God I made the stupidest play ever the other night. I felt lousy about it.
4-8. Loose game. I raised from middle with KK after two already in, was re-raised by my immediate left (a player who was decent and currently doing very well) and he was re-raised (capped) on his left. 6 saw the flop including man on my right who was trapped into calling three raises cold.
Flop was QTx with two clubs. I bet first, it was raised by my left and called by all - four of us in. The turn came 6 clubs. The 'trapped' player on my right bet out. I had K of clubs and called. So did the others. The river brought a second 6. Trapped bet again. I was convinced he had the flush, and I guess feared those re-raisers on my left, so I folded like a stupid F***. The guy on my left called and won the pot with AQ offsuit! The asshole bettor was completely bluffing. He laughed like a madman, got up and left for the evening. One last hurrah I guess.
The original 'capper' had T7 diamonds!
I was tired and beaten up. Perhaps I read too much and don't think enough. I assumed no player would bluff into three players who indicated they had big hands pre-flop.
How could I lay that down with such a huge pot?
Somebody please kick me in the ass. All flames welcome.
The only reason this might have been a bad lay down, is that the player to your right had been making moves like this earlier during the night and you didn't take this into consideration. Obviously the guy to your left thought the guy might be bluffing, or he is a complete calling station. But your right most players will not bet in early position when the flush card hits unless they have it, espically when there is as good a chance that someone will have a flush as it apears in this particular situation. I might not even call the turn thinking even if the fourth club comes it wouldn't be good, because the ace could be out there or I might get raised from behind by the ace high flush and be drawing dead. Don't beat youself up to much, it sounds like a good laydown to me, all winning players lay down winners now and then. But be sure to pay attention to who is frequently bluffing and call them more.
Smlblind
Walk, you did not specify limit. (IMHO) In LL AK, AQ etc do not deserve a raise pre-flop. Invariably, draws win when hi cards do not hit the board. If you are percieved as raising premium cards, when you come in and A or K hits, the table folds. It is much better to raise post flop, and gain add'l info, when your A or K hit. Raising big pairs is lucrative since you can raise post-flop and/or 3 bet if you are raised. If you cannot limit the number of callers with the AK raise it usually proves costly through the session.
Walk,although it is difficult, try not to have a short term result oriented strategy, as already mentioned it takes hours of play to determine if a strategy is correct or not. But raising is a very important concept in hold'em, and should be used to its potential. I would suggest that you begin by learning all the different reasons for raising,
because of premium hands
to thin the field
for information
for free cards
Or merely to give off a loose image(which can be very profitable, by incouraging calls on later betting rounds) You may throw away one full bet with a raise preflop with a garbage hand but you will earn plenty of calls to make it worth while. I pick situations where there are a lot of callers and I am in late position to do this, so at least you are taking a shot at a potentially big pot. But even more important is to know when to use the raise for the right reason. For example, if you are on the button with a flush draw and everyone checks to the guy to your right, you should not raise to get a free card if there are lots of people in, because you will drive out players which you want in when you are on a draw, unless you have small flush and are trying to get out another potentially larger flush draw. I see a lot of new players make this move when they first learn about the "free-card raise", and it costs them a lot of bets on the turn, espically when the original bettor now folds because it is heads up.
I will often try to pick "good" spots to raise in hands that I am not in by imaging I am still in the hand with either the cards I mucked, what I think one of the other players has, or some made up hand, just to recognize when those opportunities come up so when I am in a hand and they do come up , the raise is automatic. You must play aggresively in hold'em to be a winner. You want to control the table, and to do that you must be aggresive. If you had a losing session when you raised it was just a coincidence that you weren't hitting flops that night and thus, booked a loosing session. But also don't forget, everyone loses every once in awhile, and 8-1 is a pretty good track record.
SmlBlind
It depends on how the other players in your game react to a kill pot. In my games (almost every game above 1-3 stud is played with a full kill here), much of the time all the other players tighten up on a kill. That affects the MIX of hands I will play (I am inclined to fold a small suited connector hand, for example - there won't be enough opponents in the pot). I also - similar to you - will raise more with hands that really want to be heads-up, including hands like AJo and 88. If the other players are tight on a kill, I often WILL get heads-up with the killer.
Dick
As usuall, it depends on the game and position. I would be hsitant to raise up front with a hand like 77, because the only callers you are going to get are those with better hands, a hand like that does better in a multiway pot. By just calling you will entyce others to come into a "big pot". However, if it is a tight game, everyone has folded, and you are in middle to late position there is a lot of "blind" money in the pot to try and steal. If I have position on the killer I will frequently raise to try to steal the blinds, but otherwise play normally.
"Too bad we cant combine the good things of both forums, that would lead to a heck of a forum, with the Sklanskies and Malmuth's arguing against the Jalibs and Negreanu's, and then Brunson aguing that they're both wrong!"
I love to get this type of debate going, and sometimes I think we do a pretty good job of achieving just that. That's the purpose of these forums.
Part of the problem is that it seems to be very difficult for Abdul not to put up posts that don't contain insults. If he ever gets to where he can get away from this and just concentrate on the material at hand he'll begin to make quite a good reputation for himself. He also needs to grow up a little and handle any barbs hurled at him a little better. Stating this again and directly to Abdul: You need to concentrate on the material at hand and get away from the insults. If someone posts something that you personally don't like, you need to move beyond it and concentrate on the subject matter, not the personalities.
By the way, this is also good advice for any and all of us at the poker tables. If you find yourself motivated by a desire to "get even" with a particular player, and you let this desire cloud your judgement, it should reflect your results in a negative way.
Mason,
You might be right that Abdul tends to bring up the past (in a not-so-political manner) more often than other people do. On the other hand, it take two to tango.
- Andrew
Vince,
You asked: "So what's your point?"
Are you deliberately being obtuse? Other posters didn't seem to have much difficulty figuring out what I meant.
I had hoped that you, in particular, easily would understand one of my points. For you recently complained about the reception some of your posts received on RGP. You felt you were being attacked rather than your ideas.
One of my points was that you are not alone. This "mobbing" occurs even on 2+2. You might want to think long and hard about whether you sometimes contribute to this problem.
--------------------
You wrote: "You are so caught up in your desire to denegrate this forum in any way possible that you put your blinders on whenever it becomes convienient."
That's an example of my point. You seem to be attacking the messenger here rather than the message. Why do you accuse me of trying to denegrate this forum? Do you have anything to support your assertion? If you reread my post with an open mind, you might discover that I am attempting to improve this forum. Recognizing flaws and trying to fix them is not the same as "denegrating."
Last year, you wrote: "Mark, . . . You have, IMO, captured the spirit of just how discussions on this forum must be approached if they are to be of any value."
At that time, you also wrote: "There is no place for derogatory name calling or disgusting remarks duinrg a debate or a discussion here."
On 12 December 2000, however, you opted to write: "Sounds to me like you are talking with a hard on again. A hard on for Sklansky, that is."
My response: "I'm sorry you decided to stoop to this level of discussion. You might feel better about yourself if you apologized--not to me, but to the Forum participants in general."
Your reply: "Just what the hell are you talking about. Stoop to what level. This is precisely the leve I always talk on."
If you want to make this forum appear less like a cesspool, perhaps now would be a good time to make that apology. And maybe consider raising your level of discussion a notch or two.
"If you want to make this forum appear less like a cesspool, "
Hey Mark, are you really Steve Badger? No Badger ain't that smart to think up a name like Glover. Just who made you the forum critic? Where do you get off calling this forum a cesspool? Maybe you are not Badger but Badger's coach. Did you explain to him what a cesspool was so that he could criticise this forum in a disgusting manner. Maybe you should wait to be asked if this cesspool (your words) needs cleaning before you decide for your self to proceed on your self serving righteous crusade.
vince
Vince,
Earlier, I suggested: "If you want to make this forum appear less like a cesspool, perhaps now would be a good time to make that apology. And maybe consider raising your level of discussion a notch or two."
You replied: "Where do you get off calling this forum a cesspool?"
You seem to have misread my post. I didn't call this forum a cesspool. I said it would look ***less like a cesspool*** if you cleaned up your act. A nearly pristine pool of water would look less like a cesspool if someone cared enough to remove a turd that was floating around in it.
--------------
You also wrote: "Maybe you should wait to be asked if this cesspool (your words) needs cleaning before you decide for your self to proceed on your self serving righteous crusade."
First, it's not a self-serving righteous crusade. I made that suggestion because I thought it might improve this forum that you seem to cherish so much. The suggestion was for YOUR benefit.
Second, I sometimes offer my opinions without being asked. I hope that's okay with you. Or are you the only one allowed to do so?
Third, if you do care about how this forum appears, then you might want to make that apology. Nobody's forcing you to, of course. It's just that you seem to have left some metaphoric turds in your wake.
--------------
Earlier, I wrote: "One of my points was that you are not alone. This 'mobbing' occurs even on 2+2. You might want to think long and hard about whether you sometimes contribute to this problem."
I certainly hope this isn't the best you could come up with after all that long and hard thinking. ;-)
Mark,
Tell the truth. Are you a female?
vince
Hand 1: stack sizes would be good to know here, and how much was the all in bet? Was Phan's 4-3 suited? If his hand was suited, he had a lot of chips and the all in bet was small, its a reasonable situation to call here. Why? because you get to see five card cheaply in a head up situation, and if you bust the guy you guarantee yourself one place higher, and if you lose, you only lose a little, the other guy is still short stacked and you will probably get your money back soon anyway.
Hand 2: Once again, how big was the preflop raise? Was Phan's hand suited? This hand is even more profitable than the first, because if you totally miss the flop you can easily fold, And as Doyle says, little suited cards are the easyist to bust somebody with. I think his play on the flop is fine considering the massive implied odds he was getting on his gut shot, and as you can see, it paid off big time. I think to determine if his pre flop call was ok, we need to know how big the raise was that he called. Risking a small portion of your stack (especially when you got the raiser covered times two) is an ok play with small suited connectors, because you can easily muck them on the flop.
Hand 3: I think he played fine. Not much of an explanation needed. You can pretty much do anything you want with an 8-1 chip advantage.
Now I dont see how he is playing any mind games here, but I think his overall play was fine. You also have to consider all the "deep" thinking involved in no-limit. Phan might have felt he had a lot of control over his opponent at the time, and felt that he could seriously out play them after the flop. Its hard to determine whats going on in these guys heads unless you're sitting there.
I have to agree with Ryan on a lot of concepts, espicially the potential to eliminate players on the final table for a small amount of chips. The first hand doesn't give chip count, which is very important, and Phan might be thinking the player is trying to steal the blinds with a hand no better than his. If this is the case then that would a very perceptive and correct strategy.
However, on the second hand, there doesn't appear to be much support for his play. Three handed can be fast play and one must play loose and pay attention to the speed of other players. A lot of players will raise %50 of hands in three handed games, and when playing against someone like this you must see a lot of flops, espically out of the big blind. But that hand should defiantly have been folded on the flop.
And Ryan, I belive Dolly's comment about small suited connectors is when there are lots of callers and getting in for no raise in late position, not necessarily heads up play against an all in. Playing short handed on final tables is much different than ring games, there is a lot of stealing and raising with marginal hands. One can not apply full table ring game strategy or starting hands. If one tries to wait for premium hands then he will get blinded to death. Ryan, it sounds like you put some thought into your comments but don't be too quick to praise his strategy, but one really needs to be at the table to understand all the factors. Every decision in poker is situationally specific, otherwise the would be a undesputable text on correct strategy. And on a final note, everyone usually makes a few mistakes at the table, the winner is the one who makes the fewest. -Smlblind
Mason,
You wrote: "I believe that part of the reason for our success is that David and I have done precisely what is being advocated. That is we did a lot of independent thinking and tried to leave 'no stones unturned.'"
Have you ever disagreed with anything David has written about gambling? Can you give us some examples of your independent thinking?
"Can you give us some examples of your independent thinking?"
I believe David once wrote that he believe Mark Glover is a plus for this forum. Mason disagreed. I believe I agreed with both of them.
vince
A current popular expression is "thinking outside the box". It refers to such things as thinking about something in a less conventional way, or on a level different from that at which most others think about the topic. When applied to poker theory, my problem with this expression is that it is, itself, restricting. By thinking about poker theory as that which is "in the box", or "those parts in those boxes", and ideas or thinking which are "outside the box", we artificially and often unnecessarily separate and compartmentalize ideas which could otherwise be profitably integrated or otherwise related to one another.
Once in a while someone on the net who doesn't know me too well labels me (labeling - another instance of compartmentalizing which in this case leads to less than accurate perception) a proponent of "S&M" thinking. This always strikes me as a bit odd. I have never restricted my thinking about poker to what David and Mason have written. The first poker author I read seriously was Mike Caro. Somewhere around 1988, I even found his work interesting enough to contact him and interview him for several hours in a coffee shop near the Bicycle Club, in order to write a profile article about him. I learned a lot from his writings, and was spurred by them to develop further ideas of my own.
From there I read pretty much everyone else. But the 2+2 works do represent a very large chunk of the better poker literature, so they certainly influenced much of my development as a player as well. Consulting a number of times with David was important for me too, as I detail in my book.
I've also had some very smart poker playing friends with whom I've discussed the game over the years. Some have disagreed sharply with certain ideas found in 2+2 books. I've disagreed with some as well. (That I do not make an issue of public disagreement does not mean I agree with every 2+2 idea I've ever read. Hell, I even disagree with a couple of things in my own book at this point!) We've discussed, argued, consolidated and rehashed ideas over and over. My thinking about poker has been influence and, I think, broadened by this. The 2+2 books are must reading for serious poker students. But should you restrict your thinking about the game only to what is contained on those pages? No way.
To me it is all just poker theory. There are no boxes, and I do not restrict myself by thinking in such terms. Ultimately you have to play the hand. I gain from the ideas of lots of writers and posters.
I should add though, that *extreme independence of thought among serious students of the game is unlikely in poker. It is a confined field in which certain basics cannot be ignored. And, though I too enjoy exploring the outer edges of theory and varying points of view, those basics comprise a very large portion of the reality of play for any winning player. Moreover, those of us who have been active on the internet for a while are probably even less independent in our thinking than we might like to believe. Suppose, to make the point, Mark Glover and Mason happened to agree on a particular debatable point. A good player who does not have an internet connection might say, "Of course they agree; they're both internet poker guys. They both think about the game in that 'internet way'". Suddenly two thinkers who some of us might see as relatively independent seem more connected. Frightening, I know. ;~)
Nor do I think there is really much of the extreme cultish S&M hero worship that Abdul and Mark refer to. Some posters do tend to defend some of the HPFAP ideas because that has been their primary text. That is what they know. A few may indeed have trouble entertaining alternative ideas. Others (and I can include myself here) have at times defended them out of a simple sense of right and wrong when they, more than their ideas, seem to have been unfairly attacked. But there are plenty of other viewpoints here as well. There is disagreement aplenty with the authors and amongst the posters. Ironically, one could easily make an argument that Abdul is more revered by devoted disciples than are David and Mason. But that would be an exaggeration just as the references to "S&M worshipers" or whatever are exaggerations. Some folks just like certain ideas they've read, have adopted them, and tend to defend them. Others may weigh opposing arguments and choose to side with "S" and/or "M".
Neither independence nor connection of thought is anywhere near absolute. But the "boxes" are best put out for the trash man. Then ideas can be entertained and developed more fluidly, with less restriction. An eclectic approach to poker theory should be workable for many thinking players.
On 23 March 2001, Abdul Jalib wrote: "Mathematically, if you have 3 independent sources that are each correct an independent 90% of the time, then if they all say the same thing, then you would be 100%-(100%-90%)^3 = 99.9% sure that their assertion is true. ***It goes almost without saying that such complete independence is an impossible goal.*** However, in theory these 3 independent 90% correct sources would be better than 100 99% correct sources who always say the same thing as each other." (Emphasis added.)
On 28 March 2001, David Sklansky wrote: "Yes it is true that three players who are independently right 90% of the time and agree, are now more likely to be right than three 99%ers who are absolutely not independent. ***However in real life it's not like that.***" (Emphasis added.)
On 29 March 2001, you wrote: "I should add though, that *extreme independence of thought among serious students of the game is unlikely in poker." (Emphsis in original.)
Did you come up with that thought independently? ;-)
Seriously, your point is correct, and I don't know of any posters who have disagreed with it.
Speaking of differing opinions, just because extreme independence of thought is unlikely doesn't mean it shouldn't be encouraged (as you noted elsewhere in your post).
----------------------
You also wrote: "Some posters do tend to defend some of the HPFAP ideas because that has been their primary text."
That's okay. I, for one, welcome posters who make an effort to rationally explain HPFAP ideas. But I generally don't learn much useful information from the "true believers" who blindly accept HPFAP ideas.
-----------------------
You wrote: "Others (and I can include myself here) have at times defended [S&M] out of a simple sense of right and wrong when they, more than their ideas, seem to have been unfairly attacked."
There are lots of cases where other posters--more than their ideas--seem to be unfairly attacked. Do you come to their defense very often?
I also remember at least one instance of you defending an S&M statements that David acknowledged was obviously wrong. From my perspective, it seems like your defensive reactions sometimes are a tad extreme. Something for you to think about, anyway.
"99.9% sure that their assertion is true. "
Should read:
"99.9% confident that their assertion is true."
"However, in theory these 3 independent 90% correct sources would be better than 100 99% correct sources who always say the same thing as each other."
Should read:
However, in theory these 3 independent 90% correct sources would be "mathematically" better than 100 99% correct sources who always say the same thing as each other."
You see, this is a nonsensical arguement. 3 independent "%90 correct" does not mean that they do not say the same thing %85 of the time. So if this time they say the same thing then how are we to interpret thier independence? You would like to say that since each has a probability of being correct %90 of the time then we can mathematically determine the probability of them all being correct by combining probabilities. Wrong. Suppose that when they are incorrect they always say the same thing. Now wouldn't we now be %100 confident that they were incorrect when they say the same thing and not %99.9 confident they are correct. You guys are silly. I can't believe Oz agreed with Abdul.
Vince
Vince,
I guess one April Fool's day just isn't good enough for you. You need at least a week to purge these foolish notions from your system. ;-)
Abdul wrote: "Mathematically, if you have 3 independent sources that are each correct an independent 90% of the time, then if they all say the same thing, then you would be 100%-(100%-90%)^3 = 99.9% sure that their assertion is true. It goes almost without saying that such complete independence is an impossible goal. However, in theory these 3 independent 90% correct sources would be better than 100 99% correct sources who always say the same thing as each other."
You wrote: "Wrong. Suppose that when they are incorrect they always say the same thing. Now wouldn't we now be %100 confident that they were incorrect when they say the same thing and not %99.9 confident they are correct."
If they always said the same thing when they were incorrect, then they wouldn't be completely independent, would they? Didn't you notice Abdul's explicit assumption of independence?
Actually, in your scenario, their opinions would be perfectly correlated. So, the group always would reach identical conclusions (which would be correct 90 percent of the time and incorrect 10 percent of the time). Thus you would be only 10 percent (not 100 percent) confident that they were incorrect when they say the same thing.
You also wrote: "You guys are silly. I can't believe Oz agreed with Abdul."
The Mighty Oz is a fallible human, but he is right more often than he is wrong. In this case, he is right.
"Did you come up with that thought independently? ;-) "
I'm not sure. ;-) I first thought of it while reading Abdul's post on rgp, a short while after it appeared on my ISP's news server, a little before I got to the line of his to which you added emphasis in your quote. How is that classified?
"... the "true believers" who blindly accept HPFAP ideas."
Mark, can you see how these sorts of comments detract from doing anythign productinve around here? Can you see how they are essentially just name calling? And can you see that you don't really know who fits this description and who doesn't. It appears you're simply labeling whomever you want to pigeon-hole this way, for the sake of bolstering your own image as an "independent." That is, you *can't know this. You can't know who "believes" or who is "blind" without reading their minds. A few comments in this particular written medium won't do it. You might have more to go on if you were to take the time to talk in depth to one or more posters, discussing in detail their views, feelings, and perceptions of HPFAP. (That is why I have invited you to discuss some things over the phone. But you ignore the invitation. Why?) But there is certainly too little to go on here. I know you are incorrect with regard to some of the people you label this way. I suspect you are wrong with regard to others as well. But it seems you label to suit your own needs. This must stop or I will smush you in the face with a pie.
Often you try to bolster your case that one person or another does not think independently by asking them to cite a post in which they have disagreed with some other person. But to count the number of public, posted disagreements between two people is quite obviously not a very accurate way of assessing their independence of their thought. For instance, as I write this I am thinking of a well known poster here right now with whom I disagree very strongly, very often. (I am not naming him because that would likely have minor reverberations that I am not interested in creating.) Yet I have not once posted any disagreement with him. There can be many different reasons why a person may or may not post disagreements with another person. To take it to an extreme, what about people who only lurk? Does that mean they have no thoughts?
"There are lots of cases where other posters--more than their ideas--seem to be unfairly attacked. Do you come to their defense very often?"
Reasonably often, but not as often as perhaps I should. Nor do I come to ""S&M's" defense as often as perhaps I should. Many attacks on them go by without response from me. Take a look here and on rgp right now. Hell, what am I doing writing this post; maybe I ought to go defend them right now. :-/
"I also remember at least one instance of you defending an S&M statements that David acknowledged was obviously wrong."
Mark, you've mentioned this repeatedly. I've responded repeatedly that I suspected David was kind of placating you, accepting your criticism *given your hyper-literal interpretation of the statement. I believe readers who think flexibly are unlikely to interpret the statement as literally as you did. If by some chance David actually believes most readers would interpret it as you did, then I simply disagree with David. There's little else I can say about it, and I doubt anyone is interested in seeing a rehash of it in any more detail.
BTW, in another post you said something to the effect that some people see David as an all knowing wizard. I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that you, who have criticized exaggeration on more than one occasion, are exaggerating here. First, anyone here knows David has no clue what my 9th grade algebra teacher's name was. Second, wizards wear those sparkly, pointy hats. David doesn't wear one. I think you should retract your exaggeration.
There we sat, unknowingly, in the cave,our backs to reality, fixated on the shadows on the wall. We chanted our hourly mantras, "...on fourth street tend to bet hands, if beaten, with few outs and...." and laughed and sang in peaceful bliss. For a brief moment, as if in a dream, I thought I saw-no, it could not be- the shadow of a sparkly pointed hat on the wall. In that brief moment, I felt a warmth that could not be explained by known science.
So now we sit, chanting our peaceful truths, untouched by the unclean outsiders, but I can't help but wonder about that brief fleeting glimpse....
And as we sat by the fire, hugged by the darkness of our musty rock retreat, we heard them shuffling outside. The "empty others". The hollow scraping of their feet was unceasing. Their constant chant, "We are different. We rebel. We are different. We rebel. We found a typo...", had a dull sameness to it, betraying the hidden uniformity which lay beneath the words.
Where were those who were truly different, free in their minds and actions? Some, I can now say, were among us. Others dwelt in the outer regions, working freely, unhindered by the need to proclaim their independence; for they knew themselves. No proof was required.
What became of the "empty others"? Some say they passed to the next life, still muttering their hollow chants. Others, though, claim to have seen them - nodding and repeating, "We are different. We will beat this 3-6 game. We are different. We will..."
"Is this a dagger that I see before me? Come let me clutch thee" After reading the above my throat needs tending.
Vince
Whoa, Vince, Macbeth? The famous author of the "Two Roads" post finds himself unable to join in the spirit of things? "Nothing will come of nothing" (King Lear).
I'm disappointed. John
Joke or did thee wish to noticely avoid and dissapoint thyself.
disapointed and disavowed wince
Ah, now I see--the close doesn't belong with the final sentence. I have no disappoint for myself, but for thee, Wince.
BTW, see your name on Foxwoods tourney report: "Vince LePore." And I thought you never used an alias.
John
x
'
John,
Earlier, I wrote: "But I generally don't learn much useful information from the 'true believers' who blindly accept HPFAP ideas."
You asked: "Mark, can you see how these sorts of comments detract from doing anythign productinve around here?"
No, but I'm willing to listen if you want to explain.
If it is my full comment you are concerned about (as opposed to the partial statement you quoted), I think it could be productive for me if it encourages some posters to think more independently. I already know what the S&M books say. I want to see what other perspectives might be out there.
If the "true believers" label concerns you, then I should explain that labels can be our friends. They actually can increase our productivity in that they help us communicate more efficiently.
Rather than go into several paragraphs describing a particular player, I might simply label her as "tight-aggressive," "loose-passive," "weak-tight," "overly aggressive," "fish," "rock," "shark," "calling station," "maniac," etc. I know you understand what I mean, since you've used some of these labels yourself.
You also asked: "Can you see how they are essentially just name calling?"
If nobody believes they are "true believers," then I'm not sure whom I'm calling names. If some believe they are "true believers" but feel this is a good thing, then I'm not hurting their feelings. If some believe they are "true believers" and feel this is a bad thing, then they might want to change their behavior. It's like calling a player "tight-aggressive," "loose-passive," "weak-tight," "overly aggressive," "fish," "rock," "shark," "calling station," or "maniac."
You wrote: "You can't know who 'believes' or who is 'blind' without reading their minds."
Thank you for pointing this out. Perhaps I should have written: "But I generally don't learn much useful information from the apparent 'true believers' whom seem to blindly accept HPFAP ideas."
Hmmmm. Actually, my original statement works better for me. But that's just my opinion coming from my own unique perspective.
---------------------
Earlier, I noted: "There are lots of cases where other posters--more than their ideas--seem to be unfairly attacked. Do you come to their defense very often?"
You replied: "Reasonably often, but not as often as perhaps I should. Nor do I come to ''S&M's' defense as often as perhaps I should."
From my perspective, you seem to come to the defense of S&M disproportionately often. If so, why do you suppose that is?
---------------------
Earlier, I wrote: "I also remember at least one instance of you defending an S&M statement that David acknowledged was obviously wrong."
You replied: "I've responded repeatedly that I suspected David was kind of placating you, accepting your criticism *given your hyper-literal interpretation of the statement." (Emphasis in original.)
Your explanation is not beyond the realm of possibilities. However, when I asked David his reason for stating that his comment was obviously wrong, he declined to answer. That certainly doesn't disprove your explanation, but it suggests to me that he thought it was obviously wrong because he is open-minded enough to realize that what he wrote was obviously wrong. But that's just my perception.
I also asked you to ask David his reason for stating that his comment was obviously wrong, but you declined to do so (or at least I don't remember seeing you report the results of that inquiry). That certainly doesn't prove that you are afraid of what David's answer might be, but it suggests to me that you might be. But that's just my perception.
---------------------
You also wrote: "BTW, in another post you said something to the effect that some people see David as an all knowing wizard. I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that you, who have criticized exaggeration on more than one occasion, are exaggerating here."
You appear to have misread my post about exaggerations. You might want to reread it ("GAMBLING FOR A LIVING: Exaggerations," 13 March 2001).
My first paragraph was: "Exaggerations can be okay."
I elaborated in my second paragraph: "There are times, for instance, when readers expect and accept exaggerations, as in the 'Forward' section to books. Obvious exaggerations also can be effective literary devices (e.g., 'My favorite baseball team wins once in a Blue Moon.')."
I believe that saying some people see David as an all-knowing wizard falls into the category of an obvious exaggeration. You might believe differently, since you apparently don't see the "obvious" as easily as I might. That's okay; we are looking from different perspectives.
---------------------
You also wrote: "This must stop or I will smush you in the face with a pie."
Now do you understand why I don't give you personal information about myself?
Mark,
Among other thoughts, your post prompts one most salient thought for me. Between the rows of asterisks is one way I *could express it:
********************
The sky is blue.
Now, Mark, if you quote that line, and respond to it, I predict that you will either:
(a) try, in whatever way, to refute it or,
(b) since the problem there would be obvious, will make a point of agreeing with it to show that you are not so oppositional or,
(c) will find a third alternative to show that you are not as predictable as the above would suggest.
I predict you will not acknowledge that here on 2+2 you frequently have an oppositional approach to debate and seem to have an inflexible way of thinking, both of which inhibit productive discussion. (Note: I apologize for likely sounding insulting here, but it's hard, in a short space, to find a more tactful way of saying that.)
********************
But I do not wish actually to express it that way because I tire of these recent threads, and would be fine with ending it here. Please feel free not to respond at all unless you really want to. I'm done for now unless I think there's something new I can say, or a way to say something that might accomplish something new. Thanks.
p.s. By going to an extreme in breaking up a poster's comments into discrete quotes, you often lose much context which, when left intact, has an impact on meaning.
p.p.s. Do you prefer chocolate or banana pie?
p.p.p.s. You really should answer my question about whether you drink coffee. Really.
p.p.p.p.s. Really.
John,
shh.... listen, too many peepee's in that last post. Could get depetered.
vince
John,
You wrote: "By going to an extreme in breaking up a poster's comments into discrete quotes, you often lose much context which, when left intact, has an impact on meaning."
Okay. Let's begin with the final paragraph of your previous post.
Earlier, you wrote: "BTW, in another post you said something to the effect that some people see David as an all knowing wizard. I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that you, who have criticized exaggeration on more than one occasion, are exaggerating here. First, anyone here knows David has no clue what my 9th grade algebra teacher's name was. Second, wizards wear those sparkly, pointy hats. David doesn't wear one. I think you should retract your exaggeration."
If you are going to make these accusations, you might want to read my posts a little more carefully. I started a thread on Lou Krieger's book on 2 January 2001 entitled "POKER FOR DUMMIES: Exaggerations."
My first paragraph was: "Exaggerations can be okay."
I elaborated in my second paragraph: "There are times, for instance, when readers expect and accept exaggerations, as in the 'Forward' section to books. Obvious exaggerations also can be effective literary devices (e.g., 'My favorite baseball team wins once in a Blue Moon.')."
I believe that saying some people see David as an all-knowing wizard falls into the category of an obvious exaggeration. You apparently feel the same way since "anyone here knows David has no clue what my 9th grade algebra teacher's name was" and "wizards wear those sparkly, pointy hats" while David does not.
I think you should retract the final paragraph of your earlier post. It makes you look rather foolish, from my perspective.
I'm willing to discuss the other paragraphs of your post if you are interested in engaging in a reasonable dialogue.
.
One must marvel at your persistence...I get tired looking at Glover's posts...I really don't know how you have the patience to engage in so many exchanges with him....you simply can't win even though the points you make should be obvious to him. Well, in fact, I am sure they are obvious to him but he, more than anyone else on the net, has to have the last word.
Anyways, I am rambling but my real point is "why do you even bother, John?"
Good question, skp. Part of it is just a curiosity to see if I can find a way to prompt Mark to move a little out of what seems to be such a rigid way of seeing things. But an even bigger factor is a pet peeve of mine concerning people saying things very confidently even when they're wrong. Add sarcasm and other such attitudes the pet peeve is magnified.
I note that many of Marks critiques of statements in books are right in a very literal sense, but simply don't apply on the level the author clearly intended. So, with some exceptions (e.g., some of the issues in these recent threads), the bulk of my debates with him tend to focus not so much on the validity of his arguments on the level he's making them, but on the validity of making them on that level.
But I haven't had a lot of success at nudging Mark to a (dare I say?) more flexible way of thinking. So I may just wind down my engagements with Mark. I know, I've said that at least once before, but hey, I'm human (a "fallible human being" as Mark might point out :). I'm not saying I'll never respond to a Glover post, but will probably do so less often and with less effort.
As you know I think your efforts are commendable.
"why do you even bother, John?"
You wrote: Good question, skp. Part of it is just a curiosity to see if I can find a way to prompt Mark to move a little out of what seems to be such a rigid way of seeing things. But an even bigger factor is a pet peeve of mine concerning people saying things very confidently even when they're wrong. Add sarcasm and other such attitudes the pet peeve is magnified.
You poor man. Smooth B must have you working 24/7.
John,
I cited that thread for you in my previous post, but you might have missed it. You do seem to be rather careless in that regard.
My first paragraph in that thread-starting post reads: "Exaggerations can be okay."
My second paragraph is: "There are times, for instance, when readers expect and accept exaggerations, as in the 'Forward' section to books. Obvious exaggerations also can be effective literary devices (e.g., 'My favorite baseball team wins once in a Blue Moon.')."
What is it about those two paragraphs that you don't understand? Is my point not obvious to you? If you can tell me what you don't understand, perhaps I can help explain it to you.
Maybe one of the simulation people could give the probabilities for the following hands--cold out
AA23 four suited 10JQK four suited 5678 four suited
gam, shame on you. you usually are so precise. what game are we playing and is four suited meaning each hand has four cards of the same suit and none of the other hands share that suit.
but in omaha high with all suited the same, the aces hand(cant be same suited) wins about 28% 5678=33%, tjqk=38% these vary alot with whats suited so that is a real factor.
in o/8 aces wins about 42%,tjqk=30%,5678=22% also suited variations change the figures drastically. the aces do well cause of the low draw.
Sorry for the confusion. Yes, I meant Omaha high. The 5 6 7 8 is completely unplayable in O-8.
By four suited, I meant that each hand had one card of each suit (no flush draws). Is this what your answer deals with?
And thanks very much.
Is deception the key to destroying your opponents. I believe the answer is a big fat YES!!!!. Basically I try to adhere to David's FUNDAMENTAL THEROM OF POKER, as well as all concepts (buying a free card, semi-bluff, reading hands, etc. In my experience, if your opponents are in a hand with you and they don't have any idea whether you have a strong or weak hand, it allows to to play your hand more straight foreward, based on your strengh, implied odds, assessment of his hand, chances you'll get called,etc. While at the same time, your opponents actions tend to give there hands away, as they are playing more self-weighting, because they don't know if your weak or strong. Deception also allows me to make more on my legitamate hands, but my shots term fluctuations increase, as i play a few more hands. deception and tight/agressive play is my key, but it wouldn't be possible without the knowledge in your books. thanks for helping me earn a living.....
I would like the authors comments on the value of deception in typical medium to high limits games. obvoiusly deception is wasted on poor opponents. thanks.
being deceptive helps when it causes your opponent to make a bigger mistake than you did by playing your hand less than optimally. so when you play differently from what you should do knowing what the best play is than you must make that up somehow. that may come from him playing poorly from the false info or may help in the future. the higher the stakes you play the more deceptive you need to be. thats because there are less players in the hands and they read hands better. in limit games the variation of hands you play and how you play them is enough deception most times and you dont need to get too creative. but a few weird plays in the right spots may get you action far into the future from the right players.
"I guess greater variance is a good thing then, since faster play can't be bad, right? Because the variance is greater only because the EV is greater, right?"
This is right for per hand variance but not for per hour variance, which is how most people measure it. You're right: online doesn't have any necessy effect on variance per hand, all other things remaining equal. But more hands per hour, up to a point, increases your short-term hourly risk.
The easiest way for me to put it in practical terms is to think about "how bad it can get" after three hours of play in a casino compared to one hour, and to cram those three unlucky hours into one hour online. This is what people sometimes experience online playing two tables at once, and why it seems suspect to players who ignore the increased speed. You can just imagine how a weak player that doesn't keep good records but figures that he's near break-even feels when his credit card statement shows him losing more in a few sessions than he's ever lost in a couple of months of weekend play. Another phenomenon is for players to start playing online, get lucky, and win more than they've used to seeing in a casino during the same amount of time. When the pendulum abruptly swings away, they suspect the wins were arranged as a "teaser" so that they'd stay and get cheated.
The required bankroll for a winning player might be lower online because of the higher ev.
Sounds like smoke and mirrors to me. I've seen casinos have strange suck outs on a regular basis. Nevertheless, The number of quads and straight flushes far exceeds expected values. Of course the defenders here will try to insist that hundreds of thousands of hands are needed to get an accurate reading. This violates all statistical models. Reasonable samples within the 95% can be had WITH ONLY AN N as low as 30! The supposed math geniuses here went to the PT Barnum school of statistical foolery!
JV,
I'd be surprised if we have many multi-drafters responding here; hell, I'd be surprised if we have any. Don't worry about responding. The best writers on this forum--among them, John Feeney, Rick Nebiolo, Dunc Mills, M, Vince, Jim Geary, Cyrus, Poker Veteran, and many, many others I enjoy reading--would much rather exchange ideas than hunt for errors.
Keep in mind, though, that if you're going to call someone a moron, offer an explanation. :-}
John
Music and writing are much the same. Inadvertant mishaps have little bearing on quality, and oftentimes they expand and enhance the experience for the creator and the audience.
Like the email I got from a Korean gal the other day. (As Dave Barry says, I am not making this up.)
She used the word "probrem."
Tommy
Tommy,
I'm not making this one up either: "Sometimes we whoreship the wrong kinds of women." For a minute, I thought I was reading Finnegans Wake.
John
I read a placement test written by a student who had recently arrived in the US from Russia. He said, "I had to move because in Russia I have no meal for my son." His substitution of the idiomatic "food" with "meal" made the statement all the more heartbreaking, I think.
John
I've thought about this for the last couple of days, and recently reread my copy of Gambling Theory And Other Topics, and I ran across some interesting information in the Tournament section that led me to believe that Phan didn't call with cheese. I still feel that he played good. The Essay titled Tournament Strategy (in GTAOT) discusses some interesting concept involving tournament strategy.
I won't retype everything that the concepts discuss word for word, because I am not sure if Mason would object.
However, Concept No. 12 (p191) states: "Overplay hands against short stacks.
Concept No. 14 (p192) states: "Late in a tournament, you should call liberally if (1) you have good chip position, (2) it won't cost much to call, and (3) you have an opportunity to eliminate this opponent.
Also Concept No. 17 (p195) discusses the same situation as concept no. 14 except 17 is refering to betting rather than calling. But this concept is very important because of what the second paragraph states. It states how chips change value in a tournament depending on how many you have. The more chips you have the less they are worth, and the less chips you have the more they are worth.
With this being said, Phans play seems alright because the cards he had don't matter as much as the situation surrounding the cards. On each play by Phan that was discussed, he realized that the situation he was in involved the concepts just mentioned. His opponents were short stacked, he had most of the chips, had an opportunity to eliminate someone, and the value of his chips were less than his opponents.
Also, I do not know Phan, I am not endorsing him in anyway, and I am not trying to justify his play because I like or know him.
Those are all good principles. I just don't know if the applied as you say. I can't seem to find the first post now. I suspect it has something to do with freshness expiry and surfing with lynx.
JG
Subject: 2001 LAPC Championship, by Lynne Loomis
Reference: Poker Digest, March 23 – April 5, 2001
Discussion: Luck vs. Skill
The opening sentence of this article starts with: “ ‘I concentrate on my opponents and play a real mind game in no-limit,’ said Young Phan, whose intense focus and solid play paved the way to victory in the LA Poker Classic X Championship.”
Now, I’m a sometime low-limit hold’em player, but I think Phan’s mind game at the final table consisted of convincing himself that his absolute cheese was a winning hand. And Loomis’s characterization of his “solid play” was incredibly generous, although of dubious veracity.
The following supporting examples are taken from Loomis’s recitation of final table hands.
Example Hand 1: Phan (in big blind) calls an all-in bet from the button. Button has K-Q, Phan has 4-3. Solid play?? Board brings A-9-7/3-4. Skill, right?!
Example Hand 2: Phan has about two-thirds of the chips and preflop raiser (Leonidas) has a little less than one third; play is three handed. Phan (again in big blind) calls a preflop raise with 5-4. Good play, eh? Flop is A-10-3, Leonidas bets out with his A-K, and Phan called with his gut shot. Yup, the turn brings a deuce!! Leonidas goes all-in with his top pair, top kicker, and Phan calls with his nut wheel. Question: how could Phan have called a preflop raise with 5-4? Resulting flop and turn are pure luck.
Example Hand 3: Last hand, heads up. Phan calls a preflop raise with T-9 suited. Now, he has about an 8-1 chip advantage, so this action seems reasonable. I’ve done the same when I’m heads up at the final table with my Masque WSOP game. Flop is 8-7-7, opponent goes all-in, and of course, Phan calls with his open-ender. And again, yup, a J hits the turn to give him the championship. Congrats.
My beef is not with Phan’s luck; you have to hit some hands to win any tourney. I just think his claim of “playing mind games” and the author’s characterization of his “solid play” are pure, unadulterated, bull hockey. Just my opinion; I could be wrong. Comment/flame away.
Added 4/4/01: I understand (I think) comments made regarding tournament play vs ring play. However, IMHO, the first two example hands don't fit in this special category, as Phan did not have an chip overwhelming advantage.
Paul T.
Well, you'd have to know the prices he was getting when he made these decisions. For example, suppose you're big blind is $10 and someone goes all in from the button for $12. Well, there you can call with deuce-null. But if it was a case of the button making it $35 on a $10 blind, you need a large lead to start making calls with total cheese solely to eliminate opponents. I can't say that wasn't the case, but I suspect that if the chips and blinds were "typical" for final tables, then there might've been some mistakes made....
JG
This morning, Mason deleted one of Abdul's posts in the 27 March 2001 thread entitled "Abdul Jalib and John Feeney insights." Mason wrote, "In an effort to keep our forums vibrant we deleted a post from Abdul Jalib which was insulting in nature and violated our posting guidelines."
Both Cyrus and I had read Abdul's post. Neither of us found it to contain any insults. Abdul's post merely challenged some of the things Mason has written.
Ironically, the deleted post was in the same thread that discussed how valuable it often is to encourage dissenting opinions and independent thinking.
Ironically, the deleted post was in the same thread where, on Wednesday, Mason wrote: "So the conclusion to all of this is that you should always be thinking and questioning anything and everything that we write (or other authors write). This process is what really creates that understanding that allows you to become an expert at that form of gambling (and for most of you it will be poker) that you undertake."
There is no place for insulting posts on these forums. We had been warning this particular poster that if he continued to post in the manner that he had where he always worked an insult in we would take appropriate action.
Abdul is welcome to post here as long as he keeps his posts to appropriate content. He has something worthwhile to say and many of our participants want to hear what he has to say because his views and ideas are often different and it gives our readers an alternative to consider. But the insults must stop.
I may be naive or stupid (don't answer that!) but I really did not see the "insults".
Just so that I know what passes for an insulting post around here, would someone, like Mason Malmuth, for example, care to point out Abdul Jalib's exact phrase that was out of line?
There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with Mason's teachings, and there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with Mason's policing decisions at 2+2.
But it IS his forum. We don't like being ticketed for barely speeding, but I think we'd agree that enforcement authorities are a good thing, and their judgements cannot possibly please all.
I was the "host" (policeman) of AOL's atheist message boards for two years, so I have some experience in this area. Mason's job is not an easy one. The main thing is, he does it, and whatever his decisions or motives, it's a fine service he provides.
Tommy
You state that "there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with Mason's policing decisions at 2+2" but then you go on and absolve Mason of anything wrong he might have done or will do in the future! You wrote "Mason's job is not an easy one. The main thing is, he does it, and whatever his decisions or motives, it's a fine service he provides."
What's that supposed to mean? I frankly do not understand. An example of when you'd think he doesn't do a good job would help - because that's what I thought happened with the deletion of Abdul's post : nothing earth-shaking, just someone not doing his job right, this once at least.
And I also do not agree with the statement that "We don't like being ticketed for barely speeding". I do speed, a lot, but when I'm caught I do not whine! The question isn't about ticketing here, it's what consitutes speeding for 2+2. Abdul's post was cruising.
..Other than that, as I said, it's his forum. As long as our posts are allowed to stay up we can give an opinion as much as we like.
,,,
I read the post on rgp, and I can't see what you found insulting. It seems that you just don't like that Abdul likes to disagree with you and to argue with you.
This post was not nearly as offensive as the racial post by Dr. Wogga that you let stand on the other topics forum. And I found smoothb's fabrications about Badger to be extremely offensive, as malicious lises usually are. I was one of those who did not support Badger in his campaign to get his posts deleted, and I think he overreacted to what I thought were some benign statements. But he doesn't deserve to be slandered.
Yet, you deleted my post which challenged smoothb to provide proof of his allegations. This seems to be malicious on your part.
Also, it didn't seem to bother you when smoothb resorted to calling me names when he couldn't argue his point against me in another thread. Or that there is a post right now where I am called an asshole. I guess the only one who can't be insulted on this site is you.
If you have a policy against insults and offensive posts, you need to enforce it evenly and fairly, not just against those who you personally dislike.
"This post was not nearly as offensive as the racial post by Dr. Wogga that you let stand on the other topics forum. And I found smoothb's fabrications about Badger to be extremely offensive, as malicious lises usually are."
I deleted a racial joke by Dr. Wogga yesterday. If there was another racial post by Dr. Wogga I just missed it since it is impossible for me to read every post on these forums.
I also deleted a second thread that SmoothB started. In the original SmoothB thread I deleted several posts. Some were just in the wrong part of the thread and got removed because they would have been left dangling. This was explained before. We also made it clear that Badger claimed the SmoothB's post was a complete fabrication. However, as I stated before, by the time I saw the SmoothB post there were already over 20 worthwhile responses (mostly dealing with the ethics of asking to see a called hand on the river) and for this reason the complete thread was not deleted. But we did make it clear to SmoothB that there was no place for this type of post on our forums.
You people better figure it out. when people get in your car they Don't play with the radio.Thats the rule. when they walk into your house they take their shoes off. Thats the rule. when they talk about your wife they Don't refer to her as "Your Old Lady" This forum (twoplustwo.com) and all forums of free speech have to be controlled and monitored in all cases or they won't be here for you to use the way you see fit. In this day and age some folks might think "they have the right to be heard no matter what they say" the reality of it is...you can say anything you want, but we have the Right Not TO listen. I can turn the T.V. or the Radio off. And I don't have to listen to you ON THIS FORUM. Mason is just protecting your right to Post what you think, because if he doesn't, and me and 8 million other people don't like WHAT YOU THINK I should hear, we have the optiom to go to another site. And if we do. His sponsors are gone. Your right to post has been denied because this site IS GONE> How does your SILENT..... FREE.... SPEECH GET HEARD THEN ABDUL. Don't get me started. thanks!
(nothin personal Abdul, I think you are a thinker. Just state your case within the boundaries man)
slim
Have you *actually read* the exchange?
It sounds unlikely, judging from your post.
Sounds like you're just choosing to believe Mason, for no good reason .
this is starting to remind me of 1st grade. people can disagree w/out getting offensive
Mason,
Thank you for deleting Dr Wogga's post.
John
When posts like this appear, since I can't look at these forums 24 hours a day, if you or anyone will email me I will get to it. There is no place for racist smears on these forums.
Mason,
You wrote: "When posts like this appear, since I can't look at these forums 24 hours a day, if you or anyone will email me I will get to it."
Do you read your own posts? If so, have you ever found any of them to be insulting in nature? If so, have you ever deleted any of your own posts?
As much as admire David and Mason for their contribution to poker, I must respectfull disagree with the deletion Abdul's post. It is like deleting Dave's posts because he makes the rest of the world feel inferior because we didn't get 1800 in the SAT. It is true than a level of civility must be maintained in this forum, but there have been a lot worst. If you can't possible read all messages then you should not target Abdul's. I think he deserves some breathing room because his contributions more than outweight his misschiefs in the heat of the battle when disagreeing with you guys. I think it is impossible to stop all sarcasam in his writings when commenting about something he diagrees with you. I would like to see Abdul, M Glover, Carson, David, Mason and Badger spend their time discussing poker and not playing a pissing contest. Suggestion: Any time you comment on each others messages, start the sentence with IMO (in my humble opinion), then say why you disagree/agree with the message.
Peace on this forum for the benefit of everyone..
Great job guys when you keep it to POKER and no personal attacks
PeaceMaker
PeaceMaker,
I just posted this in the 27 March 2001 thread entitled "Abdul Jalib and John Feeney insights." Is this closer to what you had in mind?
-------------------------
John,
You wrote: "I thought I won! But you posted again?? You see, while I admittedly stooped frighteningly low by responding in kind to your 'closed mind...n/t' post, my quip was clearly better than your decidedly unoriginal remark. Therefore... I won. :)"
As I previously explained to Vince, I don't look at these discussions as win/lose situations. And I certainly don't think the "winner" is the participant who stoops the lowest.
I see by the smiley face that you were joking, at least about the lowest stooper winning. I must admit, however, that if the "grin" wasn't there, I would have had to pause for a moment to decide whether or not you were joking.
You see, I read some of the replies you make to some of my threads, and I wonder why you say some of the things you say. Of course, that is because I view your posts from my own unique perspective. And I recognize that my perceptions aren't necessarily the truth or even held by a majority of readers. I try to keep an open mind, constantly review my perceptions, and revise them when appropriate.
In this thread, for instance, you first stooped low (from my perspective) when you wrote: "Though Chris was harsh, he absolutely nailed, more accurately than anyone else ever has, the way your posts come across, no doubt to a majority of readers."
When you said Chris absolutely nailed it, you indicated that you agreed with his remark: "It takes a seriously deluded mind to not comprehend why a group that he describes and generally treats as 'kids on a playground' would resort to ad hominem attacks."
I understand that Chris Alger's insult (from my perspective) might appear absolutely correct to you, but please remember you are viewing these posts from your own unique perspective, and your perceptions aren't necessarily the truth either.
You seemed to take offense at my subject heading "A blind mind is a terrible thing to use (nt)." I didn't direct that statement specifically towards you, though. I was aiming it at everyone, myself included. I simply was re-iterating the Winston Churchill statement I had quoted earlier: "No idea is so outlandish that it should not be considered with a searching but, at the same time, steady eye."
When you responded with your subject heading "Heh. And yet, Mark does so relentlessly. nt", you did indeed lower the level of discussion again. Given how you apparently misinterpreted my heading, however, I can understand your reaction.
You also wrote: "Game over. And you're supposed to stop there, NOT come back with yet another post, Mark! Sheesh.."
You always should feel free to reply to my posts, this one included. Please keep in mind, though, that I prefer reasonable discussions. I sometimes decline to reply to personal attacks (and I'm directing that statement to everyone, too).
While I consider Chris Alger's remark insulting, I do *NOT* believe it should be deleted from this forum. Personally, I value dissenting opinions, even if they are sometimes insulting. I come to this forum to learn, not for a high tea chit chat. If Mason had deleted Chris' post before I had read it, I might never have seen my posts from Chris' perspective. And I would have been the poorer for it.
"Personally, I value dissenting opinions, even if they are sometimes insulting. "
Gee how big of you Mark. Hey I didn't think it was possible to insult you. I've been trying for months now and Mason hasn't deleted one of my posts. I guess I missed my Mark! Pretty good huh!
Vince
Vince,
You wrote: "Hey I didn't think it was possible to insult you. I've been trying for months now and Mason hasn't deleted one of my posts."
This site's "Terms & Conditions" says it is the sole discretion of 2+2 and ConJelCo which posts get deleted. It doesn't say the discretion has to be exercised fairly.
"It doesn't say the discretion has to be exercised fairly."
Oh.
Vince
The entire exchange is available on RGP.
To delete it because Abdul was 'insulting' is itself an insult to the intelligence.
Mr Malmuth must be very insecure indeed.
Regards
Glenn Baron
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the first 'insult' seems to come from you, Mason. i.e. :
> The Bellagio, like most card rooms, was using the brown and green Kem > decks. A couple of months ago they went to the blue and red Kem > decks. This refers to the color of their backs. (Since Abdul plays > almost no poker, he probably wasn't aware of this.)
Your arrogance is breathtaking.
To me, this forum is like an oil well. It has the potential to deliver some valuable resources. But if I get involved with it, I fully expect I could emerge a little dirty.
If I can get the oil without any mess, that's great. Faced with a choice, though, I'll take the oil and shower afterwards.
When I start a thread, I try to read any reply that people take the time to write, even if the reply is insulting. I attempt to gleam whatever useful information they provide. I can ignore the insults, if I so choose.
I learned something from Abdul's post that Mason decided to censor. Was it embarassing to Mason? Probably. Was it insulting to anyone? No (as you are free to see for yourself on rec.gambling.poker in Abdul's 31 March 2001 thread entitled "2+2 Censorship Rererevisited").
I understand Mason and ConJelCo are free to censor whatever posts they want. I understand Mason might not share my view of the tradeoff between learning and civility.
But I'm left wondering why, four days ago, Mason wrote: "So the conclusion to all of this is that you should always be thinking and questioning anything and everything that we write (or other authors write). This process is what really creates that understanding that allows you to become an expert at that form of gambling (and for most of you it will be poker) that you undertake."
I agree with Mark.
Vince
.
"Was it insulting to anyone? No (as you are free to see for yourself on rec.gambling.poker in Abdul's 31 March 2001 thread entitled "2+2 Censorship Rererevisited")."
I saw the post before it was deleted. It is not included in Mr. Jalib's RGP post. His RGP post quotes from an old thread. The recent deleted post was about that thread. But it was not that thread. I am not saying that the recent deleted post was any more insulting than lots of other posts, but it was not contained in the RGP post. Just to clarify.
clarifier,
You wrote: "I saw the post before it was deleted. It is not included in Mr. Jalib's RGP post."
I saw Abdul's post before Mason 86'ed it, too. It is included in Abdul's RGP post. After quoting Keving J, Abdul quotes his deleted post. Then Abdul explains the origin of his censored post.
What is included in the RGP post is a quoted version of the post, not the post itself. It would not have been possible to include the post itself. But I thought it was important to point out the fact that it did not include the post. Like you, I think it is important that we be precise with our language. Thanks for your contributions.
clarifier,
Earlier, you wrote: "I saw the post before it was deleted. It is not included in Mr. Jalib's RGP post. His RGP post quotes from an old thread. . . . Just to clarify."
I replied: "I saw Abdul's post before Mason 86'ed it, too. It is included in Abdul's RGP post. After quoting Keving J, Abdul quotes his deleted post."
As you noted, I technically should have said, "A copy of it is included in Abdul's RGP post."
You wrote: "Like you, I think it is important that we be precise with our language."
I don't think we look at language in quite the same way. While I generally try to avoid being imprecise, I try even harder to avoid being deliberately misleading.
Your earlier comments are accurate, but it's possible to be both accurate and misleading (as Mike Caro mischievously demonstrates with some of this RGP threads). If I had to wager, I'd guess more readers correctly understood my point than understood yours.
You also wrote: "Thanks for your contributions."
You're welcome. I look forward to thanking you for your contributions someday.
"If I had to wager, I'd guess more readers correctly understood my point than understood yours. "
Mark,
This belongs on the Other Gambling Games Forum. Where is the WFM when you need him?
vince
I think that Mason wrote what he wrote about different opinions because he really believes that and, when his emotions are not involved, he is a tolerant person, interested in a lively discussion. I truly believe that his reaction to Abdul's post was an emotional overreaction that he will probably regret once people stop forcing him to defend it. The post, as Mason himself has said, was something that another person could have posted without this reaction. It goes back to a history between these two guys. I think it is accurate that Abdul also reacted emotionally to Mason's "plays almost no poker" remark, as anyone WOULD.
I think that the rest of us ought to stop taking sides and let these guys, who are among the most vital thinkers in poker today, resolve their differences and resume the POKER CONTENT posts that, in both their cases, are so valuable. Understand, I love to see conflict of IDEAS. Aside from the amount of knowledge we can gain, I just like to see them innellexual arms n legs flyin.' This personal stuff, however, gets in the way of ideas and, I am afraid, can be extremely addicting in this kind of forum. So I hope for everyone's sake that they can get over it and get back to poker.
-- Will
Yankee Baseball, POUR IT ON!!!
"these guys, who are among the most vital thinkers in poker today,"
Hey, I resemble that remark. Seriously, Bill makes a strong serious arguement for letting these two settle it and the rest of us move on. Let's all stick to poker discussion and get them cards in the air.
Vince
x
Abdul,
You wrote: "Before then, she was a most positive poster to this site, especially eager to help novice female poker players, and was generally supportive of Mason and especially David."
Was her nick something like Lonestar? If so, I remember benefiting from her wisdom as well. It's our loss that she no longer (or not often) posts here.
While Badger and Gary Carson were less positive posters, I learned from them as well. It's unfortunate that their dissenting opinions were not better received.
"It's unfortunate that their dissenting opinions were not better received."
Mark,
That's a crock. Carson and Badger resented the fact that this is a commercial site and didn't want Mason to benefit from their participation. So they left and took their postings and opinions with them. Opinions that were well recieved I might add. Thank you very much. Why don't you stop with your bullshit campaign and stop trying to wax the hosts of this forum all the time.
I don't know what happened with Lonestar but I also miss her participation here. But don't put Carson and Badger in her company. They don't desreve to be there.
Vince
Vince,
You wrote: "I don't know what happened with Lonestar but I also miss her participation here. But don't put Carson and Badger in her company. They don't desreve to be there."
Once again, you seem to have misread my post. I didn't put Gary and Badger in the same company as Lonestar. I said both of them ***were less positive posters***.
I said I learned from Gary and Badger. I'm not sure how you think you can dispute this comment, since you are not me. (Thank goodness, huh?)
"I'm not sure how you think you can dispute this comment, since you are not me. "
Yeah, well don't be too sure!
vince
mark, i like you, but why do you act toward abdul just the way you say others act toward the twoplustwo authors? (i like abdul 2 btw)
I didn't see you here last weekend. Do you still think S&M's bankroll requirement statement is "perfectly sensible?"
Your hyper-detailed responses somehow took the wind out of any debating intentions I might have had. I was tired before we got started.
This forum is kind enough to archive everything for me (and for you, too). The final item below the "Forums" heading is the "Archives" forum. It helps if you have a good memory, though, since it is more difficult to search through the non-recent archives."
I have browsed the 2+2 Archives. It's one of the worst kept Archives I've seen on the web! Total chaos; every post archived one after the other, with a flimsy excuse of a "theme". It's like looking for a birth certificate in the mayoral archives of Corleone, Sicily.
The "good memory" you mention is what's ineteresting. It confirms my interpretation of how you view a debate. It's quite interesting - but you might be better off as a D.A. Do you really remember where to find a post that Sklansky put up two years ago?! The hours! (The horror.)
I would venture the guess that you like debating for its own sake and that getting at the bottom of things comes a distant second. I could be proved wrong, of course.
If you mean [that people] will enter the dialogue [with me] with a reasonable amount of civility, then I can live with that. If you mean they will think a little before they reply, then I can live with that, too.
I have noticed that, almost without fail, you have the last post in every thread you participate in. Sorta like having the last word in an argument.
This is worse than conversing with a stranger who's a policeman - something done carefully, reluctantly and with our defenses up (since I need to spell it out). This is like conversing with a pit bull.
Wow, excellent economy in post title. I knew exactly what it said without opening.
Thanks for the post. As a master sarcaster myself, I do appreciate getting fed back.
But I'm curious if anyone 'got' it? Did you?
Of course I did. Zugzwang means where the compulsion to move is actually worse than not moving at all. A brilliant one-word title. Zwischenzung is clever if you know I'm going to respond again.
JG
Cyrus,
Earlier, I wrote: "Welcome back. I didn't see you here last weekend. Do you still think S&M's bankroll requirement statement is 'perfectly sensible?'"
You replied: "Your hyper-detailed responses somehow took the wind out of any debating intentions I might have had. I was tired before we got started."
I hope you can forgive me. I went into greater detail because you indicated you didn't understand my simpler explanation.
------------
Earlier, you wrote: "But when you demonstrate that you are saving up old posts and threads, practically archiving everything which is (or could be) of the remotest interest to you, verbatim too, then I have to pause and profer a dime's worth of thoughts . . ."
I replied: "Actually, this forum is kind enough to archive everything for me (and for you, too). The final item below the 'Forums' heading is the 'Archives' forum. Feel free to check it out at your leisure."
You then answered: "I have browsed the 2+2 Archives."
Now it's my turn to be confused. If you already were aware of the archives, then why did you believe I would archive as well?
---------------
You also wrote: "It's one of the worst kept Archives I've seen on the web! Total chaos; every post archived one after the other, with a flimsy excuse of a 'theme'. It's like looking for a birth certificate in the mayoral archives of Corleone, Sicily."
If Abdul had written that, Mason might have deleted his post. ;-)
---------------
You wrote: "The 'good memory' you mention is what's ineteresting. It confirms my interpretation of how you view a debate."
What can I say? I'm not going to apologize for having a good memory.
---------------
You wrote: "I would venture the guess that you like debating for its own sake and that getting at the bottom of things comes a distant second. I could be proved wrong, of course."
I'm not sure how I could "prove" you wrong. I disagree with your opinion, though. And I'm glad you are open minded.
----------------
You wrote: "I have noticed that, almost without fail, you have the last post in every thread you participate in. Sorta like having the last word in an argument."
If I feel I might not have made my point clearly enough, I often will try again. If I have made my point or if I feel someone is being deliberately obtuse, I often will give up. If I don't believe there is any point in engaging in a dialogue with a particular poster, I often won't make even a single reply.
As I told John: "You always should feel free to reply to my posts, this one included." That "you" applies to everyone, including Vince. ;-)
I thought I won! But you posted again?? You see, while I admittedly stooped frighteningly low by responding in kind to your "closed mind...n/t" post, my quip was clearly better than your decidedly unoriginal remark. Therefore... I won. :) Game over. And you're supposed to stop there, NOT come back with yet another post, Mark! Sheesh..
Besides he didn't provide a footnote so it doesn't count LOL.
John,
You wrote: "I thought I won! But you posted again?? You see, while I admittedly stooped frighteningly low by responding in kind to your 'closed mind...n/t' post, my quip was clearly better than your decidedly unoriginal remark. Therefore... I won. :)"
As I previously explained to Vince, I don't look at these discussions as win/lose situations. And I certainly don't think the "winner" is the participant who stoops the lowest.
I see by the smiley face that you were joking, at least about the lowest stooper winning. I must admit, however, that if the "grin" wasn't there, I would have had to pause for a moment to decide whether or not you were joking.
You see, I read some of the replies you make to some of my threads, and I wonder why you say some of the things you say. Of course, that is because I view your posts from my own unique perspective. And I recognize that my perceptions aren't necessarily the truth or even held by a majority of readers. I try to keep an open mind, constantly review my perceptions, and revise them when appropriate.
In this thread, for instance, you first stooped low (from my perspective) when you wrote: "Though Chris was harsh, he absolutely nailed, more accurately than anyone else ever has, the way your posts come across, no doubt to a majority of readers."
When you said Chris absolutely nailed it, you indicated that you agreed with his remark: "It takes a seriously deluded mind to not comprehend why a group that he describes and generally treats as 'kids on a playground' would resort to ad hominem attacks."
I understand that Chris Alger's insult (from my perspective) might appear absolutely correct to you, but please remember you are viewing these posts from your own unique perspective, and your perceptions aren't necessarily the truth either.
You seemed to take offense at my subject heading "A blind mind is a terrible thing to use (nt)." I didn't direct that statement specifically towards you, though. I was aiming it at everyone, myself included. I simply was re-iterating the Winston Churchill statement I had quoted earlier: "No idea is so outlandish that it should not be considered with a searching but, at the same time, steady eye."
When you responded with your subject heading "Heh. And yet, Mark does so relentlessly. nt", you did indeed lower the level of discussion again. Given how you apparently misinterpreted my heading, however, I can understand your reaction.
You also wrote: "Game over. And you're supposed to stop there, NOT come back with yet another post, Mark! Sheesh.."
You always should feel free to reply to my posts, this one included. Please keep in mind, though, that I prefer reasonable discussions. I sometimes decline to reply to personal attacks (and I'm directing that statement to everyone, too).
Mark wrote:
"Please keep in mind, though, that I prefer reasonable discussions."
Whose mind? And who decides what is resaonable?
Mark wrote:
"I recognize that my perceptions aren't necessarily the truth or even held by a majority of readers."
How about "a minority" of readers also?
Mark wrote:
"As I previously explained to Vince, I don't look at these discussions as win/lose situations. And I certainly don't think the "winner" is the participant who stoops the lowest."
Then who is the winner? BTW- Thanks for mentioning me in your post. I feel blessed.
Mark quoted old dead Winston:
"No idea is so outlandish that it should not be considered with a searching but, at the same time, steady eye."
Now I ask you, did WC ever hear one of Mark's ideas? Bet he's rolling in his grave.
Mark wrote:
"You always should feel free to reply to my posts"
I know you said this to John but I'm sure you include the rest of us swine with the above invitation. Thank you, oh supreme one.
vince
Vince,
Are you attempting to play the April Fool today? ;-)
NEPC: $120 7 Stud unlimited rebuy tournament. Saturday 31 March. 250+ entries $75,000 prize pool.
1st place: Greg "Fossilman" Raymer - $23k
2nd Place: Vince Lepore - $20K
Vince
Hey that's great. I hope you guys post a little more about the tournament.
Way to go Vince and Greg!
How long did you guys play heads up?
nt.
A1
!
=
Congratulations. I know you would have rather finished first but this is an accomplishment of note as it is. Of course, congrats to fossilman as well.
-- Will
Yankee Baseball, POUR IT ON!!!
I guess it is time to set some records straight and maybe I have waited too long to do it, so here it is:
My name is Angelina Fekali and I have no brother. "Izmet Fekali", the frequent poster here and on rgp, does not exist. I made him up. As some of you have caught on to this little ruse and over the months the truth was harder and harder to hide. As I said, it is time to give up and take a stand for myself. There's no need for me to wear men's clothes anymore, I sincerely hope so.
A lot of you will probably not understand, but where I come from, women are not treated with equal respect. Since respect was all too often denied to me simply because of my gender, I decided to make my life easier on poker forums and become a guy. I was eager to learn and I very much wanted to be taken seriously. I tried very hard to become "one of the boys", hiding my true feelings and intentions behind "Izmet's" macho sheep humor.
My fears were not unfounded, it turned out, as I started to play at Paradise under my real name, no way a girl from Slovenia could play good poker, it's a man's game, I am listening to these kind of remarks for a year now. Well guys, you better believe it. Women can and do play good poker. I am sure this fact will hit hard some of you, but you need to face it. Women can play too.
I met David Sklansky In Las Vegas in 1999 when my dear father took a vacation there (looking for a game of 5card potlimit stud). Unbeknownst to my father, I fell in love with David, many of you have no idea how charming this man can be on top of his intelligence. He was relentless in his wooing, I must laugh every time when I think of our first few hours alone when he pulled out a deck of cards and said, "let's play for fun, do you know poker?". I didn't and he offered to teach. Little did I know that I saved about $400 (his standard tutoring hourly rate) that hour, little did I know that he tried very, very hard to lose to me in that headsup game, little did I know that I am one of the few that can brag "I beat Sklansky in poker". Little did I know that life will never be the same.
I was hooked. Both on Sklansky and hold'em. He sensed my enthusiasm and offered to teach me more. To cut a long story short, we had great time and I had to go back home. Six months later, after lots of research, sims and thinking about the game, I was eager to play him again, to prove I was a student, a friend and, most importantly, to prove I was smart enough for him. I was in Vegas again, desperately in love, only to find another woman sitting besides David at the poker table. It broke my heart and it broke our relationship.
That is when I met Abdul Jalib M'hall. I am sorry not to go into detail here, let me just say that I met his wife too, she is a very nice person and I am sorry to bring some pain into her life. Out of respect for her I shall not do our dirty laundry in public.
Needless to say, I befriended Abdul because of his refusal to accept Sklansky as an authority on hold'em, he was a renegade and a free mind, he appealed to me a lot. He provided me with tools to fight Sklansky on his own turf, poker, without being an underdog to Sklansky's strategies. I can't thank Abdul enough for this, if you are reading this, Jabba dear, you will always have a special place in my heart reserved. Thank you.
I don't travel much to Vegas anymore. My life is settled now, men can't hurt me anymore, any frustrations I may have left I take out on unsuspecting $20-40 Paradise players. If you are there and see me 4-bet you on the turn with a shaky hand, it is probably because I imagine I'm playing against David.
I just can't pull him out of my mind, it seems.
I love you all.
Angelina Fekali
Studying People Inc.
http://www.fekali.com/angelina
Slovenia
Does Izmet the imaginary brother have a Paradise account and sit next to you when you play? That would explain a lot more than 'study' would. And hey, if you'd have an affair with a married man (in effect cheating or helping him to cheat) then what ethical line would stand between you and Izmet cheating those unsuspecting chaps on Paradise?
Answer: Nada
"And hey, if you'd have an affair with a married man (in effect cheating or helping him to cheat) then what ethical line would stand between you and Izmet cheating those unsuspecting chaps on Paradise? "
'that done out of love is beyond good and evil'. gee i just cant help myself sometimes.
brad
p.s. its a joke (happy new year)
,,,
.
.
Dear Izmet Angelina Fekali,
I am very happy to here that you have come out of the closet. It mussa been horrible having to pretend all these years to be a man without having the correct plumbing. Terrible situation when going to the men's room I bet.
It is good of you to expose David Sklansky for the womanizer that he really is. I have had a similar experience with the mighty OZ . Yes The mighty Oz is David but only woman call him David. Men like me and Izmet, who you used to be, call him the mighty Oz. That's because when we see David, I mean Oz, the Yellow Brick road immediatley comes to mind and we are sent on a trip over the rainbow. He does that to all the men that meet him. You must realize that men get the same emotional feelings whe first meeting David that woman get. Yes, he has tht aura around him. I think it comes from a high SAT score. But I'm not sure.
Yes I too was mesmerized by this master con man but I was lucky. I ran into Mason Malmuth one day and my whole life changed. Gee I hope this post isn't to racy for Mason. I hope he doesn't delete it because he feels it may be insulting to David. Because it's not, really. I l.., like David. I almost slipped there. But if Mason thinks I'm being insulting he willk deep six my post like he did my post questioning Abdul's Deleted post. the last time he deleted an Abdulian Post was over a "penis". Now he has included percieved insults. Well it's his forum.
I must credit Mason with my being able to get over my infatuation I mean intellectual interest with Oz. You see Mason told me that those young broads David is always with are his neices. I guess he is just trying to show them a good time and how poker is played in the big Casino world. For some reason when I heard this my admiration for David or Oz dropped a hundred fold. I no longer wanted to want what I wanted in the first place so I didn't want it anymore. I was free. Wow, how exhilerating. So my advice to you sweet Angelina today, Izmet yesterday, is to visit Las Vegas and talk to Mason. When he is finished with you you will be over David and hate Abdul! What a country!
Vince
Vince,
You wrote: "That's because when we see David, I mean Oz, the Yellow Brick road immediatley comes to mind and we are sent on a trip over the rainbow."
And I thought it was because, although some see him as an all-knowing wizard, you see past the illusion and realize he is just a fallible human.
...realize he is just a fallible human.
Not my David!
vince
Mark wrote,
" . . . and realize he is just a fallible human."
Is there another kind?
Yes, fallible and Mark.
Sorry Mark, just couldn't resist. 8-)
Thanks for the setup Sammy.
Regards Mike N
I have been playing hold'em for the last three years, and have moved up in limits to the 20-40 range(which is the highest limit in the card rooms here). I have been running over the game for the last year and a half. Lately the high limit players has changed to 7 card high low split. While I don't think these players are any better at stud split than hold'em, I am having a hard time just breaking even in these games. My question is, is there a fundamental difference in strategy between different poker games, stud perhaps more forgiving with loose players, maybe I just naturally have a talent for hold'em, or it may just take more time to learn the game. Any experiance with those of you who changed games after only playing one particular game would be much appriciated.
-SmlBlind
Yes, stud can be more forgiving to a bad player, but good players can use other/different advantages to make more money. For instance, with so many cards being exposed their is more information to use, and more streets to maxmize advantages.
My guess is that you don't play seven stud hi/lo as well as holdem.
I was heavy into stud in the early 90's. I read Ray's book a few times and it got me on the right track fast, but it took a while to figure out the main thing I had to overcome.
The same selective agressiveness that works well at hold'em can be a self-inflicted wound at stud, especially because the other players see you coming a mile away and just sit there and play a more traditional, sedate stud style and pick you apart.
In general I think calling is far more often the best play at stud than it is at hold'em. After extensive training at the pump-it-or-dump-it hold'em mentality, it can be a tough adjustment.
Tommy
"In general I think calling is far more often the best play at stud than it is at hold'em. After extensive training at the pump-it-or-dump-it hold'em mentality, it can be a tough adjustment."
Quite an interesting point that Tommy makes here. There are many important things to consider when traversing the two big casino poker games. Adjustment is tantamoutn to success. Tommy makes an interesting point about "calling being the best option at stud". It appears to me from this statement that Tommy was weaned on a 7CSFAP strategy. I was. The strategy in that outlined in that book is still the best strategy for playing mid limit stud. However, as in any game adjustments must be made that consider the current situation. I have found that I have been forced to call more on third street at the 15-30 level for a number of reasons. Mainly because the games are looser than they were when I first began. There was a time when looser games were the games to get in. That was because most of the players in the game were horrible. Today loose games are comprised of a few bad players a few mediocre players and some very good players. What happens in these games a lot is that a bad player will mistakingly call a raise. Then good players behind them will correctly call the raise because of the increased pot odds and the value of your big pair will be decreased. The prime purpose of raising on third street in Stud is to limit the opposition against your big pairs and big cards. That strategy still works to some degree but as more people become aware of it it's power is decreased. More deception is required to keep opponents on their toes. Calling or limping more often in raising situations needs to be done to accomplish this deception.
That said this is not the primary difference between playing stud and playing Holdem. The games play entirely different even though they are both seven card poker games. More skill is required to win at stud. Notice I said "to win" not to play. Holdem is the game of choice by many today because there are many more poor players playing Holdem. The reason that is true is that most players do not want to put out the effort to learn to play correctly. They want gambling to be easy. Holdem looks easy. Any two cards can win. So the lazy and poorly skilled will opt for Holdem once they are introduced to it. That is why I always recommend that new poker players learn Stud first.
vince
It's rare day when a sentence of yours jumps out and makes me think, "Huh?"
"More skill is required to win at stud."
I've laid off semantical tangles for while, so what the heck. Which requires more "skill?" Golf, carpentry, or backgammon?
Tommy
smile
"semantical tangles "
" Golf, carpentry, or backgammon?"
I have no or very little experience with these endeavors.
"more "skill"
If you would like me to clarify "more skill" with regards to stud vs holdem then I will try my best. If you would like to discuss "semantical tangles" please address your question to that Nebiolo fellow or Professor John Cole.
Vince
Vince,
I was being a snit, for no good reason. So in that voice, here's more. :-)
I've no doubt that you could define "skill" in such a way that winning at stud would require "more" of it than winning at hold'em. I could too.
My one and only contention (and subsequent objection) to the use of the word "skill" in reference to poker is that it is slung about as if the meaning were universally agreed upon, and it ain't. The result is much the same as the endless musings that surround words like "soul" and "god."
For example, one reason I do okay at poker is because I sleep well and I don't play long sessions. This gives me an edge over those who play worse when they are tired. Does this, or any of the countless other aspects of life that affect poker results, make me "more skilled?"
I don't think there is an answer, until "skill" is specifically defined. I have no problem with laboriously defining terms to aid a discussion. My problem, again, with "skill," is that it's meaning needs to be clarified by each user, every time it is used. And of course we don't do that. For that reason, it's a word I never use in casual poker conversation.
I'm not asking for the Vince definition of "skill." But I'd like to hear your thoughts on my thoughts about the presumption that we all use it to mean the same thing.
Tommy
"But I'd like to hear your thoughts on my thoughts about the presumption that we all use it to mean the same thing."
No. no, I don't believe that I use the word skill in the same light as Tommy Angelo. No.
"For example, one reason I do okay at poker is because I sleep well and I don't play long sessions. This gives me an edge over those who play worse when they are tired. Does this, or any of the countless other aspects of life that affect poker results, make me "more skilled?""
No. No, this is a great example extolling the differences in just how Vince differs from Tommy in their view of skill. Sleeping well does not give you an edge. Ok maybe you believe it does so we can classify it as giving you a percived edge but in reality you have no way of knowing if it gives you an edge at t'all. Same with playing short sessions. Even if these habits somehow could be shown to give you an edge they are not skills. They are disciplined behavior. No, no a skill like reading and opponent or hand selection or game selection is something that is... is tangible. Well maybe not tangible in the true sense of the word but close Certainly they are defineable and learnable and can be applied during play. No.. No "skills" is a good word and is justifiably applicable when discussing poker. In a "semantically tangled" way of course.
vince
Hey Vince,
I was offline for a few days.
We don't differ on the word "skill" because I don't use it. That'd be like me saying we disagree as to what "cathemeral" means. (Look it up, it's a great word, recently discovered.)
Anwyway, to me "skill" is a meaningless word in the poker context because if someone asked me, "What does it mean?" I would reply, "I don't know."
Tommy
Carpentry requires the most skill. Merely justifying ones hourly rate when no WORK was actually done is often difficult for the beginner to master. Once this is known, convincing the sucker, I mean customer, that he really WANTED his cabinet to look like that is merely difficult. Substitute pronouns to "she" and "her cabinets" and it becomes impossiwoggle and PAINFUL.
Golf is next. However, having skill at golf does not reward one unless it is possible to find people who don't KNOW that you have that skill. Skill at getting extra handicap strokes is well-rewarded however. My brother will sometimes hit a few shots before bets are arranged. We are often allowed to leave town alive afterward as no money has as yet changed hands. He is not, let us say, a hustler. Good golfer, though. Never makes much money at it.
Moving the checkers at backgammon is largely trivial but some people do it better than others. Avoid those players, handle the cube well and get a time machine and go back to where there were total IDIOTS who would play backgammon for high stakes and you would HAVE something. It would still be excruciatingly boring.
I would rather play O8 or count cards at blackjack. Rather hold up gas stations than do any of these things.
-- Will
Yankee Baseball, POUR IT ON!!!
Not here on othere topics.
Vince
I have wanted to write on this subject for some time, but I've finally broken down and gotten around to it. Here goes.
The theory of poker states that 'Every time an opponent plays his hand differently than he would if he could see your hand, you gain.' But this is not true.
It SHOULD read 'Every time your opponent plays his hand differently than he would if he could see your hand AND WERE USING PERFECT STRATEGY, you gain.'
Some opponents are morons. Let's say you have AA UTG and everyone folds except for the BB, a bad player, who calls. There are 4.5 SB in the pot.
Flop comes Q 9 3. He checks, you bet, he calls with a gutshot draw (KT offsuit). He is getting 5.5:1 odds on his call.
Turn is a blank. He has no pair but still has the gutshot draw. You bet, he calls. Since there are 4.25 BB in the pot when you bet, he is getting 4.25:1 odds on his call.
You gain from all of his calls - preflop, on the flop, and on the turn. But the thing is, he was going to call even if he could see your hole cards. Even he is bright enough to know that KT is almost certainly not the winner right now and that he has to catch to improve.
I make this distinction for a reason. Some time ago I was thinking about the +EV or -EV of certain hands in certain positions. I wondered whether it were possible that certain hands, like 56 offsuit, had a -EV that was actually GREATER than 1SB. IE, when you limp in with this hand, you actually stand to lose MORE than that initial 1SB when you play the hand.
I eventually realized that this cannot be true - PROVIDED THE PLAYER IS USING PERFECT STRATEGY.
For example, let's say that you give me 1SB and say 'just go ahead and limp in next hand no matter what you get - it's on me.' You limp in and see that you have 56o.
Now, if you just threw this hand away every time, unless you actually flopped a straight, quads, whatever, you obviously could not lose more than that initial investment.
But now lets put those same 2 cards into the hands of a bad player, but now he will not play them perfectly.
Not only will he play when he has a straight or quads, whatever, he will also pay any number of bets to draw to any gutshot draw, and will even take a card off for a runner runner straight. He will call to the river with any pair. Now, obviously, this player will lose more than that initial 1SB that you graciously invested for him.
Does this make any sense?
-SmoothB-
It makes perfect sense, but I thought the few exception(s) to this, as in some multi-way situations, were accurately provided for in the book. So,I don't see a need to stop the presses yet.
You say in your post “It [The Theory of Poker] SHOULD read 'Every time your opponent plays his hand differently than he would if he could see your hand AND WERE USING PERFECT STRATEGY, you gain.' “ Your suggested revision is not needed and is in fact incorrect.
In your example, you say, “You gain from all of his calls - preflop, on the flop, and on the turn. But the thing is, he was going to call even if he could see your hole cards. “ So, the statement in the book does not apply here. It only applies if saw your cards and stopped playing the hand. He, according to you, is not going to play his hand differently if he sees your cards.
If he saw your aces and would throw his hand away, then you gain when he continues to play his hand because he is playing his hand differently than he would if he could see your hand.
See, your postdemonsttrates exactly why the theory needs revision.
When someone bets, calls, raises, or folds, it either makes or costs you money. It is completely irrelevant whether or not he knows what your hole cards are.
Everytime someone calls a preflop raise with KK VS AA the play makes more money for AA WHETHER OR NOT KK could see AA's hole cards.
If someone has KT and calls a raise from AA, he is making AA money. It makes no difference whether he could actually see the AA. If he calls, AA makes money.
I am glad I posted this after all since it appears that more than a few people have been confused by the Theory of Poker in the past.
-SmoothB-
Smooth, I think you are missing the point.
KK vs AA. (I can't see your cards)
You bet, I raise, you reraise, I call.
KK vs AA (I can see your cards)
You bet, I fold.
Which scenario do you gain more from? The point is that I WOULD NOT call IF I could see your cards.
Of course, all action has an effect on my win/loss or EV. Even hands I'm not in have an effect. Even hands on nights when I'm not playing have an effect although I always assume that such effects will average out.
Regards Mike N
Ok, let me try this again.
KK VS AA.
If you have KK and call my raise with AA, you make money for me. If you can see my hole cards and STILL call, you make money for me. Do you see the point here? You played the hand exactly the way you would have played it if you could see my hole cards, and your play was still incorrect, and made me money. Even though you played the same way that you would have played it if you knew what I had. That's just it - you DID know what I had and you called anyway. And you still made me money. It makes no difference whether you could see my hole cards or not.
The Fundamental Theorem of Poker states that anytime a player plays his hand differently than he would if he knew your hole cards, you gain. But I have just proven that this is not always true.
-SmoothB-
I don't agree.
"anytime a player plays his hand differently than he would if he knew ... "
He's NOT "playing it differently than he would if he knew" so it doesn't apply.
Regards Mike N
If he CAN'T see your hole card, calling with KK is incorrect only in that he should send it back. Alluding to an earlier post, unless he can see your hole card, he is not wrong to call headsup with KT. UNLESS you only raise with AA. If you only raise with AA, you are creating a situation where he can "see your hole cards." I see these posts as an interesting commentary on, rather than a refutation of, the basic theory of poker. I think that most of us assume optimal or at least very good strategy after seeing our hole card when looking at the theory. Given that assumption, the theory doesn't need changing. It can always use discussion and examination however and your posts in this area are food for thought.
-- Will
I know where your thoughts come from, but you are making an incorrect assumption. I have thought about this idea often.
The truth is that a poor player draws against AA because he doesn't KNOW that you have pocket aces. Even the truly ignorant players wouldn't make the draw if they absolutely knew that you had Aces; instead they choose to believe you don't despite say betting that makes it obvious you do. This is obvious in your logical, strategy-inclined brain but not in theirs so the real thought process goes something like this for that poor playing gutshot drawer:
Sees KTo in hole: Wow. Finally got some decent cards to play. Call. (then pot is raised)Well, what the heck trapped now and he (raiser) could have a small pair.
Flop comes AQ: Cool. All I need now is a straight and maybe not even that. He (raiser) might just have a Q! Then if I make a K, that's good too. Hence, I have plenty of outs: Any K and any J! Could even go runner runner and make a set of 10s!
This is how the bad player's logic works. They WANT to play every hand, that is what they are at the table for, so on any given flop they try to come up with all the reasons they should play it, and none of the reasons they shouldn't.
If they really saw your aces and had to believe they were really there, they wouldn't make the draw. Least ways not most of them.
Trust me, there are some players who will play a hand like KT, suited or unsuited, even if they knew you had aces. We have all come across some players who will always play any 2 suited cards, right? Even if someone else has aces and they know it, right?
When someone calls with those 2 suited cards preflop, not caring whether you had AA or 72, he is playing the hand exactly the same way he would if he could see your hole cards. But this play is still making you money!
Ok, let me pose a different scenario to show that the fundamental theorem of poker is wrong.
Case 1:
You have AA UTG and raise. Another player does not see your hole cards and reraises with AsKs on the button. Did this persons play cost or make you money?
CASE 2:
You raise with AA UTG. A weak player on your left sees your hole cards and calls anyway. Did this play cost or make you money?
It is abundantly clear that this play made you money in one case and cost you in the second. Therefore, the FTOP needs revision.
-SmoothB-
'It is abundantly clear that this play made you money in one case and cost you in the second. Therefore, the FTOP needs revision. '
This is about the worst typo I could have made. LOL.
It should read:
It is abundantly clear that this play COULD NOT HAVE made you money in one case and cost you in the second. Therefore, the FTOP needs revision.
-SmoothB-
In which case do we lose money here?
The theorem states "when he would play differently". In your cases he wouldn't so it doesn't apply.
Regards Mike N
.
I figured it was a typo.
Still, FTOP doesn't apply.
In order for the FTOP to be correct in head up pots, it is necessary to assume that a player will play better if he knew your cards than if he didn't. I suppose there would be occasional exceptions to this in real life. It is not, however necessary that he play perfectly, only better (given your hand).
Since the players in question will not play differently anyway, the FTOP doesn't apply.
BTW, this discussion has made me realize that the FTOP does need to be changed in order to be correct. Do you see how and will you be issuing a reprint?
Regards Mike N
One correct version is
'Every time your opponent plays his hand differently than he would if he could see your hand you gain or lose.'
Your point is well taken - it is not absolutely necessary.
I do, however, think that it was worthwhile to bring this up since it turns out that many readers here have been very confused. I was surprised to see responses to the effect of 'you must be wrong because that person played his hand the same as he would if he could see your hole cards, therefore he MUST have been costing you money.' IE they were just regurgitating the FTOP. When a theory is under attack, you can't defend the theory by quoting it and saying 'this is the old theory and it contradicts your new theory so your theory must be wrong.'
-SmoothB-
It's hardly "many posters" SmoothB.
4 others besides David inless you're including him.
Have I told you my theory about dinosaurs?
"Ahem .... My theory on Dinosaurs by Mike Nelson. My theory, written by me, about dinosaurs is ... ahem ... a theory by me witten about dinosaurs. This theory, written by me about dinosaurs is that they are very very thin at one end and then they get very very big in the middle and then they get very very small again at the other end. "
Thank you
What's this? FllllaaThhhhhhhOoooooP puh pih puh. . . . . . . . . . . . . Me re-gurgitating the Fundamental Theory.
Ok, let me try again in a somewhat more organized, formal fashion.
This is the Fundamental Thorem of Poker:
'Every time you play a hand differently from the way you would have played it if you could see all your opponent's cards, they gain; and every time you play your hand the same way you would have played itif you could see all their cards, they lose. Conversely, every time opponents play their hands differently from the way they would have if they could see all your cards, you gain; and every time they play their hands the same way they would have played if they could see all your cards, you lose.'
Ok, this is the Fundamental Theorem of Poker. If it is true, then there must be no cases where a player sees my hole cards, still plays his hand the same way, and STILL makes me money. Right? Now I will demonstrate a case where an opponent sees my hole cards, makes a given play based on having seen my cards, and still makes me money.
Let's say we are in a hand together. He is a very tight player and he believes me to be a maniac.
It is the turn. I have 55 and the board is KQJ5 rainbow. My opponent has AK. It is the turn. I have bet, he raised, I made it three bets. Let's say that there are 15BB in the pot already (other players have dropped out, capped preflop, etc.)
Now suddenly my cards become exposed. He sees my set (On the turn) and disgusedly throws his hand in the muck. If he hadn't seen my cards he would have called on the turn (correct because he had the correct odds for a gutshot.) But instead he INCORRECTLY folded AFTER seeing my hole cards.
Am I making more sense now? I could come up with 100'2 of more examples if that's what it takes.
-SmoothB-
The fundamental theorum of poker is based on the assumption that your opponent knows and is willing to play mathamatically correct poker. Therefore he wold not fold after seeing your cards.
This is an unwritten assumption (that your opponent is aware of mathematically correct poker). If this assumption is not made the Fudamental Theorum of Poker is useless as an unthinking, beginning player is liable to do any sort of crazy play even if he did see your cards.
I have seen beginning stud players think long and hard about calling a bet on the river when they are beaten by their opponents board. A friend, who plays stud exclusively assures me that sometimes they do call when beaten by opponents board.
When I use to play jack's or better to open draw poker (back in the old days) there was a house rule that if you called and could not beat openers, that is your hand was weaker than a pair of jacks, you got your money back.
I've seen a player with 22 call a board of
JJ773 (the pairs I forget; the 3 I remember)
He must have bee hoping to get half if the bettor had 22 as well.
Im only 19, an I want to beat him who tricked me in to this, I think I have a potential, cause I am a good in math and numbers. (much better than I am in english) I also think that I have a little bit ice in my guts if you know what I mean. I have reed about you guyes, ohhh yes I have, impressive
Yes, the theory was that stupid people should be protected from their own stupidity. The rule was changed because some angle shooters would make this call and hope that the opener, believing himself to be bluffing, would soup, and they would win the pot without any risk, since if the opener didn't soup, they would show their hand, claim they had misread it, and get their money back.
Some call when they SHOULD know they are "beat on the board" and others call when they "DO" know they are beat on the board. Guy called me the other day when he couldn't beat my 7K77 showing but he wanted to "see if you had a boat." I tell him to take his bet back and show him my hole cards: 979. Boat? Hell, I had an aircraft carrier. Anyone who wants to criticize me for letting him see without calling: "shrug."
-- Will
Yankee Baseball, POUR IT ON!!!
SmoothB writes:
"Now suddenly my cards become exposed. He sees my set (On the turn) and disgusedly throws his hand in the muck. If he hadn't seen my cards he would have called on the turn (correct because he had the correct odds for a gutshot.) But instead he INCORRECTLY folded AFTER seeing my hole cards. "
Please explain why you had him fold, if the pot odds promised him a long term profit assuming this situation was played out over a large number of times?
William
There are some tight players, and all experienced players have run into a few in their day, who will always fold gutshot draws no matter how big the pot is.
-SmoothB-
I am not even going to bother to read anything else about this thread. This is pointless.....The guy is making a bad play. He is violating the F.T.o.P by making an incorrect play, so how does this "tear it down"???
How does your, less than optimum, player's mistake apply to the FToP?
Pleeaaaase! This is not what you have dated in the thread below.
This player is now acting differently since he has seen your cards. Your other examples all had him acting the same regardless of whether he saw your cards.
You have come close to defining how the the FTOP needs to be changed. It needs to be IDIOT-proofed. A player could see my cards and then play differently WORSE than he would have had he not seen the cards. Instead of calling a drawdead raise he could now raise and make me even more by playing DIFFERENTLY. This would be stupid and the FTOP correctly assumes a player would play better.
SmoothB, this is ridiculous. Please recant your original statements about the FTOP and don't simply change your story. You're acually starting to sound insane. BUT they called Charles Manson insane too (or did I mean someone else?).
stated not dated
Chill on the personal attacks. It's bad enough that I come on here and give losing players free poker lessons out of the kindness of my heart. If you don't want to be a better player go read someone else's posts.
The reason why I changed the scenario to one where the player changed from a winning play TO a losing play after seeing my hole cards was valid and I will explain below.
My assertion was that my opponent could make a losing play EVEN IF he knew my hole cards. But, since he would have made that play anyway, some sticklers decided that the example must involve a situation where someone would play DIFFERENTLY. But, if you really think hard about what the FTOP is saying, you would realize that this is not a necessary condition at all.
In order to make my case and appease these people, I came up with a valid scenario where someone actually changed from a winning to a losing play after seeing my cards. I did this to prove my point.
I hope you finally get it. If you don't, why don't you just move on to another thread like a good little citizen.
-SmoothB-
"Chill on the personal attacks. It's bad enough that I come on here and give losing players free poker lessons out of the kindness of my heart. If you don't want to be a better player go read someone else's posts"
I added the insane part to put a little humour into the thread. I think I've been rather polite but that little snippet was probably not necessary.
Considering your attack on Badger, I'm pretty sure you don't have too much credability in this department.
Your statement "why don't you just move on to another thread like a good little citizen. " shows your attitude better than most.
Please try to understand that the FTOP states explicity "differently" and assumes that the player will play better not worse for knowing your cards.
You seriously believe that the posters here don't understand what you're trying to get across. They understand it, they just see it as pointless.
(someone tell me if I'm wrong here)
I apologize for wasting my time by reading your posts but feel sure I won't bother you by doing so again.
Regards Mike N
The guy with the AK had six outs as far as I can tell and he should have stayed even though he was staring at your pocket fives, because he only required 6.67 to 1 in order to break even.
The point is that by exposing your hole cards, you gave your opponent the necessary knowledge in order to make the best decision possible.
Let me ask you a question...
There are three cards laying face down on the table. I know the correct identity of each card. One of the cards is an Ace and the other two are rags. Your job is to guess which card is the Ace.
You place your finger on top of one of the cards without turning it over. Since I know which card is the ace, I then turn over one of the remaining cards to show you one of the rags. There are now only two remaining cards left unidentified on the table, the one upon which you have your finger and the one that I did not turn over. I now ask you if you want to keep your current card or change your pick to the other remaining unidentified card.
The question is: Is it better to keep the card you have, or is it better to change cards to the remaining unidentified card, or does it even make any difference?
Sincerely, William
Perhaps you missed it, but I was hoping you would be kind enough to answer my question, which is restated below...
There are three cards laying face down on the table. I know the correct identity of each card. One of the cards is an Ace and the other two are rags. Your job is to guess which card is the Ace.
You place your finger on top of one of the cards without turning it over. Since I know which card is the ace, I then turn over one of the remaining cards to show you one of the rags. There are now only two remaining cards left unidentified on the table, the one upon which you have your finger and the one that I did not turn over. I now ask you if you want to keep your current card or change your pick to the other remaining unidentified card.
The question is: Is it better to keep the card you have, or is it better to change cards to the remaining unidentified card, or does it even make any difference?
The reason I asked this question was to understand better your position. If you would please answer this, it would be greatly appreciated. SmoothB, there is nothing wrong with not knowing the answer or not understanding how to solve this problem. If you do not know the answer then just say so and I will explain how this little thought experiment relates to the topic at hand.
Sincerely, William
I seem to remember hearing this from somewhere, and I can't remember the explination, but it was interesting. Please explain even if Smooth chooses not to respond, thanks.
Thank you for asking, I was beginning to wonder if anybody was reading my posts.
Your answer is correct. In this specific example, once you were given the additional knowledge of me turning over one of the cards on the table you would change cards every time. The additional knowledge provided, by me exposing one of the remaining cards, allowed you to improve your strategy and to increase the likelihood that you would pick the ace.
Here is how it works. The card you originally picked has one chance in three of being the ace; therefore, the remaining cards represent a two in three chance of having the ace within their population. Once I show you one of the two remaining cards you have improved your knowledge and now know that the one remaining card has two chances in three of being the correct card. Therefore, you would change cards in order to increase the likelihood of having picked the ace.
Using exactly three cards for this thought experiment makes it seem somewhat like a paradox. If we had started with 100 cards, you pick one and I then expose 98 of the remaining cards, it becomes much clearer that it is better to change cards. In the case of 100 cards, the original card you picked would only have a 1 in 100 chance of being an ace. Therefore, the remaining cards (as a group) would represent a 99 in 100 chance of having the ace. Once I exposed 98 of the remaining non-ace cards, there would be only one card remaining to represent the 99 in 100 group. Therefore, you would change to that card because the original card you picked would still only have a 1 in 100 chance of being correct.
This was sort of the FToP as it applies to an exposed card in Three-Card Monte (assuming I am an honest Three-Card Monte dealer). Exposing that one card increased your knowledge, allowing you to make a better (more informed) choice. In this example, the better choice involved changing ones strategy; of course, seeing someone’s pocket cards could also give one the knowledge that their original strategy was correct and that no change was necessary.
Thanks again for asking.
William
William, I see the principle here and can see that it works if you (the dealer) do not know which is the ace.
But since you do it will always come down to you picking the the non-ace cards and it will be 1/3 as to whether I have the Ace or not and 1/3 that the remaining card is the ace.
You have the knowledge and I don't. My card is always a 1/3 chance since you will always have a card to flip. I don't really see that I have gained any actual knowledge. I always knew that 1 of the 2 remaining cards was not an ace and you simply confirmed that.
Possibly I'm missing something.
1/3 times you choose the ace the first time. Then after I show you a non ace you switch to a loser. You uatomatically lose 1/3 time.
But when you choose a non ace the first time, 2/3 of the time, you always end up switching to the ace.
I show you a non ace, so you switch. Now, you must switch to the ace. You win 2/3 time.
-SmoothB-
William, I see the principle here and can see that it works if you (the dealer) do not know which is the ace.
But since you do it will always come down to you picking the the non-ace cards and it will be 1/3 as to whether I have the Ace or not and 1/3 that the remaining card is the ace.
You have the knowledge and I don't. My card is always a 1/3 chance since you will always have a card to flip. I don't really see that I have gained any actual knowledge. I always knew that 1 of the 2 remaining cards was not an ace and you simply confirmed that.
Possibly I'm missing something.
Thanks for the interesting puzzle.
After re-reading your post I see that my original 1/3 likelyhood of being correct doesn't change since it's 100% for sure that you will turn over a non-ace card. That group still represents a 2/3 chance of being correct. I now switch because it still has a 2/3 chance while I have a 1/3 chance.
The 100 cards does show it more clearly. To be 50/50 at the end I would need to pick the Ace 50% of the time at the start and that is not too likely.
Yet my quick analysis in it's backward logic chose the wrong answer even though I specifically gave the correct answer in my analysis when I stated "My card is always a 1/3 chance since you will ..."
Thanks
It makes no difference whether you change the card or keep it.
Some will believe that by changing cards you increase your chances of choosing correctly from 1/3 to 1/2. This is not the case.
Did I pass your little IQ test?
-SmoothB-
Ok, I didn't really read your post very carefully before I shot off an answer.
I was under the impression that you were sbown a card only if you did not pick the ace in the first place.
If that were true, then it would NOT make a difference whether you changed cards or not.
But the way you stated it was that you were shown a non ace card regardless. Now it does seem that you stand to gain by switching.
Sorry I misunderstood at first.
-SmoothB-
No problem SmoothB. It was not an IQ test, but just and example of how an exposed card can influence one's decisions.
Sorry if I was not clear, when I first asked the question.
William
This is the classic Monte Hall routine at the end of the show where the final contestant picks one of the three curtains. Monte knows which curtain hides the big prize and which two hides the goofy stuff. When the contestant picks a curtain, Monte always exposes what's behind the other curtain that has a booby prize, and offer the contestant the choice of keeping his original choice, or taking the other curtain.
He should always switch. This was debated on this forum two or three years ago, and I think Dan Hanson had an excellent explanation of why the contestant should switch. Same thing here.
Sorry, I don't know how to search the archives for the original thread.
Interesting... Monty Hall and Let's Make a Deal.
I have just done a search of the Web for Monty Hall and there are references all over regarding this very problem. I guess there really is nothing new under the sun. :-)
Thanks, William
/t
In statistics we call this the Monty Hall problem. It goes like this....
At the end of the show, there are 3 doors (Much like the Ace and 2 rag prob). You get to choose a "door". Monty then shows one of the other 2 remaining doors. What is left is your choice and the "grand prize". He then gives you the opportunity to change your choice. What should you do?
The answer is change EVERY time. Here's why.. Your selection (when made) had a 1/3 of a chance of winning. The remaining door (after the one shown) now has a 2/3 of a chance of being the winning door (or card as in the ace example). You should switch every time. Look at it this way.. Pretend there are a thousand doors to select from. You make your choice. He shows you 998 of the 999 remaining doors. He now gives you the opportunity to change your choice. Should you? Of course! Your selection had a 1 in a thousand chance of winning while the remaining door (after the other 998 doors were revealed) now has a 99.9% chance of being the winner.
Hope that clears it up for you.
Don
After posting this three-card problem, it dawned on me that I had heard of it previously and that I did not just make it up after all. When Dunc mentioned Monte Hall, I knew that was not my source, so I did a little digging through my library.
Interesting how things change, when I did my postgraduate work in experimental design, this problem was referred to as Bertrum’s Paradox. Of course that was before Monte Hall so I guess TV stardom has supplanted origination in this case. However, there is no doubt that both Monte Hall and Bertrum were dealing with the same conundrum, Monte in the practical and Bertrum in the theoretical.
Mathguy, did you know that your explanation is almost identical to the one I gave above except that I used 100 rather than 1000? Yep, we are definitely coordinated on this one, lol.
Sincerely, William
Hey no problem. I was just using an example that we learned in sophmore year statistics. Didnt mean to step on anyone's toes. (If I did, I apologize, If I didnt, then it should end the thread)
I was not offended in the least. I was merely appreciating the fact that we were in synch.
Thanks, William
Is the average reader at such a level that David Sklansky should feel it necessary to insert the word "correctly" into the Fundamental Theorem Of Poker in the appropriate spots?
Apparently, this might be the case.
Well, judging from the posts here, there is so much confusion over what the FTOP is really about and really means, that it might be necessary to fine tune it after all.
Most people reading the theory of poker are not rocket scientists. Some of them are first level readers - things they read are either fact or lies, and there is nothing beyond the surface to bother to try to understand.
It's clear to me that many people out there really do believe the FTOP as stated. Some people out there actually believe that someone must play a hand differently than they would if they could see my hole cards to lose money. They don't realize that opponents make winning and losing plays all the time, and often it doesnt matter squat whether they could see your hole cards.
-SmoothB-
Apparently you need to read, and tear down, a different text.
I hate to be out here defending S&M but you have got to be joking? The guy should still have called. Instead, he saw your cards and still made a mistake. Get a clue.
Granted I am lazy and not going to read through all of this, but the fundamental thm assumes you opponent plays correctly, in the example your opponent played like a nimrod!
SO this isn't a counterexample. (this is another example of what some call an "intermediate mistake" in that one fold whne he believes (in this case knows) he is up against a better hand and he folds despite having the correct odds to continue.
Mabye now you can give the other 1001.
Smooth,
I understand your point perfectly and I think it's rock solid. But I do not think David's often-quoted version suffers by omitting an obvious presumption. The Theory is long enough as is, and plenty clear. The first time I read it years ago, I was brand new to casino poker and the message hit home as intended.
Here's an absurd example that might make my point. The Theory of Nailing, by Tommy.
Anytime you drive the nail all the way in without bending it, you win. Anytime you bend the nail, you lose.
But wait! What about those times when you WANT the nail to bend, say, to hold down a wire??
In the initial Theory of Nailing, we can safely assume that the intent of the nailer is to drive the nail straight and true. To amend the Theory of Nailing to cover exceptions to this presumption would only serve to distract and detract.
Tommy
Which reminds me of a cool drinking game performed at the ski lodge.
A large portion of a tree trunk is used and a large supply of finishing nails. Also one of those hammers that have the very small square end on it. A tack hammer possibly.
Everyone gets a nail. One shot at a time you get to hit the nail. When it's your turn you get to start the nail by tapping it in so it's firm. Last one to drive their nail in buys a round of drinks. Can be expensive.
Different techniques. One big hit to drive it home or smaller hits to advance the nail.
Very similar to holdem. Skill wins over the long run but poorer players can get lucky.
the assumption of the FTOP is that opponents and yourself play correctly...in this case he did not, so what is the point. obviously he should have called for the gut shot, but didn't. he made a mistake.
the basic principle behind FTOP is playing against smart/savvy/knowledgable players. against poor players, your hand is irrelevant - they'll stay no matter what. however, the converse is still true...if you know what they hold (no matter how weak a player), you'll crush them.
as an example, playing omaha 8 tonight, flop comes jj2, i have j2ak in my hand. i bet get 4 callers (i know someone has other jack, what other 3 are doing is mystery), turn is a 6, i bet and 3 callers, no raise, river is a 9 and sb bets. i know this player and am 99% sure he has j9, i call and lose to his j9 (potodds warrented call). he knew i had j2, but still called me. but over time, i will beat him if he continues playing hands like that.
I don't get it. Firstly, how could he possibly know that you must have J2. Presumably, you would bet the flop even if you had no deuce. I would add that a hand with a J2 combination is probably not a playable hand in Omaha (unless you also had a suited Ace combo there in your AKJ2 hand. Actually, even that I am not too sure of but I'll readily admit I know Jack shit about Omaha).
Secondly, if the other guy has a Jack and his 3 side cards are higher than a 6, you would think he has the pot odds to chase his 9 outer to fill up so I am not sure that you can at all criticize his play.
I would add that a hand with a J2 combination is probably not a playable hand in Omaha (unless you also had a suited Ace combo there in your AKJ2 hand. Actually, even that I am not too sure of but I'll readily admit I know Jack shit about Omaha).
I don't know a whole lot about Omaha/8 either, but I think hands like AKJ2, AQJ2, AJ23, AJ24, and AAJ2 are pretty good offsuit and even better with a suited ace. You have nut low possibilities and a fair number of ways to win high as well. Sure, I'd rather have AA23 or AK23 but you can't be too picky. Additionally I would say that most A2 hands (ergo most AJ2 hands) are playable in a game where there are several bad players, because the bad players will gladly chase non nut lows and pay you off when they hit their losing low, and that goes double when you are in good position.
-Sean
Sorry, I thought it was Omaha high only. Is that hand playable in Omaha high?
As for Omaha 8, I have *never* played that game but I would think that you are clearly correct.
For those of you who thought that Abdul Jalib's post did not cross the line into something that needed to be deleted, I will agree that taken alone the post was not all that unacceptable, and if someone else had written something similar we would have let it stand. However, Abdul occasionally gets into a pattern of posts where he focuses unnecessarily on personalities rather than the subject matter, and he does this in a derogatory way. The fact that I was the target was not the reason we took objection to it. A similar pattern directed at anybody would have been unacceptable. We had also specifically requested Abdul to refrain from these kind of posts, and since he didn't, we made the deletion.
As far as my posts in the past where I questioned whether Abdul plays as often and as high as he says I made it clear that this was simply my opinion based on my time in The Bellagio Poker Room. It now appears that he is in fact playing more frequently and higher. In any case those previous posts regarding Abdul do not give him carte blanche to come to these forums and make personal attacks towards anyone.
With that being said, both David and I feel that he certainly has something to offer when it comes to poker/gambling discussion. We hope that he continues to participate here, and we consider this issue closed.
Here! Here!
Let's move on!
Vince
Many moons ago, I used derogatory and inappropriate language in a post towards someone that had irritated the tar out of me. I regretted it immediately after posting.
I recieved a polite but firm email from Mason that this was not appropriate. I apologized and let him know that I regretted it immediately after posting.
It was a firm and professional way of handling my inappropriateness. I, of course, haven't done it again (mainly because I know better!), but for someone that didn't Mason's way of handling it was a clear warning. If Abdul has recieved numerous similar emails from Mason, then he clearly had plenty of chances to refrain from this approach.
"It was a firm and professional way of handling my inappropriateness ... If Abdul has recieved numerous similar emails from Mason, then he clearly had plenty of chances to refrain from this approach."
The intention is to improve service X (X being the quality and quantity of information offered on the 2+2 forums, said quality measured, among other things, by the emphasis given to content rather than authorship).
Just because you were served with an X of excellent quality ("firm and professional"), that certainly does not mean that another customer (ie Abdul Jalib) was treated the same way.
If you agree with and support the idea of improving X, then you should state your opinion on the specific case, ie the deletion of Abdul's post, rather than appearing as a "character witness". At best, your post can faintly help us to form a better perspective. In most cases, it shall leave the reader puzzled as to its relevance.
And who is going to 'moderate' Mason's posts?
That's the problem with this line of reasoning.
There is a 'leader' here who can say what he wants but also delete what he wants.
Very dangerous.
"Very dangerous. "
in my opinion this was inevitable ever since the power to choose U.S. senators was transfered from the states to the people.
brad
If you delete Abdul, why don't you delete Angelina's thread on internet poker. She talk about oral sex and alote of other b.s. I am here to learn about poker I dont care how many men he/she blows or screws.
Mason,
Two days ago, you wrote: "In an effort to keep our forums vibrant we deleted a post from Abdul Jalib which was insulting in nature and violated our posting guidelines."
People didn't believe that. You now write: "For those of you who thought that Abdul Jalib's post did not cross the line into something that needed to be deleted, I will agree that taken alone the post was not all that unacceptable, and if someone else had written something similar we would have let it stand."
You also asserted: "The fact that I was the target was not the reason we took objection to it. A similar pattern directed at anybody would have been unacceptable."
Yesterday, though, Vince wrote: "Hey I didn't think it was possible to insult [Mark Glover]. I've been trying for months now and Mason hasn't deleted one of my posts."
I don't believe Vince's posts should be deleted (see my previous posts on this point). But if you want to be viewed as a fair censor, then you should realize some judge you by your actions rather than by your words.
You wrote: "[David and I] consider this issue closed."
Does that mean differing points of view are not welcome?
And when you suggested "we took objection to" Abdul's deleted post, did you mean David agreed to its censoring?
"Does that mean differing points of view are not welcome? "
I hope so. I'm getting tired of reading your posts.
vince
Not that tired, apparantly. :-)
I just digestified this and other similar threads. No wonder you get tired, Vince. I could not continue to wade through them.
Mark, the problem with your posts is that 90% of the content of your posts I read are your personal justifications of what you said. You get completely away from the poker discussion and attempt to prove that your posts are ......... oh, I have dificulty explaining it. He said, she said, WHO CARES.
I can't even see the outline of where the horse was anymore....
Mason, who would you say is the single biggest threat to information exchange in the Internet poker community?
Eskimo. He doesn't have a computer ;-)
k
by jove, weve got to close the information exchange gap before its too late!
brad
No one.
vince
I have to agree with Vince. Deleting a message here hardly makes Mason a threat to the exchange of poker information. This is, after all, a venue that every reader knows belongs to certain individuals. One can ALWAYS read and post elsewhere. One could even stop reading and posting here. I am a big fan of Abdul's. I am also (although new here) a fan of 2+2. I don't like seeing Abdul censored. I don't like the continuing viturpurtation. Frankly, I can't learn much about venting ones spleen from any of you. Anyone who looked up some of my posts on science fiction or baseball boards would realize that nothing that has been said here in the field of nastiness is any kind of education for me. I CAN learn something about poker here, if people post about poker.
-- Will
I have exchanged pleasantries with the Quonster; you guys are pikers
"viturpurtation"
Bill,
I have already tried posting "The word for Today". Unfortuantely nobody liked it. Nice try though.
Vince
>who would you say is the single biggest threat to information exchange in the Internet poker community?
The Chinese Communists.
Mason this is your site and as far as I'm concerned you can delete any posts you wish (including this one of course). However I must say that there is something of an ironic contradiction in the following 2 quotes:
"Abdul occasionally gets into a pattern of posts where he focuses unnecessarily on personalities rather than the subject matter, and he does this in a derogatory way."
"As far as my posts in the past where I questioned whether Abdul plays as often and as high as he says I made it clear that this was simply my opinion based on my time in The Bellagio Poker Room"
I really don't care how high or often Abdul plays. I would rather consider and critique the logic in his various assertions. When you read through all the posts on this site you will find numerous ad hominem fallacies. I think it's a little disingenuous to say that Abdul's deletion had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that this particular one was directed at you.
I must have been through this a dozen times with Mason, and he just doesn't get it. He has used this flawed logic to attack me here in the past, so I'm not going to accept pseudo-compliments that use the same flawed logic. The frequency and stakes played doesn't necessarily mean anything. Ray Zee rarely plays at the Bellagio. Does that mean he is a bad player? No, of course not. There's a guy who plays the $80-$160 hold'em game at Bellagio fairly regularly. Does this mean he is a good player? No, of course not. One of the guys who repeatedly plays the $80-$160 is a professional sports bettor who says his smallest sports bet is $5000 - he plays $80-$160 hold'em for entertainment - e.g., after I reraised a raiser he 4-bet with 64s yesterday - I had AA and he flopped a straight and that was great entertainment for him.
I'm far more experienced at hold'em, including at upper limits, than Mason realizes. The graveyard players in each location I've played are very familiar with me and have never seen Mason Malmuth. Should they conclude that he does not exist?
Even if I never played poker for the last year, I would still possess a high degree of poker skill from about 11 previous years of experience, at least until the neurons started to reprogram themselves. Personally, I think the best way to judge poker skill is by the quality of poker writing.
-Abdul
I've got 2 questions:
1. I was involved in the following hand this past weekend. I am in the BB in seat 9. There is a lady in middle position who missed her blinds and is waiting for her BB to post. The dealer, who is somewhat new, deals her cards. Now the dealer was confused in the past and we had to help him at times. Also, not to be racist, he was oriental and we sometimes had a hard time understanding what he said. Now the lady looks at her cards and a player makes a comment that she can't come in because she now knows what the hand is. Confusion sets in... I hear the dealer say the hand's dead. Hearing that, and seing other players doing so, I throw my hand in the muck and wait for a redeal. But I realize that he meant HER hand is dead and that the hands I saw folded were hands from early position players just folding their hands...and other players start limping. We call the floor and they rule it's a misdeal. Some of the players say that was a bad ruling and that I should protect my hand. Heck, I did protect my hand, when the dealer says misdeal then how long should you wait to throw your hand away ? The only thing here is that he didn't say misdeal but the hand's dead. What's the correct ruling?
2. Should you say anything when you are not involved in the pot and you see the pot is not awarded to the right player?
Thanks,
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
The dealer made the correct call and you just misunderstood. You should have let it go and chalk it up to lessons learned from small mistakes.
In general, the floor's ruling was incorrect though not surprising. Sometimes if a problem has confused everyone and no significant action has occurred they'll essentially rule it a 'do over.'
You probably shouldn't have called the floor at all though. It was just a misunderstanding you learned from in a single hand where you didn't have a dime at risk. Cheap lesson and not good enough reason to stall a game.
There are plenty of other cases where the theory is plain wrong. Some of them are commonly known. But here is one. I think that based almost entirely on the merit of this one situation - a very common one, in fact - the FTOP should be revised, changed, or discarded.
Draws. There are plenty of cases where every single opponent can be making money on a given play.
It's the turn. I am in first position with AK. The board is Ks Qs 4h 3h. I bet. Let's say there are 1 BB in the pot. One person calls with a flush draw in spades. One person calls with a flush draw in hearts. One person calls with JT (a 4 outs open ender.) One person calls with 56 (another 4 outs open ender.) Yet another person calls with J5 (2 pair/trips draw.)
Whether they could see your hole cards or not, they would all be correct to call.
The bottom line is that the FTOP demonstrates a very important concept in poker - deception. But its shortcomings are that it is too simplistic, neglecting to point out some critical exceptions and specific details, and it is too narrow. Deception is only one part of poker.
And it is by no means the most important part. The single most important thing you can do to win at poker is to learn to play a solid game and to play the odds.
Sometimes, of course, you must be able to change up your game. Sometimes playing like a tight robot, strictly by the book, will get the most money. Other times you must be very tricky. If you are truly a smart, thinking and winning poker player however, you will ALMOST NEVER find yourself in games where you have to be the latter!
THE MOST important thing about winning at poker is game selection. End of story. And if you are practicing good game selection then the FTOP is almost completely useless to you. There is no need to be tricky. Fact is if you choose the right games you COULD play your hand face up and still make winner consistently!
Even bad players can win money from really really bad players.
In short, not only is the FTOP flawed, but it also focuses on an aspect of poker that really should not be that important.
I am going to draft MY OWN theorem of poker. And I'll call them SmoothB's Laws of Poker.
They are:
1) The Law of Game Selection. Your expected earnings per hour is equal to the sum of your expected earnings from each of your opponents per hour, minus the rake/time charge.
2) Law of Positive Expectation. Every play you make has 2 components - short term EV and long term EV. Short term EV applies to just that hand. Long term EV applies to your image for future hands.
Let's call short term EV EV(s) and long term EV EV(l).
Every play you make has an EV where EV = EV(l) + EV (s). Every time you make a play where EV>0, you make money. Every time you make a play where EV<0, you lose money.
3) Law of negative implied odss: If another card comes and your hand does not improve, it has diminished in value.
Exception - when you have the nuts or very close to the nuts, and the final card has come and your hand is still the nuts or very close to it, and no one could have improved WITH THAT CARD to beat you.
IE you have the nut flush on the turn and it is still the nuts on the river. OR you have a K high flush on the turn, and the river does not pair the board or put another of that suit on board. (Note that this does not imply that your hand is actually best - only that it does not diminish in value.)
Well, I think that is good for a start. I will come up with more in the near future.
-SmoothB-
.
I wrote:
2) Law of Positive Expectation. Every play you make has 2 components - short term EV and long term EV. Short term EV applies to just that hand. Long term EV applies to your image for future hands. Let's call short term EV EV(s) and long term EV EV(l). Every play you make has an EV where EV = EV(l) + EV (s). Every time you make a play where EV>0, you make money. Every time you make a play where EV
Ammend the ending so that it reads
Every time you make a play where EV<0, you lose money.
-SmoothB-
One of the first things taught, in all scientific disciplines, is Scientific Method. Hand and clove with Scientific Method there is a principle taught called Occam’s razor, sometimes called the principle of parsimony. Sir William of Occam stated that "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything." Thus, if there are two competing theories both of which successfully explain something, then the theory that offers the simplest (most elegant) explanation is the one which should be adopted.
Would that your theories adequately explained anything, but so far SmoothB, you have explained nothing that is not already covered far more elegantly elsewhere. Additionally, your attempts to explain your theories have all been incomplete, flawed, confused and needlessly complex. As if that were not enough, you also do not even have the courtesy to interact with people who are seriously trying to respond to your postings.
If you want to explore the FToP then fine, but you must interact seriously in order to expect any of us to take you seriously. At this point, I believe you are just stirring the pot for sport and are not serious at all.
I wish you the very best.
Sincerely, William Seabrook
You have some amazing patience and diplomacy. You must drive your kids crazy!
Thanks for the lesson
Regards Mike N
Thank you... I think. :-)
William
William,
I like the principal. Thought you might appreciate Hume's criterion for judging a miracle: "no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish."
John
Thank you for that John, it is indeed a gem.
William
That IS a gem. I've heard it before but I didn't know who said it.
As to Occam's razor, I've been using it to shave my life for 20 years. I agree that it wounds Smooth's suggested revision of David's theory.
Parsimony!
Tommy
Yep, Occam's razor did SmoothB in, with ease.
William
I'm not sure that you understand the Fundamental Theory of Poker.
- Andrew
It's clear you don't understand it.
In order to teach someone about poker, you have to teach people how to increase their EV. In order to increase EV, you have to make the right play, and avoid the wrong play. In order to make the right play, you have to know what "right" means.
You can easily tell what the +EV play is if you have all the information. It's sometimes hard to tell what the right play is in a game of incomplete information, which is why poker is interesting.
The FtoP is just setting the ground rules for discussion. It's saying, in effect, "Every time you deviate from the best play if you have all the information, you lose." Which is trivial, and not that interesting, but needs to be said to get it out of the way.
So it's not a theorem, it's an axiom, a premise. It's a starting point, but doesn't explain anything on its own.
As a wit once said on these very boards, "The fundamental theorem of poker is neither fundamental or a theorem. Discuss amongst yourselves."
- target
Well I haven't read David's TOP in years, but I think you misunderstand his FTOP.
It has nothing to do with deception, nor is it refuted by the fact that more than one player may be receiving correct odds to draw. If I recall it simply states that you err when you act contrary to how you would correctly act if you knew your opponents cards. Please explain how this is refuted by the fact that you may be receiving correct odds to try to outdraw a hand that is currently leading.
It seems to me that you have interpreted the FTOP to state you should fold any hand that is currently behind. It doesn't say that at all.
I guess this is SmoothB's idea of free-thinking, diverging from S&M. Well, its shows such a lack of understanding of the idea, that I doubt they will even dignify it with a response. Keep thinking.
SmoothB Wrote:
“It's the turn. I am in first position with AK. The board is Ks Qs 4h 3h. I bet. Let's say there are 12 BB in the pot. One person calls with a flush draw in spades. One person calls with a flush draw in hearts. One person calls with JT (a 4 outs open ender.) One person calls with 56 (another 4 outs open ender.) Yet another person calls with J5 (2 pair/trips draw.)
Whether they could see your hole cards or not, they would all be correct to call.”
In order to make the case that they would all be correct to draw, you must identify both the value and suit of each pocket card. However, even if you do correct your example, it will not be in violation of the FToP. As an example, if you put enough big bets in the pot then more than one person (on the draw) can have a net positive expected return without being in violation of the FToP at all.
You know, now that I think about it, I do not understand what you are talking about. Please help me with this by making your example detailed enough to support your case. Then, please explain why you believe your example proves the FToP incorrect when addressing the appropriateness of multiple people drawing even if they have seen their opponents pocket cards. I just do not get what you are talking about, sorry.
Thanks, William
Here's the Fundamental Theory of Poker, quoted from my ancient edition of Winning Poker (1983):
Every time you play a hand differently from the way you would have played it if you could see all your opponents' cards, they gain; and every time you play your hand the same way you would have played it if you could see all their cards, they lose. Conversely, every time opponents play their hands differently from the way they would have if they could see all your cards, you gain; and every time they play their hands the same way they would have played if they could see all your cards, you lose.
Question on law 3. Suppose, in hold 'em, you have a set of 3s on the turn and one opponent has a set of 2s, two opponents have a flush draw, two have a straight draw, and 2 have overpairs. Now a blank comes on the river. Hasn't your hand now increased in value in that you now have a 100% chance of winning?
how many of those hands would call preflop if they could see your cards? just because they made a mistake on one street doesnt mean they cant get lucky and make it up on a later street (and then play correctly once they get lucky). but theyre not always going to get lucky on a later street.
you know what i mean i think.
brad
If you did, you didn't understand it, nor do you understand the concept of a theorum in general.
In your example, in order to prove a supposed flaw in FTOP, you need to establish that all players were correct in their play before the turn. You can't make bad calls pre-flop and on the flop and expect a propper call an the turn to save you.
First of all, I don't think that laws 1 and 3 really change the TOP, they just adjust the amount of money that would be made from the correct play. In other words, the correct play isn't changed by these laws.
On the other hand, law 2 is right on the money, and is certainly not implicit in the theory of poker. The bottom line here (and it's not something people, including myself, think enough about) is that the "correct" play according to the TOP would cause future "correct" plays to be worth less in situations where your image is damaged.
Not having fully read TOP, I'm not sure if laws 1 and 2 were treated as special cases, and discussed in detail. I suspect law 3 wasn't as I've seen your posts on this topic before, and you think this is a novel concept.
Bill
Just reread the FtoP, and it doesn't really exclude the case of law 2 either. But, I think law 2 is still an important qualification of the FtoP.
Bill
Let's look at the scenario a bit, shall we.
First of all, we are interested in the FToP proper plays for the whole table, so we will assume that all hands are face up.
Let's try to everybody something to minimize the outs of our hero (who has AK). Since the As,Ah,9s,9h,7s,7h,2s,2h are killed as outs for the straight draws, let's choose the flush hands from them. The hero must have something like AdKc. The straight draws are JTd, and 56c. Obviously SmoothB means the last guy has one pair. How can we maximize his outs? The non paired card must be an 8. It can be any 8 in terms of total loss of outs for the hero. Let the other card be a Q, once again the suit won't matter to the hero. Let's say the Qh8s to maximize his own outs with only minimal damage to both flushes.
The lineup: AdKc--As9s--Ah9h--JdTd--5c6c--Qh8s.
The outs: 9--8--8--3--4--4
Of course if the hero bets, everyone should at least call. Can anybody raise? Let's look at the second flush draw.
The first two players will see the raise (at least), so the last three players can count on that money being in the pot. What if the first straight folds? The second straight needs to pay 2 for a shot at 18 BB, and he's only an 8-1 shot so he should call, especially since the last guy will call as well. Assuming that it doesn't get reraised, then the guy with the first straight can expect a shot at 22 BB at a cost of 2BB, exactly matching his 11-1 shot. Unfortunately for him, he can expect the hero to reraise (based on lots of callers or increased chance of winning), so he sees that he will pay 3BB to win 27BB. Not good enough, so he will fold.
Go back to the second straight draw. Using the same reasoning (and the fact that if it's correct for him to call, then it's correct for the last guy to call) he will have to pay 3BB to win 24BB. Exactly what he needs for his 8-1 shot. So the last two guys would call.
Finally, if there are 5 players still going to be in, then it would be correct for the second flush draw to cap. Let's look at the thinking for the last two players in that light. It will cost 4BB to win 28BB, and so they should fold.
[We will leave the ananlysis of the case where the hero checks (trying for a check-raise) to others. We assume that it will be less correct.]
Therefore, the raise by the flush draw would be incorrect in the scenario presented where the cards are faceup. Thus SmoothB's final betting round of bet-all call is the best one in that case.
However, the decisions involved are all fairly close, so that if only one player could see all the cards, then things could change significantly. If you had the second flush draw and knew that the players downstream would make FToP mistakes, then the "correct" play (from the point of view of the FToP) would shift from just calling to raising (knowing that they would get caught on the installment plan).
When applying the FToP to your own hand, it makes no dictation or assumption about how the opponents will play, just about how you should play with perfect knowledge. You need to add the tendencies of other players in order to arrive at the correct FToP decision.
In a real game, the second (or maybe the first) flush draw should raise. He will probably have at least 4 others in, most of the time.
Eric
I don't mean this in a malicious way at all, but you really should try to understand a little bit about poker theory before making revisions to it and coming up with your own laws.
Mostly disagree. The FTOP does NOT state that [A] everybody cannot play correctly in a hand. It doesn't say the [B] only way to make money is when the opponent's make mistakes (in your example the AK makes money on the turn bet because he correctly bet and the other opponents lose money on that bet, even though all are playing correctly). [C] It also doesn't state you have to play "tricky". As you suggest: if the opponents are going to make mistakes even if they know what you have then there is no reason to play tricky: this is how classic "Rocks" beat loose low-limit games.
(1) Yes, game selection is very important; but I suspect your next sentance doesn't in practice add up since your expected winning from one player changes depending on what other players are at the table: you make less money from a loose pre-flop 1-bet caller when there is an assertive raiser in front of him.
(2) Agree in principle except that your long term EV is NOT just about making an "image" play. You can easily make more money by giving the opponent correct information about your stategy, such as getting away with more bluffs if he knows you bet marginal hands more often.
(3) No, your hand does NOT have to "improve" in order for a card to increase your hand's value. If you have [AsKc] board {AhJhTd4d}, have lead all the way and get 3 calls on the turn, a black 2 river is an excellent card for your hand; 2rd only to snagging the Ac (its even better than a black Queen which gives you the nuts but you may split).
Yes, solid play in great games will dominate your EV.
- Louie
Poor Addul, Yeah sure. Poor, poor Abdul! Big bad Mason deleted his post. Poor Abdul. Well how about poor Vince? Mason has deleted my posts in the past. Well not all of them but one or two or three. One of them was Abdul's fault too. Yes it was. He said penis once too often and Mason 86'd it, no not his penis, his post. So I posted a post with a lot of penii. Is that plural for penis or is it penis' or penises. Which ever way it is I put a lot of them in my post and Mason warned me via e-mail. He said Vince you are going to far. Or maybe he said you went to far. I can't remember, but he did warn me before he axed each of my posts. Yes I was mad. I pulled one of my vanishing tricks. I refused to post anymore. And those were the good old days. Badger and Carson posted here then. Man I had a field day every day with those two. Mason should have deleted a lot of my posts back then. But I think he was too busy deleting Carson and Badger posts. At their on request I might add. Not me, I am egotistical. I put this stuff up here cause I want it up here not cause I want it deleted. But that's me and Mark Glover too. Abdul, I don't speak for, only me and once in a while Mark. God I wonder how long a retort I'm gonna get from him for this one.
But I'm here to tell you that Mr. Malmuth warns you before he deltes you unless you are so outrageous that you must be pulled off immediately. So if you get warned by him you may want to reassess your behavior. Why? Cause I found that Mr Mason was justified each time he deleted one of my posts. So, I guess, I was the bad guy after all.
vince
Should this be renamed The Deleted Post Forum instead of the General Theory forum. I thought this forum was suppose to contain general theory on Poker.
Maybe I am confused.
Oh I know.
Maybe this forum is about all types of theories. So it just seems there is a lot of new theory about getting posts deleted or whining that posts were deleted or not deleted.
Even I have followed the great theorists in this forum and posted a message nothing about any Poker Theory. Well to get some Poker content in this message I agree with raising with AA before the flop :)
Ken Poklitar
Its reasonably important to keep your poker content related to your post. Your raising with AA statement was pretty pathetic.
So we may have to ignore the "I delete/You delete" BS currently on the forum!?! Perhaps you could have mentioned that even at the poker table lots of distractions and issues demand attention yet one should stick to what's important.
For examples, one should avoid the emotional hit when one loses a couple pots and stay focused on discipline; and one should ignore the table argument and focus on the hand in play.
See? So my example is even more pathetic than yours but its related. :)
- Louie
I have no axe to grind against Mason Malmuth. I have learned much from him, I appreciate this forum and I respect his contributions to the game of Poker, However, by admitting to us that he deleted a post not for content but because of the source of the content he has opened himself up to a style of attack that has no defense.
In the subject line I wrote Mason Malmuth is a great guy. Now let's say from now on any time I use the term "great guy" it actually means something quite derogatory. (Use your imagination). Let's say this type of remark violates the guidelines set forth by our hosts. I can then assume that any time I use the term "great guy" I am virtually asking to be deleted. I might even be expelled if I persist. But, what happens if Jim Brier mentions that Mason is a great guy. Does "great guy" mean the same thing as it does when I write it or is Jim's "great guy" taken at face value. Could Abdul refer to mason as a great guy? Could Abdul simply say, "I agree with Jim."
As you see there's no way out for Mason here. That's why I believe when Mason feels as though a persoanl attack has been made he should step back and confer with people he respects and get a consensus. If Mason's own supporters cannot see the attack then we can assume no one else will either. For Mason to delete a post simply becauase he knows what the guy meant is a bit arbitrary and totalitarian. I realize this forum is not a democracy but it shouldn't be a playground with a bully either.
im ready to switch sides and attack mason; im just biding my time.
brad
Ok, Mason Malmuth sucks. I switched.
gee, you fell for the old false flag!
brad
During their warped card dispute, Mason wrote: "Since Abdul plays almost no poker, he probably wasn't aware of this."
This is one of Mason's common debate tactics. When he cannot logically dispute a poster's point, he sometimes will try to belittle the poster. It's called "poisoning the well." And it's an example of fallacious reasoning.
He has made similar attacks on me. Even though he doesn't know me, he erroneously asserted that I mostly play in $1-$2 and $2-$4 games.
Later, he proclaimed that I don't even play in public cardrooms.
When that fell through, he incorrectly decided that I was a losing poker player.
Demonstrating rather inconsistent thinking, Mason then reverted back to his false accusation that I don't play in public cardrooms.
There are plenty of other insults that he has hurdled at me and a lot more mud that he has thrown at other dissenters. It should be enough of a pattern that, in all fairness, he ought to delete his next post that might embarrass someone.
This is one of those [B] posts you asked about.
I find you and Steve Badger nothing but jealous and ignorant fools IMHO
All of you conspiracy buffs out there will love this one. Although it's only a theory, I believe it is grounded in fact.
The 2+2 website is very boring. Not much happens here and because it is web based it is slow and difficult to access. From time to time, however, things liven up, especially when there is a contoversy.
Lately, things here have been excrutiatingly boring. Enter Abdul. Abdul regurgates some old flame war that everyone has already read and heard about and bingo, renewed interest in this site. It even carries ove to RGP. Newbies on RGP wonder what the hell is going on and where on earth is this place called 2+2, etc.
Whoever is doing the marketing for you guys is a genius. The best way to create interest is to create contoversy. Abdul must be getting something out of the deal. It's probably a plan David, Mason and Abdul cooked up one night when the 30-60 game broke down.
"Gee, our site sure is boring lately. Hey, Abdul, why don't you bring up some old controversy about me and maybe that'll liven things up again," Mason says.
"Sure, what's in it for me?"
"We'll think of something. It could pay off for you down the road too. You'll look like the hero and we will appear to be the omnipresent villians rushing to defend ourselves. Our legion of stooges, ah er, followers will chime in to defend us as well. It'll be fun."
"OK, yea you're right, I should get some good PR out of this for my upcoming book. You guys are always good for a bash."
"I love this," David says. "I live for fending off the idiot attackers."
Problem is that it gets pretty old after a while. It would work better if you could find some new point to attack from. We've heard all of these old stories before. Either way, my hat's off to your marketing skills. I couldn't have come up with a better idea myself.
It's more true than you might think. Mason and David love those web hits.
-Abdul
Sure do.
Does anyone know how to get in contact with the "coach"....... I have emailed him, at his website, it is returned "unkown person" I have called the ph# he lists at his site, and the line is dead. If anyone knows anytrhng about this, please inform me. Thanks, Buckcp
nt
From Card Player Magazine:
Bob Ciaffone is available for poker lessons. He may be reached at (517) 792-0884, or by E-mail at coach999@concentric.net. His web site is www.concentric.net/~Coach999
I heard from a PFC in the chow line that he's in Tunica playing 2 5 PLO.
n/t
I would like to take the opportunity to say that I acknowledge I was wrong and posted inappropriate comments to many of Mark Glover's posts. Maybe all of them I don't remember really. I'm sure Glover can dig through the archives and determine if it was really all of them :-). I'm not commenting on the content of his posts or the responses he gives. He did point out to me that if I could simply ignore his threads if I didn't find them to be worthwhile. He is right and I think that people should refrain from derogatory comments about Mark simply because you don't like what he writes or agree with the points he is trying to make. I wish I would have followed the advice I'm giving now. Out.
I simply don't get the whole Mark Glover thing. I read practically all of his posts and find most of them quite humorous. He shows incredible intellect, a sharp wit, a thorough knowledge of gambling and he's willing to go along with a joke at his expense. Many of you take all of this way too seriously. Keep it up, it's hilarious.
Right and I'm sure that many posters do enjoy reading his posts and get a lot out of what he writes. My hope is that this continues in a more pleasant environment and again I'm admitting that I was wrong and have had at least some part in makeing the environment unpleasant.
SammyB
In a post below titled "Mason's pattern of insults", Mark said "There are plenty of other insults that he has hurdled at me and a lot more mud that he has thrown at other dissenters." I think he meant "hurled", not "hurdled". I've never heard of anyone hurdling insults.
Of course, upon reflection, it could be a clever ploy to appear fallible and be one of the guys. That's probably it.
Nevermind*
Tom D
*Rosanna Dana-"Saturday Night Live" (Cir. 1980)
*Rosanna Dana-"Saturday Night Live" (Cir. 1980)
That was Emily Litella. Roseanne Rosannadanna's line was, "It's always something...if it's not one thing, it's another."
Chevy Chase would always point out something stupid Roseanne (Gilda) would say, and she would pipe up in that squeaky little voice, "Nevermind!"
Of course, her signature line was "It's always somethin'"
See Favorite Quotes thread on Other Topics last week.lol.
Chevy Chase would always point out something stupid Roseanne (Gilda) would say, and she would pipe up in that squeaky little voice, "Nevermind!"
Of course, her signature line was "It's always somethin'"
C'mon people, it wasn't that long ago, was it?
Roseanne Rosannadanna - big, frizzy hair, chewing gum.
Emily Litella - cat-eyes, hair in a bun.
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/scripts/75gupdate.phtml
.
Tom,
When I saw the title of this post I fully expected it would be an apology for misspelling my name over on RGP in that "our posters will beat your posters thread" :-). But Mark deserves some slack also.
Regards,
Rick
My RGP mistake was horrible and I apologize for the mispelling. I thought it was interesting that I got to draft the team :-).
Tom,
No problem. I only brought it up because Badger mentioned it in a thread on RGP below (Abdul's Quiz about grabbing chips) in order to get me to come over to/from the "Dark Side". Which side is the "Dark Side" depends on your point of view, I suppose ;-).
Regards,
Rick
I was wondering what you and Rick were talking about, because I hardly ever lurk at rgp. There IS some pretty good stuff on the site, but I find it so hard to sort through and separate the wheat from the chaff. On 2+2, when I go into Other Topics, I pretty much know in advance that there's a good chance I will run into some offbeat stuff, but that's what makes that section fun. I find on rgp, it's pretty much all one big Other Topics section and finding good info on tactics and strategy is much harder. But to satisfy my curiousity, I schlepped over there at coffee break this morning and found the thread.
I am honored that you would consider me for the squad, Tom. But with the runovers I've taken the past two weeks, you might want to reconsider! To use a golfing analogy, I'm on the bogey train right now, and they've locked the doors.
I consider your poker analysis top notch actually.
Sean picked 4 guys that I would have picked so I would definitely put those guys on. I'd put Sean on too but he wants to play for the other team and I thought of several more that provide excellent analysis. The bottom line is that David Sklansky is right, this site can help any player to play a better brand of poker. It's helped greatly.
Yeah, Dunc does pretty good for a Canadian. But I wouldn't pick him for an SNL trivia team.
re: RGP
". . . find it hard to sort through. . . "
Lordy, you ain't kidding. I've been there, like, three times in two years. Today makes four because my tender ego had to know if I made the team. I looked around for all of ten seconds and came back here. lol
Tommy
Hi and goodbye all. This is my last post to the forum.
For the past year I have been an enthusiastic contributer to this site. Last calendar year I won an average of 1.3BB per hour (despite a 3 month break even streak) and I've been winning over 2BB per hour this year. These days I usually play 20-40 but I play anywhere from 9-18 to 40-80.
I think anyone would agree that I am a winning holdem player. Yet contrary to my good common sense, I have been giving away free poker lessons on this site for the last year, getting nothing but grief in return. No longer.
I have many reasons for leaving you. Here are a few:
1) 90% of the posters here are losing low limit players, and when they scoff at the free, winning advice I offer, it annoys me.
2) The few people's advice that I do trust here rarely post. As such, for quite some time I have found myself contributing to others but getting nothing in return.
3) I am finishing my 3rd year of law school this year and will be taking a job at a large San Fransico law firm when I graduate. I will have little free time and I don't see the merit in squandering it here.
Many of you do enjoy my posts, and I thank you for the support you have given me. I keep in contact with you via email and I will happy to continue doing this.
The first 5 times I ever played poker in a cardroom, I made winner. And I have never been in the red since. If none of you want to benefit from my knowledge, so be it. Go pay Sklansky 300 bucks an hour.
Adieu.
-SmoothB-
I'm not sure which I'd rather have. A million bucks or your head full of nickels. That's some ego you got there.
I don't much care for SmoothB. It's true we're related but it's like the Vulcans and the Romulans. I never read his posts, much to my detriment he would say but he can't becuase he said this was his last post. I don't like him and I have good reason. He dissed Greg Raymer. To me this isn't a trivial thing. Greg, as you all know, does nothing but add great insight, guidance and good conversation to this forum. If you don't respect him, you have nothing of substance to offer.
Fine. So, here's the dilemma. Guys like SmoothB are just waiting for a long list of supporters or detractors with which they can measure their impact. The most effective way to combat his thirst for attention would be for his post to get no response whatsoever. The opposite of respect is not scorn but apathy. I don't care that SmoothB will no longer post here. So, disregard this post. It never happened. Don't take THAT, SmoothB
Sammy,
While there is little doubt that Smooth B can often come across as one arrogant SOB, I do have to give credit where it's due. He does know his poker and has put up many posts in the past that are real gems. I'll miss his poker contributions but like you, I wont miss his posting style and his "holier than thou" attitude.
I would invite Smooth to continue posting but to lose the attitude.
We know that you are a winning player, Smooth...believe it or not, most of us that post here do in fact win. So, quit thumping your own chest and hang around. You may find that you could perhaps pick up a few pointers as well.
BTW, which San Fran firm are you going to? Several lawyers from my firm have gone down to San Fran to practice. Some of my ex-colleagues may soon be colleagues of yours.
Good luck!
Stange, SmoothB posts many things which I find are str8 from the 2+2 books. I have yet to read an "original" idea of his. It's strange because he accuses others of simply "regurgitating" 2+2 (which we do a lot of). We just don't take credit for the ideas as being our own.
TO his credit, he often posted about how he would play a hand, why he would play it that way etc. I stopped reading his posts too late and was drawn in to the FTOP thread but c'est la vie.
He can continue to post or not, it really doesn't matter to me but I can see the value in many of the posts he has made. The value is in the re-iteration of concepts that we all need reminding of.
Disclaimer: I am not claiming that my posts have ever had ANY original material in them.
I wish SmoothB well in his lawyerly endeavors and in his poker career. Maybe that new theory is just around the corner.
Regards Mike N
It's very obvious that Smoothy has the right attitude and personality for a lawyer. To wit, arrogance, little humility, and an oversized ego. Why do some winning poker players, just by virtue of them being winners, think that they are so much better than other people in all the other aspects of life that don't involve poker.
You may find that you could perhaps pick up a few pointers as well.
skp-Please. I think it's rather obvious from SmoothB's recent posts that he is smarter than David Sklansky. What could he possibly have to gain from sticking around? Could Professor Lambeau teach Will Hunting? Of course not. And if you really are a winning player, why aren't you constantly referring to your win rate? Must be a Canadian thing. Here in the US, humility is reserved for Zen Buddhists and low-limit losers.
skp-
"He does know his poker and has put up many posts in the past that are real gems."
Really? Could you direct me to where I might find some of these "gems"? I personally don't ever recall reading an original post of his that did not contain either wrong, arrogant or insulting material.
This guy has a sense of self importance that just boggles the mind. I've been laughing at him for quite a while now. So I'd really like to know if I've been wrong to do so.
"Really? Could you direct me to where I might find some of these "gems"?"
Sorry...that's a job for The Footnote Man aka Mark Glover.
I can't specifically rememeber any of my own posts let alone someone else's but I have often read SmoothB's posts (those that aren't in any way insulting) and either reacted with a "hm..good point" or a "yes...that's something to think about" etc.
It seems there was a cry baby poker dealer poster over on RGP that thought he should have been poster of the year or some such crap. When he didn't receive said accolade he wrote a "goodbye" post much like the one above telling everyone how he'd been so badly dissed. Who cares.
Thanks for your posts SmoothB,
I have read your post with interest since I have been coming here. Unlike you, when I started poker I didn't win right away. I am in the black now, however.
I find that posting my opinions here (as you say giving away free advice) helps my game. When reading about a hand you have more time to think about it then you do at the table, and thinking about the correct decision on the forum helps me make the correct decision at the tables. I may be selfish, but I post to improve my game, I don't necessarily post to improve other's games.
Without this forum, I would be in a much different point of the learning curve. When I first began (I have only played for about 2 years), I needed a mentor. The mentor I found was online. When I had a decision to make I thought about what he would do, and I tried to emulate him. My game has grown since then, and I now can think a little more on my own... Without experienced posters like yourself I think this forum would not be as good.
I have noticed that my 'mentor' is posting less and less as well. I hope this isn't a trend.
Again, thank you for your contributions. Good luck in your studies and at the tables.
Derrick Ashworth
Another lovable lawyer.
.
Ah the exuberance of youth, life’s one and only spring. You convey a wonderful energy in your posts and I understand how easy it is to believe you know it all when you are young, but you need to give yourself some time. If you save your posts and then review them in a few years, I suspect you will understand how much you have grown since this time. On the other hand, you may still think you knew it all when you were still in college, which would be sad indeed.
I should have realized you were young and relatively inexperienced. If my post on Occam’s Razor offended your delicate sensibilities SmoothB, then I apologize. I made the mistake of thinking that you were being cantankerous on purpose and never really considered, when you kept beating your head against the FToP wall, that yours was a misguided act sincerity.
In any case, I wish you the best of luck and advise you to put more thought into preparing your legal cases than you have in preparing your postulations regarding poker.
Good Luck, William Seabrook
n/t
Why do you feel the need to say goodby? Just stop posting, BFD
Good riddance.
Another wanna be pro on a six month winning streak that thinks he's God. What's next.
Patting yourself on the back.
...you making the same type of announcement about a year or so ago, so cut him a little slack :>
Mental problems.
:-)
;;;
Enjoy this non-poker related story although you could relate it to poker if you like.
It's similar to a motivational speaker I listened to a few weeks ago in New Orleans. [Curt Boudreaux –(Curt has written 3 books on Cajun humor, Never Kiss An Alligator On The Lips! and co-authored a book on leadership entitled, Irresistible Leadership.)]
There has been a fair bit of negativity here recently and like T Haley states "mia culpa". Anyway enjoy!
READ THIS. LET IT REALLY SINK IN. THEN CHOOSE HOW YOU START YOUR DAY.
Michael is the kind of guy you love to hate. He is always in a good mood and always has something positive to say.
When someone would ask him how he was doing, would reply, "If I were any better, I would be twins!"
He was a natural motivator.
If an employee was having a bad day, Michael was there telling the employee how to look on the positive side of the situation.
Seeing this style really made me curious, so one day I went up to Michael and asked him, "I don't get it! You can't be a positive person all of the time. How do you do it?"
Michael replied, "Each morning I wake up and say to myself, you have two choices today.
You can choose to be in a good mood or ... you can choose to be in a bad mood. I choose to be in a good mood.
Each time something bad happens, I can choose to be a victim or...I can choose to learn from it. I choose to learn from it.
Every time someone comes to me complaining, I can choose to accept their complaining or... I can point out the positive side of life. I choose the positive side of life.
"Yeah, right, it's not that easy," I protested. "Yes, it is," Michael said. "Life is all about choices. When you cut away all the junk, every situation is a choice.
You choose how you react to situations. You choose how people affect your mood. You choose to be in a good mood or bad mood.
The bottom line: It's your choice how you live your life."
I reflected on what Michael said. Soon hereafter, I left the Tower Industry to start my own business. We lost touch, but I often thought about him when I made a choice about life instead of reacting to it.
Several years later, I heard that Michael was involved in a serious accident, falling some 60 feet from a communications tower.
After 18 hours of surgery and weeks of intensive care, Michael was released from the hospital with rods placed in his back.
I saw Michael about six months after the accident. When I asked him how he was, he replied. "If I were any better, I'd be twins. Wanna see my scars?"
I declined to see his wounds, but I did ask him what had gone through his mind as the accident took place.
"The first thing that went through my mind was the well-being of my soon to be born daughter," Michael replied. "Then, as I lay on the ground, I remembered that I had two choices: I could choose to live or... I could choose to die.
I chose to live."
"Weren't you scared? Did you lose consciousness?" I asked.
Michael continued, "...the paramedics were great. They kept telling me I was going to be fine. But when they wheeled me into the ER and I saw the expressions on the faces of the doctors and nurses, I got really scared. In their eyes, I read "he's a dead man. I knew I needed to take action."
"What did you do?" I asked.
"Well, there was a big burly nurse shouting questions at me," said Michael. "She asked if I was allergic to anything.
"Yes, I replied." The doctors and nurses stopped working as they waited for my reply. I took a deep breath and yelled, "Gravity."
Over their laughter, I told them, "I am choosing to live. Operate on me as if I am alive, not dead."
Michael lived, thanks to the skill of his doctors, but also because of his amazing attitude. I learned from him that every day we have the choice to live fully.
Attitude, after all, is everything.
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own."
After all today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.
You have two choices now: 1. Delete this. 2. Forward it to the people you care about.
You know the choice I made.
I saw the same story about a year ago, except that it was a person that was shot and he was allergic to lead.
Still a nice story though.
.
I need help with estimating pot odds. Does anyone have a simple way to explain it to me? I have a chart I don't fully understand.It has number of outs then> turn(%),turn(x:1),river(%),river(x:1),t/r(%),t/r(x:1)... also what is the best book to buy for figuring pot odds?
Pot odds is strictly how much is in the pot divided by the bet. So if there are 7 bets in the pot and you are faced with a raise, you are getting 3.5:1 pot-odds for your call.
Perhaps you are talking about what I call "hand-odds" which is the number of card combinations that MISS your hand divided by the number of cards combinations "outs" that make your hand; representing your "odds against winning". "Hand-Odds" is NOT to be confused with "winning-odds" which represents your chances of actually winning. You may win even if you miss (say if you miss your flush but snag a pair) but more often you may lose even when you hit (someone fills after you make the flush). It is rarely possible to accurately calculate your chances of winning.
Ignoring future implied odds, one would compare one's winning-odds to one's pot-odds; call if the pot odds are greater. So in my first example one would call if your chances of winning were 3.4:1 against or lower.
This is all when considering calling or folding. Many different criteria come into play when considering betting or raising.
- Louie
Hello,
In an effort to increase my game selection, I have begun to work on my skills at Stud.
I am interested in other's comments regarding these games. I usually played 3/6 or 4/8 Hold Em while waiting for a 6/12 HE table, but recently started playing 3/6 Stud instead.
I have found that where I play, the 3/6 Stud games seem much softer and easier to beat than the 3/6 and 4/8 Hold Em games. Many stud opponents practice little or no starting hand requirements and often find themselves trapped with 2 small pair or chasing little straights to the river.
I have very rudimentary Stud skills but I have pretty good poker skills in comparison to most of my opponents. Books like TOP, 7CSFAP-21, West's book, and Mason's items in Poker Essays regarding mistakes Stud players make have been extremely valuable also.
I noticed that for the most part, my opponents almost never raise - unless they have trips, a straight or a flush. And forget reraising completely, they just don't do it without a full house. If someone on an obvious flush draw bets into their high two pair, they call and let the guys drawing to two smaller pairs and straights behind them in cheaply.
Worse yet, they will check with the best hand, regularly giving infinite odds to the chasers. I have found that a raise early with a draw often buys me two free cards.
Now, I am not trying to claim that 3/6 Stud is free money. There are streaks where guys draw to their pair of dueces and suck that case 2 on on the river to beat me. That's fine, they paid for every card and they will continue to do so.
Example: A player paired his doorcard 3 on 5th street and bet into split my aces up. I had previously raised. A 3 was folded on 3rd street so I didn't think he had trips and I raised.
The players behind me all rolled their eyes in exasperation, cold called with draws, and said
"Dan, this isn't Hold Em!"
The others folded at the river and my opponent called me down with T's and 3's and I won with aces up. He caught the other T on the river while drawing to a wheel.
Every so often, a solid, aggressive player will sit down, but it is fairly easy to either play around him or at him depending on the cards.
I do share some Hold Em players comments that Stud is 'boring' and you spend a lot of time not playing while you are out of hands.
Overall, though, it seems to me that 3/6 Stud has more loose, passive players than 3/6 HE, which makes for better game selection.
Comments?
I have always recommended that if you are just playing small limit games that you are probably a little better off playing hoild 'em than stud. The reason for this is that little stud is a different game from real stud and the concepts that govern play are a little different. This is not true in hold 'em even though the concepts that govern your play may bring you to different conclusions due to the quality of your opponents.
In addition, I find middle limit stud more enjoyable (and a better game in a lot of respects) than hold 'em. Part of the reason for this is that at the middle limits the expert stud player plays more hands than the expert hold 'em player.
Thanks Mason,
I was wondering if my observations were simply based on too limited a time in little stud. It appears that may be the case.
I was kind of surprised to discover how much I enjoyed 'taking a break' from Hold Em for a short time while playing stud.
My current poker goals are to move up to 8/16 Hold Em within 6 months and to 15/30 within 2 years. I began playing cardroom poker in April of 2000 (Easter Sunday as a matter of fact).
I am not sure if I want to add real Stud as a goal, but currently I am enjoying getting my feet wet in little stud.
There is a 15/30 stud game where I play, but I hear it rarely goes. I also heard that when it does go, it's a great game.
We'll see.
Thanks again for the response,
Dan
How cool that Mason plays a game because he finds it enjoyable. I agree that middle stud is my favorite as well.
Sounds like you play in the same cardroom I do. I once watched a 2-4 stud game for 45 min. and saw only one raise. While I have been tempted to try stud, I haven't because I don't see much future in it in this cardroom. During the week I never see any game higher then 3-6 going.
As most of you probably know, SmoothB has written his last post.
The brilliant player and teacher will be missed from this forum forever. Let me share with you one of his finer laydowns.
It has been over a year now, so I will probably botch the details but the essence of the story is correct.
The title of the post was "Great laydown in a big pot"
Smooth B limped in from middle position with 77. Two others limped. The flop came K-10-7 rainbow. SmoothB, the chronic fastplayer, bet out, the limper called, and the other limper raised. The blinds folded. SmoothB reraised, and they all called. Textbook.
The turn was a 10 pairing the board.
Which SmoothB astutely pointed out was a good card for him because he now had a full house. Excellent point. He bet. The cold-caller on the flop raised, and the flop raiser cold called. Smooth B, assuming this player just made three tens, reraised, since he could beat that. Everyone called.
The river was a K pairing the board again.
The board read K-10-7-10-K.
Smooth B alertly check realizing some could have a better full-house. The first player bet and the second player raised. SmoothB pondered after all the pot was big. And he folded, A FULL HOUSE. But he pointed out that he had a perfect read and would normally not make such a laydown. And he was right one player had a ten and the other had a king. This type of brilliance epitomizes the genius of SmoothB. Goodbye and Goodluck
LOL...any decent players who play this game for a week can make this lay down.
I'm assuming yours was a sarcastic post since this was an easy laydown. I'm only an average player and I've made this exact type of lay-down many times, where you either flop or turn a small or mid-size boat and the board double pairs the overcards, and then a raising war starts(hopefully before the action gets to you).
What? "This type of brilliance epitomizes the genius of SmoothB."
That possibility is so obvious that anyone who could not see a potential larger fullhouse should sumply be playing poker.
SmoothB belongs in San Francisco. I will nbot miss his post.
Walker
Funny post, but funnier is that a few of the responses weren't sure if you were being sarcastic!
Ah yes, the partially sighted leading the blind.
I just reread my post. How could anyone not realize this is sarcastic? Its slathered on. What world do these people live in?
I think most of us got it, but some people are just too darn serious. He says, while trying to conceal the fact that he lives in a glass and should not be throwing these stones.
William
When looking for the negatives, that more-less can be found in any of us. And that one post above, however, is not all we should remember of SmoothB .
Yes, SmoothB would occasionally come across as somewhat cocky, self-centered and perhaps forceful, but you cannot deny him the knowledge of the game - most notably Hold'em. His posts were detailed, analytical and generously laborious. He was known to go to a great length of details evaluating other individuals' posts with perceptive and sound analysis. I cannot say this much for the majority of the posters on Forum, beginning from myself.
So my question is why we, both the Forum posters and lurkers alike, would not miss such a qualitative and instructive contribution? I, for one, will miss it. To me, most of his posts were well grounded and with substance. Consequently, his departure from this means a loss. Others, of course, are entitled to their opinions.
I regret that I saw none of the posts to which you refer. What I saw was someone who seemed to have a superficial understanding of the game. I saw poorly detailed postulations, by someone who failed to exhibit the logical discipline necessary to make original contributions. Most of all, I saw someone who did not realize his own limitations. Sort of the pseudo intellectual approach to poker theory.
At the tables, I have seen many non-critical thinkers in my time and they are fun to play because they never seem to learn. The reason many of them never seem to learn is probably related to their ego being so busy protecting itself that they can never allow their own limitations to become self-evident. Rather like the egotistical tone-deaf nightclub singer who does not know he cannot sing because he is tone-deaf and no amount of explaining this fact to him seems to help. Eventually, many if not most of the audience get tired of listening to him.
Ivan, I apologize, if my challenging SmoothB has offended you, or anyone else on this board. I will admit that I do not suffer fools well, except at the poker table and I may have been a bit too proactive in this case. However, in my defense, when I first started playing poker I had a mentor of which SmoothB reminds me greatly. I was young and impressionable and I confused this guy’s ego for his level of sophistication. That innocent confusion on my part cost me a great deal of money before I figured out that my mentor was doing the poker equivalent of practicing medicine without a license. Therefore, although that was a very long thirty-six years ago, I do indeed still bristle when I observe someone like my old mentor “helping” those who are just starting to play this wonderful game.
Thoughtfully, William Seabrook
William:
No problem, whatsoever. It is only human to disagree, whereas it's civil to do it respecftully.
Regards,
Ivan
It is possible that his game has improved a lot in the last year and he wouldn't consider this laydown so noteworthy now. It's also possible that it hasn't but I'm guessing that it has.
Let's keep this in perspective.
SmoothB is leaving of his own accord. No one that I am aware of has asked him to stop posting here. If he is so needy of acceptance and adulation that without it he feels unappreciated I do believe our hosts have addressed that situation. Maybe it's just my software that does this but every time I click on the post message button a screen pops up that says "Thank you for your contribution." Maybe Smoothb's software doesn't do that and that is the source of his frustation. Maybe it does and SmoothB needs more than that. Let me try and help.
What a good boy, Yes you are, yes you are. You're the best around. You are, you are. (Got to go my dog is all over me for some reason.)
I for one, won't miss him. The guy struck me as a pompous ass. If I recall correctly, he had only been playing serious poker for a short time. True, he was no dummy, but neither was he some great poker mind. Yet, he desperately sought to be thought of in this manner and if you had the audacity to not think of him this way, he immediately resorted to arrogant attacks. Hence, his leaving the forum. He just couldn't accept the fact that most did not view him as the next Sklansky. In short, he demanded a respect that simply was not due him yet.
I am not saying he did not make worthwile contributions to the forum. But he could have benfefited much more had he listened to his objectors with an open mind. He also should have posted his ideas with a little humility attatched to them, instead of naming laws and theories after himself.
My feeling is that I am puzzled by the SmoothB's that get on these forums. I'm referring to that small number of people who on the one hand try to disrupt as much as they can, but on the other hand are obviously very sharp, and have the ablility to contribute much worthwhile material if they chose to do so.
My guess is that for some reason they want to be recognized as either theorectical experts or extremely good players (or both). Of course that's fine, and there are benefits to this recognition. But what bothers me is the method in which they choose to accomplish this.
It seems there are two paths to follow. One is to play poker and get your time in and to contribute to these (and other Internet) forums in a positive way. This has been done by a bunch of people who participate here and slowly over time they are making a reputation for themselves.
Even though there are a bunch of you who fit this category, the only one I'll mention is John Feeney. A couple of years back, I thought his posts were so good that I asked David if he knew this guy. Turns out he did and David suggested that I contact John to see if he was interested in writing more extensively. This was done and we discovered that John was already working on a book, and the rest is now history.
So this brings us to the SmoothB's of these forums. They try another approach. One that seems to require less hard work and could be a quick road to that recognition. They try to tear others down. By pointing out mistakes that the so recognized experts make, they can quickly become even bigger experts. Thus their posts tend to be hostile, destructive in nature, and in many cases begin to focus on unimportant details instead of the relavent subject matter at hand.
Again, from my point of view this is a shame. Instead of going the John Feeney route and accomplishing something worthwhile, all they do is burn hateful energy, feel scorned, and eventually leave these forums very bitter. If only they would have channeled their talents in a more positive way.
Mason
Mason:
I appreciate your comments - well said!
For his own sake, I hope SmoothB will read the variety of comments and observations exchanged on the Forum concerning his disassociation from this forum and introspectively examine his act. He is young, intelligent and energetic. He can learn. Too bad that he came across as much more on ego and less on humility. That way he rubbed some guys the wrong ways. I am afraid that his posts become associated more with his perceived personality than with their technical content.
Ultimately, it is hard to find a poker player devoid of an ego drive. That being the case, we all need to learn, then, to excercise the elementary civility when communicating with one another.
Mark W. Baker put is succintly: "Humility is strength under control."
Regards,
Ivan
I agree totally.
-Abdul
Incredibly sublime humor.
but how about the double reverse of YOUR post??
Mason,
I think this would be a good topic for an essay for you. Think about it. This forum would be much better if we could get these guys to chill out a little and stick to the facts. Maybe, John Feeney could write something, since he is a psychologist, he could probably write an essay that would not offend anyone.
I don't see how this person has managed to accumulate as much respect in regard to his "poker knowledge." To the contraty I thought many of his posts demonstrated a lack of a most basic understanding of poker concepts. (viz: he claimed to give an "counterexample" of the FTOP where an opponent folded a gut shot against a set while getting more than 11-1 on his call.)
It seems many people want to earn the respect of posters and somehow become as reverred as Sklansky, Caro, or Zee but they seem to be unaware of how little they know.
Furthermore they seem to think just because their results indicate they are really a world class player. I don't think the fact that someone has attained some large win rate (even over a few years) makes them qualified to give poker information that is very accurate. And in fact with many of "SmoothB"'s comments were very inaccurate.
There has just GOT to be a better example of a "great laydown" than this one. He can only call if both players have a draw and BOTH are willing to raise-bluff TWICE in the same hand against two other opponents who apparently each have a full house. Only stone-brain-dead full-Viagra maniacs who are friends would do that... and then only once in a purple moon.
Don't let the fact that hero's absolute hand is a "full house"; his relative hand is VERY weak.
Here's a laydown I thought was pretty obvious: I make an AKs flush on the river with a 4-flush/no pair board, the aggressive player bet out and got 2 calls, then our resident little-old-man checked his hand carefully and quitely raised in front of me...What on earth could he have? Yes, after checking to insure a stright-flush was possible I threw that one away.
- Louie
I am sure that JV's praise was tongue-in-cheek, Louie.
nt
Do you think it would be possible to become a tournament champion (poker, golf, etc...) if your need/desire for money is what motivates you most without being equally motivated(if not more so)by some ego based need?
The reason I ask has to do with an interview I saw with Scotty Nguyen on one of the cable channels, and in addition to the money being very important to him, he kept putting an incredible emphasis on just how important it is for him to be seen by others as a champion. Now I think everybody has a need to feel they are appreciated, but if that need isn't an "intense need" like it is with Scotty, is an intense need/desire for money alone enough to get you to the winner's circle on a regular basis? And if not, what does that say about tournament champions? I know we have a tendency in this country(The United States) to substitute the word "needy" with words like "passion", but do you think that tournament champions might be extra needy individuals for the most part? No offence.
Jack Keller has publicly claimed in a CardPlayer interview that he only plays for the money, nothing else. Phil Hellmuth, on the other hand, has said, "Personally, I would rather win a World Series of Poker event and a mere $300,000 for first place than $6 million....".
Each player has a different way of ranking what's important to him in a tournament or from the game of poker as a whole, live games included. One player might rank "being right" higher than the money or the recognition. Another might rank money above "being right" and recognition. Yet another might rank being respected by one's peers highest of all. And yet another one might have public adulation as his most important criteria for playing.
In my opinion, what counts is not what motivates the player. The real determinant of what causes one to be motivated is in how one re-presents what's important to him in his mind. The more vivid and real the goal is in his mind, the more compelling it will become - thus the more intense the motivation that it will create within his mind, body, and even spirit.
But motivation is not enough. One has to have the skill, knowledge, and experience too. You can be the most motivated person in the world when it comes to climbing Mount Everest, but if you don't have the proper equipment, are not in great physical shape, don't have an accurate map, and have inadequate knowledge in the science of mountain climbing, you will succeed only in getting yourself killed!
I should have noted that the skill, knowledge, and experience aspect goes without saying. Thanks for relating the Jack keller info., I've recently started playing tournaments and could care less about the small degree of fame that comes along with winning all that cash. I wasn't sure if my lack of motivation in that area would be a hindrance, the Keller thing gives me hope. Thanks again.
-Steve
I think we all like to be thought of as successful. I believe I have no problem with being overly egocentric or egotistical, but I like it when I'm winning because A) I've won money; and B) all the people I see in the cardroom on a regular basis see that I'm winning money. I know a lot of people who seem to be completely unconcerned about other people's opinion of them until they score a big win, at which time they parade around the cardroom, carrying their 3 or 4 racks and giving a triumphant blow-by-blow to everyone they can corner. Part of the joy (for me) of having many stacks of chips in front of you is everyone else seeing that you have those stacks. I recently scored my biggest win of the year and I remember feeling disappointed when I got a call from my wife to come home earlier than we had previously agreed upon; what most disappointed me was not that I couldn't play any more but that I couldn't sit there and gloat over my budlings I had made with my stacks.
Now I imagine that those whose skill level is much higher than mine, in order to be champions, must have a fairly big ego, which might be a necessity in order to succeed at that level. So my guess is that for some, an intense desire for money alone would be enough to et them into hte winner's circle, but that for most, it's a combination of money and ego.
For 2 years now I've been posting my thoughts and opinions in response to questions from those ignorant, braindead, know-nothing low limit players. And how am I repaid?? Every day I take the long walk to my mailbox looking for royalty checks from any of those losers who may have finally posted a win because of my sage wisdom. And what do I find?? NUTHIN! NOTTA! The closest I've seen is a letter from Publishers Clearing House saying I may have already won a million dollars.
Now as all of you know by now, I definitely am the most intelligent poster on this forum. In fact, I skipped grade 3 and got 92% in one of my Grade 11 trig tests. So where is the adulation I so justly deserve? God, the least you could do is send me an email telling me I'm a genius.
The bottom line is I don't have to put up with this **** anymore, and unless you guys beg me to keep posting, I'm gonna take that job I was offered in the Turkish embassy and never be heard from again.
So start grovelling you low limit losers. I'm waiting...
Before you leave what's your score on This test . If you get seven or more you belong here.
n/t
/
.
wgb,
You must be a genius because you use initials like me. I'm a genius too. Yes, that's right. When I took my IQ test, the computer that processed the punch card blew up. That's because I selected more than one answer for each question. You know just like there are several ways to play aces preflop. I told the professors that the questions were too stupid for me to answer. He told me I was a ?$%#@#$#$ #$@# *(@#!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's the whole truth.
in the future all posters that are quitting posting or quitting poker or committing suicide or such should post on the exchange forum. and wgb i had a large check made out to you, to send out. but without your name or address i had to destroy it. such is the penalty for posting anon.. some never learn. on june first i will cut another large check in excess of $10,000 for another anon. poster and then have to sadly destroy it as well.
"on june first i will cut another large check in excess of $10,000 for another anon. poster and then have to sadly destroy it as well."
I hate to see the SPM lose out on another royalty check from you. I don't know his exact address, but I played with him the other night at Harrah's in East Chicago. I can tell you first hand, that he is definitely living somewhere in the Valley these days. Hope this helps you find him and deliver his check.
thanks Kevin ill try to send spm another big check but i have my doubts ill find him in the vop as you say. and btw your large check came back to me and was destroyed. just the interest on this years checks sent out but not cashed to anon. posters was over 23,000$. so i guess that interest will go to my favorite charity(me). on second thought i might split it with ???
Why did my check come back? I don't use an anon! If I used my full name you'd probably misspell it, causing it to get returned anyway. I think you're just being mean and flaunting your 1 syllable/1 letter last name.... : )
Ray,
How about sending me a check so I can go play some keno?
Now that the jokes over with, I'm looking for someone to back me next month in the WSOP final event. Are you interested?
if you go down and check the sats. you can find some easy ones and surely win one in about three or four you play in. thats the easy way to get in for little money. then you can sell pieces of yourself and have money to boot. also while there con vince out of a free dinner, with the only downside beening having to listen to his bad beats.
Ray,
I hate to admit this, but I love to hear bad beat stories. Unbelievable, right? The only condition I have is that they have to be humorous, and Vince is a funny guy, you should meet him someday.
Anyway, you must have read my mind. I decided this year to go to the WSOP main event a few days before the tournament and play the super satellites. I was thinking of going to Tunica this year, but Vegas has so many bad players in comparison and the ROE is much better due to the large amount of entries.
Perhaps 2+2 could start a seperate forum entitled "Quitting in a Snit".
During the past 24 hours have received upwards of 1000 emails begging me to continue dispensing my poker genius to the unwashed LL masses. I must say I was overwhelmed by all the love, adulation, and support from all you chronic losers. Just thinking about it brings tears to my eyes as I write this. Also, most indicated - as did Ray - that they had checks to forward and desperately wanted to send them but had no address. DOH! I never thought of that. I guess my mind was occupied with hyper-advanced poker strategy.
Anyway, I am now satisfied that without my contributions this site will probably have to close down permanently, so you will all be happy to know I have dug real deep and reconsidered. Someone has to be the bigger person. Just behave yourselves because I could change my mind again at any time.
P.S. Here's my mailing address for all you LL peons that have been waiting to send off my royalties:
wgb, Bellevue Hospital Center, Psychiatric Ward, Isolation Unit # 3, 462 First Avenue New York, New York 10016
I am not sure, but I think you may have accidentally disqualified yourself form eligibility of the anon check program. If I understand Ray’s message, he only writes these checks to anonymous posters. Once you posted your address, I do not see how you could still be considered anonymous. Of course, if this had been the address of an anonymous mail drop, rather than your primary place of residence, then you may been able to remain qualified.
I am especially excited to know that you do share your knowledge here on this forum and I shall make every effort to read every word of precious advice you have to offer. God knows I could use some good advice.
By the way, how are the accommodations in the psychiatric ward these days? Do they still have the tin foil hat program in full swing?
n/t
I've just read The Psychology of Poker by Alan Schoonmaker and am a little confused. Either I am way of base or the author doesn't fully understand why a slow play would be correct.
When he is talking about playing in a Loose Aggressive game, he states that you should slow play more often. His reasoning behind this is that the LAP's will bet your hand for you and you dont have to show your strength until sixth or seventh street.
This seems like alright advice but I think you would win more money by not slow playing. My reason for this is because there is going to be a lot betting and raising already. If you have a monster and raise or reraise on the flop or 4th street (in stud) nobody is going to fold anyway, because they are loose players. They might reraise you or cap it because of there aggressive nature. Therefore you win more by not slowplaying.
Furthermore, he claims that you should NOT slowplay in a tight passive game. He basically says you should come out betting your good or great hand, because if you check, your Tight passive opponents will not bet after you (because they are passive) and you will loose a bet.
Once again, I don't see how this is so. In my opinion, if you come out betting against passive players, you run a high risk of them folding, and you will win nothing at all. I thought the idea behind slowplaying was to keep weaker hands in, hoping they will make a second best hand, allowing you to win more bets later on in the hand.
I'll now let others elaborate. Thanks in advance for other opinions.
Ryan
I just began visiting this forum since I just heard of it after reading John Feeney's book. I haven't read Schoonmaker's book, but if what you paraphrase is in fact what he recommends, I don't have any interest in reading the book. Slowplaying has it's most value in a TIGHT aggressive game. These are games in which your opponents are likely to give you action if you show weakness, but who may lay down quickly if you show strength early. Slow playing is rarely correct in any kind of very loose game whether it be passive or aggressive because you are likely to be frequently called down regardless of the action. The most important point, however, is that only rarely does a game qualify itself by such strict definitions. It is much more common to have a mix of several different types of players, with a few of the aggressors or calling stations giving the table it's overall character and value. So, if the calling stations are in the bathroom, it won't do you much good to slowplay your set. So these are all just generalizations, I could also think of several situations where it might be correct to slowplay a hand against any particular type of player... it simply depends on all of the variables involved. But the reasoning you describe from the book is cloudy at best. -Craig H
Well I will admit that I didn't post this message to try to prove the author wrong or discredit his book, because his book was very valuable to me by his discriptions of how to adjust your strategy to fit the game, and his other concepts seemed to be right on base. It was just the slowplaying concepts that I found a little off.
I do agree that no particular game can be described by strict definitions, and every situation is different and every play depends on certain things. But I was wondering what others thought about the slowplaying concepts in general, when compared to loose aggressive and tight passive games.
Ryan
On the loose-aggressive thing, I think you guys and Dr. Schoonmaker are just identifying different correct strategies at different points along the curve.
Schoonmaker is describing sort of a "first level" LAG game where players are a bit more willing than passive players to raise preflop if you limp and "fill the void" by betting the flop if you check. Since these guys are looking for shows of weakness to exploit, slowplaying forces them to make more mistakes.
Ryan and Craig are talking more about very aggressive (Ryan) or very loose (Craig) players, who won't be daunted by bets and raises. In these games slowplaying can be wrong.
The advice about not slowplaying tight passives seems to work best when considering a check-raise. You can't do it because they won't bet often enough. Slowplaying less at the margin might also work better as a general rule, at least in hold 'em, because (1) giving a cheap card to a tight player is more dangerous; (2) the information value of a bet is greater; and (3) they might be more inclined to call with a dominated hand than bet one. But I think Ryan's right that with very strong hands you'd be more inclined to let them catch up.
Craig - Don't let this post discourage you from what will be a very sound purchase. The presentation by Dr. Schoonmaker is unlike any other poker book that you have read and it is one that you will learn from. An text about a subject that is not pure math or science will have areas and presentations that will be the opinion of the author and subject to discussion and disagreement. Even the revered HePFAP falls in to this catagory and if the books make you think and analyze situations, they have been valuable. John
"This seems like alright advice but I think you would win more money by not slow playing. My reason for this is because there is going to be a lot betting and raising already. If you have a monster and raise or reraise on the flop or 4th street (in stud) nobody is going to fold anyway, because they are loose players. They might reraise you or cap it because of there aggressive nature. Therefore you win more by not slowplaying."
If the players play like you describe, and the betting and raising starts after you check, you can get a final raise in their.
I rarely bet a good hand early in a LAG. There are others who will bet and if it's aggressive enough, raise for me. Here's is the way I see it. If I am dealt 2 aces, someone will bet it for me. If the flop comes KKx, or any other high pair combination, I can muck, and no has a clue what I threw away. If I get part of the flop, no one is paying attention to me.
In a tight game, no one wants to bet unless they have a monster, so I need to bet to get money in the pot.
This advice is all geared towards maximizing EV for the current situation; ignoring its affect on other plays.
I offer the following non-compeling considerations: You will be stealing reasonably often in tight games and you need to bet your good hand assertively in order to add equity to your semi-steals. You will be drawing often in loose-passive games and MAY need to disguise them by also playing your strong hands passively. On the other hand, you may be playing your draws aggressively in loose games since you will be getting numerous callers. You may need to slow-play strong hands against aggressive opponents since you will be calling them with a variety of not-great hands.
- Louie
I depends on my opponents, but I rarely slowplay without a monster hand, even in a loose-aggressive game when someone will bet my hand for me.
I change this philosophy as the limits go up, but at 4/8 and below, slowplaying anything but the mortal nuts just costs me money. I slowplay more often at 6/12 and 8/16 when I usually have fewer opponents in the hand.
For me, it has to do with the amount of players in the hand.
If I flop a set in a loose game against 5 opponents and the flop is suited or otherwise coordinated, I will checkraise on the flop if there are two or more callers between myself and the bettor. The flop usually has to be *very* uncoordinated for me to slowplay, but if the bettor is on my immediate right, I have no choice but to just call.
The reason is that with 5 opponents in the hand, I know someone flopped at least a gutshot and I want to make them pay to draw, which very often they will. I especially want those runner-runner draws to fork over or dump it. Slowplaying against a lot of opponents in a loose game seems to always get me cracked.
I agree with your observation that aggressive opponents will often make it 4 or 5 bets if you play fast, so go ahead and jam it on the flop.
On the other hand, I agree with Shoonmaker's advice that you should not slowplay against tight passive opponents because they will check behind you. Tight passive opponents tend to check call with medium strong hands, so I don't see any reason to slowplay here. Of course, you should slowplay a tight passive opponent who raised preflop if you are pretty sure he is going to bet - unless you regularly see him check the flop when he has AK with no pair.
Sure, they might fold if I bet the flop, but then I win, which is good. I will then probably lean on them harder with my weaker hands if they are going to fold that easily. I do keep in mind that they will try to trap me.
So I agree with Alan's advice against LAP's only if there are not too many people in the hand and the board is not at all scary, and I concur with his advice against tight passive opponents.
Thank you all for your help. I agree with John M that Dr. Schoonmakers book is unlike any other poker book that I have read. It was a good purchase, because it allowed me to think and analyze many situations just like the one discussed on slowplaying.
Top pair, overpair, bottom pair etc. is well defined but what do you call this:
Flop K 9 6
AA makes an overpair
KK makes top set
99 makes middle set
66 makes bottom set
22 makes an underpair (and a piece of cheese)
What do you call JJ or 77 in this situation?
This might be important, especially short handed. Take JJ; there is a world of differnce between flops of K T 6 and K Q 6.
Let me guess: Flop K96, AA is an "OverPair", JJ is a "High pocket Pair", 77 is a "Low Pocket Pair", and 22 is a "No-Prayer Pocket Pair".
Your last paragraph is a good one. I thought, however, that "cheese" refers to a hand that looks better than it is.
How about over-second-pair? :)
JJ is a pocket pair with one overcard on the board.
77 is a pocket pair with two overcards on the board.
Another missing word. Cool!
Field goal?
I was a short handed game hater! I would whine and moan to myself about how I disliked short handed games. Of course so was almost everyone else at the table whining with me, so it was group think in action.
After reading Dr. Schoonmaker and Feeney's books and reading HFAP 21'st short handed section (for the first time - the only part I intentionally skipped), I thought maybe short handed may not be so bad after all.
After three short handed sessions of $4-8 HE lasting maybe one hour total, I have won enough to buy each of those books again with money left over! With the thinking change these books brought about, I now see short handed as a good game to be in!
So far I haven't bought _any_ poker book, that hasn't paid for itself, and I'm glad they exist. Thanks for all the work and sweat that went into bringing these books into existance! I may never be in the WSOP, or playing $100 - $200 HE, but you sure have helped my game!
As long as I am thanking - thanks to all who post, the insights and knowledge you share have helped me tremendously too!
Situation arose this weekend as i was travelling and playing a LL game on the road in AZ that got me thinking. Has anyone figured a time frame or dollar amount in bets estimated to learn a field of unfamiliar players?
This was the hand, i am dealt ppT 2 off the BB, UTG limps and my read so far is that he is very possibly the best player in the field. Knows his hand strength relative to the field, next player limps as well (LL game) I limp along as do 3 others and the blinds.
Chip leader at the table is VERY tight and hasnt played a hand in the 20 minutes i have been at the table, i have no indication of his play. 80% of the players are seeing every flop.
Flop comes 754 mixed, checked to me and i bet, entire table calls. Turn card brings a second 7, UTG bets out, now i have a good line on HIS play and want to know where i am as well as thin the field, i dont think HE has anything matching that board, i raise and all fold to chip leader who cold calls two, utg folds after looking unhappy at chipleaders cold call of two.
I dont like his call anymore than UTG does, 9 comes on river and i check call paying off a flopped and slowplayed set of 5's for fives full of sevens on the turn.
While my own play and chipleader's play may be knocked somewhat, the question that resulted from this hand was, in discovering that this player will not bet without a hand close to the nuts i paid off a this hand, as well as a couple to some others where i felt i was at a 50-50 chance to win or the pot was large enough. Has anyone done some thought into this area and noticed that they are making say 5-6 close decision calls early and folding or raising accurately later? or has anyone found that they need say 30 minutes to get a solid line of everyone else's play(s)?
I begin analysing a new table by looking for play vs. position, what they raise/ call raises with, general knowledge of pot odds/ and what they call the river with or minimum to bet. I also like to take note of chip counts and other players' reactions to their actions so i can quickly gain insight into their play. I dont think limits matter so much as i feel this is a common learning curve amongst all limits, just curious if anyone else has had more thought into this, or a better method of quickly analysing a table?
Thoughts comments and criticism all welcome..
Thank you...
sorry nt
"Has anyone figured a time frame or dollar amount in bets estimated to learn a field of unfamiliar players?"
$0. When playing with unfamiliar players play your best game until you get a read on them. Do not give them credit for being good players until they prove themsleves. At low limits there are few if any very good poker players.
vince
I agree, good post.
Good morning everyone! I am BizzarroSmoothB from a parallell universe! Now that SmoothB is gone I can feel free to post here - up till now I was afraid that we would collide and produce a huge antimatter explosion according to the formula
E=MC^2
where E = energy, M = mass and c is the speed of light. But all of you knew that - silly me!
I just want you all to know that I love you all and I came here to learn about poker! There is so much that you can all teach me. I just hope that my questions don't seem too stupid. Please be patient with me.
By the way, God loves you too! And, unlike the universe where I come from, George W. Bush loves you all! (In my universe, BizzarroGWB hates everyone and is not the kind, lovable man that he is here in your universe. In my universe, he just wants to make the rich richer, screw the poor, and fu*k up the environment. You guys are so lucky!)
Anyway, you will be seeing more of me in the future. I'm so excited!
-BS-
BizzarroSmoothB Wrote:
> where E = energy, M = mass and c is the speed of > light. But all of you knew that - silly me!
Actually, no... I did not know that – silly me. You see, Einstein’s original equation was E=mc^2, not E=MC^2.
I mention this because E=mc^2 is modified in Einstein’s special theory of relativity by (sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)), giving us E=m/(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) x c^2.
Modern day physicists represent the term ‘m/(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))’ as a capital ‘M’, rather than a lower case ‘m’, in order to keep Einstein’s equation in its most elegant form. Thus, the special case form of Einstein’s equation is now annotated as E=Mc^2.
Therefore, perhaps you could clear up my confusion. When you say ‘M = mass’, do you mean ‘M’ as in the special theory of relativity or ‘m’ as in the general?
Assuming that you and SmoothB are slow individuals (relative to the speed of light of course), the special theory need not apply. However, just to be sure, I thought I should go to the source and get a clarification.
William
Gosh, you are so clever! Silly me for not clarifying! I should have realized that some people might not have known whether I was talking about rest mass or relativistic mass.
Of course, I meant that the masses in question were motionless. After all, I did point out that my concern was them colliding, did I not? No, let's just assume that they were coming together at a velocity << c. If that is the case, then
E=mc^2
where m is the rest mass would apply. I gave the equation in this form not to complicate matters, but to simplify them. I see that I have failed. Please accept my apology.
Now, if indeed the masses in question were in fact moving at a velocity approaching c relative to one another, the modified special relativity form would be appropriate.
Thanks again for pointing out my error! Good day to you!
-BS-
Nice touch, William.
A man cannot trust anyone any more. Just too many darn imposters!
Actually, I am a bit surprised. I thought I would automatically like the anti-SmoothB, but I guess I was wrong. At this point, I am starting to believe he is the contrary-SmoothB rather than the anti-SmoothB.
My fortune cookie at lunch today recommended patience, so I think I will take that advice to heart and give anti-SmoothB a chance to grow up and take a meaningful place in society before I pass judgement.
Talk to you later Ivan, William
Encouraging different opinions won't do you much good if you then simply ignore them. As Winston Churchill once explained, "No idea is so outlandish that it should not be considered with a searching but, at the same time, steady eye."
In an earlier thread, Louie Landale wrote: "Perhaps the statement, 'Carefully considered well-said bad advice is better than mindlessly accepted poorly said good advice' has some merit . . ."[1]
While I agree with Louie's general sentiment, I would go even further. I believe even off-the-cuff, poorly-said "bad" advice can have value if it starts you thinking along a tangent that you otherwise might never have explored.
When John Feeney and Gary Carson disagree, I am more likely to believe John's advice is closer to being "correct." But I have learned much more about poker from reading Gary's posts than I have from reading John's. Gary often causes me to think about the game from "outside the box." John usually causes me to think about the game from an S&M perspective. And I already understand that perspective fairly well.
When I say "thinking outside the box," I mean "to think about or look at things from a different angle or perspective." It has been my experience that as you view something from more and more different perspectives, you generally gain a better understanding of that thing.
I can remember the first time I saw a photograph of the Earth from space. "Wow," I thought. "If this is a typical picture, then a lot more of the world is covered by clouds than I previously realized." If you grew up in Seattle, perhaps you had the opposite reaction. ;-)
In a later thread, John Feeney wrote: "A current popular expression is 'thinking outside the box'. It refers to such things as thinking about something in a less conventional way, or on a level different from that at which most others think about the topic. When applied to poker theory, my problem with this expression is that it is, itself, restricting. By thinking about poker theory as that which is 'in the box', or 'those parts in those boxes', and ideas or thinking which are 'outside the box', we artificially and often unnecessarily separate and compartmentalize ideas which could otherwise be profitably integrated or otherwise related to one another."[2]
I'm unaware of anyone on these forums using the phrase "thinking outside the box" in the restrictive fashion John suggests. If he can offer an example, I might join him in criticizing this type of usage.
When I saw Earth's image from space, it was a liberating experience, not a restricting one. Although I couldn't see highways and buildings, I didn't suddenly forget they existed. The new perspective supplemented by previous understanding of the world.
Similarly, when I view poker theory from different perspectives, it often supplements my previous understanding of the game.
--------------
[1] Louie Landale, "Re: Abdul Jalib and John Feeney insights," 28 March 2001, in Mark Glover's 27 March 2001 thread entitled "Abdul Jalib and John Feeney insights."
[2] John Feeney, "'Let no box contain me!' he cried." 29 March 2001.
including this one...gl
The ability to literaly step into different perceptual positions and view things from multiple perspectives is a trait shared by many creative geniuses and innovators.
Walt Disney explicitly described his creativity strategy throughout his lifetime. Specifically, each time that he had a new project, he would first step into the Dreamer perspective, then into the Realist perspective, then into Critic perspective, then into Meta perspective. He would cycle through these perspectives constantly until a project was finished.
During one of his "thought experiments", Albert Einstein would first sit on top of one photon that was travelling at the speed of light, and see himself sitting on another photon that was travelling at the same speed as his photon. Then he would throw a ball at the other Einstein and as he did, he would then shift perceptual postions and become the other Einstein who this time was catching a ball from the other Einstein. He noticed that when he did this, it seemed like the ball was moving in a straight line. Then he decided to see this whole thing from the point of view of being an outside observer sitting on top of the bridge. From this perspective, he realized that the ball was going in diagonal angle as one Einstein threw the ball to the other Einstein whose perceptions he had already experienced. His conclusion? Whether the ball was travelling diagonally or in a straight line was all "relative".
Genghis Khan, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Douglas MacArthur always took the perceptual positions of the enemy soldiers, enemy generals, their own soldiers, and their own generals each time they planned a military campaign.
Gandhi always stepped into the shoes of the Hindu, the Muslim, the Christians, the press, the British, and the Indians everytime he prepared a speech or planned a political campaign.
The poker player who tends to get married to only one way of viewing how to play the game will always be trapped inside his box.
The idea that bad advice can get you thinking, only applies well to those who have an excellent talent for thinking. You better be in that category if you hope to ever play above 30-60. But this is not our main audience.
"The idea that bad advice can get you thinking, only applies well to those who have an excellent talent for thinking. "
You and Glover need to sit on Feeney's couch if you believe that Bad advice is good advice in any way shape or form. Triggering the thought process can be done in many ways. Claiming that bad advice is a good way of doing that is well, quite absurd.
vince
"You and Glover need to sit on Feeney's couch if you believe that Bad advice is good advice in any way shape or form. Triggering the thought process can be done in many ways. Claiming that bad advice is a good way of doing that is well, quite absurd."
vince
Did not certain passages in the book Championship Hold'em which contained bad advice trigger the thought process in many forum participants and spark lively discussions?
Of course, bad advice is not good advice and it is bad for those who would blindly follow it. Most who make a habit of blindly following advice without coming to understand most of the underlying reasons would probably be losing gamblers anyway (and if losers lose a little faster it might actually be better for them--just my view here).
So bad advice can be good for the most analytical thinkers, and even, in a curious sort of way, for the dumbest or most compulsive if going broke sooner helps them decide that gambling might not be their thing after all.
Bad advice is worst for those somewhere in the middle who are not inclined to do much serious in-depth thinking on their own.
All advice, both good and bad, is good advice for anyone who has formed the habit of independent thinking. That is, anyone who never takes any advice (good or bad) at face value. But who rather takes in ALL advice with open-minded skepticism and analyzes it both logically and creatively.
A useful attitude to have while taking in advice is to think of any advice as whole fish. Now, when you eat whole fish you don't just bite into it as you would with a pizza or a hamburger. Because if you do, you'll end up getting hurt by the bones which will either graze your gums and tongue or get stuck in your throat. You wanna pick apart the fish, rejecting what's inedible and keeping and consuming whats edible, and tastes good too.
In short, it's not the advice that is good or bad. It is the person who is analyizing it that is either smart or stupid or open-minded or close minded or biased or objective or emotional or detached or mindful or mindless.
Vince, either you are unbelievably narrow minded, or you just like to create controversy.
You learn more from bad ideas than you do from good ideas. Bad ideas by their very nature make you think. Bad ideas lead to more problems, which require more thinking and more creative ideas to solve those. By the time you hit a dead end or end up chasing your tail you have learned infinitely more than you would have implementing a good idea in the first place.
Every patent I have every formed a disclosure for has come from trying to solve problems presented by implementing bad ideas, which inevitably leads to more problems.
"The idea that bad advice can get you thinking, only applies well to those who have an excellent talent for thinking."
It only takes moderate tallent and a strong willingness to mindfully CONSIDER advice rather than to mindlessly ACCEPT it. We cynical folk are naturals for this purpose.
"You should fold because you are probably beat" is over-all bad advice since it ignores pot-odds, but it can easily get even Vince to say "Whooooah Nelly ... Am I really probably beat??" :)
- Louie
PS On a tangent, bad advise is EXCELLENT for getting information about the opponent's play.
"You should fold because you are probably beat"
Louie,
This is not what Glover and the heralded thinker Sklansky are talking about. Glover claims that from bad advice one can "think" about the bad advice and it will start them thinking about something or other and eventually from this thinking a miracle will result. Good advice I guess. Bull dooky!
vince
An excellent talent for thinking?
Is thinking a talent?
I think the more appropriate statement would have been "You better WANT to think?"
Cause I think 90% of the population has the ability to think at those levels, but how many of those 90% want to?
Of course, we have vastly different opinions on intellingence. You think its something your born with, and I think its something you develop.
"The idea that bad advice can get you thinking, only applies well to those who have an excellent talent for thinking." (David Sklansky, 10 April 2001)
"It is much more difficult to win at poker if you merely learn lots of good plays without fully understanding why they are good." (David Sklansky, 3 May 2000)
x
I really liked his article about Poker as a great second job and a terrible first job.
I agree. Now, I am waiting for an article about how, psychologically, to handle those extended losing periods that we all face from time to time. I doubt if there is anyone better to write this and, boy, am I in need right now.
Regarding:Posted By: John M The vast majority casino poker players lose -- and an average player loses the expenses, which are very high.
All players "good & poor" have losing streaks. Some of the reasons for losing players to continue to play are: recreation value, it's a hobby & fun, getting out and meeting people, and for some or most of us -- the thrill of "winning." Many poor players mask their losses and more vividly remember their wins. I have played ocassionly with a certain player in high-low games for the past fifteen years and I have never seen him win. He never complains - he just quietly gets up and leaves after he loses his quota.
My advice to John M is:
Only lose funny money. That is maybe a $100 a month, which does affect you lifestyle in any way. Assuming you have a good personal computer, you should buy Wilson's Turbo PC Poker software for the game of your choice. If you cannot hold your own with a Wilson's poker game - then you better just play for recreational value or quit casino poker. Also read a few good books. A well-written book explaining the basics would probably be best for you. I don't know you background, but the advanced books should come later after you master the lower grades of poker. Good luck.
Carl - Thanks for your comments but I didn't ask the right question. I am a winning player but, as everyone does, go thru periods where losing is more common than winning. We all know that this happens and that it will correct itself after a while but it is difficult to handle psycologically. Even though the loses are large, they are less than 25% of the bankroll so, at this point, money is not the problem, only my state of mind. John
You have to detach. At the same time, you have to keep records and not fool yourself. That way, you CAN detach. It is all one long session and you are ahead. As this recent streak has only hit your bankroll, you are in the same position I am in and I am only marginally bothered by losing for a few weeks. Why? Because I know where I stand and it isn't a bad position. I too would have only lost 25% of my bankroll except that I allowed my bankroll to buy me a new computer. So, MY bankroll is in a lot worse shape than yours but so what? I still figure to win in the games I play and I think you must also. Go get 'em.
-- Will in New Haven
This hand will raise now.
There is no I to do this,
The cards themselves act.
JohnM Poker should be fun in the poker sense. It pumps up the endorphins, playing the correct amount time in a session "not getting tired or exhausted" has often made me feel a state of pleasant euphoria. And I still played well without going on tilt. Many psychologists mention that it is good for you health - your nervous system. Game selection: Try to pick games where you have an advantage. Leave bad games and get a table change or quit for the day - and read a good book. Sad to say: that poker is just a game where players try to outsmart each other. So in the long run - the quick red foxes do better than the lazy brown dogs. Taking advantage of people less skilled than you may not necessarily be a noble venture or profession - but it's only money at stake and we are all grown men "or ladies." Economic factors: I can remember for a few years in the mid 1970s when the stock market wasn't going anywhere, the poker games in Gardena CA were very very tight, and Las Vegas business was way down. Times like this can be bad for poker players. I don't think we are near that economic state yet - at least not in Southern CA. The bottom line is that most "not all" skilled poker players do better during economic booms "bull markets."
I have a lot of experience with this. In fact, I've been playing poker as a serious pasttime for 2.5 years now and I have only experienced regular wins for a period of about two months last winter. Other than that short lived, wonderful period, I've been losing constantly and heavily from day one.
There are some reasons for this which I have identified and knowing these reasons are what help me to continue playing and to continue enjoying the game.
One big factor is that I don't play a whole lot. An extended losing streak can cover a VERY long time, regardless of your skill. I play part time, sometimes as much as 15 hours in a month, but usually about 5-10 hours per month max. That is nothing. A pro will put in six months worth of my poker time in one week. As any pro will tell you, a one or two week losing streak playing full time is COMMON.
So, if you play recreationally and infrequently like I do, you could lose for a YEAR without it being remarkable in the least. Or, you can lose for a YEAR because you are a beginning player, and then you can lose for ANOTHER year due to random fluctuations. (I'm hoping this is the main reason I'm still losing he he).
The other thing to consider is that you may play badly. When I first started, I played against the worst players imaginable. And yet I still lost. I was confused and astounded. I could easily identify the egregious errors they consistently made when playing against me. I was convinced I was unlucky.
I may have been running cold and maybe not. But I was CERTAINLY making mistakes, and some big ones at that. It took me months to learn what I was doing wrong, and all during that time I was convinced I should have been a winning player. My opponents were so bad that I probably should have been a slight winner. But even with the cards I was dealt, I should have been able to win if I was playing expertly. I didn't even consider position to be important at all! It's unbelievable the mistakes I made. I'd call under the gun with KT and QJ and the like! Ha!
A couple months ago I sat down with a friend to play some limit hold'em. We played about a six or seven hour session and we both ran very cold. I dragged two little baby pots the entire time. He fared similarly.
I honestly did not feel like it was an unusual session. I often run like that. My friend was furious. He could not believe what was happening and he told me he had NEVER EVER had a session that cold. He was in shock.
I run like that about 20 or 25% of the time.
I was a little suprised by his reaction. It was such a typical session for me. I was very surprised that my friend (a winning player to the tune of 20k last year) could be upset about such a run of cards. I don't know which one of us has experienced the outside edge of standard deviation, but for his sake, I hope it's me.
He didn't handle the cold run well and went on tilt during the last part of the session, losing all his chips.
I lost all my chips too, but it wasn't from tilt. What can you do when you get QQ against AA for the third time? Answer: you lose another pot. Move on.
natedogg
When Mason and I had lunch today, he suggested I come here, and I'm glad I did. First, I'm flattered by the interest in my article. Second, I wish I had a good answer to the original question: What can a winning player do to cope with a lengthy losing streak?
Almost everything I know on this subject has already been stated by one or more of you. I think it is essential to have clear records so that these losses are put into the right context.
Losing $X hurts, both financially and psychologically, but it hurts less if you can compare it to the $2X or $4X or $10X that you won over the last six months or year.
A recent CP article suggested moving to lower limits and softer games, and I agree. First, if you've been losing for a while, you are probably not playing your best. You may, for example, be too timid, or you could be playing too many hands, or making lots of other mistakes.
After moving to an easier game, it might be a good idea to quit as soon as you are a few dollars ahead just so that you can book a win to break the streak. I'm not talking about maximizing your expectation; I'm just making the obvious point that you need a win, any win, to start to feel good about yourself and your game.
A final tip is to use this time to take a hard look at your game. Why are you losing? Don't tell bad beat stories, even if you believe them.
This self-examination will be particularly valuable if you do it with someone else who has the following qualities.
First, you respect his integrity and opinion enough to take his comments seriously.
Second, he is tough-minded enough to tell you what you need to hear, not what you want to hear. Ask him to watch your play, then dissect it. You may be amazed to learn that your game has lots of holes in it.
Let me end with a truism: Winning causes complacency that often leads to disaster. Losing causes painful adjustments that can convert disasters into triumphs.
IBM was so successful that it felt it could do no wrong, and it lost billions before it got its act together again. The Japanese lost the war, changed their entire system, and beat the hell out of the competition for years. Then they got complacent, and starting losing.
Your current losing streak can be a chance to take your game apart, put it back together again, and do better than ever.
Good luck.
Al Schoonmaker
(n/t)
This subject deserves an article in "Poker Digest." One day after posting my comments I got an email from a reader of my book requesting help in coping with losing streaks. That coincidence is enough to get my juices flowing.
I honestly don't know that much about this subject, but I think an article combining my ideas, the ones already posted here, plus any more that this group will offer could be useful. So post anything you think my readers could use.
I will, of course, attribute any ideas to their source. In academic life plagiarism is a far more serious crime than armed robbery.
Alan
PS. I know I owe a response to the post about slow-playing, but I'm not an "off the top of my head" kind of guy. It's coming.
Most of the posts about handling losing streaks that I have read about are aimed at coping with losing streaks by taking action at the environment level ("Play smaller when you're losing", "Quit immediately after you'ved booked a win in order to get your confidence back.", "Take a vacation." etc.) and at the strategy/tactics level ("Play tighter". "Don't be timid.", "Review your play with someone whose knowledge and integrity you trust.", etc.)
In a post under a thread called "Getting ready before ring game play.." by Dice (Thursday, March 29, 2001), I, JAWZ, made hypnotic induction aimed at dealing with losing streaks DIRECTLY at the emotional level. I hope that you take a look at it and enjoy it.
You wrote: "if you've been losing for a while, you are probably not playing your best,"
and
"take a hard look at your game. Why are you losing?"
and
"You're current losing streak can be a chance to take your game apart, put it back together again, and do better than ever."
I agree 100% with all three of these statements. I think winning for long periods of time can produce lazyness. When you are winning you forget to read, think and study, because all you want to do is play and win some more. But, when you start to catch cold and eventually start losing you don't remember that you haven't been reading, thinking and studying, because you haven't done it in a while, and it can take a while to realize that you have developed some bad habits. When I first started out playing, I mostly played head-up or three handed No-limit hold em against the same player(s), (because that was all the action I could find). I usually won 95% of the time. But, eventually I started catching cold and didn't book a win for a while. It took some time to realize I hadn't been working on my game at all (only playing). So after a pretty big loss, I took a couple weeks off, reread Super System, thought about how to beat this game, developed a game plan, then went and played. As it turned out, I busted both my opponents in under a half hour. And, I owe my success in that particular game, to the time I took off.
Ryan
The original post was about Alan's article about poker as a profession and poker as a second job.
But the question of how to respond to losing streaks is a good one.
1. Look for easier games. I had a tough streak right before my daughter got married, last May. Both she and my wife became raving neurotics for the three weeks before the wedding. As is typical for losing streaks for me, I wasn't able to play much as it was a period of high activity at school, so my bankroll deteriorated as much from neglect and outside expense (Weddings are really brutal) as from losing, but I woke up the Sunday after her wedding so bankroll depleted that one big loss would send me to the bank to withdraw work money to gamble with.
After years of refusing to play limit except in the most unusual of circumstances, I started playing in some really easy Omaha/9 games about 50 minutes East of here. I had played with them infrequently over the years, but lost interest because the no/limit pot limit was too spotty. It turned out to be a really good move, because the big games have dried up over the last six months and I found some other games that have been really lucrative.
2. Take a small win to break the streak (suggested earlier). I typically play as long as the game is good and have my highest expectations late at night. If the game gets bad, I quit and I seldom quit while the game is good. But, three January's ago I lost nine times in a row. As is typical, I had a particularly rough schedule at school and wasn't able to play often and even had a work-related time limit on some nights I did play. I remember getting nine hundred ahead in a good game, and just quitting to break the streak. I won about the same amount the next night, lost a small amount and then won about 12 times in a row.
3. Watch Caro's videos on tells. Not as much for the substantive information, but to discourage lazy play.
4. Adjust my advertising/bluffing schedule. In the normal run of events, I'll adjust my bluffing schedule upward if I see players getting away from hands against me. Primary adjustment is usually to the defending an unhelped hand after the flop situation. If I'm on a losing streak, I'll adjust downward because people don't have any memory of me winning so they're going to play with me anyway. I'll also strictly enforce my no-bluffing-when- losing-heavily rule.
"Winning causes complacency that often leads to disaster. Losing causes painful adjustments that can convert disasters into triumphs."
Alan, what would happen if both winning and losing can be made to always cause players to make constant and pleasureful adjustments (of incorrect practices) and affirmations (of correct practices) that can convert disasters into triumphs, and triumphs into even bigger triumphs?
What do you think stops people from utilizing both winning and losing into motivating themselves to always cause them to constantly make adjustments (of incorrect practices) and affirmations (of correct practices)in a pleasure-filled, enjoyable, and fulfilling manner - and thus regularly convert disasters into triumphs, and triumphs into even bigger triumphs?
JAWZ raised an interesting question that I will try to answer. To keep the source of everyone's words clear, his will be in normal type, WHILE MINE WILL BE IN CAPS.
Winning causes complacency that often leads to disaster. Losing causes painful adjustments that can convert disasters into triumphs." Alan, what would happen if both winning and losing can be made to always cause players to make constant and pleasureful adjustments (of incorrect practices) and affirmations (of correct practices) that can convert disasters into triumphs, and triumphs into even bigger triumphs?
TWO POINTS, THE WORD "ALWAYS" DOESN'T FIT HUMANS. ONE OF MY PROFS SAID, "ANY SENTENCE IN PSYCHOLOGY THAT CONTAINS THE WORD 'ALWAYS' WILL PROBABLY BE WRONG.
SECOND, MOST OF US DON'T LIKE TO LOOK OBJECTIVELY AT OURSELVES. I CERTAINLY DON'T LIKE IT. WE DO SO ONLY IF WE FEEL FORCED TO DO SO.
IF I'M WINNING, I NATURALLY THINK IT'S CAUSED BY MY SKILL, INTELLIGENCE, OR WHATEVER. I PROBABLY WILL NOT EXAMINE MYSELF, AND I ALMOST CERTAINLY WILL NOT DO SO CRITICALLY.
IT'S ONLY WHEN THINGS GO WRONG THAT WE TAKE A HARD LOOK AND TRY TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS (AND LOTS OF TIMES WE DON'T DO IT EVEN THEN).
OUR ENEMY IS OUR OWN EGO. WE DON'T WANT TO THINK THAT THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH OUR GAME, WHICH IS THE PRIMARY REASON PEOPLE TELL SO MANY BAD BEAT STORIES.
THEY SAY ESSENTIALLY, "I'M A GOOD PLAYER, BUT I HAVE TERRIBLE LUCK." AND AS LONG AS I THINK BAD LUCK IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MY LOSSES, BUT SKILL IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MY WINS, I WON'T DEVELOP MY GAME.
"They say essentially, "I'm a good player, but I have terrible luck". As long as I think bad luck is responsible for my losses, but skill is responsible for my wins, I won't develop my game."
Excellent point, Alan. Sounds more like a low self-esteem issue than a big ego issue.
Posted by: JohnM (oonwayvos@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 10 April 2001, at 5:32 p.m.
Posted by: Bill Reich (willreich_77@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 10 April 2001, at 11:17 p.m.
Posted by: Carl William James
Posted on: Wednesday, 11 April 2001, at 12:14 p.m.
Posted by: natedogg (nate-web@thegrovers.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 10 April 2001, at 4:20 p.m.
Posted by: Alan Schoonmaker (alannschoonmaker@cs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 12 April 2001, at 1:45 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 12 April 2001, at 2:11 a.m.
Posted by: Alan Schoonmaker (alannschoonmaker@cs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 12 April 2001, at 10:06 p.m.
Posted by: JAWZ
Posted on: Friday, 13 April 2001, at 4:51 a.m.
Posted by: Ryan Snodgrass (pokerplayer21@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 12 April 2001, at 11:00 p.m.
Posted by: gambelero
Posted on: Saturday, 14 April 2001, at 2:12 p.m.
Posted by: JAWZ
Posted on: Friday, 13 April 2001, at 4:25 a.m.
Posted by: Alan Schoonmaker (alannschoonmaker@cs.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 15 April 2001, at 1:57 p.m.
Posted by: JAWZ
Posted on: Sunday, 15 April 2001, at 3:09 p.m.
There's a lot of talk about how much you can win. I'd like to know more about how much a bad player can lose. Some of our best games are built around loose playing housemen. There are some games South of us that I have avoided because they play limit and the rake is too high.
How much would the following players lose?
Jack: plays about 95% of hands in a loose/passive 20-40 omaha high game. Plays many (not all) of these hands all the way through. One example, he had 883Q suits not impacting on a hand where a Q 10 x became Q 10 x x. After calling a single bet, an 8 came and he called a raise only to be split by two nut hands (the first of which didn't reraise, not wanting to put the houseman in the middle). The cut is exactly $140 an hour.
Jerry: plays about 50% of the hands in a 10-20-20-30 loose passive holdem game. Frequently plays hands out with second pair and the like after the flop--even if he gets caught in a jam. Never bluffs, so people routinely refuse to pay him off. He always shows his hand if he bets and gets no calls (houseman courtesy, I guess), so his play is transparent. He has no moves and seems to have no basic card sense even after years of play.
If Jerry's game generates $120 an hour, what is his expectation.
I was playing in a 5-10 game on the weekend. A very loose aggressive player was up about $1000 in 3 hours. He had bought in for $200. He is a very poor player. For instance, he told me that he never folds a pocket pair, and will call any bet until the river because he has seen his pair come on the river too often to lay this down, and I saw him do this. This play and this type of play describe this player to a T. When he is hitting cards, you can not keep up to him because you would lay down a lot of the winners that he shows.
Now how much can you lose? Well he was stuck $400 by the end of the 4th hour. In 1 hour he had lost $1400 in a 5-10 game. I find this amazing even for a player like this.
Derrick
Regarding: Loser's Posted By: gambelero
Date: Tuesday, 10 April 2001, at 12:13 a.m.
There's a lot of talk about how much you can win. I'd like to know more about how much a bad player can lose. Some of our best games are built around loose playing housemen. There are some games South of us that I have avoided because they play limit and the rake is too high. ----------------------------------- MY Background:I played 2-4,3-6, 5-10 draw & lobal and variations of these draw games in Gardena CA from 1959 to 1984. Before expenses I averaged about 1.3 big bets per hour and after expenses about .6 big bets per hour. Adjusted for inflation these low limit games would be on the order of "at least" : 8-16, 12-24 and 20-40. But because of higher expenses and inflation, these comparisons are not linear and probably not valid. As for losers....
Probably ninety percent "at least" of all casino poker players are losers. In general, the winners are more visible, because they can play more often then losers. As for how much you can lose - consider this….
An average player, that is a player who can break even before expenses, loses the hourly expense rate in the long run. In California, a fair estimate for hourly expense rate "house rake & tipping" could be $12 per hour for 3-6 holdem games. Using this number in an example, an average player who plays twenty hours a week would lose $12,480 a year.
For trying to get my point across, an over simplified technique of analyzing this would be from the viewpoint of a very skilled holdem player who can win one big bet per hour after expenses. Estimating for a "nine handed" $15-30 limit holdem game, this skilled player may have an hourly expense rate of $14 per hour. Therefore he must win $44 per hour to win $30 per hour. To simplify this scenario "analysis," consider that one of players "a seat in the game" loses $30 plus $14 per hour for expenses plus $14 /hr for the winner's expenses - that is , this seat loses $58 per hour. If the other seven players are all average break-even players then each will lose $ 14 per hour. Using these numbers and assuming this skilled player plays 40 hours per week for 52 weeks per year - the following numbers will give you an estimate of what the seats in the game pay per year to play.
Consider the $30/hour winner: This seat wins 52weeks * 40 hours * $30 = $62,400 per year.
The big loser "seat" which pays expenses for both his/her seat , the seat of the $30/hr winner plus expenses for this winner loses 52weeks * 40 hours *( $30 + $14 + $14 = $120,640 per year
The other seven break even players "seats" each lose 52weeks * 40 hours * $14 = $29,120 per year.
Thus the casino yearly take "rake + tips" for this game is: 52 weeks * 40 hrs per week * 9 players * $14/hr equals $262,100 per year.
And the combined losses for the eight losing seats is:
$62,400 plus $ plus $262,100 equals $324,480 per year. And if there was more than one winner in the game this number might be higher.
Another general expense is when games are shorted handed - especially when there are seven players or less. For seven players, the blinds come around more often and seven players are paying about 29% more for the rake.
Further comments: You must realize that this is an over simplified scenario "analysis" to illustrate a point. There are essentially an infinite number of scenarios, but analyzing just a few will give you a good estimate of the expenses in a poker game.
Another thing, many players boast about winning two big bets per hour in ring games. Believe me, this percentage of these players are probably lucky to be one in ten thousand or about 0.01 percent. I feel that if a ring game player can win one BB per hour he/she is a great player.
A good analysis. Of course, you were playing round table draw/lowball (no dealer, no jackpot) during you're Gardena phase. Expenses would have been much less. The current expense ratio for low limit Calif. games is truly outrageous. An average (technically breakeven) 3-6 player losing $20,000 a year, ouch.
It hurts the game by driving players away. Of course the Gardena crowd was nothing to get excited about. The games were slow, often depressingly tight. My memory of the old Gardena is one of compressed collective depression. A particularly stark vision from a walk through (to settle with a bookmaker) of the Normandie Club still haunts me.
I do remember winning 2.3 big bets an hour in Lousianna during the oil boom. The game was at the Oiler's Lounge (how's that for a name). First 5-10, then 10-20, nobody knew how to play because hold-em was new. The rake was only $ .50 a hand. I could count how many hours I played a month and figure out what I'd won. If I'd have just gotten there a little sooner.
One thing on topic I remember (finally) is that one guy (Uncle Bud) lost over $100,000, most of it playing five-ten in a year or so. I wonder what people would speculate about the players I named at the beginning of this thread.
On RGP On 09 Apr 2001 06:04:58 GMT, marg829@cs.com (Marg829) wrote:
“I am thinking of buying Stat King to keep track of my poker results. Has anyone used it and, if so, what does it contain and what do you think of it.”
Abdul Jalib replied (italics added by me):
“For each session, it allows you to record date, casino, game, hours, and result. It draws graphs, does some statistical analyses, and lets you break the data down in a few different ways. It's a good tool. The main limitation I see is the lack of a comment field. The IRS requires the five fields that StatKing records plus table number, buy-in, cash-out, names of witnesses, and any supporting documentation or data, for every session. Things like sports betting would be impractical to do in StatKing, again because of the lack of a comment field. I would also prefer the unit size to be a field, rather than having to lump it into the game description.”
BTW, there is a new version of Stat King that adds a comment field.
Anyway, Abdul's comments in italics flip me out. I've seen something like this in the Roche tax column in Card Player but is the IRS and Abdul serious? I have never seen anyone ask for “names of witnesses” or record table number, buy-in, cash-out and so on. What is going on here? I thought my records were detailed and bulletproof but this level of detail seems ridiculous. Does anyone know if Abdul and the IRS are serious?
Paranoid
Speaking for Abdul, he is a little nuts, but the part about what the IRS wants to see in a log is correct. The level of detail in your records is never an issue -- unless you get audited. I prefer to send in a detailed log with my sched A, and have never worried about the next step.
JG
I wrote quoting Abdul: “The IRS requires the five fields that StatKing records plus table number, buy-in, cash-out, names of witnesses, and any supporting documentation or data, for every session.”
You wrote: “…the part about what the IRS wants to see in a log is correct. The level of detail in your records is never an issue -- unless you get audited. I prefer to send in a detailed log with my sched A, and have never worried about the next step.”
In years past I have recorded the following fields: DATE, DAY OF WEEK, LOCATION, GAME, STRUCTURE, HOURS, and RESULT. Each day's work would go on an index card and the results were transcribed weekly into a hardcover log (which keeps continuous sheets with no torn out pages) and then all data was copied into a computer database.
For example, If I played 15/30 holdem for seven hours but changed tables several times, I would record it as one session. I never recorded seat number, buy-in or cash out (although I always bought in the same amount so it is no big deal). And I only know the first names of a few opponents, so how could I have witnesses? In the meantime, I've never seen a floorman sign off on a win. Of course they do track the big players for the laws regarding tracking cash transactions greater than $10,000 in 24 hours. I don't play that big.
I would guess my level of detail is better than 99.9% of all players, but I'm wondering is the IRS serious about the extra information Abdul speaks of? I can see entering a table #, but the rest seems unrealistic. Do you or anyone else have any comments here?
Of course, if you often withdraw $3000 from a player's bank to play on a given day, and then deposit $5000 later that day while recording a $1000 loss, then you have other problems ;-).
I have made one more change in record keeping the last two years. Instead of recording results on an index card and transcribing to a log, I buy index cards with perforated tear outs. On each page I write a series of random scratches across the perforation. Then I tear out the page for the day. This way a page will always match up to the position in the binder (which I keep). I would think this is as effective as a bound log. I got the idea from a LeCarre spy novel, where they used a torn postcard to authenticate identities in the field.
Abdul is correct in his list of IRS required documentation. But I think the IRS is not really prepared to handle gambing activity for an individual that plays poker frequently. There's no way they can take your documentation and reconstruct reality. What are they going to do, interview all the other players you encountered throughout the year?
From the following IRS website:
www.irs.ustreas.gov/prod/forms_pubs/pubs/p52902.htm
" Diary of winnings and losses. You must keep an accurate diary or similar record of your losses and winnings.
Your diary should contain at least the following information.
1.The date and type of your specific wager or wagering activity. 2.The name and address or location of the gambling establishment. 3.The names of other persons present with you at the gambling establishment. 4.The amount(s) you won or lost.
Table games (twentyone (blackjack), craps, poker, baccarat, roulette, wheel of fortune, etc.): The number of the table at which you were playing. Casino credit card data indicating whether the credit was issued in the pit or at the cashier's cage. "
The good news is that maybe I was wrong about needing to record buy-in and cash-out.
By the way, in the U.S. if you lose money gambling, you will likely be charged at least $1500 in taxes, and if you are rich, gambling and losing could cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars in extra taxes relative to those who didn't gamble at all. Similar things happen to those who win gambling, but at least you then have your winnings to pay for the taxes. Basically, gambling is not a right, but rather a charged privilege in the U.S.
-Abdul
I don't get it. Where does the $1500 figure come from in the case where a person loses money gambling? How does engaging in gambling change your tax obligation?
The only inequity I know of is that you can only claim gambling losses up to the amount of your winnings, so that you can never declare a net loss due to gambling.
You wrote: “The only inequity I know of is that you can only claim gambling losses up to the amount of your winnings, so that you can never declare a net loss due to gambling.”
First, you must itemize in order to deduct loses. Winnings must be filed under income and loses must be filed under itemized deductions.
Here is another problem for gamblers. Let's say you are a part time gambler with $50,000 in regular income for your day job and due to poor health had $10,000 in medical expenses. Normally you can deduct medical expenses from income (if you itemize) in excess of 7.5% of your income. So you could deduct $6,350 in addition to your other deductions. Now your part time gambler had $150,000 in winning sessions and $130,000 in losing sessions. You must add $150,000 to your income, wiping out your medical deduction. If they calculated just net gain, you could still deduct $4750 of your medical expenses.
Right, you have to itemize to deduct your losing sessions, so that you lose your standard deduction (which is worth roughly $1500 to most who don't have other reasons to itemize). Next, the IRS' requirement that all your winning sessions go into your gross income means that you start losing deductions that you can normally make, because the IRS regards you as rich if you have such a large gross income, even if you lost money gambling for the year.
-Abdul
Abdul,
This isn't directly related to poker, but isn't it amazing the way a real estate agent will try to sell you on the tax advantages of owning a house and make it seem greater than it really is. For a typical half decent home in Las Vegas you might pay about $12,000 per year in deductible mortgage interest. The other itemized deductions are usually not that large, especially if you are a non-gambler and want to stay within normal thresholds (of course you could pull a “Bill Clinton” and deduct donated underwear). But the standard deduction for a married couple is $7350. So if you itemize $14,000 in deductions (the other $2000 seems typical when you include real estate taxes, auto taxes, and charitable donations), the extra deductions amount to around $6650. If you middle class and have between $43,850 and $105,950 in taxable income, your marginal rate is 28%. So the tax benefit of owning a home is 28% of $6650 or $1862. That's not much. Yet the agent will make it sound like it is 28% of $14,000, which is bullshit.
BTW, what is your opinion of the advice on the Roche's (Card Player columnists) web site www.rbstaxes.com? Things seem to be changing from years past and my guess is that the IRS will be making examples out of some poker players in the future. Also, you still haven't answered the questions concerning table number and witnesses, but if you don't because you are also paranoid, I understand :-).
I configured Excel to keep track of my records. All I have is the date, limit, hours, result and I have been audited, and my computer generated records were acceptable. I do have a good accountant. Yes, they did go over my tournament records. I did have reciepts for every tournament I played and the W2G's for every one that I placed in. Those all matched my computer generated records and they went ahead and accepted my live play also. They suggested keeping records they way Abdul said, but please!
Hi again everyone! So nice to be here again.
Ya know, something puzzles me about your universe. On the one hand you have people of science - practitioners of modern medicine, engineers, scientists and the like - who believe that truth can be found through western logic and science. On the other hand, you have people who practice alternative medicine and people who believe that 'western science' is bunk. Faith healers, etc. They believe that deductive logic and the scientific method cannot be used successfully in solving complex problems, like those related to living organisms.
In this universe you have poker players who fall into both categories, too. You have some poker players that believe that, if you use 'perfect strategy' and bluff correctly according to game theory, that you should maximize your profit. But you have other players who have very contrary opinions on the matter. Some believe that it is correct to limp with AA and to raise with 98o in early position, even though 'science' seems to indicate otherwise. I have met a lot of these fine people here in your universe.
The question I have is - how come the people who design your skyscrapers, put sattelites in orbit, and design computer chips always proscribe to the first school of thought but never to the second?
It seems to me that, the way physics works in this universe, that if one were to build buildings and bridges using 'pseudo science', they would collapse. The results of using flawed thinking in the designs of these structures leads immediately to an undersirable conclusion. Consequently, contractors do not hire 'non scientific method' types to design buildings and bridges. They have invested a lot of money and don't want them to fall down.
In other fields, like poker, alternative medicine, you don't have as great of a great incentive to weed out the pseudoscientists.
On the one hand, we have alternative medicine. People pay to be treated by these un scientific doctors. If the cure happens to work by chance, huzzah! A coup for pseudo science! In the more likely case that the cure does not work, the person does not get well. Oh well. No big deal. No bridge collapsed. And the patient probably has some way to explain their inability to become well.
Now poker. If a poker player decides to defy the laws of mathematics and physics, who really cares? It's their money. Let them spend it however they choose. Maybe they are a trust fund pro and they have limitless funds. Or maybe they will just go broke and vanish forever. You probably won't even notice they're gone.
Now to the point. In MY universe, the alternative universe, we actually gave the pseudo scientists a shot at building skyscrapers, bridges, and launching sattelites. It was an abject failure. The buildings and bridges collapsed, and the rockets exploded on the launch pad. We gave up and gave those jobs back the the real scientists.
The point is, since you live in an alternate universe, the laws of physics should be different. The pseudo scientists should be a huge success! I suggest that you give them a shot. And I would personally like to back a few poker players who defy the laws of mathematics. They should run over the games in this universe, because they get slaughtered in mine.
-BS-
I hope you're not keying this stuff while you're at work?
I hope you're not keying this stuff while you're at work?
Well, actually, he is, but in the Bizarro Universe, that's precisely when these endeavors should be pursued!
"The question I have is - how come the people who design your skyscrapers, put satellites in orbit, and design computer chips always proscribe to the first school of thought but never to the second?" But some of the people who bankrolled the construction of these skyscrapers, like Trump and Wynn, believe in "Feng Shui".
In the parallel universe, do your players have the best of it, oft times way the best of it, only to have it stuck up their @#$% most of the time by the non-scientific players who have no idea they were a 22-1 underdog, to wit, QQ going all in in a no limit hold-em tourney with a flop of 10, 5, 2 rainbow, to be called all in by K-Jo, only to turn a J and river a K, or making raise in 20-40 HE with AK to be called by JJ, flop A-K-7 and be called to the river where a J hits, or flop your set against 3 clubs only to have it come running clubs with someone who has no business being in the hand after the flop, etc etc. I was beginning to think I must be in the parallel universe. Do these players lose? I don't know. I am never around long enough to see since they bust me out every time.
Hmmmm...the universe that you describe seems very familiar. In fact, it sounds just like my universe. We could be neighbors! Do you live near the "river" too?
Yes, in a VAN.
Recent posts made in reaction to a certain posters announced departure causes me to put out this question.
In the couple years I've played cards in public cardrooms I've encountered a many boisterous, arrogant, and usually young players. They may intimidate at first but never seem to have a game that holds up. Is it possible to be an arrogant unpleasant personality at the poker table AND be a long term winner? I suspect not, but tell me if you know of any exceptions.
I think it's entirely possible.
From reading RGP, it appears there are a few people who consider David and Mason arrogant and unpleasant. I don't know David or Mason personally, so I certainly don't share that view.
However, even though some people seem to have a compulsive obsession with hating David and Mason, I have never seen anyone accuse S&M of being losers. Same goes for Hellmuth I think. There are people who think he is just lucky, but he does win.
I think it's more fun to watch people you find unpleasant lose, and it's easier to watch someone you don't find grating win. I think we wish harder for arrogant people to lose and we notice it more when they bust out. But the fact is if they are good players, they will win - arrogant or not.
Personally, I would much rather take a Caroesque philosophy, I want to be someone people can enjoy losing to.
I remember the very first time I played Hold Em, there were some young, swaggering players at my table and couple of the other players were a bit annoyed at them.
One three way pot I was in, one of my opponents looked at me and said "That's fine if you win, I just don't want HIM to win."
I remember thinking "Now that's an attitude I like from an opponent!"
You can be arrogant and be a failure. You can be arrogant and be a success. You can be humble and be a failure. You can be humble and be a success.
In poker, there is absolutely no relationship between arrogance/humility versus success/failure. You can find countless examples for all four of the above combinations in poker, at all levels.
I really have to compliment the card room management at the places I play. I very, very rarely run into players who are constant jerks. It sounds like this is a problem at many places though.
Some of the best players in public Casinos are deliberately arrogant and offensive, especially to bad players (like all bullies, they fear anyone who has the medicine for them). They deliberately behave this way to get the bad players to chase them and give them unwarranted action. This type of persona seems to be endemic in Atlantic City.
Those of us that grew up in the South and play in non-public games cannot abide in this behavior. First, it's just plain stupid to drive bad players away from the game. Second, for many of these players the game persona overtakes the real persona, and they become assholes in life as well. Third, they are reduced to playing in tough Casino games where only the rarest of players in each nest is successful.
I think some poker players can be overly sensitive to comments and attitude. If you walk into the Taj expecting all the New Yorkers to be courteous and gracious and get really upset when they aren't, you're in the wrong game. It takes all kinds of different personalities to create the different styles that make poker profitable. I've spent some of my best days watching one player throw another player off and I've come to expect it when I sit down at the Taj.
I remember a 50-100 game in A.C with two stone tourists. They were losing of course, but everytime they got lucky and won a hand, the losing player pitched a fit. Even Joe Moon got visibly and aggressively hostile. Sure enough the players left quickly. I remember joking to the floorman that the game would break up in 10 minutes. Sure enough it did.
Another time, I was in short-handed 50-100 game early on Friday afternoon. There's an old man with tons of money playing every hand--not most hands every hand. Someone got pissed off at Goldberg's constant talking and they got into nasty spat across the length of the table. They actually had to stop the game to get everyone calmed down. The old man just got up and left. That game broke up too.
These posts, while they might be a little fun, don't belong on this forum ot any of our other forums where we are trying to keep the discussion focused on serious poker/gambling. In the future confine them to the Other Topics Forum.
Thanks Mason, sorry if I accidentally made things worse by interacting with him.
William
That's a good deletion
vince
..
....I thought he was funny. It was a nice change and they were easy to skip if you weren't interested, since they all had the Bizarro tag. However, now that he has made a complete ass of himself below erase his childish dribble!
A thread that really DOES belong here?
So it's OK to bash me, but MY post was inappropriate.
I'm just clarifying matters.
-BS-
BS,
As I explained to Vince ten days ago, this site's "Terms & Conditions" says it is the sole discretion of 2+2 and ConJelCo which posts get deleted. It doesn't say the discretion has to be exercised fairly or wisely.
I posted this on the tournament forum, but thought I might get some more interesting response here.
.......................................
n his book, `Suzuki' suggests playing a solid game early. On the other hand, Malmuth agrees with other writers suggests you take risks early to try to build the bigger stack you need later on. But what does this mean, and can it be correct? Let's analyse this mathematically.
Suppose we have a tournament with a percentage payout. For any stack size X, let F(X) be your (statistically) expected payout. (This may be an an oversimplification, since your expected payout depends also on other stack sizes, position of button, blind size and other factors, but let's keep it simple.)
The aim of the game is to maximize your expected payout F(X), so you should never make a play with a negative expectation in your (change of) expected payout F(X).
What properties does the function F have:
Obviously F is `increasing', that is, if X>Y, then f F(X)>F(Y), which is just to say that the bigger your stack, the bigger your expected payout.
Also it is `convex', that is, if A>0, B>0 and A+B=1, then F(AX+BY)>AF(X)+BF(Y), which is just to say that the chips in smaller stacks are worth more than the chips in bigger stacks.
Ya still with me?
This implies the following:
Theorem (i.e. fact): Any play with a negative expectation in your (change of) stack size X, also has a negative expectation in your (change of) expected payout F(X).
Corollary (i.e. conclusion that follows from the theorem) You should never make a play with negative, or zero, expectation in your stack size. Also, some positive expectation plays for stack size X, may be negative for expected payout F(X).
For example, if you have an opportunity for a 50% chance to win or lose an amount Z you should not take it, since F(X)>0.5F(X-Z)+0.5F(X+Z).
So what exactly does it mean to gamble it up early?, and how can it be correct?
Could big stacks have some additional power that would mean the chips in big stacks weren't worth less than those in small stacks after all? (I doubt it.)
Comments?
Dirk.
PS There is some bug which makes the `less than' symbol unusable on these posts.
Early tournament strategy -- sted By: Dirk A passing comment: ---------------- Evidently Dirk you are a skilled math type -- which is very good. I think your post is correct - your reasoning is solid "at least in my opinion." Poker players generally should never make plays with a negative expectation -- I am sure there are some exceptions from a strictly mechanical math viewpoint but which are over weighed by psychological considerations "i.e. a high probability of pulling off a good bluff." But you have probably already factored in the psychological factors - so my last sentence is probably not so valid. Also the gamblers ruin approach can come into play - but probably not in the early stages of a tournament. But my point here is: In the early stages of the majority of limit poker tournaments, all players are supplied with about twenty big bets in chips. Therefore at this point the chance of gamblers ruin is much lower, and thus the good players when playing starting hands with positive expectations have a great opportunity "on balance" to build there stacks. Whereas at the final tables in most small tournaments, many times the chip leader may only have four or five big bets, and extreme caution for survival is necessary.
I was wondering if David or Mason or anyone had any comments on Mike Caro's RGP post on cheating.
Caro's implications sounded extremely serious. I personally do not have any knowledge or experience with cheating at poker, other than playing against the occasional colluders. Mike is a bit of a goofball, so I don't know what to think.
Here is a link to the post.
http://groups.google.com/groups?num=25&hl=en&lr=&group=rec.gambling.poker&safe=off&th=f9c35d2556f0eb0d&rnum=1&seld=903564944&ic=1
gg
You'll just have to wait until June 11th and see.
Oh really?
I see no reason to wait until June 11 to hear what David, Mason, or other 2+2 participants have to say about Mike's article.
Dan C. wrote: "There is no reason to wait until June 11..."
I guess Mason disagrees.
Unfortunately, according to the post we won't be hearing more until to June 11. So it is a shame that there will be so much time for random speculation. We wonder whether this time delay involves any ulterior motives. Other than that both David and I will reserve judgement and do not plan on commenting further until either that date or more information is released.
Mason Malmuth
Tex Dolly had an interesting perspective on this in a post he made to RGP. I would bet that part of this deals with Internet Poker since Ed Hill posted Caro's post on the Internet Poker Forum and Mike Caro works with Planet Poker. I wasn't privy to any rumors regarding Caro and his dealings with information about cheating. Perhaps some others were aware of the rumors he mentions in his post.
Caro's post is the first that either David or I have heard about the matter.
Not to be cynical, but I cannot help but wonder how much of this is timed to support the big "World Poker Players Conference" being hosted by Mike Caro on July 6 at the Orleans.
naughty naughty.
<<>>
I posted it on the Internet Forum because I wasn't paying attention, this is where is belongs.
Your response, which was lower in the chain, is now the top and the upper original posts are gone.
System-culled, or manually?
While much remains to be heard (and evaluated) regarding Mike's forthcoming interview, there are certain areas in which cardrooms could increase focus in order to help ensure a clean game. I believe that some of these procedures have crumbled in recent years along with the explosive growth of poker in new areas.
While specifics in the upcoming interview may involve certain yet unnamed persons, it may be impossible to determine what exactly took place or who might have been culpable or not. In fact in the long run these are not even the most important considerations, IMO. What is important is a methodology which decreases the chances that such shenanigans can take place in the future.
Mike has alluded to manipulative dealing and marked cards (while very rare, IMO, these could be far more devastating than collusion). Cardrooms need to be very strict about the dealing procedures and insist that all dealers follow them to the letter. In addition, players should know what these procedures are and should ask the dealers to follow them when they notice deviation from procedure. These procedures help ensure against dishonesty and also help the game run more smoothly in general.
IMPORTANT DEALING PROCEDURES
1. The deck must be kept low and level at all times when dealing, including while pulling bets into the pot. This prevents the dealer from surreptitiously "peeking" at the top card or cards or from flashing the corner of a card to a confederate. Keeping the deck low and level also aids in preventing inadvertent flashing of cards while pitching the cards to the players. Players should speak up about this now common deviation from procedure as well as about dealers pitching too high.
2. The discards should always be "mucked" into the muck pile, not kept in the order they were received, and this applies to folded hands and to any community cards and to the deck stub at the end of the deal. The deck should be given at least a very quick "mini-wash" prior to the start of the shuffle. This and proper "mucking" will aid greatly in deterring any dealer from "locating" a card or group of cards and possibly controlling it through the shuffle. It will also help ensure a truer randomization of the cards for the next deal and help avoid card-clumping.
3. The established shuffle pattern should be followed precisely. Riffle-Riffle-Box-Riffle or Riffle-Box-Riffle-Riffle followed by squaring the deck and a one-handed clear cut. Slugs should not be allowed while riffling (a now common practice, especially for new dealers or experienced dealers who have lazily fallen into the habit).
4. Dealers should not lift the corners of the cards too high while riffling--doing so will allow the players in the seats next to the dealer to see the cards as they drop.
NEW CARDS AND MARKED CARDS
5. Management should take the utmost pains to ensure that nobody without authorization (and nobody solo, and with the camera on at all times) has access to the new card boxes so that they could switch in marked cards. Cards exist on which the markings are totally invisible to the untrained eye. These procedures should be of a security mindset similar to moving gold around inside Fort Knox. Frequently used setups should be kept in such a manner that nobody can quickly and surreptitiously switch in a deck or two without being observed.
6. A keen eye should be kept by players and personnel regarding things such as bent cards, nailed cards, etc. One of the most well-known tricks is some player at the table digging a fingernail into the back of a card in order to identify it. Some card warps are caused by manufacturer defects and cardrooms should be alert to this potential problem.
Please explain term "slugs" in this context:
"Slugs should not be allowed while riffling".
My dictionary gives not much help.
Thanks in advance.
Zbych,
A "slug" is a packet of unshuffled cards that stick together during the riffle. This can be due to clumsiness, inexperience, laziness/bad habits, or much more rarely, an attempt to control the shuffle for underhanded purposes.
^
^
All other things being equal (discipline, psychology, etc.), which type of poker gives a mathematically talented person the biggest advantage over his opponents at the small to mid limit level? I have heard that Omaha is best suited to statistical types. Can anyone comment on this?
Love the forum. Thanks for you help.
Hold'em certainly offers the smallest advantage because in loose games, there often exists pot odds which shrink the mathmatical advantage that skillful, selective play creates. I would argue that Omaha does, in fact, punnish players the worst for being ignorant of the odds involved in drawing hands. Any drawing game with many betting levels is going to offer the biggest advantage, so stud or omaha would be much better than hold'em, razz or lowball.
Craig H
In my opinion, hold'em gives the better player the larger advantage because hold'em players play hold'em far worse than stud players play stud. Furthermore, in hold'em when you are ahead on the flop you are typically way ahead. I believe there is too much luck in Omaha and Omaha is too slow a game to be as profitable in the long run as hold'em.
Jim,
I disagree on your statement that there is too much luck in Omaha. A low limit player can sit and wait for the nuts in both Omaha High and 8B. Especially the 8B version of the game. You will have players staying in a pot waiting to win just a quarter quite often.
Many times players will sit in this game waiting to play Hold'em. A majority of these players have no clue what is a playable hand. There are so many mistakes made by players in this game.
At the low-limits your main skills are patience and evaluating your hands on the flop. The strategy is playing big draws with redraws.
In my opinion, Omaha is beset with difficulties. Addressing limit Omaha high only:
1. Having a good starting hand in hold'em like aces or kings provides you with a large overlay against any field-large or small. There is no starting hand in Omaha, not even ace-king double suited, that provides as large an overlay. Therefore, starting hand selection is not as significant in Omaha as it is in Hold'em because your initial edge is less.
2. Once the flop arrives hands like top pair, overpairs, and even two pair are quite worthless in Omaha. In hold'em these hands provide much of your earn over the course of a year.
3. In Omaha, having the best draw once the flop comes can be more important than having the best hand. Whenever you create a poker game where having the best draw is more important than having the best hand you have created a game where the luck element is too large compared to the skill element in my opinion.
4. Check-raise tactics, so critical for success at Hold'em, are useless in Omaha. In Omaha giving a free card to a bunch of drawing hands is usually disastrous. Therefore, proper strategy is usually a simple one. Bet your hand. This is not the case in hold'em.
5. In Omaha I think most of your earn comes from either having the nuts or a draw to the nuts. This just does not happen often enough to make the game as profitable as hold'em.
6. Omaha is a much slower game than hold'em. At the Bellagio or the Mirage, you can average about 35 hands per hour in hold'em sometimes more. In Omaha, you are lucky to get in 30 hands per hour.
Finally, limit Omaha 8 or better is probably the world's slowest poker game. You are lucky to get in 25 hands per hour. It takes forever for the dealer and the players to figure out what everyone has and who wins what. All this for only half the pot.
I think Omaha should have been left in Nebraska.
Jim, While you make some valid initial assumptions, I think your conclusions are not accurate and seem to be a reflection of your bias toward not liking omaha. For example, your statement about starting hand advantage is true, but your conclusion that starting hand selection is not as important is not true. The reason is that after the flop, a lot of players will have trouble letting go of two pair and big draws to less than the nuts. So starting hand selection is VERY important, it's just not manifested until later on in the hand, and that's where unskilled players get punnished. They will play hands with "danglers" and get into trouble with insufficient draws. You are also correct in pointing out that Omaha is a drawing game, unlike Hold'em, but that does not mean it requires less skillfull play... it just requires different skills. For example, show me a hold'em player that will lay down his top set with a straight/flush draw on the board... a play which is often correct in omaha. Finally, while I agree that O-8 is a slow game, it offers a gigantic overlay because of how poorly most players are at hand selection. In a typical session you will have more than enough opportunity to punnish the weak with the nuts. So, getting back to the initial question, I think that someone skilled in calculating the pot odds and drawing potential, a "mathmatical player", will realize his/her greatest advantage in drawing games such as omaha. But I would prefer they believe you and stay out of my game. Craig H.
`
Does anyone esle find something wrong w/the comments like ,"In Omaha, having the best draw once the flop comes can be more important than having the best hand. Whenever you create a poker game where having the best draw is more important than having the best hand you have created a game where the luck element is too large compared to the skill element in my opinion."
or ,"Once the flop arrives hands like top pair, overpairs, and even two pair are quite worthless in Omaha. In hold'em these hands provide much of your earn over the course of a year. "
I think both of these comments indicate only that the hand most likely to be the best on the river is not the best 'made' hand on the flop. This doesn't imply there is more skill the game.
I think Omaha is a very poorly understood game which though has resembles holdem in many ways mechanically but not strategically.
suspicious, another way of looking at this is to ask yourself why wild card games like deuces wild and baseball are not spread in public card rooms and casinos. Not only are they slow but the luck factor is overwhelming since it will take almost the pure nuts to win a significant pot. While one could argue that wild card games simply involve a different skill set than non-wild card games, the point is that whatever skill exists is simply not that important in any game where you need the nuts or something close to it to win anything significant.
Furthermore, when you add a lot of players to the fray and create a big pot preflop, the post flop play is almost automatic. Since it is a limit game, you simply hang in there with any decent chance of winning and you can never be making much of a mistake mathematically.
Omaha to be meaningful needs to be a pot limit game not a limit game.
Jim,
I'm not sure why wild card games aren't spread in casinos. I can offer a few conjectures (there aren't many who want to play, big hand get beat easily, the local pros only know how to play a game or two... etc). But I don't think it is for the reason you want to imply (that there is little skill in the game).
And, "Furthermore, when you add a lot of players to the fray and create a big pot preflop, the post flop play is almost automatic. Since it is a limit game, you simply hang in there with any decent chance of winning and you can never be making much of a mistake mathematically. " is simply not correct , if you have say the 4th nut low draw a straight draw when the board is paired (w/a two flush) on 4th youd be making a huge mistake calling any bets on 4th street.
I haven't played much Omaha lately though, but I recently played in an medium states HOE game and was quite impressed with how badly my opponents played at O/8 and stud high low. It seems playing high low games is something quite a few people understand. To think like a holdem player in O/8 in simply sucicide. (Again this doesn't imply this game is all luck, it is hand values have changed considerably).
Also, it seems more of the skill in Omaha is play post flop, than preflop.
The problem w/Omaha is it is slow and not that popular. Maybe its lack of popularity is why it is played so poorly by most....
I disagree.
The intent of the original post was lost somewhere along the way. Which poker game gives math weenies the biggest edge? I have a degree in mathematics, but I use almost none of that knowledge actively at the tables. The stuff in my Theory of Sucking Out is some math you can do at the tables in hold'em, but that same approach would be so much more valuable in Omaha. Omaha is centered on drawing, whereas Hold'em is centered on hand reading to escape or exploit hand domination. So, for math weenies lacking all other poker skills, Omaha-8 would seem to offer the greatest potential, followed by 7-stud-8, Omaha high, 7-stud high, and finally hold'em.
However, Jim Brier's advice is good in its essence. Omaha is slow and that alone makes it questionable to play. A math weenie might be able to get a bigger edge simply by devoting his intelligent brain to mastering the less mathematical aspects of playing poker, like memorization in 7-stud or hand-reading in hold'em.
-Abdul
I think the point I trying to make was that many people think of Omaha as a big suckout game because the "best hand" gets drawn out on much more often. However it seems almost no one seems to take the view that the best hand is the hand that has the greatest probability of being best at the river. Comments like 'top two and over pairs get drawn out on too often for this to be a game of skill' only imply the speaker has some bias of what the best hand should be as opposed to what the best hand is!
Could we substitute "one who appreciates and understands the statistical nuances of the game" for "math weenie"?
Anyways, I would like to thank all who have replied to my post. I could not have expected so many reponses in such a short period of time. Kudos to the owners.
I originally thought of this topic because I have been reading the books on Hold'em, Krieger, Jones, etc. but have not been too exited about the expected earnings for quality players. As a natural contrarian I look for unkown or misunderstood opportunites. The fact that we have such a difference of opinion among knowledgeable poker players in this forum only reinforces my feelings.
Just from a gut perspective Omaha appeals to me theoretically because 1. The drawing seems to lead to larger pots and 2. There are not as many books on the topic so therefore less "math weenie rocks" to deal with. It seems like riper pickings.
I would appreciate any additional comments on this.
Thanks again.
Well, I wouldn't necessarily string math-weenie with rock. A rock is a rock. Also truly talented math-weenies tend to gravitate to good games until there is an equilibrium. You won't find 9 math-weenies sitting around playing 40-80 Omaha against each of other if there is a really juicy 30-60 stud game the next table over. And if you have a mathematical mind that can be adapted to play poker, your upside potential is quite high.
JG
Jim,
I think it is wrong for you to call it a luck game. As a matter of fact I was surprised that you did It's pointless to argue. Give Bob Ciaffone a call and ask him. He wrote a good book on it. It's not a luck game, its a game of skill. At the low limits this game has more suckers than any other poker game I've played in a casino.
I was comparing limit omaha with limit hold'em not discussing limit omaha in a vacuum. I believe there is a lot more luck in limit omaha than in limit hold'em and that a good player will make more money in the long run playing limit hold'em because the game is faster and the element of chance is smaller.
but those who bemoan the slow pace are right. However, it has a positive corelation with the skill of the other players.
If you see a low limit Omaha game being played at a painfully slow pace you are fairly safe in assuming that 6 or more of the participants are TOTALLY clueless.
Posted By: Jim Brier
In my opinion, and it is not even close, it is seven-card stud. That's because by taking into account the upcards and relating it to the number of players that are in the pot, and relating it again to your playing options, you must constantly come up with with more than one expectation figure for a hand. This can be very mathematical.
For instance, a live small pair with an ace kicker is playable against an obvious large pair. But it plays best when heads-up in this spot. So if there are several people still to act behind you it might be correct to reraise to get it heads-up as opposed to calling. If only the bring-in is left to act behind you this raise isn't worth it because you don't knock anyone else out. Notice how your expectation has changed with the exact same hands and upcards depending on position.
Continuing with this hand, if several players have come in you should probably fold. That's because the probability of winning the pot has gone down more relatively speaking than the size of the pot has gone up.
One of the reasons that I try to play stud is that I feel my mathematical training, and many years of working with numbers (my Census Bureau years) makes my talents more inclined for stud.
Great post Mason.
I think stud is the most mathematical for two other reasons as well. The first is that the initial distribution of cards involves 3 vs 2 cards and the final distribution contains 3 unknown cards. Plus, each player gets their own cards so many combinations are possible (it's very rare to have the nuts in stud).
The second reason stud is also very mathematical is that position can change, so you have to keep track of this possibility as well. In hold-em, when raising for a free card, position will not change. In stud, if you raise for a free card, you have to calculate the probability that you will fall high on the next round. For example, if you raise with xx45 vs xx j10, there is a much better chance you will fall high next round than if you raised vs xxAK. This situation is amplified in multi-way pots where your implied odds may depend on acting in late position but the distribution of the next street could very well alter your position adversely (or positively in some cases).
I do have a math degree, and I am very mathematically oriented. I have experinece now in stud, hold'em, Omaha8, and stud hi/lo/8.
I actually perform specific calculations in my head, and use them, by far most often in loose low limit hold'em games. In reference to Jim's and Abdul's posts - this is not the same game as they are writing about when they say "hold'em."
In very loose games, after the flop there is a "principle of restricted choice" whereby, even though you can't read any individual's hand (since they start with anything and call with almost anything), out there somewhere one of your opponents has made a hand. My approach to this game is to judge, upon seeing the flop, what it will take to be a likely winner this hand. This is usually at least top pair.
In hold'em, I count the pot exactly. So if I have flopped second pair, I need to hit a 5-outer to get my hand into the category of propable winner. I make this calculation exactly - about 1 out of 9, IF my "out" doesn't put a potential straight or flush on board, and I compare it with pot size and what I guess will be future implied odds if I hit my draw.
Inside straight draws are the very best for making this calculation. If both of my cards will participate in a straight, if I hit a 4-out draw, it is often the case in these loose games that it is correct to draw on the flop but not on the turn. How many of my opponents make that decision correctly? None.
Everything Mason says about stud is true. All of these calculations apply in a similar way, with more complexity. For me personally, from a practical standpoint I don't make these calculations with the same precision, because I am using quite a bit of my mental energy remembering all the folded cards. I cannot keep as good a count of the pot. So I make a lot of these calculations as approximations, using rules of thumb like "stay with the flush draw if no more than 3 are gone" instead of the precise calculation.
Dick
Dick,
I'm not sure what limits you play, but in low limit stud, where the ante is small compared to the bet, these calculations will not be as important or as necessary.
This is only a subset of a game, but how about tournament no-limit holdem, where the money goes in very quickly in the hand. It's almost completely modeling the opponents distributed hand possibilities and comparing them against your own with a little bit of interplay factored in for other players.
JG
The brain likes what's the same, and learns by noticing what's different. We tend to learn through difference, even though we tend to like what's the same.
In an article in the April 13 Card Player, a poker dealer talks about abusive player behavior.
While I believe he is correct in his general argument that there is far too much of it and that the good of the game demands less tolerance of it, the two example he brought up were, in my judgment, not examples of abuse.
In the first instance, a regular high stakes player, each time after winning a pot, pleasantly asked the dealer to change a $5 chip. He then tipped five players each $1, instead of giving the dealer anything.
A jerk? Yes. Insensitive? Yes. Abuse of the dealer or the game? No.
In the second incident a player berated the dealer for slowing down the game by counting down the deck, which is apparently required in this cardroom. The dealer asked the player, who was a dealer at another casino, if he counted the cards down when he dealt. His anawer was no. This player then "stiffed" the dealer, asked for deck changes, and folded out of turn or exposed his cards.
A jerk? Yes. Insensitive? Yes. Abuse of the dealer? No. Abuse of the game? Yes.
But why didn't the dealer get a manager over to help get this player under control? Also, a dealer cannot be "stiffed." He/she is not entitled to a tip. Wouldn't it have been better if the dealer, when taken to task for counting down the cards, had said, "Sir, I'm required to do this by the rules of the casino"?
There are no doubt far too many players who abuse either the dealer or the game. But there are also some dealers who allow themselves to be less than professional, especially when criticized by a player. This, too, hurts the game.
This whole tipping thing has gotten way out of control.
1. When you avail yourself of a service where you KNOW the person providing it is being paid next to nothing, said person IS - in my opinion - entitled to a tip as long as the level of the service they provide is at least adequate. (There is nothing self-serving about that statement; I do not work for tips, nor do any of my close friends nor anyone in my immediate family. Many moons ago I did for a brief period of time; I don't think a 2 month stint that occurred years ago has made me overly sensitive to the needs of those who must rely on the public to "pay their salary".) If you eat in a restaurant and choose not to tip the waiter / waitress you have broken an unspoken contract, again IMO.
2. I did date a dealer for a while in Atlantic City. Her attitude was a very healthy one; she looked in her toke box at the end of the day - if it was full (and being rather attractive it usually was) she was happy. She gave very little thought to the tourist who tipped her $10 on a $500 pot; she gave an equally small amount of thought to the "working pro" who tossed her a couple of quarters (if even that) on a pot twice as large. She knew that in the end it would all work itself out, and she was right - it did.
3. In direct contrast to points #'s 1 and 2, those dealers who get "spoiled" do turn my stomach. There is - or maybe was, haven't seen her lately - a female dealer at the Taj who for some reason [sic] always seems to be found at a 20-40 game full of tourists - a group that as a whole does tend to tip rather well. One day she was sent (I guess out of necessity) to a 5-10 stud game which also contained 6 out of 8 tourists, but they simply did not know the MECHANICS of the game; she was forced to point out the high hand on nearly every round of betting in almost every hand. In spite of the fact that they tipped pretty well, the NINE hands she was able to get out in her 30 minute down did not allow her to make very much money - she might have walked with $15, not a dime more and quite possibly less. When she got up she shook her toke box and said in a very sarcastic tone, "thanks alot everyone". I felt this needed to be dealt with. She needed to be straightened out.
Her next table was 15-30 holdem. Operation "attitude adjustment" was about to be executed.
I went to the casino cage and asked for $3,000 in 20 dollar bills. I brought them back to the game and asked for chips. She "suggested" that 500 dollars was probably enough to get me started, at which point I told her that 3,000 was my lucky number and I wanted to buy in for the full amount, AND that I wanted the chips from her - not any of the other players.
- Time elapsed: approximately 4 minutes -
I played as slowly as possible, I engaged the other players in as much conversation as was possible, I called the floor on two occasions to have minor rules explained to me (and to the others who were curious as to the actual reasoning behind these rules - curious because I "made" them curious).
Bottom line was that she got out SIX hands - BUT -
even if this sounds like a demonstration of how mean and vindictive I can be, it's not and I'm not.
This dealer NEEDED to be put in her place; there had been occasions when really good games had broken up because of her - she would sit down and 2 or more live ones would suddenly "remember" that they needed to be somewhere. Had she dealt a normal shift to this group she would probably have walked with at least twenty dollars - quite possibly closer to thirty.
SHE EARNED $6.50 FOR THAT HALF HOUR -
and she seemed to get the message. Her behavior from that point on (at least when I was in one of her games) was exemplary. I did not turn her into a nicer person; she still was and still is a b--ch, but she became a much more "useful" dealer.
This was meant to be a commentary, but is there anyone out there who would like to weigh in on whether or not this was dealer abuse ?
Looking forward to any and all responses -
- J D
Sounds to me like you were just having some fun. I'm the biggest advocate in the world for courteous behavior at the tables and respect for employees, but there's no place for sarcasm in the service/entertainment business... so a little harmless harassment probably did her some good. How do you think those tourists felt after her little toke-box-shaking comment? It would have made me feel like s**t, since these players probably just didn't know any better. Thanks for the laugh.
CH
Craig, you just commented about tipping post from "J.D."---IS he same person whose win rate caused you to seek his teaching?---and did not have time for doubters? guess he found time for other matters.Jim
He's giving me free lessons already. Now I know how to slow a game down to piss off a dealer.
Some of my "thoughts" are written well in advance of the time they are posted.
Also, when I said I didn't have the time I was trying to say that for personal reasons I am sometimes forced to "disappear" from the forum for weeks at a time and I did not want to get something started that I MAY OR MAY NOT be around to finish.
- Other times you poor guys can't get rid of me. -)
Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed.
- J D
I play in Colorado where the limit is a 5 dollar bet. The games I play in, especially the weekends, are crazy, even with the small bet maximum. To set the scene, the games are are 10 handed, with 8-9 of the players asians (not trying to get racial just stating the facts) who love to raise, and re-raise with garbage a lot of times. My basic strategy is the old "tight in loose games" approach. In these games, it is almost always raised or re-raised before the flop with 6-8 people seeing the flop. My overall win percentage in these games is about 50%. Not good right? The thing is, when I win, I win huge (upwards of 800 dollars-think about that given the small betting structure!!!!). I saw a guy once win 3000 over 8 hours!!! I limit my losses so overall I am making money. My question-how and should I change my basic strategy to increase my win rate? If I do change my strategy, will this impact my win amount? During a session, you either win big because most everyone is playing trash and never gets there, or you lose because someone sucks out at the ned with a piece of trash.
You win by being significantly more selective than the opponents (like you do), getting big value by raising with your draws and big hands, by forgetting about presuming the opponents will react naturally when you represent a hand, and by NOT presuming the opponents have what they represent. This means almost always lay down reasonable hands.
You must also accept that FACT that most show downs will be won by "bad" hands. This is because there are so many more of them being played than good hands. If 2 good hands are in a pot with 5 bad ones; well one of the bad ones will probably win.
Your 50% win rate is perfectly reasonable so long as your wins are on average bigger than your losses.
- Louie
There is almost nothing you can do. Your only edge in this game comes from your starting hand selection. You are doing the right thing by playing tight preflop. After the flop, you either have a hand, a draw, or a fold. It's pretty simple. You will almost always have odds to go for open-enders and big flushes. BE VERY careful about playing for non-nut flushes.
As a side note, you are playing an a very high variance game. Unless your bankroll is somewhere around four hundred big bets (yes, $2000) you are in danger of eventually going broke. Just a heads up.
natedogg
I agree in principle, but ...
"You will almost always have odds to go for open-enders and big flushes. BE VERY careful about playing for non-nut flushes.".
[1] You almost always have the right odds for these draws (unless the board is paired) in very TIGHT games. You ALWAYS have the right odds in good or very loose games. [2] How does one "be very careful" about non-nut draws? Yes, a small flush is a LITTLE less likely to win in a loose game than a tight game (there being more Kx and Qx draws out) but the huge odds you get (because of all those other loose hands that cannot beat your flush) more than overcomes this disadvantage. I suggest that you just go ahead and draw (usually betting or raising) and be prepared to occasionally have to pay off a bigger hand.
- Louie
You have only two options:
1. Play when the games are easier.
2. Make sure your bankroll can stand the swings.
Having a 50% win rate is excellent if you mean your wins are 50% more than your losses. If you mean you win twice and lose twice and your losses exceed your wins, play when the game is easier and forget about those huge pots. They don't get that big by rational play.
jmho
the last few games i've played in i've lost, despite the fact the there are a lot of awful players in the game.
yesterday, for instance, in a home game (10 players - a record) where the limits are 10-20 up to pot limit - dealers choice, i lost $1425. not a lot, considering i lost it in 4 pot limit hands. however, there are at least 4 people in the game who are clueless (most games were omaha 8, pineapple 8, holdem). 6-7 players routinely see flop.
i have lost 4 out of the last five times i've played in this game. i don't play loose, but it seems that i always either get outdrawn on the river, or my draws don't get there.
help me
Couple of possibilities here.
You might just be running badly, you would have to be running REALLY bad to lose 4 times out of 5 in a game with *no rake*.
You also say that your opponents are fish which makes it that much more unlikely that you should be losing.
The most likely scenario, and one that you are not going to like to hear, is that you probably can't beat the game.
One of wife's co workers has played a few times, and he mentioned to me that he's read the books, plays tight preflop, but rarely books a win. I offered to play with him at a low limit table one night, watch him, and give him feedback on his game.
Sure enough, he was solid preflop, but his post flop play was horrendous! He read somewhere that you should be tight and aggressive. Well, he was tight alright. And he was aggrewssive too, no question.
But he just had no clue! If he had KK he would cap it on a board of KQJT! He would bet 2 pair into 4 flush boards. The fact is that, despite the fact that he was tight, NO one cleared out when this guy entered a pot because he pumped everyone up so much. If he had AK, he would call all the way to the river no matter what hit.
I don't know if you are this bad, but the point is, I learned that all the preflop skill in the world isn't going to make you a winner if you can't play post flop too.
Yahoo!
its the opposite...i fold most hands before the flop and my after flop play is generally extremely strong.
i'm not losing because i'm involved in a lot of pots - in fact its the opposite. i'm rarely in pots unless i'm drawing to the nuts (most games are omaha 8) and have a multi-way hand.
for example, yesterday i flopped the nut flush (omaha). bet, three callers. turn paired the board. one bet, raise. i folded.
again, flopped king high straight (nut). bet, turn was a rag. river paired the board. there was a bet, raise. i folded.
both beats were fairly routine (ie. not "bad beats"), but it seems to be happening a lot.
i played, after the flop, less than a dozen hands in 5 hours yesterday.
nice idea. wish it were true so i could fix it.
thanks
You said you've lost in the last few games. Four of the last five sessions you've booked a loss. That's really not much of a streak.
In fact, that is just the tip of the iceberg for a real bad run. It's nothing. You need to be able to shrug it off and continue to play well. If a mere four-game losing streak is going to get you down and off your game, you've either been running good for a VERY long time or you haven't played very long.
Stay tight and aggressive, don't start making huge laydowns that aren't warranted, and PUNISH them when they are drawing against you in pot limit. You know all this I'm sure. Just remember that your "bad run" is more like a "mini downward blip" compared to the real thing.
natedogg
Let's say that you can beat this game for 1BB per hour. What are the chances that you would book 4 out of 5 losing sessions? Remember - there is NO RAKE.
If the odds are only 50% that you can book a win in any one session, then the odds of the following are:
losing 5 times : 1 in 32 (3.1%)
losing 4 times : 1 in 6.4 (15.6%)
losing 3 times : 1 in 3.2 (31.3%)
losing 2 times : 1 in 3.2 (31.3%)
losing 1 time : 1 in 6.4 (15.6%)
losing 0 times : 1 in 32 (3.1%)
add these up and you get 100%
Now, obviously this is over simplified. But if you now give a player a greater than 50% chance of booking a win, because he is a player that can beat the game, you can see that it should be rare for him to lose 4 out of 5 sessions - and remember this game has NO RAKE.
I have been playing semi pro for 25 years. (20 hours a week average, make an average of about 65K a year these days). I know that cold streaks can and do happen. But not in the ways that most people think.
Fact is that if you truly are a winning player, in the course of your carrer you should very rarely book 4 or more losses in a row.
Any really good player should practice good game selection. If you have several games to choose from, the games you should be choosing should give you at LEAST an 80% chance of booking a win. My rate is more like 85%. So you can see that 4 out of 5 losses is rare.
Yahoo!
unfortunately, when the opposition is so weak, it gets frustrating to lose again and again. its as if there is a dream game, and you can't pull a card.
maybe one reason that i lose is that it is fairly loose aggressive, a game i find tough to beat. for example, we played pineapple yesterday (we rarely play it, so i'm not that proficient at it). the flop (7 way action) came Q-5-2 rainbow. i had 6-2-2-, giving me a set. however, there was a bet and raise before it got to me. now, my thinking is along omaha 8 lines: if 2 low cards flop, highs go way down in value. in addition, i have the low set. i fold. right move??? in omaha, absolutely. but maybe not here. by the way, no low came, and the bettor and raisor each had queens and fives.
what do you think???
Yahoo makes some pretty serious claims. I will suggest that there are maybe 10 players in the world who "clear" 65K a year playing poker (not ONE year, but PER year). Of those 10 players, NONE of them win 85% of their sessions. I will also suggest that Yahoo's method of calculating how frequently one should loose 3 or 4 or 5 times in a row is based on a fallacious assumption of expected win rate. There's not really any such thing as expected win rate because "sessions" are artificial and arbitrary. You can only calculate a win rate in terms of hourly win rate. So I would advise tootight to sit tight. As natedogg says, you ain't seen nothing yet... even if you are a good player.
-CH
65k per year is a tidy amount, but your claim that there are probably not 10 players in the world who earn this amount is - well I'll assume you were exagerating.
I have cleared 40+ in each of the last 5 years.
- I do not play full time.
- My main game is 5-10 though if the right bunch comes along I will go as high as 15-39.
- Uh, well, um, I have a few rather SIZABLE leaks in my game. They are getting smaller and lesser in number as time passes but I am NOT championship caliber.
Having said all that, if it were a matter of life or death I could clear 65 thousand per year and would not have to go above 15-30 to do it.
Mason's "expected earn rates" seem to indicate that he has played very little if any on the east coast.
No disrespect intended here, his books have changed my life and he is probably right on target for Las Vegas and Southern California. It is clear however that he has never been to the Taj on a Saturday night in the middle of summer.
I can live with the notion that an 80% winning pct. is possible if you are extremely game selective.
I have never had five losing sessions in a row, if we define a session as being between 8 and 12 hours.
I do not recall THREE but I'm sure this is due to my unconsious choice to forget them.
- J D
P.S. I'm not going to have time to answer each individual who posts (or contacts me privately) to tell me I am full of s--t. Either take me at my word or move on - your choice. Best wishes in either case.
JD, since you don't have time to answer, let me pose a question to the masses. JD plays part time and earns 40K per year playing 5-10 hold'em. That has to average out to around 5 big bets/hr. How many people are there on this forum earning that kind of money? If you can show me a tax return verifying it, I will be willing to pay you 3 big bets/hr for lessons. Seriously.
CH
J. D.,i am impressed--most all of my experience has been in pot limit so i probably do not have comparable info---but based upon past 15 years i would warn you to watch out---after such exceptional good luck, you may be due for a long bad streak. i hope it does not happen !!! Jim
He's probably not making 5 BB/hr, but I wouldn't be surprised if he's clearing 3 BB/hr (remember 5/10 was his "basic" game with 15/30 being the cap). That level of play isn't unreasonable for a very good player who has excellent game selection skills.
- Andrew
Craig, i very much doubt any of these players are making the figures they claim. However, there probably a few more people than 10 who make more than 65k per year. I would assume not many, excluding tourney players of course.
This subject of running bad just irks me. Some players have 2 or 3 losing sessions, and they are running bad? Try running bad for over three months, then talk to me.
Bret, I agree.About three years ago I was lucky enough to take first in one of the tournaments at the Orleans, paid about $21,000, during the next 14 months I had worst dry spell of my life---during that time I seldom won, and never topped $200 when I did win and was playing 5 & 10 blinds, pot limit-- needless to say, the $21,000 was long gone!Hope it does not happen to you guys....Jim
and 3 big bets per hour at 5-10 over a year in which I put in a little over 1,000 hours is $30,000.
Toss in a little 10-20 and 15-30 and there is your $40,000.
- By the way, Craig, I do give lessons specifically aimed toward low limit but you will have to come up just a bit. I get $40 per hour - money back if not satisfied.
That was not sarcasm, if you are interested I can be reached at the address on the top of my posts.
The money goes to charity, but that should not really matter if your goal is to improve your game.
- J D
P.S. The 1st lesson is free, and Andrew gave it to you already - GAME SELECTION.
If you play even reasonably well, 2 BB per hour at 3-6 4-8, 5-10 or 6-12 is not that difficult to attain if you pick your spots. If you sit down in the first available seat on a regular basis, there are few in the world who could play win this amount over the couse of a year.
Best wishes - sorry if I offended you in any way. It was not my intention to get up on a soapbox and tell the world how brilliant I am.
Also, is $30 per hour really what you aspire to earn in today's world ?
In NYC we pay our sanitation workers almost that much, and they get benefits.
Hope I didn't give the impression that I was offended, JD... I've just been playing poker a long time and have friends and family who play professionally (earning between 20 and 38K a year) and have not seen nor heard of the kind of win rate you describe. I'll pass on the lessons for now, but thanks. One free piece of advice I will give you, however, is to play more 10-20 and 15-30. If "throwing in a little 10/20 and 15/30" earns you an additional $10,000 a year, you might want to throw in a little more. I imagine game selection is what limits your time in these games now. As for aspiring to $30/hr, I don't believe I gave the impression that I'm aspiring to play poker for a living and make sanitation worker wages... but if I was I would have to take issue with your implication that there aren't any benefits in poker... what about free alcohol and comped buffets.
all in fun, CH
You are right; there are without a doubt benefits that come with playing poker. (I am sure that you know I was referring to health insurance and the like.)
By the way, you hit the nail right on the head. My reason for playing 5-10 more than any other game has to do with the fact that on a Friday or Saturday night there are often as many as four to six games going at this limit.
There is rarely more than one each at 10-20 and 15-30; sometimes they don't even have one of each.
- I am curious as to where you (and your friends) play. I would also be very interested in discussing some of your experiences at 5-10 or similarly sized games... 4-8, 6-12.
Hope to hear from you.
Best wishes,
- J D
I agree that "sessions" are artificial and arbitrary as useful units of record-keeping. If I lose five straight times and recoup in one session, or win five straight times and then blow those profits in one session, well, what's it matter what the streaks were? The bottom line is the bottom line.
Tommy
In my opinion any player that plays for a significant amount of money to them will not follow any book by rote and therefore will think "outside the box." Personally I know of no player that doesn't think "outside the box." It's a myth that people who play for personally significant amounts of money follow authors blindly and never contemplate strategy through their own unique ways of reasoning. I put the caveat of personally significant amounts of money because I think a lot of players that start out at low limits follow a strategy set forth in a book quite often and at the low limits the money isn't that big of a deal.
I know a lot of players that don't make it to the border of the box at all. That is, they see the box, go into denial of it. Then they make their own personal box within the box. This box, of course, is extremely narrow, limited by their own biases and fears - and results in them becoming very predictable.
It looks like you and Tom may be talking about two different things. Depending on how "the box" is defined, I think you're both right.
Right. I often read posts referring to the S&M strategy (why it's not S&M&Z I don't know). I'm not sure exactly what these posts mean but I assume it's basically what is laid out in the advanced player books. Therefore when a player plays limit hold'em and uses the the S&M strategy, that player is following the guidlines set forth in HFAP. In the recent debate I believe at least some people characterized thinking inside the box as using the S&M strategy. My point was that I don't believe any player would read HFAP, accept all the concepts and strategy's put forth in the book without at least questioning some of them, never consider alternative strategies, and proceed to play in games for a personally significant amount of money. Perhaps the fact that you would read a book to go beyond personal biases and fears means that they are willing to be very open minded about poker strategy.
" ... why it's not S&M&Z I don't know). >>
Everytime I see "S&M" I think of a dual meaning, the poker one, plus "sadism and masochism," which suggests poker as well.
So what would "S&M&Z" mean? I dunno. Sadism, masochism and zoology? My my, the imagery.
:-)
Tommy
S (smart), M (marvelous), Z (zany).
No Tommy it is Sadism, Masochism, and Zen.
Tommy,
I suspect for a number of posters here the name Zanthippe might have some significance. Fortunately, I'm not among them.
John
Ugh! That's Xanthippe; how about "zilch"?
I believe that many of the posts that emphasize S&M strategy are from people who haven't read much of our material and are just saying that the so called S&M player is someone who plays extremely tight and straight forward. While we do emphasize tight play, the strategies that we advocate in our books will not qualify as the standard S&M strategy that I see in some posts (mostly on RGP).
Actually I have found what you wrote in this post to be very, very true. I think the advanced player books are good points of reference and if players just say something off the wall and attribute it to "S&M" strategy, then using these books to set the record straight is appropriate. I bring it up because a lot of the recent discussions regarding thinking about poker have implied that people follow the "S&M" strategy by rote. At least that has been my impression. Not only do I think that this is not true I don't think most people even know what is!
It amazes me how the term "S&M strategy" has become as mainstream as terms like "EV" and "domination". Yet there really is no clear definition of what it is. And this mainstreamization process is probably irreversible!
The threads about boxes have helped me already, like a reminder.
I don't play inside or outside the S&M box because I don't know what it is. Boxes have edges. 20 years of written material by S&M about a game with few black and whites don't.
But I definitely have my own box, as I suspect we all do. And I think it's bad to be confined, be it by S&M or ourselves. I'm constantly leary of betting habits that become routine, and oftentimes change them just for the sake of change. It always feels good and fresh.
Tommy
Right and when you play for a personally significant amount of money, not seeking improvement in play is too risky.
Gary Carson mentions Hi-Tech cheating at the Bellagio in one of his posts on RGP. Any truth to this statement? Anyone know any details? What limit game was being played? Any famous players involved?
I haven't read the post but I doubt if he's even been to the Bellagio.
Gary Carson is a home bound welfare cheat that sits around in his underwear making posts all day on RGP. Anywone that even reads what he has to say probably pours coffee on their cornflakes.
Thanks Tom. Gary has been bugging me for nine months. When I finally replied, his friends jumped all over me, and I was told by many people that I was out of line.
I LOVE your picture of him.
Alan Schoonmaker
To make things clear it is Ed R. who described Gary that way. I have no knowledge of what Gary does for a living or how he earns his money.
I often read what Gary Carson has to say, and today I am going to try pouring coffee on my multi-grain flakes.
In a regular deck of cards -- there are 52 ways to cheat -- we all know that. 8-) So I am always alert to some degree -- but try not to never get paranoid to the point where it will spoil my game and enjoyment. Most experienced players can detect cheating and can react accordingly. Ninty percent of pleasure players don't have a clue about cheating.
I am curious, what kind of high tech tecnnique did Rodney suggest? As some of you remember, thirty-five years or so, there was cheating in seven card stud at the original MGM Grand casino in LV -- in this case the dealer knew all the players first two hole cards and signaled his confederate who was seated at first base "to call, check, raise, or pass out."
Correction: What kind of cheating did Gary Carson suggest -- i.e., what technique. Not Rodney!
If you can ignore his contempt for 2+2 (I know it's hard), he often has something worthwhile to say. Gary also often raises some important issues facing the poker industry. He also is very helpful to a lot of players. IMHO
Good Luck
Howard
I agree with some of what Howard has to say. However, in the end I find Carson to be just another usenet troll.
if they're cheating me there, they're not doing a very good job. I've played there ten times from limits between 15-30 and 80-160 and am 9-1. Tho I did get set over setted on the turn for that 1. And amusingly enough, Mason was in the game, but left about 5 minutes before the hand went down for a walk and came back later. That would be consistent with never having... :) (True.)
JG
Gamblero made an interesting post and asked if there were any arrogant, obnoxious players that were also successful. He then answered his own question by saying he didn't think so. Apparently he's never played with John Bonetti, Men the Master, Scotty Nguyen, or several other well known pros whose attitudes and behavior leave much to be desired at the poker table. As a poker community we are very lucky to have had TJ Cloutier take that horrendous beat in the Big One. If Bonetti had been the one, it'd be a nationally televised embarassment and there would be no hope at corporate sponsorship in the near future. Not to mention what would have become of the poor dealer.
CH
There are plenty of mid-limit pros in the bay area and I only know a couple who are arrogant to an objectionable degree. The vast majority are exceptionally well-behaved.
Tommy
I'm an arrogant pro and proud of it. What's it to ya anyway?
Just got back from Tunica,where I played in the 5000 NL event.Scotty was at my table and acted very well I thought.Phill busted out and threw a tantrun identical to the one on the Discovery channel .
Hi, all, this is being posted to the "Low Limits" forum as well as the "Medium Stakes" as well, I'm looking for the broadest collection of responses I can get.
I'm currently playing in western Washington State and I've run into a bit of a problem. It's a combination of players consistently playing absurd cards and the jackpot.
In all of the 4-8 games locally, I've found a very disturbing tendency for the players to either play specifically for the jackpot or not have a clue what they're doing and play hands like UTG, 6-2o. (This included a reraise on one hand and a similar hand with a cap two positions from the BB.) These folks are very deliberately playing for the jackpot which, at the Muckleshoot, is currently about $95k for the "super" jackpot and $25k for the straight Hold'em bad beat jackpot.
What this has amounted to is consistent losses of superbly playable and winnable hands to longshot straight and flush draws. The 6-2 I mentioned cracked my pocket aces which developed into a set on the flop. In the same game, I also had a set of kings and trip jacks whacked by players shooting for the jackpot.
I realize this is a function of the variance of the game. However, I'm still learning the game and what I'm curious about is this: Will I be better off if I move up to the next level of games which is the 10-20 and just accept that I'm going to be in the super-tight, grind it out mode of play for a very long time.
I've observed the 10-20 games and while some of the jackpot and bogus starting card players make their way there, it seems to be a much more straightforward poker game. A place where a pre-flop raise probably doesn't mean a 9-3o.
From your experience, how much better are the players one level above the top end of the low limit games? There simply aren't any 5-10, 6-12 or 8-16 games in this area. As I said, I'm more than willing to play tight and close to the fist if it means I'm going to get a chance to participate in a game where the players are actually making rational decisions rather than trying to get a straight flush busted on every hand. Again, I'm asking for opinions, what's the consensus on moving up to find a real poker game rather than a jackpot mob?
I've read everything I can find as well as having current Wilson software to play on the computer. In addition, I've played on a number of online games and I've found that the low limit games here are way out on the edge of the bell curve as far as inane starting cards and incomprehensible play. I don't want to keep getting my bankroll smacked by people who are riding the standard deviation and are only pulling the pots through blind luck. I don't mind losing a hand to someone who's out played me, I can't afford to keep losing them to people who are playing bad poker, win a hand or two because they hit the probabilities in the right spot and don't provide me any worthwhile strategy to learn from and compete against.
In your opinions, is it worth it to move up to get into a better game so I can learn? If not, what suggestions do you have for playing with a short bankroll in a game that's regularly winning with straights and flushes drawing out on the river?
Many thanks in advance.
Stay where you are and thank God (if you are religiuos) for providing you with such opponents.
Also, get a copy of a worthwhile book on beating super-loose games.
There are a few good ones; I do NOT recommend the work by Lee Jones.
Finally, buy a copy of THEORY OF POKER - if you don't already own one; this is an absolute necessity.
A copy of GAMBLING THEORY AND OTHER TOPICS would also be a worthwhile investment.
The last two titles are available on this forum.
P.S. I am not a shill and get no royalties from the sale of these books. If you want to try playing serious poker without having read them, be my guest.
Best wishes,
- J D
Hi there,
This is part of the problem. I own or have read every book in the Conjelco library. The problem I'm running in to is that I don't have the bankroll to deal with the variance at this level. If I had triple the money available, I'd be able to just ride it out but I don't.
I've gone over every page, paragraph and word in TTOP as well as every Hold'em book I can find. What it seems to amount to is that I'm beginning to believe I've run up against a demographic blip in the statistics.
Out of several hundred hours of play, I still have yet to find a change in my actual hourly rate. I simply can't afford to have too many more sets and trips cracked by two or three simpletons who are shooting for the jackpot.
In terms of play, I've been told by local players that I'm doing far better than most people at my level of experience. Given that and the lack of bankroll, I'm honestly not sure if it's worth my while to keep beating my head against the wall when I'm literally the only person at two, three or four tables who won't open UTG with something like 62o in hopes of snagging a straight or 23s in hopes of making it into the "super" jackpot.
Once I've got the bankroll to simply ride out the people who are playing this way, I agree completely. Over the course of a few months play, I expect a fairly consistent hourly expectation. It's just that the SD is kicking my butt right now.
I'm not a stats god by any means so I can't compute my actual statistical position but when it comes down to it, I suspect there's some threshold wherein a bankroll is simply too small to overcome seven or eight players at the table who have taken the concept of "loose play" to a new degree.
As an example, in a recent hand, the showdown was a couple of straights with the highest card being a 7. This isn't out of the ordinary by any means.
What I'm looking for is the possibility that the 10-20 players are consistent and competent enough that I can just tighten up to the max, choose the loosest of those games and over several months grind out enough of a bankroll that I can go back to the 4-8 and start over with enough chips in hand to cope with the SD.
In any case, I sincerely thank you for your reply. I'm still up in the air as to how to deal with this situation and absolutely every bit of input is being seriously considered.
FWIW, a number of the local "pros" as well as serious recreation ring game players have told me that the 3-6 and 4-8 games are nearly unplayable unless your whole intent is to just throw as much money into the pot and hope the PokerGod smiles on you.
Again, thanks for the reply.
If you are good enough to grind out a bankroll over several months at the 10-20 level, then why would you want to return to 4-8?
I can beat most 10-20 games (a little over 1 BB/hour).
They don't spread 4-8 where I play, but my DOLLAR earn at 3-6 and 5-10 is as good if not better than 10-20; over a LONG period of time I have taken more than $20/hour out of 3-6 and 5-10 combined.
Obviously I'm putting less money on the table at 3-6 or 5-10 than I am at 10-20, even in a "wild" 3-6 game.
I should point out that I don't come across too many low-limit games that are as insane as the one "The Baron" describes. "Six-Deuce" is often played - and of course is occasionally the winner - BUT it is not a hand that is raised with pre-flop.
Most of the 3-6 players are close to clueless, but they don't hate money.
I do not have alot of experience in jackpot games, but unless the jackpot is ENORMOUS I would have to agree with what Mason wrote; Caro and Sklansky also seemed to agree for the most part, even if they worded their opinions differently.
Any significant change in YOUR starting requirements is probably a mistake.
AND like them, I don't like the added "rake".
If "The Baron" reads this I hope he(she?) let's us know of the final outcome; you can go through alot of money when running cold in a wild game.
You can also win the first pot of the evening and never look back.
It's a long drive for me so when I do go to play I tend to put in marathon sessions.
I have come home a $1,000+ winner for the weekend on more than a few occasions playing no higher than 5-10.
I have never come close to losing that much; on a handful of trips I have come home with $500 less than I left with - bear in mind that both figures include expenses which run about $100 for the two days.
P.S. The "weekend warriors" in Atlantic City are some of the worst players you will ever see anywhere; this holds true up to about 20-40. I don't play that high but I do watch from time to time while waiting for my name to be called. In all honesty, I have only once or twice seen a game that I felt was unbeatable, and I can afford 20-40 (albeit a mauling would hurt a bit.)
My philosophy has always been, why put several thousand dollars at risk in a game where my edge MIGHT be as much as 35-40 dollars/hour if I can earn better than half as much risking ALOT less.
Also, what with it not being my profession - I do like to enjoy myself. The 20-40 group seldom allows you that luxury. When you "get there" on the river and take down a $500 pot the loser rarely pats you on the back and says "nicely done". At 3-6 he/she USUALLY does.
What is wrong with the Lee Jones book?
It's a useful item if you have never seen a deck of cards before; even then I often wonder if the average player might not do better without this "manual".
There are too many statements/strategies contained in it that are just plain out and out wrong.
I suspect Mr. Jones plays ALOT better than he writes.
If you want my list of his "top ten mistakes" please contact me privately; I don't want to start a thread that I won't have the time to answer to.
I think his advice to "call when first in from early position with QQ" is my personal pet peeve.
I love giving the big blind a free play with K,7/off when I'm holding pocket Queens. Come to think of it, I don't want him getting a free look at the flop with ANY hand he might happen to have.
Would you rather play QQ against 3 players for two bets each, or 6 players for a single bet. Those are two very likely scenarios for a raise vs. call with this hand.
If anyone out there is in violent disagreement with this statement I will do my best to find time to defend my position.
- J D
P.S. For the most part the same holds true for AK, but there is SOME merit to limping with this hand if you know your raise is apt to get called in 5 or 6 places.
Now that I got involved in this -
"You limp in with AQ, get raised and (reluctantly) call the raise. The flop comes Q-7-3 rainbow and you strongly believe you have the best hand (there are 4 others in the pot including the raisor) but should go for a check-raise because if you bet out hands like middle pair and gutshots are getting proper odds to call you." (I am paraphrasing; I don't have a copy handy.)
Can you not see three or four serious errors in this paragraph ?
See my response in the Medium limit section.
I think it is a big mistake to play in a $10-$20 game when you are learning and are on a small bankroll. If you cannot beat a low limit game populated by idiots it is unlikely you will beat a bigger game consisting of decent players. Furthermore, a $10-$20 game can get expensive when you run bad with $500-$1000 losses in a single session quite common.
< Make more straights and flushes?
Hmmm... there's an idea. Of course, I can't seem to force myself to play 23o in hopes of hitting the straight and, as one person told me his tactics were, playing 26s because it's a straight flush "when" he hits it.
Posted by: The Baron (x012358@icqmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 14 April 2001, at 5:29 p.m.
Loose aggressive game, I'm on the button and limp with QcTc. Six see the flop...
Flop: 10s 6c 2h
EP bets, MP raises everyone folds to me and I make it three bets looking for information and possibly a free card. MP has a tendency to try to steal on rag flops and frequently plays any two cards but WILL raise nearly any paint with a T for sure.
EP and MP flat call my re-raise.
Turn: Qh
Both check to me and I bet, they both call. Now I'm certain that neither have a set, and at best two pair which I can at worst tie.
River: Jh
Both check and I bet, they call.
I show QT for two pair, EP mucks, MP shows T2o and mucks in disgust. He can't believe I raised with ONLY top pair he says.
Anyone think I overplayed my hand?
NT
You played it perfectly, although cowardice might have kept me from betting the river when the Jack came.
Oh yeah, this is where I'm supposed to say IMHO.
Best wishes,
- J D
You should have told the middle player that you cannot believe anyone would come in on ten-deuce offsuit preflop. Did he learn poker in a forest? You played fine.
I just smiled and said "Ya, I got pretty lucky".
Would'nt want him to tighten up or anything.
Well played and good read on your opponents! The flop is not cordinated, and your top pair with good kicker complemented with your position justifies your re-raise.
Speaking from experience, avoid teaching weak players poker theory/strategy at the table. Thus, when he trys to criticize you regardindg your play, tell him either I took a risk, or simply I am not a strong player. Let him feel strong about his game/play so as to encourage that kind a play.
Good luck!
You correctly deduce that you most probably have EP beat. But you must also be reasonably sure that MP will raise EP will any T indicating you have MP beat. Its a solid raise so long as MP is aggressive; otherwise you are in some serious dodo.
****** FLAME ALERT ******
Your stated reasons for raising are weak and somewhat contradictory: if you "raise to get information" and opponent's play back at you are you really going to put that information to good use (such as folding) or will you call them down anyway? If the information doesn't do you serious good then raising to get that information isn't worth it. If you raise and the opponent's call then the information your received should be "I probably have the best hand" indicating you should bet the turn. This conflicts with your other reason "to get a free card".
And ... "getting a free card" in this case costs you a bet so it isn't free at all, and you could easily be GIVING a free card when you check the turn; in which case you are "raising to give a free card" which is obviously bad.
Routinely consider the major reasons to raise which are [1] to increase the size of a pot you expect to win and [2] to increase your chances of winning.
- Louie
Has anyone read George Epstein's article in the latest issue of Poker Digest entitled, "Money Management: How to Come Away a Winner When You're Ahead"? The article recommends two "money management" techniques to "preserve your winnings".
1. When you are winning, create a "side stack". Just move one stack of your chips a few inches to the side of the rest of your chips. The side stack represents a portion of your winnings. If you lose your side stack than quit.
2. Another money management techique used by my book's co-author, Dr. Daniel Abrams, is to pile your chips in 30 or 40 chip stacks when you are winning. When the number of chips drops one full stack, it is time to quit the game.
The author claims that either of these two techiques will help you to preserve your winnings and ensure that you go home for that session a winner.
Does this drivel make sense to anyone? Why on earth would you leave a game when you are fresh, adequately bankrolled, and have an earn against the field you are playing against? Suppose you are playing $10-$20. You start off the first hour winning a couple of hundred because you hit a few hands. The next hour you get sucked out a couple of times and drop a hundred. So now you are only a hundred ahead. It would be silly to stop playing after only two hours if you know you have a positive expectation in the game and went to the card room with the intention of playing for the evening. You may book "a winning session" but you cost yourself money if you were planning to play 5 or 6 hours and leave after only 2 hours. Specifically, you cost yourself your hourly earn times the number of hours you cut short your session because you happen to be ahead.
These so called "money management" techiques and the focus of "locking up a winning session" are pure nonsense. The objective of playing poker is to win money. You win money by putting as many hours as practical in games where you have a positive expectation. Reducing your hours when you have the edge because you want to make sure you leave a winner for the evening is ridiculous.
If this is an example of the kind of poker advice found in their new book entitled "The Greatest Book of Poker for Winners", I think I will pass on buying it.
Do any of you guys on this forum actually think this way?
I agree with you Jim. That is some crazy advice.
Similar advice can also be found in McEvoy's stud book and Johnny Hale's poker book (as well as many others).
I don't think I'll be in any rush to buy Mr. Epstein's book either. My 2+2 library keeps me pretty busy anyway :-)
Good Luck
Howard
"Money managment", what a crock. Bet their book is just as laughable eh?
John Feeney has addressed the fallacies of focusing on individual sessions and fluctuations very well in his writings. Of course the guy who wrote the article is focusing too much on individual sessions.
While I agree that you are correct, I also suspect that there is a little more to it. If you read the articles by George Epstein you will see that he is a small limit player who advocates playing tight. This is a formula for success at these limits since the typical player is very loose.
However, you will still have your fluctuations, which can be frustrating for someone trying to win. Thus my guess is that Mr. Epstein does not realize that his tight play is what is making him an overall winner and that he can't control the swings in the manner that he would like. Thus the silly money management advice.
This brings up an interesting point. If he happens to follow this advice, and I suspect that he does, he will probably win less. That's because he makes himself quit because he has just loss a couple of hands even though he has the best of it in the game.
Mason - There may be a couple of factors you are not considering here. At least you haven't mentioned them in this thread.
(1) Over the course of a playing session, the array of opponents at the table may change. Indeed, my own experience is that if I play for five hours, usually there are none of the same players at the table when I am done playing as were there when I started. I play mostly 3-6 Omaha-8 with a kill and am not (obviously) an expert. There are some combinations of players at the table against whom I tend to do well, and other combinations against whom I don't. Sometimes the changing of just one player for another makes a marked difference. Often what happens is a refugee from higher limit games sits down at the table for a while, plays much more aggressively than the normal low limit player, and in a few hands changes the entire interaction of the table. This may not tend to happen as much at the limits you (or most of the other respondents to this thread) normally play.
Somebody who plays infrequently may not realize quite what is happening - may not recognize immediately when the table is good as opposed to when it isn't. If such a player gets ahead during a playing session, it might make sense to squirrel away some winnings before the tenor of the table changes.
(2) An individual may change during the course of a session, perhaps starting out fresh and then, without fully realizing it, becoming a little tired. There is a marked difference in my own ability to think analytically, depending on how well rested I am.
George Epstein's line of thought in his article runs counter to the advice given in most poker books. However, those books are written by expert pros mostly used to playing at higher levels and for longer periods of time than most duffers (usually a term reserved for non-pro, high-handicap golfers, but perhaps applicable to non-pro, low-limit poker players as well).
From your poker-professional point of view, it might be difficult to see that perhaps the advice given in the article is valid for recreational players whose main goal is not to win money (although perhaps it should be). It makes sense to me that professionals who are making a living by playing poker seem to disagree with the advice given, but then they do not seem to be the audience to whom the article was addressed.
Just my opinion.
Buzz
Buzz, quiting a game because the lineup changes and you no longer feel comfortable makes sense and I often do that myself. The problem with the article is that it has you quitting a game solely because you are winning and for no other reason. I believe that this creates a faulty mindset and reinforces flawed notions that many people have about when to quit a game and money management.
Hi Jim - Thanks for responding. I can follow your g.r.a.t. (generally recognized as truth) logic.
And yet....
Notice that Mr. Epstein's article is in the "Beginner's Corner." How many beginners are winners?
Not many, huh? The rake gets them in small limit games, if the better players don't.
Now suppose a beginner does get ahead in a poker game. What is better for the beginner, and also for the game - for the beginner to take the small win, feel good about himself/herself, and come back another time - or for the beginner to keep playing until he/she has lost the amount budgeted to play poker?
A sad truth about poker is that if there are winners, there have to be losers (and don't forget the casinos must also make a profit to keep their doors open). If the players who are winners do better by continuing to play when they are on a small losing streak, what about the players who are losers? Doesn't the same logic (but in the opposite direction) apply to them? Don't they do better if they QUIT when they have had a small winning streak?
My impression, from reading what you have written in this thread and others, is that you are looking at money management from the standpoint of a winner. Nothing else probably makes logical sense to you. I assume you play poker to make money and also assume you make money playing poker.
But what about the masses who support you? They must lose money playing poker. I realize you'd like to have them stay at your table when they get ahead so that you can get their winnings, and more, back from them. Who can blame you? However, if it's better for you that they stay in the game once they show a small profit, isn't it better for them to leave once they get ahead?
It is proper for poker books to be written from the standpoint of advising learners how to make money playing the game. Entirely proper. To do otherwise would seem morally wrong. Yet Mr. Epstein's article in Poker Digest seems to have a certain logic, if you can look at the situation from the standpoint of someone who is destined to lose at poker, over the course of a lifetime, as most poker players must logically be destined to do.
Just my opinion.
Buzz
The problem with the logic Buzz is that Mr. Epstein is telling these players (whether they be novices, losers, or winners) that simply quitting when you get ahead will make you a winner. It is like telling someone who is learning blackjack that they should always insure a natural and be satisfied to win the size of their bet. But unless you are counting cards, insuring a blackjack costs you money and makes you a bigger loser in the long run because you are not winning as much as you should when you have the best of it. Mr. Epstein should be writing articles that help all players become better players and turn losers into winners. Instead he is writing an article that merely insures that players with a "hit and run" mentality continue to embrace an unsound poker practice.
Hi Jim - You wrote, "The problem with the logic Buzz is that Mr. Epstein is telling these players (whether they be novices, losers, or winners) that simply quitting when you get ahead will make you a winner."
I don't read that in the article.
Rather, Mr. Epstein is suggesting a way (actually two ways) for a beginner to assure himself/herself of a win, should that beginner manage to happen to get ahead at some point in the session.
I met Mr. Epstein once. We were both seated in front of the low limit board, waiting for a game at Hollywood Park, he for stud, me for Omaha-8. He was doing an L.A. Times crossword puzzle I had earlier completed. We had a brief conversation and then went our separate ways. A couple of hours later he stopped by the Omaha-8 table to see how I was doing. Seemed like a nice, helpful man. I don't think he would try to give bad advice to beginners.
Perhaps he is wrong, but you haven't convinced me he is. Rather, what he actually has written in the article makes some sense to me - for a beginner, or perhaps even for someone who plays infrequently.
Perhaps you know individuals who go to Las Vegas and play the slots. They generally budget a certain amount of money, hoping to win, but expecting to lose. Once in a while they hit a jackpot.
Of course, if they continue in that session to play the slots, they generally lose their winnings from the jackpot, and then some. Good advice to them would be to quit if they ever get ahead in a particular session. Better advice, of course, would be not to play the slots at all. But, even though they lose, the gambling is fun. It's entertainment. (And they wouldn't follow the advice not to play at all anyway).
In truth many beginning or occasional poker players have about the same chance of being successful as slot players. Good advice to these players might be to quit if they ever manage to get ahead during a session. Better advice, of course might be not to play at all, but they wouldn't follow the advice not to play at all anyway. However, some of them might follow the advice to at least squirrel away some of their winnings for a particular session.
Doesn't seem like bad advice to me at all. Sounds like something I might tell one of my kin, or a good friend who was just beginning to play poker.
There is much, much more to money management in life than keeping a bankroll to play poker, at least if poker is not your main source of livelihood.
Just my opinion.
Buzz
You can't believe how many times I've seen that crap on the Blackjack websites, being dispensed as serious advice.
Only last month there was a 50-post thread about Stop/Win and Stop/Loss.
At least the farmers don't need to worry if the fertilizer companies go out of business.
"Thus my guess is that Mr. Epstein does not realize that his tight play is what is making him an overall winner and that he can't control the swings in the manner that he would like. Thus the silly money management advice." (Mason Malmuth, 16 April 2001.)
"So this brings us to the SmoothB's of these forums. They try another approach. One that seems to require less hard work and could be a quick road to that recognition. They try to tear others down. By pointing out mistakes that the so recognized experts make, they can quickly become even bigger experts. Thus their posts tend to be hostile, destructive in nature, and in many cases begin to focus on unimportant details instead of the relavent subject matter at hand." (Mason Malmuth, 7 April 2001.)
Then there are those who try to tear others down without even pointing out a single mistake that they make.
Maybe he goes on tilt, in which case his method personally protects him. Many players do. Leaving correctly does make a big difference in yearly income.
Jim,
Whenever I see an article in a poker magazine that starts to talk about money management or other silly subjects in this manner I skip right over to the next article. We could easily spend a month or so ripping apart the ludicrious advice by the second tier authors in the poker magazines on subjects such as this. Why bother, when we can discuss fine points of a Jim Brier sample hand or Roy Cooke suckout post ;-).
Regards,
Rick
Jim, I agree with you about not leaving, when you have the best of it, even if you are not winning or to preserve a so called "winning session.
Here's an extreme example, using no-limit.
A player with a small bankroll buys into a no-limit game for $300. One hour later, after a super-good run against the livest, deepest pockets at the table, he has $5,000 on the table, and the live ones reload and have him covered.
The risk/reward equation can now take on a very real emotional quality. Is the potential gain of more money worth risking the emotional damage of going busted? Depends on the player, of course. The man in this story is fresh and rested, playing well, and the game is hot. By the book, he should stay and play.
But in his mind, he should leave, to protect himself from potential pain. So he does. I think he did the right thing.
For many, the same emotional-protection element applies at limit, in a limited way. I don't see anything wrong with taking one's own fears and concerns and emotions into account when making a decision to quit a game.
I frequently employ a "blow back" scheme at limit hold'em, typically one rack. I've posted before that this is a LUXURY afforded by having 24-hour, consistently good games to play in. My scheme serves one and only one purpose. Emotional protection. I know the "long range big picture" as well as any player on earth. But I still like to drive home a winner before continuing on with my day. It feels good, and I know it, so the "gain" that results from my money-management-schemes is purely emotional. If it costs me money, well, fine. Like any risk/reward equation, we have our unique set of priorities to weigh.
Jim, you've got it relatively easy when writing your (excellent!) articles because you know exactly who your audience is. Right on the cover of Card Player it says, "For players who play to win." On the cover of Poker Digest it says, "The magazine dedicated to improving your game and lifestyle."
In my skewed view, Card Player articles are aimed at the top 5% of the players. The tone of the articles is like one winner talking to another winner. And that's fine and needed.
Poker Digest strikes me as more of a common man's publication, aimed more directly at the hoards of players who are losers. Not just in the educational articles, but in the wide variety of, say, historical and humor articles as well. And in that light, I think George's suggestions speak to his audience, to their concerns and fears.
Tommy
Your points are valid and well taken Tommy. It's just that the advocates of these insidious schemes are intimating that some mathematical advantage follows from their advice. Also, if your bankroll is so small that what happens on a given night is going to rattle you, then what "money management" scheme you employ is the very least of your worries.
wgb,
You wrote: "It's just that the advocates of these insidious schemes are intimating that some mathematical advantage follows from their advice."
I haven't read the magazine article or book, so you might be right. But from Jim's description, this particular author "recommends two 'money management' techniques to 'preserve your winnings'."
And: "The author claims that either of these two techiques will help you to preserve your winnings and ensure that you go home for that session a winner."
And they focus on "locking up a winning session."
Do you see the difference between gaining a mathematical advantage and "booking a win?"
"The author claims that either of these two techiques will help you to preserve your winnings and ensure that you go home for that session a winner."
Yes Mark I take this claim as intimating that a mathematical advantage is to be gained from using the system they advocate. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.
Another poster expressed the oft heard sentiment, "Why wouldn't I leave? I'm probably going to give it back if I stay." The fact is, for all he knows he may have just walked away from the biggest win of his life. He is trying to predict the future and I would ask him what he is basing his predictions on.
The other one is "the game will be here tomorrow". Yes it will, but there's no real logical difference between the first 4 hours you play tomorrow versus the 4 you play if you stay tonight. If you quit early tonight to preserve a win, logically you should quit for life!
Tommy raises the point that special considerations apply to hairy NL situations. This is true. But generally, if you are a limit player playing within your bankroll limitations, these systems are ludicrous. They are also bad for poker because all they effectively do is put time limitations on the number of hours you would otherwise play, winners and losers alike!
I don't think that the George intimated a mathematical edge. That would be like saying there is a mathematical advantage (or rather,less of a disadvantage) to locking-up-a-win at roullette.
Tommy
wgb,
Paraphrasing George Epstein, Jim wrote: "The author claims that either of these two techiques will help you to preserve your winnings and ensure that you go home for that session a winner."
Based on this statement, you wrote: "Yes Mark I take this claim as intimating that a mathematical advantage is to be gained from using the system they advocate. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth."
There are plenty of things that could be further from the truth. How about your claim that George intimates that his recommendations help gain a mathematical advantage?
Assuming Jim's paraphasing is accurate, perhaps you would be happier if George had written that "these two techiques generally will help you preserve your winnings and go home for that session a winner."
Either way, George's claim appears to be more accurate than yours.
It doesn't matter how you word it. The whole point is that the results of any given session are irrelevant to one's success at poker. Thus so called systems designed to "book a win" on any given evening are likewise irrelevant. Suggesting otherwise to new players does them nothing but disservice.
I grant you that such systems will save losing players money, but only by arbitrarily limiting the number of hours they play. I could save them even more money if they followed my "system" and cashed out for the evening the first time they were dealt a 3 in the hole.
It doesn't matter how you word it. The whole point is that the results of any given session are irrelevant to one's success at poker.
wgb - I think you are correct.
Thus so called systems designed to "book a win" on any given evening are likewise irrelevant. Suggesting otherwise to new players does them nothing but disservice.
On the contrary, suggesting otherwise to new players could be the greatest advice - advice they might actually follow - that anyone could give them.
I grant you that such systems will save losing players money, but only by arbitrarily limiting the number of hours they play.
Exactly.
I could save them even more money if they followed my "system" and cashed out for the evening the first time they were dealt a 3 in the hole.
Isn't your "system" better advice for a loser (as most poker players are) than insisting they keep playing and losing more?
Mr. Epstein has merely suggested that beginning players squirrel away some of their winnings should they manage to get ahead during a session. Most of them are destined to lose playing poker over the course of their lifetimes. Taking home a little once in a while may be better than losing every time. Obviously, by doing so, they would play less.
Just my opinion.
Buzz
My problem with such systems Buzz is it gives losing players the impression that their long term outcome in poker is dependant on picking the right times to leave a game. Why doesn't the author reduce the article to one sentence: "If you are a losing player play fewer hours and you will lose less"? Instead he comes up with some mystical, elaborate system that picks random times for a player to leave, and calls it advice. It's not advice. It's nonsense. Lets say I published an article that said "Every time you see the cocktail waitress serve a mixed drink cash out immediately!". Any losing player who followed this "advice" would be saving money. But that doesn't make my advice valid or worthy of publication in a poker journal.
If you want to help losing players, tell them what they are doing wrong. Don't waste trees coming up with fallacious systems that have nothing to do with improving their average hourly performance.
Last point: If "locking up a win" for the evening is so important, try this system: Cash out immediately the moment you get ahead on any given evening. It won't turn a losing player into a winning one, but you will probably have more winning sessions than losing ones which, according to some, should be great for your confidence.
wgb - Playing poker, rightly or wrongly, means different things to different people. For some, who realize they are not great poker players, having a winning session once in a while may be a goal. If so, Mr. Epstein has suggested a common sense way for them to attain their goal.
The article by Mr. Epstein does not suggest a way to increase one's hourly rate. It does not address the issue of hourly rate at all. There is nothing false or misleading in the article, unless you try to read more into it than was intended. Period.
I'm not a poker professional. "Hourly rate" is not significant to me. "Bank roll" is not significant to me. There is a group of players (I am one of them!) who like to win and who don't like to lose, but for whom winning as much money as possible is not the important issue. That concept seems difficult for many professional poker players to grasp. Whatever. Maybe if you treat playing poker as a job, much of the joy I feel playing just to play is lost on you.
I get excited looking at my cards. I get excited when I try something I've read about in a book and it works. When I get tired of playing, I stop. Money management for me, except not risking more than I can afford, has very little to do with poker.
I think there are lots of players who have similar money management views (like everyone I know on a personal basis who plays poker but is not a pro).
Just my opinion.
Buzz
Suggesting to novice/inexperienced poker players to BOOK A WINNING SESSION instead of trying to STAY PUT AND PLAY ON is actually bad advice.
The advice, if followed, will not minimize that player's playing hours (and, thus, his monetary losses) any more than a system whereby he'd get up after so many randomly-chosen hours would. The above-described kind of player encounters more losing hands than winning ones, in any case, when involved in the play - unless he improves his game.
All that that player would do is miss opportunities to improve. More hours means more education, from where I come from.
Plus - and this is so important that I tend to believe that consciously bad advice is given to the fish- BOOKING A WINNING SESSION affects badly how that player thinks. He walks away whenever he wins a measly amount of dollars - but stays put when losing and ...chases his losses! "Nice hand, buddy".
The only solid advice in this context would be to advice a novice/inexperienced poker player (and even an incorrigibly bad player) to WALK AWAY after winning or losing a pre-determined amount of money, usually the same in both cases. That amount is trivially calculated, if one is inclined to help. Getting up cool and calm even after a losing session or a bad beat is the best sign of a solid player. But if I was to suggest that to the novice/inexperiend player at the tables, the local sharks would stare me down to shrapnel!
So, I'm posting it here...
-- Cyrus
PS: Mark Glover seems to love an argument. I believe that if WGP had taken the opposite point of view, Mark would debate him from WGB's current position. Just a hunch.
Cyrus - I'm not quite sure why you have made your post in response to mine, except that in this particular discussion thread, Mr. Glover and I seem to agree.
You wrote, "All that that player would do is miss opportunities to improve. More hours means more education, from where I come from."
Good point. The player would miss opportunities to improve. I think playing time is important in improving one's game. If the player were only looking for ways to improve, advising him to leave early so as to depart a winner might be poor advice.
But what if the player's goal was to do something else, perhaps in addition to improving? What if the player's goal was simply to sometimes go home a winner?
That might not by your goal or my goal, but the article written by Mr. Epstein seems to be in response to players who do have that goal. Who are we to say going home a winner should not be their goal?
For someone aspiring to be a professional poker player, quitting a good game merely to preserve a winning session seems short-sighted. However, everybody does not want to be a professional poker player! You can take a car out for a spin once in a while without aspiring to become a professional driver!
Mr. Epstein wrote an article, addressed to beginners who might like to preserve a winning session, in which he espoused what amounts to the plain simple truth. Others who have posted here seem to have read more into his article than is there.
There is a large group of which I am a member, the recreational poker players. We budget some money for gambling excursions, preferring to win on these outings, but if we lose, we chalk it up to entertainment. All of the players in my weekly private poker game belong to this group. Throughout my life, my personal friends and kin who have done any gambling all belong to this group. There really are a lot of us.
For this large group of recreational poker players, most of whom are destined to be overall losers for their lifetimes anyway, but who are never going off the deep end, I don't see the harm in suggesting a way they can go home winners for a session. Maybe they would get better if they stayed in the game (and lost back their winnings), but so what?
Just my opinion.
Buzz
"Mark Glover seems to love an argument".
Winning arguments and, if necessary, change the argument, or create a new one you might win is what this guy is all about. Objective truth is irrelevant to him. That is why I stop reading his posts a long time ago. I recommend others do the same.
Jim,
You wrote: "Winning arguments and, if necessary, change the argument, or create a new one you might win is what this guy is all about."
As I've told several others, I enjoy rational discussions. And, as I've told several others, I think rational discussions can be win-win situations for all concerned.
You asserted: "Objective truth is irrelevant to him."
I'm not sure what you mean here. Perhaps you could offer an example. I hope you now realize that statements like, "Reducing your hours when you have the edge because you want to make sure you leave a winner for the evening is ridiculous" are not objective truths. My disagreement with you in this thread concerned these kinds of statements.
You also wrote: "That is why I stop reading his posts a long time ago. I recommend others do the same."
That might work best for you (and perhaps even for some others). But other forum participants seem to benefit from opening their minds to differing opinions.
Tom Haley used to have a view that was similar to yours, but he recently changed his mind. You might want to read his 4 April 2001 thread entitled "Mea culpa." That same day, under his CodeSavvy nick, he included me on his "all star team" in his rec.gambling.poker post entitled "Re: 2+2 Deletions."
But, only you can decide whether you, personally, will benefit from reading my posts.
You should try to talk some poker.
Angelina Fekali
Studying People Inc.
Ljubljana, Slovenia
.
Cyrus,
You proclaimed: "Suggesting to novice/inexperienced poker players to BOOK A WINNING SESSION instead of trying to STAY PUT AND PLAY ON is actually bad advice."
Not necessarily. It depends on the goals of these poker players. Some of them hope to walk out of the room with at least a modest win. In such cases, the author's suggestions seem to be good advice. As even Jim Brier noted, "I will have to concede that if the goal is to be something other than a long term winner then these other ideas are valid."
You wrote: "The advice, if followed, will not minimize that player's playing hours (and, thus, his monetary losses) any more than a system whereby he'd get up after so many randomly-chosen hours would."
Can you give an example of the article's author suggesting that his advice would do so? From what I've read, the author merely offered a couple techniques that readers might find helpful in "booking a win," if they so desire.
You also asserted: "The only solid advice in this context would be to advice a novice/inexperienced poker player (and even an incorrigibly bad player) to WALK AWAY after winning or losing a pre-determined amount of money, usually the same in both cases. That amount is trivially calculated, if one is inclined to help."
Can you explain why this is the "only solid advice in this context?" And can you explain how this amount is trivially calculated?
You futher proclaimed: "Getting up cool and calm even after a losing session or a bad beat is the best sign of a solid player."
I'd have guessed that winning lots of money over the long haul was a better sign of a solid player. But I've been wrong before.
You suggested: "Mark Glover seems to love an argument."
I do enjoy rational discussions. If you could put a little more thought into any response you might offer, I might even enjoy our little chat. I tried to keep my explanations relatively simple, since I remember that get tired reading details. ;-)
MG : "I'd have guessed that winning lots of money over the long haul was a better sign of a solid player. But I've been wrong before."C : "Getting up cool and calm even after a losing session or a bad beat is the best sign of a solid player."
These aren't two separate conditions, but, actually, one is the prerequisite for the other.
You see, Mark, "winning lots of money over the long haul" is impossible if one isn't able to "get up cool and calm [and collected] even after a losing session or a bad beat".
I honestly hope you can agree with me on this , as you're so fond of saying...
MG : "It depends on the goals of these poker players."
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" they say and I guess that Utility is the last refuge of a relativist (an original, Mark).
When we're saying what is best for Player X to do at the table, we assume certain things about said player X's utility. If he wants to go home happy because "he booked a win", then the whole 2+2 forum is redundant for his universe. But, assuming he wants to improve his game and WIN (as in "be a winner over the long haul"), then you'll have to agree that 2+2 is, generally, where it's at.
* * *
Digressing a bit, allow me 2 suggestions, made out in a totally constructive, if jocular, spirit:
A. Start putting up original titles to your posts. Helps clarity and attracts hits.
B. Consider changing your handle to something more revealing. How about Manic Dialectic ?
Take care.
-- Cyrus
Cyrus,
Earlier, you proclaimed: "Getting up cool and calm even after a losing session or a bad beat is the best sign of a solid player."
I then asked: "I'd have guessed that winning lots of money over the long haul was a better sign of a solid player. But I've been wrong before."
You then tried to wiggle out of your foolishness by writing: "These aren't two separate conditions, but, actually, one is the prerequisite for the other. You see, Mark, 'winning lots of money over the long haul' is impossible if one isn't able to 'get up cool and calm [and collected] even after a losing session or a bad beat'."
I'll give you 22 verbal points for the inserted pun, but I'll deduct 34 math points for the poor logic. Depending on your utility function, you might have made a net gain here. Congratulations!
--------------------
You also wrote: "When we're saying what is best for Player X to do at the table, we assume certain things about said player X's utility."
Perhaps when *you* say those things, *you* assume certain things. But I don't believe you speak for everyone on this forum.
You continued: "If he wants to go home happy because 'he booked a win', then the whole 2+2 forum is redundant for his universe."
If you had read the post that started this thread, you might have realized that the person who made these suggestions for "booking a win" didn't do so via a 2+2 post. He did so in a POKER DIGEST article.
Your assumption probably is less valid if you take that into consideration. As Tommy noted earlier: "Poker Digest strikes me as more of a common man's publication, aimed more directly at the hoards of players who are losers. Not just in the educational articles, but in the wide variety of, say, historical and humor articles as well. And in that light, I think George's suggestions speak to his audience, to their concerns and fears."
-----------------------
Thanks for your two suggestions. Here are a couple for you that I hope prove equally helpful.
1. Try to find time to read at least the first post in the threads where you decide to participate.
2. If unable to do suggestion #1, then try to find time to read at least the subject heading of the first post in the threads where you decide to participate.
I'm amending my premise to read "Getting up cool and calm even after a losing session or a bad beat is an important sign of a solid player." It's not the "best" sign.
Other than that, I stand by everything that I've written in this thread.
And thanks for your two tips of advice. You will be flattered to know that I already follow them. (I'm flattered to see that my suggestion for your new handle hit a nerve! Viz "foolishness", "poor logic", etc.)
Cyrus,
Earlier, you asserted: "The only solid advice in this context would be to advice a novice/inexperienced poker player (and even an incorrigibly bad player) to WALK AWAY after winning or losing a pre-determined amount of money, usually the same in both cases. That amount is trivially calculated, if one is inclined to help."
I then asked: "Can you explain why this is the 'only solid advice in this context?' And can you explain how this amount is trivially calculated?"
I'm still waiting for a reply.
--------------
Earlier, you also wrote: "The advice, if followed, will not minimize that player's playing hours (and, thus, his monetary losses) any more than a system whereby he'd get up after so many randomly-chosen hours would."
I then asked: "Can you give an example of the article's author suggesting that his advice would do so? From what I've read, the author merely offered a couple techniques that readers might find helpful in 'booking a win,' if they so desire."
I'm still waiting for a reply.
I wrote earlier "The only solid advice in this context would be to advice a novice/inexperienced poker player (and even an incorrigibly bad player) to WALK AWAY after winning or losing a pre-determined amount of money, usually the same in both cases. That amount is trivially calculated, if one is inclined to help."
The context, as we should understand it, is to offer advice to a player who is a novice and believes that booking a win is the end-all. (Attention please: there will be no mention of the word Util**y in this post. Thank you.) Some will say, OK whatever the customer wants, let's advise him on how to hang himself. Fair enough, no quibble. My idea of helping, however, and my idea of the best advice is that the newbie should put in the flying time (besides reading up, etc). End of story.
As to the AMOUNT WON/LOST, I would assume that you, Mark, would know how to calculate it. Suppose you have the estimate of my win (actually loss) rate. Wouldn't you then be able to suggest to me a bankroll and a game, in order to last as long as possible? And would you not be able to ascertain the level of said bankroll's depletion, after which I'd need to replenish it?
* * *
More digression : I have learned as much from books and experience as from talking and discussing things with people. The first thing that a good teacher (or a good debater) should have is a tolerant, non-adversarial attitude, generousness and a little humility . I would be interested to know how you think you rate on these attributes. Do an evaluation.
Hint : I find discourse with you a real chore. Honestly. The profit out of it does not justify the effort required.
Cyrus,
Earlier, you wrote: "The only solid advice in this context would be to advice a novice/inexperienced poker player (and even an incorrigibly bad player) to WALK AWAY after winning or losing a pre-determined amount of money, usually the same in both cases. That amount is trivially calculated, if one is inclined to help."
You now specify: "The context, as we should understand it, is to offer advice to a player who is a novice and believes that booking a win is the end-all."
And you ask: "As to the AMOUNT WON/LOST, I would assume that you, Mark, would know how to calculate it. Suppose you have the estimate of my win (actually loss) rate. Wouldn't you then be able to suggest to me a bankroll and a game, in order to last as long as possible? And would you not be able to ascertain the level of said bankroll's depletion, after which I'd need to replenish it?"
Given the assumptions you appear to have specified (which probably apply to very few players), the person should quit as soon as he makes even the smallest profit for the session. One chip is enough. If he never makes a profit, he should quit only when the cardroom closes for the day. Please note that these pre-determined amounts of money rarely will be the same in both cases.
If you have a loss rate (and even if you have a win rate), you need an infinite bankroll to maximize your chances of lasting as long as possible. Absent an infinite bankroll, bigger is better.
No need to thank me for performing these calculations.
---------------
You also wrote: "I find discourse with you a real chore. Honestly. The profit out of it does not justify the effort required."
Then why do you do it? Altruism? Or maybe you just love an argument. If I had taken the opposite point of view, you might have debated me from my current position. Just a hunch.
Mark,
Cyrus said: "The first thing that a good teacher (or a good debater) should have is a tolerant, non-adversarial attitude, generousness and a little humility . I would be interested to know how you think you rate on these attributes."
You did not answer. Addressing these points might be very worthwhile, not just for you personally but for the general quality of discusion here. Care to reconsider?
Cyrus,
Did I claim I was a good teacher (or a good debater)?
Mark,
Cyrus said: "The first thing that a good teacher (or a good debater) should have is a tolerant, non-adversarial attitude, generousness and a little humility . I would be interested to know how you think you rate on these attributes."
You now ask: "Did I claim I was a good teacher (or a good debater)?"
Whether or not you claimed you were a good teacher or debater has no bearing on whether it would benefit you and the level of discussion here to do some self-appraisal and come clean with how you think you rate on those attributes. Care to reconsider?
reflection
Mark,
Cyrus said: "The first thing that a good teacher (or a good debater) should have is a tolerant, non-adversarial attitude, generousness and a little humility . I would be interested to know how you think you rate on these attributes."
You now ask: "Did I claim I was a good teacher (or a good debater)?"
Whether or not you claimed you were a good teacher or debater has no bearing on whether it would benefit you and the level of discussion here to do some self-appraisal and come clean with how you think you rate on those attributes. Care to reconsider?
reflection
Given the assumptions you appear to have specified (which probably apply to very few players), the person should quit as soon as he makes even the smallest profit for the session. One chip is enough. If he never makes a profit, he should quit only when the cardroom closes for the day.
Precisely. (Note that this shoots down The Engineer's advice pretty neatly. Try as you might, you can't find a rational argument for "booking a session win" under your above-stated, accurate conditions.)
If you have a loss rate (and even if you have a win rate), you need an infinite bankroll to maximize your chances of lasting as long as possible. Absent an infinite bankroll, bigger is better.
Imprecise. An infinite bankroll does not "last as long as possible", it lasts forever. Check that definition again.
Secondly, if one is losing ("loss rate"), one needs a very different size of bankroll than someone who is winning, in the same game. You don't imply differently but it's unnerrving the way you lump together winners and losers ("even if you have a win rate").
And while saying "bigger is better" (I thought guys aren't supposed to support that silly notion anymore!) is generically correct, my point was this : one would be better advised to calculate his betting scheme aka money management proper, instead of following silliness like Epstein's advice or being misled by that crap about different players' gawd darn diff'ren' Yootea Lee Tease!
I find discourse with you a real chore. Honestly. The profit out of it does not justify the effort required.Then why do you do it?
Good question.
Well, I will debate with you up to a certain point. Which point is reached ...somewhere about here.
Thanks for the education and au revoir.
Cyrus,
You asserted: "Note that this shoots down The Engineer's advice pretty neatly. Try as you might, you can't find a rational argument for 'booking a session win' under your above-stated, accurate conditions."
Yep. Straw men are easy to knock over. I noted in my post: "Given the assumptions you appear to have specified (which probably apply to very few players) . . ."
If you want an even easier straw man to attack, why not assume the readers always will fold at their first opportunity? That makes the author's recommendations even less relevant.
-------------------
Earlier, I wrote: "If you have a loss rate (and even if you have a win rate), you need an infinite bankroll to maximize your chances of lasting as long as possible. Absent an infinite bankroll, bigger is better."
You responded: "Imprecise. An infinite bankroll does not 'last as long as possible', it lasts forever. Check that definition again."
forever: 1. For everlasting time; eternally.
Perhaps I'm a little slow, but that sounds pretty close to "as long as possible."
Cyrus,
Earlier, you wrote: "The advice, if followed, will not minimize that player's playing hours (and, thus, his monetary losses) any more than a system whereby he'd get up after so many randomly-chosen hours would."
I then asked: "Can you give an example of the article's author suggesting that his advice would do so? From what I've read, the author merely offered a couple techniques that readers might find helpful in 'booking a win,' if they so desire."
I'm still waiting for a reply.
Mark,
I went through the article again - for your sake!
The author is well-intentioned but his argument is full of holes. It's not something earth-shaking; simply bad advice.
For example, the author purports to advise a player who sits at a table with "PokerPigeons" (the author's term). That implies that the player under advice is NOT a PokerPigeon - and by that term I understand it's someone who is very much below verage as a player (in the same phrase, the author implies that one can profit from these players, who also have "lots of chips in front of them").
So, if one is NOT a PokerPigeon, why on earth would he be after "booking a session win"?!? Instead, the competent player should be after other things (how about how to have a winning game, hm?).
Elsewhere, it is flatly stated that
When applied to the game of poker, or any other form of gambling, money management pertains to how you maximize your wins and minimize your losses by the way you play - or don't play - the game.
A ridiculous statement, full of inaccuracies and errors. And if you think I'm gonna go over it word for word, for your or anyone else's sake, you have another thing coming.
Be my guest and shoot your last.
-- Cyrus
Cyrus,
Earlier, you wrote: "The advice, if followed, will not minimize that player's playing hours (and, thus, his monetary losses) any more than a system whereby he'd get up after so many randomly-chosen hours would."
I then asked: "Can you give an example of the article's author suggesting that his advice would do so?"
I'm still waiting for a reply.
wgb,
You wrote: "It doesn't matter how you word it. The whole point is that the results of any given session are irrelevant to one's success at poker."
Of course it matters how you word it. George Epstein apparently said that his two techniques will help you go home a winner for that session. That seems like a reasonably accurate statement.
You seemed to think that George was intimating that his two techniques provided a mathematical advantage. From what I've read, that seems like a rather inaccurate statement.
You now seem to believe that the results of any given session are irrelevant to one's success at poker. That certainly isn't true for all poker players--perhaps not even most.
Perhaps you meant to say: "For those who only care about their total poker earnings, the results of any given session are irrelevant to one's success at poker."
You also wrote: "Thus so called systems designed to 'book a win' on any given evening are likewise irrelevant. Suggesting otherwise to new players does them nothing but disservice."
It depends on the goals of those new players. For many new (and experienced) players, the goal is to leave the poker room a winner today and the article does them a service. You appear to have trouble understanding this. Oh, well.
Here's another example: I sit down in a 40-80 and in less than one hour, I'm up over two racks. That's a lot of money, and the game will still be there tonight after I go and screw off doing something else for a while. Besides, I've played long enough that I know I probably wouldn't win more than that if I stayed another six hours. It's likely I will give some of it back if I stay, so why not take the money and run?
3 Bet Brett, if you feel that you will no longer continue to win if you stay, then what you say makes good sense. But if you feel good, are playing well, and, most importantly, have an earn against the lineup you are facing, why deprive yourself of winning maybe a third or even a fourth rack? Furthermore, because you are winning your image is probably good which will make it easier for you to win even more money if you stay. I can understand limiting your losses in a single session, but why limit your winnings?
The main reason to limit winnings is, as Tommy said, emotional. I prefer to cast the "Money Management" debate from a "Time Management" perspective. If I win three times my daily nut in a short period of time, I usually get up unless there is a strongly compelling reason to stay. If there is a giant fish in the game, I'll consider staying. Otherwise...
The same game will be there tomorrow, with the same kind of players and the same action. I've got better things to do with my life than to spend 12 hours a day chasing fish.
I honestly believe that artificial constructs like stacking (or rabit holing) chips aren't very good for most people. It is really best to tune into your own personal emotional needs and act according to them. What works for one person often won't work for another. Determining when to stop playing a session is a personal decision we must all make for ourselves.
- Andrew
Jim,
You wrote: "I can understand limiting your losses in a single session, but why limit your winnings?"
If you can understand limiting your losses, then I'd be surprised if you really don't understand limiting your winnings.
Good points, Tommy. Maybe the reason I avoid no limit and pot limit is because I don't want to get emotionally involved with the amount of money at stake. I figure if I am playing in a game where I will need "emotional protection" I should simply find another game. Your no limit example is a very good one.
Tommy:
Let me make two comments. In our writings David and I have distinguished between "money management" and "bankroll management." In your example, since your hypothetical player now has $5,000 on the table and it is a substantial part of his total bankroll, his decision is not a money management decision, but a bankroll management decision. Because of the nature of no limit he may be wise not to risk such a large percentage of his bankroll. For example, to be specific let's say his beginning bankroll was $3,000 and he was willing to risk 10 percent of it. Now because of his win, his bankroll is closer to $8,000 but he has over half of it at risk.
My second point is that I agree that some players may be better off with these money management schemes because losing back a substantial portion of their win may cause them to go on tilt. I have also written that if this happens to "you" it may be because you don't understand well enough the game and the underlying statistical theory that govern short term playing results.
Mason Wrote: >> My second point is that I agree that some players may be better off with these money management schemes because losing back a substantial portion of their win may cause them to go on tilt. <<
I believe money management is a form of pseudo-science that attempts to treat the symptom rather than the cause. If players really want to be "better off" then they need to stop thinking that money management is a cure for anything. The only long-term result of money management is to reduce the earning potential of anyone who mistakenly believes they have fixed anything through its application.
If one is getting up from the table to keep from going on tilt then that is a form of attitude management and not money management. To mislabel it as money management rather than addressing the real problem creates a misdirection that ends up being a disservice to the very people whom the author is supposed to be helping.
Not only is money management bad advice, its acceptance may prevent someone from actually learning what he or she really needs to know in order to fix a problem they are experiencing. I believe the practice of money management only serves to hurt, not help players trying to learn this game. Getting up from the table because one is concerned about going on tilt or because one just wants to end the day on a positive note is not money management, it is a form of attitude management.
Okay, okay, I will admit that it may be good for some people who can not get a grip on their rage. However, quitting to keep from going on tilt is not money management, it is a way to keep from losing self-control. Even in someone who does go on tilt, from time-to-time, such a practice may still serve to cost more than staying at the table and playing through the session.
I realize that many people read and want to believe in the pseudo-science of money management, but it is a shame to give it credibility through publication in an accepted industry magazine.
>> I have also written that if this happens to "you" it may be because you don't understand well enough the game and the underlying statistical theory that govern short term playing results. <<
Now you are talking. What can actually make players "better off" is education, not money management. They need to learn something of the real science of poker rather than the pseudo-scientific witchcraft.
Thanks for the great site, Mason.
William Seabrook
You're right on with the money/bankroll thing in regards to percentage of bankroll in my no-limit example.
I also like Andrew's "time management" concept. That's what it boils down to with me. It's easier to maintain a balanced life, more often, by occasionally taking a quick win and spend the whole day doing something besides poker when nothing else was already planned.
Another emotional aspect is when there IS a time constraint because of a social obligation. If I have, say, five hours to play, and I've got a decent win after two hours, I'd just as soon quit early rather than risk blowing back and feeling not as spunky as I otherwise would during the date.
The idea that money-management schemes are merely postponements of the inevitable, be it winning or losing, holds true. But in this area, as in others, I tend to weigh emotional and priorotizing considerations heavier than most.
Tommy
Here's what happened to a relative of mine some 20 years ago. With a total bankroll of around $2000, he bought into a no-limit game at the Stardust (LV) for $800.
He immediately got lucky and ran it up to $8000. He was about to get up when he decided to play "Just one more hand." Well, during this "one more hand", he got dealt pocket Aces and flopped trips on a two tone board. Anyway, to make a long story short he got all his money in on the flop and got 3-handed action - $25000 in the pot. A drunk playing 10-4s got the flush when the river bought the third club. This relative got sick and didn't live his motel room for 5 days. He didn't eat either.
He's learned his lesson since and went on to become a big name tourney player in the late 80's and early 90's before retiring from poker to start a very successful business.
He tells me this story everytime I tell him a bad beat story. And I always tell him my bad beat stories because I like it when he re-tells me this story. He's very animated.
He is a major believer in "money management".
It might be more accurate to say he's a true believer in "20/20 hindsight money management".
.
You are so right Jim. These so-called "money management schemes" have been my pet peeve for years. So many players have said to me, "you play soooo many hours, you should leave before the rake eats you up". I try to explain to them till I'm blue in the face that if you can beat the game,the more hours you play the more you will probably win, but it's like talking to a fencepost. But then again why should they believe me? They read otherwise in Poker Digest! Even worse is when I lose a hand shortly thereafter and they say "see? you should have left". Grrrrrrr
Winning or losing in one session is irrelevant. I have often wished I could put my entire year's profit on the table for every session so these people would see how silly their "money management" strategies really are.
I think this article is good for poker.
On several occasions I recommended to Poker Digest to quit publishing this guy's articles.
Mason,
You wrote: "On several occasions I recommended to Poker Digest to quit publishing this guy's articles."
Could you explain why you made these recommendations? I hope it wasn't simply because he addressed poker from a different perspective.
Jim,
I understand your (and S&M's) view of money management. I generally share that perspective.
I haven't read the article you mentioned, but from what you have said, I think I understand the author's view of money management as well. I think it is a perspective that many poker players share.
You wrote: "Why on earth would you leave a game when you are fresh, adequately bankrolled, and have an earn against the field you are playing against?"
Winning the most money possible isn't the primary goal of all poker players. It probably isn't even the primary goal of most. Lots of people play poker hoping to win. Some like to win pots (which is why they often play too many hands too long). And some like to win sessions (which is why they often have "stop win" schemes like those that the author suggests). While it might appear contradictory, some players like to win both pots and sessions.
You wrote: "It would be silly to stop playing after only two hours if you know you have a positive expectation in the game and went to the card room with the intention of playing for the evening."
It might be silly for you or me to stop playing, but that doesn't mean it is silly for everyone else. As Tommy noted, different players have different utility functions.
You wrote: "You may book 'a winning session' but you cost yourself money if you were planning to play 5 or 6 hours and leave after only 2 hours."
And that is a trade-off many rational players are willing to make.
You wrote: "These so called 'money management' techiques and the focus of 'locking up a winning session' are pure nonsense. The objective of playing poker is to win money."
Your primary objective when playing poker might be to win money. That doesn't mean it is everyone's primary objective. If a player's primary objective is to leave a session as a moderate winner (at least), then these "so called" money management techniques are not pure nonsense. Do you really not understand why this is so?
You wrote: "If this is an example of the kind of poker advice found in their new book entitled 'The Greatest Book of Poker for Winners', I think I will pass on buying it."
I'm interested in seeing poker from other peoples' perspectives. It often helps me win more money when I have a better understanding of how they think about the game. So thank you for bringing this new book to my attention. I think I will buy it.
OK Mark, some people play poker not to win the most money they can. True. But the purpose of this forum *is* to teach people winning poker. That is also the general purpose of magazine articles. People rely on and believe in this stuff! It's from this perspective that Jim is criticizing the concepts.
The biggest problem with systems like this is that they are antithetical to the logical approach required to play winning poker. Such systems are statisically invalid and should be exposed as such. Mason should be applauded for bringing this to the attention of Poker Digest editors.
wgb,
You wrote: "But the purpose of this forum *is* to teach people winning poker. That is also the general purpose of magazine articles."
As Tommy pointed out: "Poker Digest strikes me as more of a common man's publication, aimed more directly at the hoards of players who are losers. Not just in the educational articles, but in the wide variety of, say, historical and humor articles as well. And in that light, I think George's suggestions speak to his audience, to their concerns and fears."
You wrote: "People rely on and believe in this stuff!"
Exactly which of George's suggestions do you think readers should not believe?
You wrote: "It's from this perspective that Jim is criticizing the concepts."
Jim doesn't seem to realize there are other perspectives out there. Jim said, "Reducing your hours when you have the edge because you want to make sure you leave a winner for the evening is ridiculous." Jim claimed, "These so called 'money management' techiques and the focus of 'locking up a winning session' are pure nonsense." Jim asked, "Does this drivel make sense to anyone?"
You wrote: "The biggest problem with systems like this is that they are antithetical to the logical approach required to play winning poker."
Based on Jim's paraphrasing, George's article doesn't claim to present an approach to maximizing your money winnings. It seems to offer suggestions to readers about how they can leave a session as winners.
You wrote: "Such systems are statisically invalid and should be exposed as such."
Could you please expose one example of George making an invalid statement?
You wrote: "Mason should be applauded for bringing this to the attention of Poker Digest editors."
Could Mason please expose one example of George making an invalid statement?
"Could you please expose one example of George making an invalid statement?"
Sure. The article suggests that when you are up some arbitrary amout (it's not clear how this arbitrary amount is arrived at) you should at that arbitrary moment set those profits to the side and once you lose half of this it's time to leave. Why half? Why not one third? Why not two thirds? How about .4276? There is no statisical validity to arbitrarily making 50% of an original arbitrary amount a magic number on which to base your decisions. This is clearly nonsense.
Lets say when this magic moment arrives there are 3 drunk players playing every hand blind until the river? Should you stay true to the "money management system" and leave?
wgb,
Earlier, I asked: "Could you please expose one example of George making an invalid statement?"
You replied: "Sure. The article suggests that when you are up some arbitrary amout (it's not clear how this arbitrary amount is arrived at) you should at that arbitrary moment set those profits to the side and once you lose half of this it's time to leave. Why half? Why not one third? Why not two thirds? How about .4276? There is no statisical validity to arbitrarily making 50% of an original arbitrary amount a magic number on which to base your decisions."
George apparently claimed his techniques would help the reader book a winning session. His use of an arbitrary stop point does not invalidate his claim. Would you like to try again?
You also asserted: "This is clearly nonsense."
You might want to try looking at poker from other perspectives from time to time.
Mark there has to more read into his advice than having the sole purpose of ensuring a win. If that were the case then clearly the best advice would be to quit the moment you are ahead on the evening. This would maximize the number of winning sessions.
Mark I am around novice and intermediate poker players every day and I can tell you with the utmost conviction that an alarming number believe their long term results depend at least partially on choosing the right moment to leave a game. It is articles such as this (there are many similar ones) that propagate such notions. These fallacies only stand in the way of improvement. Contrary to what you and others have suggested, I know very few poker players who don't want to be winning players. It's not hard to be a winning player. But focusing on maximizing the number of winning sessions or devising arbitrary methods of limiting playing time are not going to help.
wgb,
You wrote: "Mark there has to more read into his advice than having the sole purpose of ensuring a win. If that were the case then clearly the best advice would be to quit the moment you are ahead on the evening."
First, I'm glad you realize you are reading things into the author's advice.
Second, I'm guessing most session-win-seeking players don't want just any winning session. I suspect most want at least a moderate-sized winning session.
You wrote: "Mark I am around novice and intermediate poker players every day and I can tell you with the utmost conviction that an alarming number believe their long term results depend at least partially on choosing the right moment to leave a game."
I understand.
You then wrote: "It is articles such as this (there are many similar ones) that propagate such notions."
Can you cite any passages in this article that propagate such notions? Instead of forcing your condemnations to attack this article, why don't you apply them to the (alleged) many articles that actually do make incorrect claims.
You also wrote: "Contrary to what you and others have suggested, I know very few poker players who don't want to be winning players."
Perhaps you should get out more often.
Almost anybody can write a poker book, but if it contains flawed information it doesn't do any good no matter what perspective it is from. Hey, if you like wasting money, I can take a dump on a few pieces of paper and sell it to ya. :)
Ryan,
You wrote: "Almost anybody can write a poker book, but if it contains flawed information it doesn't do any good no matter what perspective it is from."
First, almost all poker books contain flawed information.
Second, can you please give an example of some flawed information in George's article?
Third, flawed poker books might not do *you* any good, but *I* usually find something of value in most flawed poker books. I sometimes even find the flawed material itself to be of value.
Here is an example of flawed information: "This means a lot when the pot is big. The point is that when a lot of bets are in the center of the table you don't worry about saving bets. You do everything possible to maximize your chance of winning."[1]
Or how about: "Getting more money in the pot is the primary reason to raise when you think you have the best hand. Clearly you would raise a single opponent on the end with what you think is the best hand . . ."[2]
Since you don't think these flawed books will do you any good, I suppose you'll be tossing them in the trash. Personally, I wouldn't recommend that course of action.
---------------
[1] David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth, HOLD 'EM POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS, 1999, p. 169.
[2] David Sklansky, THEORY OF POKER, 1999, p. 121.
Personally I don't think example 1 or 2 contain flawed information. If you can't see why these statements are correct then maybe it is your thought process that is flawed. And before you go off about people blindly accepting poker advice, and only seeing poker throw the "S and M" perspective, I'll let you know that I read many authors of poker books (including Caro, Cooke, Brunson, Cloutier) and I try to think about what they are saying, and not just blindly accept it. But if I feel something is wrong I usually think about why and then turn the page, just like I did when I read the Money Management article this thread is addressing. However, I do agree with you that just because it is wrong for me doesn't mean it is wrong for others. I'm just glad I don't think like them, because they are loosing lots of profit.
Furthermore, I understand the value of learning from other peoples perspectives. However, I don't know about you but I just don't like to learn from people that don't know what they're talking about, I mean, would you take stock market advice from someone who works at 7-11?
The main point I am trying to make is that just because someone has another perspective doesn't mean it is any good. The XFL was another perspective of football and we all know what happened to it.
Ryan,
You wrote: "Personally I don't think example 1 or 2 contain flawed information. If you can't see why these statements are correct then maybe it is your thought process that is flawed."
Why am I not surprised? You might be surprised to learn that Mason and David also found these statements to be flawed. I could cite many other examples as well.
You also wrote: "But if I feel something is wrong I usually think about why and then turn the page . . ."
I'm glad you have found some use for flawed information.
You also wrote: "However, I do agree with you that just because it is wrong for me doesn't mean it is wrong for others."
That's very open minded coming from someone who, 24 hours earlier, felt "if it contains flawed information it doesn't do any good no matter what perspective it is from."
You also wrote: "However, I don't know about you but I just don't like to learn from people that don't know what they're talking about . . ."
I like to learn from all sorts of people. But that's just the way I am.
You also wrote: "The main point I am trying to make is that just because someone has another perspective doesn't mean it is any good."
That's correct. But just because the advice is bad, it doesn't mean the advice is not valuable.
"But just because the advice is bad, it doesn't mean the advice is not valuable. "
Especially if you are Diabalo.
vince
Sure, there are individual instances where examples 1 and 2 could be wrong. That is because poker is an "it depends" type of game. I still think that the overall thoughts of examples 1 and 2 are correct.
I admit that I was wrong by saying bad advice doesn't have value. If a person uses it to make sure they don't repeat the mistakes of the advice, then it certainly has value. However, having value is different from being good.
I wrote: "flawed information doesn't do any 'good', no matter what perspective it is from."
I also wrote: "just because it is wrong for me doesn't mean it is wrong for others."
Whether something is wrong for me but right for others, doesn't mean that it does any good. Devil worship is right for some people, but just because it is right for "them" doesn't mean that it is overall any "good."
Ryan,
You wrote: "Sure, there are individual instances where examples 1 and 2 could be wrong. That is because poker is an 'it depends' type of game. I still think that the overall thoughts of examples 1 and 2 are correct."
First, there are indeed individual instances where the examples are wrong. And there are many of these individual instances. If I recognize more of them than you, though, it could be because I see these books from a different perspective than you.
Second, if you think the overall thoughts of these examples are correct, you might want to think about them a little longer.
Third, does this mean you believe HPFAP and TOP contain flawed information?
You also wrote: "I admit that I was wrong by saying bad advice doesn't have value. If a person uses it to make sure they don't repeat the mistakes of the advice, then it certainly has value."
Bad advice also can be valuable if it causes you to think along tangents that you otherwise might not have explored.
And, you wrote: "However, having value is different from being good."
I said bad advice can have value. I didn't say bad advice is good advice.
I know what you said ("bad advice can have value") I was just backing up what I said, about bad advice not being good. You seemed to misunderstand me by thinking I said good advice was the same thing as valuable advice.
Furthermore, just because HPFAP and TOP contain theories and concepts that aren't accurate 100% of the time doesn't mean the theories and concepts are flawed. Now we've gone in a circle and back to the fact that poker isn't an exact science and every statement can't be accurate 100% of the time. Maybe if this was chess, but its not.
Ryan,
You wrote: ". . . I was just backing up what I said, about bad advice not being good."
Bad advice is not good advice. Profound. Thanks for clearing that up.
Mark-
You're ability to look at things from other perspectives is impressive. You are correct that not all people play poker with the singular objective to win the most money over the long haul. However, I think Jim assumes that the typical 2+2 reader has this objective. If so, then these money management rules for limit poker are indeed nonsense. IMO-
Kevin
Kevin,
You wrote: "You are correct that not all people play poker with the singular objective to win the most money over the long haul. However, I think Jim assumes that the typical 2+2 reader has this objective."
As I explained to wgb, Jim doesn't seem to realize there are other objectives. Jim said, "Reducing your hours when you have the edge because you want to make sure you leave a winner for the evening is ridiculous." Jim claimed, "These so called 'money management' techiques and the focus of 'locking up a winning session' are pure nonsense." Jim asked, "Does this drivel make sense to anyone?"
You also wrote: "If so, then these money management rules for limit poker are indeed nonsense."
Even for those who "play poker with the singular objective to win the most money over the long haul," money management can be beneficial. Just one example: Many serious players, in the middle of a bad losing streak, probably would get a psychological boost by "locking up a winning session."
If a serious player is in a good game, is currently winning in this session, and has command of the game in which he is clearly a favorite, but is in a long losing streak, what other actions - in addition to "locking up a winning session" - can he take in order to achieve the worthwhile objective of giving himself a "psychological boost"?
JAWZ,
You asked: "If a serious player is in a good game, is currently winning in this session, and has command of the game in which he is clearly a favorite, but is in a long losing streak, what other actions - in addition to 'locking up a winning session' - can he take in order to achieve the worthwhile objective of giving himself a 'psychological boost'?"
As they say, "Different strokes for different folks." Here are just a few ideas that various people might find useful.
1. Whether on a losing streak or not, I find it beneficial to occasionally take a one-orbit walk (or even a full dinner break). I'll stretch my body, relax my mind, and rejuvenate my powers of concentration. It means I don't cram as many minutes of playing as possible into my sessions, but I think it increases my EV per hour (and probably my EV per session as well).
2. Others might find that positive affirmations provide psychological boosts. Mike Caro seems to recommend, "I am a lucky player. A powerful winning force surrounds me."
3. A friend of mine believes various meditation exercises help her focus on the "here and now" and give her a psychological boost as well.
The only scenario that makes sense for "booking a win and run" is when a winning player is on a prolonged losing streak. In these situations I think it makes sense for that player to win a few sessions in a row to get their confidence back.
Ken Poklitar
...RIGHT!!
And so is pretty much everyone else in this thread. Come on you guys; I seriously doubt there is truly any substantive disagreement on this subject between any two posters in this thread. The ideas are just too simple.
I wrote a longer post, with much explanation but I doubt it's really necessary.
These are boxes with vapor for walls.
x
Just to clarify, wgb, they're important ideas to understand, but it's clear that you and probably eveyone else in the thread understand them just fine. So I wasn't trying to shut you up; it's just that different people are simply emphasizing the validity of different, non-contradictory points. Looks like that's Louie's point too
Some posters have stated that maximizing your long term ev is only one way of looking at poker. They argue that there are other ways depending upon your point of view. Some even argue that winning is not important just having a good time is what counts. From this vantage point all books and articles ever written about poker have redeeming value and are worthy of purchase. For those who subscribe to this point of view, you may want to check out the following books and articles on poker and blackjack:
1. The Foolproof Training Guide by Dr. Richard Allen
In this guide you will learn to: 1)muck a big flush draw with two overcards when the flop comes against one opponent who bets into you, 2) avoid ever raising with ace-king preflop, and other such advice.
2. Championship Hold'em by Tom McEvoy and T.J. Cloutier
In this book, written by two world class tournament players, you will learn to: 1) muck sets when a fourth suited card appears on the turn, 2) treat your blind money as a loss, 3) prefer to play your connectors unsuited, 4) that you will lose money on any two cards you play in the first three positions, and other such advice.
3. A Winners Guide to Casino Games by Mike Goodman
This book is now out of print although in my opinion it was never fit to print to begin with. If your game is blackjack you will learn that: 1)card counting is a waste of time and that you are basically guilty of criminal behavior if you try it, 2) don't invest a dime in any count book, 3) always insure a blackjack, and 4) bet more when you are winning and less when you are losing plus other such advice.
So, John I agree that there are differing points of view on playing poker and even blackjack. However, I believe it is important to separate sound advice which leads players to playing a winning game as is found in your book "Inside The Poker Mind" from unsound advice which does nothing but ensure that a person becomes a long term money loser. I will have to concede that if the goal is to be something other than a long term winner then these other ideas are valid.
Right. I mean, *if* your goal is just increasing your chance of having a winning session, then a stop-win is the way to go. This of course is a fairly trivial point for most readers of this forum, whose goal is different. That said, there are of course certain exceptions to the "uselessness of money management ideas", as touched on by several in this thread.
Jim,
You wrote: "I will have to concede that if the goal is to be something other than a long term winner then these other ideas are valid."
You make it sound like you reluctantly acknowledge there are other poker goals out there. Why not rejoice in being able to open your mind to this possibility? Do a little celebratory dance. I really mean this. Stand up, shuffle those feet, swing those arms, and wiggle those hips.
Why not pat yourself on the back for this breakthrough (figuratively, of course)? If you have a friend nearby, why not have them literally pat you on the back? Some people would never be able to "think outside the box" like you did. You should be proud of yourself!
If you are feeling courageous, you might want to consider rephrasing some comments in your original post. For example: "Reducing your hours when you have the edge because you want to make sure you leave a winner for the evening is ridiculous."
In your more recent post, you also wrote: "In [FOOLPROOF] you will learn to . . . avoid ever raising with ace-king preflop . . ."
You also might want to reconsider this statement as well.
"Why on earth would you leave a game when you are fresh, adequately bankrolled, and have an earn against the field you are playing against? "
Sex?
Gee, Jim I hope I got this one right. Your quizs always baffle me.
vince
The article authors are correct, these techniques will drastically increase the chances of one going home a winner. Caro is correct that "going home a winner" is a meaningless objective. You are correct that these techniques will decrease the hours played in really good games and therefore reduce your overall EV. Malmuth is correct that setting these stop losses will reduce the chances of going on drastic tilt. Angelo is correct that making this decision can be beneficial to people for emotional reasons.
And I am correct: A main reason to set this sort of "stop loss" is to protect yourself from those times where your judgement is so bad you don't know you are in a seriously -EV situation, such as when you are very tired or the opponents have some hidden advantages such as cheating. The chances of you being on drastic tilt and don't know it is very high when you have lost a lot of money. I see no reason that your regular stop-loss (how much you're willing to invest in a game) is any different than your winning stop loss: so if you think $600 is a reasonable stop loss then you should quit when you become $600 less than the maximum you were up during the session.
- Louie
Louie,
You wrote: "Caro is correct that 'going home a winner' is a meaningless objective."
If Caro meant this is a meaningless objective for all poker players, then he is incorrect.
Under the heading of Insirational/Cautionary tales. Could anyone comment of the biggest winnings or losses they have seen one person have at a session of low or mid limit hold'em?
Coupla years ago I sat in an 8-16 game with 1 maniac. I was there from the start to finish, about 36 hours! That maniac lost 20 racks! almost every pot was at least $400 and up to $1000! I did well, played very very very few hands past the flop and watched others loose plenty chasing him. Too bad I've never seen him in a game since.
Biggest win I saw in my short playing career was over last weekend. 4-8 game, 1-2 blind, guy kept winning hand after hand, had about $900 in chips when I left 5 hours later. He was no maniac, instead took it easy on the table. Example: I had pocket aces in BB, raised, and still got about 6 callers. Flop was J 4 4. All call to me, I bet, all fold except big winner (BW). Turn card was a blank. I bet, BW called. River was the third 4. I bet with the nut full house, he raised, and now I know he has four 4's, but call him anyway. He shows four 4's. Had me beat all the way. In other situations, he would just call with an obvious winner. I think he really just didn't want to run over the table, but just kept winning and winning.
Papio
i played at the grand in biloxi 1-4-8-8, blinds 1/2 and i won about 850 in a 12 hr saturday session two months ago. i dont think i had quad 4s on anyone, but he played it exactly the way i would have... especially if ure a tight player.
peter
Stories regarding this topic are not especially useful; the reasons should be obvious.
As long as you are aware of this...
1. On a recent trip to A.C. a very good friend - solid but for the most part lacking in imagination (the perfect formula for MOST low-limit games) won a little over $500 in a marathon session of 3-6; the session lasted about 30 hours. That is a remarkable win given the obscene rake we have to deal with on the east coast.
2. I also saw him lose $150 in an hour when he had 3 sets and two flopped nut flushes beaten; he would have lost ALOT more but he happened to haul a monster pot during this hour. Without this win his loss would have been close to twice as much.
3. I sat down in a 15-30 game a while back - I was "taking a shot", this was at a time when I did not have adequate capital for this level - and got up five hours later with a $2,700 profit from a $500 buy-in. I obviously ran hotter than hell, but also played (no immodesty intended) very well once I had doubled my buy-in and had enough chips to play properly as opposed to "scared".
4. This is the one I can't get anyone to believe. When the TAJ first opened they used to spread 1-5 stud with a .50 ante; the rocks would not get within ten feet of this game. I know you asked about holdem but I try not to miss a chance to tell this story.
I took $1,870 out of this game in the longest session I ever played (41 hours).
- I hope you are asking to find out how the "bucket of chips" you just took out of your last session stacks up against some of the hauls that others have made.
If it's for a different reason take comfort in the fact that you are not the first person to have "one of those nights".
Best wishes,
- J D
My biggest win in recent memory relative to limits was $3750 in 10-20 over about 14 hours.
P.S. Had I followed one of the "money management" schemes described below I would have made about $200!
Oh yes, you wanted biggest loss too. I didn't really want to talk about that. The biggest loss I have taken in the past few years is 75 BB over a 12 hour session. Luckily it was 3-6.
PS It didn't hurt so bad because I won similar amounts in both the previous and subsequent sessions. Phew. But talk about a roller coaster ride!
Any opinions on the book Championship Holdem by TJ Cloutier and Tom McEvoy?
Dave, you are opening a big can of worms. Look in the archives and you will see a mile long thread regarding this.
Why the poster's adulation to the owners of 2+2?, I don't understand. But the owners should show to us that they are humble people, and not acept such adulation. (2+2:You may delete this post if you don't agree).
Hey, you're on the wrong forum, man!
ni
Hello Pensacola! I have not tasted Pensacola, but we are I believe maybe on the same team! I learn from some big players here to adulate never the 2+2 antihumble men. One posts I like is from Mr. Glover (I think protege for Abdul) beneath who say be different, do not be 2+2 guy. I will be maybe protege for player like that. (I am thinking I am not today ready for Abdul.) I learn from these top guys how to say the awful sayings to the S&M guys. They are mad crazy dogs with white bubbles at the mouth! I delete those antihumbles always now for the free knowing!
But I am today so frustrating! I look for those adulation posts you find, but I am not finding them! Where they are? Please tell me what those posts are. Who said the bad little adulating things? I want to go to those to say the awful sayings to them! Where are those posts? Now you come there with me too and we can say together the anger words.
My critique goes to those players that right after a post from Mason, Ray Zee, Jim Brier, and others, go right at it, saying nothing but adulating comments, that serve no purpose in our pursue of poker improvement. The comments that bothers me the most are those that states: "I have your book, I read your books, I have all your books. I recomend your books. They are the best books. Etc. Etc, Is a kiss, kiss, kiss afair. And I hate to go into this comments trying to learn something new, and is always the same thing from these guys. I know that this post belongs in "Other topics", but they deleted one of my posts on this subject on this forum, that is why I am here. I didn't use proper language, if you know what I mean. So I understand. My point is that the owners of 2+2, should not acept this BS comments, and discourage them. I have all the books, they are good books, but do we have to say it every day, all day, the way we say: "I love Jesus"
It should be noted that one of your posts was deleted because you insulted one of the other posters, and that was the sole purpose of the post.
Think of it like Darwinism. Darwin changed the world of biology. S&M&Z changed the world of poker. These are undeniable facts. But Darwin did not even know DNA existed, and other things too, so naturally there have been many modifications of his basic theory over the last 143 years.
Same here at 2+2, except the "Darwins" happen to still be breathing and joining in. They aren't inherently wiser than those who have followed, just as Darwin is not inherently wiser than, say, Richard Dawkins, just because Darwin came first. I think it's neat to be able to talk to the groundbreakers and the improvers at the same time in the same place.
Tommy
Thank you Pensacola. I have read your post. It is best post. I recommend it to all to read now because it is right ideas. We are the real poker learners and we do not accept so the kiss-kiss-kiss sayings from these kissing guys. Place I come from sometime two men kiss and say hello. But forum is not good place for these kissings. We need only cruel poker ideas.
So you kissing guys, you stop kissing today. A small hug is maybe okay one time. But after this go only to the not drunk poker ideas with no love times. Tell all kissing ones some awful sayings to show they are breaking monsters! We other ones are thinking with big freedom like our anti2+2 friends and mentors they instruct us. We need only right ideas to be best proteges!
Last year, I played HE for well over 1000 hours (much of it online because of travel). I am a solid winning player (although under a BB an hour). I quit because it started to seem like a waste of time.
I went to the casino for the first time in over 6 months this weekend and really enjoyed myself and I want to start playing again. However, I am afraid I am going to fall in the same rut as last time.
My biggest problem is that I keep coming to the conclusion that the game is flawed. When you play a hand, the game is extremely rich in flavor and complexity...but, you simply don't get to play enough hands.
Certainly, when you are not involved, you watch other players, analyze hands, etc. but that doesn't seem enough to sustain me (over the long haul). I would rather test my capabilities on a more constant basis.
Am I missing something about the game?
I understand what you mean and I have a couple of suggestions. First, nobody says you HAVE to be a solid/consistent player to have fun. You might want to try moving down a limit and playing a little looser and more aggressively. You might not average one BB/hr at year's end, but so what? You already have a job, right? The enjoyment you get out of playing "for fun" might be well worth the small hit you might take. The other suggestion I have is to play more tournaments. They have a built-in level of excitement that live games don't have, and you can maintain your solid play and still have more fun, maybe.
You can do what I see a number of the addicts do. Get up from the table, go play craps, play a few hands, then some slots, play a few hands.... They rarely win over time, but they do not seem to get bored either.
try heads-up holdem .you wont have time to be bored,plus make more money.
Play on 4 or more tables. You need be logged in more than one site and play only flop games. Once, I played 6 games at PokerSpot at the some time (you may play as many tables as you wish there). Great fun. Maybe it's a little -EV but fighting boredom is more +EV for me.
Zbych,
The problem I have is not really one of boredom or a need for more excitement; it is a more elementary question than that. My question - is playing HE a worthy pursuit?
It is difficult for me to explain my issue. I am not talking about playing occassionally. I am talking about becoming an expert in the game. If I am going to play, I want to become the best I can (I simply can't do things half-ass). That means a ton of time, work, and effort and I am just not sure it is worth it, given the nature of the game.
If you put as much time in to a normal job venture, as some do to poker, I think you could become very wealthy. I think the best thing to do is keep playing tight. Sure you will get bored, as I have. The thing is, just don't play for a while. I have often felt the same thing; "is it all worth it? I fold fold fold fold, hit a flop and get rivered etc..." When I feel like this, I can't play my best game. So I get some coffee, catch a movie, take a rest for a few days. Play only if you can enjoy playing tight.
If you consider the only worthwhile part of hold 'em to be when you are throwing money into the pot and the rest to just be tedious waiting then I agree that there may be more interesting activities you could pursue. However, for at least some people, the hands they fold preflop and then spend watching and studying their opponents, trying to figure out how they play and what they could be holding, are an equally interesting part of the game. If you have that mindset, than not very much of your time at the table will seem wasted.
Am I missing something about the game?
No, poker is boring.
You seem to be limiting the temr "hold em" to full ring games. All forms of poker are not the same, and this applies not only to the game you decidde to play (i.e stud, hold em, omaha), but also WHEN you decide to play. Try heading to your local card room at 3 am, and play some short-handed hold em. You will find yourself involved in many more decision-making situations (splashing around) than you will in a full ring game. This will help you fight off the "boredom." You will also find yourself in some of the more profitable poker situations that exist, provided you can make the proper adjustments.
Yep - you're not playing Omaha.
There's more idiocy out there for you to profit from, and more hands are playable.
cheers
Glenn
Does anyone ever use any of the money that they win playing poker for something other than poker? It seems that a lot of people simply put ALL the money that they win back into their bankroll -- but don't you think that sort of defeats the point of poker? Sure putting some, even most, of the money you win back into your bankroll is a smart decision but taking a percentage to use on other things seems to make sense since the point of poker is to...win money!
Are you kidding? Almost all the money I make goes to cover my nut, and it barely covers that. You must be speaking of "Trust Fund Pros".
Regards,
Rick
All your money goes to cover your "nut".
That sounds like a pretty dangerous proposition. If I had to live off of my poker winnings, I'd make very certain that my standard of living was significantly lower than my expected income. Maybe I'm a fiscal conservative, but a "savings" rate of 20-50% sounds like a reasonable thing to aim for.
In the context of the first poster, this "savings" rate could be looked at as your "bankroll reinvestment". If you are playing poker professionally, and your bankroll isn't growing, then you are setting yourself up for rocky times when you underperform your expectation.
- Andrew
A pro's bankroll only needs to grow if it was insufficient in the first place. My bankroll and comfortable life style have not changed significantly in three years, and if that trend continued to my grave, I'd die a VERY happy man.
Tommy
Doesn't the bankroll need to grow a little to, in the long run, compensate for inflation?
Yes, but since inflation has been running at between 1 and 3 per cent (depending on what group of economists you choose to believe) it is probably not a major consideration.
Put another way, if the only game you ever played was 10-20 it would be at least five - and perhaps as many as ten - years before you "felt" the effects of inflation and had to move up to a bigger game.
If your skill(s) improved just a TINY bit (say, 2%) per year, you might NEVER have to move up.
Good point, nonetheless.
- J D
To a full-time mid-limit player, there isn't much difference between having, say, $60,000 and $80,000. It'd take at least 10 years for inflation to be a significant factor. The whole bankroll thing is far too inexact a science for any hair-splitting to work it's way up to the top of the "pertinent factors" list.
Tommy
Well,
I guess I am a fiscal conservative. I believe that most people who have a steady salaried position with no chance of losing their job should have a savings rate which is greater than zero. My preference would be between 5-10%.
Just call me cautious.
- Andrew
I think the best thing for a recreational player to do after a hot streak is to buy something they've needed or wanted but have been putting off. Then, if (or when) they blow back, they've got something to show. It's a non-liquid form of savings.
Tommy
Since I have an outside source of income from which I live, I do not need to use my poker winnings to cover living expenses.
I view my poker bankroll as a very sacred and holy thing. All winnings go into it and only losses come out of it. I have most of it in CDs so it can also grow with interest. The purpose of bankroll is to grow so that you can play in bigger games eventually. Who wants to spend the rest of their life playing $20-$40? The idea is to get good enough so that you can play well in bigger games like $50-$100 and higher and not have to worry about silly things like bankroll.
Many players stop playing the middle or higher limits because they make the mistake of depleting their bankroll for things that have nothing to do with poker. This is a mistake in my opinion. If you play long enough you will encounter an extended losing streak - 500 or 1000 hours. You will need your bankroll when this happens. But if you spend your bankroll then you find yourself out of action when you run bad. This happens all the time in this town. Don't let it happen to you.
I understand where you are coming from but don't you think that putting ALL of your winnings back into your bankroll and not using some of it for things other than poker simply defeats the purpose of poker? I'm not talking about using poker as a means of significant income etc,I simply mean that the purpose of poker is to win money and what's the purpose of that if you just use it ALL to play more poker?? A lot of people here say that you shouldn't spend any of your winnings because if you save it then you will be ale to play in higher limit game-- but when does this end? I'm not saying that you shouldn't save and strive for higher limits but what Im trying to get at is: When and what is "high enough" so that you can eventually spend some of the money? I think it is a mistake if people only use their winnings for more poker because that fundamentally defeats the whole point of poker as a game.
Barry Shulman wrote an excellent article in CardPlayer Magazine about a year ago explaining why different people play poker. Perhaps my motivation is different than someone else's. At my age and station in life, I don't have any material needs that are not being met. Spending a lot of money on things I don't need just does not appeal to me.
Poker is not about money per se. Money is just the way you keep score. The idea is to get good enough so that you can play as high as just about any group of eight or nine other players and have an earn without having to worry about bankroll. If you have to worry about bankroll then you are playing with a handicap.
They spread an $80-$160 full-tabled, limit hold'em game most every day at the Bellagio. I wish I was good enough to play in it and know that I could be a winner over the course of a year.
Jim I don't believe for 1 second that you couldn't beat the 80-160 game. I'm not too sure you believe it either :).
Jim,
It is my impression you could be consistent winner in the $80-$160 game. No?
ACBob
How many pro's pay their living expenses (rent, car payment, insurance, etc.) out of their bankroll?
if you're a true pro then your only form of income is poker which means you have to pay for living expenses out of poker winnings
I agree with Poker B. The very definition of a true professional is someone who lives off their poker winnings. This does not preclude some non-professional from playing as well as a pro. But a recreational player who plays well has a huge, long-term advantage over someone else who plays as well but must constantly deplete their bankroll for living expenses. This is why there are many low limit professionals in this town who never play higher than $6-$12. They simply cannot afford to run bad in a middle limit game like $15-$30 or $20-$40 where they could lose 5 grand in a week or 10 grand in a month.
David Sklansky has estimated that for ring game poker in public card rooms across the country, there are probably somewhere between 200 to 500 players making $50,000 per year or better. This is why a young person with anything on the ball is better off going to college.
I agree with David's estimate of 200-500 full time pros. (See Jim's post below).
That means there are that many players who pay rent from their bankroll, like I do, except I don't look at it that way. My "bankroll" is exactly equal to my net worth. There is no mental seperation between rent and food and entertainment and buy-ins.
Tommy
I certainly use poker winnings for non-poker things and let my wife chose those things. This helps keep her happy and me in action. The bankroll comes first - over 300 X the big bet of the largest game in which I play. The rest goes for nicer vacations, tile for the kitchen etc. This expenditure is almost as important to me as keeping my bankroll.
If you are a winning poker player who doesn't aspire to moving up to ever-increasing limits there is nothing wrong with taking some of your winnings and going shopping. And yes, if poker is your only source of income you obviously have no choice but to do this. The main thing is to have a BIG bankroll that is, at least mentally, committed to the game. By that I mean you can lose it and it won't have any life altering consequences to you. Once you reach a bankroll size that you are very comfortable with in the limits you are playing, go ahead and spend the excess as you win it. For me, I feel good having a bankroll of 1000 BB. This is probably more than most but it gives me the ability to just shrug off hefty losses when they inevitably come around. It also allows me to think of chips as chips and not money which I believe is an advantage.
Just a quick question. Would you consider a player who averaged over 1 BB/hour a good player? Play once a week for about 5 hours for fun. usually play 6-12. should i consider playing 15-30? Money is not an issue and I can afford to lose, but I live frugally, and hate wasting/losing money. bob
Should a very good softball player switch to baseball ?
6-12 and 15-30 [usually] play very differently; you may very well be able to beat 15-30 - your game may even be better suited to 15-30, i.e., you may meet with even greater success. However, I would not jump to this conclusion based on your success at 6-12.
In plain english -
1. Yes, in my opinion a player who has beaten ANY game for more than a few hundred hours for a full bet is a good player.
2. Your success at 6-12 has little correlation to your future expectation at 15-30.
- Just for argument's sake, you could make the claim that a player who has beaten a 15-30 game for a full bet over a reasonable period of time is NOT guaranteed of having equal or greater success (proportionally) at 6-12. This has to do with the fact that some players "stumble" over a game that happens to suit their style perfectly. (There is some chance that this is what happened to you at 6-12.)
Having said all that, I like your chances at 15-30. I am only attempting to point out that your results at "A" are not ENTIRELY indicative of your expectation at "B".
I was not trying to be pessimistic; I play a fair amount of 15-30. I would just as soon not have to face a table full of "full bet winning 6-12 players".
Best of luck if you choose to have a go at it; best of luck if you choose to stay at 6-12.
- J D
the question is not whether to switch from baseball to softball, but whether a good minor leaguer can make it in the pros.
My thoughts are if you have enough money you should take your shot.
J-D is right.
A MAJOR difference between a 6/12 table and a 15/30 table is that you will find many more 15/30 players who know what you have AND can manipulate you mercilessly. They will smell your weakness and take advantage of it. If you are paranoid you are dead meat unless you play particularly selectively.
May I suggest you take selective shots at the 15/30 rather than just planning to jump in permanantly.
- Louie
It depends how many hours your are basing you average on, but 1BB/hr is very good. I would suggest playing a few hundred hours at 10-20 and monitoring your results there before jumping into 15-30.
It's all about game selection. 15-30 is nothing but an arbitrary setting of the stakes. The 15-30 at the Bellagio is a fantastic game and it's full of some of the worst hold'em players in existence.
The 15-30 at Bay 101 is similar.
The 15-30 at Artichoke Joes is an absolute dream. Totally passive and loose. I played a five hour session there once and I was only raised about three times. Every time they had the nuts.
Those are damn good games. You'd have to be braindead to lose money in those games (long term). The 15-30 at the Oaks club is a whole different world. At any given time there are five or six of some of the very best limit players in the bay area. It's a tough tough game. 90% of the pots are raised. Your blinds are constantly attacked and you will have to constantly make decisions that could go wrong.
Some tables of 3-6 on paradise poker are similar. Very tough tight aggressive players. Sometimes the 10-20 on paradise poker is like a low-limit salmon migration, with 92o winning as many pots as AA.
I've heard good stories about the 20-200 game in Garden City and Bay 101. Soft and easy, with calling stations galore. Believe it or not, of the two major no limit games in the bay area, the BIGGER one is generally considered to be softer than the smaller one. (Colma vs. Artichoke Joes).
The last thing to remember is that an expert player has a slight edge over a good player, but they both have a monster edge over a bad player. You won't make nearly as much money playing a tough aggressive 15-30 as you can make playing a loose, passive 6-12. (not counting rake issues).
natedogg
Pick a limit, any limit. 2000 hours equals a year's worth of 40 hour weeks. In California it costs about $15 per hour to play. That's $35,000 per year, just to play. It might take you quite a few years to reach 2000 hours, but the following idea covers any substantial time span. I think any player who can overcome the California rake over the long haul is a good player. Even the break-even players, because they are making betting decisions worth $15/hour.
Tommy
Natedogg. In the 15-30 game such as you mentioned at Artichoke Joes, what would be your strategy to win consistently there. Are the games different based on the day/time you play?
How are the 6-12 games there? thanks, bob
In the 15-30 game such as you mentioned at Artichoke Joes, what would be your strategy to win consistently there.
Loose passive games are the easiest to beat. Bet top pair for value all the way. Fold if you get raised. Bet middle pair for value on the flop and turn, but slow down with it on the river. With top pair, you can start worrying about your kicker if it's lower than a jack. Otherwise keep betting.
Don't go for checkraises or slowplays. Just keep betting when you have a hand. These tables are passive so the players will rarely bet your hand for you.
Unlike loose aggressive games, loose passive games allow you to loosen up. You can play a wide range of hand on the button, including any two cards if the players are extremely weak (ok not ANY two but pretty close). You can play a lot more hands early too because nobody is raising before the flop. By limping early with questionable hands, your only gamble is that nobody has AK or a big pair. Seriously. NOBODY will raise you with ATs or KQo or 77 or anything like that. It's "limp limp limp until you make the nuts" poker. There are players who will not ever raise without the nuts. I mean it. They won't raise or even bet the river if they have the bottom set full.
Are the games different based on the day/time you play?
I don't know, I've only ever played it on weeknights. Once on sunday night.
How are the 6-12 games there? Good. Very similar, with a little more raising. However, I despise 6-12 now because I believe the rake/time/drop is insurmountable in the long run. At AJ's there's a four raise cap instead of the usual three, which MIGHT be enough to make up for the rake.
natedogg
The AJs 15-30 game was fantastic when it restarted in January but is now akin to the usual peninsula games. The passivity is now average, there are several tight and/or good players, and some of the more generous players have quit or tightened up. The 20-40 at LC's has been better recently in my experience. Both are still great games.
I think you got some good responses. My only concern about you is your statement "I...hate wasting/losing money. The 15-30 will be much more aggresive. You could play too tight or weak if you are not careful. Just play good solid poker.
I don´t know if you´ve had this thread up before but I would like to know what kinds of things that defines really good heads up players. I would also like to know if there has been any especially outstanding heads up players in the past? /Erik
Erik this is swedish boy here are you Erik 123 if you are you know me..haha funny you remember Stefan from the tables-tennis that me (swedish boy) Lmao after understand that you are you if you understand..LOL
Agression is the essential characteristic of a winning heads up player. When I play heads up against players who are used to playing in 9 or 10 handed games only, I do very well. Raise & reraise with just about anything (gutshot, bottom pair, naked A or K). Most players will fold to you often enough that you will show a profit (I think that's from HEPFAP21).
When playing against players who are accustomed to playing heads up, it becomes more of a psychological battle. They may try to overwhelm you with their aggression or trap you using yours. Reading people (as opposed to hands) becomes extremely important. Reading hands is harder because the wide range of hands that you encounter in heads up play.
Abdul's website (posev.com) has an outstanding primer on short-handed play.
Aggression happens to be a good weapon against opponents whose weaknesses and failure to adjust make agression correct. But aggression in and of itself isn't a strategy for headsup play. Opponents who play too aggessively can easily be manipulated in headsup matches if their opponents adjust and they fail to readjust.
JG
"Aggression happens to be a good weapon against opponents whose weaknesses and failure to adjust make agression correct. But aggression in and of itself isn't a strategy for headsup play. Opponents who play too aggessively can easily be manipulated in headsup matches if their opponents adjust and they fail to readjust."
JG
Agreed, aggression is important but reading both your opponent and the betting pattern related to the board should all be a part of your headsup weapons. What does your opponent do when overcards come, paired board, flush and straight board, raises on draws, tilt/emotion factors?
Frankly, if your opponent already plays fast and he has one or both of these virtues, I may not play him. This just happened yesterday. Playing $20-$40 HE, full ring game suddenly turns short , like 4-5 handed. I like it since I am a little stuck. Then, one of whom I consider best short players comes in and sits down to my left. Within 20 minutes we get three handed, the "BSP" on my left and the soft one in between.
We play another half hour and I am able to get ahead nearly a rack. The soft one leaves. The BSP and I sat there for another 15 minutes at the table talking about things waiting to see if the game would fill up. Neither of us asked if the other wanted to play.
Bob
Just got my own computer. Using Windows Me. Usually use IE, have Outlook Explorer, etc.
Can someone please guide me thru accessing rec.gambling.poker (and the other rec.gambling sites)? Thanks a lot (can't figure out how to get there)-samo666
Go to:
http://groups.google.com/
Click rec.
Then click gambling.
Then click poker
If you are going to access directly through outlook you'll need to know your ISP's news server (usually it is just "news") so you may want to check with them. If you click on the newsgroup html in outlook it should prompt you for this if it's not set up already. Your ISP should give you mail and news info to use outlook. If they havent' give them a call and they should be able to give it right to you.
Good luck,
Paul Talbot
1. Open Outlook Express 2. From the "Tools" menu, select "Accounts" 3. Click the tab that says "News" 4. Click "Add" and select "News" 5. Follow the instructions. Under NNTP server, type "news.(isp)", for example, mine is "news.sfu.ca" because my ISP is sfu.ca. 6. Your news account (called news.isp.com or whatever) should show on the left side of Outlook Express. Click it. 7. OLE will ask you if you want to download newsgroups. Say yes. Be aware that this may take a very, very long time depending on your connection. 8. Once finished, type rec.gambling.poker in the space at the top. 9. Select rgp in the box below and click Subscribe (at right) and then Go To (at the bottom).
Note, if step 6 fails, you will need to phone your ISP to ask them what the name of the news server is. When they tell you, put that in step 5.
(Damn HTML posting. Moderator, feel free to delete earlier post.)
Note, if step 6 fails, you will need to phone your ISP to ask them what the name of the news server is. When they tell you, put that in step 5.
My question is: How many hands out of 100 should a good, tight, aggressive player win? Normal distribution would say 10, but since a good player will have tighter starting requirements than a normal player, I'm sure it will be less than this. I feel I can win money if I can win 5 out of 100 hands, but often I win only 3 out of 100. Is this normal or am I experiencing a run of bad luck? The games I play in usually have 3 or 4 good players and 6 or 7 who play too loose.
I seem to win about 2/3rds may fair-share of hands; which would be about 7 hands out of 100 in a 10 handed game. But I play looser than I should, a lot more aggressively than most, and am particularly tenatious so my win %age is higher than it "should". In tight games, BTW, I win MORE than my fair share.
If you are consistently winning only 3 hands (1/3rd your fair share) then I suggest either you are player REALLY selectively, you are not nearly assertive enough with your marginal hands, or you are abandononing far too many winners just because someone else bet.
- Louie
that situation has happen few weeks ago : In our local game of HE , the player on the button has accidently received 3 cards but the dealer didn't realise , the player on the button look his cards and say " I have 3 cards " . UTG has allready fold , someoneselse call , etc . So dealler says " your hand is dead , you should have tell me before action start" .So he throws face up his AQQ . The moment between when teh dealer gives the last card to the button and UTG is usually very short ; even sometime UTG act immediatly after having received his 2nd card . How do they do in a casino about that ?
...in spirit anyway, about the benefits of thinking "out of the box" ( = the name of a relatively "in the box", IMO, but still good T.V. show for young kids on the Disney channel, btw). But, as I posted before, I favor an idea more like trying to abandon boxes or well delineated perspectives altogether. Still, one should be thoroughly familiar with well known perspectives. My thought is just that when trying to deepen one's understanding of something like poker (probably more so more abstract things) one should often do so with a readiness to manipulate ideas without associating them with perspectives, boxes, camps, etc., and a readiness to blend (if appropriate) those perspectives or toss them aside. This is really a recognition that they are just ideas which exist apart from authors, camps, etc.
What I've just written doesn't really capture it so well. And neither does the following, quite, because it's more about something a bit different, I think. But it's worth a quote anyway:
"One day as Manjusri stood outside the gate, the Buddha called to him, 'Manjusri, Manjusri, why do you not enter?' Manjusri replied, 'I do not see myself as outside. Why enter?'"
(found on some site featuring zen koans)
John,
Sitting here this morning, watching the snow falling, I'm reminded of Eliot's line: "Mid-winter spring is its own season"--and wishing I were out of this "box" called "New England."
Anyway, I disagree. Remember how you learned poker? Mostly, you learned through a combination of experience, reading, and instruction, if I remember correctly. Although you may wish to avoid the "box," you're no longer innocent. Through discourse (perhaps loosely defined as the accumulated and mediated writing and thinking about a subject), ideas are, in the parlance of critical theory, "always already" there. These ideas cannot simply be rejected or repressed, and I'm not thinking of free will and determinism here. Instead, I'm thinking about how reality is constructed through discourse. I'm really struggling to explain my thinking about this subject, but stepping outside the box, indeed rejecting the very notion of the box, may only be as simple as (shudder!) the difference between strategy and tactics.
However, I agree, in a sense, with the notion you present, so I'll leave you with a quote from Emerson: "A foolish consistency is the hobgobblin of little minds."
I might try again later when I have more time to write a better response.
Regards,
John
John - I may be a bit confused on one aspect of what you're saying. Your comment about strategy and tactics sounds sort of like a reversal of what you had said up to that point. But I suspect it's really not. So forgive me if I'm missing something, but I'll address what you had said up to there.
First, though I probably haven't been clear, I'm not suggesting it's routinely possible to be totally independent of the box(es). It may just be a matter of degree. I do think it's possible consciously to push them aside to one degree or another.
One the most superficial level, I'm merely saying that it can often help, in manipulating ideas, not to invest much energy into concern over what authors or camps they are associated with. If you're working on a poker problem ("Is it better to raise or just call with JJ in the BB with 6 limpers?") your thinking will only be hindered if you are as concerned with whether or not your solution is in line with "S&M" as you are with finding the right answer.
One a deeper level, conscious efforts to ignore or push aside predominant perspectives, to think in an "innocent" way, for example, are not totally futile. For instance you can try to ask, "How would I have looked at this question before I had ever read a poker book?" This should give you at least a slightly different perspective on the question than you would have otherwise. It may be somewhat closer to a "pre-box" way of looking at it. Certainly you will not have freed yourself of all influence of the box, but you need not succumb to it in toto either.
More generally, I think it is possible to think about something like poker in a way that is generally less immersed in established perspectives. Would you say that all your thinking about poker or some other topic is always and totally under the sway of some dominant perspective? (Here I am pretty much ignoring the really pervasive meta-perspectives like the "traditional Western view of reality", and just focusing on the boxes within those larger boxes.) I think it need not be. For example, I read the Bobby Baldwin chapter on limit hold'em in Doyle Brunson's book, which was written well before HPFAP or any real thought of an "S&M perspective", before I read HPFAP or The theory of Poker. While my perspective on it probably changed a bit after reading those texts, I don't think I saw it in a radically different way. Coming from another angle, does that chapter's having been written pre-2+2 make it hard for someone today to understand? Does it seem to come out of left field because we are so steeped in some current 2+2 perspective? Of course not. (That may be an unfair question, since as I and others have hinted here recently, no one has yet defined a 2+2 perspective, and such an animal may not really exist in any well delineated way.) We may notice that it does not use terms like "semi-bluff" or refer to hand groups, but it's still quite familiar as the poker we know. We are able, at least to some significant extent, to think about poker without filtering everything through some known author's perspective.
A recent example was that thread below on money management. While it may be that some folks were too focused on what they'd read, it takes little effort just to think about the logic involved, relatively free from any author's perspective, and so to see that if one's goal is simply to increase the chance of a winning session, a stop-win - certainly a non-2+2 notion - can help. I mean, no poker author invented the concepts necessary to understand issues of "money management."
Man, this is tough to capture in words! I'll stop for now and just say that the influence of what we've read certainly survives into the future as our thinking evolves. But there is some continuum, I believe, from thinking completely under such influence to thinking apart from it. I believe it can often help not to think in terms of known "boxes" to begin with.
The pawn can only move forward and capture forward diagonally. This is the limitation of it's "box". The knight can only move and capture by doing an "L". This is the limitation of it's "box". The rook can only move and capture in straight lines. This is the limitation of it's "box". The King can only move and capture one space at a time. This is the limitation of it's "box".
But what is the most powerful piece in chess? Why, the Queen of course. Why? Because it has the most variability and flexibility. The Law of Requisite Variety says that the most flexible part of the system will ultimately dominate the system.
Translated into poker. The most dominant player will be the one who has the flexibility to move effortlessly through all the "boxes", be it S&M, Abdulian, Carsonian, Brunsonian, Caro-ian, "moronian", etc.
There is nothing wrong with compartmentalizing all poker advice into different "boxes". But it's wrong to ally oneself with just one. "The mind is like a parachute. It will only work if it's open".
I agree with much of that.
There is nothing wrong with compartmentalizing all poker advice into different "boxes"...
I agree with this, though I've emphasized the utility of trying at times, to some extent, to ignore those boxes. The only problem with these boxes in current poker theory, however, is (and I think you agree) that they are spoken of as though they are radically different perspectives. But they are all much more similar than different. They don't really qualify as "perspectives", IMO. I think it's actually been a mistake to popularize phrases like the "S&M perspective." It carries what I think is an inaccurate implication.
ideas are, in the parlance of critical theory, "always already" there.
I don't understand. Which ideas are where?
In the "Universe", you morbidly pathetic slob!!!
you morbidly pathetic slob!!!
Morbidly? Surely you mean vomitously.
John,
I enjoyed "The Crack in the Cosmic Egg: Challenging Constucts of Mind and Reality" by Joseph Chilton Pearce. His "box" is the "Cosmic Egg".
Tom D
"One day as Manjusri stood outside the gate, the Buddha called to him, 'Manjusri, Manjusri, why do you not enter?' Manjusri replied, 'I do not see myself as outside. Why enter?'"
You just hit Mark Glover. On the nose! If I may paraphrase:
"One day as Mark Glover stood outside the gate, the Mighty Oz called to him, Mark, Mark, why do you not enter?' Mark replied, 'I do not see myself as outside. Why enter?'"
vince
Hmmm Vincent, I'll have to think about your interpretation. I'm not sure if Mark would say he sees himself as outside or not. He might say he does. Though I would guess that quote is more a reference to the connectedness of all things (which may not actually be so irrelevant here) I thought it also expressed something of the way I look at this "box" stuff. Posters try to refer to poker perspective boxes, citing the "S&M perspective" (but never defining it), or perhaps the "Abdulian perspective" (not defining it either), or some other. Sometimes they try to pigeon hole a poster as an "S&M'er" or what have you. But, though I can't speak for others, I don't typically think about poker as that which is in this or that perspective (box). I do recognize well those ideas which are strongly associated with one or another perspective, and might think in terms of perspectives when there's reason to do so. But mostly "I don't think of myself as outside" because I don't even bother to organize poker concepts as "inside" or "outside".
Btw, I think there is good reason why no one has defined these perspectives. They are too similar to be reasonably viewed as substantially different perspectives. For example, it's true that when you look at the 2+2 works and Abdul's works there are some differences in emphasis. And I don't mean to discount those because they are well worth plenty of thought and study. But it is more like Picasso and Brach than Picasso and Norman Rockwell.
.
John,
I read something by Matisse this morning. He said the hardest thing for a painter to paint is a rose because he must forget all the roses that have been painted before.
Now, I'm beginning to agree with you when you say that there's little substantive difference between the perspectives you mention. That's what I was trying to say when I wrote about "interpretive communities." Minor variations exist, but the general perspective--whatever it is--acts as the reigning paradigm. Hence, strategy and tactics.
John
Are you trying to say that there ultimately is only "one right way" in poker that is meta to all the "boxes"? A "true north" of some sort? Will all the "boxes" then ultimately converge into this meta-box and consolidate into one box that represents THE truth?
JAWZ,
God, no! Exactly the opposite. Truth is a construct, a fiction. I don't mean that truth is relative, either.
John
That I agree with. There is some level of "reigning paradigm" which is probably hard for most of us even to see, since it's all we know. To step outside that box is on a very different level from the steps out of the box that are usually mentioned.
My first reaction to your Matisse quote was, "Yes, that's exactly what I've been trying to say." But then his emphasizing how hard it was made me realize it may be what you've been saying. I had a feeling we agreed. :) I may have exaggerated how easy it is to put aside familiar boxes, but I'm with Matisse (and Cole) on the importance of trying to do so. What I've been saying about thinking in terms of boxes being restrictive is just a reference to my way of trying to do this. It may stem from the idea that language shapes thought.
John,
Or, to take it one step further, there is nothing outside language.
John,
In a previous thread, I mentioned that I believe even off-the-cuff, poorly-said "bad" advice can have value if it starts you thinking along a tangent that you otherwise might never have explored.
As an example, I explained that when John Feeney and Gary Carson disagree, I am more likely to believe John's advice is closer to being "correct." But I have learned much more about poker from reading Gary's posts than I have from reading John's. Gary often causes me to think about the game from "outside the box." John usually causes me to think about the game from an S&M perspective.
In your above post, you wrote: "Posters try to refer to poker perspective boxes, citing the 'S&M perspective' (but never defining it), or perhaps the 'Abdulian perspective' (not defining it either), or some other. Sometimes they try to pigeon hole a poster as an 'S&M'er' or what have you."
I don't know if you were directing your comment, in part, towards me. In any case, I hope my example didn't upset you.
When I noted that you usually cause me to think about poker from an "S&M perspective," I just meant I usually don't learn much from your posts that I didn't already know from reading S&M.
That's not to say I never learn anything from your posts. Nor does it mean other readers (who might not have read much S&M or understand it particularly well) might not benefit from your posts more than I.
You also wrote: "But, though I can't speak for others, I don't typically think about poker as that which is in this or that perspective (box). I do recognize well those ideas which are strongly associated with one or another perspective, and might think in terms of perspectives when there's reason to do so. But mostly 'I don't think of myself as outside' because I don't even bother to organize poker concepts as 'inside' or 'outside'."
We might be interpreting "thinking outside the box" differently. As I noted in that earlier thread, I use the phrase in the sense of "thinking about or looking at things from a different angle or perspective."
The "box" I refer to isn't any particular author's perspective. The "box" I refer to is my own usual way of looking at things. When posters cause me to "think outside the box," they cause me to look at poker in ways I normally don't think about the game.
So, I do organize poker concepts as "inside" or "outside" my own box. That's how I keep things straight in my mind and how I resolve conflicts among those concepts.
But I try to keep an open mind about that organization. And I think I benefit from considering differing opinions, from "thinking outside the box," and from occasionally reorganizing my understandings about poker.
You wrote: "But it is more like Picasso and Brach than Picasso and Norman Rockwell."
Someone once told Picasso, "That painting doesn't look like a fish." Picasso's response was something like, "It's not a fish; it's a painting of a fish." Perhaps he caused the viewer to "think outside the box."
Mark - In one of the posts you refer to you used the phrase "an S&M perspective." Much of what I've written recently is a reaction to this sort of term. It has come into (almost) common usage, so I don't really fault you for using it, but as I mentioned in a response to "JAWS" I think it's a slightly misleading term. From what you wrote, though, it now sounds like you may have used it casually, without necessarily assuming as precise a meaning as that which is sometimes assigned to it. In that case we may not be far apart on that issue.
There are lot's of "boxes", depending on how you think about it. I see now what box you were referring to in your earlier post. There may be a paradox in trying to deviate from our "own usual way of looking at things" since we have only our own way of thinking with which to attempt it. But that is, I guess, a philosophical question which I certainly won't attempt to resolve here and now. At any rate, I'm not challenging you on that; I know what you mean.
John,
You wrote: "There may be a paradox in trying to deviate from our 'own usual way of looking at things' since we have only our own way of thinking with which to attempt it. But that is, I guess, a philosophical question which I certainly won't attempt to resolve here and now."
I think you are seeing a paradox where one doesn't really exist. "Thinking outside the box" is deviating from our "usual way of looking at things." It's not deviating from our "only way of looking at things."
This isn't so difficult to do. You just need to be willing to look at things differently than you normally would. Being open minded helps.
Yes, I know what you are saying Mark. If you hold your definition of thinking outside the box to "deviating from our usual way of looking at things but not from ways of looking at things with which we have some experience", then you are right; it's nothing particularly difficult, and takes little more than a bit of open mindedness. But if you go a step further there may still be a paradox - not all the time, but on some occasions of striving to "think outside the box." One kind that comes to mind would be occasions when the way in which you must think about something to understand it is a way with which you have no experience. Then you must make a leap of sorts from your usual and not so usual ways of thinking to something new. This can of course be done. It's just interesting that if you conceptualize it as a shift between qualitatively different, familiar and completely unfamiliar ways of thinking, it does present a little paradox. In reality it may be a non-issue. We don't really know in any detail what such leaps involve.
Yesterday I caught hell from one of the players at my table for folding on my turn when there was no bet to me. He called it "folding out of turn" which it clearly wasn't, but his point was that it is bad etiquette to fold in this manner. I said it was my right to fold on my turn if I wish, and told him to go take a long walk off a short pier. He went on tilt and quickly busted out..lol
To my surprise, I ran this by some of my poker buddies and they said I was wrong. Oops! So now I turn to the real experts... Is there anything wrong with folding in turn to no bet. I do this on occassion with truly hopeless hands just to give the impression that I am a cavalier player.
Thanks.
Yes, it is very impolite. You give the players that act after you free information that the players who acted before you didn't have. If they bet they have one less person to worry about check-raising them. It's seems like a small advantage, but it's an advantage none the less. If I was to your right and you routinely did this, I'd probably ask for a seat change.
Yes, I consider it poor etiquette. It has an effect on the hand in play. Since you fold it may take away checkraise possibilities etc. Also may give another hand last position.
When it is checked to you and it is your turn to act you can bet, check, or fold as you see fit. I know of no rule that prevents a player from mucking his hand when it is his turn to act. The critical point is that you acted in turn. The players to act after you have the advantage of knowing that you have mucked your hand but they are supposed to have an advantage since they have the better position from the players who acted ahead of you. Again, as long as you act in turn everything is fine.
I am almost sure that Jim is right in terms of it not being against any rule.
I disagree with his statement that there is nothing wrong with it; it seems like the type of thing that can only lead to bad feelings and/or the appearance of impropriety. There are alot of things in poker (and in life) that are completely legal but in questionable taste.
I believe this to be one of them.
I could offer a silly analogy but I think my point is clear, even to those of you who might not agree with it.
- I have done it myself; often when sitting two or three seats to the left of the BB I have folded my hand as soon as I got it if I had somewhere more pressing to be at that moment - the men's room for example. This doesn't make my behavior OK, but I do think that allowing the first player - or the first two players - to act into a field of seven or eight instead of eight or nine is QUITE the same thing.
(I think I just rationalized my own bad behavior, but at least I do admit that it IS wrong.)
Sometimes nature doesn't call - she SCREAMS. (lol)
- J D
It is a bad thing to do because you do not want to give your opponents any unnecessary information. If you always muck your hand when you could check, then your opponents will be able to assume that when you check you are more likely to call if they bet. You want to give them as little information as possible at all times.
Nothing wrong with it? I strongly disagree. What about "protection?" It comes in many forms, and this is one of the most clear-cut cases.
Example, three players on the river in a big, highly contested pot. The first player to bet mucks his hand instead of checking. Sure, it was his turn to act, but so what? I think this is unquestionably wrong, and at Lucky Chances, they even have a rule against it.
As usual, think of no-limit, where everything is magnified. Giving and getting protection is absolutely essential to the entire table.
Tommy
I wholeheartedly agree. A fold should be defined as giving up your hand because you do not wish to put the amount of money that was bet by your opponent(s). If there was not bet, you cannot fold. The only time it should be allowed is when your are one-on-one and therefore no other player's hand is being affected.
I don't know what any of the rulebooks say about this, but they should say a player can either fold, call or raise when there has been a bet and can either bet or check when he is either first to act or all active players have checked to him. Folding with no bet should not be allowed.
Tommy, I agree that this is not something that a player is supposed to do but Lucky Chances is probably the only place in the world that has a rule against a man folding his hand when it is his turn to act. I doubt that even the WSOP has a rule against folding when it is your turn to act. Personally, I think it is more stupid than unethical. As I stated under J-D's post, if you muck your hand when you could have checked than your opponents can assume that when you do check you are more likely to call if someone else bets. It is dumb to give your opponents unnecessary information.
Jim,
Earlier, you wrote: "When it is checked to you and it is your turn to act you can bet, check, or fold as you see fit. I know of no rule that prevents a player from mucking his hand when it is his turn to act. . . . Again, as long as you act in turn everything is fine."
Tommy then explained that it was against the rules at Lucky Chances and why it unfairly influences the course of play.
Now, you wrote: "Tommy, I agree that this is not something that a player is supposed to do but Lucky Chances is probably the only place in the world that has a rule against a man folding his hand when it is his turn to act."
At the Canterbury Card Club, "The following unethical or improper actions are grounds for warning or excluding a player from the card club: . . . Making statements or taking action that could unfairly influence the course of play, whether or not the offender is involved in the pot."
Mark the following sentence comes from Canterbury's rules of holdem taken from their website:
"Players may bet, check, raise, or fold in turn."
One of the rules of statutory interpretation is that the specific over-rides the general.
I would only add that I think the word "unfairly" is the operative word in the rule you quote. Clearly you are not *unfairly* influencing the course of play by excercising one of your options according to the rules.
From what I've read folding in turn to no bet (checking out) is allowed at Canterbury. Or do you know for a fact that this is not the case? I've never played there.
Players at Canterbury routinely fold when not facing a bet,( at least in low limit games) and I have never seen anyone complain. The dealers certainly don't see it as a violation of rules.
I've only played five times (33 hours) at Canterbury. In those mid-limit games, I only saw one instance of a player routinely "checking out." And I believe that situation was handled properly.
Player A "checked out" three times. Player B informed the dealer that he objected to this behavior. The dealer asked Player A to stop. Soon after that, Player A checked out again. Player B objected again. The dealer called the floorperson over. The floorperson explained to the entire table the reasons why "checking out" unfairly influences the course of play and warned Player A to stop. Player A stopped.
I get the impression this is one of those rules that usually gets enforced only if someone complains. Management and dealers want to keep customers happy. Personally, I'd be happier if they enforced this rule without being asked.
But Mark, the rule specifically says you can bet, check, or fold in turn. What are you talking about?
wgb,
You asked: "But Mark, the rule specifically says you can bet, check, or fold in turn. What are you talking about?"
I'm talking about what happened during one of my five sessions of poker at Canterbury Park. What did you think I was talking about?
I think you misunderstand the rule. See my reply to your other post.
It’s a bad rule not being customer friendly – except for the annoying nitpicking types – and to be worthwhile your opponents must play extremely bad as to be trapped more often than to check themselves into a winner. Similarly the situation of three-way action with you first to act and the middle position folding to no bet should be a good checkraise bluff opportunity when it will often enough entice the last to attempt a steal. I can’t understand why anyone barring the above exception would wish this “rule” enforced. Certainly it’s not in the card room’s best interest.
pokertek,
You wrote: "I can’t understand why anyone barring the above exception would wish this 'rule' enforced."
Do you think players should be allowed for fold out of turn? It seems like most posters (including wgb) agree that this behavior is unfair and rules should prohibit it.
If you understand why folding out of turn is unfair, it shouldn't require much more thinking to understand why folding in turn to no bet ("checking out") also is unfair and why rules should prohibit it.
"If you understand why folding out of turn is unfair, it shouldn't require much more thinking to understand why folding in turn to no bet ("checking out") also is unfair and why rules should prohibit it."
Yes, and I also believe betting out of turn is unfair. That doesn't mean I that betting in turn unfair and that the rules should prohibit it. Folding in and out of turn are two entirely different scenarios. It shouldn't take much more thinking on your part to understand this.
wgb,
You wrote: "Folding in and out of turn are two entirely different scenarios."
I know they are entirely different scenarios. I never claimed they were identical.
What I claimed was: "If you understand why folding out of turn is unfair, it shouldn't require much more thinking to understand why folding in turn to no bet ('checking out') also is unfair and why rules should prohibit it."
wgb,
You wrote: "Mark the following sentence comes from Canterbury's rules of holdem taken from their website: 'Players may bet, check, raise, or fold in turn.'"
How odd. They allowed me to "call" when I played there.
This rule is the "act in turn" rule. They just as easily could have said, "Players must act on their hands in turn." (Which they do, in their "General Poker Rules.")
The rule you cited doesn't address whether those various betting actions are valid or invalid. If someone has bet, a player acting behind cannot check--even if they act in turn. Similarly, if someone has not bet, a player acting behind cannot fold--even if they act in turn.
You also wrote: "One of the rules of statutory interpretation is that the specific over-rides the general."
That's fine. But we are discussing a cardroom rule, not a government statute. Most cardrooms have a very general rule that overrides all others. At Canterbury, it is worded as, "Players taking a seat in a game at the Canterbury Card Club agree that management has the final word on who may play and the manner in which play is conducted."
You also wrote: "I would only add that I think the word 'unfairly' is the operative word in the rule you quote. Clearly you are not *unfairly* influencing the course of play by excercising one of your options according to the rules."
But "checking out" is against the rules at Canterbury.
And you wrote: "From what I've read folding in turn to no bet (checking out) is allowed at Canterbury. Or do you know for a fact that this is not the case? I've never played there."
I have played there. I do know for a fact that at least one Canterbury floorperson does not allow "checking out." See my response to "therussmeister," below.
Mark,
I have never mucked a hand on the turn as is being discussed and I would not make such a recommendation to another player. However, I have observed players "checking out" on many occasions, and I cannot remember one time when someone complained that it was unfair. It seems to me that the only person who is consistently at risk of damage by this action is the person mucking their hand.
The argument that it is unfair must imply that it gives someone at the table an unfair advantage, either early or late. However, any action taken by that player would have potentially given the late actors more information that the early ones had at least until the action gets back around to the early players. Consequently, I fail to see what is unfair.
I have already read the protected pot example, but even in that specific example, the “check out” may help the early position as well as the late. As an example, the “check out” may induce a bluff of which the early position can take advantage, so I do not see anything unfair in that specific example. I read your comment that since one understands why folding out of turn is unfair, one should be able to understand why "checking out" in-turn is also unfair, but I do not see the connection. I would appreciate it is you would take the time to actually explain why it is unfair to “check out" in-turn.
Thanks, William
William,
You wrote: "I read your comment that since one understands why folding out of turn is unfair, one should be able to understand why 'checking out' in-turn is also unfair, but I do not see the connection. I would appreciate it is you would take the time to actually explain why it is unfair to 'check out' in-turn."
Okay. But let's see if you can figure it out on your own, first.
Do you think folding out of turn is unfair? If so, why?
Folding out of turn is unfair because it gives information to players who are supposed to act before the folding player acts. In other words, the act of folding prematurely is a compromise of the positional integrity of the game and gives untimely information to the players who were, according to the rules, supposed to act before the release of this information. However, positional integrity is maintained by the player who is "checking out" in-turn so that is why I do not understand the issue here.
In addition, in the case of folding out of turn, the rule is published, specific and universally accepted.
So, if you are merely saying that you personally feel it is unfair and you are offended by people who "check out" in-turn, then I understand completely. If you are saying you wish there was a rule against players “checking out” in-turn, then I support your right to lobby for such a rule. However, if you are saying there is a widely accepted rule that declares it forbidden to “check out” in-turn, then I have neither seen nor heard of such a rule.
If I have misunderstood what you are saying and you are only saying you wish there were such a rule, then my question of you was a result of my misunderstanding and I apologize. Additionally, if I was mistaken about you claiming there was a well-accepted rule, then you need not explain further than to say that it is your desire there be such a rule and I will understand perfectly.
Thanks for your response and I look forward to your reply.
Sincerely, William
William,
You wrote: "In addition, in the case of folding out of turn, the rule is published, specific and universally accepted."
If by "universally accepted" you mean "considered acceptable behavior by all poker players," then you are wrong. If by "universally accepted" you mean "allowed in all cardrooms," then you are wrong. Tommy already has noted that Lucky Chances has a rule against it. And I already have mentioned that at least one floorperson at Canterbury Park did not allow it.
-----------------
You wrote: "So, if you are merely saying that you personally feel it is unfair and you are offended by people who 'check out' in-turn, then I understand completely."
Yes, I am saying that I personally feel it is unfair. I'm not exactly "offended" by people who occasionally do it. I'd prefer they did not, even when the rules don't expressly prohibit that kind of behavior.
You wrote: "If you are saying you wish there was a rule against players 'checking out' in-turn, then I support your right to lobby for such a rule."
Yes, I wish more cardrooms had rules expressly prohibiting that kind of behavior. At some cardrooms, "checking out" is just considered poor poker etiquette (at least in the middle-limit games). It's like players asking to see a conceded hand at showdown. Most cardrooms have a rule that allows this type of behavior (to help discourage collusion), but the general feeling (at least in the middle-limit games) seems to be that it's bad form for someone who doesn't suspect cheating to ask to see a conceded hand. And if players abuse this rule, floorpeople have been known to take away this privilege.
You wrote: "However, if you are saying there is a widely accepted rule that declares it forbidden to 'check out' in-turn, then I have neither seen nor heard of such a rule."
No, I'm not claiming that most cardrooms have rules expressly prohibiting that kind of behavior.
---------------------
You wrote: "If I have misunderstood what you are saying and you are only saying you wish there were such a rule, then my question of you was a result of my misunderstanding and I apologize."
Yes, I wish there were more such rules.
You wrote: "Additionally, if I was mistaken about you claiming there was a well-accepted rule, then you need not explain further than to say that it is your desire there be such a rule and I will understand perfectly."
If we believe Tommy, then the Lucky Chances cardroom has such a rule. If we believe "wgb," then the floorpersons disagree about the rule at Canterbury Park (but inconsistent floor decisions probably is a subject best left for another thread).
------------------
You wrote: "Folding out of turn is unfair because it gives information to players who are supposed to act before the folding player acts. In other words, the act of folding prematurely is a compromise of the positional integrity of the game and gives untimely information to the players who were, according to the rules, supposed to act before the release of this information. However, positional integrity is maintained by the player who is 'checking out' in-turn so that is why I do not understand the issue here."
First, positional integrity is damaged when players fold to no bet, even when they fold in turn. At the river, Player A checks, Player B folds in turn, and Player C is left to act. Player C's position has changed relative to Player A. Or, more extreme, Players A, B, C, and D all fold in turn, leaving Players E and F still to act.
Second, positional integrity isn't the only type of poker integrity that should be maintained. Can you think of others?
Hi Mark,
Mark Glover Wrote: > William > You wrote: "In addition, in the case of folding out > of turn, the rule is published, specific universally > accepted."
> If by "universally accepted" you mean "considered > acceptable behavior by all poker players," then you > are wrong.
> If by "universally accepted" you mean "allowed in > all cardrooms," then you are wrong. Tommy already > has noted that Lucky Chances has a rule against it. > And I already have mentioned that at least one > floorperson at Canterbury Park did not allow it.
Sorry Mark, I must not have been very clear in the way I wrote that sentence. By "universally accepted", I was referring to the fact that folding out of turn is not within the rules anywhere I have ever played. I did not mean to indicate that I believed folding out of turn was universally accepted.
Mark, I am not advocating the policy of "checking out" in-turn and if I sounded like I was then I was not clear about my beliefs regarding this issue. My primary point is that folding to no bet is often done, especially in low limit games, and I am not personally aware of any card rooms, in which I have played, having a rule against this practice.
After reading Jim Brier's post below explaining that folding to no bet gives up information unnecessarily, I have decided that it is more often unfair to the early positions than to the late so I now understand the issue better. However, notwithstanding Jim's excellent point, the practice does not seem to bother me as much as it does many, because I love having players in the game who play that poorly.
Thanks Mark, William
Mark just 2 quick points:
1. I just spoke to Yvette at the Canterbury. She is a houseperson there. She said it is "totally legal" to fold to no bet in the Canterbury as well as "anywhere else that [she] knows of". She said that's a "basic rule of poker". You should really get your facts straight before you blather on endlessly.
2. The pedantic, consescending way in which you express yourself is pathetic. You really are a pompous ass.
wgb,
You wrote: "I just spoke to Yvette at the Canterbury. She is a houseperson there. She said it is 'totally legal' to fold to no bet in the Canterbury as well as 'anywhere else that [she] knows of'. She said that's a 'basic rule of poker'."
I'm not sure what a "houseperson" is. If it's the same thing as a "floorperson," then perhaps Canterbury Park management should do a better job of making sure their floorpeople enforce the rules more consistently. If a "houseperson" is a higher management position, then perhaps Yvette should do a better job of making sure her floorpeople enforce the rules more consistently.
You also wrote: "You should really get your facts straight before you blather on endlessly."
My facts are straight. Perhaps you should read what I write before you blather back.
And you wrote: "You really are a pompous ass."
By now, many forum readers should know what my Pappy would say about your comment: "That's sort of like the toad calling the frog ugly." Butt ugly, in your case.
William, for what it is worth, I do not believe it is right to just muck your hand when checked to even if there is no rule against it. I agree with you that this is a common practice, most card rooms allow it, and most people see nothing wrong with it. But nevertheless I would never do it because it is not only stupid it is ethically wrong. The reason I believe it is wrong is because when you do this you are giving the opponents yet to act unnecessary information that the opponents before you did not have. While it is true that the opponents yet to act have a positional advantage and are therefore entitled to get additional information because of their position this is a natural part of the game. But when you fold in turn when it is only checked to you, there is no rational reason for you to do this. Technically you can fold, check, or bet but folding makes no sense since there was no bet to you. You are doing something unnatural and that gives the players yet to act an advantage that is not a natural part of the game. Perhaps in my previous post, I mistakenly made it sound like this is an ethical thing to do. It is not. It is legal but not ethical in my opinion.
I'm sorry but I fail to see how exercising your right to bet, call, raise or fold in turn is "unethical". It gives everyone in the hand information, just like any other other of the options you are entitled to exercise. I just don't think I'll be able to get my head around this one. If it was "unethical", why has the rule evolved in the opposite direction? It would be easy to make rule say otherwise.
Jim,
Thanks for taking the time to explain your viewpoint on this issue. Thanks to you, I now understand what the complaint is about and I can understand why it bothers some players more than it bothers others. I do agree that folding to no bet gives up information unnecessarily and I had not, until now, given that point serious consideration.
Additionally, I understand and appreciate that you personally feel the practice is unethical, but I do not share that feeling with you. I can see how this unnecessary information will often help the late actors more than the early, but that is also true of any in-turn action taken by that same player. I believe the practice is certainly a less than optimum strategy, but I would not personally describe it as unethical because the player acted in-turn and according to the rules.
Thanks for the explanation.
William
The "rule" in question is an implied rule at Canturbury. This is one of those issues that is based on interpretation. Dave (Canterbury Floor Manager) stated to me that you can fold to no bet. The "rule" stated at Canturbury is more for the "questionable" actions of some of the less experienced players i.e. you an I are heads up, the flop comes and Joe Rookie in seat 5 says "DAMN, I knew I shouldn't have folded my A9o" with A9Q on the board. Obvuiusly, our outlook on the play has DEFINATELY been affected.
However, it is known as well that 2% or less of the players at Canturbury can be qualified as Good or better (not saying that I am one of them or others on 2+2 are not.)
Morpheus
I agree with you and wouldn't like it if I was in a hand. But what is the difference if somebody, instead of folding, leans back, checks by slamming the table and sits there ready to throw in his cards at the 1st bet (still in turn). Even if there is a "rule" against it, what would the penalty be (don't do it again)?
Good point. As with any relatively mild infraction, if a floorman says, "Don't do it again, or else," the obvious question is, "or else what?"
This is one of the many reasons I think the attempt to standardize rules is silly and pointless. It'd be like going to a secluded valley in China and telling the residents that they must do away with their own dialect and speak Mandarin.
One of the things that attracts me to poker is that a smooth game requires the cooperation of the players. If any of us here at 2+2 fold in turn without facing a bet, it costs us nothing. But do we do it? By and large, I'd guess no. Would it cost us money if we slowrolled? No. Would it cost us money if we frequently asked to see called hands at the showdown? No.
There are motives other than money at work at the poker table. Thank goodness that there IS a very real "common good" code of behavior.
Tommy
I personally don't care if someone folds out of turn.
However, I don't like it when someone holds up the game by doing so.
What can happen is if the player to your left isn't following the action, you might induce him into acting out of turn. This stops the game and causes confusion.
Example:
Turn card hits and you decide to make an image play and turbo muck out of turn from the cutoff seat.
The player behind you on the button bets out of turn because of your action. But wait! The SB bet and the BB raised in turn behind you. So now the BB wants to argue that the button shouldn't be able to take his bet back and the button is saying he should be able to pull back his bet because he acted on your action.
Then the SB sees angle he can shoot and claims he wants to take his bet back to because he was just acting on the button's action. The BB is having none of it and claims everyone bets should stay in the pot.
So that causes some player who isn't even in the hand (me) to sit there while the dealer calls the floorperson and you chowderheads argue about what happened.
All because you folded out of turn on an image play.
So the act of mucking out of turn doesn't bother me at all, but the resulting confusion and arguments often slow up the game, costing you money if you are a winning player.
Dan you are talking about folding "out of turn" which is clearly wrong and against the rules. I mind very much when someone does this. I'm talking about folding IN turn to no bet. These are 2 different things. When the betting gets to me and I throw my hand in the muck, there's really no chance of this slowing down the game.
I see, I read your post wrong.
I have no problem with people doing it and 'checking out.'
Some do though, and if it puts them on tilt without slowing up the game, knock yourself out!
Folding when there is no bet is similar to playing out of turn: it gives some other players an advantage over others.
Hmmmm. Obviously this is something that bothers some people. All I can say is I've been playing poker for 30 years and it has always been been my understanding that you have the same right to fold your hand on your turn as you do to bet it. Over that period I have seen people do this probably thousands of times and yesterday was the very first time I can remember anyone complaining about it. If there was a problem with it I'm sure casinos could easily institute a rule against it as they have for folding out of turn. If it is a disadvantage to players in early position, oh well, many things are, and I am subject to the same disadvantage if a player after me decides to fold to no bet. Anyway, it's not such a disadvantage: The players yet to bet know I won't checkraise, but so do the early players if someone downtable should bet. Given all this I have decided I was right and that no apologies are in order. If you wish to get riled and go on tilt when I fold on my turn so be it.
PS Didn't I read something somewhere about someone developing uniform rules of poker?
Sorry, but I do not understand what people are complaining about. If you folded when it is you turn, as you indicated you did, then why should it matter if there was a previous bet of not. I do not think it is a good idea to fold unnecessarily, but it is your hand and, when it is your turn, it is your business how you play it.
As for giving information unfairly to the players later to act, the information you gave by folding is no less fair than you would have given by betting or checking. In other words, since folding, checking, and betting on an unopened round will all give information to the later acting players that the earlier players did not have, I do not understand what the specific problem is with folding.
Whether you act before me or after, if you fold on the flop then that is fine with me because you may have just folded a back door set or two pair that would have taken the pot away from me. Please fold on your turn, it is your right.
William
wgb,
It is clearly cheating to assist players (give them an advantage), during the play of a hand. It's called collusion. It doesn't matter that it is gratuitous cheating on your part. It's still cheating. As an example, say I am first to act, with a weak hand, in a three-way pot, and check. You're next, and fold. The third player, who wouldn't have risked bluffing into two players, decides it just might work against only one player, and bets.
An exfriend of mine and I had a falling out, after which he acquired the habit of folding, intentionally, after I checked, to give the players still to act a huge advantage over me. Would you say he was cheating?
Do you not see the importance of maintaining a level playing field when playing poker?
Sidebar: There are rules against betting or folding out of turn, but there doesn't appear to be any penalty for doing it. To me, this means there are no rules against betting or folding out of turn, really. Do you bet or fold out of turn, and if you don't, why not?
Tom D
I dont play much holdem so this question isnt asked of me often. Before I answer, why would you fold for a free card? I understand you are drawing slim, but you can always catch runner runner trips. While it is not against the rules to fold when there is no bet and it is your turn to act, I feel as though you are only causing trouble by doing so. In 7 card stud, if you fold when there is no bet, your folded hand will still receive a card. (Apparently many gamblers believe in "the cards are set a certain way" or " I would of caught XX card if you would of stayed in and it ruined everyone's hand"). As for the late position players having more info because you fold I feel is dependent on the number of players that saw the flop. If there are only 3 of you then I feel as though you are aiding the last person by folding. If 7 or 8 saw the flop and you folded on turn, then I dont think that is cause for an argument. Again, I dont play much holdem, but if it is checked do yourself a favor and stay in. You just may catch a miracle card.
Sorry I missed this thread last week. I haven't read every message in the thread;however I would make two comments.
1) They allow folding to no bet at Paradise Poker--seems like I have even seen people fold out of turn?
2) I don't play much stud anymore; but, as mentioned above, when a player folds to no bet, when he could have checked, and it is checked around the dealer gives him a card.
I always believed that the player received a card on the theory that he could not exit the hand at that point?
Clearly, it is to the player who folds long-term disadvantage to do that. It may also work to the disadvantage of other players. However, I have never seen anyone complain at the holdem table.
eltoro
Mason claims that cheating is virtually nonexistent in public cardrooms because management protects the integrity of the game and players police the tables.
This thread should give him cause to pause.
Something I have noticed here at 2 + 2 and on RGP is hand discussions shortly turn into playing style discussions. I determined that like some horses, some posters only have one or two speeds in their arsenal of playing styles, while other posters have many styles to suit game conditions. Ohters are a combination of both. At times a posters idea of how a hand should be played comes from how they did at the table earlier, or last night against the crowd they played against. It's not objective input.
How do I arrive at this conclusion? Look at any of the "evaluate my play postings". Usually these are grey area hands, and not the nuts full house or quads on the flop. Sooner or later someone decides that another post is way off the mark, and the hand should be played differently than it was, more aggressively, or folded. This then changes to commentary on a posters playing style, and how one poster doesn't understand a certain type of playing style advocated by another. Whether this comes about by straying off the subject, jumping in later in the postings or other reasons, I am not qualified to say. It does happen quite often.
Poker hands are like automobiles, to use a rough anology. Generally, you wouldn't want to buy a sports car (a hand that should be played fast), and take it onto the offroad trails or into the mountains where the driving is slow. Also you wouldn't want to take a monster truck (a drawing hand perhaps) and run it on a quarter mile track. It can be done, but it isn't the best way. So it is with poker hands. Not all hands can or should be played at the same speed or the same way all the time.
Personality types play the same hands differently, so do better players. Going back to the car analogy, a young woman with children, an old man with failing vision, and a 16 year old with testosterone for blood will all drive the same car differently. This is as it should be, and they all look natural in their own setting.
Sometimes, 2 + 2 and RGP are great places to understand players thinking before getting to the table. In most situations everyone is in agreement on how hands should be played. When the grey area hands come up, posts of how the hands are played are done by personality of the poster and their view of the game from the original posters description. We have all read about the passive semi tight game where six players see the flop for three bets...not really passive or semi tight, at least not for that hand. Playing level also is a a factor. I don't think anyone would argue that you can play hands at the $.50 - $1.00 level the same way you play hands at the $10 - $20 level, and so forth. Yet Low Limit players offer advice at the mid and high limit forum, and vice-versa. What a mish-mash of good intentioned information!
If I can only play two speeds, ie, very agressive or fold, and I make assumptions on another players abilities or playing style from a few lines of text in a response to a post, I am in trouble. At the table, I can not see the game from any eyes but my own. I can not understand different playing styles and adjust to them, nor can I change my own rigid playing style. I also have fixed game conditions under which I can turn a profit at the table. If I am so patterned that I only play certain hand groupings every session in the same position, I am in trouble. Finally, if I invest as many bets into a questionable hand as I would a hand close to the nuts, I better have a big bankroll to handle the huge swings I will have.
There are a number of winning players who contribute greatly to this forum. There are also folks who are losing every time they sit down who are posting too. I advocate that pro and semi pro players adjust their styles to game conditions before most of us realize the games condition has changed. They also play the same hands differently depending on what persoanlity types are at the table. Perhaps this is elementary, but it seems to be overlooked at times when dissecting hand postings.
Wrapping up, when we post on how we would play a certain hand, that's all it is. How we would play that hand at that particular moment. We take into consideration our skill level, playing style, bankroll, risk aversion, and our perception of what the table conditions are like and go from there. To make the leap into a person playing style from postings on a few hands is a very restrictive assumption that could hurt you when you are playing your own hands.
Comments welcome
Of course the discussion of hands is subjective, what did you expect?
The value is in the discussion. For any given hand, you might find 6 or 7 different opinions or strategies on how someone might have played a particular hand. Some of these strategies might be better than others, but that is something that can be debated among 2+2.
This discussion is beneficial to the original poster and to those who participate or follow it.
I'm surprised there haven't been more responses to this post. Mike, I think you wrote an excellent post and the issues you bring up point to the nature of poker in general.
In poker, no two situations are alike. No two opponents are alike. etc. etc. Every question posted to this forum is usually subject to the "it depends" clause.
You said: Wrapping up, when we post on how we would play a certain hand, that's all it is. How we would play that hand at that particular moment. We take into consideration our skill level, playing style, bankroll, risk aversion, and our perception of what the table conditions are like and go from there. To make the leap into a person playing style from postings on a few hands is a very restrictive assumption that could hurt you when you are playing your own hands.
Excellent. I repeated it here because I couldn't say it better myself. It think it's a concise description of one of the most important elements of poker.
A lot of beginners come to this forum and ask questions like "How do I play AJo under the gun, how do I play KQs on the button for one raise?"
There is no one answer. Only more questions.
natedogg
Mike, you stated the reason why I don't participate in any discussion any longer on this forum, and everything I read I take with a grain of salt. Still, like your comments, to be able to find a post of your caliber, makes me read everything that is posted here. In my opinion is all about ego, every poster thinks is a genius, including me. My congratulations on your post, may be you should write a book about poker. I am sure I will lear a lot from you, if you want to share your playing skills... you must be some kind of player...
i don't think I'm a genius..............becaue i'm a super-genious.
I am having trouble putting people on specific hands and so I thought I would ask here. How do you specifically put people on hands? Do you just focus on one person throughout the game or do you focus on them all? Do you try to put someone on a specific hand like A3 or do you just say A weak kicker? I am especially having problems with putting people on a hand pre flop and on the flop. I think that I have a pattern figured out and then wham they do something crazy and my pattern is shot to hell. Any help would be appreciated.
Hernsy
You have to figure out what the limp with and what they raise with, from where. For example, a tight predicable player often limps UTG with medium pocket pairs, A-J, KQ. That's the start.
Hernsey "putting someone on a hand" is just a matter of instantaneously adding up all the information available to you, and based on that information deciding what are some of that player's more likely holdings. You rarely if ever can "put someone" on a specific hand accurately. It's just an assessment of the most likely possibilities. Some of that information are things such as player betting patterns, reputation, position, and mannerisms in relation to the cards on board. Generally speaking, the more experience you have playing poker the better you will become at "putting someone on a hand" accurately (if, that is, you play the game with an eye toward constant improvement). Usually I think in terms of percentages of likelihood of various potential holdings and then use these percentages in relation to the likely eventual size of the pot and the likelihood of either of us improving our hands to decide my course of action in any given hand. All this requires a lot of spur of the moment calculation and guesstimation, and he or she who guesstimates the best usually wins.
Good Luck!
I have to explain to a potential backer how I am SURE that I am a winning player, and not just someone who's gotten lucky. After playing, and keeping records, for nearly 3000 hours, I feel confidant that I've experienced about as much good luck as bad. Mason's formulae in the StatKing program confirm that the chance I am a winning player "exceeds 99.87%".
The skeptic is a poker player, so he does have some understanding of the balance of skill and luck involved, but places way too much emphesis on the luck. Short of buying him a copy of Gambling Theory and Other Topics, and hoping he makes it through the math, how can I explain that, in this case, future results will reflect past performance?
Here are some details of my past performance.
For all games: +$27,441 2851 hours win rate: $9.62/hour standard deviation: 132.62/hour
For the game I will play with my backer's money: +$16,375 532 hours win rate: $30.81/hour standard deviation: $170.33/hour
Thanks in advance, Big $lick
You could try showing him one of the central limit theorem links I posted.
Do you have your historical results on a spreadsheet? Try generating random results with the same standard deviation. Then show the random results rarely achieve the same level of performance over an extended period.
Kim,
Where are the links you posted?
I can generate random spreadsheets, but I don't understand what parameters you are suggesting I use, or what point I will prove by doing so. Should I be using my win rate? A win rate of zero? Although random spreadsheets I've generated in the past have shown fluctuations, the long term win rate is always in the same ballpark as the earn rate used to generate them. To suggest otherwise seems misleading and counterproductive.
B$
Just type "central limit theorem" into a search engine to find JAVA applets like http://illusion.fel.tno.nl/erwin/cenlim/cenlim.html. They will illustrate how the normal distribution describes your average results.
The standard error of your hourly rate is the hourly standard deviation divided by the square-root of hours played. The difference between your realized hourly rate and your "true" rate follows a normal distribution. You had an hourly standard deviation of around 130 units for 2800 hours, giving a standard error of 2.5 units per hour. Since you made almost 10 units per hour you can be very confident because you are almost 4 standard deviations away from zero. Check the (two-tailed) normal probablility tables:
1 sigma = 32%, 2 sigma = 5%, 3 sigma = .3% 4 sigma = .006%.
If you simulate 2800 random variables in Excel with a standard deviation of 130 then it is quite unlikely you will get an average of 10 unless the random variables have a mean of at least 5.
nt
Perhaps he is suspicious because you NEED backing (and rightfully so) or would rather not back anybody and is having some difficulty saying "No".
Louie,
Of course, you may be right. I have made it clear to him that all he needs to do if he's not interested is say "no". Instead, he simply asks me a question, or expresses a concern. Either he is considering going into business with me, or simply enjoys discussing it.
The real question here has nothing to do with him, or me. The real question is "How and when can one be sure that he is a winning player?"
I have looked at and read about mathematical formulae involving win rate and standard deviation. Although I understand the concepts involved, I cannot perform the calculations without the help of StatKing. Basically, I just subscribe to the conventional wisdom that if I'm ahead after nearly 3000 hours, I must be a winner. What I am looking for is an explaination, for those of us who are not mathematicians, of why this conventional wisdom is correct.
B$
Malmuth's subjective answer is a great one: you must be able to identify specific strengths and weaknesses.
As for statistics: I don't recall the formulas and cannot perform the calculations, even with a slide-rule. Like you I trust the authors, the program, and the conventional wisdom.
The nature of the results is that expectation increases linearly with the number of samples: if I have a 25% of success I can expect 25 successes after 100 tries, and that varience increases by the square root of the number of samples, which is a slower rate than expectation. After only 10 tries my actual results, with N% likeliness can be from 1-5 successes whereas after 100 tries my it is much more than N% likely that my actual results will vary LESS than 10-50; its much more likely to be close to 20-30.
So while your absolute varience IS increasing with your increased sample size (it when from 5-1=4 to 30-20=10) your relative varience is decreasing (from 4/10=40% to 10/100=10%).
Demonstrated another ways [1] it is much more likely that you will lose 4 out of 4 coin flips than you are to lose 10 out of 10. [2] even though gravel will scatter randomly when run over by a car it will eventually find its way to the sides of the road the more cars that drive over it, since cars are much more likely to drive down the center than down the sides. [3] Gravity is FAR-FAR weaker than Electro-Magnatism yet gravity dominates the universe since it is always attracting and Electo-Magnatism is either attricting or repelling, and the more matter you have the more it cancels itself out.
Sooo... [1] If you win 5 out of 10 the game is more likely to be fair than if you win 2 out of 4. [2] If the gravel is still reasonably distributed over a road that has traffic it is MUCH more likely there are a bunch of random drivers out there. [3] If an experiment demonstrated some matter repells itself it is much more likely to have been [a] an experiment with highly charged matter, or [b] an experiment in a different universe.
The varience can be calculated by your actual results, and math can calculate how "confident" you can be that your actual results reflect your actual expectation. Stat King obviously does this, and has done this, and believes you are MUCH more likely to actually be a quality player than you are a weak player who has gotton ALWFULLY lucky for a LONG time.
I enjoyed writing this and hope it helps.
- Louie
Louie,
Thank you for an excellent response, and I'm glad you enjoyed writing it. The concepts you discuss are not new to me, but they are right on the money, and you give a better explaination than I could have.
Did it help? Well, the backer and I weren't able to come to an agreement. I've decided that its time to stop spending like a drunken sailor, and try to maintain a bankroll of my own. However, your response is now on my hard drive, for future reference.
B$
One thing that might help is to describe plays that are errors which you commonly see in the play of others that you don't make. You can also describe plays that you make in certain situations which are absolutely correct that typical players don'e know to make. Finally, you can explain why your hand reading skills are better than typical players and how these skills allow you o make plays that typical players don't which are also absolutely correct (and allow you to earn extra money).
Mason,
He has spent plenty of time watching me play, and feels that he is as good a player as I am. Yet his results have not been as good as mine. I attribute the differance mainly to the fact that I play more aggressively than he does, and choose more passive games. Can I prove that these things make me a winner? I don't think so. Perhaps when I play next, I will record some hands that illustrate the points you suggest.
Please read my reply to Louie above.
B$
"He has spent plenty of time watching me play, and feels that he is as good a player as I am."
I was going to recommend that you have him sweat you for maybe three 5-hour sessions. But since he's seen you more than that, and he's seen your results, I'm not sure there's much you can do.
I can understand watching someone play and not being totally sure if he's a winning player, and I can understand seeing someone's results and not being totally sure he's a winning player, but I can't really understand seeing both.
Terrence,
Try looking at it a different way:
My friend is a big winner in tournament, and big bet play, but a loser in limit ring games. (I play mostly limit ring games) When he sees me make a play that he wouldn't make, he considers that play "bad". Since he isn't a winning player in ring games, if I am making mistakes that he wouldn't make, and he is not a winner, it means that his true earn is higher than mine, and either a)he's been extremely unlucky, or b) I've been extremely lucky.
Of course, someone who appreciates the value of a large sample size would recognize that I must have a higher expectation than he does. But for someone who has not studied much poker theory, its not a surprising point of view to have.
B$
> Of course, someone who appreciates the value of a > large sample size would recognize that I must have a > higher expectation than he does.
I am not convinced that you do have a higher expectation than anybody. Nor do I think a few thousand hours is a "large sample" considering the deviation.
You are right about game selection. Game selection is more important than knowing if a straight beats a flush or not.
Seymore,
Well, I'm glad we at least agree on the importance of game selection.
You wrote "I am not convinced that you do have a higher expectation than anybody. Nor do I think a few thousand hours is a "large sample" considering the deviation."
I hope you're willing to assume that the results I listed in my original post are accurate. If you believe that I would post fabricated records, then confine your thinking to a hypothetical player who's true records are the ones in my original post. You can refer to him as "Big $lick".
If you were to analyze those records using the calculations explained in MM's Gabling Theory and Other Topics (for a glimpse of the reasoning behind these formulas, see Louie Landale's reply above, dated 4/21/01) they would show that I am clearly a winning player. While the deviation may have caused my win rate to be significantly higher, or lower, than my true expectation, after under 3000 hours, I can be 95% sure that my true earn (in all games combined) is at least $5.53/hour.
Even an expectation of zero would be higher than most players, and "a few thousand hours" is a large enough sample to determine my true earn +/- ~$5/hr. So perhaps you'll reconsider your position. If not, I hope you will share your reasoning with us. Maybe you know something that we don't.
B$
"I hope you're willing to assume that the results I listed in my original post are accurate. If you believe that I would post fabricated records, then confine your thinking to a hypothetical player who's true records are the ones in my original post. You can refer to him as "Big $lick"."
I am only pointing out that over only a few thousand hours there is indeed still a lot of deviation.
Some players will fall above one standard deviation .. while others will fall below one standard deviation ..
This is significant.
I also do something like what Mason (and Ray Zee in an earlier post) suggest. You have to remember though that Mason plays in Vegas games with a very low rake (compared to other parts of the country).
Most of the people posting on these boards are playing in unbeatable games (small limits with high rakes) and either don't realize it or don't want to accept it.
Why do you want a backer when you are a consistent winner who can apparently afford to play the game you are trying to get backed for
David,
I can afford to play in my best games only after periods of running well, and spending only a small portion of my winnings. Up until now, I've spent most of my time playing in smaller games, with a short bankroll. If I could play in my best games all the time, I could double my net earn, even after giving a generous percentage to my backer. We will both wind up with more money in our pockets as partners.
B$
If you're making 140$ an hour playing poker I can't imagine what you mean by smaller games.
GD
Well, when I was typing my original post, it looked very clear that $132.62/hour was the standard deviation. Unfortunately, the spacing was changed when I clicked "post message"
B$
"Mason's formulae in the StatKing program confirm that the chance I am a winning player "exceeds 99.87%". "
Can I get more information about where you can get this program?
www.conjelco.com highly recommended
I understand the need for ads and support your use of them but the Flashing Paradise Poker is VERY annoying. Please discontinue the flashes. John McKethen
The flashing was making me nauseous.
I have no problem with ads, but that one was tough.
If there is an animated advertisiment which irritates you, you can make it freeze its animation by clicking the stop icon on your browser tool bar. Be sure to wait for the whole page to load before hitting stop, otherwise part of the page will be missing.
William
I couldnt agree more very tacky. Talk about preying upon the weak . Dont be a sucker and visit that rip joint.Fixxxxxxxxxxxeeeeeeeeeeeeeddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Is that loud enough?
From what I see, the rules that need to be standard ARE ALREADY standard. For example, everywhere I've ever played hold'em, an ace is higher than a king. Flushes beat straights. And if you lobby for more than . . .
Woops! Should that be standardized? What about rooms that serve food at the table and those that don't?
My main question is, why? Why LIMIT local innovation and improvement. Why thwart long-standing, successful, regional customs? Why presume that the rules at the big games at the Bellagio should be the same as a one-table room on a boat?
For example, let's say we standardized the rules for entering a game. Take your pick:
1) New players must post 2) New players need not post
If the nation chose #1, then what about the thousands of tables across the country where the players and management are perfectly happy with their current non-posting rule? If the nation chose #2, then what about all the 20-40 and up games in which posting is already routine and accepted?
Oh, maybe we could make a rule that at 20-40 and up, new players must post, otherwise, not. Or better yet, we could apply the wisdom of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," and let players and management run the games on their own as they have since the dawn of poker.
And what about enforcement? If a poker room chooses to NOT use a newly standardized rule, who will stop them? This smells like when a legislature passes a new law that makes the constituents happy, but they don't appropriate funding for enforcement, thereby rendering the new law ineffective and pointless. But the law sure looks good in print. Uh huh, right. They'd have been better off spending their law-writing time on the golf course.
Another example: String raises. I'm NOT tooting the horn of Lucky Chances. I just happen to think that their managers are uncommonly good, BECAUSE they are willing to go against the grain to improve the game. At LC's, dealers are NOT floormen. They do NOT call string raises. The players do. If contested, then a floorman is called. I think this is a GREAT rule. Would standardized rules mean that this improvement would have to go, and that future improvements would never get off the ground? That's my fear.
Solidarity is not an inherent good.
Tommy
Tommy,
There are rules that probably should be standardized and some that should allow flexibility and local custom. Bob Ciaffone wrote about this in some detail several months ago in Card Player (I wish I had an online index to these articles).
I agree that standardization can stifle innovation, at the same time, there are central rules concerning what constitutes a bet, a cap, and a live hand that should be relatively constant across the nation. This doesn't mean that it can't ever be changed.
You wrote: For example, let's say we standardized the rules for entering a game. Take your pick: 1) New players must post 2) New players need not post”
I think a standard rulebook could state, for example, that you must post, yet that would not stop a card room from listing any exceptions to the standard rules if it helps their business.
You make good points concerning enforcement.
”Another example: String raises. I'm NOT tooting the horn of Lucky Chances. I just happen to think that their managers are uncommonly good, BECAUSE they are willing to go against the grain to improve the game. At LC's, dealers are NOT floormen. They do NOT call string raises. The players do. If contested, then a floorman is called. I think this is a GREAT rule.”
In Los Angeles, the string raise rule is enforced as they do at Lucky Chances. I agree this is the best way.
”Would standardized rules mean that this improvement would have to go, and that future improvements would never get off the ground? That's my fear.”
Not necessarily. I used to be heavily involved in racing sailing. The yacht racing rules are standardized but upgraded every four years (after the Olympics). Yet the people who run a regatta can modify the rules as long as they are posted in advance. They can be changed mid regatta as long as notice of the change is posted. But most modifications don't concern the core rules concerning contact on the racecourse; rather, they concern the changes of the regatta plan (e.g., course length due to weather problems). Meanwhile, problem decisions regarding contact are often appealed to a higher authority and the resulting decision is described and distributed in an appeals book. Revisions of the rules are often based on clarifying gray areas that generate the most appeals.
Getting back to poker. The big Los Angeles clubs put together an ostensibly common rulebook a few years ago. Many improvements were made, especially regarding what constitutes a bet versus “action only” and the rule regarding when the pot is capped. Yet from day one they screwed up the distribution of odd chips in split games. I don't have time for the history but at one point Hollywood Park had three different methods of distributing the odd chip in Omaha H/L games on the same day. That is ridiculous.
In the meantime, I'm not having much luck with “Buy the Button”.
Regards,
Rick
re: Buy the Button. Too bad it's not taking in LA, since everyone gains.
re: rule standardization. What is the point of having standardized rules if they aren't standard? Using the posting example again, if the national standard is that players must post, and a card room manager decides that players do NOT need to post in his room, then what purpose was served by standardization in the first place?
I still don't understand why standardization became such a big deal all of a sudden. Before moving west I played in dozens of rooms across the country and never had a problem. Now that I'm immobile (by choice), I see hundred of players come through Lucky Chances and Artichoke Joe's, and sure, things are different here than from wherever they came, but I can't recall one incident where there was a problem or a floorman called or a complaint that wasn't quickly explained and qualmed.
Tommy
Tommy,
I'm going slowly on showing “buy the button” when I have the chance and hope to make progress over time. But I tend to be a rounder and keep a low profile in the clubs. Very few in the business know me well so I may not be the best Ambassador.
The rules I would like to see standardized are the important ones like deciding what constitutes a bet (i.e., the half bet rule), standardized rules for the showdown, and a host of others. But standardized rules could still evolve over time and we would disagree over what is important. I think a guy like Ciaffone has the best grasp I've seen on what matters and what doesn't.
An example of where rules were not standardized and it mattered occurred a few years ago in Los Angeles where at Hollywood Park they used the rule where a half a bet or more constitutes a full bet while other card barns in the area used a far inferior rule. For example, at the Bike on a $40 limit I bet $40, next player goes all in for $75, and the next player can only call the $75 or “complete the bet” to $80. That sucked and was changed with the “standardized rulebook”.
That being said, as a player I adjust to the rules quickly and really don't want to get involved with a “standardized rulebook” given that about five different parties seem to be touting their own versions already.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
The half-a-bet rule is a good example of a rule that should be standardized, and I'm sure there are plenty others. But, and I think we agree, the reason for standardizing the half-a-bet rule is that it is far superior to the "action only" rule. (I know that's what it's called because they use it at Lucky Chances at 9-18 and lower. They used to use at 20-40 and higher until yours truly babbled for a year and got them to change it.)
I still do not think that standardization just for sake of uniformity is a good idea. In other words, if two equally viable variations of a rule exist, there is no reason I can think of to force the users of one rule to comform to the other. But in cases where an lesser rule can be replaced with a better one, then a change would be good. Still, this strikes me as the usual course of evolutionary change. Variations arise, and the best remain, eventually.
Tommy
In the latest issue of Card Player, McEvoy gives a list of commandments. His 4th one states that you shouldn't "make any 'movement' designed to either induce or inhibit the actions of an opponent."
IMHO, the only movement that should be banned from the table is a bowel movement. Wait! I take that back, sounds like one hell of a tell.
-Dan
Dan,
Tom's list of commandments was for tournament players but I would think many of his ideas are applicable to ring games. Here is an example of what he may mean.
Let's say “Mr. Bad Manners” throws away a hand including a ten before the flop. The flop comes T-T-5. Mr. Bad Manners pounds the table in frustration as he looks at the flop. Now someone playing a ten can be fairly sure that his kicker is good if he holds a weak ten since the other ten is in the muck.
Another example would be when a player indicates that he intends to fold with his body language when last to act in a three-way pot even though he hasn't actually folded yet. If a player in the middle is facing a bet and can only beat a weak hand or a bluff he can much more easily make the call if he can see the player to his left is about to fold. BTW, in the April 13, 2001 issue of Card Player Barry and Brian Mulholland wrote an article that discusses how his play was first inspired by a verbal tell and then ultimately foiled by player who folded out of turn. Good reading.
Top players should aspire to play ethically and give nothing away. They shouldn't do anything to effect the outcome of a pot they have lost interest in as in the examples above. However, in the real world you will win and lose pots because of the bad manners of weak opponents. Learn to take advantage when you can (as the player caught in the middle as described in the third paragraph did) and to live with the downside (as the bettor in that same paragraph had to if he were bluffing).
In the meantime, try to encourage your contemporaries to play ethically.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
If you and I are head-up in a tournament, doesn't McEvoy's statement make it clear that I should refrain from making some sort of 'weak when actually strong' type of "movement", which is definitely "designed to either induce or inhibit" your actions"? McEvoy uses the "designed", which is synonymous with the word "intend" or "on purpose." When some ill-mannered/self-centered player beats the table because he tosses a hand that would have flopped something nice, except for a very small pecentage of the time(two cheaters), the ill-mannered player isn't purposely beating the table to induce or inhibit the action of others. He is doing it because he is not considering(or just doesn't care about)the consequences of his actions.
-Dan
In the second sentence I meant to say, "McEvoy uses the 'word' designed".
"However, in the real world you will win and lose pots because of the bad manners of weak opponents."
This is also true of the bad manners of strong opponents.
When in doubt about calling or raising on a play, is it better to raise, rather that call, in the long run?
If calling and raising have the same EV and you aren't going to "advertise" by making a play only once in the hopes of fooling the opponents: you should routinely raise when [1] Raising a lot intimidates the opponents into making mistakes later [2] you gain more on other raising hands by disguising them with these marginal ones than you LOSE with your other calling hands by failing to disguise them by calling with these also.
[1] applies to routinely opponents. [2]applies to quality opponents, lets talk about that:
Generally it means you should raise if there are a more other hands you would raise with in this situation (from the opponents perspective) than there are calling hands. Lets say you 2-bet assertively before the flop and an opponent 3-bets and you a somewhat better hand than he does on average. Clearly there are lots more hands you will call with than you would want to 4-bet with; so you should flat-call most of the time with hands you'd be tempted to 4-bet.
You should CALL with KQs UTG if there are other weak hands you call with (like 87s) but you should raise with KQs if you play fewer weaker hands. The call increases the value of the weak hands and raising increases the value of the premium hands.
I sure hope an author jumps in here on this one.
- Louie
As simplistic as it sounds the answer is simply yes.
David,
You wrote: "As simplistic as it sounds the answer is simply yes."
That might be a little too simplistic.
"You should CALL with KQs UTG if there are other weak hands you call with (like 87s) but you should raise with KQs if you play fewer weaker hands."
I dont want to rain on your parade.. but would you please stop educating these people with such advanced ideas. Seriously. Next thing you know someones going to print this stuff in a free magazine.
Well, there are a lot of different situations where this comes into play, but 'generally' speaking you should raise when you have position on the bettor and check when you don't. This guideline is VERY rough, and there are a ton of exceptions to it, but if you ever find yourself completely lost in a hand you should revert to this simplistic strategy.
Pensacola,
You asked: "When in doubt about calling or raising on a play, is it better to raise, rather that call, in the long run?"
Are you in doubt because the play's long-term EV (which takes advertising and deception into account) is about the same regardless of whether you call or raise?
If so, then it really doesn't matter much which option you select.
Or are you in doubt because you aren't very confident about your EV estimates for the betting options?
If so (and if you are a serious poker player), then your time might be better spent learning how to improve your EV estimates.
I am a very descent low limit player of HE and since I have improve my level during the last 6 months , I'm a winner , but I think that I call too many raise from the BB . Please , give me some advices about " facing a raise from the BB " . Thank you ...
They say that you must have a raising hand yourself to call. If you don't, and you fold to the raise, in LL, you will be one of the very few. I am one of them, and I am saving a lot of $$$. When I see a BB fold to a raise, I am very careful with that player in LL. But of course, I very seldom see that play. Good skills.
You don't need a raising hand to call a raise out of the the BB. I think youre confusing this statement that ," you need a stronger hand to COLD CALL a raise than you raise yourself."
For example if you had 22 someone raised someone else called and you were last to act and the blinds were about to fold you would fold. However if you were in the BB w/22 you would have an easy call.
I would say in the BB 1) consider your pot odds 2) where the raise came from, 3)how likely it is to be reraised and 4)if you might be dominated.
if you might be dominated
thats what i consider most.
id be more likely to call a raise from certain players with 9To than KTo.
Here's a decent rule of thumb:
Muck offsuit paints against decent early position players. Call with all pocket pairs if you're getting immediate pot odds of 5:1 or more. Call with all suited connectors and one gappers if getting immediate pot odds of 10:1 or more. Call with all suited A's if getting immediate pot odds of 10:1 or more, or 12:1 or more if the raiser is a reasonable player. Reraise with A's, K's, AKs and AQs (against most opponents) and at least call with all group 1-3 hands unless the raiser is decent, in which case you'll want to muck a couple of the group 3 hands (like QJs and ATs) if your immediate pot odds are 8:1 or less.
Hope that helps,
Guy
If I am in the BB and am facing a raise, I like to have at least a middle position hand to call with.
The two main thoughts are (I think):
1. You have one small bet in anyway.
2. The BB bet belongs to the pot and not to you.
I lean towards #2 with a little bit of respect for #1. If the raiser is in early position he is generally representing a big pair, or high suited connectors, if he raises from middle or late position he is about the same. Generally I want a middle position hand in the BB to call a raise with. Suited cards are worth a play too if you get close to pot odds for 1 BB.
I think in a low limit game, BB's scoop a lot of pots only because they played out of the BB. Perhaps statistically it is a losing proposition viewed by individual player instead of group impression? jmho
What difference does it make whether or not I have a poker bankroll? I don't see how it makes any difference because for as far as I can see into the future I will be able to afford to buy into a game. If something happens where I suddenly cant afford to buy in the money will be needed for something more important than poker anyway.
I play mostly 4/8 with a half kill. I keep dilligent records of wins/losses. I have a fairly large amount of disposable income because I'm young with a good job and low expenses. I have much more than the 300 BB in various liquid assets, but I don't have it set aside as poker money. Do I need a bankroll to keep myself in games (much) later in life, or what?
nate
In your case, being in good financial shape and playing in low limit games, you probably don't need a bankroll. But if you start playing in bigger games like $15-$30 or $20-$40 where you can win or lose several thousand dollars in a single session, I think having a separate bankroll is important. At this level what happens to many players is that they run good and win a lot of money. They spend their winnings so their bankroll never grows. Then, all of the sudden, they start running bad perhaps losing $5,000 in a week or $10,000 over a few months. Now they have no money left to play with and it will take them a very long time to save up enough money to play in these middle limit games again. Many of them do not have the patience to drop to a lower game and try to "grind out" enough money to play in their normal sized games. I believe that the lack of an adequate playing bankroll is one of the reasons why many otherwise good players stop playing middle and high limit poker.
It's all relative, Jim. Nate doesn't need it for low limits, and Paul Phillips doesn't need it for any limit.
well, i do plan on taking a stab at $10-20 sometime in the next year or two. if i got pounded there i would have no problem moving back down.
i'll have to see how things work out. maybe ill start building a bankroll. i could probably just throw my poker winnings plus my original starting out money into a separate account and build it into a $10-20 bankroll and move up when i've won enough to be able to afford it.
The concept of a bankroll pertains to those who do nothing but play poker, either for a living or for an extended period of time. Since you have a good income and monetary assets, it really doesn't apply to you.
I agree that "bankroll" often implies "full time player." But that's not an absolute meaning, obviously, since very few play full time, and many players with jobs, winners and losers, appropriate poker funds and rightly call it a bankroll.
Then there's the time element. For some players, their "bankroll" is what they have in their pocket. I don't think this is an innacurate use of the term. I just think it's important to know that "bankroll" means different things to different people.
Why have one? Well, consider the option. :-)
Tommy
Why have one? Well, consider the option. :-)
The option Tommy is referring to is a Wife With a Job. You will find that a bankroll is more difficult to acquire, easier to get rid of, and, in the long run, more emotionally satisfying.
A good introductory text dealing with gambler's wives is Byrne's McGoorty.
.
What a wonderful book that is.
Angelina Fekali
Studying People Inc.
Ljubljana, Slovenia
Good greif! They've heard of Danny McGoorty in Slovenia?
Three cushion was almost extinct in the U.S. when that book came out, but all the remaining players loved it and would pass it around to their friends.
My brother owns a small pool & billiards establishment in Ljubljana and has a huge collection of pool & billiards books. I shoot pool too and I loved the colorful stories of Danny McGoorty, the ladies man. But my favourite shooter of all time is Ralph Greenleaf.
Angelina Fekali
Studying People Inc.
Ljubljana, Slovenia
Any directions where we can find it in the city, please, this fine establishment, next time we visit?
Desetka, Akademija za biljard, Miklosiceva 28, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Angelina Fekali
Studying People Inc.
http://www.fekali.com/angelina
Slovenia
in the 1960's willie musconi worked for brunswick billiards and he did an exhibition whenever a new pool room opened. he would shoot a game of straight pool to 50 or 100 with a hometown kid along with trick shots and other stuff. i got to play him once and he broke and i ran about 20 and he said to me in a serious voice," kid im giving the exhibition here" then i missed and he ran 50 an out and walked away from me. i never liked him after that.
Ray,
I watched one of his exibitions in San Diego in '68 or '69 at a beautiful new pool room that had just opened. He played a kid from New York, I think. He kept calling the kid a punk, and snarling other insults the whole time. I never liked him after that.
Tom D
When DiLiberto was champion in the mid 70's I saw him get peppered by a 20 year old local kid in an exhibition. He took it like a gentleman, but listening to his rap during the ensuing trick shot exhibition, it became apparent that he thought his loss was going to get him a lot of action. Nobody fell for it.
I think that having a bankroll that is dedicated to poker only, and that was built from playing poker allows you cope with losing streaks easier because you aren't losing the paycheck you just got last week. This is especially important if you are in a relationship with shared finances.
On the shared finance note, I find it difficult to explain why the money I make playing poker shouldn't be spent on a new dining room set, or put on the mortgage. Does anyone else have issues with this? How do you deal with it?
If your girl-friend/wife is harmfull to your poker game , you have to quit your girl-friend/wife .
Heh, Jean-Philippe, spoken like a true player. :^|
Sam, this isn't much, but if you're building your bankroll you can refer to it as like a dividend reinvestment plan or something similar: "You gotta have money to make money... the more I have the more it will make for me because I'll be able to play higher... an investment for the future..."
Hopefully you have an understanding spouse, because s/he has to understand both the expense of time and the concept of gambler's ruin. It also may help not to talk much about the limits you're playing or the money you're winning or losing. When your typical buy-in approaches your rent, losses take on a whole new meaning for significant others.
Nate, it makes no difference whether you have a bankroll. The money you're playing isn't big enough to be high on your radar unless you lose wildly, and you are not accountable to anyone else for your finances. For a pro, bankroll is liquid net worth, so the concept is also fluid. Out of money means out of a job.
For the many "semipros" out there who are accountable to others financially and play in the higher stakes but aren't royally rich, a bankroll is critical. There is no way on earth I could draw my usual $20-40 or $40-80 or no-limit buy-in out of a joint checking account. The swings would give any non-poker-playing spouse seizures. There would be Gambler's Anonymous stickers everywhere. My life would become a twelve step program: "My name is Matt and I am a pokerholic. It has been three days since my last pure bluff raise on the turn.....but it WORKED, damn it!"
Playing out of a bankroll solves this problem utterly. The bankroll gets bigger, the bankroll gets smaller. Whatever. It's funny money. Whatever's in it is a bonus.
Having a bankroll also defines your risk threshold. I play well beyond mine at times, but the worst that can happen to me is I quit poker because I can't stand California 6-12 games anymore and can't finance 20-40.
The question of when and how much to pull out of the bankroll into the household economy is a different matter. My strategy: pull a small percentage (like 10%) every given threshold (like 5K) right from the start. Do that til you've got 500 big bets for your game. After that, spend half your winnings, again by threshold. Put a healthy chunk of it into household goods/vacations/loan repayment, and make your spouse spend some of it frivolously. ("Here's $300. You have to blow it.") Everybody's interests stay aligned: life remains sticker-free. And if you pay off your mortgage with it, you just plain rule.
Matt wrote
"And if you pay off your mortgage with it, you just plain rule."
I was thinking of doing this myself, probably next summer, until yesterday. That's when I was informed that I'm not allowed to put "dirty money" towards the house, although I can probably get a big-ass TV/home theatre system if I want to. Being an "addicted gambler" in my household seriously erodes my popularity.
PiquetteAces, if you're reading this--how's charlie? I haven't heard from him in a while....
TJ.
Charlie is playing in our local games here in Montreal , he went twice at Awkasasnne in the last 6 weeks , without to found good game . We will go to CasinoRama in May .
I started my bankroll by saving up my pocket money. Now that it has grown to a nice size my wife understands that my bankroll is for poker. She also understands that I will never dip into the family finances for poker. I will have to admit I did pay off our living room set with it. But that was a good will gesture to justify all the time spent away from the family. So feel lucky if you have a wife that understands and lets you play poker without making your life miserable.
months winnings because we didn't sell (or re-finance) your/our car to cover last months losses.
I am fortunate enough to have a spouse who understands the "nature of the beast", so this is not a problem for me.
- I am not giving marital counseling; if you have to speak to your girlfriend/spouse in this manner you may have a problem with your relationship.
However, some "version" of this reply does seem to be called for.
J D
Sam, What you are asking is VERY important to maintaining a healthy relationship at hope. Your spouse must spend a lot of time alone that would be normally spent with you and she should be "thanked" for the sacrifices that s(he) makes allowing you to play. I personally have established a $10,000 bankroll for myself and achieved that amout a little at a time. During the growing period, I would take the wife out to an expensive dinner after every big win. Now that the bankroll has been achieved, much of the excess goes to her or to us. It has paid for vacations, a tile floor, a new tv, she got a new wardrobe etc. Right now I an losing and the bankroll is only 6500 but she understands and is patient about the hours away that poker requires and other sacrifices required.
I think as long as you keep a loss/win record, you don't realy need a "backroll". In the same way you don't need a Christmas account or other separate savings (ie. new car fund) to manage you money. I guess some people may need to know if they can aford to play cards this week and this is one way to do it, but not everyone needs to do this.
Are the authors of all these books we put our faith (and money) in going to be playing in the WSOP? Sklansky, Malmuth, Zee, Loomis, Caro, etc. They talk a big game in those books, I want to see them in action on ESPN.
Sam
The last three nights I've been playing in the regular games at The Mirage and The Bellagio. I've logged hours at $20-$40 stud and $30-$60 stud, and $30-$60 hold 'em and $40-$80 hold 'em.
Sammy, the author that wrote mostly about no-limit hold-em and getting to the final table at the WSOP is T.J. Cloutier. After reading his book, go and watch this man in action!!
Thanks for the update, Mason.
How they runnin'?
Some author/writers (and some players)have made a decision not to play this year unless Binion's barrings of Paul Phillips and Richard Tatalovich (sp?) are rescinded.
Some of those that have chosen either not to play and/or not to patronize Binion's have made statements to that effect on RGP are:
Nolan Dalla, Lee Jones, Lou Krieger, Mike Caro, Steve Badger
These authors/writers do not necessarily write primarily about tournament strategy.
nt
They are refusing to patronize Binions because of the incident with Paul Phillips who was barred for answering some questions for a reporter on the tournament. The 3% rake for dealers tips has been highly criticized by some since the entry fees for the tournaments are high and there is a large pool of money which may not all go to the dealers anyway.
Suppose two players A and B play heads up no limit poker.
Suppose both players are omnipotent game theorists playing optimal strategy.
Suppose it is a zero sum game (no rake etc.).
Suppose, at the start, A's stack is bigger than B's stack?
Suppose they play an even number of hands (or somehow even out the effect of positon) or they play until one is busted.
QUESTION: Who has the best of it, i.e. who has +EV? Is it the big stack or the small stack or does it not matter?
Does anyone have a rigorous mathematical proof, or at least a persuasive argument?
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
I always believed that the big stack advantage is overrated by most average players, but nonetheless it is plenty tangible. No mathematical proof here though.
Dirk,
In the short run anything can happen, but over many trials the big stack has the advantage.
Let's say that we have two exact computer opponents play against each other. Player A has 2000 chips and player be has 500 chips. Player A will have a 4-to-1 advantage in the long run. If there were 1,000,000 trials, player A would win 800,000 while player B will win 200,000.
Now I invite anyone to disprove my conclusions.
All Comments Welcome
"Let's say that we have two exact computer opponents play against each other. Player A has 2000 chips and player be has 500 chips. Player A will have a 4-to-1 advantage in the long run. If there were 1,000,000 trials, player A would win 800,000 while player B will win 200,000."
I believe this is correct. But, both players will have the same EV (namely 0). Player B: 200,000 wins * 2000 chips = Player A: 800,000 wins * 500 chips.
So, there is no real advantage, except in terms of winning percentage.
It's clear that the bigger stack has the advantage.
In the situation you described, both players are identical, they both follow perfect strategy, so their EV is zero.
Consider a very similar situation where you have $100 and I have $50. We each wager $5 on coin flips. Heads, you win, tails, I win. Assuming a fair coin, it is clear that you have the advantage - on the average, you'll win. In effect, what is happening is that you're waiting for me to have a longer run of bad luck than you, which you can do, because you have a bigger stack.
It doesn't take a genius to say EV=0 so the big stack has an advantage. The question is with an X lead in big bets, what are your chances of winning.
>>It doesn't take a genius to say EV=0 so the big stack has an advantage. The question is with an X lead in big bets, what are your chances of winning. <<
For the situation described if player A has a lead of X big bets over B then:
Let Y represent the number of big bets player B has.
A's probability of winning is:
( Y + X ) / ( ( 2 * Y ) + X )
B's probability of winning is
Y / ( ( 2 * Y ) + X )
The quantity ( 2 * Y ) + X represents the total number of chips in play. Did I get it right?
I'm starting a new thread, above, with message below. Please reply in new thread, not here.
----------------------------------------------------
Suppose player A has C in chips, and player B has D in chips and they play until one is busted and the winner has C+D in chips.
According to conventional wisdom:
Player A has probability C/(C+D) of winning, so expected final chip count is (C/(C+D))(C+D)+(D/(C+D))0=C (same as at beginning) and so net +EV=0.
Player B has probability D/(C+D) of winning, so expected final chip count is (D/(C+D))(C+D)+(C/(C+D))0=D (same as at beginning) and so net +EV=0.
If C>D then obvously A has more chance of winning, but at the risk of putting up more chips. The real quantity of interest is NET expected value.
So my question is: is this exactly right, or are these figures only approximate, ignoring certain effects? For example on any given hand, the big stack `misses bets' while the small stack gets `free cards' when the small stack is all in. The two players consider the stack sizes as part of their strategy, and it is not at all obvious that this would be a zero EV game.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
I'm starting a new thread here, but this is a continuation of the previous thread entitled `Big stack bully power! Is it all bull?'
Suppose player A has C in chips, and player B has D in chips and they play until one is busted and the winner has C+D in chips.
According to conventional wisdom:
Player A has probability C/(C+D) of winning and net +EV=0.
Player B has probability D/(C+D) of winning and net +EV=0.
So my question is: is this exactly right, or are these figures only approximate, ignoring certain effects? The point is that on any given hand, the big stack `misses bets' while the small stack gets `free cards' when the small stack is all in.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Let me expand previous message:
-----------------------------------
I'm starting a new thread here, but this is a continuation of the previous thread entitled `Big stack bully power! Is it all bull?'
Suppose player A has C in chips, and player B has D in chips and they play until one is busted and the winner has C+D in chips.
According to conventional wisdom:
Player A has probability C/(C+D) of winning, so expected final chip count is (C/(C+D))(C+D)+(D/(C+D))0=C (same as at beginning) and so net +EV=0.
Player B has probability D/(C+D) of winning, so expected final chip count is (D/(C+D))(C+D)+(C/(C+D))0=D (same as at beginning) and so net +EV=0.
So my question is: is this exactly right, or are these figures only approximate, ignoring certain effects? For example on any given hand, the big stack `misses bets' while the small stack gets `free cards' when the small stack is all in. The two players consider the stack sizes as part of their strategy, and it is not at all obvious that this would be a zero EV game.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
I have just realised an argument that shows neither player has an advantage (in terms of NET chip EV).
(Of course, in any particular hand, one player may have a positional advantage, but let's just assume that averages out as position rotates, so we'll ignore that effect.)
The argument is simply this: If player A has C in chips, and If player B has D in chips, and C>D, then EFEECTIVELY each player has exactly D in chips (since player A's excess chips cannot possibly come into play). Therefore, the situation is symmetrical, and this is a zero EV game. QED.
However, what about three or more players?...
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
If this is some sort of ring game where $1 is worth $1 then the player's chips stacks don't affect EV heads up. In multi-player games then the player with the LESSER stack has the advantage since there will be times he goes all-in against two of them and subsequently one bets the other out of the pot, thus promoting the all-in player's equity in the pot without any risk (he can't be forced to fold).
The "big stack bully power" comes into play when in a Tournament since $1 is NOT worth $1. When a player bets $100 of a $1000 stack in a tournament he's risking a lot less of his prize money EV than the player who is forced to call his entire stack of $100. That is, your first $100 (the call) is worth more than your 2nd $100 (the pot).
- Louie
Good points. On the other hand, you may run out of chips whenyou would have bet for value, so you would wish you weren't all in.
??????????????
I was called a tight unimaginative player by a respected player. (He sat behind me for about a 50 hours.) Is that a comment or an insult? He told me that my pre flop play in early position was ABC and he could read me like a book. I play 20/40 for an average of 30 hours a week. My last 1000 hours of play were $29.50 per hour. I’m trying to get to that magical number of 1BB per hour.
Here’s a description of my pre flop play in early position in a normal 20/40 game in LA:
Raise or reraise with AA-JJ Raise or reraise with AKs-AK Limp with TT, 99, KQ’s Limp Reraise with two black Aces: AK of Diamonds: Two red Kings: Two Black Queens. I usually never call a raise with AQ, but will raise with it. I never call raises. I either reraise of fold.
All of these hands are UTG only:
I raise with 87 of clubs A5 of diamonds
JT of spades
6 Hearts and 6 of Spades
I want to mix my play up, but I don't want to go toOO far to the left.
If you can narrow down you 20/40 game that specifically, it is unlikely you are going to react to different conditions. And thus, I would agree you play tight and unimaginative. I would take it as an insult, if a player I respected said this. But if a player I respected said this to me, I would no longer respect him :).
Since most good players do not think much of the quality of the game their opponents play, this is probably a compliment. All he is really saying it that you are a good player who could win more if you played looser.
In one of his CardPlayer columns, Roy Cooke (who did not know me at the time) characterized me as a "solid, but unimaginative" player in the $30-$60 game. This was a hand where I had pocket aces and he had pocket queens and he won a big pot from me when he snagged a queen at the river. When one of the best middle limit players in the country says you are "solid" I take this as high praise. Some of those most "imaginative" players" in limit hold'em tend bar, deal, or drive cabs for a living within 5 years of trying to make as a pro.
Furthermore, if you are averaging almost $30 per hour playing $20-$40 after a thousand hours you are an excellent player. According to David Sklansky, there are only about 200-500 ring game players who play in public card rooms that can average anything more than this.
Dreamer - You asked, "Is that a comment or an insult?"
Both, I think.
Nothing wrong with "tight," but "unimaginative" is certainly a derogatory term, and therefore is insulting.
However, perhaps the person who critiqued your play did not intentionally insult you. Perhaps he is simply lacking in social graces.
You probably wanted constructive criticism. To be characterized with a derogatory term seems destructive, certainly a poor teaching or advising technique, IMHO.
I'd get another teacher/advisor/observer if I were you.
Just my opinion.
Buzz
That's simply a quote from near the end of Sklansky's Theory of Poker.
If you play at good tables where nobody knows you, the "unimaginative" part wouldn't matter. You're in the right place, LA. Play short sessions per table.
You are definately playing to predictable. You should read the chapters on Non-self weighting strategies in Gambling Theory and Other Topics(pgs 10-19 and 24-26). If you don't understand that hands change value according to the situation, you need to go back and try to learn and understand the concepts of non-self weighting stategies. You should never base your decision of checking, calling, raising, or folding primarily on your cards. I always look at my cards then think about how they play best according to the situation I am in.
Your description of early play is tight and is also unimaginative since it appears you stick to it quite well. Well, "tight" would really be AA, KK, AK, and QQ but I digress...
Your pre-flop play in early position is SUPPOSED to be tight and unimagninative. Loose and "imaginative" play out of position against good players is suicide. So what if they know you've got the goods but don't know exactly which goods? What can they do about it other than give you the pot?
I notice you mix it up a little such as with the JTspades. I suggest you get 4 or so DIFFERENT mix-it-up combinations (certainly with different suits and perhaps with different ranks) and play a different one each day (or each round).
You can add some significant "imagination" to your late position play by adjusting your standards based on the standards of the raiser. You can CERTAINLY 3-bet with AQ in late position against a loose raiser.
- Louie
exactly what i would have said if i were a better player than i am.
brad
... or if you were 5 hours ahead of your time.
For many games, most of your play is correct. Against people who are unaware and play too loose before the flop there is no reason to vary, especially in early position.
The one play that you might consider adjusting is your automatic fold with AQo before the flop against a raiser. If this is a "loose" raiser you might be better off reraising. But never call.
I don't think you need to make what amounts to poor plays to mix things up. Raising with JTs (which will drive customers out), and playing 87s or A5s up front - I don't think you have to do this.
You can also mix up your strategy, for your regular opponents to see, based on current game conditions. A couple of examples (I have been playing mainly in very loose 4-8 games, so my examples might not fit your game exactly, but you'll get the idea) :
AA and KK in early position: if the game is typically loose, I raise. But if the game has tightened up so that I think there is a significant chance that a raise will fold everyone out, I limp with the intention of reraising. Same with AKs.
If the game is loose enough that there are always 4-5 callers, I play all pocket pairs up front. This one is especially good for your regular opponents to see once in a while, because then they can't rule out any particular card that you "can't have."
If the game has really gone squeaky tight, I will raise early with a sub-standard high card hand like KQo or AJo if I think I might take the blinds.
It would take very observant regular opponents for them to notice that you are varying your preflop strategy based on current game conditions. They'll just think you always mix things up.
Dick
All right, so your critic said that you were
"... a tight unimaginative player ..." and that your "...pre flop play in early position was ABC and he could read me like a book."
What were his suggestions on how you should change your described early position play?
Could it be said that if he had seen you make a few plays where you were 'mixing it up' as you describe, his opinion might have been different?
Perhaps Teddy had the same hand that busted Mike when the movie started. Pocket rockets would give Teddy the 2nd nut.
It was established by DVD frame by frame that Teddy had pocket 10's.
I agree that his bet of "eet awl" on the end was too much. I think most likely an attempt to assert dominance after losing the psychological initiative.
I have this DVD and tried to verify this rumor but could not. I don't think you can tell what his hole cards were.
Derrick
I watched the video and I think I was able to identify at least one 10 in Teddy's hand (it sure looked like a 10), so I think its accurate.
I would think Teddy had a real hand like chris suggests. His name in the movie is Mike McDermott
Derrick
I don't play much pot limit or table limit but let's assume that KBG Teddy has pocket rockets. This would make his comment that the ace could not have helped Mike be true. So, KGB has monster trips and he strongly believes that Mike has a busted straight draw. Why go all in? If KGB is correct , Mike will fold his hand.
He wants his dominant edge back after going on tilt. He doesn't think Mike will call any bet anyway.
Derrick
I always thought Teddy said "The Ace could not have helped you" because Teddy flopped a set. The only way the A could have helped Mike McDumbschitt was if he had AA.
The writers basically hammered you over the head with that scene by showing the Chan-Siedel hand. ("Chan has him!! Siedel didn't know what hit him!!")
I watched it again on the tube also. I was yelling "Pair the board!!!!" during that scene.
That's what always happens when I flop a straight.
n/t
You arrive at the card room and watch a single hand of a full 10-handed hold'em game. 7 people saw the flop in a limp-in pot.
What are the chances this game is loose and passive?
Not bad.
Keep watching and find out?
The chances that 5 players had hands good enough to call but not good enough to raise in a tight game is about 0%. ..err.. I should say the game IS good right now although games can quickly change character.
Taking the seat or getting on the list NOW has significantly higher value than continuing to browse the floor.
- Louie
100% chance its a loose game.
Gotta see the action after the flop to determine if its passive. Lots of checking and calling--passive.
Get on the list ASAP.
KJS
i think perhaps the all in bet was from strength, although not the nuts (obviously). pocket tens is a very realistic hand for teddy to be betting in this situation. top set on the flop, and knowing how mike has already called, he probably figures mike is flop committed at this point, and is betting for value. maybe he thinks mike is playing A-X and is looking for a backdoor flush, a straight draw (inside), or an ace to hit his ace. it is very possible teddy put mike on a hand with an ace. maybe he is now hoping that mike's paired ace on the river will get him to call the allin bet. or establish psychological dominance by actively making him fold, instead of checking and mike possibly checking too.
i actually meant pot-committed not 'flop-committed'
i am looking to buy "Caro book of tells" by Mike caro from anywhere to 60-80$ in decent shape
Kevin,
Aren't they selling a new version for a lot less?
Rick
If you can get a copy of the old one that is.
The photos in the new one are laughable. Caro said that the originals were destroyed so they decided to do the "photo-art" thing they did for the new version.
I don't believe it though. I think they wanted to keep printing costs down by using regular paper for all pages (including photos) and not good quality glossy paper like the original. New copies of the photos could be made from any copy of the original.
You can probably find a copy of the old version at www.abebooks.com or bibliophile.com or through amazon's used book search (actually I think one of the former sites has merged with amazon).
Having said all that I'll sell my copy of the new book.
Regards,
Paul
kevin, try
www.conjelco.com
or perhaps
www.amazon.com
www.bn.com
or
www.planetpoker.com
I believe the new 2001 edition is $29.95 for paperback, $50-60 for limited edition hardcover. I don't actually have the book, though, so I couldn't tell you anything about the print quality.
Regards, sucker
,
I recently bought it from THIS website.
Until you find an "old" copy to buy(don't even consider buying the updated version), check your local libraries. Two of my local libraries have a copy. Also, check used book stores, they will usually have a games section(if not there, ask where the poker books are), there you'll probably find it for half price(other books too).
KGB was dealt AT and and he tough that Mike ( MAtt Damon ) had 9T ...That my tought ...
I don't see how Mike is pot committed. There is about $10,000 in the pot if I remember correctly and Mike is playing for his life. Mike still has a pretty big stack left.
Out of all the possible scenarios I have heard, it still sounds like KGB overbet his hand.
to let the blinds play for free, and I don't care if we have a drawing hand. We must raise even if we chase people out. Good drawing hands may become top pair and win for us. If the blinds call the raise and win with 92o, then it is justified, they paid to see the flop. Am I correct on this?
Yes however, the raiser should also have cards...the blinds can potentially play for 'free' if no one else has the cards to raise with hence pushing them out. This typically happens when there are 2 limpers (or more) early increasing the pot odds on a mediocre hand or making an AQo or JJ type hand in late position call instead of raise with 2 or more limpers in front that at least one or more will call with overcards. It is more common for this to be an issue as the blinds increase in a tournament and stealing the blinds at least once a round is necessary for survival i.e. at 1k/2k level (unless you are MONSTER stacked and can wait for premium hands without doing to much damage to yourself by bleeding to the blinds a bit.)
What about position?
Inasmuch as your raise might chase out people you want in, your insistence on open raising in all circumstances will open you up to being reraised by much better hands. Of course, you could be playing very tight and only opening for a raise with AA, KK, QQ and AKs in early position. That is not what I inferred your post. It seemed as though you were saying "if I'm in, I'm raising, because I don't want the blinds to play for free". You need to vary from this often if you want to get the most value from your hands and not be stuck in too many pots with a dominated hand.
The question of limping vs. open raising has been going over here at length before. Check the archives for some good discussion.
KJS
No. First, some of the hands that you would play when not in the blinds are hands that require high implied odds for them to be profitable. Your raising with them will reduce this. Second, even though they might get a free play, you probably want this given if they make certain type of mistakes with certain types of hands.
A simple example of these two ideas would be when you have a small pair and a couple of players have limped in and you are in a middle position. By calling you encourage others to play thus assuring the implied odds that you need for the hand to be profitable. Furthermore, by just calling, you may be giving the players in the blinds a chance to pay you off in case you flop your set and they make something where they may be drawing close to dead.
If the big blind plays for free when there is no raise wouldn't you want to be in the big blind all the time? The truth of the matter is that the big blind does pay and is involved in the hand when they post. Hopefully this point isn't redundant but many players lose money in the blinds after the flop because they don't play the situations where their hands are marginal very well.
Tom,
You wrote: “If the big blind plays for free when there is no raise wouldn't you want to be in the big blind all the time?”
I assume you meant this as a joke. Otherwise you can play all my blinds (with your money) and I'll play the rest of the hands ;-).
The truth of the matter is that the big blind does pay and is involved in the hand when they post. Hopefully this point isn't redundant but many players lose money in the blinds after the flop because they don't play the situations where their hands are marginal very well.”
I doubt there is any player who can play so well that he doesn't average losing a percentage of his blind every time he posts it. But the loss for an expert player comes from the fact that he plays a random hand out of position before the flop. Post flop an expert player should recoup some of the money posted so his average loss in the big blind might be about 40% to 70% of the amount posted. The key is to keep the loss to a minimum. Of course the bad player can easily lose an average amount greater than the amount of the posted blind.
Regards,
Rick
PS Now that I proofed the above I think I just reworded what you already made clear ;-).
You still need a minimum of holdings to raise with.
I think there is a little flaw in your logic. What applies to your hand also applies to the blinds. Unfortunately the blinds [BB at least] are all ready forced into the hand, so they have you at an advantage.
You are thinking right. You should definitely always raise the blinds before the flop no matter what type of hand you have. It is better to pay three or four bets before the flop with your 98suited than it would to let some cheeseburger get in cheap in the blind. That cheeseburger is likely to call all bets and might even outdraw you. You can't have that.
The others will post one thing and then raise your blind every time. They live for free blinds.
Ms. Information.
n.t.
Don't hurt yourself just to punish the blinds. Raising the blinds with a calling hand (small pair, suited connector,) in a multiway pot is like cutting your arm off to beat your dog with because she bit your hand.
n/t
Having people go all in would affect play more than cards being reshuffled. The cards are random, its too bad your card came when the dealer forgot to burn.
JV,
You misread my post, which is indeed lame.
It's not that the dealer forgot to burn, he burned and turned before action was complete.
If the dealer had forgot to burn, he would simply have burned card and turned the correct one and things would have progressed.
The rule is fine the way it is. Unless you are cheating you don't know what card is coming on the turn and river until they come. What difference does it make If the dealer screws up? You are still going to get a random card from the remaining cards in the deck either way. Sure you might be pissed because the card that was coming would have helped you, but that is just an irrational response--it could as easily go the other way.
The only disadvantage to the current rule that could be reasonablly argued is that it might make a live one so angry if he loses a pot, that he will pick up his chips and go home. Of course, it could also put a live one on tilt. So I'm just not going to sweat it.
I have no issue with the fairness of the current rule, as I stated in my post. Just forwarding an idea.
I think the main purpose of the alternate solution was for a dealer's mistake to have less effect on which way the money is pushed.
When First We Practice to Deceive ...
What is the rest of that quote, anyway? Somebody help me out here.
Anyway, a funny thing happened to me the other day, and it inspired this post.
Sometimes, when I play a hand deceptively (and we all agree that this is a good thing, right?), I fool someone so completely that he/she later winds up fooling me. Here's a hand.
7CS Hi/Lo/8, extremely loose 6-12 game. I am in seat 4 (out of 8). Out comes:
xx¨9 xx©6 xx§ T ¨A ©A§ 6 (me) xxª3 xxª2 xxªK xx©5
The 2 brings it in for $2, and the K, 5, 9, and T all limp in front of me. Well ... I'm supposed to raise with aces to narrow the field, but that won't work here. I make the deceptive play of just limping with my pocket aces, hoping to get in a raise or check-raise on 4th street and get people out then. The 3 behind me folds. We go to 4th street six-handed.
4th street cards come out:
xx¨9¨8 xx§ Tª7 ¨A ©A§ 6©J (me) xxª2©4 xxªKªJ xx©5©7
The KQ checks, 57 checks, 98 bets, and the T7 folds. This is the object of my desire. I raise, and this clears out all but the 57, who calls the two bets. Then the 98 re-raises. He had this wide smile on his face, and he said, "I'm sure I've got you covered, real sure." I do not believe he's faking this ... I tentatively put him on trips, or maybe a really nice straight flush draw. I call for one more small bet; the 57 calls.
5th street:
xx¨9¨8§ 3 ¨A ©A§ 6©J§ T (me) xx©5©7§ J
I checked, the 57J checked, and the 983 bet. At this point I dumped my unimproved aces.
I don't remember exactly how the rest of the hand played out, but the reraiser did show his hand at the end. He had pocket kings! I'm sure that he had NO IDEA that I might be hiding pocket aces when I raised on 4th. When I fooled him, it made him fool me. I certainly would have played a LOT differently if I had any clue that that was what he had.
The general point I'm making here is - if you fool someone, be very careful about drawing any conclusions about his actions.
Dick
What is the rest of that quote, anyway? Somebody help me out here.
It's the end of a quote:
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive."
"... a web of crap we will recieve". Or Sir Scott is right.
Consider this alternate general point: Don't bother fooling them in the first place unless you are confident you can predict their response.
- Louie
never slowplay...it misfires more often than the deception is worth. the only exception might be when you flop the absolute nuts or something along those lines.
I lost a hand yesterday because I didn't raise with pocket Aces in Hold 'Em. It was at a microlimit Paradise table that had suddenly gotten tight. A few players left the table and the few that remained were rocks. Well, I get dealt pocket rockets and decide to limp figuring that this hand will do well against the small number of opponents I'll probably have. If I raise I may end up causing everybody to fold and I wanted a little action. The result was that I ended up seeing the flop with two or three opponents. The flop is all rags and to make an already long story short, I end up losing to a straight. I have no doubt that the guy with the straight would have folded had I raised. I still think this was one of those times where limping was ok just because my raises were getting too much respect and I knew that the few players left were going to split soon anyway.
It was not my intention to slowplay. I don't even want to value-raise with Aces against, what was it, five opponents? I very much want to narrow the field here, and the way I played it worked. I just fooled the 1 seat in the process of carrying out my plan.
Dick
I followed you, but I just felt like being a whiney bitch about my own stupid play.
First it is silly to say the existing rule "cost you money." In the long run this simply isn't true.
Your new rule will create some other problems,also some people who would want to be all in could wait puroposely and then the dealer would burn and turn and then say oops i still have cards...
Maybe you should pay attention to the dealer and nicely tell him to try and not burn early.
Yes, I said that new proposal is not perfect and angle shooters are indeed one of the reasons why.
In the short term, the current rule has not yet sent me a pot I would not otherwise have won. I'll just hope for dealer's errors to go my way in the future and even things out. Here's to more dealer mistakes and I hope they go my way!
Most of my perspective on this is from witnessing the problem, not from being harmed or helped by it.
In this case, there was nothing I could have done to prevent the dealer from making this mistake. I raised, and the dealer burned and turned as my opponent reraised, thinking he was just calling.
There have been many times where myself or other players have been able to tell dealers to 'stop!' but this just wasn't one of them.
This is simply human error and will never be eliminated. The dealer knew full well he made a mistake and he of course apologized.
I think the proposal will lessen the effect of dealer errors in the short term and is a more equitable solution than the current one.
In Super/System David Sklansky says that the biggest suckers are to be found in Seven Card Stud-Hi-Lo. By this he meant that it was the game in which people made the most consistant errors (such as continuing to play a low when you catch paint on fourth street).
I've been playing some 7CS8 lately and this seems to be quite true, but of course people make idiot plays all the time in all poker games.
In what games do you think people make:
1) the most mistakes? 2) the more serious mistakes?
I think that people probably make more mistakes in hold 'em than other poker games but that the mistakes there are often not as serious as other games, particularly in hi-lo games where the mistake means that you have a long draw at half the pot. A mistake early in hold 'em or stud might be luckily rewarded with the whole pot on 7th street.
What do you all think?
Paul Talbot
I play low limit holdem and 7cs (so my comments only apply to them). I see bigger mistakes in the latter, easily. Since I'm talking about the kooky low-limits, this may not be interesting...
In holdem, any two cards can win if taken to the river in a four way pot (for the vast majority of boards). 32o has a remote possibility of splitting with 32o when the final board is AKQJ4 -- on the otherhand, a one pair hand in 7cs cannot win by calling someone with 2 pair showing at the end (unless the cards fly off the table). This may sound like an absurd hypothetical, but I see this kind of stuff in 7cs with surprising regularity.
There's no holdem analog to the guy in 7cs who takes his 'open ended draw' to the river, when all of his outs are on the board in other people's hands. People talk about the magnitude of the error of playing 72o in a capped pre-flop pot -- but I don't think it is as big as 7cs errors I've seen on every single street.
The game I've seen the most out and out mistakes is Omaha/8. Many times I've seen people use one card in their hand or think they had a made low when counterfited on the board.
About four years ago, I was listening to 1973 world champion Puggy Pearson being interviewed on the radio. He said that these days he plays mostly O/8. Not becaus he enjoys playing it, but because something he noticed about the game. He said that he noticed that in hold'em and stud, after a player has been playing a while, they start to get a basic idea of the starting hands to play (okay, that might be a reach in hold'em). In O/8, the players seem to have no clue what so ever. Hence his fondness for playing that form of poker.
David Sklansky has stated that O/8 is the game that punishes a steamer more then just about any other game as well.
Good Luck
Howard
Actually he mentioned O/8 as a game that does not punish the steamer. He suggest low ball draw as the game that punishes the steamer the most.
If you go to page 48 of P,G,& L you will find that lowball draw is in the middle of the pack and that O/8 is listed as the best game to play against someone who is on tilt.
Good Luck
Howard
n/t
your referring to the article in Poker,Gaming and ,Life
jg
I am only considering these four games (limit only) -- hold'em, Omaha/8, stud/8, and regular seven stud -- since draw, pure hi/lo, and other poker variations are much less common in public cardrooms nowadays.
Bad players tend to play a little to a lot worse in split games than they do in one-winner games. However, IMO, bad players are play the worst, and their mistakes are the most exploitable in Omaha/8.
BTW, I feel that the comments in SuperSystem about the bad players being at their worst in hi-lo split stud do not apply as well to the eight or better version, for several reasons. In stud/8 high hands can scoop pots. (This helps the fish who routinely play all pairs and medium three straights.) Their are fewer "freerolling" opportunities in stud/8 in which you you are guaranteed half and have a chance to scoop.
In stud/8 only 32 cards count for low, whereas in true high/low stud all cards can count for low. This means that the decent to good players (who play pretty much only good three-lows)
1. can play somewhat looser with their draws, depending on what the other upcards are.
2. have extra cards to catch that will let them escape versus a bad player who can only win high.
For example, a player with four low cards versus a fish's high only hand can frequently escape with just a ten or nine low. (Sometimes even worse depending on the boards.) But tens and nines are "bust" cards in stud/8.
Regards, sucker
I would still crawl on my hands and knees through a blizzard to play hi-lo stud against bad players, even with the [eight or better] qualifier.
I recently played a hand in which my board on 5th street was 7c 4s 3s. My opponent and I got into a raising war - he had open Kings while I had the As 2s in the hole. I participated in the jamming for two reasons.
1. to give a third player with open deuces and a six every opportunity to muck (or pay full price to draw to) what may have been a burried Ace, three. (The hanger-on might have even had a hand that he thought was a contender for high; he was a bit dim and may have been willing to take the abuse with just a 3rd deuce - then again he could have had burried sixes.)
2. I was guaranteed of half the pot unless "2 6 6" caught a miracle and I had a nice re-draw even if he did; no fives had been seen.
On sixth street we lost him and I was left to play heads up against the Kings - - - and he wanted another raising war. (Was I missing something here ? I had caught a deuce on 6th street, did he really think I was still drawing to my low ?)
Of course I caught the 5s on the river for a straight flush. (I only say of course because I would probably not be writing this if I hadn't.)
My opponent had quads and a full house so even if he did catch the 4th King on the river - I don't think he did; I think he had quads in five - he did have CLOSE to a virtual lock on high but why on planet Earth did he continue raising after the 3rd player had folded ?
AND WHY DID HE PUT IN 4 BETS ON THE RIVER ?
- He might have gone further if he had not been all-in.
Granted I caught a miracle, but the point is I was the only one with the opportunity to catch a miracle; he was an overwhelming favorite to win his side (it was a scorchingly bad beat), and it was a beat he was going to absorb no matter what happened, but HE alone bore the blame for blowing off an additional 8-10 big bets.
Once the pot became heads up his only sane course of action was to play check and call; even those of you who have never played a hand of hi-lo should be able to see this from a mile away.
Basically he placed an extra 100 in the pot (6-12 game)and said, "you have only a snowballs chance in h--l of winning this 100 but if you catch your card the 100 is yours".
- It's a little like D.S.' story about the player who bet open quads on the RIVER in stud.
These TYPES of errors - granted they aren't always this costly to the perpetrator - are absolutely common in stud/8.
WHY aren't there more games out there ?
I would estimate a good player's expected earn in this game might have been as high as $30+ per hour, AND his varience would be very much on the low side.
- Poor things, helpless and passive, 6 of my 7 opponents would seldom raise with less than a monster; this led to the lack of any potential for serious fluctuations.
I don't consider myself close-minded in regard to many topics, but this is one of those times when my mind is made up.
There is no game that even comes close to hi-lo stud when it comes to a game that is almost devoid of luck, assuming your opponents play badly.
There seems to be no middle ground when it comes to this game; you either encounter experts or knuckle draggers.
- And at the lower limits there are alot more of the latter.
BTW, rocks need not apply. 6-12 with a $1 ante and a $2 bring-in does not allow one to sit and wait for A,2,3 suited. You would probably pick up a few dollars with this approach but you could go through a bunch of chips waiting for it. And it might never show up.
- J D -
My vote is for Omaha/8. Players play for a long time and still seem to be playing any 4 cards and chasing with the g-damnedest stuff you ever saw.
In his introduction to Omaha8, Ray Zee said (I'm not going to get this exact, but this is close):
"Poor Omaha high-low eight-or-better players can go a long time without realizing just how bad they are. They get into a lot of pots with other poor players and they wind up pushing their chips back and forth to each other. They have no idea how much of a disadvantage they are at when a good player enters the pot against them with a good hand."
Amen Ray! That way, they also push most of the chips down the slot in the table, and pay most of the rake for me to sit there and play.
Dick
Bobby Hoff told me, "It's not how good you play that matters, it's how bad they play."
I play some $4-8, 1/2 kill Omaha now and then, typically one or two rounds before getting called to another game. Often the game is so revved up that virtually every player sees every flop while I watch in amazement, not at the action, but wondering why they use $1 chips instead of $2.
If we isolated any one of the players and rated their play, we'd of course conclude that he they were hopeless losers. As it turns out, they aren't. Each player in these games can expect to lose at a rate equal to the collection and tips.
Bobby's simple words are probably not original, but they are subtly profound because they are surely true.
Tommy
Tommy,
I think card rooms that have this game are hurting LL games and the card rooms. If they changed all 4-8 games to 5-10 and used $5 chips instead of $1 chips it would speed up the game. Raising to make it $16 or reraising to $24 with $1 chips takes forever it seems that players would benefit from this also no matter what level your at. Winning the pot takes almost two hands to stack them and you have a huge pile of $1 chips in front of you so you look like your winning megabucks and your probably up $100. Then have the next level 10-20 it would be more natural then 8-16. I don't know how the binary system got started in card rooms but going to the decimal system certainly would help IMO. I believe the rake could be cut because the pots would be higher and more hands would be played!!!
Paul
Yes and no.
Games with three and six chips, such as $3-6, 6-12, 9-18, 15-30, 30-60, etc, go just fine and smoothly.
Games with four and eight chips, such as $20-40 and $40-80, $80-160 are fine too. If those games used chips of double denomination in order to speed up the game, I think it would be a bad move by the casino.
Why? Conjectures include players preferring bigger pot and stack sizes. I'm as rational as the next guy, and I gotta admit I would hate it if 20-40 were played with $10 chips. Not because of pot sizes or stack sizes or any of that, but just because what is is and I'm used to it and I like it. I like putting in 16 chips to raise the turn. I like putting in 12 chips to reraise before the flop. It just seems proper and right.
The $4-8 Ohama game is the only game I think could be changed because of the half-kill. That means many pots are played at $6-12, and $2 chips at that level around here and elsewhere.
But, if the players really wanted it changed, the casino would have given it a shot by now because they do listen and they are flexible. So, presumably, my reasoning about "what is is" above also lingers in the minds of the Ohama players, and that's why it hasn't changed and probably won't.
Tommy
Well I guess it's what your used to but it takes a while for a player to think in the 3-6, 6-12, 9-18, mode rather than the simplified 5-10, 10-20, 15-30, 20-40. By having so many LL games your defeating the idea of progression to me. I just think you should go up in increments of 5 to keep things simple. A LL player I think would rather jump in these type of increments rather than having to learn all the other numbers. Obviously by the time you get to the 15-30 level you know how to handle chips but people in the 4-8 level don't and there are usually 4 or 5 callers. If the games are sped up in the LL games it would be possible to cut down the rake I believe. Just something I was thinking about after playing in LV in my first 4-8 HE game and not liking it so it occupied my plane thinking.
Thank you all for your responses.
Paul
they may be white chips, but having lots of chips seems to appeal to many. In my no casino city, I played mostly 5&10 blinds,or 10 &20, pot limit-- was surprised when I saw all the white chips in the big card rooms--casino personnel assured me that the # of chips was important....??? Jim
I don't understand the lotta chip theory!! If it's an ego thing or I'm better than you because I have more chips than you!!! Intimidating factor!! Who the hell knows?? I rather have one pocket full of 100's than four pockets full of 1's!! I would like to see coloring up at the tables more too!! Superstitions galore haunt all card players and me too about this but if players starting doing this regularly then more people would think about doing it. If they had a 10 stack of 20 limit then you had to color up I think would work. People don't like change I know I know!!! Everybody complains about the huge rake at LL but maybe the players are part of the cause not totally the management!! If they had $1-2, $2-4, $1-3, $1-5 spread games with a certain rake and then when you go to $5-10 and up another rake structure and spell it out for the players hand out flyers on this and tell them how much is being taken out each hand and approx. how many hands are played an hour. Rather than keep everything in the dark for these LL players so they have incentive to move up if they have the BR even if they use the rake as a movement tool!!!
Anyway it's just my opinion but when we point the finger at something make sure we've already pointed it at ourselves cleaning up our side of the street.
paul
Even though they are worth very little individually, there is a feeling that's hard to describe (great is the best word I can come up with) when you haul in a healthy 4-8 holdem pot containing nothing but white chips.
One other thing - you will never find a dealer who objects to the [exclusive] use of $1 chips.
I dealt 4-8 holdem with a half-kill for a couple of weeks in an Indian casino in New Mexico several years ago. (I've told this story before; I lost my wallet - no cash but all my CCs and bank cards - and was forced to do "honest work" until they could be replaced.)
The pots averaged $75+.
$2 and $3 tokes were far from unusual. The winner did not feel the pinch; he had just won a pot that took me two or three swipes to push to him.
- I almost kept the job even after I no longer needed the money. :)
- J D -
it's usually pretty hard to execute plays such as semi-bluff turn raises in low limit; sometimes it's out and out impossible.
I used to play in the game I described in the post above. (4-8 HE with a half kill if you won 2 in a row of $40 or more)
When the holder of top pair - or an overpair - would bet out on the turn and get raised by a PAINFULLY obvious draw (usually someone on tilt), you could on occasion get away with 3-betting a better draw or a hand of that type and getting the original bettor to throw his hand away - WHEN HE OR SHE HAD TO PUT 16 CHIPS INTO THE POT. This was even more likely to work if the top pair / overpair knew there was a good chance of the 1st raisor capping it.
This is not an endorsement or condemnation of using all white chips, but it is something a player should be aware of if he or she is sitting in a 4-8 white chip game for the first time.
- J D -
What you are suggesting is more confusing, not less. Right now, regardless of the limit, there are only two types of games. Three-and-six chip games, and four-and-eight chip games. Adding a third type of game, a two-and-four chip games, would make "chip handling" less smooth overall.
As to Omaha, in a $4/8 Omaha game with NO kill, I think $1 chips are best. But when a 1/2 kill is in play, the game becomes a six-and-twelve chip game on some hands, a new animal. Two dollar chips would create a new one as well, a two-and-four chip game when there is no kill on, but a 3-and-6 chips game when the pot is killed. I think that's a better evil than having 6-and-12 chip hands.
Tommy
What I'm suggesting is not $2 and $4 chips for the low low limit games I suggest using $1 chips for these. But instead of 3-6,4-8,6-12,8-16 games is make them 5-10,10-20,15-30. I'm simplifying the games into one set of games. It would make it easier for the dealers to figure out the rake, cut back on the cost of specialty chips for the casino, and have transition from HE to 7CS to O/8 or whatever less confusing for the player rather than have to adapt to playing at a different level with different chips. Just something to think about I realize that most casino's already have these games in play, but if you look closely at this aren't there just too many LL games spread thruout a casino???
paul
Sorry Paul. Now I see what you are saying, that the variety of limits is too many.
Besides $2/4 and 3/6, the place I play spreads 6/12 AND 9/18 everyday. That seemed so strange to me at first, having limits that close. But, I gotta admit, it works. The players really seem to like it. Your suggestion would certainly be simpler. But apparently market demands will have whatever effect they will have, despite looking illogical.
Tommy
Thanks for your input Tommy.
Paul
>I believe the rake could be cut because <<<
Heh.
Not in a million years.
I live in Canada and come to Vegas occasionally to play. I am struck by how the seeming large pot size seems to impress tha players and add to their enjoyment of playing. I think LL players are very happy counting ans stacking. Just an outsider's observation. Dave
Agreed, and I think nearly all mid-limit players around here like it too.
when i play which is about 4 times a week. just for an example 3 out of the 4 times i played i won, but i only win 200 here 300 there, but when i lose its like 900 here and 1000 there. my question is do i not maximize my wins so there for when i lose its much bigger. i know you guys dont know how i play, but i play a tight game. i think im to passive some times is that a very bad quality to have. i usually dont get real aggressive unless i know i have the best of it or at least think i do. if anybody can make anything out of this i would take comments please.
The best thing is to post specific hands on the proper forum for your limit. Post the ones that you lose a lot of chips on. Post the ones where you had good winning hands, but did not win as much as you thought you should. Describe the limit, the type of players at the table, what cards you held, how the betting went, the type of player that made the more influential bets, what was shown down, etc.
I, personally, have found the same problem. I feel that is has to do with the fact that if you're up, you really don't mind quitting up about 10-5 units or so, but when you are down that many, you usually try to just "get back to even". It seems to me to be a total self discipline thing, which comes and goes with me. Also, the "End Chip Factor" as i call it, plays a part. Very often, I, and countless others i see when down to about 5 BB's worth of chips, will just sit on those chips until a hand comes along, and then bang away with both barrels until the hand is over and they are either the victor or the spoiled. I personally try to adhere to what , I believe it was MM said in one of his books,(hard to keep track, i've got almost all of them), which is that if you are down 30 small bets, all things being equal, you should probably quit. Factors for doing so include fatigue, frustration, others attacking your wounded chips, and just plain old being outplayed. I personally have several times taken advantage of End Play Factor and isolated others while they just continually bet me into the river and i showed them the best hand. This probably really only works well at lower limits however, and I have had WIDELY varying success with this, to say the least. The other point I would like to raise is when you are in a very loose game which you are clearly head and shoulders above the competitors and twice as many people are seeing the flop as should, while these games are profitable, they also carry a much higher standard deviation. You raise from early position in a good, solid 20-40 game, and 2 people call, if 227 rainbow hits, you can be reasonably sure you're not up against trips, save for the occaisional A2s calling from BB or button, but at a wild 3-6 table, you do the same and get 5 callers, i can almost guarantee you that you are WAY behind if you had a legitimate early round raise, and probably a loser to the 72o that called from SB. Discount this theory at your own peril. I didn't think it was possible, and I may be full of it, but I am almost positive I am a MUCH better 10-20 player than 3-6, i just don't have the proper BR to stay in the game. I have a REAL hard time playing against idiots. Hope this helps
I also have the very same problem. Your loss limit of 30 small bets is something I'll consider.
What about Scrabbles?
AK suited is a slight underdog in Hold'em against 55. The pair has something like a 1-2% advantage. AKs holds even worse, if only very slightly, when the suit of AK is one of the pair.
Any pair beats AK suited. When you play AKs against a pair heads up, the pair is the favorite to win. I ran on Caro's poker probe AsKs VS. 5d5h. The pair of fives won 51.7% of the time heads-up. All other pairs have the same close results, except aces and kings.
The reason why most players raise all-in before the flop with AK, is they want to see all five cards. When you do this, you will pair one of your cards 48.7% of the time. Futhermore, when you hold AK your opponents are less likely to have a pair of aces or kings, but you still have to hit win.
If the person you raise thinks that you are trying to steal with an ace he has just a small advantage with a pair. These situations occur all the time in tournaments.
"Any pair beats AK suited. When you play AKs against a pair heads up, the pair is the favorite to win."
AK suited is a (very slight mathematical) favorite to win over Deuces, heads up. If the suit of the Ace-King hand is the same as one of the suits of 22, then the situation is reversed and Deuces becomes the (very slight) favorite. For all practical purposes, AKs against Deuces is a pick'em, heads up.
But every other pair is the favorite to win heads up over AKs, starting from the 33 pair which is very close, upto KK which is a 2-1 favorite.
I left out AKs against AA (big slick is more than a 7-1 underdog) because I thought it would be obvious, but I should've included it for completeness.
Cyrus,
I should have done my math first. You're right. Just for yuks, I ran the following on Caro's Poker Probe:
AsKs VS 2h2d: AsKs wins 50.17% AsKs VS 3h3d: AsKs wins 49.41%
Daliman - You're not losing your mind. "55" is "presto." To a true believer, no hand matches the power of 55. Your post only serves to add to the mystique.
:o)
Buzz
Dali,
If you already read and accepted that 99 and 10-10 are nearly even money against AK, then how could it come as such a shock to you that 55 rates about the same?
I think the reason AK is grouped so much higher that low pairs in S&M hand rankings is because the hand rankings are not representative of all-in-before-the-flop situations. In other words, in a limit ring game, AK does far better than 22 heads up because the 22 will often not get to the river.
In no-limit tournies, the difference between 22 and 55 and 88 is significant because players are often forced to make a move with A-x, and if the pocket pair is higher than the x, the pair is a significant favorite when the players go all in before the flop.
Tommy
Well put. While 55 may beat AKs heads up in a showdown, AK is ranked higher because it's easier to play (and therefore to extract value) on the flop, since you'll just about always know if you're ahead or behind. Further, when you DO hit with a slick you'll often catch someone with a second best hand, which further increases its value.
When considering hand rankings it's not only important to take into account the strength of the hand, but also how easy (or difficult) the hand is to play.
What advantage does 10-10 have over 55 against AKs? The pairs have equal chances to improve to two-pair, three-of-a-kind, four-of-a-kind, or flushes to beat AKs. Straights favor 55, because 8-9-10-J-Q gives 10-10 the losing straight, whereas the corresponding 3-4-5-6-7 gives 55 the winning straight.
Indeed, what cards would help 10-10 without corresponding cards that help 55? My only example is a board full house like 7-7-7-5-10. Does anyone have a breakdown of frequencies of straights and full-houses to show where 10-10 gets its advantages and disadvantages compared to 55?
This ain't my thing, but I'd guess it's because any card ten or higher gives the AK three to a straight, whereas any card five or lower gives the AK only two to wheel.
The 10-10 defends against the more likely, higher straight by being two of the needed 12 cards, whereas the 5-5 defends against wheels only by being 2 of the needed 16 cards.
Tommy
The game is all about one card straights. This is important criteria.
Some might worry the 55 would lose when TT would win when the board comes something like J J 6 6 2, but how often does that happpen?
Presto is where it is at, ask the RGP braintrust, they rule.
Anyone caught spilling the secrets of almighty presto to the heathen folk, will be summarily punished as appropriate. Behold the power of
Without doing ANY calculations at all I can tell you that it happens well in excess of 2% of the time.
If we are going to disect the value of TT vs. 55, then 2% is a great deal of the time.
Personally I do not enjoy doing calculations of this type; as a limit player differences of 1 or 2 per cent matter very little to me.
But you did ask. :)
- J D -
P.S. If you doubt the 2% figure, go back to the good old days of draw poker and recall how often one is dealt two pair, then shave off a small amount for the times that one (or both) of the pairs is smaller than 5's. You should come up with a similar figure.
`
Actually, in your full house example, both 55 and TT would beat AKs. Ms. Info had it right when she mentioned the counterfeited 2 pair boards. That's what puts TT ahead of 55 vs. AKs.
Win rate:
TdTc- 54.2% vs. AKh- 46.2% (ties are wins for both)
5d5c- 52% vs. AKh- 48.4%
Winning hands held
5-5 T-T
1 pair 21% 22%
2 pair 34% 36%
Trips 20% 18%
Straight 4% 4%
Flush 4% 4%
Full 15% 15%
Quads 2% 2%
Remember, this is the breakdown for the winning hands only vs. AKs.
On a random board, both TT and 55 will end up as 2 pair on the river approx. 39% of the time. When making 2 pair, TT will win approx. 49.76% of the time vs. AKs, whereas a 55 will only win approx. 44.1% of the hands as 2 pair, including of course 2 pair on the board.
In my example of 7-7-7-5-10 I was inappropriately thinking of cards that help 10-10 versus AA, but not 55. It is a similar intuition to Ms. Info's excellent two pair example. I would appreciate a breakdown of 10-10 and 55 versus AA.
It seems 10-10 would be more likely to get trips beaten by an AK straight than 55. But 10-10 wins more often with 1 pair because it stops more straights. And it wins when the board shows two pair if one of the pairs is less than 10.
55 and TT are just about identical against AA. Both come in at 19.9% win rate (including ties) vs. AA.
(with the underpairs different suited than the aces)
******************************************************************$$$$$$$$
I see so much nonsense on, like, whether there are more K10 than J10 calling situations, and whether you will make an extra penny an hour bluff-raising depending on how many people can be expected to be watching closely when you get caught and the turnover at the table.
I chased all that for a year or two until I finally learned that the secret to making a good consistent living playing poker was way off in another direction of analysis. I was going to state what I learned, and inquire as to whether you people are ever going to get your heads out of your asses and figure it out, but I thought better of this in the midst of typing.
So I'll put it more indirectly. To those of you who know what I'm talking about, is it simply to make life interesting that marginal players get caught up in all this mathematical and formulaic mumbo jumbo? Meaning, is it worth like an extra $6.00 an hour to them to have the pleasure of rolling all these pieces of math-puzzle brain chewing gum around in their heads?
Seeing as, darwinistically, it can't be increasing your survival rate, is it just like an extraneous personality appendix that you can't help? Is it the obsession and curiosity level, rather than the survival rate, that determines the mix of existing poker players at a given instant?
Blah, blah, blah, see ya...
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$**************************************************************
He may have a point! The best players are not necessarily the ones with the best math skills,and getting bogged down in math details probably has very little value. The best players all do have excellent hand reading skills which represents a good logical understanding of the important concepts that govern strategic play.
Some of you have may want to comment on this.
No-limit poker is the big thing at tournaments. The best players (or big money players)probably aren't that mathematical or statistically sound. I think a great no-limit player is like a great boxer, where a great boxer can stand toe-to-toe with a lesser boxer and slug it out all the while hitting, but not getting hit. However, you can't do this at limit poker that is why most experts that play mid-limit, fit the mathematical player stereotype. Just my opinion.
I've been reading the 3 part series about logic and intuition by Alan Schoonmaker in Poker Digest and have come to a conclusion. That is, the expert limit players are more logical thinkers, where as the best no-limit players are intuitive. This makes me think back to Davids essay about "Why Some Morons Do Better Than You." They may look like morons because their play may not make perfect logical sense, but they have a feel for the game that a logical thinker can't begin to understand. They are like the prize fighter that is hitting without getting hit due to their great intuition.
Anyway, hope this makes sense.
In How the Mind Works, Steven Pinker shows that most people, and in his example "most people" includes medical students, do a poor job at solving basic logic problems. Yet, confronted with real life logic problems, "most people" perform reasonably well. Just wondering how this might apply to poker and the logic vs. intuition debate.
John
Tiger Woods' knowledge of the mathemathics and physics involved in creating the "perfect" golf swing is probably nothing compared to the knowledge possessed by the professors in their "ivory towers". But Woods gets the Grand Slam and the $60 Million a year in endorsements! The professors get the lousy $50k a year.
What do poker players make?
I can't begin to express how disappointed I am that you're not going to share with us the secret of poker. Hopefully one day I'll catch you slaying the 80-160 at the Bellagio, and you'll finally share your insights after I lick all the dirt of your Reeboks.
Anyway, thanks for the illuminating post.
BooPotts,
What ever gave you the crazy ideas A) that I would play the Bellagio 80-160, particularly if you were in it, and B) that you wouldn't attribute my success, to the extent you actually even picked up on it, to a run of luck enjoyed by a total idiot?
SM
Steve--
Having read your other responses I gather that you're a thoughtful guy, so I retract the sarcastic tone of my post.
That said, there was something off-putting about your original thread-- maybe it's just that when someone claims to have figured out poker I get a little skeptical. And while I am not a math type, I'm also willing to to acknowledge the gains that these kinds of people have made in the field of poker.
it could just be that the drive to master the game doesnt just go away, and the big edges are pretty clear cut.
"Seeing as, darwinistically, it can't be increasing your survival rate, is it just like an extraneous personality appendix that you can't help?"
well, to restate, i think that in order to have become a good player in the first place, the drive had to be there, and so once you figure out the big edges, that 'personality' just sort of keeps on working.
brad
p.s. im really hope i dont know exactly what youre talking about :)
There are people who like to look at the big picture while there are some who love the details. Yes, it is a personality thing. I am one of the former. I can't stand details.
But I value the opinions and findings of those people who like to roll up their sleeves and get in on doing the minute math details. I take their ideas and put them in the proper perspective.
You don't have to know the details of how electricity works in order to switch on or switch off the lights in your room. But I am thankful to God for those detail oriented people who do know.
We are so much on the same page.
I think I've got a good balance now of maximizing energy expenditure.
For instance, in another thread I just learned (again)that 10-10 is 2% better than 5-5 against AK, all in before the flop. I think it's tremendously unlikely that this info will ever effect one of my betting decisions, so I don't make an effort to store such things. But the odds of hitting every number of outs with one and two cards to go is something I know well because it comes up all the time and is often a scale-tipping parameter, especially at no-limit.
Tommy
Isn't the correct form "Darwin-wise"? :-}
Be advised that there are plenty of non-mathy types here, so many that it's as if two factions exist.
I used to turn my nose up at the hyperanalytic types before coming to 2+2. Turns out there is plenty that both sides can gain from the other. I'm thankful that the views here are spoken and not shouted. It makes it easier to listen.
Tommy
Don't get me wrong, I wish I were fluent with all that stuff, it would have opened up a lot of doors for me in this life. I just meant that being good at that stuff, beyond a point, still isn't enough to win at poker.
It just seems that having such a gift may, at times, be a liability to developing poker players. Hopefully, they will each soon exhaust that thread and begin down a fresh one, where the marginal returns to incremental advancements will be larger. Hopefully, though, they'll do this in another country, one where I don't play.
Perhaps I am lucky that I was forced to pursue other tactics, short of cheating, earlier than most. I'll never waste my time beating them at math. I may never even beat them at all. But I know that I make more money now than I did when my mind was consumed with similar problems, and probably more money than they do right now, though I'd rather not explain exactly how or why.
For some poker is a game. For others, it is a living, and not very intriguing except for to the extent having your mortgage paid on time for one more month is intriguing, kind of, right? I think paying my bills is kind of neat. Forget 5-5's vs. 10-10's. Do you guys prefer, like, Jeep Wranglers or Grand Cherokees?
"Do you prefer Jeep Wranglers or Grand Cherokees?"
I'm a "math type" who plays limit poker. I drive an LS-400 Lexus.
That's a big car for a single (?) guy, the SC400 would seem more appropriate. But if you get married your wife (like mine) will make you trade it in for a SUV. So one way or another you probably will end up debating the merits of Jeeps instead of poker hands.
Nevertheless it is hard to imagine winning without appreciating how pocket pairs match up with overcards. Tommy and Steve probably take this knowledge for granted.
How pocket pairs fair is certainly important and I know the numbers, but only to the point of ABC, with A representing the higher cards, meaning:
AB vs CC
AC vs BB
BC vs AA
Stuff like that.
Now, if we take AB vs CC, and then compare it to the same AB verses C1C1, a lower pocket pair, that's where I lose interest because I don't think it matters in the heat of battle. Other parameters will weigh in heavier than this fine distinction. I'd guess we all have a "math threshold," a point at which the next level of detail is perceived as irrelevant.
It's the same sort of threshold that makes us stop at, say, two digits after the decimal point, or one, or even none.
Tommy
Tommy, I appreciate your posts. We understand it isn't valuable for you to know exact calculations for rare situations where your decision wouldn't even be affected.
But these "small" details are concrete illustrations of important conceptual points. Maybe it isn't important to know the exact amount by which 10-10 is superior to 55 heads up against AKs. But Daliman didn't even know pairs are favorites against high cards. More importantly he didn't know why. I think you do these calculations automatically. But beginners need to work through the combinatorics to learn about dominated hands, hands that play well heads up versus multiway, etc. Perhaps we could memorize strategy rules to keep out of trouble. But when the situation changes then it would be difficult to adapt.
Ray Zee has pithy posts with excellent explanations like "What flops/turn could possibly help your hopeless dominated hand?" or "What hands could you possibly beat?" or "You should have raised to avoid problems on a later street.". After thinking about it for 5 minutes Ray is "obviously" right. But you and Ray do this in 5 seconds because you have done it so often.
when you "understand" something it is obvious, but 5 min before you understand something it is a mystery: how do you get from here to there?,,,do you get bogged down by only using one coceptual viewpoint or are you capable of looking at a problem from different viewpoints and picking the model which allows you to gain understanding......or just intuitive(when you know , you know)...very interesting post on other gambling games forum regarding idiot savant bookie...perhaps we all have some % "knowing intuitively" , and look for logical explanations, jmho gl all
"But these "small" details are concrete illustrations of important conceptual points. "
Kim,
You are so right. In a sense, especially for the less useful stats, it's more important to know how they are derived than to know what they are. And I don't think there's any question that someone unfamiliar with poker math is golfing with a lean bag.
However, Steve's initial post critizing math obsession did not feel to me as if it was directed at relatively inexperienced players. Just the opposite.
My view has shifted. While I don't share the zeal, I can appreciate that microscopic number probing can be fulfilling on its own, even if much of the effort yields no profit.
Tommy
Nice ride. I'm a "non-math-type" who plays limit poker, and I drove the same Camry for 11 years. Hmmm. Maybe there IS something to this math thing after all. :-)
Tommy
Steve - You used a lot of words to tell us nothing meaningful. Was it your intention to insult us? Voila! You succeeded. Is that all you have to contribute?
Buzz
n/t
I played for 7 hours yesterday, 3-6 HE. I lost $ 150.00 for the session.I had nothing but unplayable cards all day. I lost all my chips by paying blinds, and playing only the few good starting hands I got but missing the flop. I think I play solid poker all the time, watching position, odds, raising when I had to, folding when I had to, never chasing, etc. My question to you all, experience players, is this: Is this lost of $ 150.00 too high for 7 hours of play, too low, or normal?
If you lack the thorough understanding to make this judgement yourself, then $150.00 is cheap.
You're not throwing away money, but nor will you make any. At best, you will burn up a lot of hours of your life, and take a long time to learn the lessons you need to. Meaning, you will learn your lessons cheaply in money but expensively in time, so it depends which you have to spend. I say spend your time reading and thinking, not folding. Then come out raising.
Question: Suppose you had suddenly come out raising like crazy with a flush on the board. Would any good players have called you, except if they had you beat? Assuming your luck was as anomalous as you said it was, you should have spent more money on good hole cards chasing winnowing out the good players before the flop, and making an impression on them for future hands. Also, if the so-called "suckers" were letting you in with your good inital cards that cheap, and you were lettign them look that cheap, you may as well have been at the pub trying your luck with the girls. You lost too little.
Also, it's tough for other players too know how bad your luck in getting calling cards really is. If you want to make an impression that you are tighter than you really are, than bad luck is your best friend. But, if you want to make people think that you bet like an idiot regardless so they will call you, you need to bet right through the bad cards -- assuming you'll get an even run of good and bad cards not only in the long run, but also in the immediate future over which your impression counts. It also helps to whine a lot, and actually show your rags before mucking them, so you seem like a whiner, a half-wit, and still potentially a very loose player with even one ace.
It happpens. About two months ago I played 9 hrs. of 10-20, lost 743$ and only saw the river three times.
its nothing
Besides the comments others have made I'd worry about your statement that youy are "never chasing". Its a rare 3-6HE game where there isn't significant dead money in the pot that some pretty thin draws have +EV.
In any case 7 hours and -25BB (3+BB/hr) isn't all that stunning in some general sense but that doesn't have much meaning. If you have a measurement of your EV and SD then you can decide for yourself how often it should occur. Otherwise its more important to walk away from each session with a few hand which promote analysis away from the table.
7 hours and 3 rounds/hour and $4blinds/round = $84 lost in blinds. If you didn't win a single hand and ONLY lost $66 in playable hands in 7 hours, I'd say you played an extremely disciplined game. Good for you keeping your cool through the dry spells. There will be more dry spells.
Do I infer correctly that you think a $150 may be a "big" loss for a 3/6? No. Only extremely tight players can go months without losing more than that.
"Never chasing" conserns me a lot. That means you are ignoring pot size when determining if you call.
- Louie
... that I was very careful not to go on tilt.
I had a friend that finally convinced me that it was statistically advantageous to make the minimum buy in, as it would periodically present an opportunity to play all-in in hands that you would otherwise throw away.
However, this week alone I found myself all in on the flop without opportunity to build the pot in the following three scenarios: A high flush, four Kings, Aces full of Jacks.
From now on I'll buy in for just a little more than the national debt.
Whether to hope to create potential all-in opportunities, or big-pile raising opportunities for yourself, depends on the table, and the situation. You might similary make a broad policy decision to always call a raise, or to always fold. But it is knowing when to reraise, and when to fold, that makes a good player.
For example, if you are making all your money because suckers hanging onto an early pair will call anything at the end and nobody drops, you want to be able to raise.
But if your edge comes purely from tighter calling before the flop, your hand, and your ability to outplay is over once the flop hits, or something like that.
There are other considerations involving your bankroll, and whether it has forced you to play so tight you are now primed to bluff people out, and so forth.
If loose idiots bluff alot, and are too reckless to note your low stack before making their move, then keep it low, so as to enable them to chase the best hand away, while you sit for the river for free.
He made several good points in both of his posts regarding this topic.
Having said that may I ask on behalf of all that he try to squeeze all of his thoughts into ONE post per subject. Each of the forums has a finite amount of space - I believe they hold 300 posts - after which the "old" ones are burried in the archives.
Not all of us get a chance to visit every day; you would be doing those of us in this group a great favor.
- J D -
This is a very general survey type question that I need some input on.
In a showdown on the end, what pct. of the time would you say the winner is the bettor, as opposed to the caller? If there are raises, consider the final raiser to be the bettor. You get the idea.
Do you think the pct. rates change based on game levels? If so, how? Would the hold-em pcts. differ from stud?
I'm just interested in getting different opinions based on experience and perspective. I'm attempting to design a very crude poker simulation model, and this is one of the factors that I'd like to compare. I've never seen any numbers on this. Please chime in with opinions, guesses, or if anyone has researched it, some data. Thanks.
If it were generally in evidence, in terms of survival rates, that the bettor wins most, certainly people would evolve strategies to fold more, until those that still called would be more likely to win.
But of course if the caller won most, by virtue of the decision to call or fold being his, the early-position bettors would learn, by darwinistic replacement, to bet less.
The better player, that is. Just kidding. It seems the better has to be more certain of a win to bet. The caller may lose most of the time, but he's weighing a loss of a whole pot against a single bet if he's wrong. But, of course, he knows the better knows this, so knows the better would only bet in order to get more money because he imagines himself the winner, so not as likely to bluff. Nobody gets to act after the last caller, so it's pretty cheap for him. For this reason, I prefer to fold or raise on the end more often than most people. Why limp in? According to Sklansky, the better must win something like 2/3 of the time the caller calls to justify betting, considering that if the pot if huge, the caller will ALWAYS call. Now we're getting into some math, though, which is beyond my ken, and I would only suggest that your whole premise of a simulation model is wrongheaded.
Also, Sklansky said the bettor must win something like 2/3 of the time the caller calls, but might not that 1/3 of the time the bettor he loses often involve a reraise from the caller, making the bettor now the caller, meaning the bettor almost always wins? The moral of the story: You sissies don't raise nearly enough on the end, thus giving the early-position bettor too easy a decision when he has the winner!
This is a question that is far too vague to answer; I'm referring to the portions regarding stud vs. holdem, and low limit vs. higher limits, but - - -
ANY PLAYER WHO IS WINNING ANYWHERE CLOSE TO HALF OF THE TIME IS NOT CALLING ENOUGH !
Think about this statement for a minute and the answer to your question should be PAINFULLY obvious.
the bettOr wins more. (The capital letter was for Mr. Murray; I might have made more of an attempt to figure out what he was trying to say if he knew how to spell.)
I'm sure you figured it out on your own, but just in case...
Even if we used an extreme example of someone who likes to make $1,000 bets into pots that contain $1, a caller who was winning 50% of the time would be showing a profit, a tiny profit but still a profit.
Since your question seemed to be in referrence to limit poker it should be obvious that in most cases you can make a good living if your calls result in victories 25% of the time since most pots will contain well in excess of 3 bets AFTER the bettor has bet.
There is a precise formula which governs all of this - it is covered in detail in THEORY OF POKER and in lesser (but still useful) detail in GAMBLING THEORY AND OTHER TOPICS - but rest assurred
THE BETTOR WINS MORE OFTEN.
THE BETTOR WINS ALOT MORE OFTEN.
P.S. I wasn't trying to show you up; it's often very easy to overlook the obvious.
Good luck with your project.
- J D -
We're thinking of relocating to Vegas for a few months, to play some high-stakes hold'em.
1. Is Vegas "the place," or is it Paradise Island in December, Monte Carlo in June, where are the most big games going most of the time?
2. How big are the games, and how many of them are going how often?
3. Do the big, out-of-town suckers like us play limit or no-limit, where, how large, and when is the big limit game, and where, how large, and when is the big no-limit game?
Please respond in terms that will make sense to rubes like us. Thanks!
. Do the big, out-of-town suckers like us play limit or no-limit, where, how large, and when is the big limit game, and where, how large, and when is the big no-limit game?
Gut instinct tells me you`d be better playing the 2-4, 3-6 games from the above statement you made...
jg
Gut instinct tells me you shouldn't be playing at all, except for maybe 2-4, if that's where you would steer the big suckers.
What game do you play in, big boy, and where can it be found and when?
Okay, now tell me where do the Real Men - and the out-of-town suckers - play?
you can find high stakes limit games in several card rooms scattered around the country--harder to find pot limit or no limit--I have been told that there is (very often) a big pot limit Omaha game at Horseshoe in Tunica. Each weekend there is pot limit half omaha, half hold-em at Grand casino on reservation near Kinder, Lousiana (which is near Lake Charles)this is large game (to me) one lucky player won about 40K one weekend. Also pot limit omaha at Silver Star near Philadelphia, Mississippi. good luck Jim
For consistently high-action, hi-limit games, you are better off at the Commerce in LA. Also, you should consider trying the NL Hold Em game at Lucky Chances in the San Francisco Bay Area. It is not unusual for the pots there to go up to $20K or more, though the competition can be somewhat stiff.
If you raise and go all in the extra $1500 would not be enough to knock the first raiser off his hand. Then if you do not hit on the flop your all in. The way you did it you have the choice after seeing the flop if you want to lead out and go all in.
David -
1. Assuming you will only have one opponent, you have a playable one-on-one hand.
2. A raise here (pre-flop) by you would not likely cause the other player to fold.
3. Assuming all other players folded to or after the raiser, you know (or strongly suspect) the raiser might raise here in an attempt to steal your blind (but would have a hand strong enough to call your raise). Thus you suspect your opponent might not have a great or even very good hand, but would still be likely to call your raise.
4. A post-flop bet by you might cause the other player to fold (even though you would be "all-in").
5. There is likely to be only one opponent, the raiser, against you, so that raising would not triple, quadruple, or pentuple the amount of your raise.
6. Consideration of your opponent's stack size.
7. You're in a position to move up a notch (or two) in the standings if you simply hang on another round. (Consideration of all other player's stack sizes).
8. You don't have a great hand. I don't know about this one. Even with a great one-on-one hand you might just call here rather than commit pre-flop. You obviously never want to go all-in pre-flop if you can avoid it, unless you have the nuts. You can't know if you have the nuts until after the flop.
The danger in waiting for the flop is if your opponent completely missed the flop, he/she might not call your next (all-in) bet, trusting that you must have a very good match with the flop to go all-in.
Buzz
As I see it, there are a couple different reasons that might cause you to call instead of raising all-in.
> you are 1 off the money, or 1 place away from a significant difference in prze money, with at least 1 other small stack to your left. You'd like to be able to keep your chair if the flop misses you, and hope the other player(s) bust out before the blinds bet back to you.
>you have a either a monster hand, or a strong drawing hand with several active players behind you. If your stack is very small, often it is better to try to keep as many players in to call behind you, in order to get multi-way action on your $1500, and on your last $1500, if you win the pot. Makes it possible to triple or quadruple your stack (or more) instead of just doubling up.
I'm sure there would be other scenarios as well, but these two situations, especially if both apply, would seem to favor a flat-call as opposed to an all-in move.
Disgregarding tournament externalities such as someone else about to take the big blind for all his chips, there is no way in hell the opponent will fold for the extra bet here. But there are chances he will do so if you bet out on the flop. Because everytime a bet is called in a tournament EV is distributed to the noncombatants, the ability to get the opponent to blink has equity. Because of that, he might lay down complete misses that he would bet otherwise when you miss as well. But by throwing those last chips in the pot, you would forfeit that possible option.
If you can be 100% sure that the opponent is going to call the flop bet no matter how much he thinks he is behind, then you can save those chips for when you are such a fave that you are getting value for your most valuable chips -- that last bet is the most valuable pro-rata bet on the table. It had better be used wisely. But merely throwing it in when you thing you might be a 3:2 fave preflop is foolish. I see people make this mistake all the time. Out with a whimper is my motto.
JG
I would say that it is easy for a flop to miss you in Omaha. I would hold onto my last $1500 in chips if I didn't think the raise would put me heads up with the original raiser, or if I had a strong heads up hand that needed to hit: ie) 6789 with 2 suits. You still need to hit with this hand to make it at all valuable.
Derrick
For the amount of chips you have left calling is the only correct play, it would be a mistake to fold or raise.
Since, the goal is to move up the payout scale when you are short stacked. It would be a mistake to fold or raise. Whether you call or fold will produce the same result in the future. Which means that you will still have to win the future big blind bet to continue. The advantage to calling is getting a chance to increase your stack size to survive longer.
I never play this game, but my guess: (1) a medium to weakish hand that can either hit the flop hard or let you check-fold (I dunno, 9986?), or (2) a late opponent that will probably fold if he fails to connect (medium stack), or (3) an opponent that can raise with anything and a hand that's probably just better than his.
What's the difference between TT and 55 heads up againt AKs? Nothing.
AKs is a "better" hand since it plays much better against all other hands except AA and KK. AKs is at least as good as the other hands and seriously dominates other A and K hands. A major problem with 55 against 2 over cards is that you don't know when you are beat, and at limit play the 2-overcards is "better" since they have some bluffing opportunities 55 doesn't have.
The hand rankings are for a variety of situations; and is certainly not a ranking for heads-up all-in situations.
- Louie
Heads-up all-in: 55 is better than AK, AK is better than JTs, and JTs is better than 55.
I don't have poker probe or any similar device.
Are we sure about JTs vs. 55 ?
I do know that 22 while beating AKoff loses to JTs, but the margin is very slight; wouldn't the additional "protection" of the higher pair overcome this razor thin margin ?
- Not correcting, just asking...
- J D -
[1] you are in the money, others can get busted this round, and you have a hand that CAN hit the flop big. If so you bet, if not you survive one round.
[2] You intend to bet the flop regardless and the opponent is one who will abandon all but the best hands. That is your hand can win a lot of marginal show-downs but you prefer to win it outright.
When someone with a smaller stack than yours is about to get blinded this time around thus allowing you to move one up in position in payout money when "in the money" already.
I think I would almost always just call. Even if you have something like a pair of aces in omaha (which you probably aren't going to lay down on any flop), you are better off calling, and betting out to give your opponent the chance to lay down the worst of his draws, which could still beat you.
I would not have guessed it was that high.
I knew about the, A>B, B>C, C>A, but I didn't think JTs was that much of a favorite over 55.
Now that I think about it 5% does sound about right.
It's 54-46 for JTs against deuces if my memory serves me, so 52-48 or thereabouts sounds reasonable for 5's.
Thanks for clearing that up.
- J D -
1. Not on the bubble, unless you're the only short stack. If there are others who will have to go all-in before the blinds come back around to you, and you are on the bubble, then folding now and folding the small blind might often be the highest EV plays. If nobody else is going to be forced all-in (or likely to go all-in anyway), then calling or raising is going to be better than folding here.
2. The raiser may fold if you bet all-in on the flop. Very key. If he'll call no matter what, then it doesn't matter much whether you go all-in now or later in the hand.
3. The raiser will check it down until and unless he makes a hand. Even if he'll call no matter what if you bet, if he won't bet himself without a real hand, then you can call preflop and check-and-fold on the boards where you miss, knowing you're behind for sure.
4. You and the raiser are already heads-up. If there is a third player who limped in, and they might fold to your all-in raise (where they wouldn't have folded to the single raise), then calling is probably a mistake. You should raise and try to force them out. The loss of that T1500 you might have won from them is more than compensated for by their absence and inability to beat you.
5. Why isn't this post on the tournament forum?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I recall a great line in the 1980s era film, searching for Bobby Fischer. When the child prodigies teacher tries to force on him a straight strategic approach to the game. Later his real mentor, the Laurence Fishburne character, tries to correct this approach, telling the prodigy:
"Play from your heart. Play to win. He taught you how not to lose, he didn't teach you to win. To win you have to risk losing. Play me. Don't play the board. You're not here to beat the board, you're here to beat me."
I think this has obvious parralells to poker. What do the rest of you think?
What do I think? I think I pleaded with Mason to delete my posts the moment I made them, which he did delete all of them except for "Making It Easy," which alone for some reason he singled out and chose to promote, by attaching his famous name below it!
I wish it would end. It all means nothing.
That makes me a tale-teller, and an idiot, if you enjoy Shakespeare, which I do not. But you can be.
Love.
An under-the-gun raiser isn't worried about you. Your chips aren't worth much to a large stack, but they are worth a lot to you. A cut-off raiser knows this and should bully you into folding because you might need odds of 2:1 or 3:1 to justify going all-in. In other words the bully can have pretty low standards because you won't raise with your last chips. In some poker games you should fold every hand blind. In others you can call with your best hands since the bully will raise almost everything.
Of course it is a zero sum game even though chip values are nonlinear functions of stack size. So when a small stack loses, the rest of the table shares the gains. The large stacks particularly benefit from volatility of small stacks. In some cases large stacks might play looser to encourage medium stacks to enter and help wipe out small stacks.
Am I right in deducing that you are referring only to tournament play, where elimination, not accumulating chips to buy your kids braces, is the objective?
In this case all "value" is solely some chance of, like, winning the tournament. So you are saying that 1 chip is worth less than 1,000 chips, but not 1,000 times less. Whereas in real life, assuming we all have several thousand behind, it is worth 1,000 time less, at least in the middle of the curve?
That leaves:
"Of course it is a zero sum game even though chip values are nonlinear functions of stack size."
How do we make the leap to associate the two statements which you have connected with "even though"??? Would it be more likely to be a zero-sum game if chips were all equally valued? Are you simply saying that each chip represents some fraction of a 100% chance of winning the tournament, though the asymmetric allocations of those fractions are not proportional but are more like the square root of the asymmetric allocations of chips?
Please explain one more time! Thanks!!
Except for the rake, whether tournament or ring game, poker is a zero sum game.
However, at the late stages of a tournament, the chips in a small stack are worth more than the chips in a large stack, in terms of value per chip.
If I have T100, you have T1000, and the average stack is T500, each of my chips is worth more than each one of yours. If you knock me out, the "value" of my chips does not goes entirely into your T1100 stack. Much of my value goes to you, but the rest of it is spread out among the other players (basically because they are now one position closer to the money, or one position higher up the payout ladder if already in the money).
When you add up each of these estimated values of each stack, it always adds up to the same amount, the total of the prize pool. However, the value isn't tied in a direct fashion to each chip, but exists partially independently of the individual chips.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Are simpy saying that, dollar for dollar, they want to blow you out, because, let's suppose that...
-by giving up $100.00, they would each be giving up a 1% chance of winning the tournament, and keeping, say, 6%
-by taking away your last $100.00, they are taking away your last 2% chance of winning the tournament, and sharing it
My math ain't too good, but it seems that by playing loosely, as you suggested, they might be increasing yoru chances of losing, but increasing your chances of winning the tournament proportionally, or better, if you win. Could you elucidate this?
Maybe if I had ever actually played in a tournament, it wouldn't be so hard to get this through my thick head, and this post just wasn't meant for me! In most other situations in life, the marginal cost for eradicating the final, residual increment of chance usually seems to rise, not fall, as you seem to be suggesting, but maybe it has to do with the zero-sum thing. My own suspicion is that it is all proprtional in the end, and we're each only lookign at one side of it. Even if it's not already obvious to those of you "in the know" I bet Sklansky could crack it in 1 line of typed text!
Lets say I was in a situation were on the flop I had four cards to a stright flush oppurtunity. But i knew my oppenet had made a flush of a lesser value that im holding out for. Should I call, raise, or fold if he raised $10 dollars to the pot which was around $90?
I would call, you aren't going to get him to lay his flush down, and you have 7 outs.
Derrick
At the risk of making an ass of myself (as usual) in front of total strangers, I am stating with 100% confidence that the volatility argument of Kim Lee, a.k.a. "Math Phd.", is an illusion.
Bigger stacks jacking up volatility to wipe out smaller stacks is just like speeding up the clock, to the extent that very volatility is why their 10 chips are worth more than 1/10th of your 100 chips. If you are going to play badly for the benefit of the small stack, just to stress him out, I don't see what it accomplishes.
THERE ARE TACTICS AND ADJUSTMENTS IN STRATEGY YOU CAN EMPLOY TO GET AN ADVANTAGE OVER THE SHORT STACK, JUST AS THERE ARE CERTAIN HANDS AND SITUATIONS IN WHICH THE SHORT STACK GETS A BENEFIT, IN ADDITION TO A COST, OF BEING SHORT, SUCH AS NOT HAVING TO FOLD DRAWING HANDS. BUT TO SIMPLY EXPRESS THIS BULLYING AS "VOLATILITY", A TAKEN STATISTICAL TERM, IS TO SAY THAT WE COULD CHANGE THE SHAPE AND PROFILE OF THAT "NON-LINEAR" CURVE IN A LIMIT GAME SIMPLY BY DOUBLING THE LIMITS.
You should have reversed what you said, and said of course it is non-linear, even though it is a zero-sum game, or something. In reality, it is not because it is a non-linear game, or zero-sum, or anything like that, but because it is a QUANTUM catallaxy, that your arguments apply.
But who cares why in broad generalizations? We all know what you are talking about, but when you walk down that math-modeling road you only mislead yourself -- and me. It's "bullying." Spare us the game theory.
See ya.
Volatility hurts the small stacks in tournaments. A simplistic example will show why this is so. Let's say you have T100 in chips and are against a very large stack on a series of coin tosses, and you are making a series of independent trials wagers in the amount of T50 each time. A matrix showing all of your possible result paths will be balanced and fair, but the problem you will encounter is that many of your future winning result paths will never see the light of day because they involve losing two wagers from a neutral position before starting to win, and this eliminates you from the tournament. The very large stack facing you will not start to suffer from this effect unless you are first lucky enough to overtake him.
So it is correct for large stacks to increase volatility vs. small stacks, and it may be correct for them to do so even if it would mean taking slightly the worst of it otherwise.
By increasing volatility vs. small stacks I do not mean necessarily putting them all-in at every opportunity.
What I am trying to say and show is that the more times the large stack can force the small stack to flip a coin for a substantial part of his stack, the worse it is for the small stack.
Don't feel insecure because your e-mail address is "endvolatility"!
Jim Geary's and Greg Raymer's posts are quite good. A Two Plus Two book notes small stacks are worth disproportionately more with a winner-take-all prize if there are more than 2 people. You are correct volatility increases with time, so there is no need to "speed up the clock". But you would definitely like to see your opponents slug it out. And it is more costly for small stacks to fight, so large stacks have an advantage in confronting or "bullying" them when there are more than 2 people left. Oddly, nobody else emphasized the raise might be a "bullying" tactic with a weak hand.
"Two Plus Two book notes small stacks are worth disproportionately more with a winner-take-all prize if there are more than 2 people."
Not with a winner take all prize. In this situation the chips are worth their face value.
The statement is true however in a percentage payback tournament which is what virtually all tournaments are doing today.
It would not make sense to take 'stupid shots' at him, but forcing the short stack to gamble somewhat on close-to-even-money propositions should favor the large stack, as shown below in a simplified example which can be extrapolated or adjusted to fit specifics.
The key may be that you can't just fold to his blinds, or let him raise and win the blinds. Better to fight him, at least if your hand has some value.
A few issues ago, Sexton had a great article on this type of situation. It was hold 'em and I forget the exact details but the big blind had something like KJ. He reraised all-in preflop and ended up losing to the raiser's A7 or something. The flop was something like J52 but the other fella rivered an Ace.
Sexton's point was that it may have been better for KJ to just call preflop and then bet no matter what on the flop i.e. bet even if the flop did not have a Jack or King. The key reasoning was that you would then have two ways to win:
1. You can make the best hand
2. You can get him to fold a better hand (like A7) when you obviously couldn't have made him fold if you put it all in preflop.
You are investing the same amount of money as you would if you reraised preflop but give yourself an extra way of winning.
The one disadvantage of this play is that if you happen to have the better hand, you lose the opportunity to gain more chips from your opponent. However, in these situations, survival is more important than adding a few more chips to your stack.
I thought it was a great article; I E-mailed Sexton and told him that. I have used the tactic to advantage even in ring games.
General Poker Theory
April 2001 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo