![[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 pr
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.