful food by reading and following the recipes; I have never been able to produce anything worthwhile by doing so. There is an art to playing poker which needs to be interwoven with the theory and the probability information. If you read, understand and apply the concepts contained within the good poker books, you will be a winning player, assuming you have patience, discipline and are playing in an honest game with a beatable rake against inferior players. The very best players can succeed with some of these elements being missing.
Well Big John, as usual you have a pretty good argument.
Obviously the Dave as Guru brigade is the popular one. Or is it that the other camp just fades away with only Doogie upset or obsessed enough to continue to rant?
Typically folks in Doogie mode do feel wronged. When they raise a beef, everyone laughs it off...making the Doogie types but more extreme. But enough on Doogie psycology.
I could toss your argument from a month or two back at you and say that you should try harder at cooking and "you'd be a better man for it". Or perhaps you've decided that your efforts are better expended elsewhere? Perhaps coming full circle to my argument that sometimes it's best to quit things that don't work for you?
But I'm not really here to start an argument but rather to settle a few.
Is it possible that poker (and it's players therefore) exists on a distriubution, let's even suppose a normal bell curve skewed a bit to the negative by house rake, that dictates few will actually be decent winners?
For example in a coin toss to some statistically significant number of trials only so many trials are going to be majorly more heads than tail or vice versa. Perhaps in poker it is similar. Quite possibly with a not so nice a distribution as a poisson.
As a result maybe many experience that they cannot do any right at it no matter how well they apply good sound skill and stategy? They have simply fallen to the negative side of the distribution. This would also explain the occasional winner who can seem to do no wrong.
As an objective experiment I've begun tracking table time vrs. takehome for both real games and a simulator (Sozobon's freebie 7 card version 4.1) just to see what happens.
So far at low limit I'm averaging +12.00 hr. for $1-5 live and +15.00 hr for simulated with the caveat that I've had to settle on a fixed 2-4$ structure as the simulator doesn't support spread limit. Hopefully the settings I've selected will help equalize the differences some. Once I get a decent amount of data I'll probably probably try to see if I can make some sense of std. dev. etc.
I also believe that some "rushes" and lucky draws have occured in my limited data so I expect the hourly figures to come down over time to be more in line with my prior experiences in the game. Quite possibly, if not expectedly they should go negative, though hopefully concentrating on keeping them positive may help. Can't say yet. One intersting parameter I'm trying to estimate is average drawdown per game and per time period. Similar to what daytraders talk about. I think we'd all like to minimize our behind the 8 ball time at each game and any time period. I for one would give up some return to insure profit or at least keep the downswings as limited as possible.
Perhaps Dave and Mason can expound on how that tradeoff (of drawdown for return) could be insured. I'm sure many a hopeful pro or short bankrolled individual might like to know how that could be achieved. So how 'bout it 2+2=4 folks? Some analysis of risk reduction instead of the usual profit maximization stuff?
So go ahead Laugh at the low limits. But I've found better to experiment cheap than to get all bent out of shape like Doogie.
Hopefully somehow I can quantify strategy changes too. Should anything good come out of it I'll post it. However some say to get as statistically releveant number of trials at poker would take 8 years full time playing due to the 2.5 million possible hands * 30 trials. So I can't really expect to do anymore than track how I'm doing.
On the subject of "art" I'd guess you're refering to reading people, card reading and bluffing. Have to say you're right there. Those are going to be part psycologist/part actor factors!
However there should still be a way to specify or list guidlines (or all) the postive EV "no matter what plays" and execute those only, unless the reality is too few of them exist to be useful.
For example, I could say, I will wait for only rolled up trips to play, sandbag to fifth and hit hard then. Now I might have to wait forever to get one and then the ante/bring in and player reaction would make it not work. Actually I fully expect that would fail...but you get the idea. But some set of basic plays may exist that are effective, and from there the art could begin.
As an aside, if this mythical game theory answer exists it probably would reduce the game to chance as everyone could then do it and results would go with the cards. Everyone can't win. Futher in that scenario the chips would just circulate until the rake got them all. So maybe there's no incentive to put it on the streets.
For a moment let's return to the Doogie phenomenon. Let's suppose that we all agree by the mathematical realities of the game only a few of the best and luckiest can really survive at it. The books to tend to paint a more optimistic picture for the most part. To the extent that they do this I can, as everyone is aware, sympathize with Doogie Rant.
However, Now that Doogie has made his point I also have to ask, Hey Doogie, what do you suggest? and Where's your book? Can you prove your theories or "admit they are wrong"?
Thanks everyone, Frank
P.S. John, you had mentioned that "all that wouldn't be neccesary". I suspect maybe that's true but If I, or someone else cannot describe the poker decision making process they are using, aren't they just guessing?
Frank,
The camp of "Doogieits" comprises of one very disturbed individual. Who believes that the rake will kill any game, at any level and all props are 'agents' of the casino to con the public. This individual self-admitting a card cheat who, by his own admition played partners about 20-30 years ago. During these long years he must have lost his marbles and went koo-koo. He is the official net-kook of rec.gambling.poker and rec.gambling.blackjack. If you are ever bored on a rainy sunday afternoon, just go to Dejanews and seek out our hero. Cheers Andras
Andras,
Thanks for the info. I missed the last 20 or 30 years in Vegas.
I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt as to having some reason for being so upset.
This partnering thing must be somewhat prevalent. I had an individual I met on the 301 one night suggest that the Mirage was no good because they didn't tolerate teams! I'm not sure because it was a quick conversation but I think he was suggesting joining one. I simply decided the Mirage must be a good place to play, if not fairly tough for me. :-)
Was it perhaps Doogy?
Don't know, but got a good laugh out of your post.
Thanks, Frank
There has been a lot of controversy lately on value betting the river. Actually there has been total disagreement with my position on Value bets on the river. So maybe I need a good definition of what constitutes a value bet. I will start with a simple definition that I use. Then anyone else may add their definition and maybe I can correct my play!
Value Bet (River): Betting a hand against an opponent that will call with more hands than he will bet!
Notice I said an opponent not multi!
Vince
Vince,
IMO, there are generally three types of bets on the River:
a. a bluff b. You have the nuts or a very strong hand c. You have a medioce hand which is likely to be called by a lesser hand.
The third catgory is what I would call a value bet and it can be made against more than one opponent.
Note: There are some other esoteric reasons for betting that don't neatly fit into any of the above three categories. For example, you might bet a hand from early position hoping to cause a tight player to your left to fold a better hand and then have a loose player in late position call your bet with a worse hand than yours. The tight player may fold because he doesn't know if you have him beat or if the loose player has both of you badly beat and will therefore raise. Naturally, these squeeze plays don't arise often. An example is if you held AJ and the board reads A,10,9,5,3 and the last card completes a flush on the board.
"Value Bet (River): Betting a hand against an opponent that will call with more hands than he will bet!"
Definitely not!! People define value betting differently but I wouldn't use this one. This def includes some 100% -EV situations. Example: You flop top set on a two suited flop. The flush gets there on the river with no pairs. Your tight-passive opponent will not bet anything but the nuts and makes a small flush on the river. He will call but not bet his small flush which is his minimum requirement for calling. Certainly your bet on the river against this type of opponent is not a value bet. It looses close to 100% of the time!
Implications and Considerations of Value Bets;
You hope your opponent will call with more WORSE hands than Better ones.
He won't raise much with his better hands but will bet them.
You lose value by lost opportunity to induce a bluff.
Consider his check raise inclinations.
You actually would like to be first where a miscalulated value bet only costs 1 BB instead of 2BB if you were last and get checkraised.
Value Bets should increase with your bluffing frequency, their calling frequency, your read on your opponent and decrease with their bluffing frequency.
Opponents matter a great deal. For some a value bet is imperative, others, a check fold is necessary (previous example)
If you don't value bet enough, your opponent can easily put you on a Big hand or a Bluff which usually means an easy call on the river with a weak hand. If you value bet mediocre hands, then calling with a weak hand is a tough decision.
Not a easy skill to learn but a very profitable one.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Hi everybody!
I totally agree with the posters who have stated that the river is frequently misplayed by many player. I have noticed a situation where, IMO, many players play the river incorrectly. Therefore I have created a quiz, where this exact situation comes up. Maybe the correct answer is obvious to some of you, but since I've seen so many bad plays in this situation I have posted it here. And please, don't peek at other answers before you have written one yourself.
You are in early position with TcTs and decide to raise. Two people in middle position call and the button also calls (blinds fold).
The flop comes 2hThKd. You bet, the two callers in middle position fold and now the button raises, and you call.
The turn comes 4s. You check planning to raise, but now your only opponent checks behind you.
The river is 7c. You are first to act, what would you do?
Ok, my caveat is that I'm a beginner. From there: the button probably doesn't have KK or AA or the button would have reraised rather than the cold call of two bets preflop. So with the texture of the board it seems that there's no way that you can't win the hand with trip tens. After the turn, I think that maybe the button has missed the flush draw, and the river is no help. The button won't come out and bet on the river, so bet looking for a call, rather than try and checkraise. I think that'll only allow the button to check it out. We'll see if that's right. If anyone has any comments about my analysis, mistakes I've made, etc. please let me know!
Bill G.
It certainly appears that the button was on a draw, and (successfully) made the cheap card play. If correct, then he clearly did not hit on the turn or river (unless he has Ah7h, in which case he just made 3d pair). As such, the most likely outcomes are he'll fold if you bet, and he'll check if you check. In neither case do you make any extra money.
However, there are 2 ways you might make more money, and which is best depends entirely upon what you know about this opponent.
If you check, the button might bluff at the pot. It will appear that you might have bet out the flop with a draw also, in which case you also clearly didn't hit, and the button now realizes that his draw can beat yours by bluffing.
If the button is really aggressive (which is very unlikely, considering that he took the free card rather than bluff again), he might bluff-raise if you bet out again. While this is an argument for betting out, it seems unlikely to work. The other reason for betting out is alluded to above. The button might call with A7, thinking that you could be on the draw and are bluffing the river. Also, the button might call with A high no pair, also thinking that you might be bluffing.
Overall, if I didn't know the opponent, I'd bet out, as their are more players out there who make bad calls than there are players who make bad bluffs.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
How can you check the turn here heads up? You have to bet -even if a scary card falls. My $0.02.
Your opponent's most likely hand is A-Qh, A-Jh or Q-Jh. By raising on the flop he was trying, successfully, to buy a free card. I would check, hoping to induce a bluff. I would then raise; true, he will fold if he was bluffing, but he might also have a pocket pair or something like A-T and call your raise. Lots of players will bluff at a pot if you have checked both the turn and the river in front of them.
ok Emil, I haven't peeked.
Checkraise would be my choice. If your opponent has a King which he checked for some reason on the turn (Maybe he thought he had kicker trouble or was just trying to be cute by checking his Ace/King in order to get you to bluff on the river or whatever), he would surely bet it on the river. You then raise and hope to catch him for two bets.
Your opponent could have a flush or staright draw which he missed. So, give him a chance to bluff for he certainly can't call your bet on the river.
I say check and raise. Your opponent was likely on a draw and will muck his hand if you bet, but may be tempted to bluff if you check. It's hard to imagine him not betting a king on the turn, and a ten is highly unlikely. Even if he did check the king, he's likely to bet it on the river and may even call if you raise.
It really depends on the player, and on my table image. If I'm seen as someone who bluffs a lot, betting is not a bad choice as you might get called by as little as Ace-High. If my image is fairly rocky, then I've got to go for the check and try to induce a bluff.
It also depends on my opponent... Does he bluff a lot? Does he call a lot with weak holdings? Is he capable of a raise bluff?
This is one of those situations where I think a case can be made for betting or check-raising.
Dan
This guy called two bets cold from an early raiser. Raises the flop. Checks the turn!
I would check cause I want to see his hand! With this flop, my guess is that he has J,J or Q,Q, or A,Qs . What else could he call a preflop raise with (unless he is a very weak player) raise the flop and check the turn?. Since I don't really care what he has I bet. I figure it's 2 to 1 he calls.
Vince
I´d try to induce a bluff. If he bets, I´d raise but don´t expect a call. He obviously has some kind of drawing hand, something like two hearts, QJ or AJ and missed his draw. He wouldn´t call anyway, so I think it´s right to try to induce a bluff.
Anyway, with this kind of flop and being raised on th flop I would rather reraise on the flop and bet the turn. There is a pretty good chance the other player is on a draw, and I want to make him pay for it.
Regards
MA
A stop 'n go strategy (I thank GD for this term which I had never heard of before) is also effective against a drawing hand i.e., you call the raise on the flop and then come out betting on the turn when the flush card doesn't get there.
But why shouldn´t I take this one extra bet by reraising? The chances of hitting the flushcard on 4th street ist only 1:6, so I´m gonna loose money in the long run.
Regards
MA
Oh, I agree that a reraise on the flop is the best play. I am just saying that a stop 'n go strategy is better than checking the turn.
In other words, my order of preference is:
1. Reraise the flop
2. Just call the raise on the flop but bet the turn
3. Just call the raise on the flop and check the turn (with the intention of checkraising).
OK, I haven't read any of the other answers yet (honest). In general, I think you already made a mistake by not betting out on the turn but, since you didn't, in most cases you need to go ahead and bet out on the river. If your opponent hit his hand (trip 7's for instance), you make 3 bets by betting out, versus only 2 by check-raising. The exception to this (there are ALWAYS exceptions aren't there?) is if your opponent is aggressive enough to be likely to bet out on a bluff, but unlikely to call your bet.
Now I'll read the other answers to see if I overlooked something.
Keep Shootin'
Steve
Check! The other guy seems to be on a heart draw--if he was, and you bet, then he will probably fold putting no more money in the pot. If you bet, and he has you beat, he will raise, and you will lose 2 bets.
If he's the kind of player that likes to raise with draws then I would check-raise to induce a bluff.
If he's the kind of player that likes to raise with questionable pairs I would bet for value figuring he would be happy to show his pair down. (I would also bet for value if I had no idea what kind of player he is.)
If he's either of these kinds of players I would have re-raised and bet the turn and river; figuring there is a high probability he's after a "free" card.
- Louie
Alot of players are eagles early and chickens late. Couple that with the most obvious play being the most correct one 90-95% of the time and the answer IMHO: bet. He called the raise preflop and raised the King on the flop. The range ofhands he is on is limited and obvious. You already lost one bet trying to be cute on the turn. Either he successfully executed a free card play on you(because you were trying to out deceive him) or he actually has Kings and you calling the raise scared him a little(remember you raised preflop from early position). If you check the river, one way or the other he isn't going to pay you off for two bets and maybe not one. If you bet, I believe he will pay you off with Kings. Without Kings, he will fold and you quietly muck your hand. If you check and he checks,then you get to show the table just how fancy you really can be. All expert fancy players are now free to take a shot at me.
Thanks for all great answers! You are all winners because you have all been thinking about the game trying to answer this quiz, something that is necessary for winning play.
The main purpose of the quiz was to point out a general concept that many people doesn’t seem to be aware of: If you are holding a strong hand and your opponent is very likely to have missed a draw on the river, you should be much more willing to check if you are first to act to try to induce a bluff.
On this hand it is VERY likely that your opponent are on a flush draw. He probably raised on the flop with the purpose of trying to buy a free card on the turn. On the turn his plan succeeds when you fall into his trap.
As usual much depends on what kind of player your opponent is and how you are perceived by him. But if you “play by the book (S/M, tight-aggressive)” and your opponent is fairly tight I think it’s usually correct to check-raise in this situation. Your opponent is often sitting there with his four flush, so:
IF YOU BET: he will almost always muck his hand. You are a tight aggressive player, so he knows that you often check-raise on the turn and therefore it’s unlikely that he will call you with only ace high and if he has an even worse hand (like QhJh) he will of course fold.
IF YOU CHECK-RAISE: there is a possibility that he tries a bluff. He gets 6.75 to 1 on this bluff and that’s probably the only chance for him to win the pot. When you raise him he will probably throw his hand away, but at least you have gained one bet.
IN SHORT: He is much more likely to bet himself, than to call a bet from you (and you also have a slim chance that he will call your raise).
There are exceptions (as usual). If your opponent is a very loose player and maybe you are also perceived as a loose aggressive player, then your opponent are more likely to try to keep you honest, and therefore call a bet from you with only ace high. In that case it’s probably better to bet, since it is likely that he holds Ah. Knowing your opponents and how you are perceived by your opponents is an essential part of winning play.
Last but not least, I don’t claim to have a patent on the correct answer to this quiz and as I have already said, situations sometimes occur when a different way of action would have been better, but anyway I hope you enjoyed it?
Sincerely,
Emil
By the way, if he has a king with a weak kicker he is also likely to bet on the river, since you have now checked on both the turn and the river which could imply weakness, and in that case he is more likely to also call your raise.
Sincerely,
Emil
" if he has a king with a weak kicker"
If he has a K and weak kicker what the hell is he doing calling an early position raiser??? What are we dealing with here, children!!
Vince
Vince,
In this situation even a queen is a quite weak kicker. Since you raised in early position pre-flop he must think you have an A or Q kicker or maybe even trips if the king helped you. So if he has KJs or KQs he is now in trouble. At the same time it's possible that he played those hands pre-flop.
But I agree with you 100% that a king with a "weak" kicker is unlikely here, but it is one of very few hands that could explain his check on the turn (besides a draw), because he is now afraid of a higher kicker since you raised in early position pre-flop.
There are almost no hands at all that he is likely to have but a draw in this situation. In fact, when I "constructed" the quiz I tried my best to make it clear that a draw was his most likely holding.
Sincerely,
Emil
Emil! My issues with this quiz!
1) Early position raises with TT!
2) 3 (that's three) Cold callers!
3) BB is getting 8 1/2 to 1 to call. For many of us 7,2o look's good at 8 1/2 to 1 yet BB folds! SB is not getting much worse!
4) Flop come K,T,2 (2 diamonds) and none of these cold callers except the Raiser appear to be helped enough to stay to the turn and bet the turn. Are you sure this is holdem! 5) The early guy bets the flop. 2 middle cold callers fold. He gets raised and calls. That's O.K. maybe the button has A,K. Although in this game if he has A,K I say he reraises before the flop. Besides if the early raiser puts him on A,K or Kx, his play is to reraise the flop looking for a reraise and if he doesn't get the reraise he bets the turn. If early puts the button on a flush draw his play is still to reraise the flop and bet the turn.
6) By the time we get to the turn in your scenario we have 12 1/2 small bets in the pot. Why give a free card? Bet and hope he calls but if not who cares? Winning this pot right now is not a bad thing!
"If you are holding a strong hand and your opponent is very likely to have missed a draw on the river, you should be much more willing to check if you are first to act to try to induce a bluff."
With this I agree! Depending on the situation and the likelyhood that your opponent doesnt hold second best hand!
I still bet the river in this game! I already missed a bet on the turn I ain't missin no mo!
Opinion By Vince
Vince, My issues with your issues!
"1) Early position raises with TT!"
I see nothing spectacular about that? I think it's the right play if you are in a tight game, and you think it can reduce your opponents to 1 or 2. You want to avoid getting 3 or 4 callers with this hand. (For a similar discussion see HPFAP p. 19-20 about pair of jacks).
"2) 3 (that's three) Cold callers!"
So what? They must have good cards.
"3) BB is getting 8 1/2 to 1 to call. For many of us 7,2o look's good at 8 1/2 to 1 yet BB folds! SB is not getting much worse!"
If you are calling with 72o in this situation you are costing yourself money, as well as with several other hands. Maybe the small blind has 93o and the big blind has 73o. In that case they are clearly making the right decision when they fold.
"4) Flop come K,T,2 (2 diamonds) and none of these cold callers except the Raiser appear to be helped enough to stay to the turn and bet the turn. Are you sure this is holdem!"
Say for example that the callers have QQ and JJ. On the flop you bet out in early position when a king hits. I think they made the right decision when they mucked their hands, taking into consideration that you were the pre-flop raiser and they still have pre-flop cold caller(s) to act behind them. And only two cards will improve their hands.
5)&6) I agree with you that it would frequently have been more profitable to play your set of tens differently on the flop and turn. But I see nothing totally unreasonable with the way it was played. However the reason why I chose to play the hand this way should be obvious to you, to create a situation were it was very likely that your opponent missed a draw. If I would have bet on the turn, my whole point would have been ruined.
I see nothing unusual with this hand. On the contrary I think situations like this come up all the time.
You wrote: "I still bet the river in this game! I already missed a bet on the turn I ain't missin no mo!"
Ok! I think the risk is greater that you miss this bet if you bet than if you check. But hey, we are allowed to disagree. As long as we keep thinking about the game, we all benefit.
Sincerely,
Emil
Well first things first
"The flop comes 2hThKd. You bet, the two callers in middle position fold and now the button raises, and you call."
I would not call I would re-raise, I know I have the best hand, and Im going to make him pay for his draw.
"The turn comes 4s. You check planning to raise, but now your only opponent checks behind you."
Again I would have not gone for the check raise, Instead I would have bet, In this position he was trying to steal with a raise, and or buying a free card. I will not let him have a free card.
"The river is 7c. You are first to act, what would you do?"
I bet, he will probably fold!
IMO Walleye
Walleye,
I agree with you that it is doubtful whether the play before the river was correct. However, this hand has never been played in real life. I tried to make it as simple as possible to prove a point on the river.
On the river you wrote: "I bet, he will probably fold!"
You seem to want him to fold, or do I read too much into this statement? If you want him to fold then you are wrong. You want your opponent to call. You want to get as much of your opponents money as possible into the pot, since you can be almost sure that your hand is best.
If we ignore the slight chance that he will call your raise or raise himself you should:
Bet if you think it's more likely that he would call a bet than bet out himself and,
Check if you think it's more likely that he would bet himself than call a bet from you.
Sincerely,
Emil
Emil,
I would bet in this situation, not because I want him to fold,but because, I want him to call. most times he will call me with the second best hand. But if I check I must be certian he will bet and if he checks I still have gained nothing. I would rather take my chances having him call my bet rather than hoping he would fall into a check raise.
IMO Walleye
P.S. Let me know what you think, I am still learning!
Walleye,
I think the rest of the posters think you should check. But as for me I agree with your decision to bet.
vince
BET!!! If you check, chances are he will too. If you bet and he folds, you've made the same money and eliminated him from the game.
I certainly like the check-raise here, though the argument could be made that betting loses very little, if any, in EV (compared to check-raising) and allows you to muck your hand if not called. (How would you like to check a set of tens on the turn and river and have to show them down, unless you want to project a slowplay-artist type of image?)
Matt, you wrote:
"(How would you like to check a set of tens on the turn and river and have to show them down, unless you want to project a slowplay-artist type of image?)"
Sometimes, this can work to your advantage. At least for a short while, others may think that you are a tight fella who never bets anything but the nuts. Imagine the steal possibilities with that type of image. Also, players may become less likely to value bet against you if you show that you are capable of checking this type of strong hand twice.
BTW, I am not saying that you should do this in order to portray that image. I am just saying that if you check your set on the river here (IMO, the correct play most of the time), you could actually benefit for the reasons stated above.
15-30 game at Commerce. I got AA on the button and 3 bet preflop. I get 5 callers. Ouch. Flop comes AKQ rainbow. I don't like that board too much but a double bet comes around to me and I 3 bet it. One drops. Turn is a 3 of last suit. One bet to me, I raise, get reraised by an overaggressive player so I cap it. Everyone else is just calling so either they're drawing or it's a trap. I had them read pretty well so I didn't smell a trap. River is a 4. So the board is AKQ34 no flush possibilities. First player (the overaggressive one) bets out. One of the calling stations puts in a raise. That scared me so I just called. He turns over 25o for the double gutshot wheel. The other two guys can't believe they both flopped sets (K and Q) and I turn over my Aces so I am the only one really griping after they see my aces. Unbelievable!! My question is, did I play this right? (dripping with sarcasm)
I guess there isn't really much you can say when a player stays in for 3 bets with 5-2o on a flop of A-K-Q rainbow. It's about 67-1 to hit the 3 & 4 to make the straight. The only things I can see are 1) perhaps capping on the turn was overly aggressive: with a board of A-K-Qs-3s and all that action, one would have suspected that there might well be a J-T out there, plus perhaps the K-K and Q-Q, plus a flush draw: if this were the case, the only out you would have on the river would be another 3; and 2) as you suspected, you were beat on the river, so I suppose you could have considererd folding rather than calling the double bet. But there was $780 in the pot, giving you 13-1, and I know how tough it is to fold in this situation. I don't think anyone can fault you for your play on the hand, just commiserate with you on the bad beat.
Well I had those players at the table read pretty well. I didn't see anyone with JT by the way they were playing and it turns out I was right. They were very obvious players to anyone who pays attention to their mannerisms. But damn right I was value betting the whole way until that guy raised on the river. But you can see how bad a player he was. I had been raising the whole way on every round and he hits a straight on a seemingly harmless card and doesn't have the brains to check-raise me. Believe me, I was gonna raise when it was one bet to me. I was sure nobody had JT and saw the 25 straight possibility but didn't really take it seriously until that guy threw in that damn raise. Oh well....15-30 has given me my two worst beats ever. I lost in stud with Aces full of 3's to a guy who made quad deuces on 5th street after being rolled up.
No, you should have folded the river. The bicycle was obvious!
Vince
Vince,
What makes the wheele obvious?
I would expect to see him slow playing the nuts, unless he is a real bad player, and I had a good idea about his play.
Walleye
I think Mr. Lepore is making a joke here.
Josh
I know I chuckled!
"My question is, did I play this right? (dripping with sarcasm)"
Walleye, The original poster made this statement at the end of his post. You know me, sometimes I am a LITTLE sarcastic myself. As was the case here. In the future I will only be paranthetically (as above) sarcastic.
My apologies to all!
Vince
LOL...I missed it...I was not reading between the lines. No Apologies needed.
Sorry Walleye
What makes this obvious to Vince is (but not the rest of us) is that he would have played the 25o exaclty the same way. You see, Vince LOVES to chase-- pot odds be damned. If you don't know what he looks like, he's always easy to spot; just look for the man who starts drooling when the flop comes and he's got a chance for a runner-runner straight that isn't the nuts.
Vince- the one man run down squad :)
And?
Vince!
What a hand. The thing is, you're almost value betting on the turn with top set, hoping the board pairs (although in this case that would have been a disaster). Still, I don't think this qualifies as a genuine raping. In a game where nobody thinks twice about cold calling a raise before the flop with 25o, and the flop could put someone on a nut straight, getting top set to survive is anything but a guarantee.
BTW, all all the mid limit games in Cali this crazy? I keep hearing the stories, but I just can't believe it..
Anyway, that hand was a bummer. Hope the session overall was a good one.
Yup. And they're that way 24-7.
"God only knows where the money comes from, but if they lose they always pay." A.J. Myers - 'The Biggest Game in Town'.
I have been sulking for two months because a player in a $20-$40 game did something similar to me. But he only caught the gut shot on the river to a wheel. He was an early position player with A3o, who also took 3 bets preflop, plus the action later. I know these are the people who feed the game long term; but damn! its hard to take it when they beat you with junk. I would have played it the same way you did. Thanks for the message, it was therapy for me.
It appears that our forum may now have a new visitor who most of you know as Doug Grant. If that is the case, we ask you to just ignore his posts. We will take appropriate action if required.
He has alrady ruined two discussion groups...please take "appropriate action" immediately.
That post was NOT by Doug Grant. It was someone obviously playing a joke. It isn't time to panic...yet.
I would suggest not invoking his name directly. Like a demon, he might hear it and appear.
This is merely a starting point - all comments and suggestions will be greatly appreciated!
(1) Failure to respect early raiser - (Calling early position raiser while in early to middle position with marginal hands)
(2) Defending the blinds against a raise with a weak hand (ego problem)
(3) Stealing in late position against loose players who over-defend.
(4) Playing too many hands in early position.
(5) Playing too passive - checking and calling.
(6) Taking a marginal hand too far and trapping yourself.
(7) Giving free cards instead of betting.
(8) Failure to PAY ATTENTION during the game while not in a hand.
(9) Table and seat selection.
(10) Refusing to quit when you are down two racks and you know the game is bad and you aren't catching any cards. The mark of a good player is to be able to quit while losing. Don't play long sessions when exhausted.
Start with Sklansky's 8 mistakes in poker. Essay section.
Tops on the list for Holdem is: Calling when you should fold or!
9) Game Selection
10) Steaming! This actually may be the number one mistake in Holdem. The problem is that I have seen guys that were steaming rake in a lot of chips.
Sklansky's 8 mistakes in poker are general for all poker games. They do work very well for Holdem. I believe that the best way to be specific about Holdem mistakes is to take Slklansky's 8 mistakes and give examples or some clarification.
An example of calling when you should fold is calling an early position raiser with AQo.
Opinion By Vince
All good points... I'd probably change the order around a bit (or did you mean for them to be in order of importance?), but it's hard to disagree with any of them.
As the games get tougher, (1) and (4) become increasingly important. The guys who insist on calling raises with KTo don't get punished too severely when there are seven callers, because they are getting odds to hit their kickers. But when you're heads-up with AK, you're in a horrible situation.
Dan
10) a - amendment. Delete the phrase "and you aren't catching any cards". Change "Don't play long sessions when exhausted" to rule 11.
11) Playing when tired/drunk/drugged/distracted/horny/ unhappy/depressed/in pain/ stewing over bad beats/ stewing over the ass whose trying to irritate you ...
12) Playing with an objective other than earning money through quality decisions.
13) Playing "tricky" for its own sake.
14) Failure to adjust play based on the particular opponents of the current hand.
15) Failing to protect big pots with weak calls, bets or raises.
16) Failure to abandon small pots marginal hands.
17) Teaching.
They may not be the top 10; but they're pretty good. I agree with them all.
One little-discussed aspect of Omaha is the danger of re-draws. By this I mean drawing to hand that is the temporary nuts but can be easily overtaken on the river. For example, look at these two boards in Omaha High:
Your hand: As5s7h8h
Board 1: 2s5c6h
Board 2: 5c6hTs
On both of these boards you are hitting to the nuts. But which flop do you like better? The second flop is much worse, because of the presence of the ten. If you make your straight with the 9, the board will now be 569T. If a 7, an 8, a jack, a queen, or a king land on the river, you no longer have the nut straight. With the first flop, if you make the nut straight with the 9, the board will be 2569, and only a card that pairs your hand (a 7 or 8) can make a bigger straight. So, with the first flop there are only 6 dangerous cards in the deck, but with the second flop there are 18 cards that can overtake your nut straight. And, of course there is the danger of a flush coming in or the board pairing.
In a tight game this is much more dangerous when the redraw cards are big, because people typically play hands with lots of big cards in them. In a loose game, just about any card is dangerous.
This also underscores the importance of playing hands that have all four cards working together. If you make that same nut straight with the second board but also have the nut flush draw, you have eliminated 5 cards from the 'dangerous' category because they make you a flush (plus you can hit another flush card). Or if you have a hand like 789T you can make the nut straight and have re-draws against another player who has you tied. Those free-roll situations are much prized in Omaha, and can win you some enormous pots.
This is one of those Omaha quirks that the average player just doesn't pay any attention to. If you flop the nut straight draw with the second flop (and especially if the board has a two-flush on it), you should consider folding unless the pot is large.
The same principle applies in Omaha-8, with an added re-draw problem - hitting a straight that threatens to bring in a low, or drawing to any high only hand when there are two low cards on the board. Even if you make your hand, a redraw may either run down your hand or put a low on the board, costing you half a pot.
Comments, criticism, flames, etc. All welcome.
For this reason, straight runs in limit Omaha are much weaker than in pot-limit Omaha.
Would someone (generally) even stay in after the flop needing a runner runner for the nut straight? Just asking, since I don't really know. But even in the laugher that I play in, most guys fold here.
The problem is they might be there for the runner-runner straight because they have something else keeping them in the hand.
Omaha hands can often have 3 or 4 low-percentage draws that all add up to an easy call.
A player could easily have a hand like 78TJ, and be in with the same straight draw you have, but he's now freerolling if he hits it. Or, a player could have AAQJ, and call on the flop with a pair of aces and perhaps a 3-flush and his 3-straight. Now you make your straight on the turn, but he's open-ended for a bigger one.
And, a player could easily have TTJQ, or TTJK, or something like that. Not only is this guy going to make you pay for your straight draw, but if you hit your straight on the turn he's got 17 outs to beat your hand.
Dan
I see it now. Also, a guy could have flopped a set, in which case you've got problems if you pick up your straight and the board pairs later.
Great thread/ post. Anything else you can pass along re: Omaha hi/8 strategy would be greatly appreciated.
My "benchmark" in Omahaha hi/low is to have TWO ways to realistically make the nuts; these being AA, KK, QQ, Axs, A2, A3, 23, and three cards >9 either A or K high. (Note that A23x has 3 ways to make the nuts).
A few Secondary combinations like Axxs, Kxs, A4, A36, Q high 3-straight, JJ, TT, and 99 may add up as well.
There are no good hands that cannot make two kinds of nuts. The best make 3 or 4. The best raising hands are the ones that can make the nuts in one direction; AKQJ is an exception since if it makes the straight or full then nobody can make a low.
You either have the nuts, can get the nuts, or are nuts*.
- Louie
* or you can seriously outplay your weak-tight opponents.
Dan-I strongly disagree with the following statement from your post:"The second flop is much worse, because of the presence of the ten." It seeme to me that this is the classic case of you not wanting to win the big pot,but,rather, you wanting better odds in order to take down a small pot.In your specific example I can see at least four reasons why I prefer the flop with the ten:(1)In the loose-passive 5-10-15 game I play in ,(180miles south of you by the way)the ten on the flop will bring you far more action than the deuce. People will call with hands that include as little as an Ace-10xx in this situation.Which means you can expect 4-5 callers even with a raise!On the other hand with the 2-5-6 flop you will probably be left heads up with the already made straight:).(2)The "dreaded"nine does not have to come on the turn-you have the nuts with a nine or a four.If it doesn't come on the turn you still have the river.(provided the board doesn't pair and Joe Rock comes out swinging ).(3)your example not only had the straight draw but also backdoor nut-flush,flush and full-house draws.In other words ,come out swinging on that flop--you should have the best of it.(4)Depending on the nature of the turn and river cards-your hand has bluff potential at the end .For example, if the turn comes Q then river 2 or 3,a bet here is your only move and for 15bucks at the end many people will fold a better hand.Overall, if you are going to play a piece of cheese like A-5-7-8 you cannot ask for a much better flop than 5-6-10.Good Luck and keep posting. Steve
I was only addressing the re-draw issue when I was talking about good flops and bad flops. Other issues such as the amount of action you might get and bluffing potential are a whole other subject.
I was just trying to pick a flop that clearly showed the idea that draws in Omaha can be more vulnerable than in Holdem, and how different board textures affect draw odds.
I am relatively new to poker and would love to start playing on a regular basis. Trying to get a regular game going with my friends has not been the biggest success and living in the Washington D.C. area, Atlantic City is a little too far for me to travel to more than once or twice a month. How should I go about finding a local game?
Andy
if you cant find one start one. ever been in sales?
Loose passive gave with usually 5 to 6 people seeing the flop. I'm in the BB with AcJs. Five limpers so I check. Flop come Ks10s5s. I check to see where the action comes from. UTG immediately fires in her chips. So I put her on the K or maybe two pairs. Two others call and I call as well thinking I can gutshot the Q or my Js might be good and maybe even my Ace. Turn comes the Qc. I check, UTG fires in her chips again. One player folds and loose agressive player in late calls. I think that my straight is good so I check raise. UTG shakes her head and give a crying call. Late player stares at the board for about 30 seconds and unwillingly calls the raise. River Qh. I bet because I didn't think the second Q helped anyone. UTG raises. Late player folds. I pay off her set of 5's. Did I play this hand right? Including the bet and call on the river. Thanks for the help.
TB
I've been learning so I don't feel qualified yet to judge another's play. For what it's worth, I would have played it similar. My question is this, and maybe I'm just not hip to all the jargon yet. She had a "set" of 5's (three 5's). You had a straight. And you payed her off? What am I missing here?
Figured it out. Five's full of queens.
I've got to side with the guys who think you should have folded on the flop. Heck, it's a marginal call with only a two-flush on the board. Save your chips for another hand.
Dan
I think that folding on the flop is the more prudent play.
You said that there were 5 limpers, plus you, seeing the flop. If a single spade hits the board, you are still beat by anyone holding the As or Qs. These represent 2 out of 47 unseen cards, and your opponents hold 10 cards. This means that just based on the math, there is more than a 40% chance that someone else has a better flush draw. Add to this that people play more hands with the A in them (and the Q to a lesser extent), and your flush draw will probably lose more than half of the time it hits.
If you make your straight with the Qs, you may lose to someone holding the As. If you make your straight with another queen, you may have been drawing dead to that hand anyway. Overall, there are so many ways for you to lose this hand even when you do improve, plus you may be in a spot where you absolutely cannot win (someone already has the A or Q high flush), that even though you are getting 9:1 odds on your call after the flop, it's not a profitable call. Sure, it looks like you might have as many as 12 outs, but it's probably a lot less, and many of them won't help you anyway. With reverse implied odds for the times you hit and lose, I'd say you would need there to be more like 20 small bets in the pot to profitably call here (this is a pure seat of the pants guess, but I'm sure you need a lot more than 9 bets in the pot to make calling the right play).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I agree with this anlysis, except that if there are a lot more than 9 bets in the pot then it is even more likely that you are beat (because there may be more players) and you should still fold.
For what it's worth, I see nothing wrong with your play here.
One comment: I wouldn't get too excited if I hit a Jack on the turn (or even an Ace for that matter). Pairing an Ace on the turn can often be disastrous because of the propensity for an Ace to make someone else an even better hand. It is a tough hand to play on the turn if you hit an Ace in this situation...should you bet or should you check?
Anyway, that's getting off topic. IMO, your play here was fine.
Disregard the above post. I did not realize that the flop had a three flush.
Whoaaa! You scared me for a minute. I have to agree with those who say that folding on the flop is the right move. One thing to bear in mind is that when you're in a situation where you have to make an overcall, and you're not drawing to the nuts, you have to tighten up considerably.
Presuming UTG to be sensible, which hands can she have that you can still beat that she will call with? She'll likely fold even AK. If you can think of a few than maybe a bet on the end is in order.
If you can only think of one or two that she'll call with and can think of lots of hands that have you beat, ... conclusion left as excercise.
- Louie
TB,
I'll comment first and then see what others had to say.
Pre-flop call was correct. No other option.
Check-call on flop also correct. Had there been a bet and a raise you could have mucked, but there wasn't so you get to see the turn for 1 small bet.
The Qc gives you the nut hand on the turn (broadway) IF someone doesn't have the flush already. Of course UTG might. Even one of the other callers might have a flush that they deem too weak to raise (this is a "loose-passive" low-limit game.) You decided to check-raise thinking that you had the best hand. I would have bet. UTG would have bet on the flop with an As or Qs, and one of the callers may have a Qs, and these players would love to get a free card So might someone with 2 pair (which esp. the Q may have given). Unless someone has the flush already you have the nut. So bet the hand. Don't risk giving a free draw when so many outs can hurt you. And why check-raise when you may be drawing dead to a better flush than you can make? If you check-raise and are raised back then what do you do after having put in 2 bets already and built up the pot? I would bet out and if there is one raise I'd call and if there are two I'd fold.
River - Qh. Board is Ks 10s 5s Qc Qh. This card is really dangerous. KQ beats you. Q10 (and Qs with any 10 would play) beats you. A set before the river (UTG?) beats you. So why bet on the river? If you're beaten you'll get raised and lose one big bet unnecessarily. The spade draws will simply fold when you bet so there's no profit there, only risk. A set of queens will call or raise but with so much risk and so little to gain by betting out you should simply check and call. This definitely saves you money in the long run and as it turned out it would have this time.
Like Vince says...an opinion. Now I'll see what the others think.
TB,
For what it's worth, the fact that UTG "fired in her chips" could indicate a big hand, a flush being likely. In this case it was three 5's, but you get the idea. Knowing the player in this situation might be nice, especially if she is very confident every time she has a big hand. Furthermore, the jack-high flush would probably be a loser. Folding on the flop seems like the proper play.
Bill G.
The Game was ten handed and my hand was A5 of hearts. The flop came with two hearts and I liked my outs. No help at the river, The show down contained no hearts in opponents hands.
Were all nine of my outs left in the stub?
Back to basics: 1. The complete set of hearts in a complete std deck = 13 2. At the completion of the deal, before the Flop&Burn Two prim sub-sets(with the following distributions [...] ) of Hearts exist:
A. Seen [Limited to 0, 1 or 2 Hearts] in your hand.
B. Unseen [13,12 or 11 Hearts] which exist in two conditions:
i) In all the opponents hands [0,1,...,13]
ii) In the undistributed stub [0,1,...,13]
3. IT::Bet, Fold, Call 4. Burn = 1 Unseen Card [...] 5. Flop = 3 Seen Cards [...] 6. ... If you will complete the above basic outline with it's associated distributions and probibility curve, you can see where the hearts went.
What's a stub?
Your nine hearts were in the remaining unseen cards! That's it! You had 9 heart outs, no more no less on the flop and turn.
"The Game was ten handed and my hand was A5 of hearts. The flop came with two hearts and I liked my outs. "
If you had "ten" callers I like your hand on the flop and turn also. Especially if the board isn't paired. I raise the flop and turn with ten callers! Now that's value!
Vince
Question re: Omaha 8: At what level do you opponents begin to show signs of competency? Realize that I've only played Omaha 8 for a grand total of 9 hours now, and in that span I've managed to show a profit of-- I'm not kidding-- over five hundred dollars. This in a 2-5 game. Granted, I owe most of this to short term luck, but that doesn't change the fact that none, but none, of the players I've played against have given me any reason to believe that they know what they're doing. Almost every hand is a family affair pre-flop (unless I'm not in it), and over seventy percent get checked around on the flop. Guys are betting the river with a pair of eights, getting called down by three opponents, and scooping the pot (with a three card low on the board). I've never seen anything like it. I have no idea what it's like at the higher limits, but at the low limits forget about it-- this game has it all over hold'em.
Those of you who haven't played any Omaha really owe it to yourself to check it out. Last night, for example, the game crawled along at a snails pace because three-- yes, three-- guys at the table couldn't understand why their A7 low lost to a three- six. Finally, just out of mercy, I took them over to a vacant table, borrowed a wrecked deck from the house, and explained it to them (for those of you who don't play Omaha, this would be like having three guys at a HE table who didn't understand why their bottom two pair lost to top two). I've asked around, and it seems that the game is ALWAYS like this; people with some clue play hold 'em, people with less yet play 7 stud, and people with the working IQ of sea cucumbers for some reason gravitate towards the Omaha table.
Just curious to find out at what limits the games tighten up. Any insight would be great.
GD, where is this game? Do they have any higher limits there? Methinks, it might be worth a weekend trip.
(Although I should say that I've got less experience than you with Omaha hi/low so in fact I might be another pupil in the school of fish that you seem to be beating up).
I've been trying to get players in my game interested in playing Omaha high. I know that Dan Hanson plays in a game where they alternate between Hold 'em and Omaha Hi every 30 minutes. I think that Dan figures that his hourly rate at Omaha is way higher than his hourly rate at Hold 'em.
Dan, tell us why (or maybe you have already in a thread below - I'll look again).
And tell me how I can convince the regulars at my casino to switch to this half Hold 'em'/ half Omaha format.
Oh, BTW, I too am interested in answers to GD's question.
Yeah, I wish there were some higher limits, but the state law is that no wagers over five dollars can be made in Colorado. Otherwise I'd invite you down for the weekend. I wouldn't bother playing (I've made around four fifty an hour in the past five hundred hours) but it's a good way to relax after a day of teaching/writing, and I know quite a few of the regulars.
I'm sure that the Omaha 8 players I'm up against are abnormally bad-- there's just no way this is a nationwide (or continental, for those of you North of us) phenomenon. But it wouldn't surprise if Omaha 8 players, on the balance, weren't inferior players in most card rooms. With the notable exception of Herr Zee's book not much has been written in Hi Lo, and what has been written isn't easily found-- that is, you won't just stumble across it in the 'games' section at Barnes and Noble. Hence, I'd postulate that most Omaha 8 players are grossly ignorant of the dynamics of their game. Couple this with the fact that the 'average' player can conjure up a reason to play damn near any hand, and you're looking at a game that's worth getting involved in.
In short, I think everyone should learn how to play this game. It's a ton of fun, for one thing, and the players (at least here) are notso-hotso.
And trust me, SKP, I would NOT beat up on you-- all you got to do is spend twenty minutes with Mr. Zee's book, and know what a 'low' is, and you and I are on equal footing.
The Midnight Rose at Cripple Creek wasn't like this a couple years ago, neither were a couple games I played in Black Hawk. Where in Colorado is it?
"The Midnight Rose at Cripple Creek"
Man, what a great name for a song or movie!
Vince
Up at Bullwhackers in Blackhawk. The Lodge (a new place that opened last year) also spreads some Omaha-8, but 'the game' (if you want to call it that, since it's a five dollar max bet) is always at Bullwhackers. It's actually a choice game, so you've got to deal with a lot of crazy/pineapple high low, HE hi low, and Omaha high, but I'd say sixty percent of the time we're playing Omaha 8. You must have been up here at a bad time.
Incidentally, I guess the Omaha-8 action isn't NEARLY as good as it was five years ago. I was talking to a couple old time dealers, and I guess that back in the salad days pots routinely got up to four hundred bucks. Guys would cap the flop betting with a two card draw to the second nut low, etc. In other words, real crazy. But even now the game's fairly good-- not enough to travel for, but if you're here it beats banging your head against the felt in a 2-5 HE game.
When at the Rose, they said when they first spread Omahaha Hi/Low, the big winners were the ones that could announce their hands in the most forceful and believable manner. Truthful statements and handreading apparently came a few months later.
"Bullwhackers in Blackhawk"
Where do they get these wonderful names!
Vince
I'm of the opinion that Omaha-8 games are either really, really juicy, or a waste of time. There's not a lot of middle ground. Once the players understand that they shouldn't be playing hands that can only win half a pot and that they shouldn't be drawing to non-nut lows a lot of the easy money goes away. That said, it seems that it's the norm for these games to be really good.
The only Omaha-8 we have around here is 3-6. I've got maybe 200 hours of playing time in that game, and my win rate is over $30/hr. I'm sure that I must be above expectation at that rate, but sometimes I'm not sure when I watch them play. Huge pots are the norm, with a good chunk of the field drawing completely dead or paying off big raises so they can win a sixth of a pot.
I think I win more in Omaha High than in Holdem because the players are just generally worse at Omaha than Holdem. If the players really learned the game, the situation would be different. Tonight in the 10-20 I watched a guy continually call all bets with hands like bottom two pair, queen high flush draws, etc. He blew away maybe $700 before leaving. It doesn't take many players like that to make a game extremely profitable.
I played in a 3-6-9 Omaha High game at the Sunset Station Casino tonight (where I came in 4th in the Holdem Tournament btw). An example of the play: (I was not in the hand) Flop: 9,8,7 rainbow. Two guys to my right check. Guy to my left bets. Two guys call. Turn: J (flush draw in daiamonds on board now). Guys on right check and call left guys bet. River: 6 (no flush possible) Board now J,9,8,7,6. Second guy on right now bets. Guy on left raises! 1st guy on right folds. Bettor reraises. Left guy now shows his hand and throws it away with a comment. His hand: A,A,5,5. Comment: I had the fives locked up so I thought I'd take a shot at him!
This guy on my left never saw a hand he didn't like the whole time I was there! And he was one of tighter players at the table!
BTW this was the first time I had ever played Omaha high in my life. But after this experience I may return to the Sunsett Station and try my hand at it again!
Vince
Sounds like a great game, Vince. Keep us posted as you play it, and tell me how you like Omaha High. If you get used to it I think you'll like it a lot.
I agree with Dan. If you start to play, Vince, I think you'll love it.
The main problem with great Omahaha Hi/Low games is that they are very SLOW. You get many less hands per hour (often half or a third) than a Holdem game, which cuts way down on your hourly rate.
Especially if you play poorly.
Does the Zee High-Low book have any information on Omaha High (I assume no), or is it strictly Omaha 8? If so, are there any good books available which discuss Omaha High?
Kevin
First, how can you read your opponents so well?
Obviously, you don't fold the best hand, so you must be calling or raising here. Which play is best depends entirely upon your opponents, and how likely they are to pay you off if you're still the best after the flop.
If I knew that they'd both fold now to an all-in raise, I'd do it and take the money. Against any reasonably competent opponent, you're not making any money after the flop except for 2 possibilities. One is the flop is all rags below 9, in which case you might get both players to bet or call a bet from you. The second is you flop a set while they also flop a set (the pocket nines), or top pair As or Ks. This is a great flop, but pretty unlikely.
If I thought that AK would fold to an all-in raise now, I'd do it, as he has the best chance of cracking my QQ. If I can get 99 all-in preflop with the AK gone, I'd do it. More likely, if you only get one caller, it'd be the AK rather than the 99. While you are a favorite, your edge isn't very big, and even with the dead 350 in the pot, you'd do better with other plays, and not have to risk busting out.
If none of the above all-in examples will occur, then you should just call preflop, and see whether either of them catches up. If they don't, then bet out or check-raise, whichever you think is most likely to get the most chips from these players now.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Hey all you gambler's I have a secret heretofore unbeknownst to you I'm sure and me I'm surer but I have seen the light.
Baccarat, yes that's Baccarat! It is now up there with BJ and Poker as a casino game that the player can beat. You heard it from me first. Unless of course you picked up a copy of "Gaming Today" Feb 23. and read Byron F. Hebert's column "Best of Baccarat". In it he explains how "the skilled bacarrat player enjoys a net positive expectation (NPE)". I did not know that! All this time I thought the players expectation was ~ -1.1%. It seems the "skilled bacarrat player can recoginize more opportunities. Those outcomes in the decisions which give the player an advantage!" ". ..they make best of opportunity ... make large wagers" "of course the number of player-advantages in a given shoe varies" .. of 80 decisions 21 to 40 will be excellant opportunities" ..these include winning streaks of four or more consecutive decisions, repeating patterns of three or more repeats and patterns"
O.K. enough! Which of our two illustious authors Sklansky or Malmuth put Gaming Today up to this! Come on you guys! You can fool some of the people some of the time but... I can take a good joke like anyone else. But enough is enough!
This guy ends his article by saying: "The bottom line: numbers do not always tell the real story. The books can sometimes be cooked! One does not need a number to tell the difference between a good meal and a bad one!"
He's absolutely correct. A good nose is all one needs! And this article smells to high heaven!
Off with his head (better yet off with his word processor)!
Vince.
There's a guy in town (an above average limit hold 'em player who I am told by several people is the city's best no limit hold 'em player) who swears to have discovered some kind of strategy to beat baccarat (He will not share it with anyone). He has stopped playing poker and is now playing Baccarat professionally.
I have no idea what his strategy is and don't really care to find out. I have to say that I have never played a hand (or taken a spin on the roulette wheel) and as such do not even know all the rules of the game. On the surface, the game certainly appears unbeatable.
Anyway, if I ever get the details of this man's "strategy', I'll post it here. It will probably be worth a good laugh.
"who swears to have discovered some kind of strategy to beat baccarat (He will not share it with anyone)"
That's because he cheats and doesn't want to get thrown in jail! That's the only way to beat baccarat. Cheat!
Vince.
There are counts for baccarat that can give you a positive expectation. Unfortunately, the maximum win rate you can get is pennies per hour, and you need to make exhorbitant bets to do it. Peter Griffin did an extensive analysis of Baccarat, as did Thorp and probably Sklansky and Malmuth. Thorp actually had a system for beating a proposition bet that was available on Baccarat years ago, but it's long gone.
Dan
"There are counts for baccarat that can give you a positive expectation."
This has not been proven! It is Just conjecture! If this is the case then the point count should at a minimum keep you even! At the stakes that this game is usually played an "even player" could make a fortune in comps alone! Positive expectation in bacarrat is on the side of the house and the house alone.
Besides this guy that wrote the article points to streaks and patterns not point counts! Give me a break! He's advocating the "Law of Averages" nonsense as far as I'm concerned.
Vince.
The guy you're talking about is no doubt full of it, but that doesn't change the fact that there are point counts that can beat baccarat.
According to Griffin, an ultimate point count for Baccarat (which would be roughly equivalent to a level 4 blackjack count), yields an expectation of .07% of your bet, and this positive expectation might come along perhaps 3 times a day. If you bet $1000 on this bet and never wager at all when the expectation is negative, you can make a whopping 70 cents an hour, with a bankroll swing of just about $1000 an hour.
Remember me when you make your first Baccarat million.
An Englishman by the name of John May has wriiten a book called "Baccarat for the Clueless". I have not read the book. It is being taken seriously on the blackjack boards. Apparently there are shuffle tracking techniques that can beat baccarat. John May is a requent poster on Stanford Wong's bj21.com site. He posts under the handle "Green Baize Vampire". Vince, I'm sure he would be happy to answer some questions (althoough, obviously, he also wants you to buy his book). He has also developed a method for beating continuous shuffle machines at blackjack honestly.
Steve,
I will be the first to admit that I am neither a BJ nor Baccarat expert. I know quite a bit about BJ but I am not a proven winner. I know a little about Bacarrat from various authors.
Not being an expert has never stopped me from voicing an opinion before and won't stop me here.
To all those that Care to listen:
DO NOT WASTE TIME on LEARNING SILLY, UNPROVEN and UNCORROBORATED BACARRAT COUNTING or OTHERWISE SYSTEM. IF YOU WANT TO GAMBLE USE THAT PRECIOUS TIME LEARNING AND PLAYING POKER!
BACARRAT SYSTEMS ARE NOT WORTH THE PAPER THEY ARE WRITTEN ON! (My opinion not based on Baccarat system analysis.)
Strong Opinion By Vince!
Vince, Having not (yet) read Mr. May's book, it's hard for me to say whether it is worth the paper it is written on.
One things for sure, I love your style. Your opinions are worth the cyperspace they are printed in.
Steve
Vince,
When you attack Peter Griffin, you remind me of the old timers who scoff at pot odds and EV. When you shoot Green Baize Vampire down in flames, it seems that you're siding with those who totally disregard player tells and psychology. Yet from your posts, it would be difficult to place you in either camp.
I haven't read Green Baize Vampire's book yet, though I have exchanged emails with him on various issues in the past. One such exchange was about how, under certain conditions, I was able to beat Caribbean Stud Poker. I didn't cheat, but obviously there was something unconventional about the game.
Keep an open mind.
Etienne
Etienne,
First of all, this started with an article in Gaming Today (My original Post) about the author claiming that streaks and patterns and other such voodoo will yield to a player a positive expectation for Bacarrat. That was what my post was all about. Then...
"According to Griffin, an ultimate point count for Baccarat (which would be roughly equivalent to a level 4 blackjack count), yields an expectation of .07% of your bet, and this positive expectation might come along perhaps 3 times a day"
This statement was taken from a post by Dan Hanson. I have not read any of Griffin's work. I am taking Dan at his word that Griffin makes the above claim. I said that because Griffin says it is so doesn't make it so! David Sklansky says yes it does. Now you say that I am attacking Griffin!
Look at that statement again. See anything wrong with it! A point count equivalent to a LEVEL 4 BJ count. Yield (if true) is .07%. That's not much better than 10 X odds at craps (~-.06)! And at craps you don't have to learn anything!
I'm not a BJ expert but let's ask one how difficult it is to learn a Level 4 count. I think you will find that the expected value .07% (if true) cannot possibly justify the effort required to learn and maitain a point count as complex as a level 4 bj count. Better yet let's ask Griffin or our illustious forum host David Sklansky. If the effort is worth the reward (if true) Let's also ask who is using this system in the real world. And what is their win rate! Show me the money!
Now, I am going out on a limb by saying this but who cares, "There is no way other than with computer simulation to prove that a point count system can beat Baccarrat." And a computer simulation does not get it! A system must be able to be used by humans in a real world situation to have any value. Baccarat cannot be beaten in the real world at a casino Baccarat table regardless of what others may have you believe. Again Baccarat can not be beaten with a Point Count or any other system. (Except Cheating!)
Noted and respected gambling authors that make unprovable statements to loyal readers should be attacked. Someone show me the proof and I will humbly retract all my statements about bacarrat. Until then I stand by my statements. Don't waste your time with this silly game! And question those authors that cannot back upt their statements.
And! What's all this garabge about Vampire's. And please don't tell me that you think that you can (honestly) beat Carribean stud. Unless you are referring occiasions when the Jackpot is extraordinarily high you ain't beting that game either!
BTW Etienne, I love your name! I hope I'm pronouncing it correctly!
Opinion By Vince
Vince, that was the whole point to my post. The baccarat ultimate count exists and works, but it is horrendously difficult to use, requires a gigantic bankroll, and will earn you pennies.
Specifically, if you are betting using the Kelly Criterion, then to make an income of $1.00/hr would require a bankroll of something on the order of 2 million dollars. Pretty useful count, eh?
Dan
Dan, I did not question you personally! I question and flat out do not believe part of the next statement: "The baccarat ultimate count exists and works" It is the "and works" part that to my knowledge is totally unproven except maybe in the world of computer simulations! Point me in the direction of one, any one practicing Bacarrat Expert. Let me see his win rate. Show me the money! Show me the list of Bacarrat counters that have been barred from Las Vegas casino bacarrat games. Then I will concede I am mistaken. Systems that are not practical for use in real world situations are useles in gambling games! Responsible authors should make that clear! That's my point!
Vince
The only responsibility the author has is to make sure his information is accurate. Peter Griffin is above reproach in this regard. And incidentally, Peter Griffin has a great sense of humor, and his whole article on the point count system in baccarat is written almost tongue-in-cheek (not in terms of accuracy, but in that he knows the information is useless).
This is the guy that did an extensive analysis of the Frontier's "Fling Book" coupon book to show that it had a mathematical expectation of $3.25, and showed how to use the coupon book to maximize expectation at minimal risk. Math is FUN for him. It doesn't have to have a point.
Dan
Dan,
< And incidentally, Peter Griffin has a great sense of humor... >
Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately it's *had* a great sense of humor, as he passed away some 2 months ago.
Etienne
Oh my! How? He wasn't that old...
It was some form of cancer. I belive prostate cancer.
Vince,
You write : In "The Theory of Blackjack", Griffin does indeed make the claim. Dan has also from the start eloquently and unequivocally conveyed Griffin's opinion of the usefulness of this system.
< And please don't tell me that you think that you can (honestly) beat Carribean stud. Unless you are referring occiasions when the Jackpot is extraordinarily high you ain't beting that game either! >
There was no jackpot worth speaking of, and I did beat the game honestly. To give an extreme analogy, suppose you were playing BJ against a neurologically-disordered dealer, who on each betting round would uncontrollably twitch his left eyelid n times, where n is the value of his hole card (2 twitches=2, ..... 14 twitches=ace). Suppose also that you were observant enough to notice this. By taking advantage of this knowledge I don't think one is cheating. I'm not writing a book nor selling a system, and have nothing to gain by making a statement of this kind, but I can understand your skepticism though.
Etienne
"against a neurologically-disordered dealer,"
In this case you would not say you beat Carribean Stud you would say you "Beat the Dealer". But that book title has been used already by a guy named Thorpe. Guess if you wanted to write the book you would couldn't because you wouldn't have a title (sarcasm)!
Etienne,
You're not seriously going to imply that you beat Carribean Stud by finding a dealer with "tells". First of all the dealer doesn't look at his hand until after all players have acted. So any twitch he may have is moot! I know from experience that some Carribean Stud dealers are sloppy and will sometimes flash the bottom card. If a player sees the bottom card and now knows two of the five cards he has gained an enormous advantage (I don't know the numbers). The problem with this is that some (if not most) casino's are aware of this and now have the dealer turn the bottom card over instead of the top thereby nullifiing any potential player advantage.
Vince
Vince,
1. The analogy about the dealer with "tells" was just that. Etienne
"4. When I'm next in Vegas, I'd be glad to tell you over lunch"
It's on me! See you at the Bellagio!
Vince
Green Baize Vampire is someone whom I have always considered to be above reproach in terms of accuracy and honesty.
For a poker player to advocate _not_ playing something like a bacarrat system which could be analyzed in exchange for playing poker which is hard to impossible to analyze seems downright wierd. Do you raise before the flop without looking at your cards in all situations?
Please do not compare Poker Playing with a silly game like Baccarat!
My advocating leaving Bacarrat alone has nothing to do with the fact that I play poker or how I play poker!
If you think that you can beat baccarat with a system that can be analyzed, just because it can be analyzed, have at it! Obviously you are not alone in your beliefs. Even the mighty Sklansky, a poker player of some repute, feels that the game can be beat using a point count! So obviously I must be wrong do advise against believing in a bacarrat system.
I do think that if you are going to refer to someone or something someone professes as "downright wierd." you should be able to back up your comments. So tell me, just how much have you won at Bacarrat using this wonderfully analyzed system that you are defending?
I give up!
Vince BTW "Do you raise before the flop without looking at your cards in all situations? " In no situations! Contrary to what some others, that I won't name, believe I don't feel that some hands can play themselves so I always look at my hand and make a decision! Something that you never have to do in Bacarrat by the way!
OK, lets try this a different way. Say I give you games A and B. A is fairly simple and can be analyzed. B is complex, involves non-stationary statistics, and is hard to analyze. Person Q comes out with a system for A. Person V claims he must be full of shit 'cuz earlier system for A showed no win and he be better off playing B (which hasn't been _proved_ either way [yet]).
Wouldn't you call V a little close minded?
Now substitute Baccarat for A, Poker for B, and yourself for V. Sound familiar?
NOTE: I'm not arguing that there is or isn't a winnin bacarrat or poker system. I'm arguin that your reasoning is faulty (which IMNSHO is somewhat relevant to the decision making game we call poker).
Mike "pushin' big rocks uphill" Hunter
"Person V claims he must be full of shit 'cuz earlier system for A showed no win"
"Wouldn't you call V a little close minded? "
I'd say anyone that makes acusations should have their facts straight and quote the "close minded" person correctly. Something you don't appear inclined to do! BTW I have a reference for my opinion and will post it in a new thread. Again I ask "genuises" such as yourself to "show me the money" when defending your so called "analytical system". If that's close minded then I stand convicted!
Vince
"According to Griffin, an ultimate point count for Baccarat"
Because Griffin, granted a noted and respected author, claims there is an Ultimate point count for Baccarat doesn't make it so! It sure lends to the confusion though!
Vince!
It does make it so.
Prove It!
Let me see you or anyone else you know of prove it at the Bacarrat table or provide proof that they have done it for a considerable length of time! When a noted and respected author such as yourself makes a statement that will affect his readers he should be willing and able to prove it (Ken Uston did)! I don't believe it can be done with bacarrat! Computer simulations are not proof! They are only corroborating evidence to real life experience!
Vince
Vince, you're missing the point...Baccarat can be 'beaten' but for amounts so trivial and with such gigantic bankroll requirements that the knowledge is completely useless. Point counts for baccarat have been around for a long time, and it's a generally known fact.
Th e infamous abdul jalib also has stated that the game can be beaten. Why don't you ask him on rgp.
A new book has just come out called BACCARAT FOR THE CLUELESS by John May. I haven't read it but below is part of a review by Arnold Snyder.
"From there, he goes on to discuss some of the advanced methods that professional players have been using to beat baccarat for the past ten years, including sequential card tracking, "shuffle spooking," playing wraps, and other unusual techniques. ..."
Yes, Peter Griffin gives away the ultimate baccarat point count in the Theory of Blackjack. It should not be too hard to convince yourself that a shoe dealt to the end would necessarily yield positive expectation bets - like betting ties with only 15 face cards remaining.
More importantly, Peter Griffin wrote , in reference to a blackjack author who published nonsense, that " to debunk mountebanks is to digresss".
I think this quote is much more valuable than the Baccarat point count (which has no practical value), and certainly applies to this entire thread...
"I think this quote is much more valuable than the Baccarat point count (which has no practical value), and certainly applies to this entire thread... "
So why would one bother with such a brilliant response to such a valueless thread!
Vince
The BB elected to move all in. I was forced to fold my 9s. AKo called. The Qs did not improve. An Ace fell on the river. It is my contention that the BB misplayed his hand. I feel the correct play here is to look at the flop and then determine your best course of action. It is very difficult for the AK to call on oversive bet on the flop if he misses. Conversly it is easy for the Qs to fold if overcarded. The AK is only worried about AA and KK in this situation. The likelyhood of those specific hands being out are diminished by his holdings.
There is, of course, a big difference between your question (which assumed total knowledge of all cards), and real life play where you do not know the opponents' hands.
I don't think that the big blind necessarily misplayed his hand. He might have gotten a call from someone with a hand like you, and also from hands like JJ, TT, AQ, AJ, i.e., hands that he seriously dominates. Since the AK guy didn't reraise you, QQ can be relatively confident that if anyone has AA or KK, it must be you. As long as he's willing to take that risk, he can move all-in knowing that he'll be the big favorite, the small favorite, or win what's in the pot when you both fold.
The problem with QQ waiting to see the flop is that he is unlikely to get any action from AK if the flop misses that hand. So, by just calling, he is giving you both a chance to crack his better hand, and putting himself in a situation wehre neither of you may pay him off after the flop.
Imagine a good flop for QQ like J83. Between 99 and AK, who's likely to call his next bet? I would guess that neither of you will call, nor bluff, the majority of the time.
The only reason I see for QQ to simply call preflop is to lay a trap for the opponents. He's hoping for a flop with and A or K, plus a Q, to trap a hand like AK. Or, he's hoping for all rags so he can trap you (with your 99).
It may not always be optimal, but unless there's reason to believe that you're against a higher pocket pair, going all-in before the flop with a pair is never a big mistake.
Wait, here's some exceptions. If your pair is small, you don't want to go all-in against more than 1 opponent. If your pair is medium (99 - JJ), you don't want to go all-in against more than 2 opponents (unless they're loose, and not likely to only be holding overcards).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
* Start with Sklansky's 8 mistakes in poker. Essay section - then add the following:
(1) Selection of Game, Table, and Seat.
(2) Steaming!
(3) Playing too many hands in early position.
(4) Failure to respect early raiser - (Calling in raised pots on inadequate value)
(5) Taking a marginal hand too far and trapping yourself.
(6) Giving free cards instead of betting.
(7) Playing too passive - checking and calling.
(8) Failure to PAY ATTENTION during the game while not in a hand.
(9) Failure to adjust play based on the particular opponents of the current hand.
10) Failing to protect big pots with weak calls, bets or raises.
11) Failure to abandon small pots with marginal hands.
12) Defending the blinds against a raise with a weak hand (ego problem)
13) Stealing in late position against loose players who over-defend.
14) Refusing to quit when you are down two racks and you know the game is bad.
15) Playing long sessions when exhausted.
16) Playing when tired/drunk/drugged/distracted/horny/ unhappy/depressed/in pain/ stewing over bad beats/ stewing over the ass whose trying to irritate you ...
17) Playing with an objective other than earning money through quality decisions.
18) Playing "tricky" for its own sake.
19) Teaching at the table
An excellent list!
(3) Playing too many hands in early position.
This is calling when you should fold. One of Sklansky's eight. I'm surprised Sklansky didn't recognize it in his response!
(4) Failure to respect early raiser - (Calling in raised pots on inadequate value)
Ditto!
(6) Giving free cards instead of betting.
This is calling when you should Bet. One of Sklansky's eight.
(7) Playing too passive - checking and calling.
This is calling when you should Bet (or Raise). Two of Sklansky's eight.
10) Failing to protect big pots with weak calls, bets or raises.
What's a weak bet (maybe should check raise instead? I don't know) or weak raise? Anyway I'm sure this is covered (somewhere) by the 8 mistakes.
11) Failure to abandon small pots with marginal hands.
This is calling when you should fold.
12) Defending the blinds against a raise with a weak hand (ego problem)
This is calling when you should fold.
13) Stealing in late position against loose players who over-defend.
This is raising when you should fold or maybe raising when you should call!
14) Refusing to quit when you are down two racks and you know the game is bad.
This may not be a mistake.
16) Playing when tired/drunk/drugged/distracted/horny/ unhappy/depressed/in pain/ stewing over bad beats/ stewing over the ass whose trying to irritate you ...
I'm always horny! You want me to quit poker!
19) Teaching at the table
This is not necessarily a mistake even if Malmuth thinks it is!
Please revise the list again with the above corrections. BTW if you disagree with my assessment of the items I consider part of the Sklansky 8 let's have Sklansky review them again with a little closer srutiny this time!
Thank You Vince
Vince,
Are you a high school teacher? cause you sure sound like one! (Joking)
Walleye
Walleye,
High School Grad Only!
Thanks for the compliment though! I hope that high school teachers, people I admire I must add, don't feel this was an unkind remark directed towards them!
Vince Yeh, I know this belongs on the other forum or in E-mail. Don't all of you posters get you dander up!
If you ask me, the biggest mistake, far and away, that low limit HE players make is not abandoning top pair-good kicker (unless the pot odds are there, etc.) when a weak player raises you on the turn (or check raises). Since they're weak, you know they're not semi-bluffing, which means they've DEFINITELY got top pair beat. I don't know how many times I've seen otherwise competent players call a raise on the turn with pocket aces when the turn card pairs the board and a sucker raises. This ALWAYS means you're up against trips, and sometimes drawing dead to a boat.
Second biggest mistake is not seeing all the possible outs on the flop when the pot was raised pre-flop.
Correction: you're obviously not drawing dead when someone fills up on the turn.
Well here is the table game omaha hi/lo 6/12,, i just have recently llearned to donate my money to the players at the table, yea sure i have played poker, wow was i in for a bad beat, but heres the deal i have picked this game up fast. lost thousands learning,but i have a huge grasp on the basics of the game now, only after loosing the way i did and getting to know some of the other players did i learn that this is not a form of gambling but a way of life(a perfession)a noble way of making a liveing.Now im stuck i have no bankroll as of now. when i first started playing i played everything, did not understand how the low was played why 9s full of 8s was not a winner in a game with the flop being Ac 8c 9d turn and river 9s Kh. now i know heres my problem patience,,, i win a huge pot an hr at least my average winnings per hr probally around $100. though in between these huge pots i get bored play second dary cards and waste alot of cash, then when that nut nut hand does hit im drawing out of cash,, is there a hands that should be played at differant positions,, like on the bb do u play the A 5 8 9 or fold any one that has a idea of what im trying to say please help... eger poker player in need of advise... thanks jason
Jason,
Learning the starting requirements or any other aspects of this particular game is not your problem. You are the problem. You say that you get bored and so you start playing secondary hands. This is after losing thousands and having no bankroll.
Look friend, consider getting out of this game. It isn't for everyone, and it isn't all that dreamy or noble either. It can be recreation for those who can afford it and profitable for a few. With the losses that you've taken, and not having any bankroll left, and still you throw your money away in a game because you get bored....... Jason, step back and reconsider.
Read High-Low Split Poker, Seven Card Stud and Omaha Eight or Better for Advanced Players by Ray Zee.
Wow, someone who spells worse than I do.
Watch others when not involved yaddy-ya.
Perhaps you can also "practice" playing the hand that you threw away, "pretending" to bet or raise as you would if you still had that hand.
I played in a 6-12 game last night, when I was in mid-late position and got dealt QJc. 4 callers to me (2 from button)I raise, all call. Flop was 10h 9h 2h. It was checked to me, so I thought I would try to pick up the pot so I bet. 3 folded, and I was check-raised?
This player from what I know of him is Loose-aggressive. He will play allmost anything to see the flop. But he does play well after the flop. I think he may have flopped a flush with a 74h or somthing, but not with an Ace, Im sure he would have raised pre-flop if he held Axh. I know he has not flopped a set because again he would have raised pre-flop with any pair.
I want to know do you fold or re-raise? I think this pot can be taken, but with a player like this you never know what he may hold.
What would you do?
Comments and opinions welcome
Walleye
"I want to know do you fold or re-raise?"
Walleye,
What's wrong with calling and seeing the turn. Since you have position he must come to you on the turn. If the turn is favorable and he checks to you you can bet. If you are check raised again then you should probably muck, unless you make your straight then I may cry and call. If the turn is not to your liking and he checks you can check behind him. If he bets the turn and you have improved you can call him down or raise if you make your straight, since you think there is a good chance that he has a lot less than the nut flush. The above was just an alternate line of play for discussion or if for you were (very) sure he did not have much of a hand. Your best play was to fold when he reraised this dangerous flop. You must consider that the flop looks just as scary to him as it does to you! Plus you still have only a draw and two of your straight cards are Hearts. Plus you may be drawing dead! As our friend Albert says "I hope I'm (we're) never draing dead". Regardless of how "bad" you think a player is there are times when you just have to release to him!
"I think he may have flopped a flush with a 74h"
If you believe this, then there is no question that a fold is correct. Learn to trust your instincts and don't be afraid to act on them!
Opinion by Vince
Would a call he be Calling for Value?
I understand the fold move, I feel he has a hand that there is no way I can beat. I should have folded.
But, my concern is that I have a feeling that if I re-raise maybe I get him to muck his 74 of harts?
This guy is just the type of person that would play this.
Once before I had this guy in a heads up situation, flop was 5 2 3 rainbow, I had A4s he bet I raised, he called. flop came 7. He checked raised me. I came over the top, fearing he had 46. River was a blank. He checked, I bet he folded.
I went back to my notes to find this info, Im sure it correct
I guess this time I thought about when this happend before, I thought Id try it again.
Walleye
There's an argument here for getting out. If this guy plays well (but loose pre-flop) then I doubt he'd have check raised the flop, knowing that there's a good chance this thing is going to get checked around. This, of course, is if he has a small flush. If another heart comes he's screwed, since with four pre-flop callers there's a good chance someones going be holding the A or K.
This is only true if you sometimes check the flop after you've raised pre-flop. If you're the kind of player that ALWAYS bets the flop after a pre-flop raise, then the situation is less clear.
BTW, I don't think I would have tried to steal on the flop. With that many preflop callers there's too good of a chance that someone has a high heart, in which case they're going to call. I'd check it around, hope you hit the straight ,then take it from there.
You've got nothing, and he is most likely ahead. There are about 13 bets in the pot, which barely gives you odds to call the flop and draw for the straight (since you only have 6 outs because you really dont want to see the 7 or K of hearts). But this only works if you believe you are not drawing dead to a flush and probably does not give you odds to draw on the turn if he bets out. I doubt you could drive out a baby flush no matter what you do. He could be betting almost anything at this point, even a check-raise for a free turn card. This is kind of marginal though, since you could be drawing dead. I would probably fold unless I had a very good reason to believe that he didn't have a flush and wasnt drawing to one.
A Poker Guy!
I agree. I'd probably fold, unless I had a good read on the player that he didn't have the flush. In that case, this is one of those times where a re-raise might be a good idea. If he caps it, you can let go of the hand for one extra small bet. If he calls and bets into you on the turn, you can fold. If he checks to you on the turn, you can then do whatever seems appropriate. If a 4th heart lands on the turn and he checks, bet! If you make your straight and he checks, bet. If you miss, you can either take a free card or bet if you think he's ready to release the hand.
But I must reiterate that my first instinct here would be to just fold, and with that large a field I wouldn't have bet the flop either. Thank Allah that these guys gave you a free card, and take it!
This brings up a point I was going to mention a while ago... When playing against passive calling stations, you should take advantage of one of one mistake they often make: They check too much. When you are offered a free card, take it! I know too many agressive players who will bet automatically in this situation, thereby correcting the bad play of the guy who checked the best hand.
Dan
Walleye,
If I understand your post correctly, it is the player next to you on your right side who check-raises on the flop. If this is the case I think there is something fishy about this hand.
If your read on this player is correct, that is that he would probably have raised pre-flop with an ace and it's therefore likely that he has two lower hearts if he has a flush. Then he would not want to give the rest of you a free card on the flop because another heart might give someone else a higher flush.
Notice that you are the only player left to act behind him on the flop, so when he checks it is very likely that he will give his opponents a free card. So, I DON'T think he has a low flush. In that case he is playing this hand very poorly. I think there is a good chance that your straight will be the best hand if your hit it (but be aware if Kh or 8h come) and even a Q or J might be enough.
My doubt that he has a low flush in this case is strong enough to make me believe that a re-raise is correct in this situation (See Dan Hansons post for an explanation why a re-raise is probably better than a call).
Sincerely,
Emil
What intrigues me about holdem is the different strategies people employ. Firstly, in middle position, I would NEVER raise with QJs. In fact, I would probably muck this hand before raising with it but it is worth a call as a limper. Its a very weak hand to chop down the field. I'd rather raise with a middle pair. However, your semi-bluff was probably a good play at the time, but it didn't work. Dump your hand! the only time I would play a draw heads up is if I had a straight-flush draw or maybe two overcards that I thought could take the money; otherwise give up the pot.
Hi. I am going to enter my first tournament soon. It will be HE with a buy-in of between $40 and $55. We will get 500 chips and the structure will be 10-20 (chips). It will be at an Indian Casino.
I am a home game player who has read "Winning Low limit Hold 'Em" and I am currently reading "Theory of Poker". I have become the strongest player in my home game and am now looking for a greater challenge. Does anyone have any tips for me with this tournament? Is there any way to cram and fill in the gaps or things I should know before playing this?
Any helpful advice would be much appreciated.
Best,
Blake
I would review starting hand requirements, try to formulate some kind of game plan, you wont know any of the players so you will need to pay attention very closly. Do not be distracted, cause you will need to wacth every thing that happends. Although the same goes for them they will not know much about you, so take advatage of it. play tight pre-flop, and stay agressive when you have the goods. Use all the poker tools, check raise, free card, bluff, semi-bluff.Keep the other players from pinninig you down.
One thing I do is in the little blind is I will not call pre-flop just to see the flop...Play REAL tight in the Small blind, be selective, and pick your spots. Your gonna make mistakes....dont get tilted, stay calm and stick to your game plan. When you get done with the tourney...get a pen and paper and write down everything you can remember about the tourney, The players, bad beats, good wins and how you felt. Get it down when its fresh in your mind. Its a great tool. I use them time and time again. I have collected quite a pile of papers...now I need to get them on the computer!
I wish you the best of luck, and may the poker gods be with you!
Walleye
Walleye,
I commend you. Yours is good (maybe very good) advice to some one entering their first tournaament. Especially playing tight (conservative) and being very observant of how your opponents play.
Here Here!
Vince
I believe most players in tournaments will tend to avoid tricky situations. This means they aren't making alot of grandstand plays. Well, that's how I generally play in tournaments, i.e. rock tight, no rebluffs, etc. I'm not recommending this style of play, but I'll assume that your competition will play like me, generally in survival mode, hoping the other guy makes the big mistake. A guy like me will bet a premium starting hand, be very reluctant to slowplay, and otherwise be looking for an excuse to release the hand, for fear of becoming trapped. I also play very few drawing hands, and don't often pay off ones that outdraw me. So my play is pretty predictable, and perhaps you can use that to my disadvantage. Good Luck!!
Since there's been quite a bit of banter lately re: no fold 'em, I thought I'd throw this common scenerio out there to see what you guys think.
You're one to the right of the button with Kc8c. Seven limpers in front of you, you call, button calls, blind (s) check. Flop comes 8h 7h 3s. Player three seats to your right bets, one fold, one call. What do you do?
Here's how you've got the table pegged.
1) Virtually everyone will play any two suited cards in any position.
2) A raise will probably drop three spades, or a non-nut gutshot, but overcards will call your raise cold, as will mid/low pairs with virtually any kicker .
3) Few players ever bet out on the come.
4) Pre-flop raising is usually restricted to premium pairs and suited paint.
5) If you had to guess, you'd say you'll get two (maybe three) players calling your raise cold, although they surely won't reraise (even with mid-low set).
6) Open enders will PROBABLY call, and four flushes certainly will.
What's your move?
FOLD HONEY
Golly, they'll call a raise cold with 2nd pair but not with a straight draw?
You probably have the "best" hand right now and you improve your chances if you raise; forcing the overcards to fold. Raise.
Well, IMO, given the size of the pot, folding is out of the question (with all due respect to "DUH").
Under the circumstances described, I would probably just call the flop and hope to get in a field thinning raise on the turn. The problem is that my plan may not work out. For one thing, there's no guarantee that the bettor will come out swinging again on the turn. As well, without a raise on the flop, it will be hard to gauge if the turn card actually helped anyone behind me. However, were I to adopt this wait and raise strategy, I would raise on a lot of different turn cards including overcards. Of course, I would also raise for value if I hit an 8 or King. If the turn card is a heart, I would likely fold (particularly if the bet is from my right) although there's a possibility that I might raise if it is a 2h,3h, or Qh. The reason I wouldn't raise (I would fold) if any other heart card hits is that those cards may make other hands besides a flush and in these types of games, people will cold call two bets on the turn with 2 pair or a straight even if a flush is showing. I would probably raise if the Kh hits to protect my two pair hand although it's going to cost me big time if the bettor has the nut flush.
All in all, it's a tough situation because the text book proper play (raise on the flop) is just not going to get the desired result.
BTW, it's situations such as this that lead to a high variance in these types of games.
Also, I should say that I probably would have raised preflop in this situation.
I don't like waiting for the turn to raise one one big reason: About half the deck are scary cards that may stop you from raising, either because you elect not to, or because everyone checks to you on the turn. What if a queen lands and someone bets into you? Are you still going to raise?
By raising the flop you not only define your hand, but you make it easier to fold if someone does bet into you on the turn. In a passive game, betting into the raiser usually signifies a pretty strong hand. By just calling the flop, you may induce someone to take a shot at you on the turn if an overcard lands, even if they don't have it.
Now, if the top pair had been a king or a queen or something like that, I might wait for the turn to put pressure on, but even then I'd probably only do that occasionally to mix up my play.
Dan, you asked:
"What if a queen lands and someone bets into you? Are you still going to raise?"
Yes (I would fold if a new bettor from my right puts in the bet in which case I definitely have to give him credit for a Queen or better. If the flop bettor bets again, I would pop him)
BTW, I agree with everything you say about the problems of waiting for the turn before raising (I talk about them in my original post). But once I have made that decision, I am going to raise on a whole bunch of cards on the turn.
Under the circumstances described by GD, the impression I got is that you are not going to thin the field one bit on the flop. Furthermore, once you raise on the flop, the chances of the flop bettor leading into you on the turn go way down.
While not raising on the flop doesn't necessarily mean that you will get a chance to raise on the turn, raising on the flop will reduces those chances a lot more.
You said:
"By raising the flop you not only define your hand, but you make it easier to fold if someone does bet into you on the turn."
The opposite could be true. By raising the flop (and if you get three coldcallers behind you as per GD's premise), you have made the pot too big for you to fold even if a death card comes on the turn and a bet comes from your right. An advantage of just calling on the flop is that you can get out cheaper if a death card comes on the turn.
BTW, by no means am I saying that raising on the flop is incorrect. I am just saying that there is some merit to waiting until the turn to raise. Having heard both sides of the argument, I do not believe that there's much to choose between raising on the flop or raising on the turn under the circumstances described by GD.
Hi everyone who may know me or care in poker central. I'm in Madras, India logged on in a small indescribable place in the middle of another bizarre reality and whilst sending e-mail to friends could not resist checking in at 2+2. Hold'em seems so far away!! Glad y'all are still thinking of it and keep my seat warm till I return in a few months! See you sometime. Eric Shapiro from Boulder, Colorado. I won't get to see any responses on line so e-mail me if you care to. ES
"What's your move?"
Fold! Cash out! Find another game! One that's a little looser!
My God, How can anyone believe that there is one correct strategy that is superior to any other in this situation! Just about anything you do is correct. Fold, Call or raise, They'll all work! And regardless of what you do your "move" will be second guessed by "You"! Unless, of course, you win the pot!
Vince
Raise.
Many of your fears of raising seem to based on the problem that some players are going to call you anyway. However it is even worse if they get to play for free.
David
Good Point.
The choice is not at all clear cut as Vince points out.
I'd raise in this situation every time. It's a non-threatening flop, and you probably have the best hand. You're going to get paid off by 8's with worse kickers, and if people call you with overcards that include a king they are making a mistake since they really only have 3 outs.
An important reason to raise here is to gain information. Watch how people respond to your raise and you can get a good idea as to whether you are up against a straight draw, two pair, etc.
If you fold in this situation with a pot this size you are giving up way too much, and if you're not going to fold you need to protect the hand.
"You're one to the right of the button with Kc8c. Seven limpers in front of you, you call, button calls, blind (s) check. Flop comes 8h 7h 3s. Player three seats to your right bets, one fold, one call. What do you do?"
Original post
If I read the above correctly everone called. Although it looks like an 11 person game I'll give the benefit of the doubt and say 9 players see the flop.
"I'd raise in this situation every time. It's a non-threatening flop, and you probably have the best hand. You're going to get paid off by 8's with worse kickers,"
With nine callers would'nt you be a little concerned that an 8,7 was out there.
O.K lets say you correct and you are in the lead.
The turn.
Any heart: 9
Any 9,T,J,Q,A,6,5,7,4,3: 30
Remaining cards: 8
Do you still like this hand and your chances!
Vince
Oops. I was thinking of a flop from a different question. This is in fact a threatening flop. Proceed with caution. I still can't lay the hand down. I will almost always need more evidence than a single bet before I'll lay top pair with a good kicker down in any limit game.
I can't count the number of times there has been a bet, 3 or four callers, and maybe even a late position raise on the flop with a board like this, then on the turn everyone checks, and on the river they all check again and second pair or even worse wins the pot. That's no-foldem holdem for you.
Dan
Dan--
I have to agree with Vince, this hand is too crazy. Out of 10 hands that saw this flop, this may not be the best hand. Odds are that there are already better hands and definitely better draws. I agree that it's tough to fold in this spot with good odds, but I would only like to play in this situation with some kind of draw (or obviously a set or two pair). There are really only four cards that can fall that you are comfortable with. Even Kh would make you nervous. If there are ten people regularly taking the flop, there's gotta be better times in this game to make money. Forget it it's $3 gone.
Ralebird
I don't understand the fear here. What's crazy about this hand? There have been no raises, it's a low flop, you have top pair with a good kicker. Yes, if a heart comes you're probably beat. There's probably going to be a straight draw or two out against you. There's overcard danger because people are going to call with weaker 8's, with two overcards, with gutshots and an overcard, etc. And, there's a chance that you don't have the best hand.
But hey, this is no fold'em. There isn't a flop around that isn't going to be dangerous to top pair. So what are you going to do? Fold every hand until you flop the nuts?
The thinking here that is suggesting folding is, IMO, weak-tight. You're getting big odds on this hand, and there's a good chance that you're the best. You simply can't fold. In a loose game with huge pots, the fish are the guys who are making folding errors. This is why there are so many tight players who complain that they simply can't beat these no-foldem games. Make one pot-sized error when there are 20 bets in the pot, and you just blew more money than the guy who's going to call with A4o out of position will the next 50 times he does that.
Now, if it had been a bet and a raise before it came to me, the decision is much closer. Depending on the size of the pot, I might STILL have to call to hit one of my outs, but at least I'd be ready to bail on the turn if there was action.
Dan
Dan,
I didn't say fold. If you read my original post I said: "Fold, Raise or Call." Take your pick!
But quite frankly I think this hand is a dog and I would play it cautiously!
Vince
Vince - I know... I was responding to ralebird, you said, "Forget it - it's $3.00 gone".
I too would proceed cautiously, but I'm not folding top pair in a pot this big until I get some evidence that I'm beat. Having 6 people check and having a guy 3 off the button bet does not constitute 'good evidence' in my playbook.
Dan--
Yeah, I suppose I can see where you are coming from. I don't (think I) play weak-tight, but this just isn't the hand for me in a no foldem game. I prefer, obviously, the small pairs and connectors when shopping for the huge odds in these kind of games. I am sure it's a borderline play either way with only +/- a few cents e.v. in the long run. Definitely proceed cautiously.
RB
I can't agree that it's a few cents EV. Let's take a hypothetical situation: The flop is 8h7h3d. You have K8. The person who bets has 9hTh. You get three other callers, one of whom has 89, another has KQ, and the third has a goofy bottom-end gutshot draw with something like 59. In this situation, after the raise on the flop there are 18 small bets in the pot. Cards that beat you are a heart, a queen, a nine, a ten, a Jack, a six. That's 21 cards. If all five players went to the river, there would be 15 big bets in the pot, and if your hand is good you might get another one. So, you're playing for 15-17 (we'll assume 15) big bets, and you'll have to invest 2.0. You're getting roughly 7.5-1 on your money. And you're going to lose against this field perhaps 75% of the time. So, out of 10 times you play this situation you'll lose 2 bets 7.5 times, for a loss of of 15 big bets, and you'll win 15 big bets 2.5 times for a win of 37.5 big bets. Net win is 22.5 big bets, or 2.25 big bets in EV lost by folding in this situation. In a 3-6 game, that's a $13.00 error.
Note that this is a simplistic analysis, because I didn't c onsider re-drawing to hit your king or 8 and make two pair or trips if someone hits their overcard on the turn, I didn't factor in the folds that might take place on the turn, any raises, etc. But that's ok, because we're just trying to get a ballpark figure for whether we're talking about pennies or dollars here. Note that hands I put the player up against are close to a worst-case scenario. In a real no foldem game, there could easily be two guys drawing to the same flush, a guy calling with just one overcard, two guys on the same straight draw, one guy on a bottom-end gutshot drawing completely dead, etc. In that case, the EV goes way up. And the most likely scenario here is that the pot winds up 3 or 4-handed instead of 5-handed, and the chance of winning goes way up.
All this assumes that the K8 is the current best hand, which I think is likely given the action.
My "gut reaction" upon reading the scenario was that I am not in first place here. I'd say the bettor has two pairs, A8, or a set (in about that order). Other hands are possible, of course, but the "table read" doesn't suggest them to me. Almost certainly I don't have the best draw.
It's possible that folding is -EV here, but not much. Calling is distasteful. If I raise, it's basically so that someone can tell me to fold (now or later). There is one thing in favour of calling: there may be a raise behind me, which won't happen if I raise, then I get to see how the table reacts, especially the initial bettor who may reraise, for one bet instead of two.
I think the scenario can be summed up as follows: Play marginal hand at loose table; Get a flop that you weren't looking for; Look for excuse to keep playing. Happens all the time (to losing players).
Eric
The way I read this is just about the opposite:
1) Play a good hand for this game (suited King, lots of callers, no raise).
2) Hit the second best flop you can (other than a flush draw, hitting the 8 with a king kicker is MUCH better than hitting a king with an 8 kicker).
3) The hand is at least even money to be the best (the bettor may have an overpair or two pair, but the most likely hand is an 8, which means I probably have the best kicker. Remember, this is no foldem. If the bettor has an 8, it's about equally likely that he shows me A8, J8, T8, 98, or 78).
4) Even if I'm behind, there are already 10 bets in the pot, and I've easily got odds to call to hit a King or an 8 if he's got an overpair, and I have marginal odds to hit a King if he has two pair or A8).
5) If I have to call, raising is a much better option.
My other reaction: If you aren't willing to play this hand when you flop top pair with a king kicker, you shouldn't be playing the hand at all. And if you're not willing to play the hand at all, even with this many callers, you shouldn't be playing no fold'em holdem. Yes, the swings are going to be wild, but that's what you let yourself into when you sat into the game. Put your seatbelt on and enjoy the ride!
Dan, I agree with all points except perhaps this one:
"hitting the 8 with a king kicker is MUCH better than hitting a king with an 8 kicker."
While that's true in a tough game, it is not necessarily true in a no fold 'em game where other guys are playing K7 or worse. Furthermore, by flopping a King, you have way less overcard problems on the turn.
Thus, I prefer a KQ3 flop to a 873 flop when I have K8 in these types of games. BTW, I would add that a KQ3 flop is much better than say a K43 flop because if you had kicker trouble on the flop, you can get a split plot if a three hits (or a running pair) on the first flop but not if a 3 comes on the second flop.
I'm not sure I agree about that. In these games, you would typically be up against a lot more weak 8's than weak kings, IMO. People love to play hands like 98, 78, 68s, T8, J8, Q8, etc. etc. in these games. On the other hand, even weak players won't typically play something like K4o. If you're up against a weaker King it's usually a suited King.
I'll grant you that the overcard danger is greater, but if you can raise early enough you can often get overcard hands to fold, and if more than one player calls they'll often be duplicating at least one of their overcards.
I think we can probably agree that either way it's a marginal holding (i.e pair of Kings with 8 kicker vs. pair of eights with a King kicker). One probably has "kicker" trouble while the other probably has "overcard on the turn" trouble...I mean, pick your poison.
Some people are suggesting folding the K8 here. I don't buy it. Given the size of the pot, it might be correct to call with 2nd or 3rd pair here. So, how can it be incorrect to stay in with top pair and a King kicker. While those who are always lamenting bad beats might doubt it, believe it or not, sometimes the best (?) hand on the flop can go on to improve on the turn! In other words, if the fellow with A7 would be correct to stay in to try and hit one of his 5 (perceived) outs, K8 would clearly be correct to do likewise. I just don't see folding on the flop as an option (unless you are in a game with very aggressive players left to act behind you and the bet comes from your immediate right).
Folding just doesn't make any sense to me. The first 6 people all checked, the next guy bets, one fold, one call. What is there about this situation that makes people think that K8 is behind? The guy betting could easily be betting 2nd pair, top pair, a flush draw, a straight draw, two overcards... One caller could also have any of those holdings.
Top pair with a King kicker simply has too big a chunk of equity in this pot to even consider folding. There are already 10 small bets in this pot, and you probably have the best hand. Folding just can't be correct in this situation. And if you're not going to fold, raising is mandatory. There are 6 people who will be facing two bets if you raise. There's a good chance that this pot will wind up 3 or 4 handed on the turn, with 14 or 16 small bets in the pot.
I don't understand the rationale behind being afraid of lots of callers before the flop if they are people that will play junk like 92s. Most of these guys will MISS. If a guy has top pair, it could be 82s. If you get a bunch of callers, there could be two guys calling with one overcard (maybe the same one), a couple of gutshot artists, and maybe someone drawing completely dead (i.e. two flush draws). The best hand is making money from most of them, as is the best draw.
Dan
This is a good example of not hitting a flop but getting a good enough piece to stick around. My advice here is to fold. If you want to play for the k or 8 on the turn remember a Kh will most likely take you down. Also, I can assure you that somebody on the table has a good piece of the 78 connectors. Obviously, Dan, your either a professional or an extremely good player in the upper limits but in no foldem, wait till you hit a flop or they'll clean, press, and fold you.
I play mostly 10-20 and 15-30 now, but I have a couple of thousand hours experience playing no-fold'em at 3-6 and 5-10.
I agree that you're rather be playing big draws and flopping sets in these games, but you just aren't going to do that all the time. Sometimes you are going to hit flops like this, and there is money to be made in them, especially in this situation. All indications are that you have the best hand, and that if you raise you're going to lose a bunch of callers and have 3, 4, or 5 way action. If you do have the best hand, then depending on what the other caller have you could be anything from a slight dog to win to a huge favorite to win, and you're getting a big overlay from the other callers.
I completely agree. The 'sets and big draws' myth has probably cost more low limit players money than any other going poker theory; all it is is an excuse to play weak tight. About a month ago I went over 35 hours without completing a flush, and we've all gone days without flopping a set. The fact is, you just can't wait for these kinds of hands-- you've got to know how to work some of your marginal holdings into winners.
Ok GD, now that you have heard from several of us, what do you say?
Arrrrrgh! I was hoping you wouldn't ask. IMO, this situation (and other situations like it) are the HARDEST ones to get a handle on in no fold 'em HE, and the problem is further compounded by the fact that this kind of thing comes up all the time. I think I would probably raise, if only so I could see how the raise effected the players behind (in front) of me. If someone cold call with no hesitation, you can be fairly sure he's on the flush draw, in which case I know I've got three outs as opposed to five (even an open ender will have to think for a minute, what with the hearts on board). If there's an agressive player on the button or in the blinds I'll definitely raise, hoping he'll three bet it with something like Ah Js and put further pressure on the rest of the goofy draws. Overall, I think this is a raising situation, although I think you can construct an argument for any number of moves. If raising here isn't the right move, then it's definitely one of the major leaks in my game.
What makes this interesting is that you really don't know how someone behind you is going to act. I said that someone with decent overcards will probably call the raise cold, but with no fold 'em players you never know-- they may NOT call, even if they usually do, simply because it doesn't 'feel' right, or they don't 'think' their card will come. This, I think, is what makes no fold 'em games so hard; it's not the lack of folding, but the lack of consistent play by your opponents. For instance, if I had pocket tens two seats to the left of the blind, checked the flop and a player near the button raised, I would definitely three bet it-- but there's a large school of no fold 'em players who will simply call here, 'knowing' that their up against a set. However, in the next hand they may come out betting with the tens instead of checking. It's this kind of stuff (when you're shown down pocket tens, or J's) that makes these games so aggravating and hard to play correctly.
In fact, I don't mind no fold 'em at all, unless the play after the flop is really passive. In games where this is the case, I'd rather have a premium hand in the blind, since you can (sometimes) re-raise the pre-flop betting. If not, you can always just raise. If the pot is a family affair (or close to it), then you're in an excellent position to check the flop and pray the bet comes from late position. When you're on the button, though, (with something like A's), the gaggle is invariably going to check to you, in which case you can only make it one bet to go.
For what it's worth, I think all you guys wrote some great responses to this post. It's by far the toughest kind of hand to play in no fold 'em, and in my opinion well worth discussing. I remember first reading Lee Jones' book and thinking "Yeah, I KNOW what to do when I flop top pair good kicker, or a monster draw, but what about when I've got top pair with an eight or a nine against a field of ten?" These kinds of problems simply haven't been adequately addressed in any HE book so far, and I think this forum is an ideal spot to try and work this stuff out.
I'll add one other thing-- if someone is the type of player who can't get away from a hand like this on the turn, then that person should definitely fold; but then, that kind of person also isn't skilled enough to play K8s in the first place.
I'm generally a big fan of raising with top pair. However in this kind of game you get into the classic situation of being a favorite against any single player, but a dog against all of them collectively. Playing Kxs in late position is an ok play, but you really need some added value beyond top pair to continue with this hand (like, a 4 flush as well). If you are going to continue with this hand, you have to raise, and hopefully limit the field and/or buy the button. If you chose to use this strategy (which works really well in tigher games) don't hesitate to change this strategy on subsequent hands if it isn't working. Loose, no-foldem games should really be played from the flop on with hands that are drawing to something close to the nuts.
A Poker Guy!
If there had been a bet in early position and 3 or 4 callers, I might agree with you. But this field is acting very weak. Everyone checks to a guy in late position who bets, and one other guy calls. How can you lay down the hand?
If you're going to play Kxs only when you flop a flush draw, you're going to lose money with it. You have to be willing to play the hand when it picks up other equity. The same applies to any other suited or connected cards. They are profitable only if you seize all the equity they can provide.
Dan
OK so i cant spell,, thanks for pionting that out, and well mayby, i misslead u all on what i meant,,so i will try again,i have been playing for about 6 months,i learned the hardest way any one can,YES i did loose thousands , its my own fault,, sense then i have read and learned took lessons from the poker dealers ,, that i knew from school, so i have a understanding on how this game is played,, the problem at first is i saw how to play but did not look into the inside .. i have taken alot of time off the game, too learn and recoop,, heres what im not finding,, my last hand i played before i decided to take some time off to think about what i wanted from the game was this here,, its a family pot caped before the flopp. im in the BB with this hand,,, Ac 2s Kd Kc .. huge hand if the flopp its it ,, well it did the flopp was 3x Kh 4d i have a draw to a nut nut hand so hears the play i bet,, call ,call ,, raise. reraise, call call i reraise.. its caped. the turn is this 2d,, ouch know what ? i checked my trip and conterffited lo. its caped before it ever gets to me ,, do i call $40.00 ? i did luckly the river was a huge card for me, i was drawing agianst made hands, the only way i could win was if TBP well it did with the 4s.. i have nut full house ,, did i play wrong ?,, playing agianst made hands,, remind ya all im all in after the river,,, umm comments please critisize gently,
Alright JM,
Sorry if my last post seemed harsh. If you really want to learn, I wish you the best. Ray
I still say read High-Low Split Poker, Seven Card Stud and Omaha Eight or Better for Advanced Players by Ray Zee.
I meant no offense about the spelling; its just that we are a dieing breed (those of us who can't figur out spell-check programs).
Lets say 7 people took the capped flop, 6 people took the capped turn, and its now you and 4 opponents on the turn, and its 4-bets to you. I count 28 sBets B4 flop and 24 on the flop, for 26 Big Bets in the pot. 4 opponents are going to put in a total of 16 more; so you are risking 4 bets to win 26+16=42 bets; but you get only half = 21 bets-4 or 5.25-to-1 "pot odds".
On the turn it looks like you have 10 outs for a very probable winner for half the pot and are about only a 3.5-1 dog to make it.
5.25 is greater than 3.5 (1.5:1), so good call. This means for every bet you put in you average a return of half a bet; meaning the decision to call $40 earned you $20. Few decisions are this profitable.
Minus you may loose to quads (unlikely) and will get money back if a 5 (or even a 6) hits the river (very little).
Your prospects drop drastically if you are not drawing to the (virtual) nuts; such as if you had a set of 3s.
Note that with all that B4 and flop action, its a cinch that there are 1 or 2 other A2's out there.
If poker dealers played well they WOULD. While they can help with some simple situations, I would be very reluctant to take advise about sophisticated strategy.
Except for the rare straight-flushes and quads, there is no such thing as a "made hand" in Omahaha; except after all the cards are out. "Made Hand" is a Holdem notion which should not be applied to Omahaha. "Made Hands" just have more outs than non-"Made Hands"; but they must still catch one of their outs (e.g. there is GOING TO BE a river card). In fact, I would be willing to bet that failure to abandon this notion is the MAIN reason good holdem players fail at Omahaha.
A "Draw Out" is just a failed "Hold Up", and a "Hold Up" is just a failed "Draw Out".
- Louie
Nice post. I liked the comment about made hands in Omaha - that's exactly the way I think about it. If I have the nut straight and there's a two flush, I'm drawing to a card that doesn't bring in a flush, pair the board, or make a bigger straight.
As you know, sometimes the made hand in Omaha is a dog to the best draw, and sometimes the made hand is drawing completely dead to the combined draws of the field.
Dan
ive been playing in a lot of tournaments lately and i hvae not been doing very well. This is not becuase i am playing incorrectly but due to a number of bad beats(2 and 3 outers) i have been getting. But there is a chance i am not playing correctly in these tournaments. Here are some of my thoughts on tourns vs live games.
In a tourn i usually dont value bet. I figure that the risk of getting check raised outweighs the value of an additional bet.
There are more idiots playing tourns than in live games. I can't tell you how many times i've been beat on the river heads up. Ill have top pair with a good kicker and some numbnut will end up hitting his kicker or pocket pair on the river.
You have to defend your blinds more ina tourn. Obviousy in a tighter game people are going to be raising with crap so often u have to call the raise and see the flop.
Its easier to bluff in a tourn against the right person. If a tight person raises your blind you can often bet out on the flop if rags fall. If he calls then check the rest of the way. If he has only overcards he usually folds after a bet on the flop.
But maybe my thoughts are wrong, hence my poor recent peformance in tournanments. Any comments?
Well, I have played in a number of weekend type tourneys, like the ones they have in the Orleans, weekly's, etc. with no "major" or even "special" events (Card Player). Perhaps, therefore, you may not find this information useful, but here it is anyway.
I am a very consistent tournament player. I mean specifically, that I almost always bust one out of the final table, or get to the final table with a very short stack. I hardly rebuy, and I am so consistently a big stack at the add on that sometimes I don't even need that. In spite of this, I have never won a tourney outright, made the top three deal a few times, but never felt that I really took over the tourney. Usually, I am hoping at the end to get lucky against the guys who are taking over me!!
If you read my other post on tourney advice, I state why I think I survive a long time, but no more. Perhaps you are talking about the final stages only, in which case I clearly don't know what is my problem(only theories). But if you are talking about the earlier stages, I think survival mode is a consistent way to play it. I don't suggest you play that way at all stages, but it might be worth a try. One thing you said was that the tables are so tight, you have to defend your blinds, because they are being indiscriminately attacked. I see your point, but perhaps the game is tight enough that you will want a quality hand to defend with. Otherwise, just let it go. Bold plays are probably critical to great play, but I think holding on to your chips is a vital point as well.
Anyway, I hope it helps a bit
The main difference is a dynamic nature of the value of chips in graduated payout tournament. If there are $40,000T in chips and a prize pool of $1,000, then a $40T chip has a face value of $1; so lets say its a $1T chip.
In a live game and you took everybody's money you would have $1000. In a tournament you may only get $400. In a live game a buck is a buck. In a tournament the chips change value. The general change in value is that the chips that you have are worth more than the chips you can gain; meaning to bet you are risking more than the call you can get.
An extreme example: You are at the last table on the button. If you have even one chip you can hope someone else gets busted before the blinds come around; thus this single chips is worth a LOT OF REAL MONEY. Note that a second chip in your stack is not worth nearly as much. It would therefore be a BIG MISTAKE to call and try to win the blinds single chip, since the risk:reward ratio is so high.
This suggests that very conservative play has much more merit in a tournament than in a live game.
There are plenty of quality life players who fail in tournaments because the do not embrace this notion.
- Louie
I am going to Louisiana this weekend, and they spread a 3-6-12 Hold 'Em game (12 on the river). Is this a little cheaper to play than 4-8? With capped betting on all rounds, it works out to $96 on a hand for each limit, but playing tightly would be cheaper in the 3-6-12, I think. Does anyone have experience with this betting structure?
Josh
3-6-12 is a fine game. If you're playing this game, tighten up on hands like KJ, and loosen up on hands like suited connectors and pocket pairs. The bigger bet on the river gives you big implied odds.
For a good player 3-6-12 is probably a better game. Any time the bet size goes up as you gain more information the advantage will go to the player who knows how to use that information best. That's my opinion, anyway.
Dan
The 3-6-12 games in Louisiana our great, I have played at about every casino in La and the action is tremendous. But your suited connectors and drawing hands go up in value big time, for some reason the La and Ms games our a free for all. My two favorites our the Horseshoe(4-8) in Bossier city and Casino Avoyelles in Marksville(3-6-12). Hope you have a good run!!!!!!!!!!!! Mark
Can anyone here please tell me what a freezout tournament is? Also, what is a freeroll? I would really appreciate any help.
freezeout is a tournament where there is 1 or a small number of paid places and no rebuys.
freeroll is, well, a free roll ;) a free tournament. Often based on some gimic like playing X number of hours the previous week/month/etc.
Thanks
I would like to make one addition to Bob Morgan's excellent post with the following mistake:
(20) Not putting variations in your play
A prime example of this is when I played in a pot limit hold 'em game where the blinds were $1 and $2 and caught myself playing 5h 3h in early position. This was a pretty strong table of players. Needless to say I caught a fullhouse on the turn against a nut flush and nut straight (after all was said and done) and scooped a monster. Another example: Suppose the flop is AsKh7c and you hold pocket aces, I suggest occasionally making the maximum allowed bet even if the pot is small. Let people call or even raise with their second or 3rd sets because they think you're trying to buy it. Thoughts?
20) revision A: Failing to play the same hand in different ways and failing to play different hands in the same way.
20) revision B: Playing predictably.
"A list of authorities usually placed at the end of non-fiction".
Your information was very helpful!
It was a great list, Bob-- thanks for posting it!
If I hold a pocket pair of sevens:
What are the exact odds of getting a 7 with the first three cards?
Answer: 7.5 to 1 Right?
What are the exact odds of getting at least one 7 anywhere in first four cards?
Answer: 5.4 to 1 Right?
What are the exact odds of getting at least one 7 with the first five cards?
Answer: 4.2 to 1 Right?
If these answers aren't correct and someone knows the correct answer - it would be greatly appreciated.
I'll answer these in turn, and show the derivation for each one in case anyone else with too much free time is interested in the method (assuming you don't already know):
I'm using combinatorial math to do these.
Question 1:
The total number of 3-card flop with 50 unseen cards is (50 choose 3) = (50!x49!x48!) / 3! , or 19600. The total number of flops that DON'T contain a seven is 48C3, or 17,297. That means that 2304 different flops will have a seven in them. 19600/2304 = 8.506, or rounded off, 7.5 to 1.
Question 2:
Same math. This time it's 50C4 possible 4-card groups, with 48C4 groups that will have a seven. That's 230,300 possible groups, with 35720 having a 7. That comes out to 5.4 to 1.
Question 3:
Same math. 50C5 = 2,118,760 possible boards. 48C5 = 1,712,304 that won't have a seven. Odds are 4.21 to 1.
Looks like your math is correct for all of them!
Dan
Tuesday night. Sunset Station Casino. $20 Holdem Tournament.
Final table. 4 players. Stack $1600. Blinds $200-400. In Small Blind. BB has $800.
Button, Big Stack, Raises. I have Q,Q. Think for a moment. Button raise, tight player but not real strong. I reraise! BB folds. Flop J,T,T. 9 on turn. Button bets flop, turn and river. I go all in. Lose to pocket K,K. Out of tournament. 4th place. $150 (3rd pays $350)
Today Thursday. Noon. Orleans. 20 Limit Holdem Tournament. Final Table. Chip leader. 60% of chips. 5 Players left. In BB. No Limit at this point. Blinds. $200-400. UTG puts in last $400. Button Raises all in (About 1/3 of my stack). SB folds. My hand: J,J. Think for a moment. Want to get rid of UTG. Think button has big pair or A,K. Think some more. Call. UTG: 8,8 Button Q,Jo, Me J,J. flop 9,8,3 rainbow. Turn 6, River T. UTG gone Button now equal with my stack. Finish. Chip leader. Split 1st and second money with the guy that was on the button in this hand.
His name was "Oklahoma Johnny Hale". Runs seniors tournaments. Says he is known as: "Elder Statesman of Poker". Even gave me a chip with his picture on it. I never heard of him before! Any of you!
Now to the point of the post. I believe that I made mistakes in both of these instances. In the first instance the player with less chips than I had to win a hand to beat me out of third place. I didn't have to win a hand and when the button raised should have folded. I believe the play cost me at least $200.
In the second instance. Both players werew all in. I had sixty % of the chips. I should have let them fight it out and not called. I believe this play may have cost me sole possession of first place!
I also have another one for you though not similiar to the above.
Today 7p.m. Orleans. Omaha Hi/lo tournamnet. 23 players out of 85 left. Pay 10 places. Stack:$1400. (better than average) Blinds 100-300. 3 from the button. Hand: Ac,Qc,Jc,2C. Raise $600. Button: Big Stack calls. Flop: Qs,Js,7c. Check. Button (aggressive but not solid) bets. Call. Turn Ts. Check Button bets $600. I have $550. left. I fold! Raise the next hand with Th,Ts, 6h,2d. Button and BB call. Lose to 4 Aces. Out of tournament.
I think that I should have called with my top two pair. I only had $500 left. There was $2700 in the pot. I thint that the correct play was to call here! I saw the spades and the possible straight and didn't consider my chip count!
Please Comment on all three plays.
Vince
Vince wrote:
One thing I would want to know is about how many chips do the big stack and the 4th (unmentioned) player have. If they have a lot more than your T1600 (let's say big stack has T10,000 or more), then you're more interested in crawling into 3rd place money. If big stack has only T5000 or less, then you still have a pretty good shot at winning the tournament, as winning this hand against the big stack will tie you with him. 4-handed QQ is an absolute monster. There is no way that the big stack, on the button, needs anything to be raising here, and most of the time you'll find him holding 1 overcard at most. You were unlucky here to run into such a big hand. Again, unless I was way outstacked, such that winning this hand would still leave me well behind the chip leaders, I'd be going for it with such a monster as QQ.
Even though you're way ahead here (most of the time), you might have considered just calling preflop, so as to invite the big blind to take a shot with the 5:1 pot odds he would have been offered at that point. If you just call, then the big blind can think that neither of you has to have a premium hand. By folding, he has a guaranteed T400. By calling, he can win and have T2400. Since calling gives him some shot at winning the whole thing, and folding realistically doesn't, he may call. If you think that there's a good chance he'll call if you only call, then you should consider that play.
Also, why weren't you betting the flop, turn, and river? You don't say that the button 4-bet you preflop, so I would think that you have to believe you're ahead, even after that flop. You should have been betting into him. While the result would have been the same this time, if you check you're maybe giving a free card to a hand like Ax or Kx (where x is little) that would fold to your flop bet.
>Today Thursday. Noon. Orleans. 20 Limit Holdem Tournament. >Final Table. Chip leader. 60% of chips. 5 Players left. In >BB. No Limit at this point. Blinds. $200-400. UTG puts in >last $400. Button Raises all in (About 1/3 of my stack). SB >folds. My hand: J,J. Think for a moment. Want to get rid of
This is very similar to the first spot. Here, however, you were chip leader and couldn't go bust on the hand. In such a spot you've almost got to play a premium hand. Again, while JJ isn't premium in NL when two players go all-in in front of you at a full table, here you're down to 5 players. JJ is a premium hand for these conditions. The UTG player may very well be desperate and play any hand that looks better than average (a mistake, btw), and the button, knowing this, might be raising with any reasonable hand in order to get it heads up with the UTG player. Remember to ask yourself what your opponents may be thinking, and don't assume that they're playing by your standards.
>His name was "Oklahoma Johnny Hale". Runs seniors >tournaments. Says he is known as: "Elder Statesman of >Poker". Even gave me a chip with his picture on it. I never >heard of him before! Any of you!
Very well known. Has been around for years. Runs the Seniors World Series of Poker. Previously at Oceanside Card Club, now at Hollywood Park?
>Now to the point of the post. I believe that I made >mistakes in both of these instances. In the first instance >the player with less chips than I had to win a hand to beat >me out of third place. I didn't have to win a hand and when >the button raised should have folded. I believe the play >cost me at least $200.
Sure, it now looks like you could have folded and coasted into 3rd place. But, by doing so, you would have given up what was probably your best chance of winning, or at least moving up to 2d. If 3d paid $350, then 2d and 1st were probably $700 and $1400. If playing this hand increases your chances of winning by 20%, that's worth more than $200 all by itself, let alone your increased chances of placing 2d. Theoretically, you want to maximize your expected return, right?
>In the second instance. Both players were all in. I had >sixty % of the chips. I should have let them fight it out >and not called. I believe this play may have cost me sole >possession of first place!
Before you saw their hands, you should believe that you're the likely favorite. Even if you're not favored to win (i.e., more than 50% likely to win), you're probably more likely to win than either of the other players scored individually. After you saw their hands, you should have been extremely glad. Instead of 2 or 3 overcards for them to hit, they only had 1. You were probably going to win this matchup at least 2/3 of the time.
>Today 7p.m. Orleans. Omaha Hi/lo tournamnet. 23 players out >of 85 left. Pay 10 places. Stack:$1400. (better than >average) Blinds 100-300. 3 from the button. Hand: >Ac,Qc,Jc,2C. Raise $600. Button: Big Stack calls. Flop: >Qs,Js,7c. Check. Button (aggressive but not solid) bets. >Call. Turn Ts. Check Button bets $600. I have $550. left. >I fold!
Your preflop raise is fine. You're still quite a way from the money, and have to win a pot or two to get there. While going into super-survival mode now might increase your chances of finishing 9th or 10th somewhat, it will cripple your chances of winning or finishing high. Selective, aggressive play is still called for.
Why are you checking this flop? Your only concern at this point is a set. You're ahead of anything else. If you check, the button is likely to bet a lot of hands, and maybe be bluffing, as he'll think that you raised with a big low draw (A235 and the like) and missed the flop. Sure, if the button has the flush draw or a big straight draw he's going to call, but there are lots of hands that he could call with intelligently preflop that he should intelligently fold now. In fact, the only reason I can see for checking here is if you wanted to induce a bluff, which would not be proper in this spot.
You then folded to a bet that would force you all-in on the turn, which was a very bad card for you. However, I count T2750 in the pot when you folded to preserve your last T550. If you know this player well enough to be pretty sure that he has, at least, the straight, then this would be a good play. However, you probably have at least 4 outs that are good to the full house. This gives you something like a 10% chance of winning even if you are chasing. Combine this with any level of uncertainty about whether you're really behind or not, and I think that calling becomes the better play. T550 is going to be difficult to place with, and even tougher to win with. T3300 will be something near triple an average stack. This should give you a high likelihood of making the money, and a decent shot at finishing in the top three.
>I think that I should have called with my top two pair. I >only had $500 left. There was $2700 in the pot. I thint >that the correct play was to call here! I saw the spades >and the possible straight and didn't consider my chip >count!"
You're right.
>Raise the next hand with Th,Ts, 6h,2d. Button and >BB >call. Lose to 4 Aces. Out of tournament.
You probably should've folded this hand. From HE we think that pocket tens are pretty decent, but in Omaha, especially hi/lo, they're pretty useless. 26 is a poor low draw, and you've got no counterfeit protection (i.e., a third low card to let you make a low, in case the board contains a 2 or 6). This hand is probably well below average for Omaha hi/lo. Since you're going to have to survive a few orbits in order to get to the money, I think that you should wait for a truly premium hand, or just take whatever you get in the big blind. That way if you do survive the big blind, you'll get to see quite a few hands before having to play one again.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Hey Fossil Man,
If you've read any of my responses you probably know I am very argumentative! But I find no arguement with your response. Thanks for the great advice! I'm headed for HP this weekend to play in their 50,000 freeroll. I will certainly remember what you said here!
BTW I made the bet with the TT because it was the last hand at that level and my last chance to raise! The next level was 500 BB. Just a thought! Also three of the Aces were on the board! Not that it matters.
Thanks Again! Vince
I think you should look at these results from the big picture: in general, these are pretty common "coin-flip" outcomes from fast-action tournaments. That is, you are always marginally short-stacked vis-a-vis the blinds and being dealt hands that almost demand to be played. But in certain chip situations, the "global" strategic consideration sometimes overrides the obvious "local" stragegy of playing a good hand. As you saw, when you are the chip leader, getting involved at all often has significantly more to lose than could be gained. This is particularly true in multiway pots at the final table.
Who the hell made this game up anyway? I played in a free roll last night, you get T200 chips, limit starts at 15-30, every 20 min limits go up. Well I have played this game very little, and this was my first Omaha h/l tourney.
First hand I was delt AcKhKd2c . It was raised and re-raised so I called. I was in midde pos. flop came 3h 5s Ks. I thought I had a pretty decent hand, a bunch of outs. well Turn comes Ah. There is a bet and a raise...A buch of bad players at the table (Including me) I call...The river really puts it to me. Td falls. I couldnt belive it...I folded and was hacked off....The winner had T3. I lost all most the whole 200 in the first hand!
The next hand, I got delt...TJd 34c...I decide to go all in...probably not the best hand to go All in w/ but I am now telling myself I will never play this game again! I ask to have my name but on the board for the HE game. flop was K 9 8. I wasent really paying attention.( I was trying to peek over at the HE game to see what it was like.) Be fore I knew it I won my half of the pot? to make a short story long. I ended up winning the tournament, $785.00 Thank you very much! I caught some unbelivable cards, won a coupla hands w/ strait flushes and one quad hand. I dont think I will ever be able to duplacte a night like that ever again!
Has anyone ever had a night like this? And by the way...What was the guy smoking when he invented this game?
Walleye (Now Ohmaha H/L Tourney winner ) Does this mean I have to play this game again?
BTW- My first post so if I say something stupid... it's just a precursor to potential stupidity in future postings.
Congrats on the Tourney win Walleye. Question though -- why were you hacked off with a T falling on the river with KKKxx? Unless I'm missing something (highly probable) the hands you have to worry about here is AA or 24 (is that right?) for the high half of the pot.
While everyone else is correcting me on the above analysis could you also lend some advice? Casino poker virgin (me) is dying to play in a Midwest WSOP $70/10re/25add satelitte (3.5 hrs away) in March - Have recently read L. Jones' Hold'em book (3 times) and have practiced diligently on computers simulations and live home opponents. The event I was going to enter is Omaha HL8 (although technically I know more about HE, I figure I have a better shot at the O8 tourney) So- two questions.
1) Should I save my money and get some ring game experience first (tough to come by - I do live in Wisconsin) then enter next year (yes, I plan on taking my poker game seriously and continously improve by learning and playing)
2) Speaking of learning - I need advice on which book I should read next - I'm ready to order Ray Zee's Hi/Lo - 7s and O8 for advanced players - is that a good choice.
Ok, sorry I rambled - but I truly appreciate any advice. I hope I can continue to learn and contribute to this great board. Thanks - Michael (Packerfn1)
Yes, he can lose to someone holding AA or 24. The T also means that someone can beat him by having QJ (with the AKT on board, for a high straight). Therefore, he needs to worry about all 3 hands. Plus, since there is A24 on the board, it is highly likely that someone has a low, so he is only getting half the pot (at least, most of the time).
If you can afford the tournament, and losing the money won't hurt, then go for it. While you are highly unlikely to win (due to lack of experience), you will learn something. Also, don't think of this as a $100 investment. If your figures aren't typos, you'd better be prepared to rebuy a lot. With rebuys being only $10 after the $70 entry fee, I'm guessing that the format must encourage lots of rebuys. So be prepared to rebuy a dozen or more times, or don't enter.
BTW, I've never heard of a tournament with such a price disparity between the original entry fee and the rebuy cost. I've often seen things like $15 + 5 (15 to the prize pool and 5 to the house) or $10 + 10, with $10 rebuys, but never a difference of 7:1. You might want to call them and get all the details. How many chips you start with, how many chips for rebuys, do the rebuys get you more chips at different stages of the tournament, how many chips for the add-on, how long can you make rebuys, what are the starting betting limits, how long does each limit last, how fast do the limits increase, etc. The short-hand thing is to ask them to mail/fax you a copy of the structure sheet. They may not have one available. Sometimes they advertise these things and determine the structure the day before, even the morning of, the tournament.
If you know more about HE, then you will probably do better in the HE event. Being patient can serve you better in HE, because HE has more hands that dominate the opponents' holdings. In Omaha, it is so easy to see lots of flops with good cards, and then have to fold what may be the best hand, because even AA isn't much in this game without an A on the flop.
Ray Zee's book is excellent, and a must for anyone wishing to learn to play Omaha and stud hilo well. Also highly recommended are HE for advanced players, and the Theory of Poker. For nolimit and potlimit I like the book by Ciaffone and Reuben. For tournaments, I don't really like any of the books out there. The 2+2 book (by Suzuki) does a good job of explaining when to rebuy or not, but I don't really think it helps much in other areas. The book by Cloutier and McEvoy is full of contradictory advice, which, although correct, is useless, as I don't think they teach you how to decide when each piece of advice is to be applied.
Since I've gone on so long, I might as well continue (good thing I can type fast). My main advice for tournament play is 2-fold. First, in the early stages, when you're still far from the money, you can almost always play identically to how you would in a ring game. Of course, good ring game play requires that you pay attention to how your opponents play and adjust accordingly. The same is true in a tournament. The main difference is that in the middle stages of a tournament, there will be many players, maybe yourself included, who don't have enough chips to play a hand to the end with betting all the way. As such, this will (and should) dramatically affect their play. Pay attention, as someone who is all-in, or almost all-in, cannot usually be bluffed out. The only time to try is on the river, in case they missed their draw and may have very little, and will fold hands that beat yours (like A high no-pair busted flush draws).
Second, when you get close to the money, stack size is more important than the cards you're holding, or that you think your opponents are holding. If someone raises your big blind all-in, you have plenty of chips, and you're getting 3:1 or better on the call, you don't even need to look, you should call with any 2 cards, even 23o. If you have a decent stack, and the chip leader raises your big blind, you should seriously consider folding very good hands, even if you suspect the chip leader is stealing. The exact decision depends upon too many factors to mention, but folding AQ might be the smartest play in many circumstances.
Good Luck, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Thanks for the feedback Greg. I haven't heard anything but praise for Zee's book and I think it'll be a good one to study next. BTW I thought Jones' book is excellent and a must for all HE virgins (IMHO).
The WSOP satellites are on the Miss Marquette in Iowa. MadMary posted the info (thx) originally on r.g.p. so I called and they informed me that it was $70 buy-in for T1000 (I might be a newbie but I know how to write the language) with re-buys for 2 hours $10 for T1000 the first hour, $10 for T1500 the second hour. I'm not sure how much the $25 add-on would give. It sounded like it was a limit / no-limit structure. I'll see if I can get a structure sheet.
Thanks again for your input.
Michael
Michael-
I'm assuming you live in Green Bay, in which case I "think" there's some poker action at that Indian Casino just south of you ( I think it's in Oneida), and one in Wasakee (sp?). My girlfriends parents are from Menominee ( yes, I'm dating a Uper), and I think I remember there being poker rooms here. If not, I'm almost sure there's one at the Chip-In, which is up by Escanaba (although I realize this is almost a 2 1/2 drive for you). There's hordes of other casinos up in that area, but I can't remember where all of them are (and I'm sure you know better than I, in which case this post is totally irrelevant).
I almost forgot-- I don't know how new you are to HE, but if you haven't been playing long be advised that the pre-flop raising standards in Jones' book are ridiculously tight; for a better idea of pre-flop raising standards for the low limit game I'd read Sklansky's HEP. Too, I think Jones makes a huge mistake when he says that if you don't make top pair on the flop or only flop overcards you should almost invariably fold. These are NOT hard and fast rules by any means-- if the flop is raggedy then you're 3:1 to hit one of your overcards by the river and 4:1 to make two pair or trips with mid/low pair. If the pot odds are there, and you're fairly sure your hand will hold up if you get there, you should stay in.
It's a pretty good book, IMO, but these two pieces of advice can cost you a bunch of money. Best of luck
GD
Thx for your opinions on HE strategy.. Im looking forward to putting all the recent knowledge to work now at a real table!
Actually I live in about 20 miles west of Milwaukee. So as I figure it my closest options are: Hollywood Casino in Aurora, IL (2+ hrs), Showboat Casino in Hammond IN, (2 1/2 hrs) and the Miss Marquette riverboat in IA. (3+ hrs).
If anyone has any thoughts on these or others, please let me know...
Again, thx for the input.
Michael
Here is some additonal information on the Miss Marquette WSOP satelite. The add-on will get you an extra T3000 in chips. The two hour rebuy period will be limit play with limits increasing every 20 minutes. Shortly after the add-on play will switch to the no-limit format. Its like playing in two completely different tournaments. Lots of opportunities to take advantage as many players will not adjust their play to the new structure. I'll be there so stop by and say Hi if you decide to attend.
First of all, congrats on your win! I recently won $550 and took first place in a razz tourney, and have never played razz before, so it's good to here from someone else on a strange high like myself. I enjoy Omaha quite a bit and play in a really loose 5-20 game on Sundays and Mondays. It's the best game to play with novice players who aren't sure which starting hands to go into the game with. It amazes me when the board reads As Ah Jc Js 10d and someone calls through the river with K Q in the middle of serious chip flying.
Way to go Walleye! Congrats on your win! Hey could you lend me a few bucks!
The first time I played Omaha, 4-8 with a kill at HP casino. Could not lose! Hand after hand. Scoop! Send It, were the only words in my vocab. I naturally thought that I was the best. This was my game. I could conquer the Poker world hrough OMaha Hi/Lo.
O. Kayee! I think the next time I played or maybe it was the time after the next time, I am having trouble remebereing because I don't like to think about my nightmares! O Hi/lo is a simple game to master. But if you don't follow conventional wisdom, coordinated hand selection before the flop and draw to the nuts with redraws on the flop and turn, well then this is the Killer of all Casino Poker Games! Your hard earned initial win will soon be minnow snacks for the sharks that play this simple game! Be Careful but not afraid!
OPinion by Vince
This hand came up a recent 30-60 Omaha-8 game. Several mistakes/questionable plays were made, and there was an unusual outcome (at least in my experience) so maybe it will be worth discussion by the group.
Preflop: Six players (out of eight) called, no raises: UTG,#2,#4,Button, SB, BB. Pot is $180
Flop: comes Ah 6s Jd. SB, BB, UTG check, #2 bets, all call. Pot value: $360
Turn: comes 8 h. SB bets, BB and UTG call, #2 raise, #4 re-raise, all call to #2 who caps. Pot value: $1800
River: comes 5d, final board is AH 6s Jd 8h 5d. Checked to #2 who bets, #4 raise, button re-raise, SB &BB call, UTG fold, #2 caps, rest call. Pot value: $3000
Results: #2 took $1500 with trip aces (had A-A-K-5 no suits). Other four players (#4, Button, SB, BB) split low, recovering $375 each.
SB had 6-6-2-3 rainbow; BB had Q-10h,2-3d; #4 had A-J-2-3 rainbow; Button had 5-7c-2-3; UTG said he folded nut flush draw.
Who played this more or less correctly, who played it badly and where were the mistakes made?
I don't see any problems on the flop. #2 bet the nut high, and everyone else called with the nut low draw, in some cases combined with pretty good high hands.
Turn seems right, as well. SB bets out after making nut low, which seems sensible enough with this many opponents. BB just calls with his nut low, which also makes sense given that he has little chance for high, and therefore wants to keep people in to mazimixe his cut of the low. #2 raises with what is still the nut high, which I think is good, as he knows the low hands aren't likely to fold, so he should charge them the max to increase his cut of the high.
#4 reraises. This is a play that isn't so straightforward, but I like it. #4 has the nut low, plus top two pair for high. By 3-betting it, he may get someone with a small set to fold. I know that after all this action, with the low half of the pot lost to me, I could readily fold 66, and maybe JJ, if I had no other draws. Everyone calls, which makes sense as they all have the nut low (or nut flush draw attributed to UTG), and #2 caps it, which again is the smart play. With 5 players in, I'd be thinking that even splitting the pot with another 23 low, I'm making money on every bet that goes into the pot here.
River. #2 bets out, which is appropriate. Only better hands need to contain 47 or 79, which is less likely than not. When #2 caps the river, I don't like it. I would now be rather afraid that someone was playing 2347 or 2349, and backed into the better high hand. However, between capping and not capping, neither play will be much favored over the other, in the long run, given the situation.
After #2 bet out, #4 raised, and button reraised, both holding only the 23 low (at this point I would put little faith in #4's two-pair for high). In one sense, this seems like a good play, as there are 5 players, so you figure to make money if only 1 other player has the same low, and it's pretty rare to see 3 or 4 folks share the same 2-card low. However, given the play of this hand, 3 lows seems possible, and also, I would be afraid that my raise or reraise is going to drive out one or more contributors (someone who has been staying in with only a small set, or who has 24 for low). If I raise and drive out even 1 of these guys, I don't make money (considering only the river bets) when I get half the low. If I drive out 2 of them, I lose money when I only get half the low. Overall, I think that just calling here is slightly better than raising.
Overall, I don't think anyone made any truly bad mistakes. Most of these guys were just plain unlucky. Of course, the button was taking a risk right away by playing 2357, even in a family pot. Actually, I guess that this isn't much of a mistake, and maybe not a mistake, if he can play really well after the flop.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I think a case can be made that the nut flush draw could have been folded. Being centered by the high hand and a bunch of made lows when drawing 7 cards to win half a pot is not a great situation to be in.
Hello to all!
Here I have a check or bet decision. Comments welcome.
I am in the small blind and I have Js8s. The button opens with a raise and I call. Big blind folds and the flop is: J 9 6 rainbow one spade. I bet and the button raises and I call. The turn is a 2 still rainbow. I bet (??) and the button calls. The river is an Ace. Should I bet?
The board now is J 9 6 2 A. He will call with an Ace, Jack and nine but most likely he does not have a Jack. He will also call with TT and possibly any pair. I do not think that he will bet anything losing to a Jack since I have shown that I have a pair and most likely Jack. Should I bet?
Incidentally, was my bet on the turn out of line? I liked my hand and I was going to call anyway and if I do not bet I may be giving a free card. Another check or bet decision on the turn.
Thanks,
Maria
"I am in the small blind and I have Js8s. The button opens with a raise and I call."
You should either fold or reraise. (Folding is probably your best option.)
"Big blind folds and the flop is: J 9 6 rainbow one spade. I bet and the button raises and I call. The turn is a 2 still rainbow. I bet (??) and the button calls. The river is an Ace. Should I bet?"
I would check and call. If you bet it will be difficult for a second best hand to call you. But if you check, you may induce a bluff, and even though you are likely beat if your opponent bets, you should still call because of the size of the pot.
"The board now is J 9 6 2 A. He will call with an Ace, Jack and nine but most likely he does not have a Jack. He will also call with TT and possibly any pair. I do not think that he will bet anything losing to a Jack since I have shown that I have a pair and most likely Jack. Should I bet?"
If this analysis is accurate, then you should bet. Many weak players will call with any pair but won't bet it. However, given the way the hand has been played it seems doubtful (to me) that you are up against one of these weaker hands, but you could be up against a hand like KQ. (Note that KQ has six outs while TT has only two outs. So when you bet again on the turn the TT might not stay around.)
"Incidentally, was my bet on the turn out of line? I liked my hand and I was going to call anyway and if I do not bet I may be giving a free card. Another check or bet decision on the turn."
I frequently make this same bet on the turn. Many players will raise on the flop in exactly the situation that you described in order to get a free card. If an ace or king hit on the turn it might be correct to check and fold.
Unless there were around three other callers before the raise there's a good argument here for folding before the flop, since it will take a miracle flop to give a J8s any real betting power.
This post has to do with playing strong cards strongly. This winter I've altered my play when I've hit flops extremely hard against good players. For example, I call with K10s UTG, three or four players in behind maybe a raise. The flop comes A32s. In the past, I would have sat on this nut flush and tried to shmutz around to extract the largest amount of money I could. The problem I found is that it is difficult to finesse good players. If you check raise the flop, you lose everybody. Try to finesse the turn or bet or raise one or two players, you limit your return. Slow play (an alternative) and they freeze on the turn seeing that you have mysteriously become a calling machine. Most of the time now I come out ram'n and jam'n with these hands because most good players believe that you suppose to be making plays in this situation, i.e. Merle couldn't have the nut flush because he would sit on it and make a play. This reverse psychology has made me a lot of money this winter. Comments please.
"Most of the time now I come out ram'n and jam'n"
Come on Merle this forum is not about anyone's sex life!
Seriously, if I may, you've heard it before and probably said it before, vary your game. Don't play the same hand the same way all the time. Then even the best of the best won't be able to nail you down! Besides winning at poker is about mistakes. The opponent's not yours! If it is correct to call with a big hand, then most of the time you should do just that and hope the other guy makes the mistake. If you try unconventional, inapproriate tactics at the wrong time (somehow that doesn't sound right, oh well you get the picture) you will find yourself compounding mistakes which may eventually lead to a disater! You will end up confused with no self confidence!
Of Course: "This reverse psychology has made me a lot of money this winter"
Since this is the case: IF IT AIN"T BROKE DON"T FIX IT!
But Merle: "This winter I've altered my play when I've hit flops extremely hard against good players."
If these guys are good players haven't they noticed by now (this winter) that you are Ram'n and Jam'n and made adjustments. Good players sometimes do that!
Now I'm confused!
Opinion By Vince (Boy from the City)!
Use whatever works. If this strategy is fooling the good players, by all means use it!
Sometimes against good players the best strategy is simple straight forward play.
Sometimes against weak players,too. They are often slow to give you credit for the nuts. I play in 1-4-8-8 and play straight forward poker >90% of the time. Win rate: over 2BB/hr.
In the long run that is. I'm considered pretty good but to be honest I probably lost at least a grand last year. I figure at least 95% of low limit players lose, the only real winner is the house. Whaddya think?
I have a friend that plays mainly 10/20 HE, occasionally pot limit HE and a few house games, and won close to $26,000 last year. He is very well respected by everyone in the poker room, even though he is very young, because of his natural talent for the game (he has, admittedly, played in some higher limits where he didn't belong and gotten shelacked). I have recently been introduced to this game, and know of 2 people other than my friend that travel and play poker full time (this is confirmed by some very reliable no-nonsense regulars, who are not afraid to sound the bull-shit alarm if some guy with weak play calls himself a pro). Keep the chin up Chuck, and we'll see you in the winners circle (okay, maybe that sounded a little cheezy)!
Money can be made at low-limit but low-limit is not the best place to make money. Low-limit is the place to learn for players who want a high expectation/hr. In "Gambling For A Living" Sklansky and Malmuth estimate that a really good 6-12 player might be able to make $20/hr but you'll never see this because a player that good will be making even more at a higher limit.
In this same book they recommend at least 10-20 for making serious money. The book provides charts on pages 240-41 for what the earning potential is for different limit games at different skill levels. Just to give a few examples; the expectation for a very good 10-20 player is $20/hr, for an excellent player $25/hr, and for a world-class player $30/hr. If the very good player is selective in choosing his game (and seat, presumably) his rate would go up to $30/hr. And it just occurred to me that this belongs on the Exchange Forum.
I am averaging $50 an hour in 10-20 over the last year and I don't consider myself even close to being world class.
Chuck,
If you and your regular opponents are about equal players and your occasional non-regular opponents usually play o.k., since poker is a "zero sum" game, it stands to reason that your statement reflects reality. Second, overcoming the rake in a low limit game usually is tougher to do. What you need to do is to transform yourself from a "pretty good" player into a "very good" player. What this means to me is to do the following for a start:
1) Improve your hand reading ability a lot.
2) Use your improved hand reading ability to make quality lay downs. If you can make some laydowns that other players usually don't make even though they should it seems to me that your results would have to improve.
3) Use your improved hand reading ability to make correct strategic raises. Again if you can raise correctly when other players would only call for instance, your results would have to get better.
4) Become very cognizant of the mistakes your opponents are making. If you can't find any you're not trying hard enough. Develop ways to take advantage of these mistakes.
5) Learn to play well on the river and to do this IMO you have to be well grounded in poker theory and be proficient at reading hands. Definitely study The Theory of Poker chapter about playing on the river and reading hands for that matter.
6) Of course become very cognizant of the mistakes you're making and if you can't find any you're not trying hard enough. Develop ways to eliminate your mistakes.
There's a lot more but try these for a start. As Mason says often in so many words is that enhancing your poker skills requires a lot of thinking about poker away from the table.
Tom Haley
I play in a low limit $1 to $5 holdem/tahoe game. I used to be at best a break even player. Then I bought The Theroy of Poker by David Sklansky. I read, re-read and re-read this book. I have read other books by other authors (Oswald Jacoby, Edwin Silberstang) but those books are bird cage liner next to TTOP. Now days I am a consistant winner at the low limit level. I also bought Holdem Poker by Sklansky and Holdem Poker for Advanced Players by Sklansky and Malmuth. Both are also excellent books but I feel that TTOP was the one that helped me the most. I'm not saying that I am a great player now but I do have a new found respect from the other players and I LOVE IT!!!
I am new to this forum, and enjoy reading your discussions, but I know I would understand them better with 2 clarifications. What does UTG stand for (Under The Gun? Unbelievable, Two Gutshots? Ughhh, The aGony?)? And what does the capital T (in T1000 for example) stand for? Any help from the highly educated would be appreciated.
I like your last definition: "Ughhh, The aGony". But the "T" stands for trite, trivial, Too redundant, or trendy (your choice).
Tourney -- as in tourney chips. As Earl stated most think its usu. obvious from context...
I would like to know if David Sklansky has ever gone on tilt.
I'm talking full boar flat out tilt. I have. I'm not ashamed to admit it.
I just can't see David "nose open."
Well DS, have you?
One time. It was late one night and they were huddled around an old broken-down poker table at the Dunes. Puggy Pearson was in the corner telling stories and Amarillo Slim was flirting with the waitresses. Ray Zee was in the big blind and D.S. was on the button. It had been several hours since R.Z. had played a hand, and D.S. had a Group 25 hand that he quickly calculated was about a 50.0002% favorite over any possible holding that R.Z. could have. D.S. moved all-in. R.Z. thought .. and he thought .. and he thought. Reluctantly he called (he was holding the nuts of course). When the dealer put 5 rags on the board, D.S. stormed back to his publisher talking to himself, swearing never to mess with his fellow co-authors again.
And if you believe this story, I know several great players who need staked in the World Series ....
As David's and Ray's publisher, the only thing about this story that I find hard to believe is that it took Ray so long to call. He is usually fairly quick to recognize when he holds the nuts.
I have never seen hime sit in a game long enough to go on tilt.
Mason,do you recommend holdem odd book by mike petriv?how you rate it?
I liked it. It won't help your play, but if you are interested in the underlying probabilities that govern hold 'em hands it does a good job.
Mr. Miller- You are a complete idiot. First of all you are trying to make it appear that you are an exceptional player and believe me, I've seen you play and you are dilusional if you think you are anything more than a tight and slightly better than average player. While there are some dealers who could use some help, the majority of the dealers at the Muckleshoot Casino are very good. As far as them trying to get the hands out, you try working for $5.00 per hour. These people are trying to make an honest living and the majority of them do a great job, especially in light of the fact that they have to deal with the likes of you. I strongly suggest if you find the dealers so distasteful, you go play somewhere else.
The terms "brave hand" and "scared hand" were coined by David Sklansky in a recent Poker Digest article that he wrote. I refer the forum readers to this article as a refernce for this post. I'd like to re-visit a hand that was posted a short time ago by Dan Smith in light of the "brave hand" and "scared hand" concept.
Dan's post:
Now after this flop is the pair of 7's a scared hand or a brave hand? To me it appears to be a scared hand because if I held it I certainly wish I was all in. I would like the action to stop right now and see the river (actually I would like no more cards to come) without putting any more money in the pot. It may very well be the best hand right now and if it is the best hand it is a comforable favorite to two overcards but not an overwhelming favorite. Since there was a raise before the flop and there were four players the pot is fairly big right now and if the 7's are the best hand you certainly don't want to give a free card to two overcards. On the other hand if the 7's are not the best hand because the raiser has an over pair or someone flopped a set, then the 7's are a huge dog. Many players will automatically bet if they raise before the flop and 3 active players check to them on the flop so a lot of opponents will decline the free card if you check to them. The texture of this flop indicates that there probably aren't any reasonable straight draws out there. The other players who did call could have missed completely, have under pairs that beat your 7's, have under pairs that your 7's beat, slow playing over pairs before the flop, have a ten and are simply checking to the raiser, or have 2nd or 3rd button with an overcard kicker.
Obviously there are a lot of possibilities buy the most likely few seems to be that:
1) your other calling opponents have weak hands and the pre-flop raiser has over cards.
2) your other calling opponents have weak hands and the pre-flop raiser has an over pair.
Relating this to scared hands and brave hands, it would seem that one big determining factor in playing the 7's would be your raising opponent's propensity to take a free card on the flop. Your raising opponent's propensity to fold to a bet on the flop. Your raising opponent's propensity to try for a free card on the turn by raising the flop. Your raising opponent's calling requirements on the river as he may not want to call with no pair on the river. Your raising opponent's raising requirements on the turn. Your raising opponent's folding requirements on the turn. Your raising opponent's betting requirements on the river. What you think your opponent thinks you have if you bet on the flop. Is the pair of 7's a scared hand in this situation? Comments?
Tom Haley
BTW I realize that Dan said in his post that he was new to the game and had little knowledge of the players. So all the things that I stated were not necessarily knowable but if you did have knowledge of your opponents then they should be considered IMO. As far as not knowing your opponents I think that Mason's advice is right on. Assume that they are not that great until you can get a line on their play. From the perspective of assuming your opponents are so-so what should one assume?
Tom Haley
The right play is to check raise the button on the flop in most cases. Thus you have a brave hand at this point in this particular situation.
David,
Thanks for clearing this up. I think I have an understanding of the "brave hand - scared hand" concept that you wrote about in Poker Digets. However, I certainly am having some difficulty applying it. This probably means I don't have as firm of a grasp on the concept as I think I do. I am going to post some more very soon regarding this concept but I want to mull it over a little more in light of your answer.
Tom Haley
In pot-limit Omaha (high), while hands are close in value heads-up, are they also close in value in multiway pots? (although the playability of those hands differs greatly due to redraw potential, connectedness, and their ability to make the nuts) Do you give up a lot by not raising a premium hand preflop when the money is deep? (for deception or to keep weaker, less connected hands in) My posts on this subject to rec.gambling.poker: "The reason I have doubts that hands are close in showdown value in multiway pots is that the weaker combinations that can win heads-up or shorthanded have little chance against a full field. When many players are in, there are so many combinations out there that the winning hand will normally be the nuts or close to it. A nine-high flush, an overpair, bottom set, the bad end of a straight, or a weak two pair might all be good against one or two or even a few opponents. In showdowns against a full field, only the highest suited combination in each suit has value, and the highest pairs have a much larger chance to make the best full house. While there are important factors on which hands have a greater playability throughout the hand, it seems that only certain two-card groups have the ability to make the nuts in most cases, and that the more players are in, the more value those would gain at the expense of marginal and trash hands. High pairs, suited aces and high/middle straight runs would be included here. It is possible that 8765 double suited or A987 double suited or even KQJT double suited do not have preflop multiway SHOWDOWN value significantly greater than random hands (although they all have very high PLAYING value in pot-limit due to their nut draws and redraw potential) But I'm not yet convinced that AAKK double suited doesn't have far greater than average value in multiway pots. Many starting hands in pot-limit are playable for their value in specific situations rather than for their showdown value. When the implied odds are good, a lot more drawing hands are playable than in limit. Conversely, many hands with strong showdown value become marginal or unplayable in pot-limit; while they win often, they can't be played strongly, and they build hands too weak to beat anything that they would get action from. (Such as KJo or ATo in holdem) Out of the set of normally playable hands in pot-limit Omaha, many if not most are played for their ability to make the nuts with redraws (even in a very small fraction of cases) rather than for their value over the sum of all flops."
Well last night i sat in a omaha 6/12 w/1/2 kill. im know by many too be a unpredictable player, the regulars where i play have named me maverick for that reason,here's the table im posting SB to the left of me im last to act, im dealt Ac 2c 4s 5s its capped onthe kill at$40,with 5 players in ($200) the flop is this Ah 3c Kc agian before it gets too me its capped, with that much action going on i see that 3 of the 5 of us in are regulars wich i will call (rounders) players who know the game, me i looked again at my hand to see if i was correct, yes NUT lo with NUT flush draw,, well the turn i thought was a rag Qs well still all 5 players in its capped at $80. wow all im thinking about is a low club hitting the river, so i coudl be shock the table sense, i have not yet been the one betting or raiseing my hand( wich i feel is the best at this time), ok here the finish the river is a Jh , there is no lo and a huge possability of the nut straight, well the SB, BB, AND #1 all check #2 bets i fold, so does SB, BB and #1 so #2 scoops this huge pot, BTW I had never seen this player before,, well he was proud enought of his hand that he turned over ACE HIGH no straight no pr notheing... well the reason for the post haveing that much of my $ in this pot, i know i did right by folding ,, but i could not help my self i wanna to get under the table and die,,, what a night ...
You are in a loose game where 5-8 players see the flop on a regular basis. You might expect a pre-flop raise say one out of every 3 or 4 hands. A pre-flop raise has little or no effect on the number of players sticking around for the pot. The odd time (say one in 10), the betting gets capped pre-flop. This too has very little effect on the number of players seeing the flop.
Which hand would you rather have:
1. KQ off UTG vs. K8s on button.
2. K8s UTG vs. KQ off on button.
3. AK off UTG vs. AJs on button.
4. AJs UTG vs. AK off on button.
5. Small pocket pair UTG vs. Axs UTG.
Obviously, there are no correct answers to some (perhaps all) of the above. However, I am interested in the reasoning that goes into your responses.
1. K8s on the button 2. KQo on the button 3. AKo UTG 4. AKo on the button 5. Small pocket pair UTG
My only comment is on #5: I'd go with the small pair any day of the week over the Axs. I think the small pair plays EXTREMELY well in loose passive games and is underrated by most players. You hit a set on the flop about 12% of the time on the flop and get paid off handsomely when it hits. Hell, with 8 people seeing the flop, you could even throw in a raise for value based on implied odds! A rag ace UTG is not worth much. It's certainly playable when suited---the flush will be there on the river 6% of the time---but I don't even think this is a contest in the game you're describing. This is especially true if you are not an expert player, as you will find yourself in some tricky situations with the Ax when one of your cards hits. The small pair, on the other hand, could be played by just about anyone; most of its value comes in hitting the flop, and, when it does, you'll generally be taking down the pot.
I think the real value with Axs comes from the fact that if you do flop a flush draw you've really got twelve outs as opposed to nine, since an ace on the turn or river will probably be good. Even so, I think Axs tends to be tremendously over rated by most players.
I won't give you my reasoning but I would prefer to have the suited hand in every case.
MM, if you please, give us some insight into your reasoning.
By the way, my response would be in line with GD's answers. i.e. I would take AJs over AK, as for K8s vs. KQ off - position is the key, and I'd take the pocket pair over Axs for the reasons given by George.
David and I are working on some new material which we plan to release in June. It just so happens that we have a discussion of this exact point in there. I'm sorry, but you will have to wait until then.
Fair enough. I Look forward to the new work.
I'd rather have the AJs in both cases. As far as the KQ vs K8s goes, I'd rather have whichever came on the button. I'd definitely rather have the pocket pair.
Your scenario needs to qualify whether we are discussing a low, middle, or higher stake game. Considering the number of callers to see the flop, sounds like higher stake game is out of picture here.
In any case, I have come to learn that position in a low stake game is grossly exaggerated. The driving elements in low stake game of poker are (1) power of the hand at the moment of the action, and (2) perenial hope to draw out on the others participants. When you effectively use the powerfully deceiving tool of the game check/raise, you further minimize the role of positional advantage in low games.
Moreover, Ken Warren in his book, Winner's Guide to Texas Holdem, page 195, listed the top 40 HE hands based on earning power. AK mixed is ranked No. 7, AJ mixed No. 18, whereas K8 suited No. 31. He also explained on page 64 that any two unconnected suited cards played, such as K8s, are played purely for the flush draw. These hands will flop you on the average 10.94% two more cards of your suit, that is 8-1 against and still can be beat by an A high flush. And after you flop 4 flush, you'll make flush only 35% of the time.
These figures, if even approximately correct, sharply contradict Mason's preference of K8s over AK mix or AJ mix. I am therefore left somewhat puzzled as to what gives!
If he says that K8s is played purely for the flush draw, he's wrong. The hand holds quite a bit of equity from big card value when you flop top pair or two pair.
How much equity would that be?
Seriously though, all hands have two-pair equity. The king is worth something, but you're never going to be too comfortable with an 8 kicker with that many people seeing the flop. There are a few flops with an 8 high card that would give you top pair with a king kicker. But there certainly isn't any straight equity.
I think most of that hand's value comes in the flush. You certainly wouldn't start it were it not suited.
No, you wouldn't start it if it were not suited. But you wouldn't start it if someone held a gun to your head and forced you to ALWAYS fold on the flop unless you made a flush or a 4-flush. You need the flush equity AND the equity that comes when you flop top pair, two pair, trips, etc.
I would be VERRRRRRRY leary of anything Ken Warren says.
Ken Warren's book has much good information mixed in with much bad information. I don't recommend it to beginners, who might have trouble separating the wheat from the chaff. Actually, I rarely recommend it at all, since almost all of its good information can be found in other books.
Ivan, the game I speak of is 10-20 or 15-30 - a medium stakes game.
I do quibble with your statement that position does not mean much in lower stakes games. Position is huge in any hold em game. In tougher games, people use position to bluff. This is tougher to do in no fold 'em games (but by no means impossible). However, the real value of position in a no fold em game is that when you hit, you can raise and in effect "double the pot". This is much more pronounced in a no fold em game where your raise will be called as opposed to a tough game where players may lay down for a raise.
I have a lot more to say on the subject and will next week when I have more time. Right now, I only have 20 minutes of time to go over another 50 or so posts here!
BTW, I agree with GD's caution re Warren's advice.
Your reasoning is well taken, thank you. Still, let me add two comments:
1. I do not hold much value in a K8s hand, because on a long rum it'll cost you much more money that'll earn you. This is particularly true in no foldem hold'em where bluffine hardly everj works.
2. Warren's book was my second hold'em book I have studied; Sklansky's was the first. At that time some five years ago, I found it quite stimulating, though a number of statistical odds seemed incongruous. But one thing that made me leary concerning book's quality is that no one in the industry cared to provide a book review on it. Strange, is it not? Well, it is becoming obvious why ....
Looking forward to read more of your comments on the above issues.
Suited connectors and Axs rule! These are money makers with five or more people in the pot in these low-limit passive games. When you have this many people in, the pair, two pair, or a set rarely holds up. This has been my experience. I love family pots.
From my very limited Hold Em experience (2 years 2000 hours), I find that suiting up adds very little value to an otherwise garbage hand (eg. K8s not worth much more than K8). Pairing the K is of little value and making the non-nut flush is also occasionally very costly. The fourth of the suit on the table will usually lose to a lone Ace.
What is the best low limit game for tight players? By "best", I mean most profitable, lowest variance, and where tightness and discipline are the most valuable qualities. I consider myself a very tight and disciplined player, and am looking for a game where these qualities (as opposed to aggression, deception, exploiting opponents weaknesses etc) are most rewarded. So far my candidates are omaha 8 and 7 stud hilo. Any advice or observations would be most welcome.
Matt
P.S. I heard that David Sklansky wrote a chapter about this in one of his books - if anyone could inform about this I would be grateful/
I think Omaha-8 rewards tight play the most. You can beat a soft Omaha-8 game through pre-flop hand selection alone.
Overall, I think HE has to be the best choice, since you're virtually guaranteed of finding a number of bad players at any given table. However, in my limited experience, a soft Omaha 8 table is a gold mine.
In the latest Poker Digest Lee Munzer writes about a hand he played.
Pocket 8's in seat after UTG.
Flop: K 8 6 rainbow
UTG bets call and 2 other loose callers.
Turn: 2 still rainbow. UTG bets
calls, other players drop.
River 9 UTG checks.
--------------------------------------
My comments I can't believe it is a good idea to just call the turn. Author was hoping to get the other 2 players to call with "overcards or small pairs".
On the river the author was planning to check but only bet because of a tell! I think you can quit poker if you are afraid to bet the river here. Pay off the 57s if it so happens, a K of some kind seems much more likely. Luckily he saw the tell that made him bet.
--------------------------------------
UTG called the river and had KQ
As an aside, this was the only holdem hand in the entire issue. Does anyone else find this magazine thin on content? MM and DS articles are about the only thing there. Is the idea to prevent the live ones from reading too much strategy and focus on other issues of poker?
David
In defense of POKER DIGEST they are still a relatively new publication and have not yet built up the page count necessary to carry more articles. In time I believe that this will happen.
I also agree that the above article was very weak.
Straying from the subject a little, I believe that it illustrates how many non-expert players, but those who are trying to play well, put too much emphasis on tells. It is a rare player who bets the flop, bets the turn, and then check raises the river. Furthermore, for someone to make this play the board would have to be less uniform, since the grouping of cards together as above will scare many players out of betting (as it did the initial bettor). Carrying this one step further, for this play to happen and for the set to be beat, it requires that someone semi-bluff twice and many players won't do that.
I agree with you about the bet on the river - you have to bet your set here, and I wouldn't be bothered to look for 'tells'. Just what was the 'tell' that he spotted that allowed him to bet?
The raise on the turn is a little more complicated. I would usually raise here, but I think a case can be made for calling. With this flop, the callers likely have a weak king or second pair or something like that. By raising you lose them, but by just calling you give them a chance to make a second-best hand like two pair that you might get some serious action from.
If the turn card had been just about anything other than an offsuit deuce then a raise is more important.
The author was hoping to get calls from overcards? With a king on the board? The only hand that contains two overcards is AA.
The tell in the article:
the player "..rose from the seat, leaned forward, starred at the five community cards, sat down, and checked"
He then goes on to say in highlighted words "Concept: If a straightforward player stands, stares, and checks -- youve got him -- unless he has read this column!"
I suppose this is often true based on the strong means weak idea but I only see people stand up when they are either all in or about to tear up their cards and throw them at the dealer.
David
Oh, man... if only it were that easy.
"Concept: If a straightforward player stands, stares, and checks -- you've got him".
This guy had top pair with a good kicker. You've only 'got him' if you've got AK or better. Sounds like a pretty lousy tell to me. The idea the author was trying to get across was that the player was looking at the board to see if a straight came in. Why he'd have to stand is beyond me.
"Concept: administer a vision test to each player at the table, and catalog their acuity. Now, when a player leans forward, you'll know that he has to read the board again!" Unless, of course, he read the column.
Sounds like a bad article.
Dan
Here's what David Sklansky had to say on this subject. (This is from his book POKER, GAMING, & LIFE.)
"The observant player will also be better able to pick up opponents "tells." Some players sometimes have physical mannerisms that tend to give away their hands. But each player is different. The same mannerism that may indicate a weak hand in one player may indicate a strong hand in another. And this can only be picked out by careful observation. (The problem with books on tells is that though they can give some good guidelines, the tells cited are not true for all players. Worse yet, is the fact that if your opponent has also read the book he might purposely reverse things on you which [if you are not careful] will make it more costly than if you had never read the book yourself.)"
I would almost never just call the turn. It is rare that there will be a hand (drawing dead) behind you that will fold for two bets but call one bet. i.e. If there was a King behind you, you would probably have seen a probing raise on the flop. Thus, it is likely that the players behind called with weak hands such as middle or bottom pair which they will usually fold on the turn for even one bet.
On the other hand, if there are draws behind you, those players will probably take the ride even for two bets.
I understand what you are saying and I know that you are not recommending calling on the turn. I just posted my thoughts here because it was the most convenient place to do so in this thread.
Get overcards to call? Dan makes a good point re: 'overcards' on this flop, but the even if this was a flop in which overcards were possible, it's not entirely clear just what hands could be out there that would call one bet but not two. If someones got an open-ender then he's going to call both bets on the turn, and you can't play the hand IMO on the outside chance that someone's out there screwing around with an underpair.
In his essay "Another Problem with No-limit", published in "Poker Essays", Mason Malmuth writes: "World-class player Ray Zee has also pointed out to me that 'the problem no-limit Hold'em is that the blinds are so small, you do not get punished for extremely tight play'." I also think the structure of no-limit Hold'em is a problem. But isn't 2-7 an excellent game for no-limit? A very tight player will go broke and the size of the blinds will produce action. Why isn't this great game more common?
Poker Pros -
I would greatly appreciate recommendations as to which books are best picks for an aspiring poker beginner, please. Is Frank Wallace's book still relevant today?
Thank you in advance for your help!
G.
If you're looking to play HE, then Lee Jones' book and both 2+2 HE books are absolute musts.
Theory of Poker
If you also want to play Omaha-8, get High-Low Split Poker for Advanced Players.
Although this is a pretty simple hand, I chose it because I would still like some feedback on it. It is simple so that it can be accessible to a correspondence discussion.
Omaha high heads up pot before flop:
Late position raise, BB call, flop:
A J 5, no suits. BB bets, late calls
Turn another 5. BB bets, late calls
River an 8. BB checks, late bets.
Now, the BB, the toughest player at the table, visibly does not like it, but finally calls. The late position player is absolutely the tightest player amongst the consistently winning regulars. (There are occasional super-rocks, but don't ever win alot)
BB turns over A345, late turns AJJ5. Late had him pretty well contained, so the hand seems pretty plain, but I myself would be interested to know if anyone thinks play was incorrect, and if the BB should have known to muck? Might not be enough info, but comment appreciated.
I assume by the letters PL that this is a pot limit hand.
I think there are two main points about this hand. Firstly against a relatively tight player there just aren't that many flops where B.B is going to be able to trap Late with A-3-4-5. We know that Late is a tight player so he either has a clutch of high cards possibly including a big pair, or a good double suited wrap i.e 7-8-9-10. There are flops which B.B can hit, but none which Late can hit and B.B can hit harder. So B.B has effectively put his entire stack on offer in order to win the amount of Late's pre-flop raise?
Secondly once B.B gets his bet on the turn called the hand is over. If Late is a winning player he is almost certainly not calling with a draw( with the board already paired). There is an outside chance that he has A-J, but he would have had to have flat called rather than raising with this hand on the flop. With any 2,3,4,10,Q or K making a straight I think flat calling with top two pair is a really weak play on the flop, especially if he knows that B.B is a tricky enough player for the draw to the wheel to be a possibility.
So Late almost certainly has a made hand and its almost equally certain that its a full house. B.B can beat only J-5 at this point, and the only way I can see a tight player raising with these is if he has a big pair with them i.e K-K-J-5. So its not certain that B.B is beat at the end but I'd want a lot more than the 2-1 that the pot is laying B.B to call on the end (assuming Late bet the full pot on the end.)
When I see players move from limit poker to pot-limit the two mistakes that get them hurt most are inability to fold second and third nut hands i.e queen high flushes and under fulls, and playing starting hands that continually put themselves in this position.
FARO is the name Casino Canberra (Australia) is using for their NEW poker game. The name comes from the USA wild west game, but many home games play it here. Basically it is FIVE card Omaha high, with a community board of five cards dealt "one at a time" with a betting round after each. On the deal each player gets 5 cards (8 players max.) and ONE community card is turned in the table centre. It is played with a single small blind. ie; a $5 blind makes the game $10-10-10-20-20 and a $10 SB makes it a $20-20-20-40-40. I played both limits while in Canberra in Feb. This game was "FULL on ACTION" in the $10 blind game many pots were between $400-900. The 5% capped at $20 wouldn't be noticed. I found the skill in the game was to play TOP suited/paired/connectors. Try to make the best full or flush. Could any posters work out any odds,strategies,etc for my Cards Poker Magazine (Australia). Payment would be a FREE copy of April 15th issue. It's just like Omaha, except you have FIVE cards to pick the best combination from, using only TWO from your hand. Thanks.
Different.
I've played 5-card Omaha, with a typical HE style 3-card flop. I'm surprised this game has so much action, as it seems that proper strategy for this game would be DRAMATICALLY different. Only seeing 1 card at a time, and seeing that 1 card first, would make me think that unless that first card made me a set or unless I had the nut flush in that suit, I would almost always fold on the first betting round. Obviously, expert play might allow me to loosen up these standards, but I doubt that playing much looser would ever be advisable. If I'm wrong, please help me understand why.
Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I'm with you FossilMan. This seems like a game that only a Rock could love. I don't think I would even play the nut-flush draw for a single bet. What about starting hands? I guess you need mething with two big pairs, or Aces double suited. It's hard enough to find a good starting four card Omaha hand.
"Basically it is FIVE card Omaha high" Does this mean you must use two from your hole cards?
FARO is also played in Australia as Hi/low (8 or better) plus it is also played with a flop, turn and river card. But both these games are NOT in a casino poker room,they are private home games only. In all FARO games you MUST use only two cards from your hole cards, but all 5 can be working together until the river! The reason the game is an "action" game at present,as it is only one month old plus several NEW players sit down and think any 5 card hand plays. Any other comments from posters?? Regards Dazzler!
I play in a 70-80 person tournament every week at the same place. About $5000 in prize money, about 50% of the entrants are "regulars". Top 10 seats pay. Lasts about 5 hours.
Over the past 6 weeks I have finished in the top 15 every week, making two final tables.
There's the problem: I am making it to the late stages of the tourney consistantly, but always with a reasonably short stack. I am an agressive player, and as such am playing my best game when I can punish the shorter stacks.
My question: as a reasonably tight tourney player, and a very aggressive player, what gaps might there be in my game which would show themselves as being short late in the tourney? I would think that being aggressive, I should flame out early or make it big.
Seems like I drag a fair number of pots, but never the big ones. This is why I am not the chip leader late, but I sure am there.
Perhaps I am not stealing enough, or over protecting my blinds?
Any thoughts?
Thanks,
Paul
Even if you start with the best hand every time, repeated exposure to beats cripples your stack.
Paul,
You don't mention whether the tournament has rebuys or is a freeze-out. If rebuys are available, and even to an extent if they aren't, it may be worth (selectively of course) taking more shots early on to give yourself a better chance of having a stack which is more able to withstand a long run without a playable hand. I think Mason talks about increasing your standard deviation early on in order to lessen it later.
If you are an aggressive player and other players respect you, it is actually quite likely that you will survive but not have a massive stack if people lay down their hands to you a lot. There is nothing wrong with this, in fact it is good, provided your short stack play is good. If you know you are going to be in this situation a lot then think very carefully about how you are going to play the short stack in the later stages - many people lose patience and just throw it in but this is often wrong, particularly if you are calling rather than opening.
Another poster said recently "Be Careful but don't Be Afraid" - I can't beat this advice for tournament play.
Good luck,
Cassandra
I would stick with your strategy. Once you get to the last few spots (the last 10-20% of the players), you're usually in a spot where hands are played heads-up, and usually either you or the other guy, whoever has a shorter stack, ends up going all-in before the showdown. Often, you only have to win 2 of these in a row to go from a mediocre stack to chip leader.
Because your sample size is small, it simply may be that you haven't won your fair share of these confrontations near the end. Look back and ask yourself whether your bustout confrontations were ones where you started with the best hand or not. Even more important, did most of the money go into the pot when you were ahead or behind? Did the other guy suckout out significantly (he hit his A8 kicker to beat your AK), or just moderately (he caught 1-pair to his KQ to beat your AT).
What is often going to happen if you're playing well, and playing a tight aggressive game, is that you'll make the middle stages (final 30-40%) almost every time. Then, you'll go on to make the final 10-20% pretty often. If you're lucky in the intervening period, you'll get dealt some good cards and win more often than is typical, and you'll arrive at the final table with a big stack. If you're not so lucky, you'll either get dealt crap and sneak into the final table, or you'll get the good cards but lose more than you should, and again arrive with a short stack. Once you make this final 10-20%, you'll again either be lucky or unlucky, and place high or not depending upon how these individual matchups go. Because no one has enough chips to make any fancy plays (or if they do, their opponents don't), it really comes down to picking the best cards and the best situations in which to commit. Those that make these calls the best will do somewhat better than those who don't.
I was in your spot for most of 1997 and 1998, only my tendency was to bust out a few spots shy of the money. However, almost every time, the money went into the pot when I was a significant to huge favorite. When you still lose, you just have to say "good hand, sir". Then, near the end of 1998, I moved to Connecticut, and started winning all of those key confrontations, and won a bunch of money. For a while, counting satellites and tournaments, I won 5 events in a row. And I can't say for sure that I was playing significantly better. Looking back now that I've cooled off, I played well most of the time, and just got lucky (or more accurately, didn't get unlucky) more often.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
10,000 at 20% APR will be worth 319,480.00 in 20 years
10,000 at 25% APR will be worth 693,889.40 in 20 years
10,000 at 5% APR (Money Market) will be worth a measly 25,269.50 in 20 years.
If you bought 10,000 in Microsoft Stock 10 years ago you would have over 600,000.00 today.
It seems like the Stock Market can be a very lucrative Gamble if you know what you're doing.
CV
So tell me, how do I calculate the Expected Value of a stock at a certain time in the future?
Also, brokers love to parrot "High Risk, High Return" but leave out that High Risk means you lose often.
Wall Street should stop playing poker in the trading pits with the industrial base and working population of America.
You must have invested in Boston Chicken.
CV
No, Sorry, Got ya there. I had A Series 7 and 63 licence in the 80's.
Those are intra and interstate stock brokers licenses.
I know the back what a brokerage is about.
There's a difference between "Chicken" and "Experience".
You're that same guy that had all the negative words about Pro Poker players back in January.
CV
P.S.
CV have you ever been "downsized, "rightsized", "outsourced", "technically obsoleted", "relo'ed", "reorged", "re-engineered", "restructured", run through "quality", training" of had to deal with Motorola's "Six Sigma", or UTC's "Activity Value Analysis", or been through CitiCorp's recent merger in the name of share price?
If not you're lacking some perspective on the matter.
What do you know about being in a blue chip company?
I know plenty. I'm as experienced at that stuff as poker pro's are at calling a bluff and there's no amount of "bull", "market speak", or "name calling", "one liners", or "Dale Carnegie/Norman Vincent Peale" crap you can toss to change what it's really about.
Frank-
Of course CV is not touting his economic acumen on this forum- it is a forum about GAMBLING! If you want to bitch about social justice, try www.socialistwhiners.com.
As a fellow corporate type (who lacks your bitterness), let me offer the following. There is a name for companies that don't re-engineer, reorganize, "six sigma", outsource, or otherwise strive to continuoulsy improved the quality of their service and products. That name is HISTORY.
If you want to stick your head in the sand and try to rest upon the faded glory of generations past, then please do so. But don't act surprised when you go the way of U.S. Steel, General Motors, and Apple Computer- former industry dominators that had to fight (or are currently fighting for) their very existence. Or you could try France, Sweden, Italy, or Russia. These are former dominant nations that have been reduced to third-rate beggar status in the name of reigning in the profit-driven, capitalist pigs.
But seriously, try reading Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom", and then we'll talk about market economincs and justice. Until then, take your ignorance to a more appropriate web forum and let the rest of us use this site to talk about poker.
Michael 7,
You wrote: "Or you could try France, Sweden, Italy, or Russia. These are former dominant nations that have been reduced to third-rate beggar status in the name of reigning in the profit-driven, capitalist pigs."
I agree with much of what you are saying in your post. But please, don't compare Sweden with the other nations you are mentioning, especially not Italy and Russia. Sweden is certainly not a third-rate beggar status nation. I think they have recently been uppgraded by Standard and Poor's and their greatest problem for the moment is how to allocate their huge budget surplus.
Sincerely,
Emil
I will have to check up on whether Sweden has a budget surplus, but I doubt they are searching for ways to invest it. This country is a MASSIVE welfare state in which the state consumes 70% of the gross national product. That is simply unsustainable. If you think our Social Security system needs to be "saved", you should get a load of Sweden's burden. The clock is ticking for this "free lunch" economy. In P.J. O'Rourke's new book, "Eat the Rich" there is a great (and humorous) essay called "Good Socialism/Bad Socialism" which discusses Sweden's dilema. The
Yes, I agree with you that Sweden has an overgrown welfare system and something has to be done about that (among other things). But my point was only, that calling a country with a budget surplus and most computers and cell phones per capita in Europe (implying a bright future in the new high tech era) a "third-rate beggar status country" was a little bit out of line. I'll not discuss this topic further because this doesn't seem to be the right forum for it.
But thanks for the book tip. I'll check it out.
Sincerely,
Emil
Man, I couldn't agree with you more on this point. Although this is a poker discussion forum, it's nice to see politics (ethics, morality, philosophy) enter in once in a while. It shows us even more how poker is so closely meshed with everyday life outside the poker rooms.
Oh yeah, and P.J. O'Roarke rocks! I've read all of his work, and he is truly a wonderful writer.
Aces, Scottro
Have you really thought about any of this? I mean really? I'm not even sure labels apply.
The original post was about the stock market. I pointed out, that you can't do an EV on stock and that it was engineered, I worked for both Stuart-James and Allied Capital. I should know. Allied Capital used to manipulate small cap stocks every month. They would solicit advance orders and dump them all on the market at once. Causing a price spike, then sell the elevated priced stuff off. How much you want to bet sometimes from wealthier clients to less so? Anyway CV insinuated "chicken" to which I reply "experience".
Are you all young guys?
I am not a socialist and have written papers on how our systems beats the others. However I will go out on a limb and say I think people are more important that capital. Well if that makes me socialist then so be it. The average person is born into a world where everything she/he needs to survive is already owned. So you can bet you are at the beheadst of it from day one unless you're in the "right parents club".
Further, I have plenty of ex military family and am registered for the draft(though I'm probly too old for it now). No pinko stuff here. I also have at least one friend who got screwed up in Desert Storm. Also a granfather messed up by Korea. So don't ever tell me about socialist whining. But I'll bet none of those guys went over there to defend the elite's right to screw the rest now did they. Nor did they go over there to defend the glory Exxon or GM. No, they went over there the fight for "freedom" and "democracy" at about what $10 an hour? Anyway, never did understand how anyone thought the Communist Manifesto could work without a planet full of saints. We do have the best system going. But it isn't perfect.
Obviously we have the time to squabble about something as insignificant in the scheme of things as poker and can get away with jokes about the president. We are the best country as far as I know.
By the way, when we've downsized all the way, what do YOU propose we do with the "extra" people?
Having worked in at least one major engineering firm I say without doubt most of those types are into continuos improvement. Some have accused me of being too ardent about it. But to arbitrarily select a number like 6 sigma may actually wreck you business by chasing that last sliver of perfection too much.
There's no doubt you have to compete in the market. But the price of that competition is being borne by the lower echelon not the top. The fact is, the little guy gets squeezed. I don't think it's whining. I think it's fact to anyone who cares to look. Of course if it's benefitting you you may rationalize it off same as you're fish in a poker game. Stats all seem to indicate a stagnant buying power and increasing work week for some 30 years now.
Perhaps we need to continuosly improve peoples lives as well as the driver side door of a Toyata? Business exists for people not the other way around. Duh.
Maybe you're not bitter because you fell on the top side of the ax and your life's work wasn't trashed? Maybe you didn't lose you house, car, savings, and favorite lady while in the meantime the scmoozers who play golf together make more and more money? You're damn right I'm bitter, god damned openly bitter without remorse too, because I believe the hardest worker should get the bucks, not the best schmoozer. I can't tell you how many free hours I've put into some projects. Anyway, Sucking up should not be a requirement. But we all know how it really works. So where's the "justice" in that? Since you brought that term into it.
Of These things are always perspective driven as justice always is, unless you've found the true higher being or something.
I think I can tell when I'm getting ripped.
Also, I was only reacting to a post about the stock market on this forum.
You might want to point the "It should,nt be here finger" there and then ask yourself about why you also posted something that doesn't belong here.
Management Hypocrisy Maybe?
And so after everone is downsized who's going to buy the crap that's being made? You see the planet is a fishbowl and quite circular. Continuous growth, unless we sell to Mars or something isn't possible.
Didn't you learn anything from both of Russia's debacles. They were Czarist and had a revolt because the top squeezed too hard and the "serfs" rebelled into communism. Whereupon the leaders did it again and they rebelled into Capitalism.
I suspect if capitalism is pushed far enough a revolt to something else again will happen.
Money only works when people respect it. Push far enough and they pick up guns. It's simple history. What do you think the American Revolution was about. Read the Declaration of Independence. They were pissed about the King's economic policies regarding the colonies! Of course the King thought they were Whiner! Seems maybe you need to look "HISTORY" over a bit closer. Anyway, Our opinions on the matter, much like all fundamental things is irrelevant. It is as it is.
Well gotta go, have to fix the world's Y2K problem and keep all our financial computers running right.
Frank
Very elegant retort. I surrender. Nice hand, sir. By the way, if you had bothered to read The Communist Manifesto before dismissing it, you would realize that you're echoing the essence of Marxism when you say "people are more important than capital". (Marxism is underpinned by the notion that labor is enslaved by capital). Nice hand, sir.
p.s. You got me on the hypocrisy bit so I promise this will be my last off topc post out of respect for this forum.
My last on this for the forum's sake too.
It may sound like an echo of Marxism but it's not.
I'm arguing that we need a way to both reward the efforts of those who make them and yet not create a Brazil type Rich or Poverty type state.
The Communist Manifesto overlooks the nature of people, which is to want more rewards when they do more.
These areas are really so gray it can lead in circles.
We all have hypocrisies. I'm no exception. It generally feels like getting a pair of pocket aces cracked when someone points it out!
Thanks, Frank
Wow.... Maybe you should look at life a bit more like poker. Everyone gets an equal number of good and bad hands. Its how you play them that counts. Birth right is one good hand but it is not dispositive. We all have opportunities and if we don't take advantage we are just fish in the game of life. Sounds like your a little bitter about not playing your cards right. Blame it all on luck if you want... fish often do. But those who win at any game know the angles and play accordingly. When you take your lumps you figure out why and move on. There is no one keeping you from being on top. Those who got there played it smart and deserve what they have. Wise up. Or, just continue curseing your bad luck and throwing your chips away.
Actually, everyone does NOT get an equal number of good and bad hands, but it's STILL more important how you play what you get than what you do get.
Getting upset when you take a bad beat doesn't help anything; and if you go on tilt because of it, things just get worse. This is as true in life as in poker.
It's true that people react negatively those who react negatively about bad beats in "real life".
But it just proves how hypocritical they are.
Real life is not poker you live but once.
And if your getting burned by entrenched interests, well the founding fathers pointed out what to do in the revolution, get pissed and take action.
Not smile, grab your ankles and say "oh well be positive it's just a little tea tax".
Anger is the precursor to action. (as distinguished from violence, which is not the best way)
If you were happy you'd just sit on your but.
I continue to attack poker and life best I can.
Now I think THAT is postive, even though it SOUNDS Negative.
Hopefully that's a clear stance.
Thanks, Frank
I didn't say be happy, I said play what you are dealt and don't go on tilt. Sometimes that means fighting a battle, or holding a revolution, or doing whatever is necessary to bring about a needed change.
As Winston Churchill said, "Capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the other economic systems" (or something like that). However, anyone who thinks that an economic structure that needs six percent unemployment to prosper isn't without its faults needs to get their nose out of their Ayn Rand and Adam Smith books and look at the whole picture.
Explain?
I don't read Ayn Rand. Nor do I say we need 6 percent unemplyment. I'm afraid you've lost me here.
I will say that redeploying people at NAFTA / GATT wages is not too good. It's just the top looking for cheaper labor.
But really, I'm as pro america and very pro military as you can get. Just anti-deception. I'm arguing for a better world, where people stop fucking each other over. Nothing else.
I have a draft card and my friends and family have fought wars and paid the price. And they sure as hell didn't do it for the glory of any economic elite.
I suppose you think the folks wasted in 'Nam was an ok thing?
Anyway, I really don't understand your point. So if I've critiqued you wrongly I apologise.
All I'm saying is that die hard capitalists don't look at the big picture. Our economic system, on the balance, is the best one going, but that doesn't mean that it's perfect- and I get sick of people saying it is, or that all our countries ills would be remedied if the 'socialists' (which is the biggest straw man going) would just get out of the way.
I couldn't agree more,
All the different systems at thier extreme ends led to some form of power concentration and abuse in my opinion. (See Kissinger - "Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely")
It's a question of a fair (there's that gray word again!) balance.
Guess it will just play itself out.
Just between you and me I see two historic forms of socialism out there, maybe more.
There's Russia's, WWII Germany, Sweden's version, England's etc.
Then worse yet you could mix and match. What's to say we couldn't Democratically elect to have state ownership of capital and be a Communist/Democracy? Or a Totalitarian/Democracy...(You will vote or go to prison!). and so on.
I often think we all confuse social systems, econonic systems and political systems though some seem to align more often than others.
These are even tougher problems than poker!
And there are better minds than mine.
I really wish I had an answer or that we could all just agree to be committed to some kind of general goal of improvement without hype, and without having to watch our backs.
Anyway, This all started with a comment about the stock market!
I really just wanted CV to be careful. (and then someone had to bring up socialism)
Thanks for the explanation, Frank
This reminds me of a mathematical question one of my graduate school professors asked me years ago. It goes like this:
Suppose there are two people, one of whom is 25 years old and the other is 5 years old. Notice that the first person is five times older than the second person.
In five years the first person will be 30 years old versus 10 years old. Notice that he is now only three times older.
In ten more years their ages will be 40 versus 20. Notice that he is now twice as old.
So the question is how many more years will it take for the second person to catch up?
Mason,
I don't get your point here. Guess I'm dense but the math seems to indicate never. It sort of like halving the distance between two points forever. You'l always get closer but never arrive. :-)
Graduate school professor? That's an old Abbot and Costello routine from the '40s. I guess you didn't watch much TV growing up, did you Mason? But your professor did!
Actually, after allowing for a certain percentage of error, the younger will eventually catch up to the older, but never pass him, should they both live long enough--statistically speaking. ;-)
Hey George,
No missed that one. I was't born yet! Guess the joke's on me.
Frank
Ge-o! A&C got it from the Stanford-B third grade I.Q. test.
There is no gamble in buying and holding a winner. It's more patience and smarts.A stock gambler hardly knows what the company he is buying does - just buys 2000 shares hold it for a day ot two and win or lose. Holding for long term is a sure winner if you pick the stock right and have some time to wait. The problem is most people including some insiders never have the patience to wait it out. Many of my friends worked at Microsoft and yes they live in a house that is nearly paid off and have plenty of money but they are hardly very rich. The old saying is true here too. "what good is money if you can't spend it."
Poker is won by using Patience and Smarts, its still Gambling in my eyes.
I believe most people don't think very far into the future. Of course there are brokers who would tell you that you shouldn't even try.
Lets just say you have 50,000 to invest today on your retirement in 30 years. You invest in a "Good" Mutual Fund or some other strategy that ends up making you a compounded interest of 20% annually. At the End of the 30 years your 50,000 is now worth close to 10,000,000.00!! You can now retire happly and live off the Interest. Play lots of Poker, and put your Grandchildren through College.
Of course 20% APR isn't easy to get. But investing more than 50,000 in your 30 year period shouldn't be that hard. Don't most Utility Vehicles cost around 50,000.
CV
I don't mean to be nit-picking..... Yes, many refer to the *markets* as the biggest casino. There is some difference in concept. In gambling as in trading there is the issue of the frequency of taking risks as determining factor of the outcome. Example starting hands in Holdem. In the commodities as in sports betting you can take one or two large bets a year and come out long term winner. (if you otherwise have some experience and know what you doing) So investing perhaps IS a form of gambling. The risk of ruin in short term trading is far larger hence in my own view is the true gambling. (like craps etc. etc.) In poker you take risks at least 10% of the hands dealt on the average so that is pretty frequent for some stock pickers.
Andras,
I think the academics point out that The Markets are not gambling becaues they are used to shift risk from those who cannot or don't wish to bear them (e.g. commodities producers) to those who can or wish to in a effort to make a gain.
The academics point out that this provides a number of benefits to all concerned. For example the grain grower can be sure to meet his mortgage and stay in business and we all have bread for next year.
They go on to say that gambling is inventing risks for thier own sake with no underlying economic value beyond who wins or loses. That is at least until it became "gaming" and a house proprietor then profits and maybe it then goes on to be "entertainment for sale".
So whereas both are risk taking activities thier underlying reasons for existence basic intents are somewhat different even though the risk takers have the same objective. To make money.
I won't bother with the pro's and con's of casinos as we've both all heard the arguments again with Prop. 5.
As for Markets, the really big question there is are they sufficiently under the influence of the big players to be just another means of transfering money from small investors to large. I worked at Allied Capital and at that time they claimed to me they had caused price spikes in small companies' issues 41 times by soliciting advance orders and dumping them on the market all at once.
I could argue effectively a mortgage and a bank account are similar in thier cash funnelling effect to the house of BOTH the CASINO AND the MARKET! But that's a whole 'nother discussion. But for now just consider the spread between your bank account and your mortgage as the rake for having to have a place to live.
So perhaps the real answer is :
They are the same in that both are risk taking activities engaged in with the hopes of a profit but different in that one, the market,was born of an economic *need* to shift risk, the other, gambling, was born of the *desire* to take risk.
Even so a pragmatist might discard that rather legal definition and claim there's no difference at all.
Thanks, Frank
P.S. All business involves making the other guy pay more for something than it's really worth. Casinos are the business of risk. It would seem that's why "Any Seven" pays 5 for 1 instead of 5 to 1. :-)
Oh, by the way...the floor trader who subscribes to scalping often takes risks at a poker like rate.
If you buy a share of stock someone else has to sell you one of their shares. So is the price going to go up or down. Just a point to ponder.
Dave,
you and I know the seller is betting down, they buyer up!
The question is as always...how can you tell?
And for a minute do you believe that the industry doesn't engineer a few things here and there?
Stock was invented to capitalize companies...not to make the small investor a lot of money. (And commodities were invented to move risk from the producer to the speculator...not to make speculators rich.)
We've had a spectacular bunch of runs since say 1980, no doubt about that. But it has had costs...it hasn't been free and those costs were clearly not borne by those who benefitted. The working stiff has borne the brunt of it in all reality (as per the norm).
Chris,
Wow! You really sparked quite a debate here. A couple of points regarding the stock market and gambling. It seems to me that putting money in the stock market (or any other financial markets) is gambling because:
1) You should have an assessment of your risk.
2) You should have an assessment of your potential return.
3) You should have an assessment of your odds of success.
I first got into the stock market in the mid eighties and as you know I bought MSFT shortly after they went public in 1986. Well I don't own MSFT today for a lot of stupid reasons so effectively I blew $1.5 million. Mostly I sold out and never got back in because of my ego and lack of knowledge. Of course not every company is an MSFT either so it is rare to find them. So there is an inherent risk in buying stock in a "good" company because your assessment of "good" can be totally off base. Most companies that have grown into monsters reach some point where their growth slows which inevitably puts some sort of upper level to it's valuation. I have no doubt learned quite a few things about businesses and stock prices since the mid eighties but I am not sure I could quantify my odds of success because my sample size is too small. My goal for long term investing is to beat the averages. My "system" to accomplish this is totally subjective and I could wind up losing a lot of money. So far so good.
For short term speculation, there are those who claim to have systems that can beat the financial markets in various ways and they validate their systems by back testing them against historical data. There is no doubt that some have gotten rich off of developing such systems. There also is no doubt that people have been devastated by developing such systems. I am quite sure that much more money has been lost than won by them. I have my doubts about the validity of backtesting systems against historical data for a lot of reasons.
So all of this boils down to is that I can certainly get a handle on my downside, I can certainly develop an approach that quantifies my upside potential, but I can't get a real good handle on my odds of success at this point and yes I am a little uncomfortable about that.
As far addressing some of Frank's points. IMO you have three competing interests in a company: management, labor, and the stock holders. Certainly screwing workers and cutting labor costs can make the quarterly report look a lot bettor to potential buyers. I believe that Frank's main point is that often the stock holders interests are at odds with labor's interests and to that point I would have to agree. You could have a great company doing lots of business, paying their workers well that had extremely thin margins. Guess what? The stock holders are out in the cold. So in a certain sense when you own stock you are at odds with labor IMO. BTW investors who point to companies as being overvalued by spouting the number of dollars per employee are complete morons.
Tom Haley
"I have my doubts about the validity of backtesting systems against historical data for a lot of reasons."
So do I. What are your thoughts on the "Dogs of the Dow" System. The Motley Fool reports picking only 4 Dogs have generated a 25% APR over the last 30 years. Mason Malmuth would prossibly say its a Self Weighted Strategy. Even so its probably better than doing nothing with our savings. And by using Dow Stocks the money risked is pretty darn safe. But by using this strategy, now that many people know about it, we might not see the APR being as high as it was in the past.
CV
Chris,
For what ever my opinion is worth, I don't like it. It is a system that is based on past market history and I already stated my skepticism of using past market history as a way to assess the odds of success for current trades. To me it is akin to using historical trends from NFL football games to identify good wagers for the current season. Sometimes these trends pan out but the game of football changes over time as well. Sklansky discusses a bet in I believe, Getting the Best of It, where in the NBA if a team that is competitive with it's playoff opponent is coming home after losing the first two games of a series it is a good bet to cover. This was a great bet but the word got out and I believe that this bet isn't nearly as favorable as it used to be. This is how I look at the Dogs of the Dow strategy. Remember that the stocks that make up the Dow is not constant either. HWP announced a restructuring today where the company will be split up. I would guess that as a result it will be replaced in the Dow. IMO the Rule Makers portfolio is a lot better choice than the Dogs of the Dow.
Although I am skeptical about using historical data from the stock market as a way to validate trading systems, I think there are very good reasons why common stocks have historically yielded the best returns.
Tom Haley
P.S. I'm in Tulsa this week.
Tom,
Yes I agree those are the three interested parties as well as possibly the purchaser of the companies outputs.
Clearly if a company is at the mature stage and cannot make more profits by expanding it's markets it will begin to look at costs. This makes sense as even the owner of the corner grocery would do that.
However, what I'm most critical of is the chasing of share price on it's own merit as opposed to revenue.
In Oct. 87 period I was at United Technologies. By November a little plan called "Activity Value Analysis" was bought. It's premise was to analyze each position in the company and get rid of those "activities" (i.e. people) that were of minimal value.
Now UTC's bottom line didn't change one bit on Oct. 19th did it?
I believe that managing as though share price is net profit has companies tied in knots and the people who work in them nervous wrecks, not to mention those tossed out often ending up in dire straigts.
Now obviously some component of investor return should be the premium for supply and demand, which is based on the bottom line.
But apparently the drive for share price has outweighed the idea of creating more revenue and paying higher dividends.
In my opinion, and that's all it is, the cut payroll, increase share price formula is getting overused to the detriment of the entire country and share price chasing in wrecking the internal efficiency of companies in nightmarish ways.
Also, they say the economy is great, but for who? Do you know anyone who feels secure in the current environment. Oh sure your upper 1/5 buddies, but who else?
Most recently I worked in one of CitiCorp's data centers and it was so tight that there was no way to correct problems because everyone left was fighting fires. It is possible to turn the carb screw a little too tight. They're turnover rate was running about 30% by my count. Most data center types hang on to those jobs for life.
The point being that managing for share price alone is faulty because you are chasing after the approval of the "poker players" in the trading pits rather than operating to solid business fundamentals.
As a parallel, in instrument flying you are trained not to chase the gauges (artificial horizon, compass, slip ball etc.) as you end up ocillating too far back and forth due to the gauges response times. You make a correction and wait. The life expectancy of a visual pilot in insturment conditions averages 3 minutes as they don't realize this.
Well price charts are the gauges of merit at the minute.
So eventually the backlog of problems caused by this will catch up. Y2K is a perfect example.
15 years ago I asked management why we kept building new systems when the basic core ones were still faulty.
I was told, "Becuase they bubble to the top of the ROI chart and are (and I quote) "flashier".
In other words they were career builders.
Anyway, this led to systems expected to be around 5 years being here 20-30 years later with a ton of defered maintenance.
Ta dah! 600 billion dollars worldwide of defered maintenance that has to hit the bottom line sometime!
You see, the short term outlook, especially of market chasing by the corps leads to these kind of things.
So I argue some more broadviewed approach needs to be developed that covers the interests of us all because business exists for us. We do not exist for the glory of the corp. banners.
We are all stuck on this rock together and the world we build today, tommorrow's kids grow up on. If life somewhere is bad it is becaues those with the power to decide, decided to let it be so.
We can chose different.
Money is a piece of paper, but the life expended to get it is not replacable.
Now how does that relate to poker?
Poker is a game that works like life, good or bad, on a single table! Thankfully here in America we can debate the heck out of it to our hearts content. May it always be so. :-)
Thanks, Frank
I am a neophyte to this site. Will someone please direct me to a source which defines some of the unique language terms posted on this site?
=BTW= By the Way. =FPS= Fancy Play Syndrome. =BB= Big Blind. =bb= big bet. =SB= Small Blind. =sb= small bet. =UTG= Under the Gun. =HE= Holdem. =3rd Street= First betting round in stud (you have 3 cards). =River= Last betting found. =Flop= first three turned up cards in HE. =Turn= 3rd round of dealing; for HE after flop and 7stud after 3rd street. =set= concealed 3-of-a-kind. =trips= unconcealed 3-of-a-kind. =DOH= brain dead notion or action =hehehe= FPS in action. =.. err ..= tiring attempt at humor. =live= a player who will successfully relieve himself of chips. =tight= a selective player. =weak= a timid bettor. =conservative= weak. =solid= someone not prone to making mistakes. =under/over pair= in HE, a pocket pair lower/higher than the highest card out. =nuts= the highest ranked hand. =stone nuts= a hand that cannot lose. =fools nuts= the nuts which is actually 2nd best. =top full= in HE, full house matching the pair and highest ranked side card. =low full= matching the pair and some other card. =over/under full= pocket pair matching a side card higher/lower than the pair on board. =$x/y= a structured game where the first betting rounds are $x and the last are $y; such as $5/10. =$x-y= range limit game where one can bet from $x to $y; such as $2-5 anytime. =maniac= someone who routinely bets or raises regardless of hand or situation. =aggressive= someone who bets or raises unless they can think of a reason not to; but who usually doesn't try. =assertive= someone who bets and raises unless they can think of a reason not to; but who looks for such reasons. =steal= bluffing when nobody has shown strength (so the pot is small). =semi-bluff= bluffing with a hand that can win even if called.
- Louie
wow! = another nice post by Louie.
Hopefully an easier-to-read format of Louie's post
BTW - By the Way.
FPS - Fancy Play Syndrome.
BB - Big Blind.
bb - big bet.
SB - Small Blind.
sb - small bet.
UTG - Under the Gun.
HE - Holdem.
3rd Street - First betting round in stud (you have 3 cards).
River - Last betting found.
Flop - first three turned up cards in HE.
Turn - 3rd round of dealing; for HE after flop and 7stud after 3rd street.
set - concealed 3-of-a-kind.
trips - unconcealed 3-of-a-kind.
DOH - brain dead notion or action
hehehe - FPS in action.
.. err .. - tiring attempt at humor.
live - a player who will successfully relieve himself of chips.
tight - a selective player.
weak - a timid bettor.
conservative - weak.
solid - someone not prone to making mistakes.
under/over pair - in HE, a pocket pair lower/higher than the highest card out.
nuts - the highest ranked hand.
stone nuts - a hand that cannot lose.
fools nuts - the nuts which is actually 2nd best.
top full - in HE, full house matching the pair and highest ranked side card.
low full - matching the pair and some other card.
over/under full - pocket pair matching a side card higher/lower than the pair on board.
$x/y - a structured game where the first betting rounds are $x and the last are $y; such as $5/10.
$x-y - range limit game where one can bet from $x to $y; such as $2-5 anytime.
maniac - someone who routinely bets or raises regardless of hand or situation.
aggressive - someone who bets or raises unless they can think of a reason not to; but who usually doesn't try.
assertive - someone who bets and raises unless they can think of a reason not to; but who looks for such reasons.
steal - bluffing when nobody has shown strength (so the pot is small).
semi-bluff - bluffing with a hand that can win even if called.
This is a hand i played too nights ago, thow in the past i have had hands like this. i hold A J K 9 playing 6/12 omaha ,its a family pot going into the flopp. the flop is this 10 J J, Now i am in middle position with a tight bunch both infront and behind, its checked too me, what should i do?im asking so i can get feed back, i wont say how i played it i'll wait to see if i played it correct,? well the turn is a nother monstor its a A. well again its checked too me ? what should i have done? i bet .. its called a couple times "i cant remeber how many folded" the river is a 5. now i have players infront ,,oh yea 2 off the button one in front of me, its checked again, i bet to be called and called and raised,,,, so what should i do call.fold.reraise? comments please?
Hi Mason,
This is a really great forum. I was wondering if you could help me. I have bought both Gambling for a Living and Getting the Best of It and in those books you detail various ways one can make money betting on sports. Could you recommend any other books which would be of help?
Regards Alexi Neocleous
First, David Sklansky is much more knowledgeable about sports betting than I am. Second, I do not know of any other books that have good information on sports betting. Perhaps someone else might have some suggestions.
I think the Bob McCune books are great, but as far as books that will actually TEACH you how to handicap-- well, I still haven't run across one.
You should bet. This is an excellent flop for your hand. You have top trips, a gutshot for broadway, and two overcards. The only hands that beat your are TJ and TT, and if someone holds one of those you have two overcards to hit.
This is a much better flop than say QJJ, and the presence of your overcards makes the hand stronger.
Don't even think about trying for a checkraise when half of the field has already checked to you. This is a scary flop, and there's a good chance that it will get checked out. And there are few hands in Omaha strong enough that there is no free card danger.
Dan
How "tight" can this game be with so many people in? Perhaps you mean "conservative".
Flop- bet: nobody will bet this one for you.
Turn- bet: nobody will bet your 2nd nuts for you; except for the brain-dead types who tried to make a straight.
River- bet-call: nobody will bet your 2nd nuts for you. Once raised, if you want to fold then go right ahead, but the raiser has made a mistake; either in slow-playing Aces full or raising now. One should not lay down the 2nd nuts against someone who has made a mistake. Otherwise this is a CLASSIC go-for-the-overcall situation: the opponents will likely call one but not two bets, and the raiser may .. err .. should have you beat. NO POINT in raising here.
I would call even if I KNEW I had the winner; since I believe I will average more than 1 call from the 2 other opponents.
- Louie
Well thanks for the theory behind how u would have played the hand i see i did play it well i did what u all had siad, thow the down side on all of this is it was ACES Full that beat me,,now the gut shot of him hitting his ace is what percent? To be honest i have not did well with these type hands always find that when i do get the FH its always the 2nd nuts, is that just a simple adjustment that i need to make.
Well on the flop we have 11 cards accounted for (your 4, his 4, and 3 flop) with 43 left in the stub and there is one Ace left. So its 42:1 against him catching on the turn; or 2.33%. Bad beat.
I can think of only two situations where a full house IS the nuts: 1== when the pair on board is the highest rank and you have it plus the next highest card in your hand (you: AKQJ board: KKJ72) 2== you have (or have seen) a 3rd card in your hand that cannot be used by the opponent to beat you (you: AAT9 board: A9952; your 9 prevents quads).
Notice that the Aces-full was ALSO THE 2ND NUTS; and he should be as afraid of you having the case two Jacks as you would be afraid of him having the case two Aces.
I think it wise to routinely presume the Omahaha 2nd nuts full or better IS the nuts until a raise indicates otherwise; since losing is much rarer than getting paid off by the 3rd and 4th and 12th nuts. While an opponent may lay down the Q-flush, they rarely lay down full houses.
Dare I suggest that perhaps the LOSSES you have with these big hands makes a bigger impression than all those routine WINS; so you only SEEM to be losing far too often? If you suspect this, then keep a paper and pencil count of EVERY full house you make.
- Louie
Posted by: Andy Ward
Posted on: Tuesday, 2 February 1999, at 10:33 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 2 February 1999, at 12:59 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 2 February 1999, at 3:52 a.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 2 February 1999, at 4:47 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 2 February 1999, at 8:16 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Tuesday, 2 February 1999, at 11:28 a.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 2 February 1999, at 7:21 p.m.
Posted by: Steve Heston (steven.heston@gs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 2 February 1999, at 11:15 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 2 February 1999, at 12:30 p.m.
Posted by: T.P.
Posted on: Tuesday, 2 February 1999, at 12:11 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 2 February 1999, at 12:40 p.m.
Posted by: T.P.
Posted on: Tuesday, 2 February 1999, at 12:54 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 2 February 1999, at 1:47 p.m.
Posted by: Doc River
Posted on: Tuesday, 2 February 1999, at 11:54 p.m.
Posted by: Mike Mantel (Mantel@pipeline.com)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 5:27 p.m.
Posted by: T.P.
Posted on: Tuesday, 2 February 1999, at 12:27 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 2 February 1999, at 1:55 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 3:43 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 4:33 a.m.
Posted by: T.P.
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 10:48 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 12:06 p.m.
Posted by: Karpov (cdurham@cc.memphis.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 5:18 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 6:31 p.m.
Posted by: Stephen H. Landrum (slandrum@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 2 February 1999, at 7:38 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Downs (jpd@talx.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 11:44 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 10:40 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Downs (jpd@talx.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 11:08 a.m.
Posted by: merle
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 10:49 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 11:23 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 12:22 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (lavoncarson@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 1:00 p.m.
Posted by: merle
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 1:52 p.m.
Posted by: grammarpolice
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 10:51 a.m.
Posted by: Ray J (RayHoule@webtv.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 1:54 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 1:32 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 12:52 p.m.
Posted by: David D
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 1:54 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 3:26 p.m.
Posted by: merle
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 3:55 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 4:20 p.m.
Posted by: Danny H
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 4:15 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 12:29 p.m.
Posted by: Ray J (RayHoule@webtv.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 4:34 p.m.
Posted by: merle
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 5:01 p.m.
Posted by: Tad
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 10:33 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Geary (jaygee@primenet.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 8:12 p.m.
Posted by: T.P.
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 10:50 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 11:09 a.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (lavoncarson@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 11:34 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 1:55 p.m.
Posted by: Major (Calbhar@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 6:58 p.m.
Posted by: trace (jfairey@juno.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 2:45 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 4:12 p.m.
Posted by: Doc River
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 12:42 a.m.
Posted by: merle
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 4:33 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 5:19 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 5:39 p.m.
Posted by: George (fla_shyster@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 5:35 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 5:54 p.m.
Posted by: George (fla_shyster@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 6:06 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 6:42 p.m.
Posted by: ;-) (andrasnm@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 1:28 p.m.
Posted by: Iceman
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 10:42 p.m.
Posted by: George (fla_shyster@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 8:58 a.m.
Posted by: Frank Brabec (thebrabec@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 10:45 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 6:17 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 7:11 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (lavoncarson@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 7:53 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 10:18 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mphunter@qnx.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 11:19 p.m.
Posted by: Dave Scharf (dave@canadianpoker.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 12:20 a.m.
Posted by: TIGER123 (TIGER123@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 11:59 a.m.
Posted by: skp (s7737@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 11:19 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 2:20 a.m.
Posted by: DSD
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 3:42 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 2:13 p.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 5:51 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 6 February 1999, at 11:30 a.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 7 February 1999, at 2:02 p.m.
Posted by: Dave Scharf (dave@canadianpoker.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 7 February 1999, at 1:22 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 7 February 1999, at 1:41 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 11:09 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 11:13 a.m.
Posted by: merle
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 11:29 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 12:12 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 12:26 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 12:41 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 12:46 p.m.
Posted by: Ray J (RayHoule@webtv.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 1:33 p.m.
Posted by: Mike Mantel (Mantel@pipeline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 2:26 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 2:55 p.m.
Posted by: Walleye (Walleye675@Aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 3:14 p.m.
Posted by: Iceman (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 3:26 p.m.
Posted by: spitball (churchill@ampsc.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 3:37 p.m.
Posted by: Big A (Adam.scott@mci.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 5:00 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 6:12 p.m.
Posted by: C. P. O'Brien (oceanseleven@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 7:39 p.m.
Posted by: DSD
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 11:01 p.m.
Posted by: Butch A (butchanderson@webtv.net)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 3:56 a.m.
Posted by: A Poker Guy! (kwon1@concentric.net)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 7:43 a.m.
Posted by: Abe
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 9:46 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 11:48 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 12:09 p.m.
Posted by: Nevadalarry (Nevadalarry@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 7 February 1999, at 2:04 a.m.
Posted by: Steve Proctor (stevep@iquest.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 12:05 p.m.
Posted by: Foreigner
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 1:17 p.m.
Posted by: Big A (Adam.scott@mci.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 4:37 p.m.
Posted by: Mike Mantel (Mantel@pipeline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 1:23 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin Prigge (klp@umn.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 1:50 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 10:37 p.m.
Posted by: George (fla_shyster@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 3:49 p.m.
Posted by: bjpro (bjpro@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 4:27 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 7:44 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 7:49 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 6:42 p.m.
Posted by: Chance Harris (chance@globeset.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 8:34 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 9:11 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 9:13 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 11:32 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 12:40 p.m.
Posted by: Steve Proctor (stevep@iquest.net)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 12:14 p.m.
Posted by: Steve Proctor (stevep@iquest.net)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 12:48 p.m.
Posted by: darrell@insweb.com
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 1:52 p.m.
Posted by: larry (Larry@tonto.com)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 5:03 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 5:54 p.m.
Posted by: larry (Larry@tonto.com)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 5:03 p.m.
Posted by: Paul J. Martino (paul@ahpah.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 7:20 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 10:28 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 12:15 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 12:00 p.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 5:07 p.m.
Posted by: A Poker Guy! (kwon1@concentric.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 6 February 1999, at 12:00 a.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 6 February 1999, at 1:12 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 6 February 1999, at 10:54 p.m.
Posted by: A Poker Guy! (kwon1@concentric.net)
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 7:18 p.m.
Posted by: Dave Scharf (dave@canadianpoker.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 7 February 1999, at 1:15 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 7:52 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 8:48 p.m.
Posted by: Dave Scharf (dave@canadianpoker.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 9:41 p.m.
Posted by: skp (s7737@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 11:55 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 5:32 a.m.
Posted by: Ray J (RayHoule@webtv.net)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 9:29 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 10:51 a.m.
Posted by: Walleye (Walleye675@Aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 10:39 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 10:40 a.m.
Posted by: Nevadalarry (Nevadalarry@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 6 February 1999, at 5:19 p.m.
Posted by: merle
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 3:17 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 11:26 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 5:58 p.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 6:29 p.m.
Posted by: Etienne (integer_007@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 6 February 1999, at 6:15 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 6 February 1999, at 11:38 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 6 February 1999, at 11:42 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 8:39 a.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 12:49 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 12:58 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 1:20 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (lavoncarson@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 2:29 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 3:26 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (lavoncarson@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 3:44 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 4:29 p.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 6:16 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 8:01 p.m.
>>Just because your opponents are not making a mistake by calling does not mean you are making a mistake by betting.<<
Posted by: al raisieya
Posted on: Saturday, 6 February 1999, at 12:19 p.m.
Posted by: Major (Calbhar@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 1:52 p.m.
Posted by: Nevadalarry (Nevadalarry@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 6 February 1999, at 4:58 p.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 12:11 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Downs (jpd@talx.com)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 1:55 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 3:41 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 5:05 p.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 6:01 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 8:15 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 6 February 1999, at 2:09 a.m.
Posted by: BillM
Posted on: Saturday, 6 February 1999, at 10:40 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 6 February 1999, at 11:01 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 3:56 p.m.
Posted by: Alexi Neocleous (mlhcc@ozemail.com.au)
Posted on: Friday, 5 February 1999, at 10:25 p.m.
Posted by: Darrell (Darrell@insweb.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 6 February 1999, at 6:56 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 7 February 1999, at 7:22 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 8:31 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 4:07 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 4:20 p.m.
Posted by: spitball (churchill@ampsc.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 6 February 1999, at 5:49 p.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 6 February 1999, at 7:14 p.m.
Posted by: S. Doyle
Posted on: Sunday, 7 February 1999, at 1:37 a.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 7 February 1999, at 5:23 a.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 7 February 1999, at 9:00 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Sprung (josprung@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 7 February 1999, at 10:06 a.m.
Posted by: Nevadalarry (Nevadalarry@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 7 February 1999, at 1:53 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 12:41 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 7 February 1999, at 10:45 a.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 7 February 1999, at 12:47 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 12:29 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 1:07 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 7 February 1999, at 12:37 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 7 February 1999, at 1:45 p.m.
Posted by: Mike Mantel (Mantel@pipeline.com)
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 3:13 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 12:45 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 1:11 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 2:56 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 7 February 1999, at 8:36 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 12:20 p.m.
Posted by: Brett (brettfeinstein@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 7 February 1999, at 12:56 p.m.
Posted by: Alexi Neocleous (mlhcc@ozemail.com.au)
Posted on: Sunday, 7 February 1999, at 10:12 p.m.
Posted by: TVMan (andrasnm@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 12:38 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mphunter@qnx.com)
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 9:32 a.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 1:48 p.m.
Posted by: bjpro (bjpro@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 3:55 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 4:00 p.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 4:45 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 5:03 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 6:20 p.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 6:46 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 7:43 p.m.
Posted by: COLVaries
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 8:00 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 6:23 p.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 12:56 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 2:32 p.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 8:00 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 8:36 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 10:33 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 4:11 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 6:43 a.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (lavoncarson@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 1:02 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 2:36 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 4:11 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 10:37 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 12:27 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 11:48 p.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 7:17 p.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 1:15 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 4:20 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 10:39 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 6:06 p.m.
Posted by: Brett (brettfeinstein@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 5:57 p.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 6:32 p.m.
Posted by: Brett (brettfeinstein@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 7:43 p.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 1:07 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 1:21 p.m.
Posted by: Brett (brettfeinstein@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 11:16 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 11:38 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 4:17 a.m.
Posted by: rjk (rjkuyvenhoven@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 7 February 1999, at 10:26 p.m.
Posted by: C.P. O'Brien (oceanseleven@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 2:02 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 9:08 a.m.
Posted by: C.P. O'Brien (oceanseleven@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 2:14 a.m.
Posted by: RON (euro23@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 1:54 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 11:39 a.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 6:25 p.m.
Posted by: A Poker Guy! (kwon1@concentric.net)
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 8:03 p.m.
Posted by: Mike Mantel (Mantel@pipeline.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 2:41 p.m.
Posted by: A Poker Guy! (kwon1@concentric.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 February 1999, at 3:02 a.m.
Posted by: Nevadalarry (Nevadalarry@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 9:42 p.m.
Posted by: merle
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 9:39 a.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 12:42 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 3:55 p.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 7:41 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 6:57 a.m.
Posted by: George (fla_shyster@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 11:28 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 12:09 p.m.
Posted by: George (fla_shyster@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 3:11 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (lavoncarson@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 2:32 p.m.
Posted by: George (fla_shyster@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 3:14 p.m.
Posted by: Nevadalarry (Nevadalarry@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 9:03 p.m.
Posted by: George (fla_shyster@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 8:29 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 12:11 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (lavoncarson@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 12:47 p.m.
Posted by: Walleye (Walleye675@Aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 11:32 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 12:25 p.m.
Posted by: Nevadalarry (Nevadalarry@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 8:43 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 1:38 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Monday, 8 February 1999, at 2:52 p.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 2:16 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 12:29 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (lavoncarson@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 12:54 p.m.
Posted by: Big A (Adam.scott@mci.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 11:23 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 12:01 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 9:14 a.m.
Posted by: M.A. (aigner.martin@vienna.at)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 5:31 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 9:20 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 11:47 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 12:45 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 4:54 p.m.
Posted by: merle
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 2:06 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 2:30 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 3:43 p.m.
Posted by: Karpov (cdurham@cc.memphis.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 4:07 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 4:40 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 5:19 p.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 6:03 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Geary (jaygee@primenet.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 7:51 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (lavoncarson@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 8:09 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 11:45 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 12:56 a.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (lavoncarson@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 1:08 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 1:35 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 2:02 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 February 1999, at 10:18 p.m.
Posted by: Doc River
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 12:19 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 2:12 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 5:42 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 9:00 a.m.
Posted by: Andras Nagy (andrasnm@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 3:54 p.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 5:16 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 4:49 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 10:46 a.m.
Posted by: Major (Calbhar@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 11:11 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 11:18 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 12:15 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 12:53 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 11:22 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 12:18 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 1:01 p.m.
Posted by: james guest
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 5:40 p.m.
Posted by: Major (Calbhar@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 11:26 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 11:56 a.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 12:35 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Rankin (rankin@mail.access.digex.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 12:53 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 9:49 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 3:04 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 11:20 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 2:04 a.m.
Posted by: Bob Wilson (wilsonsw@whitemtns.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 9:52 a.m.
Posted by: Bob Wilson (wilsonsw@whitemtns.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 10:05 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 2:17 p.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 1:03 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 2:35 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 10:34 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 4:58 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 1:13 p.m.
Posted by: Randy (refeld@netzero.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 1:28 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 5:17 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 1:47 p.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 1:41 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 2:53 p.m.
Posted by: Buzz (newbie) (zooey2@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 6:19 p.m.
> your sense of money. It's really hard to go back to work
> for $10/hr when you're used to winning or losing
> thousands based on the turn of a card.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 7:52 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 8:02 p.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 1:59 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 8:58 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 2:33 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Sprung (josprung@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 8:58 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 8:45 a.m.
Posted by: Steve Pierce (pierce@rohan.sdsu.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 2:47 p.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 4:51 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 2:48 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 4:44 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 8:06 p.m.
Posted by: Doug M. (dman4445@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 6:41 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 5:11 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 6:33 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 7:03 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 9:36 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 12:20 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 12:50 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 5:12 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 4:28 p.m.
Posted by: spitball (churchill@ampsc.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 4:33 p.m.
Posted by: Abe
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 10:31 p.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 6:04 p.m.
Posted by: Larry (larry@dynatecusa.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 6:47 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 7:10 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 11:53 a.m.
Posted by: Larry (Larry@tonto.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 1:21 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 2:14 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 10:08 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 10:45 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 11:55 a.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 8:54 p.m.
Posted by: Larry (larry@dynatecusa.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 6:09 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 6:59 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 7:34 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 6:53 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 7:26 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 9:43 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 1:12 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 3:19 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 5:55 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 6:43 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 9:08 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 9:30 a.m.
Posted by: Ryan (RLabuda131@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 9:46 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 9:54 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 2:44 p.m.
Posted by: David D
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 10:41 a.m.
Posted by: Doug M. (dman4445@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 5:56 a.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 2:49 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 6:34 p.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 2:07 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 6:05 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 6:44 p.m.
Posted by: Doug M. (dman4445@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 6:21 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 8:25 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 9:38 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 10:06 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 12:38 p.m.
Posted by: merle
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 4:04 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Mogal (mogalj@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 5:35 p.m.
Posted by: Doug M. (dman4445@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 7:04 a.m.
Posted by: Doug M. (dman4445@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 7:11 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 8:50 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 10:39 a.m.
Posted by: T.P.
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 10:05 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 12:29 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 12:37 p.m.
Posted by: joey
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 8:57 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 12:42 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 12:42 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 1:31 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 12:53 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 1:08 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 2:27 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 3:37 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 1:33 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 1:56 a.m.
Posted by: Walleye (Walleye675@Aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 3:36 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 4:06 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 4:09 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 5:03 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 13 February 1999, at 2:57 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 13 February 1999, at 8:15 a.m.
Posted by: Bill (blipcon@nccn.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 7:36 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 13 February 1999, at 3:01 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 1:23 a.m.
Posted by: Iceman (lgrubart@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 8:59 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 13 February 1999, at 3:05 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 12:47 p.m.
Posted by: Iceman (lgrubart@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 2:48 p.m.
Posted by: merle
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 3:02 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 11:42 a.m.
Posted by: Iceman (lgrubart@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 10:33 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 13 February 1999, at 2:51 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 12:34 p.m.
Posted by: Walleye (Walleye675@Aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 February 1999, at 7:52 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 1:42 a.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 7:15 p.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 7:58 p.m.
Posted by: Doug M. (dman4445@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 February 1999, at 11:19 a.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 12:20 p.m.
Posted by: Doug M. (dman4445@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 9:41 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 7:59 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 1:27 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 9:08 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 12:31 p.m.
Posted by: Peter F.
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 5:15 a.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 1:07 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 7:40 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 12:57 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 1:19 a.m.
Posted by: merle
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 9:22 a.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 11:25 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 1:34 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 1:42 p.m.
Posted by: spitball (churchill@ampsc.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 3:59 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 6:02 p.m.
Posted by: spitball (churchill@ampsc.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 13 February 1999, at 9:36 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 February 1999, at 12:59 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 2:17 a.m.
Posted by: Erin
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 4:52 a.m.
Posted by: Bill G. (McHigel@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 10:08 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 10:13 a.m.
Posted by: Walleye (Walleye675@Aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 10:50 a.m.
Posted by: Karpov (cdurham@cc.memphis.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 11:47 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 3:47 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 12:00 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 12:26 p.m.
Posted by: spitball (churchill@ampsc.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 2:20 p.m.
Posted by: jguest
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 3:56 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 4:30 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 4:59 p.m.
Posted by: A Poker Guy! (kwon1@concentric.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 February 1999, at 2:37 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 February 1999, at 1:11 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 12:23 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 5:49 p.m.
Posted by: A Poker Guy! (kwon1@concentric.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 February 1999, at 2:20 a.m.
Posted by: Doc River
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 9:18 a.m.
Posted by: Bob Morgan (Bob@Nationalbooking.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 10:20 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 10:42 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 12:11 p.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 4:59 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 3:44 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 12:17 p.m.
Posted by: BillM
Posted on: Sunday, 14 February 1999, at 10:54 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 1:49 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 12:27 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 1:59 a.m.
Posted by: Chuck Weinstock (weinstock@conjelco.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 1:59 p.m.
Posted by: Chuck Weinstock (weinstock@conjelco.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 13 February 1999, at 8:43 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin Prigge (klp@umn.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 2:22 p.m.
Thanks! :)
Posted by: Dick Isinya
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 2:11 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 4:15 p.m.
Posted by: BillM
Posted on: Sunday, 14 February 1999, at 10:56 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 1:01 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Friday, 12 February 1999, at 4:09 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 February 1999, at 11:40 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 3:43 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 10:49 a.m.
Posted by: skp (s7737@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 12:01 a.m.
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Saturday, 13 February 1999, at 7:59 a.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 February 1999, at 12:56 a.m.
Posted by: Dick in Phoenix (RLA48@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 12:26 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 2:17 a.m.
Posted by: Andy Ward
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 7:06 a.m.
Posted by: Frank (flmason@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 11:08 p.m.
Posted by: Paul "The Terminator" Mattera (matterason@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 February 1999, at 6:08 p.m.
Posted by: Frank (flmason@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 12:09 a.m.
Posted by: Scottro (scotth@harkerinc.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 2 March 1999, at 2:02 p.m.
Posted by: Frank (flmason@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 2 March 1999, at 7:47 p.m.
Posted by: Scottro (scotth@harkerinc.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 March 1999, at 1:27 p.m.
Posted by: Frank (flmason@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 March 1999, at 5:25 p.m.
Posted by: trace (jfairey@juno.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 February 1999, at 2:14 p.m.
Posted by: carl (cbsanford@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 12:20 a.m.
Posted by: albert (albertwang@alum.mit.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 2:23 a.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 12:13 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 12:51 p.m.
Posted by: almost as smart as al raiser
Posted on: Sunday, 14 February 1999, at 4:26 p.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 12:54 p.m.
Posted by: Josh (josh@chaos.ph.utexas.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 February 1999, at 7:59 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 February 1999, at 9:07 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 12:38 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 4:57 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 6:16 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 6:32 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 12:15 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 12:45 p.m.
Posted by: GD
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 1:05 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 1:14 p.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 2:28 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 2:56 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 11:34 p.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 2:13 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 2:34 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 3:02 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 12:10 p.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 3:28 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 2:57 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 11:16 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 5:40 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 11:23 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 3:31 p.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 12:10 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 4:31 a.m.
>decreases because so many of his skills are not available
>to use in these games
>really low limit games (3-6 etc) have such high rake. Even
>Lee Jones on Usenet is not completely sure that 3-6 can be
>beat by much at all, luckily for him, his book covers up
>to 6-12.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 5:01 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 5:43 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 3:52 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 1:34 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 4:34 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 1:07 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 5:05 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 12:10 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 12:33 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 February 1999, at 12:22 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 3:07 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 2:40 p.m.
Posted by: Randy Collack (rmitchcoll@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 2:42 p.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 5:31 p.m.
Posted by: Randy Collack (rmitchcoll@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 7:33 p.m.
Posted by: CAW (flipwood@email.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 10:45 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 12:40 p.m.
Posted by: Randy Collack (rmitchcoll@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 4:42 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 6:12 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 8:07 p.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 1:03 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 6:41 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 5:29 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 6:44 p.m.
Posted by: Walleye (Walleye675@Aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 5:30 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 5:39 p.m.
Posted by: YOWANDA
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 6:28 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 6:34 p.m.
Posted by: YOWANDA
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 7:41 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 1:01 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 3:17 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 11:53 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 2:51 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 4:57 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 6:50 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 8:04 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 6:23 p.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 6:36 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 7:40 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 1:22 a.m.
Posted by: skp (s7737@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 2:30 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 4:45 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 5:24 a.m.
Posted by: skp (s7737@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 12:35 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 5:41 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 2:26 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 2:43 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 February 1999, at 12:13 p.m.
Posted by: TVMan (andrasnm@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 4:47 a.m.
Posted by: A'Bear (Calbhar@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 February 1999, at 1:34 p.m.
Posted by: Steve (fiete@my-dejanews.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 6:41 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 1:45 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 2:15 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 4:50 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 10:55 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 11:31 a.m.
Posted by: Steve (fiete@my-dejanews.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 1:48 p.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 7:14 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 7:43 p.m.
Posted by: Tim Davis
Posted on: Monday, 15 February 1999, at 11:38 p.m.
Posted by: Emil (elg57@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 2:03 a.m.
Posted by: skp (s7737@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 11:12 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 2:09 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 2:17 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 5:02 a.m.
Posted by: Erin
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 5:18 a.m.
Posted by: Doug M. (dman4445@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 9:28 p.m.
Posted by: skp (s7737@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 11:19 p.m.
Posted by: skp (s7737@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 2:42 a.m.
Posted by: JIM MOGAL (mogalj@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 7:55 a.m.
Posted by: Tim Davis
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 12:45 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 3:36 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 5:35 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 6:44 p.m.
Posted by: skp (s7737@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 11:41 p.m.
Posted by: Andras Nagy (andrasnm@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 5:44 p.m.
Posted by: Q&A? (Calbhar@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 12:27 a.m.
Posted by: Andy Ward
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 7:41 a.m.
Posted by: Q&A? (Calbhar@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 10:28 a.m.
Posted by: Kate (kgasser@ti.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 12:11 p.m.
Posted by: Q&A? (Calbhar@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 12:36 p.m.
Posted by: Dennis (eichhorn@math.uiuc.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 4:55 p.m.
Posted by: Q&A? (Calbhar@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 11:38 p.m.
Posted by: Dennis (eichhorn@math.uiuc.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 2:34 p.m.
Posted by: Q&A? (Calbhar@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 4:19 p.m.
Posted by: J.R. (jrstout@prodigy.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 7:42 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 11:53 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 6:18 p.m.
Posted by: Morgan (morganm@pathcom.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 11:17 a.m.
Posted by: ralebird (rsbensen@syr.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 2:00 p.m.
Posted by: Karpov (cdurham@cc.memphis.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 2:44 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Mogal (mogalj@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 5:05 p.m.
Posted by: Q&A? (Calbhar@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 12:32 p.m.
Posted by: T.P.
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 2:45 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 3:34 p.m.
Posted by: T.P.
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 3:36 p.m.
Posted by: T.P.
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 3:39 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 5:42 p.m.
Posted by: Iceman (lgrubart@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 11:19 a.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 2:29 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 3:31 p.m.
Posted by: Major (Calbhar@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 3:47 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Geary (jaygee@primenet.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 6:44 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 12:24 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 3:44 p.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 4:38 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 5:35 p.m.
Posted by: Karpov (cdurham@cc.memphis.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 4:39 p.m.
Posted by: Albert (albertwang@alum.mit.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 4:46 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 1:54 a.m.
Posted by: Randy (refeld@netzero.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 5:52 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 10:19 p.m.
Posted by: Randy (refeld@netzero.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 February 1999, at 3:32 a.m.
Posted by: Walleye (Walleye675@Aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 4:46 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 4:57 p.m.
Posted by: Lance
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 5:24 p.m.
Posted by: Sam (rcharley@cgocable.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 February 1999, at 2:30 a.m.
Posted by: Walleye (Walleye675@Aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 6:03 p.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 12:02 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 3:52 p.m.
Posted by: Walleye (Walleye675@Aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 4:25 p.m.
Posted by: albert (albertwang@alum.mit.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 7:51 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 1:51 a.m.
Posted by: CW (CADub49er@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 1:52 a.m.
Posted by: Steve Brecher (steve@brecher.reno.nv.us)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 11:12 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 2:51 p.m.
Posted by: albert (albertwang@alum.mit.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 7:40 p.m.
Posted by: A Poker Guy! (kwon1@concentric.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 10:38 p.m.
Posted by: skp (s7737@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 11:22 p.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 11:55 p.m.
Posted by: merle
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 3:47 p.m.
Posted by: albert (albertwang@alum.mit.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 11:32 p.m.
Posted by: Ivan Botic (BoticI@worldnet.att)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 8:41 p.m.
Posted by: GuangJoe (shuview@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 12:11 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 1:47 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 8:41 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 12:42 p.m.
Posted by: Dennis (eichhorn@math.uiuc.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 2:45 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 3:26 p.m.
Posted by: spitball (churchill@ampsc.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 3:45 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 5:55 p.m.
Posted by: Dennis (eichhorn@math.uiuc.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 6:21 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 6:53 p.m.
Posted by: Sam (rcharley@cgocable.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 February 1999, at 2:27 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 5:26 a.m.
Posted by: David D
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 7:46 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 12:56 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 1:04 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 1:57 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 6:19 p.m.
Posted by: Paul J. Martino (paul@ahpah.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 February 1999, at 2:03 a.m.
Posted by: Grover
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 8:02 a.m.
Posted by: Walleye (Walleye675@Aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 9:54 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 12:45 p.m.
Posted by: A. Bear (Calbhar@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 3:03 p.m.
Posted by: Matthew Bjorge (ferday@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 3:39 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 6:07 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 6:16 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 6:24 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 7:35 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 February 1999, at 2:10 a.m.
Posted by: Matthew Bjorge (ferday@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 February 1999, at 10:17 a.m.
Posted by: albert (albertwang@alum.mit.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 February 1999, at 4:11 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 February 1999, at 4:24 a.m.
Posted by: Erin
Posted on: Thursday, 18 February 1999, at 6:07 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 February 1999, at 1:28 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 February 1999, at 3:04 p.m.
Posted by: Q&A? (Calbhar@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 3:39 p.m.
Posted by: Dan A. (Himally@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 8:50 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 February 1999, at 9:44 p.m.
Posted by: merle
Posted on: Thursday, 18 February 1999, at 10:14 a.m.
Posted by: Kate (kgasser@ti.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 February 1999, at 12:25 p.m.
Posted by: Q&A? (Calbhar@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 February 1999, at 12:29 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 February 1999, at 1:10 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin Palmer (kevinpalmer@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 February 1999, at 1:23 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 February 1999, at 5:35 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 12:08 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 2:48 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 February 1999, at 8:18 p.m.
Posted by: Natalie (josh@chaos.ph.utexas.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 February 1999, at 4:46 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 February 1999, at 5:37 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 February 1999, at 5:53 p.m.
Posted by: Emil (elg57@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 1:57 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 12:16 p.m.
Posted by: Dominic Bourke
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 2:21 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 12:20 p.m.
Posted by: Paul A. (Pauster@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 February 1999, at 6:22 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 February 1999, at 7:50 p.m.
Posted by: Abe
Posted on: Thursday, 18 February 1999, at 8:47 p.m.
Posted by: Paul A. (pauster@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 February 1999, at 9:02 p.m.
Posted by: Doc River
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 12:14 a.m.
Posted by: Polly Graff
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 1:57 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 2:18 a.m.
Posted by: merle
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 9:32 a.m.
Posted by: you lose
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 5:08 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 8:35 p.m.
Posted by: Greghms (climbsrock@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 7:14 p.m.
Posted by: Doc River
Posted on: Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 10:04 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 3:48 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 2:04 a.m.
Posted by: Emil (elg57@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 10:54 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 12:00 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 7:02 a.m.
Posted by: Walleye (Walleye675@Aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 February 1999, at 7:38 p.m.
Posted by: Bill (blipcon@nccn.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 February 1999, at 11:07 p.m.
Posted by: Walleye (Walleye675@Aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 10:56 a.m.
Posted by: Walleye (Walleye675@Aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 February 1999, at 8:15 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 February 1999, at 8:40 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 12:04 a.m.
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 1:14 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 February 1999, at 8:20 p.m.
Posted by: skp (s7737@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 February 1999, at 8:58 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 2:25 a.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mph@acm.org)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 5:21 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 5:49 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mph@acm.org)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 8:30 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 9:12 p.m.
Posted by: Dennis Cartwright (dcartwright2@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 2:10 a.m.
Posted by: 5th Street Frank (frankk99@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 9:39 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mph@acm.org)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 February 1999, at 6:52 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 February 1999, at 8:51 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 February 1999, at 7:59 p.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 1:08 a.m.
Posted by: Matt Thoreson (mthorson@pacifier.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 1:33 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 2:37 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 3:53 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 4:03 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 8:00 p.m.
Posted by: Frank (flmason@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 4:24 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 10:12 p.m.
Posted by: Frank (flmason@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 11:14 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 4:12 a.m.
Posted by: neil (neil@blackbartdata.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 1:57 p.m.
Posted by: albert (albertwang@alum.mit.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 February 1999, at 1:52 a.m.
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 1:32 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 1:47 a.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 2:12 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 6:29 p.m.
Posted by: A Poker Guy! (kwon1@concentric.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 12:30 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 3:04 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Miller (daniel.miller3@pss.boeing.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 12:39 p.m.
Posted by: Watchful (huxleycat@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 5:09 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Miller (daniel.miller3@pss.boeing.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 5:16 p.m.
Posted by: Shaka-Zulu-Ku
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 7:14 p.m.
Posted by: A'Bear (Calbhar@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 8:55 p.m.
Posted by: Dominic Bourke (dominic@bourke9.freeserve.co.uk)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 8:03 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 12:40 p.m.
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 4:04 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 4:34 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 6:43 p.m.
Posted by: A Poker Guy! (kwon1@concentric.net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 11:49 p.m.
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 5:27 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Smith (daniel.l.smith@usa.net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 5:33 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 5:41 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 6:37 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 6:40 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 9:09 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 2:18 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 2:20 a.m.
Posted by: Emil (elg57@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 1:46 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 3:22 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 3:25 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 7:07 p.m.
Posted by: A Poker Guy! (kwon1@concentric.net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 9:48 p.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 11:30 p.m.
Posted by: A Poker Guy! (kwon1@concentric.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 12:09 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 5:56 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 5:53 a.m.
Posted by: Emil (elg57@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 1:50 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 6:53 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Smith (daniel.l.smith@usa.net)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 2:03 p.m.
Posted by: GD
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 3:12 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 12:02 p.m.
Posted by: Bill G. (McHigel@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 6:12 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 February 1999, at 2:30 p.m.
Posted by: Emil (elg57@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 February 1999, at 4:50 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 12:41 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 12:54 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 12:17 p.m.
Posted by: A'Bear (Calbhar@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 February 1999, at 8:44 p.m.
Posted by: DrToast (DrToast@concentric.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 6:12 a.m.
Posted by: Frank Kastelic (frankk99@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 1:06 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 3:46 p.m.
Posted by: Frank Kastelic (frankk99@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 8:15 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Downs (jpd@accessus.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 February 1999, at 1:23 p.m.
Posted by: UcMeB4u (ucmeb4u999@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 9:18 a.m.
Posted by: A'Bear (Calbhar@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 11:34 a.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 9:45 p.m.
Posted by: Karpov (cdurham@cc.memphis.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 12:44 p.m.
Posted by: Frank Kastelic (frankk99@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 1:03 p.m.
Posted by: Tom B. (pokerchip5@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 February 1999, at 12:06 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 4:47 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 7:00 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 1:15 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 6:02 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 5:09 a.m.
Posted by: Abe
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 10:56 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 11:47 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 12:00 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 11:45 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 4:16 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 3:57 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 3:59 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 10:55 a.m.
Posted by: TVMan (andrasnm@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 1:39 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 2:48 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 5:51 p.m.
Posted by: S. Doyle
Posted on: Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 2:30 p.m.
Posted by: Bill (blipcon@nccn.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 10:34 p.m.
Posted by: Dominic Bourke
Posted on: Sunday, 21 February 1999, at 4:15 a.m.
Posted by: BillM
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 12:10 p.m.
Posted by: Andras Nagy (andrasnm@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 February 1999, at 1:47 p.m.
Posted by: Walleye (Walleye675@Aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 3:19 p.m.
Posted by: DLS (dspitzer@labortribune.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 7:45 p.m.
Posted by: Andras Nagy (andrasnm@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 1:37 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 4:14 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 February 1999, at 7:54 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 February 1999, at 7:59 a.m.
Posted by: Bill H.
Posted on: Sunday, 21 February 1999, at 2:07 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 February 1999, at 2:10 p.m.
Posted by: George
Posted on: Sunday, 21 February 1999, at 3:06 a.m.
Posted by: John
Posted on: Sunday, 21 February 1999, at 4:28 a.m.
Posted by: Dominic Bourke (dominic@bourke9.freeserve.co.uk)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 February 1999, at 7:18 a.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 February 1999, at 7:21 a.m.
Posted by: George
Posted on: Sunday, 21 February 1999, at 1:16 p.m.
Posted by: marc (mdsussman@jenner.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 9:25 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 February 1999, at 5:35 a.m.
Posted by: Dominic Bourke (dominic@bourke9.freeserve.co.uk)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 February 1999, at 7:26 a.m.
Posted by: Abe
Posted on: Sunday, 21 February 1999, at 2:53 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 February 1999, at 6:05 p.m.
Posted by: George
Posted on: Sunday, 21 February 1999, at 6:28 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 4:07 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 6:48 a.m.
Posted by: Ivan Botic (BoticI@worldnet.att)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 8:19 p.m.
Posted by: MaxRatio
Posted on: Sunday, 21 February 1999, at 5:34 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 February 1999, at 6:23 p.m.
Posted by: Sam (rcharley@cgocable.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 February 1999, at 7:33 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 February 1999, at 8:30 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 February 1999, at 8:30 p.m.
Posted by: Emil (elg57@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 February 1999, at 9:26 p.m.
Posted by: albert (albertwang@alum.mit.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 1:36 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 4:36 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 11:54 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 12:42 p.m.
Posted by: ethan (ethan_van@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 February 1999, at 11:51 p.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 1:42 a.m.
Posted by: albert (albertwang@alum.mit.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 2:04 a.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 5:23 p.m.
Posted by: albert
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 7:38 p.m.
Posted by: albert (albertwang@alum.mit.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 1:46 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 3:39 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 4:19 a.m.
Posted by: Karpov (cdurham@cc.memphis.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 4:06 p.m.
Posted by: Ivan Botic (BoticI@worldnet.att)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 9:20 p.m.
Posted by: Bill G. (wbg7649@garnet.acns.fsu.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 9:09 p.m.
Posted by: ethan (ethan_van@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 8:57 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 12:46 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 3:25 a.m.
Posted by: BillM
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 11:32 a.m.
Posted by: Steve
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 11:54 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 11:56 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 11:58 a.m.
Posted by: Sean D.
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 5:09 p.m.
Posted by: countin' (rcbatt@iname.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 February 1999, at 12:46 a.m.
Posted by: albert (albertwang@alum.mit.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 1:58 p.m.
Posted by: CW (CADub49er@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 2:02 a.m.
Posted by: Emil (elg57@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 2:33 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 3:20 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 3:27 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 4:22 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 4:34 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 11:28 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 1:02 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 1:29 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 2:35 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 4:28 p.m.
Posted by: Doug M. (dman4445@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 3:04 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 3:52 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 2:51 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 4:14 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 4:23 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 5:59 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 12:35 p.m.
Posted by: Bill (bklatta@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 1:22 p.m.
Posted by: Walleye (Walleye675@Aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 2:05 p.m.
Posted by: GD
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 3:15 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 4:03 p.m.
Posted by: Bill G. (wbg7649@garnet.acns.fsu.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 9:27 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 10:14 p.m.
Posted by: Ivan Botic (BoticI@worldnet.att)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 10:29 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 10:05 p.m.
Posted by: Doug M. (dman4445@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 3:13 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 3:23 p.m.
Posted by: albert (albertwang@alum.mit.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 4:36 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 5:28 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 5:51 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 7:11 p.m.
Posted by: GD
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 5:21 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 5:41 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 5:54 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 6:26 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 5:56 p.m.
Posted by: Doug
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 6:57 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 7:41 p.m.
Posted by: John
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 11:27 p.m.
Posted by: albert (albertwang@alum.mit.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 1:31 a.m.
Posted by: Matthew Bjorge (ferday@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 2:45 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 6:40 p.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 6:48 p.m.
Posted by: neil (neil@blackbartdata.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 12:56 p.m.
Posted by: Frank (flmason@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 February 1999, at 1:18 p.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 February 1999, at 1:52 p.m.
Posted by: Frank (flmason@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 February 1999, at 11:59 p.m.
Posted by: Andras Nagy (andrasnm@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 2 March 1999, at 3:57 p.m.
Posted by: Frank (flmason@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 2 March 1999, at 7:35 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 9:15 p.m.
Posted by: skp (s7737@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 1:34 a.m.
Posted by: albert (albertwang@alum.mit.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 3:46 a.m.
Posted by: Emil (elg57@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 9:32 p.m.
Posted by: Bill G. (wbg7649@garnet.acns.fsu.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 9:50 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 10:07 p.m.
Posted by: Chuck
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 10:34 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 12:52 a.m.
Posted by: skp (s7737@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 1:15 a.m.
Posted by: George
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 1:56 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 4:19 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 5:04 a.m.
Posted by: MA (aigner.martin@vienna.at)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 5:43 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 11:30 a.m.
Posted by: MA (aigner.martin@vienna.at)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 6:24 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 2:46 p.m.
Posted by: Steve Proctor (stevep@iquest.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 10:20 a.m.
Posted by: Josh (josh@chaos.ph.utexas.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 10:28 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 12:41 p.m.
Posted by: Doug M. (dman4445@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 2:33 p.m.
Posted by: Emil (elg57@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 2:36 p.m.
Posted by: Emil (elg57@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 2:52 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 7:20 p.m.
Posted by: Emil (elg57@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 8:22 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 8:44 p.m.
Posted by: Emil (elg57@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 12:57 a.m.
Posted by: Walleye (Walleye675@Aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 2:39 p.m.
Posted by: Emil (elg57@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 3:22 p.m.
Posted by: Walleye (Walleye675@Aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 6:57 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 2:10 a.m.
Posted by: Timg (timg@tapscan.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 4:08 p.m.
Posted by: Matthew Bjorge (ferday@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 4:43 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 7:06 p.m.
Posted by: John
Posted on: Monday, 22 February 1999, at 11:38 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 12:43 a.m.
Posted by: John
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 11:48 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 4:48 a.m.
Posted by: Walleye (Walleye675@Aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 10:16 a.m.
Posted by: Josh (josh@chaos.ph.utexas.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 10:20 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Downs (jpd@talx.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 10:43 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 11:32 a.m.
Posted by: Walleye (Walleye675@Aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 2:11 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 6:33 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 2:06 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 6:35 a.m.
Posted by: BillM
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 11:47 a.m.
Posted by: DLS (dspitzer@labortribune.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 7:35 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 2:20 a.m.
Posted by: Greg H (climbsrock@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 3:09 a.m.
Posted by: Teddy R.
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 6:25 a.m.
Posted by: chance (chance@globeset.com)
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 6:05 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Morgan (Bob@Nationalbooking.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 10:36 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 11:50 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 11:51 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 1:01 p.m.
Posted by: DLS (dspitzer@labortribune.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 7:12 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 12:25 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 1:52 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 6:39 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 6:57 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 7:39 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 4:00 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 12:18 p.m.
Posted by: Steve Macleod (smacleod1@athome.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 1:01 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 7:54 p.m.
Posted by: Andy (notquiteaspatientasjob@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 12:51 p.m.
Posted by: Darrell Danfield (DPOKER@AOL.COM)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 2:50 p.m.
Posted by: TB
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 2:14 p.m.
Posted by: Steve
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 3:15 p.m.
Posted by: Steve
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 3:16 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 4:25 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 3:29 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 3:49 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 3:35 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 3:38 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 6:28 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 5:56 p.m.
Posted by: Ray J (RayHoule@webtv.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 9:54 p.m.
Posted by: Bill G. (wbg7649@garnet.acns.fsu.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 11:13 p.m.
Posted by: A'Bear (Calbhar@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 3:16 p.m.
Posted by: Major (Calbhar@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 10:40 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 2:00 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 6:53 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 7:17 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 12:22 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 12:09 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 12:59 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 3:47 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 6:32 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 6:57 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 4:21 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 4:43 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 7:30 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 3:50 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 6:35 p.m.
Posted by: Da-man
Posted on: Tuesday, 2 March 1999, at 9:37 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin Palmer
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 7:05 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 8:55 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 9:05 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 10:30 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 1:46 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 4:14 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 4:27 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 7:27 a.m.
Posted by: Steve
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 9:59 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 11:12 a.m.
Posted by: Steve
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 12:53 p.m.
Posted by: Etienne (integer_007@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 5:17 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 6:54 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 7:47 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 10:38 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 6:20 a.m.
Posted by: Etienne (integer_007@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 7:03 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 8:26 a.m.
Posted by: Steve
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 11:17 a.m.
Posted by: Etienne (integer_007@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 6:30 a.m.
< I have not read any of Griffin's work. I am taking Dan at his word that Griffin makes the above claim. >
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 11:21 a.m.
Posted by: Etienne (integer_007@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 5:27 p.m.
2. You were getting lukewarm when you mentioned the word "sloppy".
3. I would never have been able to do it in a well run casino.
4. When I'm next in Vegas, I'd be glad to tell you over lunch.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 4:15 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 7:43 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mph@acm.org)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 3:42 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 4:32 a.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mph@acm.org)
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 8:35 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 2 March 1999, at 8:26 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 11:17 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 11:21 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 11:43 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 7:40 p.m.
Posted by: baccarrat billy
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 1:39 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 3:11 a.m.
Posted by: Sean D.
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 4:50 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 3:23 a.m.
Posted by: Tim S. (sweeton@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 11:19 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 12:13 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Morgan (Bob@Nationalbooking.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 February 1999, at 11:55 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 11:16 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 11:35 a.m.
Posted by: Walleye (Walleye675@Aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 1:20 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 1:47 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 3:55 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 3:58 p.m.
Posted by: jason "maverick"mcintyre (mac21660@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 5:30 a.m.
Posted by: Ray J (RayHoule@webtv.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 6:54 a.m.
Posted by: Tom S. (rundontwalk@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 11:16 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 12:35 p.m.
Posted by: Walleye (Walleye675@Aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 1:06 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 1:42 p.m.
Posted by: Walleye (Walleye675@Aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 2:16 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 4:06 p.m.
Posted by: A Poker Guy! (kwon1@concentric.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 9:07 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 6:43 a.m.
Posted by: Emil (elg57@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 11:25 a.m.
Posted by: merle
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 2:48 p.m.
Posted by: Blake Silber (bsilber@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 1:16 p.m.
Posted by: Walleye (Walleye675@Aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 1:47 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 1:52 p.m.
Posted by: Plugsocket
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 3:05 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 4:18 p.m.
Posted by: DUH
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 5:44 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 6:41 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 6:56 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 6:34 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 11:33 a.m.
Posted by: Eric Shapiro (y-ties1@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 9:21 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 7:10 p.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 7:15 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 8:16 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 6:29 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 11:50 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 12:16 p.m.
Posted by: ralebird (rsbensen@syr.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 1:38 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 6:13 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 3:15 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 5:19 a.m.
Posted by: ralebird
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 4:40 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 February 1999, at 3:37 a.m.
Posted by: Eric (holleman@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 10:17 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 11:24 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 11:44 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 12:20 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 5:16 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 6:23 p.m.
Posted by: merle
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 1:57 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 6:20 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 8:33 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 8:10 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 1:15 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 1:31 p.m.
Posted by: A Poker Guy! (kwon1@concentric.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 10:11 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 5:24 a.m.
Posted by: jason"maverick" (mac21660@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 7:21 p.m.
Posted by: Ray J (RayHoule@webtv.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 8:25 p.m.
Posted by: Tom S. (rundontwalk@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 12:19 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 12:31 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 6:29 p.m.
Posted by: Mbunghole
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 8:18 p.m.
Posted by: Plugsocket
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 11:04 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 12:47 p.m.
Posted by: Josh (josh@chaos.ph.utexas.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 11:29 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 6:08 a.m.
Posted by: mark (markba27@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 3:00 a.m.
Posted by: Big A (adam.scott@mci.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 February 1999, at 11:52 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mph@acm.org)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 3:26 p.m.
Posted by: Big A (adam.scott@mci.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 6:01 p.m.
Posted by: Big A (adam.scott@mci.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 12:22 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 6:49 p.m.
Posted by: Major (Calbhar@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 10:15 a.m.
Posted by: Bob Morgan (Bob@Nationalbooking.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 10:21 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 1:32 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Morgan (Bob@Nationalbooking.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 February 1999, at 10:40 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 5:47 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 4:04 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 10:46 a.m.
>Final table. 4 players. Stack $1600. Blinds $200-400. In >Small Blind. BB has $800. Button, Big Stack, Raises. I have >Q,Q. Think for a moment. Button raise, tight player but not >real strong. I reraise! BB folds. Flop J,T,T. 9 on turn. >Button bets flop, turn and river. I go all in. Lose to >pocket K,K. Out of tournament. 4th place. $150 (3rd pays >$350)"
>UTG. Think button has big pair or A,K. Think some more. >Call. UTG: 8,8 Button Q,Jo, Me J,J. flop 9,8,3 rainbow. >Turn 6, River T. UTG gone Button now equal with my stack. >Finish. Chip leader. Split 1st and second money with the >guy that was on the button in this hand.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (Leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 4:18 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 9:59 p.m.
Posted by: Walleye (Walleye675@Aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 1:56 p.m.
Posted by: Packerfn1 (packerfn1@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 3:46 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 4:16 p.m.
Posted by: Packerfn1 (packerfn1@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 5:19 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 February 1999, at 2:19 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 February 1999, at 2:27 a.m.
Posted by: Packerfn1 (packerfn1@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 February 1999, at 1:27 p.m.
Posted by: Madmary (marym@itis.com)
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 7:14 p.m.
Posted by: Big A (adam.scott@mci.com)
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 3:49 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (Leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 4:36 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Rankin (rankin@mail.access.digex.net)
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 3:11 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 4:37 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 6:10 p.m.
Posted by: Maria Smith (maria1955@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 3:35 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 3:56 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 4:08 p.m.
Posted by: merle
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 4:13 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (Leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 5:24 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 6:02 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 February 1999, at 4:10 a.m.
Posted by: Doug M. (dman4445@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 February 1999, at 12:11 p.m.
Posted by: Chuck
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 7:45 p.m.
Posted by: Big A (adam.scott@mci.com)
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 8:50 p.m.
Posted by: Ray J (RayHoule@webtv.net)
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 10:06 p.m.
Posted by: Wilson
Posted on: Saturday, 27 February 1999, at 1:01 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 February 1999, at 10:20 a.m.
Posted by: Tom S. (rundontwalk@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 February 1999, at 7:18 p.m.
Posted by: Big A (adam.scott@mci.com)
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 8:33 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Friday, 26 February 1999, at 10:15 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mph@acm.org)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 February 1999, at 6:14 p.m.
Posted by: Calvin C.
Posted on: Saturday, 27 February 1999, at 1:28 a.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 February 1999, at 1:50 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 February 1999, at 4:02 a.m.
Posted by: d
Posted on: Sunday, 28 February 1999, at 9:07 a.m.
Posted by: novice
Posted on: Saturday, 27 February 1999, at 4:58 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 February 1999, at 5:02 a.m.
Posted by: E.J.J. (InStardust@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 February 1999, at 6:55 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 February 1999, at 11:03 a.m.
>>5-10 game that I would call average in terms of tight/looseness. I don't really know my opponents and am first to act (left of BB). I have two black sevens and limp in. Two callers, button raises, blinds fold, I call, two additional callers behind me. Flop comes 10-3-2 rainbow. I bet, two callers fold, button raises. I call. Turn comes a six. I check, button bets, what do you do?<<
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 February 1999, at 11:25 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 February 1999, at 8:15 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 February 1999, at 8:10 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 February 1999, at 12:57 p.m.
Posted by: jason"maverick (mac21660@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 February 1999, at 5:32 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 February 1999, at 6:11 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 February 1999, at 6:39 p.m.
Posted by: George
Posted on: Sunday, 28 February 1999, at 2:23 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 February 1999, at 9:38 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 February 1999, at 2:23 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 February 1999, at 7:16 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 February 1999, at 10:30 p.m.
Posted by: skp (s7737@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 2 March 1999, at 12:36 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 February 1999, at 5:30 a.m.
Posted by: Ivan Botic (BoticI@worldnet.att)
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 1:10 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 5:18 a.m.
Posted by: George
Posted on: Tuesday, 2 March 1999, at 8:58 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 March 1999, at 2:52 a.m.
Posted by: GD
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 3:05 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Sunday, 7 March 1999, at 10:09 a.m.
Posted by: skp (s7737@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 2 March 1999, at 12:43 a.m.
Posted by: Ivan Botic (BoticI@worldnet.att)
Posted on: Tuesday, 2 March 1999, at 10:02 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Heide (maheide@comdisco.com)
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 8:47 a.m.
Posted by: Neophite
Posted on: Tuesday, 2 March 1999, at 4:58 p.m.
Posted by: Matt (matt_docherty@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 February 1999, at 9:19 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 February 1999, at 4:08 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 February 1999, at 5:17 a.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 February 1999, at 9:39 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 February 1999, at 2:20 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 February 1999, at 4:07 a.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 February 1999, at 2:39 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 February 1999, at 5:42 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 February 1999, at 5:53 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 February 1999, at 7:26 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 February 1999, at 5:23 a.m.
Posted by: david (hegesias@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 February 1999, at 12:09 a.m.
Posted by: Grifter (embassy1@bellatlantic.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 February 1999, at 2:12 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 February 1999, at 5:26 a.m.
Posted by: Iceman
Posted on: Sunday, 28 February 1999, at 2:44 p.m.
Holdem Poker
Holdem for Advanced Players
Posted by: Plug
Posted on: Sunday, 28 February 1999, at 2:22 a.m.
Posted by: Dominic Bourke (dominic@bourke9.freeserve.co.uk)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 February 1999, at 2:54 p.m.
Posted by: Darryl "Dazzler" Lanyon (lanyon@powerup.com.au)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 February 1999, at 7:54 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 February 1999, at 9:29 a.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 4:39 p.m.
Posted by: Tom S. (rundontwalk@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 February 1999, at 10:41 a.m.
Posted by: Darryl "Dazzler": Lanyon (lanyon@powerup.com.au)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 February 1999, at 10:33 p.m.
Posted by: Paul J. Martino (paul@ahpah.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 February 1999, at 3:57 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 February 1999, at 10:19 p.m.
Posted by: Cassandra
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 7:40 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 1:09 p.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 February 1999, at 4:09 p.m.
Posted by: Frank (flmason@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 12:13 a.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 2:18 a.m.
Posted by: Frank (flmason@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 12:58 p.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 2:52 p.m.
Posted by: Frank (flmason@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 1:21 p.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 1:46 p.m.
Posted by: Emil (elg57@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 5:38 p.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 5:53 p.m.
Posted by: Emil (elg57@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 6:32 p.m.
Posted by: Scottro (scotth@harkerinc.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 March 1999, at 11:27 a.m.
Posted by: Frank (flmason@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 6:36 p.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 6:49 p.m.
Posted by: Frank (flmason@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 7:43 p.m.
Posted by: Eric
Posted on: Tuesday, 2 March 1999, at 4:53 p.m.
Posted by: Stephen H. Landrum (slandrum@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 March 1999, at 2:09 p.m.
Posted by: Frank (flmason@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 March 1999, at 4:13 a.m.
Posted by: Stephen H. Landrum (slandrum@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Friday, 5 March 1999, at 7:54 p.m.
Posted by: GD
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 March 1999, at 2:58 p.m.
Posted by: Frank (flmason@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 March 1999, at 4:21 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 March 1999, at 4:34 a.m.
Posted by: Frank (flmason@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 March 1999, at 5:24 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 4:47 a.m.
Posted by: Frank (flmason@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 1:00 p.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 1:15 p.m.
Posted by: Frank (flmason@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 7:22 p.m.
Posted by: Major (Calbhar@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 4 March 1999, at 10:48 a.m.
Posted by: Andras Nagy (andrasnm@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 5:15 a.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 4:40 p.m.
Posted by: Andras Nagy (andrasnm@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 5:13 p.m.
Posted by: Frank (flmason@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 7:16 p.m.
Posted by: David D
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 10:15 a.m.
Posted by: Frank (flmason@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 1:07 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 2 March 1999, at 1:06 a.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 2 March 1999, at 7:58 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 March 1999, at 12:21 a.m.
Posted by: Frank (flmason@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 3 March 1999, at 1:25 a.m.
Posted by: andy (amcderm1@rochester.rr.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 February 1999, at 9:55 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 12:59 p.m.
Posted by: skp (s7737@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 2 March 1999, at 12:52 a.m.
Posted by: Matthew Bjorge (ferday@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 2 March 1999, at 1:47 p.m.
Posted by: jason"maverick (mac21660@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 February 1999, at 10:55 p.m.
Posted by: Alexi Neocleous (mlhcc@ozemail.com.au)
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 12:04 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 4:41 a.m.
Posted by: GD
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 3:18 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 5:13 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 12:33 p.m.
Posted by: jason"maverick (mac21660@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 1 March 1999, at 9:06 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 2 March 1999, at 12:31 p.m.
The Gambling Forum February 1999 Archive Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo