![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
What happened to raising?
vince
Very good question Vince; and I only post because 1) I've done this math myself 2) You've contributed so much to the board that you deserve an answer
Raising, assuming that the other players know what you would raise with (which I believe is what the game settles too anyway) is always a bad bet.
This math assumes that the game is like playing with numbers between 0 and 1, and that you can't improve once you've been dealt your hand.
Most games, where you can improve on your hand though, it may be correct to raise in some circumstances.
sincerely
btw, I haven't read the rest of this board yet, and am just about to follow it all down.
Well, I've just read the rest of this thread; and I must say that you all give me a lot of laughs (that's all of you).
Vince, this sort of math, when I did it, convinced me that raising in general is a bad tactic. I haven't read Sklansky's TOP, in fact I've read very few poker theory books, except to do it all myself; because I know when I do it I don't fool myself; whereas when I follow others, I invariably throw it out because I don't know if it is bullshit or not.
I've won round 1 in the warm-ups several times, and this sort of theory helped me a lot. Without having done it, I would not have known how much emphasis to place on betting and raising.
Sorry to disagree with you that it all isn't relevant, but it does help.
On the side, I just finished an argument on another site not so long ago where "some banana bender" brought in a rule at his game where he banned "checking to mates". Well this game theory gave me the strength to get out there and fight him, because I believe that the game theory of this sort (when followed up further) comes out and says that checking the river is what most players that know each other will end up doing anyway.
That post is now deleted because it got a "bit nasty" in places I guess, so don't worry about finding it.
Vince, this stuff is all very related to poker. But keep up your posts anyway :)
I'm sorry to find this thread late.
"Vince, this sort of math, when I did it, convinced me that raising in general is a bad tactic. "
What does "raising in general" mean? Raising is a tool that when applied correctly is effective in aiding you to reach your goal of winning money. How can it possibly be a "bad tactic in general" or any other way? The tactic is not "bad" it's the applier of the tactic that may be "bad" but not the "tactic". I will stop short of saying that if you eliminate raising you elimnate the ability to over come the average rake in Casino's but I will say that if you were to eliminate raising you would severly handicap expert play.
"Sorry to disagree with you that it all isn't relevant, but it does help"
No where will you find that I claim that "game theory" is not relevant to poker. Game theory is applicable to poker, I know that. But the majority of posts here deal with "game theory" with the use of unrealistic poker examples and are mainly an exercise in game theory not poker strategy. Your statement above is the same type of statement that M uses. "..it does help". But you both just leave it at that. Why not explain the benefits of "game theory" to all of us instead of making vague claims?
Vince
"Why not explain the benefits of "game theory" to all of us instead of making vague claims? "
My normal answer here would be "certainly", and I will answer, but be aware that this sort of interaction is slow, and I would say whole books can be written on this subject instead of just brief posts. My excuse for having been vague is that I try to keep my texts within some paragraph limits, but you do point out correctly that I've been vague.
By raising in general I meant raising within the context of the game that the analysis referred to. That is raising by thinking that perhaps you have a better hand than your opponent, and you want more money. The problem is that your opponent that you have played against for many hours or weeks knows the point at which you think that eg it could be when you have any 2 pair or better after a flop. Now your opponent will only call your bet if he beats that minimum hand (mathematically he calls at a little better, perhaps if he has 2 pair with the high card being one of the pairs ).
The algebra shows then that the bet is a bad bet if your opponent can do that, it has negative EV.
Raising with other concepts may be "expert play", but raising with this concept is losing play.
Sincerely
Spikey,
You talk like a mathematician, not a poker player.
"That is raising by thinking that perhaps you have a better hand than your opponent, and you want more money."
You just don't get it! There are a number of reasons for raising but there is no one reason "in general" for raising. Raising is a tactic. Used correctly it may help the user gain an edge in some manner over his opponent. I find it difficult to understand how you can apply game theory to poker playing if you do not understand the fundamental use of a basic tactic such as raising.
"The problem is that your opponent that you have played against for many hours or weeks knows the point at which you think that eg it could be when you have any 2 pair or better after a flop. Now your opponent will only call your bet if he beats that minimum hand (mathematically he calls at a little better, perhaps if he has 2 pair with the high card being one of the pairs )."
You are mixing apples and oranges. In the first instance you raise to get more money in the pot if there is a good possibility that your opponent will call with a lesser hand than you have. In the second instance when your opponent has adjusted to your play you just don't raise. That's poker with or without algebra. You must take your opponent into consideration when deciding what is your best play. If he adjusts to your play then you must adjust. Winning poker is about mistakes. Mistakes your opponent makes and mistakes you don't make. If you were to raise knowing your opponent would only call with a hand that is better than yours then you made a mistake (although not always).
Vince
"You talk like a mathematician, not a poker player."
You may as well say I am a professional mathematician and a social poker player; and am planning to change that (to a social mathematician and professional poker player); but probably won't make it.
I didn't pretend to get into reasons for raising, the only thing that we've got so far is that if you DO IT (never mind your reason) when you have a particular hand or better, then a smart opponent behind you will turn your raises into negative EV.
I think we agree on that from reading your final paragraph; and of course if you raise into fish with strong hands then you will end up with positive EV.
I may not be as clever as some, but I did not know or understand this before I did the game theory, thus my understanding of the game is so much better for this sort of analysis. I am not a natural to knowing when and how to raise without doing sums and sometimes calculus (in this case).
"I didn't pretend to get into reasons for raising, the only thing that we've got so far is that if you DO IT (never mind your reason) when you have a particular hand or better, then a smart opponent behind you will turn your raises into negative EV. "
Spikey, if you understand game theory then you should understand why your statement above is flawed.
One place where game theory actually does have a clearly beneficial application in poker is bluffing. If one uses the tool of bluffing properly, then one will not have a negative EV simply because they raise with a potentially good hand. I am surprised you did not take bluffing into consideration before making the above statement.
William
"One place where game theory actually does have a clearly beneficial application in poker is bluffing"
Clear and unambiguos. Gee Bill, aren't you and I the guys that are always getting beat up over our views on game theory?
Vince
Oops... sorry Vince, I forgot for a moment that I was a moron. Which reminds me, when is my charter membership card going to arrive?
William
"when is my charter membership card going to arrive? "
Bill, we morons do not need any stinkin membership card to prove were stupid! We already know it and, apparently, so does everybody else. And they call us idiots! Huh!
Hey, have you noticed that Mark Glover and Tom Weideman haven't posted here in a while? I think it's my fault. I told Mark (jokingly) to "blow it out his ass" when he said I was ignorant or silly and he must not have liked that. I guess Tom just gave up because I am an idiot. That makes sense, don't you think? Now I'm being childish in addition to moronish. I had to upstage you someway.
Vince
You truly are the king of morons Vince and I would never assume that I could usurp your throne. You are correct that people do not need to see a membership card in order to know that we are morons, but I thought a charter membership card might bring a few extra dollars on EBay.
One thing the game theory guys should know is that poker players knew the reasons for bluffing long before the invention of game theory.
Hey, what happened to Spikey? I wonder if he was just bluffing about understanding game theory.
William
P.S. If one calls a moron an idiot, is it a compliment?
I'm still here.
I haven't done bluffing, only "chopping the blinds" coz I wanted to know what your equity was when you didn't chop, and then I did raising after that.
It was a lot of work to do the algebra, I took 2 weeks off work to do it, but, being the nerd I am, I found it to be a lot of fun too.
I am an idiot too, not just because sometimes I make the most stupid mistakes, but because I use the dark side of the force too, which then makes me an idiot by choice. Am I then a REAL IDIOT??? Somehow I'm starting to feel at home with you guys.
Well Spikey, I admire you honesty, but fear for your reputation if you ever decide to hang around Vince an me.
You probably already know this but, I believe the math on bluffing is relatively simple compared to many other game theory studies. I think it goes something like this... If one bluffs so that the odds that they are bluffing are identical to the pot odds given one's opponent, then that opponent will be at an equal disadvantage no matter how they answer your bet.
I wonder if one of the game theory experts will jump out of the woodwork and point out just how shallow my understanding of game theory really is. Still, without going into excruciating detail I believe that my rather truncated bluffing thesis is correct.
Later, William
Nevertheless, our Hero can still compensate for the behavior of his opponents and neutralize the advantage your describe.
William
'Nevertheless, our Hero can still compensate for the behavior of his opponents and neutralize the advantage you describe.' --- William
No, actually that's not true, and in fact that's the whole point. If the other two players choose certain strategies, then Hero will have negEV no matter what he does. Given his opponents' strategies, he can come up with a best strategy, but it will have negEV, and all other strategies will be worse.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
I still cannot agree with you Dirk. In the example you gave, our Hero need only emulate their positional play as the button rotates and he will end up having exactly the same advantage they have.
William
One player cannot simultaneously emulate two other players.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Dirk Wrote: “One player cannot simultaneously emulate two other players. “
You are now reduced to word games in order to avoid admitting I am correct. I am starting to believe that the thought of admitting that I am correct is so appalling to you that you will continue to dodge admitting the correctness of my position no matter how simple it should be for you to understand. In other words, I am starting to believe that I have been wasting my time. Sadly, I assumed that you honestly wanted to discuss this topic. Now I am faced with the proposition that you have a trivial understanding of real world poker or that you are just a disingenuous person. In either case, your position is incorrect on the point I am trying to get through to you and you appear to not be intellectually honest enough to simply admit it and move on.
If all three players use identical strategies and there is no leakage, then their overall respective EVs will be ZERO.
THE BUTTON ROTATES DIRK!
How can you not understand that three players with identical overall game strategies will all have zero EVs over the long haul?
William
I have been making a sincere and genuine effort to try to explain this stuff to you but you just don't get it. This takes time and effort and I thought you might appreciate it. Instead of you stopping and thinking about it, you just insult me. Why should I waste my time? Nevertheless, I'll give it another go.
Your statement `If all three players use identical strategies and there is no leakage, then their overall respective EVs will be ZERO' is trivially true, and is completely obvious to anyone who thinks for five seconds. But it is also totally irrelevant to the situation described.
In the situation described, players A and B are playing DIFFERENT strategies. (To be more specific, player A's strategy when UTG, is different to player B's strategy when UTG, etc. Note that for strategies to be different, they need only differ in at least one position.) So regardless of what player U(=hero) does, it will not be the case that all three players are playing the same strategies. The standard `symmetry' argument does not apply here.
Do you now see what I was getting at when I said `One player cannot simultaneously emulate two other players.' These were words with real meaning intended to convey real concepts, and they are words which can be comprehended by other people.
So? Do you get it yet?
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Dirk,
At least you finally acknowledged that my statement was correct. I understood from the beginning that the specific situation you described gave our hero a negative EV. What’s not to understand when someone gives a simple example?
The thing that makes your example disappointing to me is that it does not hold up over time, as the button rotates. You have yet to give an example in which our hero is at a game level disadvantage simply due to playing styles, despite of your claims to the contrary. Whatever happened to the wonderful proof to which you referred in the previous thread? You know the one that you mysteriously did not want to post without permission (wink wink nudge nudge). I personally doubt that it met general case requirements, but would love to see it, if it did.
William
In the example, which, by the way, I did post, (go look) player U(=hero), does indeed have a negative EV over the long haul, as the button rotates. If you calculated, the EV for each position --- let's say the EV for U in Blind, UTG, Button are x,y z, respectively --- then you would find that x is negative, while y and z are positive, but most importantly, the overall EV, namely (x+y+z)/3 is negative. In fact, I already made this clarification a couple of weeks ago.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
It is only negative if you restrict our hero from making the appropriate corrections. Your calculations were interesting, but your restrictions placed upon our hero makes your case frivolous.
I guess you didn't have that proof for the previous thread after all.
William
There are no restrictions on Hero. He knows the other two players strategies, and can choose the best possible counterstrategy. EV is averaged as button takes all three positions. Yet despite all this, Hero has a strictly negative EV. Go into the archives, find the post and read it.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Sorry Dirk, but I completely disagree. If our Hero has no restrictions then he can at least compensate. You even said that it was a trivial point that he can achieve at least a zero EV.
Even though it may be trivial, it is interesting how many messages it took to get you to admit it.
William
"it is interesting how many messages it took to get you to admit it."
Gee, I find it interesting also. I wonder how many messages it would take Tom Weideman or Mark Glover to admit they were wrong once in their lives? Tom, maybe about as long as Dirk. Mark.. hmmm... do we have enough days left in this lifetime? I don't think so.
Vince
I am so glad you were following this thread! I put a lot of work into finally getting Dirk to admit that I was correct. I am glad you were there because I am very happy someone besides me had the opportunity to enjoy the event. This was great fun. I especially enjoyed how Dirk continued to act as if I did not understand his original post.
I am sure you realize that this was the very example that Dirk claimed was a general case proof to his previous thread. I already knew he had no proof because his original thesis, along with Mark’s example, would never be applicable in the general case.
Anyone can give specific examples of situations in which one player or another has a disadvantage no matter what they do, but I have never seen a defendable example of a general case example based exclusively upon playing style.
William
"but I have never seen a defendable example of a general case example based exclusively upon playing style. "
Give them a chance, they'll think of something.
vince
If there's one thing worse than morons it is arrogant pious, self-righteous morons. I told you to look in the archives for this.
First note that: There are no restrictions on Hero. He knows the other two players strategies, and can choose the best possible counterstrategy. EV is averaged as button takes all three positions. Yet despite all this, Hero has a strictly negative EV.
Now it is not that simple to calculate EV's from the given strategies, and I strongly doubt that either of you guys are up to the task, but you should at least try to grasp the general idea of how this works.
If you can't grasp this example, try at least to comprehend the heads-tails game which I also reproduce below.
-----------------------------------------
Here is the simplest example X can come up with that shows how, without explicit collusion, your opponents can force you to lose money in a multiplayer poker game.
1. Randomly select "Blind", a player who posts a blind bet of one chip.
2. Deal each of the three players a statistically independent number from the uniform unit distribution (0,1).
3. Play begins with "UTG" (i.e., "under the gun" -- the player seated immediately to the left of the blind), who must either call (wager one chip) or fold.
4. Next, "Button" (i.e., the player immediately to the right of the blind) must either call or fold.
5. If either UTG or Button calls, there is a showdown (including Blind) with the highest ranking hand winning all chips wagered; otherwise, the blind is returned to the player who posted it.
Notice that Blind has no decision to make, so that the game can be reduced to a two player non-zero-sum game between UTG and Button.
Let X be the set of strategies available to UTG, and let Y be the set of strategies for Button. Given strategy x belonging to set X, and y belonging to Y, let V1(x,y) and V2(x,y) be, respectively, the expected payoff to UTG and Button when UTG uses x and Button uses y.
x*, the optimal strategy for UTG, is x such that V1(x,y'(x)) is maximized, where y'(x) is the Button strategy that, given x, minimizes V1(x,y). y*, Button's optimal strategy, is defined similarly.
x* is to call if the rank of UTG's hand is at least Sqrt(2.5) - 1 (~0.581), and to fold otherwise.
y* is:
(a) if UTG folds, call if the rank of Button's hand is at least 1/2. (b) if UTG calls, call if rank > (1 + Sqrt(2.5)) / 3 (~0.860).
(The derivation is left as an exercise.)
Now suppose you are in seat 1, Albert is in seat 2, and Boris is in seat 3.
If Albert plays ranks above
(2 - 2 Sqrt(3) + Sqrt(12 - Sqrt(27))) / 2 ~ 0.572
when UTG and optimally otherwise, and Boris plays ranks above
2 - Sqrt(3) + Sqrt(11/2 - Sqrt(27)) ~ 0.819
when Button and optimally otherwise, then no matter how you play, your expectation for this game cannot exceed -0.000198 chips. (Again, the derivation is left as an exercise.) #
---------------------------------------------
Another example: The HEADS-TAILS-ODD-ONE-OUT-WINS.
Three players U(=hero), H and T. Each player antes $1. The players simultaneously declare Heads or Tails. Odd-one-out (if there is one) wins the pot, otherwise it is split. Now as it turns out, H always calls Heads, because he's just a calling-Heads kind of guy, and T always calls Tails, because he's just a calling-Tails kind of guy. Moreover, U is fully aware of what H and T will do and tries to adjust and optimize as best as he can. Unfortunately, best is not good enough, and U is guaranteed to lose $1 every round.
-----------------------------------------
YOU GOT IT YET? HELLO? ANYONE THERE? I DOUBT YOU GUYS WILL PUBLICALLY ADMIT YOU'RE WRONG, BUT AT LEAST YOU SHOULD HAVE THE GUTS AND THE HONESTY TO ADMIT IT TO YOURSELVES!
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
"YOU GOT IT YET? HELLO? ANYONE THERE? I DOUBT YOU GUYS WILL PUBLICALLY ADMIT YOU'RE WRONG, BUT AT LEAST YOU SHOULD HAVE THE GUTS AND THE HONESTY TO ADMIT IT TO YOURSELVES! "
I don't know what it is you think I was wrong about but it certainly wasn't about playing poker.
"(i.e., "under the gun" -- the player seated immediately to the left of the blind)"
Look wise ass, as far as I know your little exercise in game theory is correct but it has nothing at all to do with playing live poker. I really believed you admitted to that from reading Bill's post. But I guess your pompass ass wouldn't let you do that. You call yourself a mildmaneredmathman but no where do you claim to know how to play poker. I can see why.
vince
This entire thread is about game theory. Didn't you realise that? But you should not for a second contemplate the idea that game theory does not apply to real poker.
This example is a simplified `model' of real poker. Somtimes we deal with a simplified model because the real thing is way too hard to analyse. Meteorologists used drastically simplified models of climate, but they still do a pretty decent job of predicting weather. And even if a model is too simple to make specific predictions, it still demonstrates the types of phenomena that can occur. Most reasonable people, on seeing and understanding the given example would realise that it exhibited a certain phenomenon, namely that one player could have negEV, when confronted with certain playing styles, and would take this as moderately convincing evidence that a similar situation could occur in any type of real poker.
If you don't want to make the jump from the simplified model, to the real game, that's a perfectly respectable position to take, but William was denying the model itself and he was completely wrong about that.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
"If you don't want to make the jump from the simplified model, to the real game, that's a perfectly respectable position to take, "
That's always been my position. I like your post very much. It is extermely informative by way of your explanation of the use of a simplflified model to explain phenomena. In this case the "phenomena" being that one player could have a negative EV. However, your post and others claim that because of the results of your game theory analysis it is conclusive that in "real" poker one player "would" have a negative EV. I disgree. I do not believe you can make the leap forom this example to real poker. I do not disagree with the conclusions on the game theory analysis of the situation you describe.
vince
Actually, you are the one who brought up real poker and the applicability of your simplistic examples to poker Dirk. Remember?
William
Hi Dirk,
The first example: In the case of your first example, our hero can compensate as the button rotates around the table. But of course you already know that because you mentioned to me that my point was trivial.
The second example: I agree with you that our Hero will be at a long-term disadvantage, if and only if H and T have no desire to win and/or no desire to minimize their loses. But, if either one of them wants to win our not lose then I could break up their behavior so that the game would be fair.
My position all along: I do not agree that either of your simplistic examples has an analog equivalent in real poker. Neither do I believe that you already have an example or can create an example of such a scenario in a real poker game.
I do, however, appreciate how mild mannered you are when you manage to box yourself into a corner.
William
In the example given, hero has negative EV, even as the button rotates. There is nothing hero can do to make all three players play the same strategy, because the other two players play different strategies. The symmetry argument (if all play the same then all have 0EV) does not apply here.
In real world poker, I believe you would have negEV if everyone at the table plays optimal poker, except that the player to your immediate left always raises on the river with the nuts.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
“There is nothing hero can do to make all three players play the same strategy, because the other two players play different strategies. “
Our hero does not have to control the other players in order to compensate for their play and thereby achieve at least a 0 EV.
Someday you will think this example through completely and realize that your two players can be at least neutralized.
If you would be so kind, please now have the last word then we can stop wasting our time on this issue.
Thanks, William
P.S. Thanks for at least admitting you were wrong earlier, that was all I wanted anyway. Bye Bye
"In real world poker, I believe you would have negEV if everyone at the table plays optimal poker, except that the player to your immediate left always raises on the river with the nuts."
......that's good. Player behind loses more EV than you, but the other player gets it.
No more calls please, I think we have a winner.
Rule #325 states "Don't make an enemy of the player to your left, for it is he that decides who's money he gets when he has the nuts."
MS Sunshine
p.s. Where can I get one of those vince hats?
Been putting my nose in again; thought I'd put in some comments, I have done some very similar stuff.
"x*, the optimal strategy for UTG, is x such that V1(x,y'(x)) is maximized, where y'(x) is the Button strategy that, given x, minimizes V1(x,y). y*, Button's optimal strategy, is defined similarly. "
Although in this game the blind doesn't make decisions, it is generally better to choose y that maximizes V2(x,y) rather than minimise V1(x,y); although the method you use is OK (haven't seen the working). When I did it, y is correctly a function of x (y(x)), which then has EV maximised (still a function of x), and then go back and maximise x's EV.
There are lots of issues here though. 1. I think you proved that if you can avoid it, don't post the blind. Most people can hunch that, and indeed it is very often that peoples hunches are correct, math or no math. Any one will expect to have negative EV on the game that they post a blind.
2. Without seeing your working I'm not sure how you modeled all the possible strategies. When I did it, I just assumed that they players could only play with a particular value or better; but this may be flawed, although I haven't seen any strategy that is proved to be better.
3. When you maximise y as a function of x, it assumes Button knows how x plays, and I am the first to agree that that is what a game settles to (from my experience), but there is a good argument about that UTG can change his game regularly misinforming Button who now can't maximise his strategy.
4. The heads and tails game is completely different to poker, because the possible hands don't have any individual order.
Now Vince, that is what you wanted to say without knowing how to say it isn't it???
According to Mike Caro, every full time professional will eventually encounter a 1000 hour losing streak in his poker playing career.
So 1 (that's one) losing streak of 1000 hrs in a career that could span 50 years or more is considered a common occurance? Besides how would Caro know? Sounds like an off the top of the head guess to me.
vince
The math is actually not too hard: assume you have a rate of 3/4 BB/h and a standard deviation (SD) of 15 BB/h and play 1600h/year:
Your yearly SD is 15 * sqrt(1600) BB = 600 BB, your EV is 3/4*1600 BB = 1200 BB or 2 SDs. The chance to lose over a year is about 2.3 % (IIRC - I don't have the tables here) which translates into one losing one-year streak every 43 years or once in your poker livetime.
Thank God, I've already had mine;-)
" PS : Vince Lepore is correct on another issue, also. "Non-obligated" means at least "not willing", if not "not capable", in a web forum context. "
A guy meets a girl in a bar: 'You are ugly and fat ! Walk home with me to prove me wrong ! ' How do you like his chances ?
" PPS : Game Theory is most certainly relevant to poker playing, last time I checked. Even things which do not readily seem to have any relevance, at first sight, turn out that they do. But I do not know what are the small and "insignificant" Game Theory things Vince Lepore is talking about. "
Good point !
"A guy meets a girl in a bar: 'You are ugly and fat ! Walk home with me to prove me wrong ! ' How do you like his chances ?"
I don't.
But your (droll) example is not relevant. You were invited to back up a claim you made which is neither trivial nor self-evident. You refused to do so. We are then suppose to take you at your word or look for the proof ourselves. Well, you have to excuse those who don't go either way.
First, I apologize Corky, because this took place in my poker room, and was a bad call made by one of my floor people. Second, I agree with Eric as far as "action being taken" and "counseling" the dealer as to their importance of "PAYING ATTENTION". The dealer should have been aware of the action being held up by player #2 and should have called "time" this would have prevented player #3 from acting out of turn. Third, player #3's initial bet should have stayed in the pot, he had been called by three players (action) so his action stands for the same reason that the #2 players' action (assumed check) stands. I thank you for bringing my attention to this issue. We will go over this in our staff meeting Friday. Stop in and see me, OK.
its good to see a poker room person here. we are rightly tough on floor rulings as we have seen so many bad ones over the years and little effort of management to correct conditions. you show interest and thats just what the players need. how about telling us what your room is and talking some times about things so players and management can understand each other better. thanks. ray zee
i am currently in one of my worst losing streaks ever at betting on sports. whether one thinks there's positive expectancy in it or not, the games at least should be close to 50/50...yet I have done real bad (5 and 25 in even money bets).
this is killing me...but to me, its not as bad when it is in sports as when it is in poker. because when it happens in sports, I can pinpoint it on just really bad luck (excpet for the juice of course), if you assume no one can beat the line anyway (I know, I play in part for the action). but in poker, it may be very well related to playing poorly and even more poorly with the more that you lose.
So, my quesion, is what do do during a huge losing streak in POKER? Take a break? Anaylize your game (how)?
As in golf when my game is off I analyze my alignment, grip, stance etc. Same in poker - starting hands, position play and the games you are playing.
You need a couple of wins - confidence is a mojor part of poker if you feel like a loser you will be a loser.
Just leave the next few games whan you are ahead it will give you a mental boost. Also look at who you are playing against and the personality of the tables maybe there is somehting there.
Hope things change for you.
I have copied and saved your post. It is so on the money it should be printed in the next major book "poker for experts" or the like.
Thanks for the motivation!
So happens I'm working on three poker books at once, but none of them are about expert poker-playing because I think the actual playing part of poker is low on the list of what seperates winners from losers.
And when I read a non-fiction book of any kind, I prefer it's emphasis be on entertainment rather than content. So that's what I'm trying to put together over here. A wide-eyed view of the world from a shmuck who lived comfortably for seven years without a job and almost never had more than $5,000.
Whatever. Coffee's done and I gotta go write. You got me stoked.
Tommy
The pot is what the pot is. 15:1 for the 2nd call.
Your odds are better for the 2nd call but it could be that the fact that he raised reduces your chances of winning; such as when you are not drawing to the nuts.
Back to Sklansky's point. Lets say in your example you figure the 3rd opponent will raise half the time, call one quarter of the time, and fold one quarter of the time. The 1st player will always call the raise. At the moment of your first call you appear to be getting 11:1...
Half the time you are actually getting 14:2; quarter of the time 12:1, and a quarter 11:1. or .5(14/2) +.25(12) + .25(11) = 3.5 + 3 + 2.75 = 9.25; so on average you are getting only 9.25:1. Compare this pot-odds with your chances of hitting ..err.. chances of winning the hand.
- Louie
with reference to post from Louie (above) if you spend a lot of time at the table, then that's what it's all about--when pot odds are greater than odds against win, then get your $$$ IN... in time you will do well! Jim
I have been running so well lately it's scary. Since March 1, I have averaged close to 7 big bets an hour. Cards have been falling all over me and I've had just a very few disasters when I got drawn out on.
Am I a great player? No. I'm OK. Above average but that's all.
So what do you do during a huge winning streak? Tell yourself how great you are and how well you've played? Or is it better to realize that there has been a luck factor involved? I believe the latter.
Example: I won a monster pot last week when, after flopping top set, and having 3 opponents all catch a straight on the turn, I caught quads on the river. If that card doesn't come, it's a $1200 difference in my day's take.
It's nice to count the money and vicariously relive the day's events, but it's more important to think about the hands you messed up and to realize your messups didn't cost you as much as they might have only because your luck has been so good. I posted a couple of hands on the medium stakes forum recently where I was taken to task, rightly I think, for incorrect play on the flop. On one of these hands things worked out better for me than they would have had I played it correctly. It's important to realize that taking the money home doesn't always mean you played great.
Now I'm not saying I'm a complete idiot (although there is room for disagreement). I've played a lot of hands very well. But it's all too easy to be self-congratulatory instead of striving to do better without being overly results oriented.
So to those of you who are running bad, this too will pass and hopefully you'll hit a stretch like I have. I know it's much easier to be reflective and thoughtful about the positives and negatives of your play when you're happy and relaxed, but it's important to do so even when your hot and stuck.
Andy,
One mistake many make when having run good (I won’t say “running good” since this implies luck continues into the future) is moving up to a higher limit. Right now you have a tremendous psychological advantage over your everyday opponents. They are less likely to make moves on you or make the tricky play since you seem invincible. Play more often at your current limit and take advantage of your situation.
Regards,
Rick
Very good point. I play mostly 30-60, some 20-40, but I won't move to 40-80. First, I know the players at the 20 and 30 levels. Second, as you say, they've watched me cash in several racks almost every time I've played and in fact, day before yesterday, one player said to me out loud, "It's time to start staying out of your way. Exactly how good are you running?" Third, I think one of my strengths, paradoxically, is I recongnize the existence of my weaknesses and have strived very hard to not feel invincible simply because things are going well.
In my younger days, I would have let the fact that, for example, I had won a big pot when I had 7-6s in the big blind effect my overall play to the point I would then play 7-6s UTG. Or I would not adjust my game depending on the opponent. I think one can win in a game where there are even several opponents who play better than you, provided there are several who play poorly. I still need to pick my battles, no matter how well I am running (or rather, I have ran).
Also, it's important that people understand what you mean when you say "take advantage of your situation." To me, this means the situation where I have a psychological advantage over my opponents because they are expecting me to win; it does not mean my advantage is I'm running well. This could change today. But meanwhile, they may play less than optimally against me because they know I'm hot.
That is a very insightful point you make. And I have been guilty of this in the past, in that if I have been running well in on particular limit, I will take a shot a the higher limit (which is usually 15-30 for me and occasionally 20-40). However, when would you propose moving to a higher limit? It would seem that when things are good you generally have more confidence and more importantly a bigger bankroll. I would really be interested in hearing a response, mainly because I have never been able to keep a sustained run in the 15-30.
Thanks.
Andy,
Keep playing until you hit a cold streak. If you take a break before that happens you will keep saying over and over I should be playing, I should be playing, and not enjoying your break.
paul
Take 2000 and take a shot at the 75-150 or 80-160 limits. You can always go back down to your level if and when you lose the 2000. Give yourself a chance to make a short-term killing. But be sure to limit your risk to 2000. If you are really confident in your ability to grind out a long-term win at 20-40 and 30-60, you wouldn't be afraid to do this.
Actually on the river you had 10 outs for a full house so your miracle quads was not the only way you win the big pot. Rick is right winning streaks are not a reason to move up I have seen many good mid limit players do just that and get gutted in the shark tank.
Hi Andy, It seems to me that you have a very good handle on the problem most players have after having run hot.
Slowly their game begins to deteriorate because they falsely start to believe they can play more hands than they should. It starts slowly by adding one extra hand they connect, so now they add a few more from early/middle position, etc. This adding of hands usually coincides with thinking about the game less, because you're running good and "don't want to change anything". Which ultimately leads to a losing run because your game has changed for the worse.
I have had this problem in regards to betting on dog racing. You get hot and become attuned to the styles of the dogs and cash some tickets based on excellent handicapping. You get this mental picture of how a race is going to be run and you are correct far more than your normal win Pct would dictate. I would start to become a little complacent and don't put as much effort into the handicapping because "my vision/instincts" have been so clear and profitable. This leads me to miss subtle changes in the dogs, the way the track is playing etc., and inevitably it leads to a losing streak.
If you continue to analyze your game and can notice the subtle differences in you opponents playing styles and adjust your own accordingly, you are far ahead of most "ok" poker players.
John
I play low stakes hold'em in Las Vegas and I am confronted over and over again with hands I am not quite sure of how to play. This message could be posted in the low limit hold'em topic, but I think it is more general to hold'em than it is strictly a low-limit hold'em question, so I've posted it here. The hand type and scenario which is perplexing me the most is as follows:
We assume a $4-$8 hold'em game with $1-$2 blinds. We're on the button with ATs (let's say we have the AT of clubs). The game is relatively loose and only a couple of the players are particularly skilled. So, we start with four callers ahead of us and we fully expect the blinds will call and not raise. Likewise, we suspect the blinds will most likely fold to a raise, though most or all of the other callers would call our raise. Conventional poker wisdom would suggest that we call as well, as our hand is one which could improve to the nut flush (or a few other decent hands) and it's great to have a lot of players putting money into the pot when such a thing happens.
So, if we call, there will be a total of 7 players (including us) in the pot and thus $14. If we raise, we can expect 4 or 5 players in the pot and $30.
Now suppose three clubs hit on the flop. Chances are we won't profit very much from such a hand as any bet will scare most of the players off (unless they happen to have a couple of clubs as well). We could attempt to slowplay this hand and perhaps pick up a big bet or two in the later rounds, but this is not likely to make us a lot of money.
Now suppose two clubs hit and the board does not pair. This is pretty much our ideal situation...or is it? If we just called in the first round, there is only $14 in the pot. Now suppose there are 3 checks and a bet in front of us. That brings the pot to $18...giving us poor pot-odds by my calculations, even if three other people call along. We'd most likely have to pay $12 to see the river card (we could attempt a semi-bluff raise which may or may not work which would save us $4). If the original bettor and at least two others (only one more caller is probably more likely though) called along for two rounds, that brings their share of the pot to $52 which does not quite justify the $12 we'd have to invest to see the river - even if we could pick up one more $8 bet on the river if our flush hit.
Now, if we had raised before the flop, we probably would have cut down the number of players in the game at the flop - most likely by eliminating the blinds and perhaps one or two of the initial callers (remember, to call a raise with this structure, it is $4 more while to just call initially on the first round it is only $2). If five players are in at the flop, that brings the pot to $30 and, furthermore, we know our ATs is probably an underdog unless we flop some clubs. If the two clubs hit and someone bets into us, we could raise and possibly get into a head-up situation and also possibly get a free card on the turn. Or we could call and hope for another caller or two. If we assume one other player will call if we bet, that still doesn't give us very good pot odds. We'd most likely have to invest $12 again to see the river, at which point the pot will be $54, which is questionable, at best - especially because, if the third club does hit, our opponents will likely be timid about betting or even calling (unless they too have some clubs).
So, I am stumped about how to play this and similar holdings. The correct play probably depends heavily on the game - a maniac in the mix can really change things as can an extremely loose calling station. But, I am assuming typical low-limit conditions in Las Vegas, meaning moderately loose but timid (especially after the flop) players. I think learning to avoid misplays on hands like this is a huge part of becoming a great player - unfortunately, I think I often do not maximize my profit potential when faced with hands like this.
So, does anyone have any advice on playing ATs and similar hands in a $4-$8 hold'em game with $1 and $2 blinds? The above examples were pretty simplistic and didn't even take into account the possibility of an agressive opponent who raises us before the flop or even after the flop. Any thoughts, advice and opinions are appreciated.
A few points:
1) With 3 callers in front of you, you should consider raising pre-flop with Ac-Tc. Should you make a flush, it will be the nuts and the larger pot will entice people into playing with you.
2) If you flop the nut flush, you should bet if it's checked around to you. Many low limit players will call with top pair, second pair, a flush draw or even a straight draw. Plus someone might have made a smaller flush already and will reraise.
3) If the flop comes with 2 clubs and no pair, you want to get as many players in the pot as possible so that if you hit on the turn or river you've make as much money as possible. You also might consider raising if there is a bet in front of you in an effort to buy two "free" cards on the turn and river.
Suited connectors and A-xs are nice hands to play in these games because with lots of players it's going to take a completed hand (a flush or a straight) pretty often to win the pot.
Hope this helps some. Good luck.
PureNut,
I am having some trouble with your math. I think that in these cases you should only be thinking about the odds of hitting your hand on the next card. As long as those odds are sufficient you should be in there. In your example, the pot is $18 to you and you must call $4 or odds of 4.5:1. That is sufficient given that there is 9 cards of the remaining 45 that help you. Your odds are 9/36 or 4:1. These are not "poor odds" as you stated.
Let's assume you call and maybe one other. Now the pot is $26 and here comes the turn, a blank. Check, bet of $8 and its up to you. There is now $34 and you must call $8. Now your odds are 4.25:1 and you still (slightly less than) 4:1 to hit a flush. Easy call again.
The free card play is a good possibility here, if the game is a "check to the raiser" type game. Regardless, you have odds to call a bet on the turn.
I also take issue, like andy, that this game is so weak tight that no one will pay you off when the flop is all one suit and you are on the button with the nuts. Many LL players will convince themselves you are on a position bet or bluff and call you with many holdings. In addition, people with a single club will most likely continue, as will baby flushes. Still, a slowplay might not be disastrous. For me though, I take my chances on the button here because players often don't give the button credit for a good hand when they bet after everyone checks.
Generally speaking, with Axs in late position with some callers see the flop, count the bets and keep going if you have the pot and/or implied odds to do so (which you almost always will with a four flush and little raising post-flop). Go for the free card play if you think it will work. Bet and raise the max when you hit your flush. Don't worry too much about getting paid off. You will when your opponents have a good 2nd best hand and won't when they don't. The only way to find out it is to bet. Either way you are stacking the chips.
KJS
Change your mind set. Instead of asking "What's the right play" ask "What should I consider?"
The primary value of your ATs isn't the flush; its still the pair. This trouble hand changes drastically in value depending on whether or not its dominated. Specifically, its a pre-flop raise if you know nobody has AA/KK/QQ/JJ/TT/AK/AQ/AJ/AT. Its a really GOOD pre-flop raise if nobody additionally has KQ/KJ/QJ. So in your situation, if the callers WILL raise with "quality" hands then you should give good consideration to raising yourself after these kinds of players have chosen to just call. The tighter or more timid the callers, the less inclined you should be to raise.
Another consideration is how the flop may go. Be more inclinded to call if the opponents are very likely to bet a pair if they flop it; thus you often get auto-reflex steal opportunities when they check the flop to you.
If a raise will cause them to automatically "check-to-the-raiser" then be more inclinded to raise figuring to often take a flop free-card if you want it.
With 2 cards to go you will make the flush 36% of the time or are just a 2:1 underdog. Risking $12 to win $54 is a bargain. Except that $12 of that $54 is yours so you are only "winning" $42; still a bargain.
Flopping the flush has just GOT to be better than flopping the flush draw, even if you expect less action.
- Louie
If you are playing a 1-4-4-8-8 spread limit game wich is a fairly popualar game with 1-2$ blinds , I like to raise it to 4$ instead of 6$ so i will then get some good drawing odds on the flop , and they will almost never fold for only a 1/2 bet more, but they might fold for double the bet.
Consider a situation where we have three players, one who is ahead right now, and two who have the pot odds to call a bet with a drawing hand. To illustrate, let's call it 5/10 HE, the board on the turn is
Kc 5c 6h Jh
The pot is currently $60, and assume that they're all in for $20 at this point (to eliminate dead money).
The guy who is ahead is holding AsAd. One drawing hand is the Tc9c. The other is KhQh.
We have a leader, who bets for value. Two other callers on the basis of +ev according to current pot odds.
My question is, how can it be the right play for each of them to put money in the pot? The right play being the one with the greatest ev. Is it because of the size of the pot? Is it because of the size of the bet? It just seemed weird to me that there is a +ev play for everyone at any given time, and if they do that forever, how can they all make money?
Of course, I could be entirely wrong, in which case I'd appreciate someone pointing out my error, but otherwise, could you explain this to me? Thanks.
Joe
Joe,
I haven’t checked the math but in general they can all have positive expectation because there is already money in the pot from previous rounds. It is very possible that the Tc9c made a mistake earlier by cold calling an early raise with a hand that should see the flop cheaply against many opponents but the flop made up for his mistake.
The aces must bet because he can’t afford not to charge his drawing opponents a price. This increases his overall expectation and decreases that of his drawing opponents.
Regards,
Rick
Joe, one of the many complaints that big bet poker players (that is pot limit and no limit players) have concerning limit poker is that the guy with the best hand cannot bet enough to protect it. In limit poker it is very common for every player to keep on playing once boardcards appear because of the money already in the pot and the fact that it only cost one bet to play. Once pots get big enough, no one is making much of a mistake by hanging around with any chance of winning and there are many cases where everyone is correct in playing as in your example.
Consider a very simple and silly example. You are playing in a $5-$10 hold'em game. An eccentric billionaire is watching your game and tosses in $10,000 into the pot at the start of every hand while saying "play for it boys". How should you play this game assuming everyone has to play for themselves? Answer: since the maximum bet is only $10, you will be getting the right price to play any two cards all the way to the river until it is known with 100% certainty that you are beat. In other words, your $5-$10 game would become a game of showdown where everyone takes all the cards to the river and the best hand wins. Everyone would do this and everyone would be playing correctly. The game would be one totally devoid of any skill just like actual showdown.
I understand what you're saying about dead money, but this was something I tried to account for in the part about The pot is currently $60, and assume that they're all in for $20 at this point (to eliminate dead money). in the original post. The glaring play problem is the 9Ts guy throwing in the extra bets in the early round, but that's not the same as not throwing good money after bad. That's bad money before good, which keeps him in the pot. Because it was bad money, however, should we consider it dead in the conventional sense? What I was really looking at was for everyone to have a +ev play without extra money involved (a la millionaries or folded opponents, people who put money in the pot who have no chance of taking it down). That situation makes no sense to me, which is why I brought it up. Thanks again.
Joe
I didn't see this before I posted ny other message. You are asking a much more difficult question. But I think it is still true that there must be some dead money in the pot in the form of forced bets (antes, blinds), before a voluntary bet could ever make sense. Of course the pot can be fattened further by bad (-EV) bets, but I believe, that if everyone played perfect poker and there were no forced bets, then there would be no voluntary bets. But I would certainly like to hear an experts comments.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Once money is in the pot it is dead. it is no longer yours.
think about this situation. having the three agree to each put in $20, have the board cards be the same, their hole cards be the same, and have the river randomly dealt over and over, the winner taking the pot each time and then having them all put in $20 again. Would you agree to this situation with each of the three hands? This might make things clear.
Rob
"Because it was bad money, however, should we consider it dead in the conventional sense?"
Yes. Let's say we're playing $1-2 seven card stud with an ante of $1000 per player. The antes are dead, and big enough to make any hand a good draw.
Typically we think of dead money as chips put in the pot by someone who no longer has a hand, like when the BB folds to a preflop raise.
But in a sense we could say that all money in the pot before the start of any betting round is dead money, no matter who put it in.
Tommy
All players have +EV primarily because of the money already in the pot.
Example: suppose there are three players A, B, C. Suppose there is one card to come and A has 50% of winning, while B and C each have 25% chance of winning. Suppose there is currently $100 in the pot, and that there is to be a round of betting before the final card is dealt. (Suppose that after the final card, there is no betting but just a showdown --- to keep it simple.)
Before this betting, A `expects' $50 from the pot, while B and C each `expect' $25.
Now suppose that A can and does bet $20. Then B and C will certainly have pot/implied odds to call, so that will bring the pot to $160.
(Notice that if A had checked then so would B and C and the pot would remain at $100.)
Now, A `expects' $80 from the pot, while B and C each `expect' $40.
But, AND HERE'S THE CRUCIAL POINT, notice that A paid $20 to increase his expectation from the pot by $30=$80-$50, while B and C each paid $20 to increase their expectation from the pot by $15=$40-$25.
So, by betting $20 instead of checking, A effectively gains $5 from each of B and C.
But, while B and C certainly wish A had not bet, they can't do anything about it. Once A bets $20, they each will certainly pay $20 to maintain $40 interest in the pot, rather than fold and expect nothing. (If A had not bet, they would pay $0 to expect $25 and be $5 better off.)
So A's bet costs each of B and C money ($5) since $20 is more than $15=$40-$25, but it is a +EV(=$20) play for them to call (rather than fold) since $20 is less than $40.
I hope this clarifies things.
The situation is more complicated if there is other unknown info, and/or more rounds of betting.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
PS: I have a question. Could someone define `BETTING FOR VALUE'? Does it refer to what player A is doing in the situation above?
Hrm, I think it means +EV in terms of the strength of your hand. For example, continuing to bet on the river with an overpair because you expect to be called by weaker hands. Or you could be "raising for value" on the flop with your nut flush draw with many opponents. Raising a meek opponent heads up on the flop with position for the free card would not be raising for value.
Dirk, I will repeat what I stated under Louie's post. Yours is a good example of why the 2+2 argument about not betting the best hand because your opponents are getting or will be getting the right price to chase is a fallacious one.
Hi guys,
I have seen different posts here from time to time by people saying that a game may not be beatable (or as profitable as other games) depending on the rake or the time charges.
So how do I know in advance of joining a game whether its rake or time charge is detrimental to my winnings? Is there a simple formula? What constitutes a bad game in relation to time and/or rake charges? On the flipside what makes a good game?
Thanks guys I'm really trying to understand what games are good and which should be avoided in both live and online games (I play both)
Also how different is it to headsup play versus a regular full ring game? What if the ring game gets 5 handed - what should I be looking for then??
I really appreciate any advice you can give me.
Thanks and take care everybody.
Rose
There are 10 cards accounted for leaving 42 in the deck. I count KQh has 11 outs, T9c has 12 outs, and AA has 19 outs. The fair-share or "average" outs is 42/3 or 14. (Did I count that right?) No surprise, the "best" hand is the favorite.
There are 2 types of "putting money in the pot". [1] The player(s) who will win more than his fair share (AA in this case) should be willing to bet/raise for value. Notice the size of the pot has nothing to do with it. The player(s) who will win LESS than their fair share should not bet or raise. [2] But they should call if the size of the pot ... yaddy yaddy.
Notice that the drawing hands do BETTER if there is no bet at all; they draw for free. They don't WANT to put money in but they also don't want to relinguish their considerable equity in the pot. So they correctly put money in (call) only when the AA correctly increases the wager (bets).
They all make money since there is $60 in the pot that belongs to none of them ..err.. belong to each of them is proportion to the strengths of their hands. It doesn't matter if they each put in $20 or if each put in $15 and 3 other players each put in $5 and then folded (I suspect this notion is what is confusing you...). The pot is what the pot is; $60.
Good bet; good calls; no contradiction.
- Louie
Louie, this is why I have always struggled with the 2+2 idea about not betting the best hand because you make the pot bigger thereby giving your opponents the correct odds to chase. I believe it is a spurious argument.
Jim,
I believe that the phrase "the best of it" is not truly appreciated for its full meaning. I believe as you do that you should always bet when you have the best of it and always call when you have the right price to catch the best of it.
most of us would rather play AA against 1 or 2 rather that 8 or 9. seems to me bigger pots attract more callers than small pots. thus there may be times when it is best to not build a bigger pot??? Jim
But jim AA is a favorite regardless of how many players you have. If a lot of players are coming, you want to build as big a pot as possible preflop because when you win, you win a much larger pot as a result. You win a larger pot for two reasons. First, you are forcing all these players to put in twice as much money as otherwise to see a flop. Second, these players will continue to pay more money to take off cards with hardly any chance of winning in some cases because the pot is large. The fact that you are less likely to end up with the best hand is more than compensated for by the fact that when you win, the pot is much larger as a result.
One poster correctly stated that he would rather pay two bets upfront by raising with pocket aces and have only three opponents then to just limp in with pocket aces and have six opponents. So he concluded that the reason you raise with pocket aces is to drive out players. But this is confusing cause with effect. The reason you are raising with your pocket aces is because you know you have the best hand. It is a value raise pure and simple. The fact that in some cases it has the effect of making players fold whereas they would have called had you not raised is really irrelevant to why you are raising. Forcing people to decide whether or not they wish to continue with their hand in the face of an increased cost is the essence of poker. You are not responsible for their playing decision. The point is you are making a bad decision by not raising because your opponents are not paying the proper price to chase you.
Jim. please notice I had ended my post with question marks---and was thinking that might be reason certain advice said do not raise (per above). for myself, about 90% of the time I am playing P/L and I raise about 90% of the time, when I do not raise with AA it depends on who has the chips, their position,etc--hpe to trap! Sometimes the trap works very well, but there have been times I wished I had lead out! lol Jim
Not betting a "more than fair share" hand is a "mistake", as is betting a "less than fair share hand". Manipulating the size of the pot in this manner, then, makes sense only if it will cause the opponents to make a BIGGER mistake later; one they would NOT have made had you "correctly" bet or checked.
A reasonable example would be taking the short odds and raising with a small pair BTF figuring others will be willing to draw dead or very slim if you flop a set. This makes sense, then, only if they would NOT so draw had you not raised.
A bad example was when playing against loose players who willingly draw very slim after the flop no matter the size of the pot. The argument is that you should NOT raise pre-flop marginally since the increased size of the pot makes these slim calls less bad or even good. Nonsense. I argue that since your raise or lack-of-raise had no affect on the opponents, you simply cost yourself money. Your chances of winning are the same and by not raising you are winning a smaller pot.
I believe the authors are technically correct about this MSOTP stuff but it comes up so rarely and matters so little that it is a very trivial matter. I notice they don't talk much about it much lately. MUCH more important would be convincing players just how bad KT is in early position; or when 663 in stud is such a dog hand.
Bet'em when you Got'em, Bet'em when you threaten to Got'em, Check'em when THEY threaten to Got'Em; that's plenty "tricky" for me.
- Louie
Louie, Re: raising with the small pair:
In late position against weak players you have the added and not to be overlooked advantage of getting a free card on the flop. I've used this play successfully more than a few times, snagging the turn, and administering pain on those who check them when I've threatened to have them. I'm pretty sure this play has increased my EV, which is helpful, considering the many that apparently do not.
I think you should be clearer about the concepts of EV (and defining to who the EV applies) when considering your problem.
A common theme in science is "An action causes an equal and opposite reaction." This is also true for EV.
In considering EV for the Aces, we are comparing EV(of checking) to EV(of betting) for PLAYER(A). Betting is the correct play. This bet causes an immediate negative EV for players B and C.
Now it's player B's turn. It's a different EV problem all together. We are comparing the EV(of calling) to EV(of folding) for PLAYER(B). The correct play is calling. Also notice that this choice has caused player A (and player B) to lose money, thus the equal and opposite reaction. And so on for player C.
So when you say "It just seemed weird to me that there is a +ev play for everyone at any given time, and if they do that forever, how can they all make money?"
The answer is they cannot. The above posts are excellent explainations of why.
In other words, it is not possible for 3 people to play a hand from start to finish and for all to show +EV unless there is money coming in from an outside source (or dead money as you say it).
As a side note, notice that if somebody contributes dead money to a pot, this is a -EV play for him while it is an EV boost for everyone else still involved in the hand.
It's important to be very clear about concepts so we don't make the wrong conclusions :)
Good luck,
Jim Roy
Both of the players who are calling are making money from their calls as opposed to folding. AA is losing money from these players calling and not folding. The reason all this is possible, though, is that $60 was previously placed in the pot. That money was put there partially by players making incorrect preflop calls against AA. So although everyone is making money at the moment, the money they are making comes from money previously incorrectly invested by KQhh and T9cc. That's the reason people say that the key to limit poker is starting hand selection.
Chris
Joe,
Consider the pot as containing one nickel. Now how do the bets and calls pan out? Now how about a dime? Now $2? The money in the pot specifically determines the correct action for all players. Without that "pot" the bet and calls would be riduculous.
It's also interesting to consider that the Aces, albeit the favorite, are underdogs to win the pot. This is compensated by getting 2:1 on a bet.
I disagree with Jim regarding always getting the most money in the pot with Aces before the flop. The gain you yield before the flop can be defeated by the betting rounds on the flop and beyond if your opponents know exactly what you hold because you will frequently be providing implied odds for your opponents.
I have an important question which may seem quite simple. Say someone is willing to stake you in a 20-40 hold'em game. Whatever you lose is on them, and if you win they keep half. This would be the mathematical equivalent of you playing in a 10-20 game. Now, what about if you lose one night, the exact amount of your losses must be "made up" in winnings before you can collect any more winnings. Does this affect your income from the game? (example: you lose 600 one night. The next night you win 600. You keep nothing)
Thank you.
let's say you are using your own $$--you lose 600, the win 600, so you have nothing for your play...same thing. looks like a deal where you can't lose... but I have seen hard feelings develope between friends so you should consider that. in my years of observation, generally those playing on somebody's money, are doing so because they are not good enough to play their own. Sure may not be true here, but generally(again) those who can win WANT to play their own $$. Jim
In the first case its not the same as playing 10/20 since YOU don't lose anything when you lose; not to mention that the 20/40 plays differently in practice then does a 10/20.
This is a fabulous situation for the unethical since since you would play reclessly when stuck without it costing you anything, but will sometimes bring it back for a win. YOU will definately show a profit for this game even if you are a terrible player and your sponsor gets crucified.
The 2nd case (you must show a net over-all profit) is much fairer and much better for your sponsor. The problem, again, is that when you get seriously stuck you have nothing to lose by playing wildly.
As Browder points out, this is generally a bad situation. I've done it with a friend but just to get him exposed to the higher levels.
A much better deal would be where both you and the sponsor put up some stake and you both share the win or the loss in proportion to your stake (he puts up $1000, you put up $1500, you get 3/5 of the win or the loss). This lets YOU play against 20/40 players with a lesser varience and strain on your bankroll. The sponsor should "tip" on good wins.
- Louie
Let's say your results for six nights are:
+1000 -1000 +1000 -1000 +1000 -1000
If I understand you right, using plan A (No risk, keeping half of the wins) you would make $1500 (+3000/2) and using plan B you would be dead even. If that's right then obviously plan A is better for the guy being staked.
I've heard that plan A gets used a lot and for the life of me I can't figure out why. It's tough enough to beat the house cut, but to lay 50%? Wow.
A few months ago my best buddy offered to pay me $27/hour to play his money every time I played. That comes to $50,000 per year at 40 hours per week. That means I'd have to make, say, $60,000 over a year for him to make $10,000. But what would motivate me to play well enough to make that much money? I didn't like his chances, and I didn't like the idea of waking up one day into a future that involved exactly no thrill-of-gaming highs, so I said no, but not after giving it an official try one time. I played for one hour at $6-12 while waiting for $20-40 and lost $40, quit the game, and quit the contract. It sucked not having my own cash on the line. And yes, I did get paid the $40 PLUS the $27 for one hour of work. Oh yeah, he loved that! lol
Tommy
"It sucked not having my own cash on the line. "
If that's not a classic line then there aren't any!
BTW - Tommy I was only kidding about hating you. I really don't.
vince
I have a problem with drawing odds. I have been using the percentages which I have converted to odds from Hold'em for Advanced Players. I have been using these odds thinking they were the odds for drawing my particular out cards on the turn. I have know realized that the odds given,i think, are those for drawing your out cards by the river. For example: 9 outs is 35.0% which is about 1.9-1. Do I use this figure(1.9-1) or do I use(47/9=5.22-1=)4.22-1. Clearly there is a big descrepency here. Which number do I use? While I am trying to clear this up, I just want to make sure that for the river card I divide my number of outs by 46(46/# of outs). In addition, maybe someone can show me the calculating method are the formula for calculating your catching your out cards by the river-eventhough I know the numbers I would like to work it out for the hell of it. As an aside, I have been fairing well at low limit holdem but this is bugging me I would appreciate some feed back on this matter. THANK YOU...
Use the 4.22. To calculate the percentage chance of hitting your draw by the river, subtract your chance of NOT making it from 1, using:
% chance = 1 - (((cards in deck - no. outs)/ cards in deck)*(((cards in deck - no. outs)/ cards in deck))
The first of those terms is for the turn and the second for the river.
Chris
Chris, I must be missing something. I will use 8 outs as an example for calculating % chance by river.
% by river=1-[(47-8)/47)*(46-8)/46)]=.685476 and if I subtract one I get a negative number??- I must be doing something wrong. I did understand which number to use from your post for calculating my turn odds. the 4.22-1 as in my 9 out example but this % calculation by river I must of misses something. thanks chris
I didn't say subtract 1 from it, I said subtract it from one, one minus the stuff in the brackets. 1 - 0.685 = 0.315 = 31.5% chance of making the draw.
Chris
back to basics-- to determine the odds you compare the number of outs to the number of UNseen CARDS...after flop you see 3 on the board plus 2 in your hand, thus 47 unseen cards... your outs are part of those unseen cards...thus if you have 8 outs, subtract that from 47 to arrive at 39 to 8...thus you have to chances each at about 5-1. Many players taking the 2 cards to come into effect just double the # of outs to say 47 minus 16=31-16. or about 2-1. hope this makes sense to you, I may need to improve my explaining abilities. lol Jim
Thanks Chris
I just wanted to suggest a really good book on this matter. "Hold'em Odds book" by Mike Petriv is really in depth regarding odds and probabilities. The book doesn't teach you how to play poker but it teaches you to think about odds and probabilities properly at the hold'em table and how to calculate them. I've found the book very useful.
"Odds" against are the number of bad events compared to the number of good events. "Chances" are the number of good events devided by the total number of events. "Odds" are useful since you generally compare that directly to the size of the pot vis-a-vis the size of the bet, and "Chances" are useful when combining multiple ways to win; which is then converted to odds.
When considering calling generally presume to take only one card. If you flop a gut shot (4 outs) there are 47 unseen cards of which 43 are bad, so your "odds" are 43:4 or (just under) 11:1. Not counting future bets (including they pay you off when you make it and including you LOSE when you make it), you call if there is more than 11 bets in the pot.
The 2-cards to go outs are more useful when you are considering betting or raising. There are 47choose2 total turn/river cards = 1081. To make it you can catch 2 of your rank (6 ways) or one of your rank and one of the other 43 cards (4*43=172) or a total of 178 ways, leaving 1081-178 = 903 bad combinations. 903:178 = 5.1:1 against. In this case, you should bet or raise for value if you expect to get more than 5 callers; assuming you'll be going to the river even if you do NOT bet or raise.
Yes, your chances of turning a 4-flush into a flush by the river is 2:1. This means you should bet or raise on the flop if you expect more than 2 callers; again assuming your flush is good if you make it. Realistically, add a half meaning in practice bet or raise with a flush draw if you expect 3 or more callers.
- Louie
I didn't read all of the posts, so I don't know if anyone else has suggested this, but it's a really cool shortcut. You won't get full credit for it in a statistics class, but the estimate you get is certainly close enough to base your decisions on in live play.
In hold'em after the flop: count the number of outs you have and multiply times 2 (chances of hitting on the turn + chances on the river). 28 is even money.
example: flush draw.
2 in hand + 2 on board = 4 That gives you 9 outs twice = 18 odds, therefore, are 28:18 or 1.6 to 1
Open ended straight draw is 8 outs twice= 28:16
Making trips when you pair the board is 2 outs twice = 28:4 or 7 to 1.
TJ and Bob Ciaffone use it, so it must not be too inaccurate
This *2 shortcut's inaccuracy is that it counts double the times you hit a card you need on BOTH streets. Its accuracy, therefore, drops drastically as you have more outs. A 21-out straight-flush-2-overcard draw is NOT going to make it 42/47 or the time. Even your flush draw calculation is 1.6:1 rather than 1.9:1, which is NOT inconsequencial.
Mercifully, you only need this sort of calculation when you have few outs: a 15 out straight-flush draw is obviously not a folding hand.
- Louie
PS. I have reason to STRONGLY suspect, based on their writting, that these notable authors do NOT understand this sort of basic statistics; and take "short cuts" because the don't know nor care to do otherwise.
I am not sure anyone answered the question you wanted answered, so here goes my attempt. Let’s use the example of a four card flush draw and approximate the odds of it hitting as 2:1 with two cards to come and 4:1 with one card to come.
You need to understand a distinction between the odds for calling a bet and the odds for making a bet (value bet) with a draw. When calling a bet, you need to know the pot odds for your call. When figuring those pot odds on the flop, you only consider the odds with one card to come because you do not know what the action will be on the turn.
At this point (after the flop) you only know what you are putting in for a call right now for this one card. So, you need the pot to be at least four times the amount of the bet you are calling. In addition, if there is a possibility you will be raised, you need to consider that you might have to put in more than one bet. If that is a distinct possibility, you need the pot to be at least four times the amount of two bets. If the pot could be re-raised, then you need to consider that. You base the on the pre-flop action and the action preceding you on the flop. The turn works the same way.
A value bet on a draw is a bet you make, that if called by enough players, will give you positive odds for your bet. You need the pot to have at least four bets in to start. If so, with your draw, you can bet the flop if you are sure you will get called in at least two places. This is because your odds of completing the flush with two cards to come are 2:1 against you. If you get three callers, you are getting 3:2 odds for your bet. You will make your flush once in three times for a gain or three bets and not make it twice in three times for a loss of two bets. Your net in the case of three calls then is one bet (3-2=1). With two callers, you break even. This all assumes that your flush will win. You have to consider it may not if you do not have the nut draw or the board is paired.
Here is an example. Let’s say five players enter the pot pre-flop with no raises. You are in late position and there is a bet and three calls to you. Your pot odds are 8:1. Even if it is raised behind you, you will still get 4:1. But, look at this. You should raise if you think you will get called in at least two places. The raise is a value bet. If three or four others are staying in, you would like to see the betting capped. Again, this all assumes that your flush will win.
For the value bet, you are only considering the odds of the current betting round against the odds of completing your flush with two cards to come. You are not considering the dead first round money in the pot. If you are in early position, bet out if you think you will be called in at least two places.
This may not be crystal clear, but it is the best I can do at the moment. I hope this helps.
Alden Chase
Thanks Alden for the answer- you made it somewhat clearer. One last question concerning this topic. I will use 6 outs as an example. Making by river is just over 3-1,turn is just under 7-1, and river is also 7-1. If I know I will be in the hand until the river and/or for value betting purposes, I use the 3-1. For just the turn or just the river, I use 7-1. Now I know there are other things to consider when deciding to fold, raise or bet but for the moment I am strictly concerned with the odds of making the hand. I am sure this is correct just wanted to make sure that I am using the odds correctly after all what good are they if the aplication is incorrect? THANKS to ALL for there assistance...
Free Rooms, Meals and Flights for Casino Players! A free members club, dedicated to Casino players who would like to be treated like high rollers. As a member you are provided with information that can make your gaming vacation, weekend getaways and even your business trips cost you much less!!!
http://celebrate.at/casino
well, sort of. it was a raked game (6/12 he with kill), and i figured that if it *had* been a time charge game($12/hour), i would have broken the 200 big bet mark. in one session.
a few general thoughts.
1) i may be the greatest player in the world.
2) i may have permanently (or at least for a while) seriously damaged any chance i have of playing good poker.
a few poker thoughts.
1) the players were extremely weak, but no one was actively giving their money away. i think only 1 person lost 4 racks ($2 chips), and the rest probably not even 2 racks.
2) but they were weak. it allowed me to do things like limp in early with speculative hands, knowing that it would probably (90%) be a multiway limp pot.
3) i could raise in my big blind with hands as weak as AJ sometimes, knowing i had the best hand.
4) imagewise, people just didnt take shots at me, perhaps because i was on a roll, (and new players saw all my massive amount of chips), perhaps because they were just real weak.
5) there were a couple good players in there, and they got me a couple times. in heads up pots, they rope a doped me and let me bluff into them, for example. my main luck actually may have been that it didnt work out that i was in a lot of pots with them.
6) because i was playing loose/agressive fast style, all my big hands got paid off. (except for one, when i led the flop with the nuts and everbody folded. later on, i flopped the nuts and check called, check called, check raised and got paid off by both players, who, incidently, didnt have a whole lot.)
7) i really feel that i was responsible for loosening the table up and really getting things going. im not sure i made my own luck, but i did everything i could to seduce her (lady luck). towards the beginning, i live straddled a couple times ( won 3/4 pots, ok, thats got to be luck), but the aftermath was incredible. it was like the whole table was on tilt. i mean, if you knew a few live straddles could cause massive family pots (7 or 8 or 9 players) with no one raising except maybe you, then who wouldnt live straddle.
well, thats it. i think i played pretty good in a real loose way (against passive, predictable opponents) and got lucky. by the way i left almost at my peak chip count (game wasnt very good anymore and i was tired, finally).
sharing is caring :)
brad
It's called getting run over by the deck, Brad. Enjoy the financial spoils of it, because if it happens to you to that extent one more time in your life, you will be very lucky.
I think the best thing you can do after a session like that is forget about it. From an intellectual, poker strategy standpoint, I think it's best to pretend it never happened. It would be very dangerous to base any future decisions on events that occured during that session.
Assuming you are a recreational player and not a pro, use the money to buy something big and semi-permanent... like a stereo system, or a bunch of CDs, or a tool set or something. That way every time you use the stuff you bought you can pleasantly reminisce about "The Session" and show off to everyone that you are such a superior poker player that you can furnish your house with your winnings.
Craig H.
thanks.
by the way, a 20/40 player i play with came over (to flirt with a girl sitting next to me) , and i pointed to my stacks and asked him, you know, was i a great player or what? he looks at the girl and says, he's about average, and shrugs. pretty funny.
brad
Loose-aggressive is a GREAT strategy [1] When you can put on the brakes when you need to later in the hand [2] When you frighten the opponents into giving you pots [3] when for some reason your probability of winning is MUCH higher than your hand values suggest. Sure, I'd raise-it-up with A8o if I were going to win one time in 3 against 5 opponents. I personally use a 2-minute time-machine; when its working.
Your reasons 2) and 3) appear to be contradictory. If they are not raising as much as they should (2) then you don't know when your trouble hands (AJ) are "good" (3). 5) and 6) are contradictory, either you are getting paid off all the time OR your steals can work. 1), 4), and 7) look like valid reasons supporting your win.
Your general thought (2) should be a valid consern.
- Louie
i contradict myself. so i contradict myself! i am large enough to contain multitudes.
let me know if you know whose quote that is, i really like it.
but seriously, thats where judgement comes in. thats where experience comes in. you got to know when to zig and when to zag.
as to 'wrecking' my game for a while, well, i can always play stud (and tournaments).
brad
x
What's a "live straddle" and could you give an example? Thanks
raise in the dark when youre UTG. (before you get your cards). the cap is 5 bets, instead of 4, and you are last to act. the funny thing is, no one raised my straddles (good game, huh). first straddle i had AQ (made it 3 bets preflop) and flopped an Ace, and won. when i get on a roll, i really start acting silly, and i think (it did this time anyway) it really puts people on tilt.
brad
I read an interesting post by Jim Brier (reproduced below) in an earlier thread, and I would like to get comments on it. I don't have any comments on it. I just want to stimulate discussion because I am curious about the responses. Thanks.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
-------------------------------------------------
Jim Brier wrote:
AA is a favorite regardless of how many players you have. If a lot of players are coming, you want to build as big a pot as possible preflop because when you win, you win a much larger pot as a result. You win a larger pot for two reasons. First, you are forcing all these players to put in twice as much money as otherwise to see a flop. Second, these players will continue to pay more money to take off cards with hardly any chance of winning in some cases because the pot is large. The fact that you are less likely to end up with the best hand is more than compensated for by the fact that when you win, the pot is much larger as a result.
One poster correctly stated that he would rather pay two bets upfront by raising with pocket aces and have only three opponents then to just limp in with pocket aces and have six opponents. So he concluded that the reason you raise with pocket aces is to drive out players. But this is confusing cause with effect. The reason you are raising with your pocket aces is because you know you have the best hand. It is a value raise pure and simple. The fact that in some cases it has the effect of making players fold whereas they would have called had you not raised is really irrelevant to why you are raising. Forcing people to decide whether or not they wish to continue with their hand in the face of an increased cost is the essence of poker. You are not responsible for their playing decision. The point is you are making a bad decision by not raising because your opponents are not paying the proper price to chase you.
Jim's post is 100% accurate and well-stated. It's a value raise which is always correct, no matter how many players are in the pot or what position you are in.
HOWEVER, there are two circumstances in which you may realize that you can get MORE value out of your Aces than you can with a simple raise. These are no-limit play and tournaments.
For example, let's say you are playing no-limit and a very aggressive player with a huge stack is on the button. You hold pocket aces to his immediate right and it is passed to you. It may be more valuable to just call here, hoping that he will (very likely) raise behind you and give you a chance to reraise him for a large amount and either take down a nice pot uncontested, or play heads up for a big pot with the overwhelming best of it.
CH
I think the counter-argument suggest that AA does NOT make more money against a whole field, even though its the "best" hand. They argue, therefore, that raising in the BB when everybody has called is a mistake.
Its a good argument but I disagree.
When you have the truly "best" hand and are last to act, the precedence order of desirable actions and consequences is usually:
[1] You bet/raise they raise [2] You bet/raise they fold [3] You bet/raise they call [4] You check/call and they draw cheap [5] you fold.
Betting/raising is desirable, therefore, because all the consequences of these actions have higher "value" than check/calling/folding. You are not betting "to get the draws to fold" you are betting "for value".
- Louie
One poster correctly stated that he would rather pay two bets upfront by raising with pocket aces and have only three opponents then to just limp in with pocket aces and have six opponents.
I think the point of contention is that sometimes you make it two bets up front and get six callers. I agree with Jim: the more the merrier. Having said that, I will admit to certain feelings of trepidation when I bet out in a pot limit game and then get six hitchhikers coming along for the ride. Then my stack is in danger and I may proceed more cautiously in later rounds.
Having recently been crucified by slow-played aces that shattered my nines full and later again a set of eights, I can understand some of the concept of not raising these puppies. Having said that, I still belong to the raise 'em up camp, based on the following: When you're in a typical, passive low-limit game and have represented strength preflop, as well as on the flop, and all of a sudden a previously- sleeping crustacean or otherwise fairly-sane bettor comes out firing chips on the turn, its greatly defined matters and you can proceed accordingly; but if you were in the slow-play camp, you wouldn't be as sure that your opponent wasn't betting a fair or decent hand.
Essentially, raising 'em up serves to define the hand for the later rounds where things get more expensive.
Thoughts?
Just a small point, raising set other up to fold. In a unraised pot, a lot of player will play lower pr's, connect ect's and even call a flop if they hit a small piece of it. but when they know it will be raised after the flop they will fold earlier. because they will think you have a large pr not just ak. have a nice day. ron
Essentially, raising 'em up serves to define the hand for the later rounds where things get more expensive.
Good point. I had AA last night UTG in a 1 2 4 pot limit game, brought it in for 25 and got called by a rock and a sneak. When I got a Q high flop, I bet the pot, was raised by the rock who was called by the sneak. I was able to toss it in the muck. Rock had a set.
Having related that tale, I've slow played AA to mix up my game, and made some big scores. When that happens, it's tempting to want to do it all the time. I think it was Doyle who said if you never raise with AA you'll never go broke with AA. I disagree. I think it's slowplaying that will get you broke the fastest.
"The reason you are raising with your pocket aces is because you know you have the best hand. It is a value raise pure and simple. "
Wrong! Why this doesn't even make sense. You make a value play because you believe your opponent will call. That is what a value play is. You don't raise with A,A for value. And you don't always raise with A,A preflop either. Almost always but not always. Certainly when you hold A,A you know you have the best hand and raising cannot be a mistake from that perpective. But Aces are a big pair. A unique big pair sure but still a big pair. If your strategy is to raise wiith big pairs to thin out the opposition then that is why you raise. If you find yourself in a situation with Aces where you know that your raise will not thin the field then you still may raise. Not to thin the field but to get more money in the pot with the best hand. David and Mason have done a good job in stating reasons for raising. Read them and heed them and raising when tied to the situation at hand will make sense regardless of the hand you hold. Including Aces.
Vince
At my local casino, it seems that I do extremely well against all the good players. I have a theory as to why.
I believe I create situations early in hands pre-flop and flop where a lot of money goes in and I have the best hand. By doing this, I force the good player to chase (correctly) later in the hand. Now, eventhough they are not losing money on all of there calls because of pot size, I am making money on all of there calls. And often times I also get paid on the river, because the pot get large enough.
Now, I don't seem to be in the reverse situations as much. And maybe its because these good players are making too many preflop mistakes. But, I really believe these players know where I am at - i.e overpair, yet they have five outs and often the pots require drawing and this while it loses them no money (because of the "dead" money in the pot, makes me quite a bit.
So their preflop mistakes may be adding up and "costing" them later, by forcing them to pay me off. This fact is compounded when other players call making the pot bigger, tying them into chasing.
For example a good player limps, so do four others and I raise aces. The flop comes Q-7-3 and now the tight player is "forced" to pay me off, with A-Q or Q-Js.
Any comments on this idea appreciated.
start raising with stuff like 78s on the button when theres a few limpers (like 4).
on the other hand, why change a winning game?
brad
How many hours have you played (against good players)? What stakes? How much have you won over this period?
Answers to these are needed before anyone can intelligently answer your question.
vince
If the players are chasing correctly, then they are in fact costing you money. You would prefer them to fold. The money you are making is the money you have forced them to put in incorrectly earlier in the hand.
Chris
"The money you are making is the money you have forced them to put in incorrectly earlier in the hand. "
Its the other way around!
EG, if w/one card to come you bet and your opponent is getting say 7-1 and he is an 6-1 underdog, you theoretically win 6/7 of the bet he puts in and ^/7 of the pot. You don't lose on this bet, you lose (so to speak) because of the size of the pot.
Huh? Here's an example. Your opponent is drawing at 20% to win. You bet $10 and he correctly puts in $10 to win a pot which will be $70 with his call. You win $70 80% of the time for a total expected win of $56. Or he could fold to your $10 bet, in which case you win the $60 that is in the pot already. In this case his call has cost you a theoretical $4.
So it isn't correct to say that the value of putting in early bets and raises is to force your opponent to draw later on. By drawing correctly they will never lose money. The money they lost was the money they put into the pot earlier, when they weren't drawing correctly (say, by cold calling QJs to your raise with AA). The value of early bets and raises is to get money into the pot while you are ahead.
Chris
you are still making money on their calls, even though they are correctly calling. Think about it.
With a large amount of money already in the pot, betting and being called is a losing process. Obviously it loses less than if you just checked it down, but it loses in comparison to betting and having your opponent fold, or imagining that there is no river card and the hands are shown down straightaway. An opponent calling correctly is costing you money, because he is making money. That's the Fundamental Theorem Of Poker. If you don't understand this you need to brush up on your basic poker theory.
If you forget about the size of the pot, then obviously you are making money on a bet and a call if you're a favourite to win.
It's totally wrong to say "by putting a large amount in the pot, I induce opponents to correctly draw at it and therefore increase my profits". The real answer is: by getting such a large amount in the pot early, you get to win that large amount, in the event that your hand is best, which it will be a majority of the time.
Chris
Obviously, getting someone pot stuck and having them make a crying call on the river is very profitable. This is a definite advantage to increasing the size of the pot early. Calls from drawing opponents on the flop and turn aren't, though.
Chris
Morton's Theorem also applies in the multiway situations sometimes. Morton's theorem shows that if opponents are not getting the odds they should from the pot they still can be costing the player in the lead money.
Link to a discussion of the Morton's Theorem and a reprint of Andy Morton's original RGP post.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Morton%27s+Theorem&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rnum=4&ic=1&selm=362d8826.89557436%40nntp1.ba.best.com
I agree with you JV.
Their mistake of calling your AA preflop is sometimes compounded later in the hand.
On the river, the QJ will look at the phat pot and make his final mistake by calling you down (while crying "Donation!").
I guess they aren't very good players then? No, Sometimes A-Q loses to A-A. Rarely will good players continually make pre-flop mistakes. The more likely scenario here is that you haven't played enough to have your aces cracked the 65% of the time that they do get cracked. Can you lay aces down when it becomes apparent that you have lost?
No, I like to blindly give my money away in hopes the turn and river comes AA.
I'm not sure I understand your post. Were you even replying to me?
The point of the post is that when they call a raise from AA, their mistake is often amplified by the later (and more expensive) streets.
And because I'm in a foul mood, and because your post annoyed the hell out of me, I also want to mention that I have a problem with every single sentence in your post!
I guess they aren't very good players then?
We're assuming reasonable opponents as usual. Against poor players you make even more money.
No, Sometimes A-Q loses to A-A.
Not sometimes, almost always.
Rarely will good players continually make pre-flop mistakes.
First of all, I know many good players who make a lot of pre-flop mistakes.
Second, in the context that we mean, when you reraise somebody with KK and somebody else has AA, you have made a mistake. Even though, given the info available, you played it correctly. This mistake coincides with the negative EV you experience.
The more likely scenario here is that you haven't played enough to have your aces cracked the 65% of the time that they do get cracked.
Why is that a more likely scenario? I've played enough pocket aces. When I see them I don't cower in fear that I'm going to get run down again. I don't think to myself, "I'm probably going to get cracked." I don't come up with other meaningless statistics to create a web of despair around me. Then again, I am truly a lucky player and sometimes if you look just right and the light shines at the perfect angle you can actually see the postive winning force that surrounds me!
Can you lay aces down when it becomes apparent that you have lost?
Yes when it's obvious I will lay down.
Jim "Getting Cranky with Inane Posts" Roy
Your whole post was inane. That was the point. Isn't it brilliant to say that someone is making a pre flop error to call against A-A? Doh.. Ray "getting cranky with overinflated gurus" Springfield
Hey man, if you don't understand what we're talking about (or disagree) then why don't you ask nicely instead of being an ass? LOL
Jim "finished with this thread" Roy
I fully understand that you analyze simple little realities and then think you are brilliant. Tee, Hee, Hee Ray"finished reading any post of this fool ever again"Springfield
I think there is a distinction here (which the other responses hint at) between two different possible scenarios.
The first, is that by building the pot, you lead opponents to correctly chase you. Even though you say that you make money on these calls, you in fact do not (at least in heads-up situations). If it is not obvious why, realize that if there are only two of you left in the pot, and calling is the more profitable play for your opponent, it must be less profitable for you. Where else could the money come from?
However, there is a second possibility. This is that the pot size leads opponents to incorrectly call later on. Even good players can be guilty of this, since they can't know they're call is incorrect without knowing what you hold. Crying calls on the river have been pointed out as one likely source of this. Another is simply for them to hope to hit their outs even though they are drawing dead against you. They call because the pot is so big that they will hope that there is is still a chance of winning. In this case, you obviously make money.
In practice, raising early on will cause both of these situations to occur. So it is possible that your potbuilding is making you money, but it is only doing so because sometimes the second scenario arises. It makes you none in the first.
supose that you are in a very loose low limit game, you are on the button with pocket QQ, there are already 4 limpers in.
If you know that you're raise won't thin the field why do it? Yes I know for value but if you don't you can raise on the flop to try to stop all the gunshots from chasing you. Esspecialy when you're not running very well.
I welcome all of you're comments
On the flop, even assuming the ideal situation of a bet in early position, you will probably lose some players and get less value for your raise. In poker it's always a good idea to cram as much money as possible into the pot while you are ahead (well, there are a couple of exceptions, but playing this way will always make money - sometimes there are tricky ways to play which make even more money). Jam the pot while you can, NOW is when your opponents holding rags are making their big mistake, the mistakes they make later in the hand are unlikely to be as serious, its time to make them pay right now.
Chris
If the pot is jammed pre-flop, then the opponents probably aren't making any mistakes later in the hand. This is because of the size of the pot, they are getting odds to draw to 4 or 5 outs, and when they do this they are correct.
I meant mistakes that they make if you don't raise preflop. For example, drawing to a gutshot at 8:1 odds rather than 11:1 is a less serious mistake than paying two bets with undercards to try and outflop QQ. Note that if you build the pot preflop, it doesn't really matter if your opponents draw correctly at it postflop, because they were mistaken to put the money in there in the first place.
Chris
Oh, I see now. Thats a good point, however I think there can still be situations where an argument can be made for not raising pre-flop, if your opponents make mistakes after the flop.
This is incorrect. Your opponent is paying to hit their draw either way, the only difference is whether they are paying on the flop or before. If they pay for it before the flop they will be able to "correctly" chase it on the flop, but this is better for you than them "incorrectly" paying for it on the flop (by you not raising preflop) because they now pay for it whether it comes or not. You are getting money in the pot when you are ahead, and that is how you win.
Your argument is like saying that if you are willing to pay twelve bets to see the flop w/ A3s when I have aces I shouldn't make you pay it because if you flop a flush draw you'll have odds to chase "correctly" and that will cost me money.
How can they be paying to hit their draw BEFORE the flop? They don't even have a draw before the flop. Furthermore, the advise doesn't apply to head-up situations as much as multi-way pots. I beleive the origional question was about loose games w/ weak players. In these games there are going to be many players around on the flop and most of the time if they have a draw and there was no pre-flop raise then they aren't getting proper odds to call a bet, but they will call anyway, enabling you to make money off their mistakes. If there WAS a pre-flop raise, they are still going to call a bet anyway with disregard to pot odds, the only difference is, they are theoretically playing correct by calling because the pot is twice as big, and therefore they are making money off you in the "long-run." Do you see the difference?
Yes, I've heard this argument brought out many times before. I'll try to explain more clearly where the flaw is.
Suppose I have AA and you have As3s. In scenario one, we raise back and forth preflop. A lot. Now the flop comes with two spades. I bet the flop. There is now enough money in the pot (due to the preflop action) for you to chase your spade draw, so you correctly call.
Scenario two is that there is no preflop action. There is now not enough money in the pot for you to chase your draw on the same flop. Therefore, when I bet the flop and you call you are incorrect to do so.
Thus, the preflop raising war allows you to correctly call on the flop. Does this mean that I was incorrect to raise preflop with aces?
No. Even though your flop play becomes correct when I do, the only reason you are able to call on the flop is because there is already money in the pot. Your money. Money that you put in before you had a draw. This is what I mean by having "paid for your draw" preflop. You have incorrectly paid for the priviledge of trying to draw out on me preflop, rather than incorrectly doing so on the flop.
This benefits me because when I raise preflop, I force you to "incorrectly" pay to chase me ever time rather than only when two spades come. Your mistake is not more serious, but it will occur more often.
The "making your opponents' play correct" fallacy is very common, but that doesn't make it right.
I concede that sometimes weird things happen with expectation in multiway pots where lots of people are chasing. Scenarios can be constructed where the opponents are "schooling" and passing expectation around amongst themselves without any going to you. But the idea remains that in general you want money in the pot when you are ahead.
First of all, you are absolutely right about the AA vs A3s example. Head-up AA is justified raising a million times if it could.
My argument is this: The original post was, if there are 4 limpers in a LOOSE LOW LIMIT game and you have QQ on the button why should you raise?
I don't care what anyone says, in these loose games if there are 4 or more other players in there, AA isn't as big a favorite as people think, and QQ is even less of a favorite. This is why so many people b*tch and moan and complain about their hands never holding up, and making excuses as to why low limit holdem can't be beaten. The reason why they feel it can't be beaten is because they don't make strategic adjustments, and raising in this situation with QQ is just one example of not making strategic adjustments. In this kind of game, raising in this situation only accomplishes one thing. It makes a players swings much bigger. How does it do this?
In holdem, the luck factor is the largest on the flop. This is understandable considering everyone gets 3 cards on one turn. And when you have 4 or 5 people drawing to beat you, your big pairs are going to get cracked often. Sure, you will win a huge pot every once in a while when your hand holds up, if you raised in this situation. However, it is basically up to each one of us, whether or not we want to increase our swings and standard deviation.
I agree that QQ is "not a big favorite here". In fact it's not a favorite at all; it's a dog. However, it will win more than a fifth of the time against loose limpers. Therefore, when four dollars are going into the pot from the limpers for ever dollar you put in perflop, you are making money when you raise. This is the essence of playing winning poker.
Naturally, such raising will increase your swings. However, your claim that that raising will increase your swings without increasing your EV is inaccurate. This would only occur if QQ would win exactly one fifth of the time, which is not the case.
Your wrote: "In general you want money in the pot when you are ahead"
Going back to your example, you wrote: "Suppose I (you) have AA and you (me) have As3s. We raise back and forth pre-flop. A lot.
You are ahead at this point and you are putting a lot of raises in with the best hand.
Now after the flop, lets say there is $215 (counting $5 small blind and $10 big blind, in a 10-20 game).
Now you bet $10, im getting 22-1 odds to draw a spade and the nut flush. Since my odds to make this are approxamitely 2-1, I am mathematicaly ahead.
Now at this point you are still ahead in the hand, but you will be way behind mathematically in the long run. Is it really better for you with all this money in the pot at this point? If we played this out 1,000,000 times you would be broke.
Actually, if we played this a million times you would be broke. That's the whole point.
You are correct that with the pot odds you are getting, you will have to call me down and hope for another spade. And once the pot is this large, I would rather you fold than chase.
However, the point your missing is a point a lot of people don't seem to understand. The money you are making when you call and chase is not coming from me. It is coming from the dead money in the pot. In other words, you have positive EV in calling to the river, but so do I. And this dead money in the pot, which is subsidizing both of us, came from your incorrect preflop play.
Its true if we count the pre-flop play, that I would be broke, but I was strictly talking about from the flop on. And it doesn't matter if the money in the pot is from my incorrect pre-flop play because on the flop, the money doesn't belong to anyone anymore.
Here's another way of thinking about it. You claim that I will "go bankrupt" because you are getting 22-1 odds on the flop and are a 2-1 dog to win. But remember that every time you don't win, I do. The pot is the same size for me as it is for you. So, on a bet, I get the same 22-1, but I'm a 2-1 favorite to win. If we are getting the same pot odds, but I am more likely to win, how can you think that in this scenario you will win over the course of a million trials? Of course, I would rather you fold then continue on the flop, but you also would rather I fold than continue on the flop. We are in the same situation except my chance of winning is better.
When I think about it in that way, you are right. But, actually, I don't think either of us would be broke after a million trials. You would probably be ahead about 5 or 6 hundred thousand. I was thinking about this all night and it boggles my mind. I am going to start a new thread at the top so I can get to the bottom of this.
I just noticed that a similar topic is discussed in the "Prelimnnary question" thread below. Note in particular, Louie's post "Re: MSOTP".
I think there are some arguments for just calling before the flop in this situation. Much depends upon the opponents that have limped, and how they're likely to play on the next rounds. Sklansky and Malmuth cover this in-depth as it applies to the big blind. Many of the same considerations apply against loose pre-flop players who are weak after the flop when you hold a hand like queens in late position.
Since my style of play involves much raising from late position, I will almost always raise in this situation because I have a hand with intrinsic pre-flop value and will have mixed up my play enough to (hopefully) accurately play my hand on the flop and beyond.
I would say that there are disadvantages to not raising before the flop, too. For instance, an opponent might overplay a hand that you have beat because they won't give you credit for holding an over-pair. Occasionally this will make you play your hand less than optimally.
one reason for not running well is that some people start playing less than optimum for various reasons and this could be one. although this is not a good example. but a good reason for raising that you left out is that by raising before the flop they may check to you after. a big reason to raise with big pairs is that when you do flop trips if the pot has not been raised its not big enough for most players to chase you down.
The games I am taliking about is low limit internet games were no one will fold for any reason and if I raise before the flop and not flop a monster(wich i hardly do anyways) they will chase anyway no matter how much the pot is. This way I can raise or re-raise on the flop to try to get the longshots out.
If 4 or 5 longshots are chasing you there is many cards that will hurt you're hand, way more then those that will help.
e.g. I hold Qh,Qc the flop is Qs,10s,7h
If I raised preflop and 7 people see the flop like on many occasions im not fairing that well even though this is a great flop for my hand. The Pot is big enough for almost anyone to chase me.
I have to worry about 9 spades, 4 jacks, 4 nines , 4 eights , 4 kings , 4 aces, 6,5,4,3,2 of spades
so in theory there is 25 cards that can hurt me and with all those people chasing me I have to worry about all those cards.
my outs on the flop are Q,three 10,s and 3 sevens if the board does not pair up on the turn I get 3 more outs so in total I have 10 outs
How much of a favorite am I on this flop?
All Comments and suggestions welcome I am fairly new to the game so if my math is wrong please correct me (just getting the hang of this stuff)
This remids me of an article I have read bye lou Krieger called Morton's Theorom
http://www.loukrieger.com/articles/morton.htm
If they are going to call on the flop anyway, no matter if there was a pre-flop raise or not, then it is better if there was NOT a pre-flop raise. This is because the pot is smaller and they are making a mistake to call(based on pot odds). However, if the pot WAS raised pre-flop, your opponents are correct in calling based on pot odds, because the pot is twice as big.
I'm sure QQ will win more often than the number of callers, no matter how many (so long as there is no AA nor KK out). It is therefore a "good" raise. Just because it would do better (if so) if someone folds doesn't mean you shouldn't raise.
But you have touched upon what I believe to be the "best" reason for NOT raising with a clear but marginal raising hand: you often lose your ability to raise on the flop which may be much more to your benefit. I don't think you WANT the opponents "checking to the raiser" when you have QQ; if an A or K flops the "free" card doesn't do you much good (your 2-outs are worth much) and you WANT the guy who flopped JJ or TT to bet into you.
This consideration is very much a function of the assertiveness of the players to your right. A similar situation may develope on the flop vis-a-vis a turn raise.
If you will only be able to raise once it MAY be better to wait. This is a good criteria to consider but its definately NOT a compelling one.
- Louie
The game I think you are descibing is 50% typical LL game play, where most of the table doesn't feel their hands are defined until after they see the flop. When this happens at say a $3-6 or 4-8 game, you have to accept that for this session you are really playing two games. The first is the preflop game where the stakes are really $6-12 or $8 - 16. After the flop the game usually settles down.
The other game I usually see is where people play like they should. This type of game is much easier to beat.
Raising is okay in the first type of game as long as you realize that almost no one will get out, your chips swings go much higher, and more flops are threatening to you. As for raising to drive people out, it usually won't happen in this type of game.
Hope this helps. jmho
Mike
I realize there are legitimate reason for rasing even if it won't thin the field-value-starting hand better than everone else that is in game-making people go farther b/c there is more money in the pot-etc.etc.. I play at this game in my home town with these absolutely horrible players and, needless to say, the game is very loose 7-8 always see the flop at a 8 handed table- I think you get the picture. When I first started to play, I didn't really adjust my strategy too much and still won consistently but I couln't help thinking that there was more money to be made if I chance my approach. I began to raise much less with high cards, much more with high suited connectors but all in all I began to keep it to a minimum. Well it paid off, I began to win more( on occassion I even loose on purpose to make them think I'm not that good and so I could continue getting in the game,now only on occasion though.)But back to my point these guys play terrible and ALWAYS go to far with hands that don't warrant it so the small amount you cost yourself by not raising preflop you get back because of their frequent misplays. I am relaively knew to poker but this has helped me tremendously. I got this concept from hold'em for advanced playerd-boy does it work if the game conditions are right. AT low limit games, it seems this strategy works well.
your = possessive pronoun. Thus, "your raise", not "you're raise." "You're winning the game," not "your winning the game." FYI (can't help myself) ;-)
Who or what is GCA? Who makes up GCA? How reliable is GCA?
Personally, I find GCA's credibility very suspect.
It seems they have some degree of knowledge and experience in cheating, especially cheating that happened 10-20 years ago.
However, they have made many statements and accusations they cannot back up. One example is the "Doyle Brunson's team scams rich Texan at Bellagio" rumor. That story is so widely known to be false that is considered an Urban Legend. GCA forwarded that story as a statement of fact.
They also like to make allusions in the form of threats and make cryptic statements like "We will be dropping BOMBS!", then they accuse David Sklansky of wearing the same clothes for a few days in a row during the 70's.
It's really too bad, because they do seem to have some level of knowledge and exposure to poker cheating and scamming. It seemed like someone like them coming forward and joining the ranks of the 'Good guys' might even be good for poker's image. Much like ex-hackers now work for Network Security firms.
However, GCA cannot seem to separate themselves from their true nature as a scammers.
me too, and brobably others, --would like to know. Jim
Mason, David, Mike Caro, and many others have answered on RGP. Mason posted a message in the "Other Topics" section that was forwarded to RGP.
Use www.deja.com, go to rec.gambling.poker and you will find more discussion than you can stomach.
My position has been to wait and see exactly what these guys say and then try to make an evaluation. At this point in time they have said some things that I believe are correct, especially when they talk about events that occurred years ago. However, they seem to embellish them with lots of juicy details and exaggerations that don't make much sense, and they won't feel in the holes in their stories. (E.G. how exactly do you get management in with you.)
So while the jury is still out and I might change my mind in the future, I would say that right at this moment they don't seem to have much credibility when it comes to what's going on in poker today.
I also believe, unless something is revealed that will change my mind, that their credibility will not be high enough to impact anything. In fact, if it does have any impact it may be the opposite affect.
Furthermore, I believe that Mike Caro should have recognized this and not have gotten himself so involved. In my opinion, despite his current efforts, he looks the most foolish of all.
The way ot get management in with you is through bribery, blackmail, or extortion. These are common practices used by organized crime.
this post does have a point, just a lot of reading to get to it.
I was playing in a 4-8 last friday with a woman who was throwing an absolute party for the table, aparently her husband was doing something similar over at the 10-20 table. she was swilling back glass after glass of champaigne, was already drunk as a skunk when I got there. every 15-30 min or so depending on how her luck was running she would go bug her husband and buy in for another rack. so she could call down every hand. after a couple of straddles she decided that if you were "an honorable gentleman, you would straddle back if you won a pot with a straddle in it,". she must have said this 100 times during the night, and was actually pretty good at keeping track of who "owed" a straddle. well, knowing what a bad idea straddling is I had previously decided against doing so If I won one of the pots in question. However after seing how upset she got when somebody acdientally missed one, even though he promised to pay it back next round, and seing that a straddle was atracting 7-9 way action before the flop, and almost never getting raised before the flop, I decided that straddling to keep her happy wasn't the worst Idea I ever had. (funny how all my bad ideas involve women in some way) so when I "owed " a straddle I payed it.
fast forward several hours. a new player sits down to my right, from my observations in the past he is probably one of the better recriational low-limit players in the tunica area. The woman (who I later learned had pissed herself, she was so drunk by this time) slured out the rules to him, and he said ok. However when it came his "turn" to straddle and she reminded him he replied that he didnt straddle. 15 min later she had a new seat in a tough 10-20 game with a few people on the list. The game went sour shortly thereafter and as I was tired and do not have the bankroll for 10-20, and only had a 50% chance of getting a seat at her table I cashed out a substantial winner. However since then I havent been able to shake that feeling that if he had just been willing to play along with her, she would have stayed around, and I could have made even more, and with just average cards even he would have been well rewarded for his donation.
so my question is, was there anything I could have done(she was at the far end of the table from me) to prevent her leaving. or convince the man to my right to play along with her? any ideas or suggestions would be appreciated as fools with money and cards are quite common at low limit tables, and while I may never encounter her again, somebody similar arrives in tunica every weekend.
If the guy was someone you knew or were friendly with I think you could have quietly explained the situation to him and advise him to straddle. If you did not really know him, I do not think it would be appropriate to say something to him as you do not know how he will take it. He may think he is being set up. If he was one of the "better recreational players" he should have been smart enough to pick up on what was going on.
This is a classic situation where long-term EV (straddling to keep the live one happy) takes precedence over short-term EV (straddling is costly). Many players who have some understanding of Poker just CANNOT concieve of such a thing. You are very unlikely to be able to convince them to do it, although quietly trying may help.
I suspect the Lady was ready to go anyway.
In this particular situation, you COULD have asked the floor to turn this into a winner-must-straddle game.
- Louie
I haven't been in a situation of straddling to keep a single player happy, nor seen it where the winner is expected to do it. But I think there are occasionally situations where straddling, keeps the table in a gambling mood, and is worth it if it encourages many other players to straddle, and there is multiway action in straddle hands. You appear to be one of the gamblers but in fact I think you should be hand selective when others straddle. Even though the non-straddlers get a free ride, this can be a +EV play if it has the right effect on enough people. Of course this is also a massive SD situation, and may not last long.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
i was in a similar 3-6 game.
a super idiot was cashing in left and right and was having a blast b/c this guy [who is a solid player] was keeping him happy by talking to him, making jokes w/ him, and even giving him 5 to 10 bucks back on hands that he won while maniac was in the pot.
the solid that gave the maniac a couple bucks back to the maniac won it back anyways after maniac lost about 5 racks. =)
i remember reading something a while back on this forum about maniacs...
" don't piss them off, they're the ones giving you free money"
-jon
There's lots of stuff you can do, depending on the rules and the situation:
You could throw a white chip in front of the would-be straddler and say, 'Now you only need seven." Encourage others to donate a chip to the cause.
Start a chant: 'We want the Eight!"
Promise to straddle the next ime it's on you.
Promise to put on a double straddle the next time you can.
Sleep the eight, or promise to sleep the sixteen if someone will put up the eight.
Bet eight blind.
Whatever you do, keep it lighthearted and friendly. Don't pressure the rocks, you'll need them when you get to the higher limits.
"funny how all my bad ideas involve women in some way"
You are not the only one my friend.
I have no problem with your straddling. When the entire game is on tilt, you sometimes have to get in there and "mix it up with the big boys". Straddling in this game had a much better EV than it normally would, because you were "playing the game" with a terrible player who was anxious to donate her chips. I would have straddled right along with you.
Once I was playing in vegas and the game was pretty tight and extremely passive. The players were not all tight aggressive 2+2ers, but the deck had been quite cold for a while and no one was very fired up. So I started talking a little bit o' shit and started straddling myself. This was in the excalibur in the 2-6 game, and I would straddle four dollars. It's not like I was making a collosal mistake, the limits are pretty high compared to the blinds, which are one single 2$ blind. So I was losing a small amount of EV by straddling, but it had an effect that was worth every chip - the game started getting fired up! After two straddles and some shit talk by me, several players at the table were straddling, and six and seven way pots were becoming the norm, instead of three way pots for 2$ each. I only straddled three times before the game was loose and crazy again, just like I like it. So for 12$ I transformed a bad game that I was probably going to quit into a good game, and then proceded to win some money, about 60$, in about two hours. Not a collosal win story, but it goes to show that sometimes you should do things that you wouldn't usually do, because it increases your overall expectation.
Along the same lines, I sometimes purposely play and show down a cheesy hand, just to keep the observant people from giving me TOO MUCH respect....
Keeping the live one happy and in the game is a terrific money making strategy. This woman probably didn't care if she lost, she just wanted the "action" of the game. with everyone straddling, all you were really doing was upping the stakes a little, not making a horrific move that would surely wipe you out forever.... Good job on this post and on mixing it up with the live ones.
Dave in Cali
Do pot odds have more significance in ring or tournie games? And why?
RING GAME because if your odds of drawing out are favorable compared to pot odds then you know you can come out in the long run because when you miss, you can rebuy....since you can not allways rebuy in trnmnt, they become less significant. Jim
Tournaments offer the same decision-making criteria as ring games plus many many more critieria. This reduces the relative importance of the regular criteria.
A clasic example would be if you were at the last table and a player bet all-in and another called all-in; your chances of winning would have to be enormous before you could even THINK about calling all-in. You may be getting very favorable pot-odds to draw (and in a ring game you WOULD draw) but your position in the money weighs very heavily against calling (you are automatically promoted if you fold since one of the other two is eliminated).
- Louie
very good, coherent answer--thanks.
What about farther away from the money? When and how do pot odds become less relatively important? There may be no more to say, but if you could elaborate, I would appreciate it.
The further away from the money the more a tournament is similar to a ring game.
But don't disregard pot-odds. Its still very important and should only be downgraded when you know what other things have gained in importance.
- Louie
I think Louie is right on.
Pot and implied odds are everywhere, in any form of poker, tournament or ring game.
But, monetary success is fairly easy to calculate in regular ring games because often times, you either have the odds or you don't, you call or you fold.
In a tournament, as Louie has shown, sometimes you must disregards the odds because even though a certain play definitly has a +EV chips wise, another one has a bigger monetary value.
Like Louie said, in tournaments, odds are very important, and should usually be considered when you make a decision, especially early in the tournament.
Say for example, you are early in a tourney you have a flush draw on the flop and the pot is laying you 3:1 if you go all-in. You figure to win if you hit. Odds wise, you may decide, even though you are getting enough to make the call profitable in a ring game, to fold, because, you will be eliminated 2/3 of the time, other (better) opportunities should come up, your opponents are weaker than you are and you feel you should outplay them later on...etc..
However, say the pot is now laying you 10:1 in the same situation, then you are still going to bust out 2/3 of the time but this time when you hit, you will have a substancial gain in chips. Then you should take the gamble. This is too good of an opportunity.
Hope this helped,
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
I play in Colorado where the betting limit is a 5 dollar max. I was playing at a casino in Blackhawk recently and over the course of the game got to talking to a the guy next to me. He seemed a nice enough guy and at one point during the evening I commented about how it stunk that Colorado had a low betting limit. He said that he has a home game about once a week where the limit is 10-20. He gave me his name, address, number, etc. I havent played in a home game since I was in college 20 years ago and that was with my college buddies who I knew and it was also low limit so no one got hurt. I was wondering if anyone could share their experiences in dealing with home games. Could it be fixed? Should I be leary? If so, what should I keep an eye out for. Thanks.
It is possible this game might be fixed, but it might be legit too. I would be leary about playing for that much money in a home game at all, however. I basically won't play in home games that are much bigger than the smallest casino limit games, because I prefer the supervision of floorpeople and professional dealers, as well as cameras. Think of it like this, is there any casino you play poker in where you feel uncomfortable leaving your chips on the table while you take a break? Now, would you want to do the same thing in a home game with total strangers? Playing higher stakes than you would in your local casino?
I would get to know this guy before going to his house to play 10-20. There is much more incentive to cheat when the money is big and the supervision is poor. There isn't much cheating in casinos because the supervision is good. There isn't much cheating in small money home games, because the money is small and they are usually being played more for fun than for profit.
As far as things to look for, card cheats can be quite sneaky at times, and it's not always real obvious what they are doing. I would look for marked cards, especially nicks or cuts on the sides of the cards. If they start each session with a brand new deck or decks, this is much less likely to be occurring. Another thing to look for is people raising each other, then one of them suddenly folding for one more bet. This wouldn't make much sense if it happened in a casino, where no one was cheating, now would it. Planet poker looks for this type of thing in their security measures. Sleight of hand might occur, are they using standard casino ettiquette, such as "place your bet in front of you, so the dealer can inspect it and count it, rather than splash the pot"? Is the game "table stakes"? (I WON'T play in a non-table stakes game, unless it is a freeze-out tournament).
Keep in mind that I am certainly not the expert on cheating, or the techniques cheaters might try, but I am not an idiot either. There is a small group of people in atlantic city who like to get into games with each other, playing all off the same stake, and their tactics often times borderline on plain old cheating. I simply refuse to play in the game when there are two or more of these people in the game. A few forumites will probably know exactly who I am talking about....
YOU to watch out for you. Be cautious about playing in home games for serious money.
Dave in Cali
I deal at a guys home game once a week. It's very much on the up n up. I run the game just like (or damn close) in the card room. Of course I've come to know the guys playing and relax a little, but I keep it natural too. I guess to answer your question it depends on the host a lot. Many dont use dealers in home games. I prefer to have one. And let me tell ya the first day in the box after they had been doin it themselves.....They loved it! 3 times as many hands got out.
I think your best bet is definitely to go check it out once and see how you feel about it. I think there are a lot more people who just want to get together and play some cards than there are professional cheaters. In other words, most home games are honest, even though cheating certainly does exist. You have a lot to gain by finding a regular, weekly game that might last for years, especially since you can't find one in casinos near you, and especially because home game usually means no rake (there might be if they have an actual dealer). It's definitely worth your trouble to go once and check it out.
I had the same issues when I first moved to Vail six months ago. I found two long running underground games that use floormen, dealers, cut cards, etc. there by minimizing some cheating possibilities.
One place runs a 10/20 with occassional 20/40 overs and is a very, very loose game with poor players.
The other place generally runs a 6/12 with 10/20 overs common. On Friday and Saturday night, this joint also runs a pot limit half omaha/half hold em game with $5 and $10 blinds.
If you want info on these email me as I won't make a general post as to names, numbers, etc.
Hi,
I have been playing hold em for about 3 months and have read 1) Lee Jones 2) Sklansky's HP and HPFAP and 3) Sklansky's TOP.
I consider myself always the top player (sometimes 2nd) at the table.
I am considering studying Omaha (and omaha Hi-Low) but I am at a loss for how to begin learning these games.
Question #1 : How much of a shift is it from playing texas hold em ?? (In terms of learning starting hands etc.)
Question #2 : What book do you recommend I read first?
Thanks, JM
Ray Zee's High-Low Split Poker
JM,
I recommend Bob Ciaffone's Omaha book. It has a good introduction on what kind of hands to build. He covers some hand comparisons for both Omaha and the 8 or better version.
After you read Bob's book, read Ray Zee's Hi Lo Split Book.
Cloutier + McEvoy
Excellent on all aspects of the game
Good luck
Glenn
JM - Question #1 : How much of a shift is it from playing texas hold em ?? (In terms of learning starting hands etc.)
Very much of a shift, IMHO. Most overall strategies are geared towards ending up with the nuts on the river. In Omaha-8, in addition to having the nuts on the river, you want to play for scoopers.
Question #2 : What book do you recommend I read first?
Depends on whether you want to start playing the high-only version of Omaha or Omaha-8 (the high/low split version). I recommend you start with the high/low split version, because doing so will force you to think in a different way from the way you're used to thinking while playing Texas hold 'em.
Ray Zee's book is a must read for any serious Omaha-8 student. Although labeled a book for advanced players, the book has a section on fundamentals in addition to a more advanced section, and anyone with a background in Texas hold 'em could easily follow the text. In other words, I don't think the book is too advanced for you. A bonus is you can easily contact the author on this forum if you have any questions about the book. He's good about responding.
Shane Smith's book, IMHO, is also a good book for an Omaha-8 beginner.
However, if you start with high-only Omaha, Bob Ciaffone's book seems an excellent choice.
Just my opinion. (I own, and have read, every Omaha book I have ever seen, about a dozen in all).
Buzz
Short handed dealer's choice home game with call stations. Should you play looser starting cards or play tighter? I played tight and got the shaft. Any good books on low-limit short handed games? Thanks.
HFAP 21st Centurn Edition has a section about playing in short handed limit hold'em games. There are very few books because tight book players are easy to beat in short handed hold'em games at least.
GCA has accused many people of cheating. Here's the question I have for the masses : For those that have been accused - is it important for them to come out and say something about it?
I have my opinion, but I'd like to hear the opinion of posters on this forum.
It is important if they think it's important; I don't know how they could not. I posted on the other topics forum and said the whole thing sickened me. There were two reasons for this: 1) some people were accused and the responses from both those people and others were, in some cases, quite cryptic. Maybe because there were, allegedly, some Mafioso types involved, this is the reason for the evasiveness. 2) Names are being thrown around as cheaters right and left. If these allegations are untrue, it's horrible.
Suppose someone decides to post and say I am a cheater. I will then deny it. But my reputation is still impugned. Some people will believe it.
It's even more damaging to some of the famous names who have been mentioned than it would be to me because they make their living (or at least part of it) from their writings about poker.
Eventually, one would think, if accusations keep getting made, the state of Nevada or the state of California might get involved and that will certainly be a big mess. One would hope that, whatever the truth or falsity of the accusations, the poker industry itself, if there is such a thing, will get to work on cleaning things up.
Reasons it may not be important to deny : 1. cheaters and non cheaters alike will both deny. so people may choose to believe or disbelieve...it doesn't matter what you say. 2. McCarthyism effect 3. just don't want to get involved
Reasons it may be important to deny : 1. if left unsaid, possibly more people may believe the allegations, in which case, possibly some people may believe some of the player's reputation came from winnings in cheated games, which may lead to some people to believe that said player's writings may not be as effective as they had originally thought. 2. there are many of us who are willing to believe the denials - and for those, silence makes it very questionable.
I posted on the Other Forum that I do not believe it is important if Doyle Brunson, Sklansky, Zee, et al that were accused are or were cheaters. It is not important to me. It may be important to them. If so they should take what ever measures they feel necessary with regards to these allegations.
What is important to me is the methods that cheaters use and how to combat them. I also believe that it is of tantamount imporance to know if current management in a card room tolerates and/or participates in cheating. A clean and irrepoachable management is, IMO, absolutely essential to combatting cheating. Because of this and because GCA has admitted to cheating with the aid of Casino Management I have followed these cheating interviews. So far I have not seen anything to convince me that today's card room managers are participating in cheating scams. At least not at the mid limits where I play and as such where my concern lies.
Should these fellows respond? If Sklansky or Zee respond I will read there responses. Sklansky has responded on rgp but quite frankly I'm not sure what his response tells me. He never comes right out and says, yes I cheated or no I didn't cheat. So I'm not sure what to make of his response. I will say that if someone makes cheating accusations it would be important to me to know what he bases his allegations on. If it is from first hand experience then it would add credence for me to know if he was the cheater or was cheated. I would lend more credence to his allegations if he were the cheater.
The bottom line to your question, IMO, is that each of the individuals accused must decide for themselves if they feel it necessary to respond. I will think no less of ny of them if they do not respond. I firmly believe in innocent until proven guilty.
Vince
Vince: Very good post. David's response was, indeed, cryptic at best.
I think it is very important whether or not the famous names in poker are or were cheaters. If there is truth behind the accusations, then it's a black eye for poker. Gambling is always operating under a cloud of suspicion. If it turns out that the big names in the indsutry are or were involved in cheating, it can only be bad for everyone, for the future of the game and for the people involved.
I remember many years ago David's writing partner responded to an off-hand remark made by, of all people, Sophia Loren, who said that all poker players are cheaters. David's writing partner sent a strong letter of denial to, I believe, the L.A. Times, saying that card players have the highest moral caliber. Now we hear about Spilotro, teamwork, hidden cameras, marked cards, casino management collusion or tolerance, etc.
I am troubled because I too would like to believe that the mid-limit games I play in are clean and that the management that operates the casino I play in is not only clean but vigilant in protecting players. It's always hard to believe someone who says that they once did something but doesn't do it any more.
I knew a player who was paying taxes, in the late 1970s, of $20,000 a week on his business earnings. Pretty good income, no? He would steal $1 chips from the pot (15-30 draw) when he thought no one was watching. After I told him to stop, and told the manager of the club about it, he still did it while I was in the game.
What does this tell me? 1) Management really didn't care; 2) The fact that it is a medium stakes game or that the dollar amount shouldn't make any difference to the player involved is irrelevant. A cheater will cheat.
Having said this, we should all be very careful about throwing accusations and names around. Obviously, the accusers at RGP have been anything but careful. Anyone trying to wade through the posts there should be ashamed of it. It's a virtual cesspool. That's what I like about the 2+2 forums. At least there's thoughtful discussion of issues, such as your post to which I am now responding.
Very very good post.
I'm not sure. The problem with responding is that you give the accusers credibility, and from the GCA posts and the bizarre embellishments that they seem to add into their posts they don't seem to have any.
i'm not sure either...but when you say : "The problem with responding is that you give the accusers credibility" - I don't see how a denial gives them credibility. Some people may view a non-response as giving them more credibility.
Some acknowledgements affirm that what was said is damaging. The clear impression given in the last week is that cheating has a significant impact on the mid leveles on up. That it has for the last 30 years. Many of the heros of poker are actually just thiefs. Protection for cheaters has come from the mob. Mason's position of cheating having a limited impact is clearly wrong.
Of course each of the accused have their own concerns. If it was me that was accused, I would not never reply to the accusations. Not a word. The only sure-way way to avoid pettiness is to not stoop to the petty level. Once that happens, the accusers win.
Tommy
Those damn double negatives will get you every time Tommy.
"Those damn double negatives will get you every time."
What a difference a letter makes.
Should have been, "not ever," not "not never," but then, you knew that, didn't you not?
lol
Tommy
In poker games, position has an influence on your play. In fact, being last to act has so much value that some would happily pay for the priviledge of always acting last. Consider Tommy's "wacky thought experiment". So what if there were a play that would allow you to move yourself from first to act to last at will? I believe that the following scheme would theoretically do so. Feedback is appreciated.
Suppose you are in an agressive game of hold 'em (or any other poker game). In fact, suppose it is so agressive that it is guaranteed that if you check when you are first to act on the flop, someone will always bet behind you.
Now suppose you check every flop. You now always get to see what the field does before acting. However, the effect is not the same as being on the button. The reason is that by checking, you are giving information to the field. Even if your reason for checking is simply to see what the field does, someone might interperet your check as weakness, or as intent to check-raise, and it might influence his play. On the button, you give no such information.
So let's change your strategy a little. Now suppose that on any flop where you would act first you will instead check blind. In fact, you will announce "check blind" before the flop is dealt. Again, players might interpret this action as reflecting what kind of a hand you hold. But suppose you did it every time. On every flop where you would act first, you simply check blind. After you do it a few times, even your slowest opponents will catch on and get used to the idea that you simply, for some reason, always check the flop. You have now given yourself the best position on every flop where you would have had the worst. Further, you have given no information. You have the button.
If our constraints hold, particularly that enough people see every flop and they're agressive enough to guarantee a bet every time, is there any reason this wouldn't work?
Note that if you feel that only very rarely will it check around after you check, you could still follow this strategy. You will only be burnt those times when it checks around and you would have bet. This might be a small enough price to pay to "buy the button" the rest of the time.
Two problems:
1. There is a big difference between being last to decide and being last to act. It is true that you might get to see everyone decide when you check blind early, but those decisions are not final because they will act again after you decide. For instance, you check, everyone checks to the button and they bet. You think you have gained because you "know" what everyone has decided about their hand. You decide to call. Now the guy next to you checkraises, and the guy next to him reraises, and the button caps it. Back to you... The key to the button is that you can often close the action. From your seat, you can make decisions about calling, raising or folding, but there is a table of people to act after you in many occasions. You have no positional advantage on them, as you do on the button.
2. You miss many opportunities for aggression when you do not bet your own hand. There are downfalls aside from giving the whole table a free card when you have the best hand (which is not minor, IMO). You do not have opportunities to limit the field, you cannot buy the pot on a scary board, you cannot gain more valuable information because you give those with position an opportunity for position bets that you cannot interpret well.
This is a cool idea, and my ideas are very preliminary, so feel free to point out any flaws in my reasoning.
I would ask you to please clarify your statement "You have now given yourself the best position on every flop where you would have had the worst. Further, you have given no information. You have the button." I need some further convincing that this is true. Is information the only advantage of the button?
KJS
I think both of your points are similar to those of Dave in Cali, so I hope this will work as something of a reply to both of you. First, you point out that the disadvantage to this scheme is that it might be checked around. I agree that this is true, and this is why in practice people don't check every flop blind. I was simply discussing this strategy as a thought experiment, in a hypothetical game in which it will never check around.
Second, you say that the reason this is not like the button is that you don't get to close the action. However, I claim that, since you effectively are the button, you close the action just as often. Let's look at why.
The only case in which you get to close the action on the button is when the bettor is the first player to act (or it checks around). Otherwise, those who checked before the bettor have the chance to act after you (and checkraise).
The situation is the same now. If the bettor is to your imediate left, you close the betting, just like you would if he were first and you were on the button. If the bettor is in the middle of the field, you have to fear a checkraise, just like on the button. Your positional/closing-the-action advantage seems identical.
In particular, for your example, it could occur exactly the same way if I were actually on the button, it checked around to the player to my right who bet, I called, and then everyone checked raised and it came back to me capped. To my eye, there does not seem to be a difference between the two situations.
Let's not forget the ability to charge more players more bets when you are in later position, thus making them pay a maximum price at one time when they are behind or chasing. Ie. two players check, third bets, button raises. Now first two must pay two cold, which can often be a mistake, given the affect on their odds of having to call two bets at once. In your scheme, you check blind, check, bet, call, you checkraise, one fold. Now the two players who have already invested are asked to contribute one more bet. Their odds are there so they stay in.
My bottom line: Anytime you should bet but check instead, for whatever reason, you are making a poker error.
KJS
But you're comparing two different situations. In the first the action before the real or virtual button goes check, check, bet and in the second it goes check, bet, call.
Your scenario when I'm on the actual button is two checks and a bet, which I raise forcing the two checkers to call two cold.
If I check blind, then there's two check and a bet, I can raise forcing the two checkers to call two cold. Exactly the same.
I think that we are coming to the subtlety upon which much of the anaylsis will rest.
KJS and Bobby are probably both correct in their interpretations.
Let us imagine that there are two universes, the Button universe and the UTG universe. There are many one-to-one and onto maps between the two.
One is the identity map: that is each deal is the same, the only difference is your position.
In this map, KJS is correct in that things will turn out differently. If John bets, the number of players between the two of you is different and things will play out slightly differently.
Bobby is using a different map (it's not absolutely clear it is one-to-one and onto, but probably is - I think some work will have to be done here). The intention is that the average (or long term) effect is the same. The map connects separate deals with betting patterns (possibly just shifting the cards relative to the other universe - but this introduces some other problems) which are the same relative to you. If John bets out in one universe, Marty beside him bets out in the other. Even this is not entirely satisfactory if the actual hands held by the actual players are different, since each player will evaluate his hand differently from somebody else, so their future actions won't necessarily correlate even if all else goes as Bobby posits.
It seems that in order to properly analyze the play in both universes and compare them, Bobby's map needs to have the players and the cards they are dealt remain the same. The only difference between any deal and its map in the other universe is the location of the button. It's too late for me to really figure out the implications of that, but it feels like the potential for "proving what you've postulated" is there. Maybe not.
Something that does come to mind is how the other players view your check UTG. If they ALL view it as just what Bobby does and pay it no mind as if it hadn't happened, then they ARE giving you the button if someone will always bet. If even one person guesses what's going on, or misses the fact it was a blind check, then his behaviour will not be in accord with you having the button and the equivalence you are looking for breaks down.
To wrap up my rambling, I'll say that much of the time to will effectively be given the button, but the correspondence is not perfect.
Eric
Interesting proposal, but it has one flaw. If you are first to act, unless you are the blind in a single blind game or got a free play in the BB, this sort of implies that you voluntarily entered the pot voluntarily, and it usually takes a good hand to do this when you know you will be acting first for the rest of the hand. Therefore, you will often want to be betting on flops that hit you, and if there is a chance of it getting checked around, you will wish you had bet rather than give out free cards in many instances. If there will ALWAYS be a bet, then you do not give this up in the same way. One other point is that by blind checking, it is not the same as buying the button, because bets from middle position still leave you pretty much between a rock and a hard place in many instances.
Dave in Cali
I don't see that bets from middle position are any different now that if you were on the button. If you are on the button, the first two players check and the third bets, you have to call the bet of the third player without knowing wether the first two intend to raise or not (i.e. you are not closing the betting). If you check blind, the next two players check and the third (fourth counting yourself) bets, you have to respond without knowing if the first two are checkraising. It seems exactly the same to me.
Can you explain why you say that "it is not the same as buying the button, because bets from middle position still leave you pretty much between a rock and a hard place in many instances."
I did not make this very clear, I can see why you were confused. It doesn't help you as much as buying the button would because you will still have to act first on the turn and river. Buying the button assures that you are last to act for the remainder of the hand, which has major advantages that simply checking every flop blind from first position would not have. You might gain an advantage on the flop but it would not carry over to the turn. That makes more sense, I hope.
Dave in Cali
interesting proposal. however, this checking blind is not something that stands in and of itself. you are still 'acting first'. your opponents may link this unfailing habit to some shrewd appraisal of your style of play and adjust accordingly. the button still has advantage of seeing what every bdoy does, and you, haveing already checked, cannot bet after you see that everyone has checked. your bluffs are less prominent, because a bluff raise on the flop is much less likely to succeed in buying you the pot right there, whereas a bet has a slightly better chance at this. plus, you may cut down on inducing people to bluff against you. if they think that you are last to 'act' (you can call their bluff bet...) then they may be more inclined to check. some players may be more inclined to bluff, too. some may want the action to be bet and raised before it gets back to you, just so they can see if you'll call a double bet. sometimes you may be forced out of a hand in this kind of situation when you could have bet, had a raiser behind you, and now that same player who would have raised when you checked blind has to reveal that his hand is strong enough to call 3 bets, or even three bet, otherwise he must fold and is thwarted. position has its advantages in every spot. UTG can make a tough raise that may narrow the field, the big blind can just check, seeing a free flop, and giving no information about his hand, the button can raise with premium hands after the whole field called a bet by the SB and thus get more callers for a single bet more then the BB would have had if he had raised immediately after the SB. early position can check-raise, whereas late position can only bet or raise. sometimes i make more money on hands when i am in early position because i can get away with a check-raise and hove everybody call it, then when the rest of the table is too damn scared to bet and i have to bet from the button and only get callers. i have been in hands where there has been very little betting, i was known at the table for check raising top pair a lot. first to act, i call a bet on the flop with over cards. 6 people in the hand now. turn comes queen, i check, somehow giving off that check-raise vibe i guess, and it goes around. a queen on the river comes and the guy to my left starts to bet. now i don't have a queen, but i complain, and say that i hadn't acted yet. he takes his bet back, and i bet. he now folds, along with the ENTIRE FIELD. i take down the pot because i was able to get to the bluff before the other guy. i could never have called this guy or raised him on a bluff in that situation, had he bet first. but since i was first to act, i was able to buy the pot. position constantly has to be appraised, and wielded to its greatest potential.
Basically what your saying is that if you are going to check a lot of your bad hands in early position you should check a lot or most of your good hands too. Ok I'll buy it. In heads up and short handed pots there are occasions when you should come out betting a lot IMO from early position.
Bobby,
You could have called this "A wackier thought experiment." Maybe that's why I like it!
Here's part of one of your replies, stopped at where I think the problem is:
"I don't see that bets from middle position are any different now than if you were on the button. If you are on the button, the first two players check and the third bets, you have to call the bet of the third player . . . "
I don't know about ya'll but I almost never call in this situation. When we raise here on the button, the opponent's cannot narrow down our hands very well. But when we check-raise from up front with two players behind us who checked, our hands are much easier to read.
Why raise with a wide range of hands on the button? That goes right to the gist. Because we get to act last on the turn and river. We get the option to take free cards or bet or raise on the later streets after seeing how everyone responds to our flop raise.
From up front after checking in the blind, some of your position-shifting concept pans out, but only on the flop, because then on the turn and river we still have to act first and that sucks.
If, and I'm really not sure if you are, saying that the position-shifting concept would make it less bad to play hands out of position, then I strongly disagree. The flop betting is largely posturing anyway. The reason that the button rules is because that's the only seat where we get to see what the other players do before us on every street. In other words, for your concept to change the natural flow of money to the left, you'd have to check-dark on EVERY street UTG in order to "see what they do first."
" . . . without knowing whether the first two intend to raise or not (i.e. you are not closing the betting). If you check blind, the next two players check and the third (fourth counting yourself) bets, you have to respond without knowing if the first two are checkraising. It seems exactly the same to me."
But when we check-raise after if goes check-check-bet, our range of hands is MUCH narrower that if we raise on the button after check-check-bet. The combo of info revealed and info gained still heavily favors the button in my opinion.
Still, there is some concealing value in always betting the same way. That's the main merit I would give to the always-check-dark-on-the-flop idea. I think the position-shifting is too fleeting (one street) to be significant, and not enough to justify playing shakey hands out of position, if that was even a point you were making.
Tommy
It seems to me the main thing that you lose by checking the flop is that you are not giving your opponent the opportunity to fold. How many hands have you seen where the better on the flop wins the pot right there, with no callers... Always checking on the flop seems way too passive to me...
Blantantly checking blind is the same as always checking: you give away no information. If the opponents infer something because they don't KNOW you are always checking then they are making a mistake.
Your reasoning here is sound. Almost always check when someone else is going to bet. But I would like to point out, however, that you are NOT gaining best position. What if the clever player behind you is doing the same thing YOU are doing? Also, if you KNOW it going to be bet and get several calles, then you aren't gaining much information when THAT happens, just as the opponents are gaining much information from you when you check.
Those rare times that its checked when you wanted to bet are not all that bad, since you have affectivly slow-played when the opponents don't have didly-squat.
- Louie
What if the clever player behind you is doing the same thing YOU are doing?Ah, good, I was waiting for someone to bring that up. If the argument goes that when I'm first to act checking blind lets me act last, wouldn't the player who now becomes first to act (the guy to my left), also check blind? And the guy after him, and so on?
The answer is no, not quite. The only reason I could check blind in this hypothetical example is that I knew that there were agressive players after me who I knew would bet. But as each player checks, there are less and less people behind him, so the next player has less incentive to check since there is less certainty of a bet.
So you are right that at least one other player after me may follow the same strategy, giving them the button, not me. However, even if this happens, I will still improve my position. If two other players check, for example, I become third to last to act rather than first. No matter what I will improve my position somewhat.
This thread originated from the discussion below in the thread titled "why raise if it won't thin the field"
In the discussion between myself and Bobby, we had an example hand that goes as follows.
He has AA, and I have As3s, pre-flop we raise back and forth (FYI, I wouldn't never do this w/ this hand, this is only hypothetical, so don't flame me on this)
When the flop comes there is 2 spades and $215 in the pot. AA bets $10, so I am getting approx 22-1, to draw to my flush. The odds against me making it are 2-1. So technically, by my calling I would be making money in the long run. However, If we repeat this 1,000,000 times I would be behind, since AA is a 2-1 favorite. Right?
My question is: If I am suppose to be making money in the long run, how is it possible that I would be behind after a million trials?
You need to seperate (in your mind) all the money you put in the pot before the flop when you were getting the worse of it and the flop call where you are getting the best of it.
I wasn't talking about before the flop. That is irrelevent to my question.
Lets pretend the hand starts on the flop with $215 in the pot and I have As3s and my opponent has AA. If he bets $10 and I call getting 22-1 I am theoretically making money in the long run, but if his AA holds up 2 out of three times, then I would be down after 1,000,000 trials. Right? Am I missing something?
So 2 out of every three times you lose $10-$30 (depending on what the turn bet is or if you go all-in with the $10). The one time out of three you do win, you get at least $225.
So with you winning the least and losing the most after every three trials you are theoretically up $165 so after 1 million trials you are up about $55 million.
Paul Talbot
Bishop - You wrote, "Am I missing something?"
Maybe the rest of us are. What are the limits?
Specifically, I wonder how you get $215 in the pot, pre-flop, and then only have to call a $10 bet after the flop.
If the bet after the flop is the final bet (but it isn't), then you are getting huge odds in your favor to call. You would be way ahead, not behind after a million trials. Thus there seems no paradox here.
Perhaps part of what you may be missing is that there are two betting rounds yet to come. Even so, you should call the $10 bet after the flop if you are playing no-limit and raise if you are playing limit (depending on the limit).
Buzz
I think the source of why this seems like a paradox is that you are confused as to what it menas to make money or lose money in a poker sense.
When I bet the flop with my aces, I have the best of it (2-1 favorite). So, I make money when you call.
However, you are getting odds to call and chase your flush draw, so you make money when you call.
How can this be, that we both make money? From the dead money in the pot, everyone answers.
But you're not satisfied with that answer. I think it's because you're right that there's more to it than that. The second part is that you claimed before that since you make money when you call, I must be losing money. That's the fundamental theorem of poker. So how can I be both winning and losing money? That's the real paradox.
The answer is that by win or lose money, we really mean gain or lose expectation. When I bet as a favorite, I increase my expectation compared to the alternative, checking and giving you a free card. Therefore, I am making money. However, when you call I am losing money compared to the alternative, you incorrectly folding. So I am losing money too.
In other words, when you call me, I lose money because my expectation decreases, not because it becomes negative. I lose money only in the sense that I make less money than is possible. This is why your original claim, that since I lose money when you call me I must eventually go bankrupt by doing so repeatedly, is incorrect.
What Mason means is this.
Your call later on in the hand make you money, that is for sure. But the money you are MAKING BACK from calling with the flush draw is the money that you PISSED AWAY when you were raising and reraising preflop with a hand that was a hideous underdog to AA.
So you are getting paid from the pot with your own money that you erroneously put in there.
Does that make sense?
-SmoothB-
true..how about a quiz sb?
First, thanks for all the responses.
It all came to me last night out of the blue. Pretty much the same thing Bobby posted.
I see how its possible for both of us to be making money in the long run (post-flop). Im not a math person, but I quess the AA will be winning 2/3 of the time and As3s will be winning 1/3 of the time on the flop, so we will both be making money.
Only problem is, we will both be making money off the As3s pre-flop mistake. So theoretically As3s will be losing money in the long run if you count the pre-flop mistake. My problem wasn't understanding where the mistake was coming from, but how both players could be making money in the long-run. (post-flop)
It is easier to understand now when you consider pre-flop and post-flop play, that As3s isn't really making money in the long run.
Now that I understand this, its on to the bigger question.
I will post it later, because there is about 10 people in my house and I can't concentrate.
Lets say there is 21 bets in the pot, and the AA is exactly a 2:1 favorite; and we ignore turn and river betting. The only viable betting sequences are check-check; bet-call; and bet-fold.
Check-Check. AA wins 14sb per hand (his share of the pot); A3s wins 7sb per hand.
Bet-Call: AA wins 14sb plus 2/3 of one bet (A3's call) minus 1/3 of one bet (his bet), or 14 and a third bets. A3s wins 7sb minus 2/3 of one bet (his call) plush 1/3 of one bet (the AA's bet), or 6 and one third bets.
Bet-Fold. AA wins 21sb; A3s wins nothing.
You don't need to multiply by 1mil.
Notice that both Bet-Call and Bet-Fold are better for the AA than is Check-Check; therefore the AA should bet. This is a "value" bet. Notice that Bet-Call is MUCH better than Bet-Fold for the A3s; therefore A3s should call.
Yes, A3 loses money on the call itself, but gains because his share of the equity in the pot (7sb) is greater than the bet.
Both players are playing correctly when it goes Bet-Call. Good bet, good call, no contradiction.
- Louie
The reason for this is that the pot is so large when you are faced with calling a bet. If you played this a million times, you would lose one bet 666,667 times, but you would win 23 bets 333,333 times, so you would be way ahead. You have a positive expectation on that particular call. This is because each situation in poker is independent of the situation which existed on the previous round. You could have a strongly negative expectation on one round, but have a postive one the next round. The best example of this is your example: you had to make a strongly negative expectation bet to get the pot so large. Before the flop, the aces had a HUGE advantage over you. But once the turn gives you a four flush, now your draw has positive expectation, even though you had to make a horrible play to get there.
Say you have Jc2c. The flop is 3c Ah Kh. the betting is capped before it gets to you. You would have to make a horrible call, major -EV, to pursue your flush draw. However, if a club falls on the turn, now you would have a positive expectation going into the river, assuming the pot was large and the turn betting was reasonable.
An example of it going the other way: say you have 33 and the flop is A K 3. You know the bettor has an ace. You are getting way the worst of it if you call his bet on the flop, you are drawing nearly dead. However, once you have made that terrible call, the next round is independent of the previous. If a three comes on the turn, you now have way the best of it, as he is drawing dead to you.
Each situation must be considered individually and independently of the situation which preceded it.
Dave in Cali
alot of newcomers will read this [useful] article and be TOTALLY confused.
If I have "33", my opponent has AN Ace, and the flop comes "A K 3" I'm not drawing close to dead -
I'm drooling. =)
Been busy lately - good to be back...
- J D
J-D was right, that was a pretty bad typo in my last example!
I MEANT to say if you had 33 and your opponent has AN ace, and the flop was A K 6, NOT A K 3, and you called, you were taking the worst of it by far, but then if you caught a three on the turn, you now have the best of it....
Sorry for the confusion, I made a faux-paus! I will have to be chastized and cast out of the club for one week now!
Dave in Cali
I am just learning the game and am fascinated by the complexity of poker after reading posts on this forum. I have read books by Sklansky, Jones, Warren and Krieger as well as practicing nightly with my trust Wilson software.
My initial approach to hold-em is similar to playing tennis. It is not necessary to hit winners on the line to win, just play solidly and wait for your opponents to make mistakes. From what I have read this strategy, if executed properly, will enable one to be a winner at low level games.
This being the case I am focusing on avoiding the basic mistakes i.e. not knowing hand rankings, ignoring position, tilting, etc. until I can learn more of the deeper subtleties and probabilities of the game.
First- get solid preflop, then smart on the flop, then turn, river, short handed, upper limits, etc.
My question for the board regards calling a raise preflop. I have read that you should not call a raise preflop unless you could raise with it. Do you agree? I find myself able to patiently wait for good starting hands with TTH software, yet occasionally get frustrated waiting for a good hand only to fold half of them automatically when someone else raise in front of me.
P.S. Had my first casino experience at Foxwoods last week. Played 2-4 for two hours and won $12. Played solidly until I was dealt pocket rockets. Raised preflop and again after the flop when Ace rags came out. Everyone folded. Should have slow played and raised or check raised on the turn after building a pot.
Thanks to all for your helpful posts.
"I have read that you should not call a raise preflop unless you could raise with it. Do you agree?"
No.
This is reasonable beginner advice, especially if you have no playing experience with the opponents. But in the real world, it's all about who does what and where.
For example, if I have AJ in a middle seat and all fold to me and three of the players behind me will frequently call or reraise if I raise, I will fold.
But with the same hand in the same seat, I might reraise a guy who raises in front of me, depending on who it is, and the expected actions from the players left to act.
Tommy
Should have slow played and raised or check raised on the turn after building a pot.Be careful with this. A lot of beginners seem to do to much slowplaying in low limit games. In general, if you hit a good hand you want to be betting it. Sure, sometimes everyone will fold, but more often people will pay you off all the way and slowplaying would have just cost you money. The danger of slowplaying is even worse in multiway pots. It has its place in your bag of tricks of course, just be careful with it. And it's always easy to say after everyone folded that you should have slowplayed, but sometimes that just means that you would let people stick around for free or cheap to catch straight draws and flush draws against you.
Yes, hitting solid shots and giving the opponent a chance to make a mistake is great beginning tennis. Its also good because we can't consistently HIT those sideline shots until we have mastered the basic game anyway.
A general rule of thumb is this: You can generally call a raise with a hand [1] at least 50% better than the opponents minimum raising hand from HIS position, AND [2] one YOU would have raised with in YOUR position. You can 3-bet with a hand twice as good as the opponent. So if the opponent raises with 10% of all hands then you can call with hands 5-7.5% and raise with 4.9% or better.
If you have no idea what the raiser's standards are, then just use YOUR standards for his position.
You can call a raise with KQ against a loose raiser who'll raise with any two cards 9 or higher, but its a brain-dead fold against a raiser who's minimum is AJ.
This rule breaks down against real loose raisers (such as agressive types in short-handed pots) and also breaks down when you can expect lots of callers besides yourself and also breaks down when you are in the blind.
- Louie
Don't think that you made any mistakes by raising with your aces. A single overpair is NOT strong enough to try to build a pot with and get fancy later. The best time to win the pot is almost always RIGHT NOW. Slowplaying, especially in loose games, is NOT something you should be doing very often. You have to be satisfied with what is in the pot right now. In loose games, if you NEVER slowplayed, you would do just fine....
You cannot call raises with hands that you couldn't raise with... this statement is generally true. There are some exceptions, but if you need a general rule, this is fine.
Example: you have ATo in middle position. A solid player raises UTG. Fold without question, if he has an ace, you are almost certainly dominated.
An exception to the rule might be something like this: You have Td9d on the button. UTG, a very loose player with very low raising standards BTF, raises. Everyone calls to you. Now you can call, as you are not necessarily looking at the raiser having a very strong handd, and there are lots of people in the pot, thus making your drawing hand more appealing to play, despite the fact that the pot is raised. Note that Td9d is NOT generally a hand you would raise with yourself BTF.
Another aspect of this is that you should fold some hands that you might normally raise with if it is raised in front of you. Say I was in late-middle or late position with AJo. If it gets folded to me, I would raise without question. However, if there is a legitimate raise in front of me, I would fold. This hand is on the cusp of the WORST hands I would raise with under most circumstances, so I would not want to call a raise from someone who had similar raising standards to myself, as I would usually be taking the worst of it.
One final example: you might fold a raising hand sometimes for more than one bet. Say I had AKo in late position. UTG, a very solid player, raises. The next player makes it three bets, and the next player, a total ROCK, caps the betting. Assume I had never seen the rock raise BTF until now. I would fold the AKo without hesitation, even though I would usually play it, even for a raise or possibly two raises. Now however, it is just too likely that I am against AA or KK, in which case my hand is a huge underdog.
Dave in Cali
All of these strategies and game plans are all very correct and certainly should not be ignored, but I find that beginners can sometimes faulter when they follow books and rules too rigidly. I started playing poker with nothing but 'Late Night Poker' - a UK tournament which is shown on TV and I'm a consistent winner. I'm not saying that I'm a brilliant player but I'm a consistent winner in the games that I play in. I have found that more than anything, real life experience is the best lesson that you can have. Find a low limit game and try stuff out - even if the book says you should'nt do it. It might just work.
P.S. You shouldn't be 'automatically' folding hands just because someone raised behind you. What type of player are they, do they raise a lot, have you EVER re-raised them to see what they do?
Some working names for this essay are:
‘When to throw AA in the muck when it’s checked to you’
‘Why you play tight and solid but still can’t beat the loosest games.’
Before I get started, let me define a couple of terms.
Collective underdog – when the odds of you winning the hand are less than 1/N where N is the number of people in the hand.
IE if you have a 9% chance of winning a hand and you have 9 opponents,. 1/N = .10 so you would be a collective underdog since .09<.10.
Collective favorite – when the % chance of you winning the hand is greater than 1/N. IE of you have a 12 % chance of winning the hand VS 9 opponents you qualify.
PART 1 - AA
Loose games can be among the most profitable – especially if they are passive. But many players find these games frustrating and very difficult to beat. I would like to share some insights here that might help if this applies to you.
Every time we look down and find pocket aces the heart skips a beat. This is the moment we’ve been waiting for – our chance to make winner after slugging it out at a loose table all night. But every experienced player knows not to get his hopes up too high – we still have to take a look at the flop and keep our fingers crossed.
Depending on the flop, AA may be a blessing or a curse. Obviously flopping a set is wonderful – dreams of dragging a monster pot are one step closer to reality. Even a flop of 833 rainbow brings a sigh of relief (until the inevitable checkraise on the turn.)
But what about bad flops?
In very loose games (more than 5 people seeing the flop) it can often be correct to throw AA in the muck on the flop for a single bet.
Let’s take what might arguably be the worst flop for 2 black aces – T98 all hearts.
Stop for a minute and consider what % chance you have of winning the pot vs. 9 opponents. What did you guess – 40%? 20? The answer is a dismal 6.5%. This makes you a huge collective underdog to win the pot so the smartest thing to do is to fold for a single bet, or check if checked to.
Of course, some of the hands that could beat you are things like 5 high flush draws, runner runner 2 pair, even some gutshot straights. And certainly some of these weaker draws will fold. But not all of them and probably not most of them. Remember, all 9 of these people called a raise to play their hands and 7 of them have complete garbage.
In fact, against as few as 5 opponents, you are a collective underdog to win this pot with this flop. You stand a dismal 16% chance of dragging the pot at showdown VS 5 opponents. In fact, even heads up you only stand a 63.3% chance of winning.
The case for other big pocket pairs is, obviously, far more dismal even when they are an overpair to the flop. For example, two black queens with a flop of 876 all hearts stand a sorry 5.0% chance of winning against nine opponents. Even against 4 opponents the queens are a big collective underdog with just an 18% chance of winning.
Now, despite these facts, we still see players every day who furiously bet and raise their overpairs on these kinds of flops, only to throw their cards in disgust when that 5 high flush snaps them off on the river. Might it not be better to just muck and wait for the next opportunity, perhaps when the flop comes Ah Qh Qs?
PART 2 – Medium pocket pairs
There has been much debate over whether to raise with medium pocket pairs on the button after many people limp in. The logic behind this is, obviously, to build a big pot that people will be tied to if you flop a set. Furthermore, if the game is passive, raising on the button might mean that everyone checks around to you on the button, and you get to see the turn card for free if you miss. This improves your odds of winning because you will still be in the hand sometimes when you make a set on the turn.
There are a few problems with this, however. In the hands of any but the most experienced this may turn out to be a tragedy.
For one thing, assuming that you ONLY continue with the hand if you flop a set, the play has very little immediate positive expectation. Obviously, it can help your image and make it harder for your opponents to read you – but lets face it, if the game is that loose you don’t need to be deceptive.
Let’s take pocket 8’s. (They are right in the middle of the deck.)
You are going to flop a set, full house, or quads 11.8% of the time. Now, that sounds great – against 9 opponents this is a sure money maker. The problem is that even a set isn’t going to win ALL of the time.
It is better to estimate that your odds of winning the hand are about equal to the chances of flopping a set or better, multiplied by the % chance of that set holding up against X number of opponents.
A set of 8’s is going to hold up against 9 opponents 63.3 % of the time. Now, .118 (chance of flopping set or better) times .633 is equal to 7.8%. That reflects your % chance of flopping a set AND having it hold up. It does not include those times that you make a straight, flush, or win on the merits of the unimproved pair.
The problem is, if you do flop a straight draw, it is not to the nuts, although admittedly the fact that you have 2 8’s makes it somewhat less likely that someone else will be out there with T8 when the flop is 765. On the other hand, we have all seen it happen many times.
Furthermore, a weaker player may be tempted to bet an unimproved pair into the masses when checked to. This is a sure recipe for disaster and can turn this into a very expensive losing hand.
What it comes down to is this – in order to make a profit based on the merits of a set or better, you must be able to make 1/.078 times your initial investment. That means that if you spend one BB, you will need to earn at least 12.8 BB on the hand.
Another factor is the future bets that you lose when your set does not, in fact hold up. When you factor this in, you will see that you will really need to make MORE than 12.8 BB profit.
What kind of game is it? Is it one where you often get multiway action all the way up to and including the river? Then by all means you can raise. There are already 9 BB in there besides yours – you only need to earn about 4 more.
But if the game is very loose preflop, but the hands usually end up headsup by the turn, then you should NOT raise. You don’t stand to make enough extra profit to make it worthwhile.
What about if only 4 people limp in? Well, your hand has a better chance of winning, but you have fewer people to pay you off.
Here are a couple of other considerations:
The chances of a set holding up are, much like pocket aces, sensitive to the texture of the flop.
A good flop for 88, short of quads or a full house, would be K82 rainbow with the K and 2 each being the same suits as the 8’s. IE K of clubs 2 of spades for the 2 black 8’s. Against 9 opponents you have a wonderful 80.8% chance of winning the hand. But also note that there are no draws out there. The best you can hope for is for someone to call you down with a king, or someone to call you with runner runner draws, or for someone with another pocket pair to try to hit their 2 outter, or someone to call trying to snag an ace. Not a lot of payoff opportunities beyond the turn.
On the other hand, consider 2 black 8’s on a flop of T98 all hearts. You now have a 31.4% chance of winning. Does this look familiar? It should. IT IS ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME ODDS AS MAKING A FULL HOUSE AFTER FLOPPING A SET. The odds for a set filling up are 33%. What that means is that, in a family pot, your set of 8’s is a DRAWING HAND. In some ways it is better than a flush draw, in some ways worse.
It is better because if you make your hand, there are seldom going to be problematic redraws against you the way there are for a flush or straight. IE a flush can get drawn out by a bigger flush, full house, etc. You won’t have that problem.
The problem is that, since your draw is so good and it will be to the ‘nuts’,. you might end up paying a lot of bets if you get caught in a raising war. You have to call because you have pot odds, largely because YOU built the pot.
Another problem is that you will often find yourself paying off someone’s flush or straight on the river when you don’t fill. The pot may have become too large for you to exclude the possibility that they have a smaller set or 2 pair or bluff. You never have to pay off busted flush draws.
I hope this essay has helped shed some light on an issue I have been giving a lot of thought to recently. Questions and comments are always welcome.
-SmoothB-
A few comments. First, how did you arrive at the statistics for what your probability is of being ahead with various hands on various flops? This is going to vary widely from game to game. For example, if your opponents will play almost any suited cards, the flush is more likely to be out there.
Second, the collective underdog stuff doesn't always dictate whether you should stay in or not. It seems that you might be implying that you need to fold whenever you are a collective underdog on the flop, turn, etc., but of course that is not the case.
Whenever you are in a game where almost everyone or even everyone is seeing the flop, you can assume that all of the hands are in fact random.
These conditions do occur from time to time especially when a maniac puts the table on tilt.
When you are a collective underdog, your situation is in fact improved a wee bit from the odds you get from dead money already in the pot. So if you stand a 9.99% chance of winning on the flop with 9 others in it might be SLIGHTLY profitable to continue but I believe it is best to avoid those situations completely.
My purpose here was to use some calculations to show people why they might not be doing as well in loose games as they should. Raising and reraising AA when you get a bad flop is a waste of money, even if you are ahead at the moment. If the collective table has 40 outs against you then you should fold even if you have the winner now.
I have heard a lot of people complain about how tough the loose games can be and this info might help some of them.
Some players who are solid preflop but still don't manage to win need to realize that sometimes having the best hand on the flop DOES NOT mean that you have anything close to the best chance of winning the pot.
There are cases in Omaha where you can have the nuts on the turn but have a 0% chance of winning the pot. 10 handed holdem can approach this situation and people have to accept the fact that a group 1 hand pre flop can easily become a group 7 hand on the flop.
This is an extention of one of SmoothB's laws of poker -
If the next card does not improve your hand, it has gone down in value. (Unless you already had a lock or close to it and the next card could not have helped someone draw out. IE if you have a Q hi flush in spades on the turn and the river does not pair the board or put another spade out. In this case your hand has not gone down in value, but remember you may be beaten already anyway.)
-SmoothB-
The reason you can continue when you are a "collective underdog" (i.e. won't win your fair share of pots) isn't just the dead money already in the pot, it's also because of your expected action (implied odds) if you hit. Both the dead money in the pot and your implied odds are greatly magnified when you are in a game where nine players saw the flop (meaning the money in the pot is considerable) and are lose of enough that you can expect many of them to pay you off to the river if your card comes. Since this is the kind of game you're discussing, you can be giving up a lot by only sticking around when you are a "collective favorite".
I hit stop while it was submitting, but for some reason that submitted anyway. I didn't mean to put it through twice. Oh well.
The reason you can continue when you are a "collective underdog" (i.e. won't win your fair share of pots) isn't just the dead money already in the pot, it's also because of your expected action (implied odds) if you hit. Both the dead money in the pot and your implied odds are greatly magnified when you are in a game where nine players saw the flop (meaning the money in the pot is considerable) and are loose of enough that you can expect many of them to pay you off to the river if your card comes. Since this is the kind of game you're discussing, you can be giving up a lot by only sticking around when you are a "collective favorite".
Regarding your discussion on AA:
You wrote: "Now, despite these facts, we still see players every day who furiously bet and raise their overpairs on these kinds of flops, only to throw their cards in disgust when that 5 high flush snaps them off on the river. Might it not be better to just muck and wait for the next opportunity, perhaps when the flop comes Ah Qh Qs?"
I don't know about anyone else, but I can't wait for flops like XQQ when I have XX. They just don't come for me.
I have found that how AsAc should be played on an 8h9hTh board depends on your opponents. Often I will raise on the flop here, if someone has the flush or straight, they will 3-bet and I can fold. Others I can simply call down and wait for them to say "I missed" on the river.
If everyone just calls, they are probably either slowplaying the nuts or chasing. Here you have to know your opponents. Remember, they don't know you have 2 black Aces.
Of course if you are up against opponents who only bet or raise if they have a made hand, you can easily muck the overpair. But I don't think it is automatic.
Sure, it sucks to lose to that 5-high flush on the river, but it is oh so sweet to drag a huge pot as 3 opponents are lamenting "I can't believe another heart didn't come!!!" or "Unbelieveable, I had a ton of outs!!!"
In your medium pocket pair discussion, I think you failed to address the deception value of raising with 88, even from early position. I do this every so often to keep opponents from correctly putting me on AQ or AK when I raise early.
I also think you underestimated the payoff opportunities with a flop of K82. I am finding that many players will always pay off with any K in a raised pot, regardless of who raised preflop. Even better when a 6 falls on the turn and they fall in love with their K6s.
You also seem to spend a great deal of time on the situations where you make a set and lose. I would not spend that much time lamenting those situations. I make a set and lose, I pay off the draw. (Or win against someone betting 2-pair) Next hand.
Sometimes I have to fight off a yawn when I'm bluffing at no-limit hold'em, usually while my opponent is taking time to decide what to do. Do you find this to be a reliable bluff tell?
Thanks
Yawning after having made a bluff in no-limit is good. The other guy will think your hand is so good you're not a bit concerned about it, and thus will fold.
The above advice is very dubious. Most competent players put both a yawn, and a very layed back attitude down as a bluff. If a player really does have a good hand he is going to be focusing on the game, not yawning. Ofcourse, as with all tells it depends as what level you are playing at. At the very lowest level a player might be drawn in by a yawn and out his opponent on a big hand. Move up a level and he will put him on a bluff, move up another level and it starts getting complicated - "is he bluffing that bluff?" "Does he think that I think that he knows that I think he'll be bluffing?" In most games a yawn is a bluff though, yes.
,.,.,.
I think it depends on you as a player:
...Bluff: If you didn't seem tired prior to the hand, say the last hour or so. If it was "out of context" of your attitude and normal play.
...Non-Bluff: If I fealt that you were tired, if you were "kicked backed and relaxed" for most of the session
Hello. I am interested in expectations and deviations. I want to know things like just how long can a skilful player can lose to a less skilful one. How much short term luck is there and how long is short term.
Is there a book that fully covers these topics ?
Anders
Mason addresses this topic well in Gambling Theory and Other Topics. It's not the focus of the whole book, but the section on deviation, what kind of swings to expect, bankroll requirements, etc. is quite thorough.
Of course, if you're really ambitious, you could always buy yourself a statistics textbook.
A stats textbook combined with Gambling theory would be the best bet. There is also a book critiqued in the back of gambling theory called "the theory of gambling and statistical logic" (I think that's the name of it). I have the book and it is terrific, but the math is above most people's heads. Still, you can get some very good concepts from the book, even if you can't understand all the math. (I don't understand all the math myself).
Dave in Cali
Gambling theory and other topics.
Available on this site. Should answer all those questions plus more. You won't like the answers to some of your questions though, things are not as rosy as they might seem. Don't look for any magic bullets either, as Mason forgot to include them in the book. What a dastardly fellow he is, bursting our bubble like that....
Dave in Cali
Hello all...
Warning!!! This will probably be a stupid question, but I am a new to the wonderful world of hold em and I am hoping that one of you gurus will help me. :-)
That being said, I have a question involving betting for value. For some reason, I can't seem to grasp what this is. I've read the formal definition in HPFAP, but I'm still unclear. Up until reading a few posts here on 2+2, I always thought that value bets were things you did with draws on the flop or turn. On the contrary, I've heard people here talking about betting for value on the river and how important it is.
Sorry. For some reason the end of my post got cut off. Basically I was hoping that someone could give me a simple definition of a value bet, or better yet a realistic situation in which you would bet for value.
Thanks in advance for you responses!!
As I understand it you are betting for value when you want people to call your bet. You think you have a hand good enough to make money if you are called.
Anders
Anders,
You wrote: "As I understand it you are betting for value when you want people to call your bet."
I don't believe that is quite right. I think betting for value includes many close situations where you expect to win but would prefer that people fold to your bet. This is especially true when the pot is large.
You also wrote: "You think you have a hand good enough to make money if you are called."
I suspect this is closer.
Think of "betting for value" on the river as the opposite of "betting as a bluff."
In one case you expect to win if called, in the other you expect to lose if called.
The subtle inference of the phrase "bet for value" is that the river bet is not an automatic one. In other words, if you have the nuts and bet on the river, big deal. It's a value bet, sure, but it's not a close decision.
But if you have second pair and you're pretty sure it's good, and you are further pretty sure that the other guy will call with a worse hand (say, a worse kicker or third pair), then this is a value bet when we bet the river.
A complementary concept that I don't know if it's officially coined or not is, "checking for value."
An example: It's heads up on the river and we have position and the other guy checked. We have ace-high no pair and we think the other guy has ace-high as well and the winner is going to be determined by the better kicker. We could bet as a bluff, but we expect him to call with ace-high because of how the hand went down. With, say, AK, we could bet for value. With, say, A-10, we could check for value.
I'm not sure if that makes any sense.
Tommy
I think you are on to something with the phrase "checking for value"...but I think it has greater application when you are first to act i.e. you check to induce a bluff or to get a better hand to also check when that hand would have called if you bet.
Tommy,
You wrote: "Think of 'betting for value' on the river as the opposite of 'betting as a bluff.'"
When I think of hands that are opposite of bluffs, I think of very strong hands (i.e., ones that are automatic bets on the river). But I suspect that is not what you hand in mind, since you later added, "The subtle inference of the phrase 'bet for value' is that the river bet is not an automatic one."
You also wrote: "In one case you expect to win if called, in the other you expect to lose if called."
So, do you subscribe to the view that betting "on the come" (when you expect to lose more often than win) can never be betting for value?
Betting for value is when you bet and hope everyone still in the hand will call. This is distinct from betting for protection in which you want some players in but most players (especially the draws) out. It is also different from betting as a bluff in which you want everybody out. There is also betting for a freecard and betting for information. But the most vague one is betting on the come.
Unless a notable author jumps in, there is no definate definition.
I believe betting for value means increasing your EV by betting based on the value of your hand, and NOT based on strategic considerations such as bluffing or hoping to induce future errors.
I differ from JJ in that it doesn't matter if you "hope" or "want" the opponent to call with a lesser hand: with more cards to come and I am a 51:49 favorite over the opponent, I should bet for value. It doesn't matter if I STRONGLY want the opponent to fold, such as I obviously do in this case.
One would not "value" bet on the river if the opponent will only call with a greater hand, even if very unlikely, since the bet reduces your EV.
I strongly favor embracing the notion of "betting for value" rather than "betting to get called" or "betting to make them fold". These alternate notions enourage distructive rationalizations such as "I checked my good hand since he was going to call anyway".
- Louie
EV has nothing to do with the phrase "betting for value" which simply means to bet what you think is the better hand hoping a lesser hand will call. The term "EV" wasn't even used within the poker community yet when the phrase "betting for value" was first coined. By mixing the concept of +EV into the the definition of the phrase "betting for value" you are in effect revising poker history. If you are betting what you think is a better hand hoping for a lesser hand to call, you are "betting for value" (in the traditional meaning of the phrase) even if your bet (with either a draw or a made hand) has negative EV.
"Crimes against Humanity" wasn't coined until AFTER WW2. Does this mean Hitler wasn't guilty of it? Phrases are routinely coined after the notion exists. Could it be otherwise?
When you raise with KK before the flop, there is considerable debate as to whether you want opponents to call. If you don't know, does this mean it cannot be a "raise for value?". What if you "hope" the other hands FOLD? Its certainly not "bluffing" nor "semi-bluffing".
Isn't "Expected Value" a more precise term for "Value"?
You may be right that most people think in terms of "hoping to get called", but I think my definition (even if adjusted) is a lot more useful; where you bet good hands for their value and it doesn't matter whether you "hope" the lesser hands call or not.
- Louie
You may have to write a book. Just to officialize your EV based definition of the term "betting for value".
A value bet on the river is a bet with what you think is the best hand, when you expect to be called by a player with a worse hand. An example would be when you flop top pair with AK and you bet into a single opponet the whole way, whom you believe also has an ace, but likely has a worse kicker.
Value betting a flush draw is somewhat of a misnomer, as when you bet a draw, you are essentially semi-bluffing rather than value betting, at least by the most formal definitions. However, in some loose passive games, you might bet a flush draw from early position, even though you know you have no chance of winning the pot outright. You bet it because you KNOW you will get a bunch of callers, most likely MORE than the minimum number of callers required to get positive value on your hand. Obviously you wouldn't bet a flush draw into a single opponent whom you KNOW will call or raise you. However, say you have Ad5d in the BB and seven take the flop, SB folds. The game is very loose but extremely passive, so you suspect that if you bet, you will get lots of calls, but if you check it might get checked through. I would bet my flush draw "for value" here. There is a lot of mincing words here, but you should get the idea....
Dave in Cali
"For some reason, I can't seem to grasp what this is. I've read the formal definition in HPFAP, but I'm still unclear"
There is a bright spot in not being clear on an issue, especially one like "value betting". If you are unclear it is harder to get down on yourself for not doing it at the right time.
Value betting is just that. Simply stated, you bet or raise because you have an edge (+EV) when your opponent or opponents call. This obviously begs the question, "How do you know when to value bet?" But since you didn't ask that question, in fact didn't ask any question, I will leave the elaboration to someone else. I can do that because David is not mad at me anymore. I think.
vince
since everyone is confused ill unclear the muddy water:) any bet that should show a profit is a value bet. thats not the issue. betting a draw that shows a profit is a value bet in such that your hand is no good but a bet will show a profit because you make your hand often enough to profit from the number of callers.
but the saying betting for value comes from betting hands on the end that few or most people wouldnt bet. good players will often bet a small pair to get another one or ace high to call. thats betting for value. its also when a player bets a very close situation but is good enough to realize that he has the better hand, so he bet for value. thats my take on the whole mess.
Wow! Ray, you sure did clear that up! Let me see if I got it straight: You bet if you are a better player than a good player that will bet when he thinks he has a better hand than a better play would have to have in a situation that may not be the same. Yeah, I got it. Thanks.
Vince
Worm,
In betting for value on the river, you want to think about your chances of winning, IF CALLED. If you could only be called by a better hand, it is a poor value bet. Any worse hand will fold. Therefore, you are making a negative value bet.
A seven stud example is you having Aces over against what you know to be a flush draw. If it hits, you will get raised and if it doesn't hit he will fold.
However, if you put him on Kings over, then a bet would be a value bet because you will likely get a call.
As Ray states, however, there are other value bets to consider before the river, but this is hopefuly a beginning.
"If it hits, you will get raised and if it doesn't hit he will fold.
However, if you put him on Kings over, then a bet would be a value bet because you will likely get a call."
There is a little more to it than this. That is, if you know that your opponent will call with a weaker hand even if he misses his flush then you bet your Aces up for Value. Suppose for instance you put your opponent on a flush draw with the K of his suit up. If he is the type of player that will call your bet with just a pair of Kings or a smaller pair then you can bet for value even though he is on a flush draw. This play is a little tricky and it is normally better to just check into a flush draw on the river. Knowing your opponent as always is a primary factor.
Vince
Vince, thanks for the explanation. I thought I wasn't sure what Ray said but you cleared it up Jim
Ray,
You wrote: "any bet that should show a profit is a value bet."
I think any time you correctly bet, you should show a profit (in the long term). If you bluff correctly, those bluffs should show a profit. Do you believe bluffs are value bets?
but the saying betting for value comes from betting hands on the end that few or most people wouldnt bet. good players will often bet a small pair to get another one or ace high to call. thats betting for value. its also when a player bets a very close situation but is good enough to realize that he has the better hand, so he bet for value. thats my take on the whole mess.
Mark, the above is what was my definition of the term value bet. but its such a loose term that it means different things to many people so there is really no firm definition.
Ray,
You wrote: "Mark, the above is what was my definition of the term value bet."
If you review your original post on this thread (11 June), you should see that you seem to provide two definitions. One was a very broad definition of "value bet," and one was a rather narrow definition of "betting for value."
Your narrow definition of "betting for value" is what you referred to "above."
Your broad definition of "value bet" was: "any bet that should show a profit is a value bet."
It was your broad definition that I found fault with in my reply (12 June). I thought I made that fairly clear, but perhaps not. I believe your broad definition is too broad, since it would include many bluff bets and I don't know anyone who considers bluffs to be "value bets."
yes but the broad definition was to setup what my other real definition was. that is what players mean when they say it in the games ive played in. the other definition although broad and needs changing is what i think people would think it meant by reasoning it out by what it sounds like.
Worm, I think I have the simplest explanation...
Imagine you are playing heads up in a game of high-card. Each player gets one card and then you have a betting round. High card wins.
Your opponent checks to you. A value bet would be a bet if you hold a 9 or higher because the value of your card will win more often than it will lose. Any bet analagous to this is a value bet.
Craig H
A very good example to try and clear things up.
Now what happens if your opponent gets to know your play better in another 1/2 hour, and knows that you only bet with 9 or better, and then only calls with a 9 or better.
Your bet now only breaks even if he has a nine, or loses if he has a 10.
Even though you have the best chance of winning if your opponent can hold 1 through 10, your bet is negative EV.
Now, is that bet with 9 or better still a value bet. I think not!
Yes, but here's the thing...
Even though I said that betting with a 9 or better is a value bet, I didn't say that you should only make value bets. You will also be bluffing, so your opponent will not be able to make the assumption that you will only bet with a 9.
Also, presumably there are antes to play for.
You win those antes anyway, whether you raise or just show down.
Bluffing and playing a game of misinformation is the only thing that might hold up. I am very suspicious though, that if normal raising with high cards doesn't make money that bluffing (raising with rubbish) can hold up. However I am not fully accomplished yet so I can't comment fully on that one.
I have always defined this term as betting when you want to be called. That may not be eloquent but I am of the opinion that it does cover it completely. Here are a few other points regarding this topic.
1. A "value bet" need not occur on the river.
2. You CAN make a "VB" with the nuts.
3. Since we are seldom fortunate enough to hold the nuts, you can make a "VB" and still feel relieved when your opponent folds. Because of the size of the pot I would just as soon not get called (or raised) in spite of the fact that I am a huge favorite to win when I am called; I could even be favored to win when RAISED yet prefer to see him (or them) fold.
Example: I have the 2nd nut flush, the pot is big (I suspect there is a set out there but the board doesn't pair so HE can't win), and I bet out on the river. If the pot was HUGE - maybe $500+ in a 10-20 game - I could see myself being happy to see all my opponents fold to my river bet even though I would be virtually guaranteed to win if called, and MIGHT even be favored to win if raised. I may not want to risk bumping into the nut flush (ergo I'm pleased if they fold) but the chance of IT being out there is small enough that a bet is almost mandatory since there is a very good chance I will get called by one (or more) hands I can beat.
I could go on and on (and usually do =:) but the point is, I define a value bet as a bet that is going to be called by an inferior hand more often than by a better hand. (Yes, it must be more than 51% because I could get raised; to get around this we'll assume that I am all in after making this bet.)
In other words, it's a bet that I [mathmatically at least] want someone to call.
This might be a gross over-simplification but to me it is the opposite of a bluff.
I know there are those out there who will take issue with how I presented this - so be it.
If, however, I have mangled something badly I would be very grateful if anyone noticing the error would take the time to point it out.
Best wishes,
- J D -
J-D,
You wrote: "I have always defined this term as betting when you want to be called."
That definition leaves out many situations that I would include as "value betting." (See your third point, for instance, where you explain where you can value bet and still feel relieved when your opponent folds.)
You also wrote: "This might be a gross over-simplification but to me it is the opposite of a bluff."
I think that is a simplification. To me, very strong hands are the opposite of bluffs. Yet, it is possible to value bet with some rather marginal hands.
Not a major issue here, but this is still something that bothered me. I was thinking about this hand I saw while playing in Calgary with Derrick Ashworth.
We both fold the hand as there was some preflop raising, and we're chatting it up. I glance at the end of the battle and the board is all hearts.
Lady turns over her cards, two black kings.
Dealer announces, "Pair of Kings".
Guy looks at his hand and mucks. Everyone is silent as it's a well known sin to mention that he at least gets to chop the pot.
After the pot is pushed to the lady, the guy realizes his error. And I realize that the dealer announced the hand wrong. I am a little disturbed because (although unintentional) it had the same effect as the guy being angled out of the pot. Had the dealer announced "jack high flush" or whatever, the guy would have surely noticed and got his fair share.
I was a newbie to this casino, the pot was small, and the hand was over so I didn't force the issue. Should I have raised a fuss about this?
if the guy doesnt turn over his hand you cant really say chopped pot; but if he does turn over his hand then i think you have to point it out.
technically, you could correct the dealer and say, no , she has a flush, but i dont think you are obligated to. (if guy turns over his hand *i* think youre obligated to say chopped pot if dealer and player doesnt see it.)
brad
Calgarians are not smart.
The last time I played there, the river "broadway'd" the board, no flush possible. Two players were heads up and after the card hit a number of players joked about playing the board and calling etc.
Person 1 bet out and person 2 folded, with the stone cold nuts on board.
In your specific case, as soon as person 2 mucks their hand, its their loss. However, I keep it in mind to 1) take advantage of both of the idiots in the hand and 2) watch this dealer as he/she doesn't seem to be paying very close attention to the game.
David
LOL
As a non-participant in the hand, I would probably shut my mouth if I were you. It was an unfortunate mistake, but you have to protect your OWN hand, and that includes not mucking it when there is a split due to the best hand being on the board.
David O. also makes a good point about the dealer not paying much attention, watch it when you are in a hand. Do not release your cards until you are sure of the proper disposition of the pot.
Dave in Cali
this is definitely an interesting point to make, and its implications are far reaching. it points out the necessity of protecting your own hand and paying attenton. if it were me in the pot, and the stone cold nuts were on board, i would do everything i could (i.e. bet and raise until called) to take the whole pot down or to get as many players out of the hand as possible and thereby gaining at least a couple dead bets. i would be quite pissed if someone not in the hand were to point out the correct play to my opponent. so yes, you should keep your mouth shut if you are not in the hand. but if both hands are turned over, then cards speak, and you are obligated to point it out to the dealer. but if the error was in my favor i would not say anything. this is a seldom seen situation where an experienced player can take advantage of someone who is not paying attention, doesn't wuite understand the rules, etc. but your main duty here is to always protect your own hand. make sure that any part of the pot not awarded to you is awarded to the hand that deserves it. always. otherwise keep your mouth shut. this occasion can be applied to situations where 1 or 2 pair or trips wins a pot, and the deciding kickers are on board and thus dictate an equal split of the pot. i have been in so many hands where i only called because i could place my opponents's kicker below that of the board and knowi will be splitting the pot even if my kicker is worse than theirs. for instance: i have A7, and the board is KQ5A5 and i know my opponent is playing loosely with an ace and a kicker below a Q. our hands split, but so many times i have seen someone turn over something like A8 in this situation and say that their 8 beats my 7 and the pot is theirs. too many dealers are dumb enough or confused enough to think that this is true, but the responsible player knows that this is a chopped pot, and will protect his or her hand until half is rewarded to them. (call a floorman if you have to.) on the other hand i have, once or twice been involved in a pot where at first it seems like i will be chopping a pot, but notice that in actuality my kicker by all rights does NOT entitle me to half the pot. i DON'T feel obligated here to point it out if the dealer and the other player don't notice. i look at it as THAT player's obligation to protect their hand and i will not say anything. anybody have any thoughts on that situation?
If I do in fact allow a dealer or player mistake to benefit me when I know it should be different, I certainly would act like I was not paying any attention, so as not to make it at all obvious that I KNEW that there was a mistake being made in my favor. However, as a poker player, I am taking advantage of other people's mistakes as part of my basic strategy, and if they are making mistakes, I wish to profit from it. I would have to weigh it out vs. the benefits of pointing out the mistake. for instance, if it was a small pot and a player who was extremely bad, likeable, and whom I wished to remain in the game, I might just point it out anyway. However, if it was someone I didn't like, or who I thought took away from the quality of the game, I would gladly benefit from their not paying attention and keep all the money for myself. It's a fine line, a line which isn't always clearly marked off in the sand.
Dave in Cali
a fine line maybe, but i agree with you dave, if it is a small pot and the other guy is someone who i like, or i want to keep in the game, then yeah, id say something, otherwise i don't feel obligated. if we were obligated, then it is almost like eliminating the option to bluff on the river. but you can't count on this occurrence for profit. ive only been in this situation maybe 2 or 3 times in my poker playing 'career'. it does remind me of an interestinghand though. it went like this: i was not involved in the pot. it was 3-4 at the commerce casino in commerce california. im sure you know the place. there were probably 4 or 5 hands that stayed after the flop. flop came 567 (i don't remember if there were flush draw possibilities, but it doesn't matter because nobody had one) a younger girl about my age (22) bet, and 3 or 4 people called. turn was a 2 and river was something i don't remember but it didn't figure into the hand. the flop bettor (young girl) bet, one guy called, one person had declared all-in on the turn and threw their hand away, and the last to act woman deliberated. she finally turned face up pocket tens, didn't put any money in the pot, and the dealer killed her hand. she didn't obect or make any move to protect her hand. now the showdown: bettor turns over A7, for top pair top kicker on the flop. the only other caller threw his hand away, indicating a concession of the pot, and that his hand was not the winner. as the dealer starts to push the pot to the young girl, the woman who threw away the pocket TT started to make a fuss. it was clear to me that she had folded, and was now made that she had folded as she would have won the pot. when it was brought to her attention that she didn't call the last bet, she reveales she only had a 50-cent chip (which doesn't play at 2-4) and had been all-in when her hand was killed by the dealer. 1 person next to her said that he heard her say 'all-in' but nobody, most importantly not the dealer, had heard her. when asked why she didn't protect her hand when the dealer mucked it, she said she tried but the dealer killed it too quickly. when asked why she didn't continue to object instead of letting the rest of the hand and the showdown proceed, she didn't really have a response, but if you have ever been at a poker table where there is some argument, especially low-limit, then you know that it is usually utter chaos. the floorman, and his boss the floor supervisor (or whatever her official title was) were there, trying to figure it all out. they finally agreed to split the pot, instead of an official verdict from the floorman. this was quite interesting to me, because it was very clear to me that the pocket tens had folded, and that the bet on the river was a very good one. i was glad to see the pot go to this young girl, until the woman spoke up. just goes to show you, you don't even have to declare all-in, call the last bet, or have a hand at the showdown to split a pot. hmmm...
Louie wrote: "Unless a notable author jumps in, there is no definite definition."
Does the correctness of a definition really depend on who says it? I don't think so. This time I happened to get it right, but it could have been anyone.
Here are two verbatim excerpts from the "value bet" thread as an example of my point, then more bla bla from me:
I wrote: "The subtle inference of the phrase "bet for value" is that the river bet is not an automatic one. In other words, if you have the nuts and bet on the river, big deal. It's a value bet, sure, but it's not a close decision.
But if you have second pair and you're pretty sure it's good, and you are further pretty sure that the other guy will call with a worse hand (say, a worse kicker or third pair), then this is a value bet when we bet the river."
Then Ray Zee wrote: "good players will often bet a small pair to get another one or ace high to call. thats betting for value. its also when a player bets a very close situation but is good enough to realize that he has the better hand, so he bet for value."
I'll presume we interpret these two answers as identical in meaning. I do.
Louie and anyone else, don't get me wrong. I hang on Ray's every word and I like him as a person as well. But I think the words of Ray or anyone else gain or lose merit strictly because of their content, and not merely because of who happens to be or not be in the book business.
Tommy
I'm on Ray's side too as far as the definition of "betting for value" goes. But by the time the EV based revisionists are through making their case, the meaning of the straightforward phrase "betting for value" may become ambiguous forevever. I hope this does not happen.
In the same vein, it does sort of miff me when posters ask specifically for Ray or Mason or Dave S. like any one else shouldn't even bother to comment. A wise man can learn from many sources.
You are 100% correct, unless of course you are talking about Mason!
I don't know who coined "value bet", or whether it has an evolving meaning. One of my (few) books says a value bet stands to be in trouble if called, but will make money in the long run. This is consistent with your definition, but a little more explicit. It suggests a value bet is so close it loses money from calls by getting called by more superior hands than inferior hands. But it makes money by making better hands fold. Can you "value bet" against an opponent who will not fold a better hand? If so then "value bet" just means bet if you will probably get called by worse hands.
a value bet is so close it loses money from calls by getting called by more superior hands than inferior hands. But it makes money by making better hands fold.This would not be a value bet. The definition of a value bet is that it makes money when it's called. It's okay if a value bet will cause better hands to fold, that doesn't stop it from being a value bet, but it can't lose money by being called as you describe.
"Does the correctness of a definition really depend on who says it?"
Yes. When it comes to defining a term that is used to communicate important ideas I think a respected author and player does have the authority to define the term. We can argue until the cows come home about whether or not you should've value bet the river and in this arguement Chip Stax can slug it out with Ray Zee. but it sure is nice when everyone knows and accepts what the language means. When it comes to defining terms a little hero worship is OK. It makes the trains run on time.
Me: "Does the correctness of a definition really depend on who says it?"
Boris: "Yes. When it comes to defining a term that is used to communicate important ideas . . . "
I'll presume you mean "Not yet clearly pinned down in the minds of the majority" ideas. That's where "betting for value" appears to be lingering.
Murder is an important idea. I'm sure your definition would just as correct at assessing the common understanding of the word "murder" as an authority on word-meaning would.
< AGREED!
Individuals do not determine what words mean and then teach them to us and make up use them a certain way. Collectives do. Any individual within the collective who grasps a meaning and can write it down has just as much authority as anyone else to do so and to be right.
Tommy
I had a partially written, long winded response prepared but then decided to fuggit. the reason it might be nice to accept a completely arbritrary decision from someone with generally accepted poker wisdom, is that value bet can have meanings that appear similiar but are in fact very different. whether or not the Wise Poker Authority reaches the same decision as the ubiquitous Majority is not important. This is really funny because I'm in an argument with another poster about the meaning of EV. Even if my meaning is not accepted by the majority I'm pretty sure I'll stick with my own special meaning. lol.
the word Murder also can have many different meanings but it is usually very clear from the context what is meant. In the end I decided it really wasn't that important and that people can use value bet however they see fit. Personally I like Louie Landale's definition.
"In the end I decided it really wasn't that important . . . "
You are hereby expelled from Semantic Squabble school.
Hmmph.
:-)
Tommy
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 June 2001, at 6:14 p.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 13 June 2001, at 8:52 p.m.
..
Until a week or so ago, the jackpot drop and rake were virtually identical everywhere in Phoenix - at Gila River, Fort McDowell, Harrah's, and Casino Arizona. Now, Casino Arizona has doubled the jackpot drop - their new structure is $1 jackpot taken immediately out of the antes/blinds, $2 rake taken at pot size 10, then $1 more rake and $1 more jackpot taken at pot size 30. A promotional announcement states that 76% goes to the bad-beat jackpots and 24% to other giveaways and promotions.
This applies only to the lower limit games, up to 6-12. The 10-20 hold'em game has a time charge, and just the jackpot drop is taken; 15-30 and up are time charged and there is no jackpot drop.
How to play in this game ??? All I can think of is, tighten up some more. Any thoughts from expert players about this new burden in the low-limit games? The only good news is that almost always, the 3-6 and 4-8 games are extremely loose - so there's a chance to beat the game.
It has always been my belief that the 3-6 stud game in particular can't be beaten. In addition to the high rake, it has a high ante. .50 ante, $1 bring-in, played at 3-6. My feeling is, if I loosen up to try to get my antes back on a regular basis, I'm playing too loose for the rake structure. (The game is so loose that stealing the antes never happens.) To put it in a way that the experts on this forum can understand: if you were in a 30-60 stud game at Bellagio, and there were a bunch of loose tourists playing (make it more like a 3-6 game!), and the house took $50 out of each pot, could you beat the game?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The really sad thing is, I think (fear?) that this is the correct successful business model for running poker games in Phoenix. Everyone is flocking to Casino Arizona because they love the money giveaways and promotions. On a Wednesday night, CA will have 35-40 tables going (everyone has come in for the T-W-Th cash giveaway drawings), and Gila River or Fort McDowell would have maybe 5-6 games going.
Comments?
Dick
Dick, you need to start playing $15-$30 and forget about splashing around in these little games. The more the money these guys keep taking off the table for whatever reason, the harder it is to win anything in the long run.
from time to time to time I play smaller card room with 10 or 12 tables where it is much easier to note how full they are, etc. and to make estimates of $$ taken for the jackpots. There must be a leak somewhere, because jackpot does not seem to increas nearly as much as it should....that really makes it a bad deal!
Thanks, Jim - But what I always said to myself is that I need to establish a winning record at lower limits before moving up - I don't insist that I win all of my bankroll, but that would be the best.
At this time, I actually have established a winning record at 3-6 and 4-8 hold'em, about 2 sigma above 0 for 300+ hours. The bad news is that I have "spent" my profits losing at other games that I am learning (browse on over to "other poker games" and follow my trials and tribulations at Omaha8).
So, as soon as I get my bankroll repaired, I am ready to move up in hold'em. See you up there in a while.
Dick
ditto what Jim said. since you read this page and have good playing experience I'm sure you could, at the very least, break even at 10-20 or 15-30. your just pissing in the wind playing with that sort of drop. maybe if you posted some your concerns about moving up in limit you would get some valuable feedback.
How close are you to being ready to move up to 10-20? I know you play 6-12 sometimes, and I know you are pretty stable financially. I wouldn't rush it if you are not ready, but if you are, I would consider making the move. Also, you could selectively play the 10-20 when the game was especially good, and stick to 6-12 when it was not.
I think you can still beat the game, but if you played enough hours to be significant, you would no doubt see a smaller win rate, by approximately 2-4$/hour. I would not be totally discouraged though, the additional people coming for the promotions might mean additional suckers who have no clue how to play. If the game has an additional two morons, you can probably overcome the additional drop. Another thing, I would be inclined to play higher when possible, 6-12 over 4-8 over 3-6, because of the proportionately lower cost. Tighten up a little too.
Dave in Cali
I forgot to ask, what are the time charges for 10-20 and 15-30?
I think it's either $6 or $7 a half hour. I haven't observed it personally, so this is a guess based upon what others have told me.
Dick
When I lived in AC the time charge on 10-20 holdem at the trop was 5$/half hour, but I believe it has been changed to a rake now. 7$ is pretty steep, but certainly not too high to overcome. It's still probably slightly cheaper than the rake at 6-12.
This is crazy! Taking even more money out of the players hands to give it to others. I play at Gila River and sure hope they do not follow suit. The 3-6 and 4-8 games are all very loose at Gila River as they probably are at Casino Arizona. The real bad part of this scenario is the way people toke at these limits. It's not just a $5 rake. How about the extra $2-3-4 that go to the dealers. I have seen it. Now your Talking $7-9 taken from the table every hand.
This surely can't be good for the game in AZ!!
10/20 he has a rake, not time charge, although i think the rake is less than 6/12.
time charge for all other games 6 per half hour.
in my opinion the best value are the bigger stud games where the time charge is potted, or at least the odd dollar is (30/60, 40/80).
brad
On one hand, I'm all for this. Seeing as how I never play jackpot games and am always on hand for the big overlay tournaments like the headsup one in March, this is just extra money in my pocket even if the house is taking some of it. The argument could be made that creating unbeatable games in the low-limit might ultimately cost me money in slowing down players who work their way up. But most of the "new" players in the 40- 60- and 75- games aren't working their way up through the food chain anyway. And I kinda like it like that.
On the other hand, this may be a bad sign. When the Fort had a monopoly in town and saw it about to evaporate with the openings of Gila and CasAZ, they raised their rake for the last few months that they were the preeminent cardroom. Kind of a get it while you can. I can't help but think about that now, given all the unknowns with new compacts. Remember the casinos and the governor were secretly negotiating to sacrifice poker so they could deal blackjack(as the long as the state got a cut) until word got out. Monday I saw unmanned blackjack tables set up at Gila.
Anyway, it's a market thing. Last time I was there I saw them spreading 3-6 games in the top section, so maybe they think the market will bear it. But I see us all ending up on Paradise eventually.
JG
Jim, You are absolutely right about one thing - people don't "work their way up" by winning at lower limits and then moving up. The reason I say this with such complete confidence is that, with tight play an absolute requirement for lower limit success, I can say that I can count on the fingers of two hands the total number of players in the 3-6 and 4-8 games that I believe can possibly be long-term winners. [ I will concede that in the 1-3 / 1-4 stud games with no antes, there are probably a good number of Rocks who do come out ahead. But they can't move up even one notch without losing their advantage of tightness (because of the high ante in the 3-6 game). ]
What I really think is, in the cardroom, lots of players remember their wins and either forget or minimize their losses, and they don't keep records, and they think they are winners. So there are certainly players who move up, either thinking they are winners, or just thinking that they have so much experience and/or extra money. I certainly see players in the 6-12 and 10-20 games who used to play 4-8 all the time.
The difficulty of working your way up is disappointing to me. That is what you do in any other game or sport - you work your way up. When I was studying Bridge, that is exactly what I did. My partner and I started in the "novice game" (<20 master points); when we were regularly placing in that, we moved to the regular club game; then to Sectionals; then to Regionals. It is pretty easy to see where you stand relative to the competition, after no more than 3 or 4 sessions.
I'm still trying. Low-limit poker is taking a lot longer than I thought it would.
Dick
"What I really think is, in the cardroom, lots of players remember their wins and either forget or minimize their losses, and they don't keep records, and they think they are winners"
how true. it's really hard to win at poker, even when you think you are doing well. keep accurate records and check your win rates people, then come back when you are at 2,000 hours at a given limit and tell me HONESTLY if you can break 1.5 BB per hour.... I have records since I started playing, but my recent play (this year) has been yeilding slightly less than 1.5 BB/hour, that's the honest truth. I had one point where my overall stats were approaching 1.9 BB/hour, but that was at a time when I had just had a long streak of really big wins. They balanced out over time though, I had some losing streaks that kind of balanced them out. So no matter what people might think of me, I am at least not kidding MYSELF. Real winners don't kid themselves either.
(I know you don't kid yourself Dick, I have seen your website! Oh wait, some of my stuff is on there now, I have to be a cronie and shamelessly promote it!! GO TO http://www.annabelles-treasures.com/poker/index.htm).
Dave in Cali
I would let the poker manager know that I'm going to miss playing there, but I think the rake is now too high. If they lose enough business, they may back off this rake increase.
You should calculate your expectation from the giveaways when you consider the cost of the additional rake.
Also, some of the hands that were previously marginal will now be losing money, so you may have to revise your starting hands. For instance, hands like k-10o in late position are often winners in a pot contested with few opponents. This means a large portion of the rake will come from your money.
I've used runs of play on Turbo Texas Hold'em to get an approximate idea of the value changes for starting hands based upon a change in rake. These simulations can provide some useful insite, but keep in mind that the computer will play hands differently and possibly less skillfully than you.
Good luck, Dick
Sorry to flog a dead horse, and I have read the posts below, many of which were good, but I would like to see a clear, concise and unambiguous DEFINITION of the expression `betting for value'.
No examples please, unless they are to illuminate an already-given clear, concise and unambiguous DEFINITION. Examples by themselves don't answer the question.
Thanks.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
get real. unless someone wins the nobel prize for excellence in poker it is unlikely that the true definition of betting for value will ever be known.
Dirk,
betting for value (value bet): poker: a bet (or raise) that has a positive expectation vs potential investment. Usually attributed to specific situations such as bets made when all the cards are out; or situations where implied odds yeild a positive expectation.
The Moron,
Vince
n/t
This definition does not distinguish between a value bet and a bluff.
"betting for value (value bet): poker: a bet (or raise) that has a positive expectation vs potential investment. Usually attributed to specific situations such as bets made when all the cards are out; or situations where implied odds yeild a positive expectation"
"This definition does not distinguish between a value bet and a bluff. "
Correction: Add the words "when called" after investment. Should read: a bet (or raise) that has a positive expectation vs potential investment when called.
Thanks Michael. But that was my intention in the first place. I was not sure of the definition but I believe that I am correct so I put it out there for discussion. Hoping for comments. Thank you again.
Vince
So, in Sklansky's classic example: you have 4 Jacks showing in 7-stud on 6th street and the opponent has 3 to a straight flush and will NOT draw to it since the pot and his chances are small. Yes, you should bet this hand to stop him from getting a free draw to beat you, if he has it.
Is it your intention to EXCLUDE this situation from your definition of "value bet" since your bet clearly has negative EV when called (or raised) because he surely has the straight flush?
- Louie
So, in Sklansky's classic example: you have 4 Jacks showing in 7-stud on 6th street and the opponent has 3 to a straight flush and will NOT draw to it since the pot and his chances are small. Yes, you should bet this hand to stop him from getting a free draw to beat you, if he has it.
Is it your intention to EXCLUDE this situation from your definition of "value bet" since your bet clearly has negative EV when called (or raised) because he surely has the straight flush?
I may be a little dense but I don't see your point. In this situation why would you bet the river with 4 Jacks (showing) knowing that your opponent can't call unless he beats you? Are you in love with 4 of a kind or just suicidal? Are you saying that a bet in this situation is a "value bet"? Give me a break Louie. Oh I get it, your opponent may call with the same four of a kind but with a weaker Kicker. Yeah that makes sense.
Vince
Like I said I'm talking about 6th street. Yes, betting the river is hopeless since your entire hand is face up.
Betting sixth street is a must value bet! You are betting with the best hand hoping that your opponent will make a mistake and call. To not bet is giving your opponent infinite odds. There is no value in that. Louie I don't get your point, I'm sorry.
Vince
We seem to be giving this more press then I intended.
Your definition suggests its a value bet if you expect to make money on the bet when it is called. In my example, a sensible oppononent is NOT going to call drawing to the straight flush, and will in fact only invest more money in the unlikely event that he HAS the straight flush. Therefore, you LOSE money on the bet when its called (or raised).
I agree this is a good bet. But it does not appear to be a "value bet" according to your definition.
- Louie
"will in fact only invest more money in the unlikely event that he HAS the straight flush"
Yes, I missed that. I will think about it.
vince
O.K. I thought about it. You are correct it is not a value bet according to my definition. It is the correct bet none the less. All bets are not made for any one specific reason. In this case you would bet to avoid giving a free card hoping your opponent would call with a draw. However, it is not a value bet. Remember that a key element in the definition of a "value bet" is the predicted incorrect play of your opponent.
vince
Dirk,
You wrote: ". . . I would like to see a clear, concise and unambiguous DEFINITION of the expression `betting for value'."
As a first cut, how about: A "value bet" is a bet that has a positive expectation when called by all your opponents.
That's clear, concise, and unambiguous. But I don't think it's quite right. Can you see the flaw?
Mark,
What about when the bet is called by less than all your opponents? What about when your opponents raise? What about a case where your "value bet" causes a potential bluffer to fold. What about a case where your "value bet" loses you an overcall that you would have recieved otherwise if another had bet.
This is why this whole question is questionable (ya like that?). You make a "value bet" that causes your opponent to fold a slightly better hand. It was in your mind a "value bet" but in fact was a bluff. So what you call it means jack squat. Next hand you make the same "value bet" and get bluff raised off a hand that you would have check called to win with...now there's a dandy value bet.
This is all so confusing....back to my doctorate thesis.
M.W.,
You raised some good points, then concluded: "This is why this whole question is questionable (ya like that?)."
Actually, I think this is why we are unlikely to a find "a clear, concise and unambiguous DEFINITION of the expression `betting for value'." Still, I do think there is a reasonable definition.
"When I say value betting, I mean getting every extra penny of profit in situations where you have a slight advantage by betting."
Mike Caro, Caro's Fundamental Secrets of Winning Poker, Cardoza Publishing, Revised Edition, First Printing (May 1996), p. 40
"When I say value betting, I mean getting every extra penny of profit in situations where you have a slight advantage by betting."
Leave it to Caro to say a lot and mean nothing.
vince
An analogy or similar thing happens all the time in the stock market -- that is it is essentially impossible to get every last possible cent when trying to buy stocks at the bottom and sell at the top. Any experienced trader knows this -- but it is possible to compromise and make a rasonable gain.
Here's a crack at it.
A value bet is a bet on the river when you think you have the best hand but not by much.
I'm sure that any definition must focus on the positive value of your hand and must exclude bluffs, bets that are good only when they narrow the field, and image plays. I dislike Caro's and Lapore's definitions since they includes these things. Glover's definition is actually pretty good, so long as you delete the word "all". Definitions in other threads that include the word "hope" are pretty "hopeless": you can certainly bet a hand that shows a profit when called, even though you are "hoping" they fold (in fact, most good bets are like this).
I also dislike the very popular definition where its with a hand that appears too weak to bet. While this appears to be a customary definition, embracing it requires one to come up with some other word to describe the following.
A "value bet" is a bet or raise with a hand that figures to win more than its fair share, whether you bet it or not.
So you can bet "to bluff", "to semi-bluff", "for value", "to narrow the field", "for strategic EV", or "for image EV". ???
- Louie
"I dislike Caro's and Lapore's definitions since they includes these things. "
My corrected definition excludes bluffs. When you bet for value you are betting in a "it depends on your opponent and your hand strength or potential strength" mode which makes the job of defining "value bet" an extremely obtuse one. I do believe however that my corrected version is there or at least very close but I am open to additional corrections especially from LL.
Vince
I always thought I value bet was a bet made on the fact that your hand is generally a good, valuable hand. For instance, Aces up in 7 card stud. The hand is a pretty good hand, so you make a bet for "value."
Is this wrong?
To bet for value is to bet on the river with a hand that, while far from the nuts and possibly not even best, is likely enough to be called by a worse hand to make the bet worthwhile.
Seven thousand card stud hi-lo and IMPLICIT COLLUSION.
-----------------------------------
Here is an example of a 3-player game, with players U(=hero), A and B, where player U has negEV, despite knowing his opponents strategies, and playing the optimum strategy subject to that.
The game is your standard everyday seven thousand card stud hi-lo, played with 1000 regular decks shuffled together, as usual.
There is a button which rotates each hand as usual.
Each player antes one million dollars.
Each player gets two cards dealt face down and one card face up. Then there is a round of betting.
In each round of betting, the player to the left of the button must bet $1 or fold, and each other player must call or fold.
Then 6996 times each player gets one card face up and there is a round of betting.
Finally, each player gets one card dealt face down and there is a round of betting.
After this, the players sequentially declare (starting with the player to the left of the button) `High' or `Low'. Then there is a showdown for the hi-lo split pot, with players only competing for the side they declared for. (As usual, ties for one side get a quater each.)
Now player U is an excellent player, and moreover he knows exactly how players A and B will play and adjusts accordingly, that is, he plays the best possible strategy (highest EV) given A and B's strategies.
Now players A and B have never met, nor communicated in any way. Moreover, players A and B are extremely rich morons who have settled on their playing strategies, and will always play that way, regardless of what else happens. And they gladly tell player U how they will play.
Now it just so happens that player A will always stay to the river and then declare for High, because player A is just a `stay to the river and then declare for High' kind of guy.
And it just so happens that player B will always stay to the river and then declare for Low, because player A is just a `stay to the river and then declare for Low' kind of guy.
NOW, IS IT OR IS IT NOT THE CASE THAT PLAYER U HAS NEGATIVE EV, PERIOD, REGARDLESS OF WHAT HE DOES, SIMPLY BECAUSE HIS OPPONENTS HAVE CHOSEN CERTAIN STRATEGIES?
DOES ANYONE DOUBT THAT THIS PHENOMENON CAN OCCUR IN REAL POKER?
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Should have said: And it just so happens that player B will always stay to the river and then declare for Low, because player B is just a `stay to the river and then declare for Low' kind of guy.
ok, i see what you are getting at, but with 7000 cards in your hand, you are likely to have at least one of each card in a 52 card deck. assuming that your game still uses the 'best 5 card hand rule', and not some crazy 5000 card hand, then everyone will always most likely have several straight flushes and royal flushes, etc. now, assuming this is true, and our hero, having anted a million bucks, should most definitely always stay to the river with each round of betting beingonly a dollar, with no raises allowed, he is only investing a total of 6998 more dollars. now after 7000 cards total, a hand is statistically favored to have at least 1 royal flush and 1 nut low (5-4, or 6-4 if you play screwball rules...). the player U, our hero, should have both the best and worst hands possible after 7000 cards. not only that, but he can see almost all of his opponents' cards. if our hero on every single hand that he has both a royal flush and an A2345 declares high-low then he will always get at least half the pot of which he put in only 1/3 of the bets. this is positive expected value. however, i only assumed that a player can declare high and low in this game. if the case is such that you cannot declare both ways, then yes, you have a negative EV. because you will never get half the pot ever in that case, because you will always be competing with one of your two opponents no mattter which direction you choose, and for the most part, the odds are in favor of a tie in either direction you go most of the time. due to extreme variance possibilites sometimes your opponent will just not have a wheel or a royal flush and you can declare accordingly. however, this will happen so rarely that your repeated losses in winning 1/4 of a pot you contributed 1/3 of will not be made up by winning 1/2 of a pot you contributed 1/3 of. your expected value here is negative yes. but if you can declare high AND low in this game, then your expected value is always positive, in fact your odds are completely reversed and you can count on statistically making both the nut high and the nut low hands most of the time and declaring both ways gets you 2/4 of the pot, or 1/2, making you a winner always. in the rare occasion you do not make a royal flush or do not make A2345 then you can see that your opponent does have it and you can fold or declare only one way and take a small loss on this a rare rare rare occasion.
You must declare hi OR lo, not both. This analysis is spot on.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Since everybody will almost always end up with both an A-high straight flush and a wheel, this game is exactly the same as the coin flip where one always calls "heads" and the other "tails", leaving Hero in the lurch. In this case, Hero must declare only one way and will win 1/4th of the time.
Again the problem is the anti-heros are choosing opposite yet arbitrary strategies in their declarations; there being no real difference between declaring "high" or "low" just like there is no difference between declaring "heads" or "tails". This arbitrariness combined with the restrictive rules of the game doom hero.
No, I don't think this happens in real poker.
- Louie
"DOES ANYONE DOUBT THAT THIS PHENOMENON CAN OCCUR IN REAL POKER?"
I doubt it, although the word 'doubt' is an understatement in the case of your current example.
If you really believe that this sort of thing can occur, then I suggest that you try to come up with a real poker example.
William
we have still yet to have calrification as to whether or not a player in this game may declare hi-low. or whether he is forced to choose only one. if you can only have one then why play?
This is, of course, just the coin flip example surrounded with a poker story. I don't think this game doesn't involve any poker skills or anything that is analogous to real poker. The entire game comes down to declaration.
I am not convinced at all that this example proves that such a situation could occur in real poker. This is primarily because a declaration game is fundamentally different from a real poker game (at least from one without declaration) in that every pot is split and there is an easy and natural way for two players to have a combined strategy that lets them stay out of each other's way.
Whaddya mean, this is not real poker?! What kind of well-rounded poker player doesn't play a little seven thousand card stud hi-lo?!
Okay, just kidding. Yes, it's really, just the heads-tails game disguised as poker, but nevertheless, it IS unarguably poker. Note that the virtually-guaranteed ties are a crucial point here. In a normal hi-lo game, where ties are rare, you would be at a huge advantage against such one-sided declarers.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Dirk, it would be very helpful if you would provide your definition of poker. Your example does not seem to be poker to me, but I am sure we are using different definitions.
From ConJelCo...
"Poker is a card game in which players bet into a communal pot during the course of a hand, and in which the player holding the best hand at the end of the betting wins the pot. During a given betting round, each remaining player in turn may take one of four actions:
1. check, a bet of zero that does not forfeit interest in the pot 2. bet or raise, a nonzero bet greater than preceding bets that all successive players must match or exceed or else forfeit all interest in the pot 3. call, a nonzero bet equal to a preceding bet that maintains a player's interest in the pot 4. fold, a surrender of interest in the pot in response to another player’s bet, accompanied by the loss of one's cards and previous bets"
Your examples universally do not fit the above.
Additionally, as I understand it, the object of playing poker is to make money. Therefore, in order for a game to be defined as poker I believe it must at least provide each player in the game the opportunity to achieve a positive earn based upon possessing an adequate level of skill. In other words, poker is a game of both skill and luck, but your examples do not allow the better players to benefit from skillful play. Therefore, your game examples do not seem to me to be poker.
Your definition of poker please.
William
well, it does have the structure and basice win/loss principles of poker, but it is different from a regular game of poker. in a regular game, you would be playing against people interested in winning, and minimizing losses. reasonable opponents don't always play every hand to the end always. reasonable players, let me remind you. however it seems like in the example your problem in playing the game is in the fact that you are playing against UNreasonable players. your opponents are playing a game that if they play with more than 4 people in the game, they will break even at best. this is not reasonable play. the structure still allows skill to be a determining part in your win/loss ratio, but its proportion and betting limits are so out of whack that to even play in this game knowing that if you put down an ante in the game, it is well worth going to the river, because you will most likely hae the best hand both ways, but the number and predetermined strategy of your opponents will never yield positive EV. but this is all due to the fact that the ante is so high in proportion to the bets. and the fact that you will always be forced to split only half of a pot. your only strategy in this game would be to continually declare high, or continually declare low, enough so that one guy gets pissed and starts declaring otherwise, or convinces his partner to declare otherwise, or change the rules so that you can declare hi and low. this is a bleak option, and costly, and probably ineffective considering the character description you gave us in the beginning. so where were we? oh yes... is this a poker game? sure, but one in which your opponents are taking advantage of the dumb preset rule structure and colluding against you so that you can't win ever. you'd be a dumb mofo to play in this game.
Okay baggins, since you believe that the game of Dirk is poker then I would appreciate hearing your definition of poker. I am not denying that it may be poker to some people, but it does not fit my definition of poker. The reason it does not fit my definition of poker is because skill, the ability to make money through the application of skill and other things have been eliminated as factors in this game.
I would love to see a generally accepted definition of poker. Can you, Dirk, or anyone else provide one?
William
"but it does not fit my definition of poker. "
If it is poker deal me out.
Vince
the way i see it, the game is still poker. it has the structure and hand rankings unique to poker. the betting is quite similar to a POKER game called seven card stud. the game having 7000 cards, however, has more betting rounds. but the structure is so similar that to call it pinochle or tennis or playstation is really leading someone down the wrong path. the reason i believe that you may be disinclined to call it poker is because of its non-winnable-strategy-allowing option. because this particular game of 7thousandcard stud is unwinnable for you doesn't mean that the GAME ITSELF can't be won by proper strategy. game selection and cheating come into the conversation at this point. first game selection. we talk about game selection all the time. always looking for the game with the right mix of players that you play optimally well against, and can make money from using superior skills. if you can't play well against the $1-$2 players or the current lineup at the $10-$20 table right now, but you know you can shear the sheep at the $6-$12 table, then the $6-$12 table is for you, until further notice. but the problem with the 7thousandcardstud game we talked about is not the game itself, but the 2 players in it. you know that with both players in the game, you cannot win against their combined strategies. that doesn't mean you can't win in a different 7thousandcardstud game against different opponents. also, the issue of cheating comes in. while these two probably don't intentionally plan on playing together in such a way as to render any portion of the pot to the only other player in the game a losing propostion, they nevertheless have gone out of their way to let you know ahead of time their strategies which is unwavering, and unbeatable when combined. while in this particular instance they may not be cheating, their understanding between each other to essentially stay out of each others' half of the pot is a form of collusion. when collusion is done right, any poker game will be tough to beat at best, if not unwinnable altogether. i think the issues of collusion and game selection bear more on the unwinnability of this particular game than whether or not it is actually poker. and take away the overwhelming odds of playing against those two, the game could be more competitive and rewarding to the more skillful player. however the slight degree of variance in the average hand when based on the traditional '5-card hand' and employing 7000 cards per hand makes the game boring in its card element, but changes it to an almost purely psychological battle of wits. it would probably be quite boring, and any time it was played with more than 2 people there would be the danger of collusion which would make the game unplayable. so i believe yes it is poker, but this particular game against these particular players is not a good game to play in,a nd should be passed on.
After reading your post claiming this game is poker, I have decided it is probably a waste of time debating whether or not this is poker. I just know this 7000 card game does not meet the consensus terms of definition that I have found on the net. I also know it is not just a case of game selection as you indicate. I understand that this is poker to you baggins, but to me it is nothing more than a disguised coin-flip game to me and it therefore has little, if anything, to do with the game of poker.
I think there is a pattern developing in these posts regarding dominating styles. It is starting to look like he will not be able to come up with an example that is applicable to real world poker and specifically not to hold’em.
William
ok, i guess you don't have to agree with me. but i was trying to provide my thoughts on the question of 'is this game poker?' its being a virtual coin-flip is not the point (though i think that it is worse than a coin flip because you expect to be able to call the flip correctly 50% of the time, where in this game you will always lose no matter what you do.). but if you disagree with me, please take steps to point out what part of my ideas you disagree with, instead of just abandoning the subject. i agree that it is all just hypothetical, but i think the fine points i tried to illumine are worth more thought than just saying that you disagree with me.
Thanks for your reply.
The reason I did not continue with the debate is that I have not been able to find a generally accepted definition of poker, so debating what poker is turns into a matter of personal opinion. In order to formulate my personal definition of poker I did some research on the Internet and in some books. What I discovered was a widespread consensus that poker included the opportunity to bluff, check, bet, call, raise and fold. In “The Theory of Poker” by Sklansky, he states that the object of poker is to make money; I definitely agree with that statement.
Dirks 7000 card game omits most of the above accepted features. Therefore, I do not personally believe Dirk’s example is poker. However, the 7000 card game meets your standard and I respect your position. I guess I just placed the bar a bit higher and 7000 card stud does not clear the rail in my book.
Please understand baggins, I am not saying you are wrong. However, I am saying that we have a different minimum definition of poker. Since I have been unable to find a specific definition of poker, our disagreement is based upon personal opinion and there is no right or wrong in that as far as I can see.
Can you point me to the definition of poker that you have used in order to formulate your opinion?
William
ok, this sounds reasonable. i think poker is a game of skill with the element of chance weighing into the game as well. the opportunity to bet, raise, bluff, and fold is most definitely a requirement. but i think that these exist in the 7000 card stud game. perhaps not against these players, but in the game itself these are all options, and therefore i think the general structure of the game is still POKER. i mean, you may not be able to bluff out some opponents in some of the typical low limit holdem games ever, but that doesn't mean that the game ceases to be poker because those players are involved. i think that the 7000 card stud's greatest argument for NOT being poker is the fact that you can't raise, and that you must call high or low. those 2 elements are to me some of the most crippling to a skilled player in a high-low declare game, and are possibly what makes the structure of the game itself open to debate as to its inclusion in the heading of poker. i think the most important distinction to make is to be able to seperate the game itself from the hypothetical opponents that you would have. so, yes, perhaps we have different standards for what poker consists of, but i believe that according to your definition it is still poker, barring the fact that you can't raise or declare hi-low.
baggins wrote: “ok, this sounds reasonable. i think poker is a game of skill with the element of chance weighing into the game as well. the opportunity to bet, raise, bluff, and fold is most definitely a requirement.“
I would have thought that you would have included checking as a part of your definition. Nevertheless, as you so aptly point out raising is “definitely a requirement” and so 7000 card stud does not fit your definition of poker either.
If you want to call such a game poker then that is up to you baggins, but you need to modify your definition so that it can include a game such as 7000 card stud in order for you to have any credibility with me.
I say again, 7000 stud does not fit my personal definition of poker and as it turns out, it does not seem to fit yours either.
William
i guess so. see i did also write a lot of things about this game that i had problems with regarding the structure and such. but you could add the ability ro raise, and the ability to check if you wanted, and it wouldn't matter. the other two players would still stay to the end anyways, and raising wouldn't do anything to give you a larger edge in the game, in fact it would hurt you since you are getting 75 cents back on each dollar you contribute, knowing that your opponents ALWAYS play the same way. so, i do believe that you are right as the specific example is concerned, but to change that game to fit the definition would still leave it in an unwinnable state, yet still a game of poker. so, ok, if you can't check, and you can't raise then the game is not poker. but checking and raising in that game would not give you an edge.
You know what I would really love to see. I would love to see Dirk come up with an example of this sort of problem for our hero in a real poker game. A game where the playing styles of the players at the table alone would give one player a negative EV as long as he continued to play in that game. A game where, no matter how he changed his style of play in order to achieve a positive EV, he would still be a loser.
Later, William
EXAMPLE: Any poker game. Everyone plays optimally, except the player on your left always raises with the nuts on the river. Satisfied. ALMOST EVERYONE ELSE IS!
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Thanks, I agree with you Dirk, and have agreed from the beginning, but that was not the original point. The problem is that you have not only restricted the play of the other players by forcing them to play optimally, you have restricted our hero who is supposed to be able to use his unlimited intelligence. Therefore, this is a flawed example when taken in the context of your original question. Remember your objection to my example of an inexperienced player that you said was trivial, well welcome to the world of trivial. The point you are making is trivial and it does not address the question.
Dirk, you or I could easily beat that game if either of us was the hero. You know as well as I that the other players would not be able to achieve optimal play if our hero knew how to play maximally.
I have yet to see anyone give an example that would hold up in the real world, of stylistic factors that would put one out of even only three players at a long-term disadvantage.
William
Do you understand the difference between existential and universal quantifiers?
If you do understand the difference, say something that convinces me that this is the case.
If you do not understand the difference, then this is probably the key to your misunderstanding the whole time.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Sure Dirk no problem, back to logic 101...
As an example: A statement predicated by, "For all x...", is an example of general quantifier. Whereas, the predicate, "There exists an x such that...", is an existential quantifier.
What I understand is, I am willing to admit that your example is correct provided one restricts our hero to optimal play. The thing that bugs me is that you do not seem to be willing to admit or able to understand that your optimal players could not play optimally with an experienced poker player sitting in our poor hero’s chair.
The point is that you have taken away our hero’s ability to compensate and therefore he has a negative EV simply because you are forcing him only to play optimally. If you allow him to play expertly rather than optimally then he will kick their collective butts while they try and fail to play optimally.
I can beat your table of optimal players Dirk and I would bet that you could too.
William
Okay, good. So you do know that stuff.
In some of your attempted counterexamples it seemed that you had swapped a `THERE EXISTS' for a `FOR EVERY' or visa-versa, which is why I thought that might be the source of confusion.
So the claim is:
THERE EXISTS a combination of opponents' strategies such that FOR EVERY strategy used by hero, hero has negative EV.
The `FOR EVERY' means that hero is free to choose any strategy.
In the example I gave, the player to hero's left (named `lefty' let's say) plays optimally except for always raising with the nuts on the river. All players except hero and lefty play optimally. Then my claim is that no matter what strategy hero choose, his EV will be negative.
Believe it or not.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Dirk, I already agree with your theoretical example. Please see my answer to your new post above.
Thanks, William
I'm considering buying Ciaffone's book on Omaha. What is the difference between:
1) Omaha Hold em Poker, "The action game" Millenium Edition (orange cover)
and
2)Omaha Hold em Poker (yellow cover)
Thanks, JM
The Millenium ed. is updated and also has a section of omaha 8. Get the newer edition, it would be pointless to get the old since the new is only a couple bucks more.
In the last game of HE 10-20 where I have played , there was 2 (very rich) maniacs , at the the table . MAniacs #1 was 4 seats to my right and MAniac #2 waS 3 SEats to my right . There are 2 hands , Id like to have comments . #1- Nobody call until the maniacs #1 who raise , I'm on the button with AhJh , and I three-bet , SB fold , BB (loose-passive )calls . Flop come 972 all black , check to me , I bet , BB fold maniac calls . 10 on the river , maniac bets , I fold . #2- Maniac #2 limp 1st on the cutoff , button fold , SB(Little old lady loose and passive ) calls , and I raise TT , They call , 2c-3h-9s on the flop , and I bet they both call , 8s on the turn , I bet , maniac#2 raise and SB calls the 40$ , I call ,river : Ad , I check maniac bets , SB call , I put SB on AsXs so I fold ; showdown : SB has JJ and maniac#2 has KK
are these maniacs claude, dede, horry, alan or jerry. is passive old lady emma? lol. I guess you lost that night...
it stings at the time....we are supposed to appreciate the fact that there are bad players who will donate over time.....but there are times when it is hard to accept that truism!! Jim
Yes I did . 2 MANIACS WERE ORI AND Jean-Pierre and they have killed me again ....
Nothing wrong with the way you played the two hands, except maybe raising pre-flop with the TT. What do you think you will accomplish with a raise here? You're not narrowing the field, so why not see the flop cheaply? TT is not that strong of a hand. It is never worth a raise unless it allows you the chance to make the pot heads up pre-flop.
Other than that single bet, everything else was just the fall of the cards.
Hi JP & Steve,
Only experience I have with maniacs came in Tunica. First time I kinda got sucked in 'cause I didn't know how to handle it; fortunately it was 4-8 but I still lost a couple more racks than I should have (or will admit to :-). Second time I did my homework, and things went better--at 10-20.
The main problem with maniacs (that I find) is that sometimes they actually have a hand. To combat against this, you must also have a hand otherwise you can find yourself caught up in a pissing contest over a big pot with cheese. Patience is a virtue--wait for a premium holding and/or a flop that hits you firmly before calling a raise or a re-raise from these guys. You will be playing very few hands and seeing even fewer river cards, but you will have a strong possibility of dominating them when you do and the pots you drag will generally be substantial.
Example from 10-20 mentioned above: sitting to the immediate left of a maniac, I bided my time as he raised, re-raised, or capped over 50% of the hands being played. Then I got black aces--pre-flop action was capped (5 bets) 4 or 5 ways (he wasn't the only maniac at the table). Flop was all clubs, the maniac hit the brakes, and was the only one left at the river when a 4th club hit the board--he folded to my bet. I don't remember exactly, but in the 2 or 3 hours I was in that game, the maniac peaked at about +700 or more, and was down well over a rack when I left.
Comments on your hands: AhJh when flop is 9-high rags all black--you don't give turn info; so I don't think I can comment. Basically you don't have much here and should get out and wait for a better opportunity, but if they all check to you on the turn like they did on the river, you've got a chance at a play by representing an overpair and firing again on the turn. Donkeys will play nearly anything on the flop but will actually start thinking on the turn when the bets double and will fold at this point if they have little. This has worked a bunch of times for me lately (but not made up for a large quantity of missed draws).
TT v. JJ v. KK: I've seen this movie before, and even though it's not a happy ending I am always comforted by the fact that if my opponents were competent players, it would be worse. Also, although KK caught a good flop and turn (all rags) on this one and his plan worked, he will generally be much more disappointed if he keeps doing this over time in the same situation when he lets in multiple opponents on the cheap and the board comes up co-ordinated.
Sounds like you've got a good game, though. Good luck.
Tom.
In the first hand - why are you betting the AJ? You said you had a loose-Passive in BB w/ the maniac. Did you think you were going to win the pot right there? Also - what do you do if the maniac check-raises you. He very well could have hit middle pair so you're behind. Same w/ the BB. I say check and hope to hit the 10, J, or A. If you do hit, then you've got something to go to war w/. Also - w/ out turn information I can't make any decision about the river play, but I'd simply check behind them on the flop and see what the turn brings.
#1
I would have raised the maniac when the Ten fell on the turn, only if I felt that he would fold if he had nothing. He probably was making a steal attempt, or had a pair of T's or 9's. I would have folded if he re-raised me, but it's more likely that he would have called and checked the river card (if he had nothing or a pair), which would have given you a free look at his cards.
#2
Wouldn't have raised pre-flop. When the Ace drops on the river, then I would check and fold. An outright bet would protect you from someone with a pair of 99's or lowere stealing your hand, but a bet here would cost you money in the longrun.
....much ado about nothing...
Jim,
You know, of course, that "nothing" is Elizabethan slang for "vagina."
John
And Hamlet was "keen", according to Ophelia, what did that mean?
Are we talking "country matters" here?
John
"that "nothing" is Elizabethan slang for "vagina"
John.
Just my luck. I must have met up with this "Elizabethan" person. 'Cause hers is the kind of "vagina" I've been getting lately.
vince
Does anyone know where I can find a good odds calculator on the net? Thanks
I've never found a better odds calculator than posting here at 2+2.
Brian,
I recently made up a table of odds for some friends that are just learning Hold 'Em. It has three columns: outs, odds and common situations. A typical entry is:
6 outs
7:1
Two overcards to the flop and one pair will win. Ie, AK and flop of 35T, opponent has QT
Inside straight draw with two toned flop IE, KsQs with flop of JcTc8s
Its doesn't approach having a calculator but its useful. Email me if you want a Word or HTML copy.
KJS
I think he's actually after a monte carlo style analyser.
There was a java version on a website for a while but it got taken down a while ago. If anyone could track one down, i'd also like to hear about.
Mike
hypothetical situation:
you are playing no-limit and you have the nuts on the river. there is $600 in the pot and you decide to bet $1,000 and your opponent folds. right afterwards the Great Mind Reader tells you that the max bet your opponent would call is $300.
What is the EV of the $1000 bet?
I say -$300. Bobby says $600.
In order to keep things simple and not invoke my math geekness lets not consider PDF's and distance from the optimal betting amount and things of that nature. This is a question about Poker Language.
The E.V. of the $1000 bet is Zero.
Basically, one makes quality poker decisions by calculating the EV of your various options, then picking the best one. In this sense, then, Over-Betting earns $600, betting $300 earns $900, betting $200 earns $800, checking (assuming he's not going to bluff) earns $600, and folding out of turn earns $0. Which is best? Bet $300.
I can't quite put my finger on this other way of doing it, but it appears that since you have the nuts you cannot lose that $600, so the EV of your decisions vis-a-vis each other start at $0. Over-betting yields $0 while betting optimally yields $300. This method is particularly relevant when you are faced with a bet and are considering making a marginal raise. Well, if you in intend to call anyway then the raise only costs ONE bet and your risk-reward ratios should be based on that; but I digress...
I see no useful reason to "normalize" one's EV calculations based on the best decision, which would have EV 0. Only in this case would over-betting be -$300 and folding worth -$900.
- Louie
This may not be a point you intended to bring up, but the opponent may sometimes raise instead of just calling or folding, so it's possible that the $1000 bet could have a positive EV.
My guess is you wanted this situation to be boiled down to a call or fold situation. In this case, betting $1000 earns you nothing, so the expected value is zero.
Bill
The EV of the $1000 bet is $600. For the given circumstances, you are 100% certain to win that much if you make that bet. The EV of the $300 bet is $900 assuming you are 100% certain that he will call if you make this bet and you have the pure nuts (ie no split pot possible). Your EV can only be negative if there is some chance for you to lose the entire pot or a large majority of a split pot which can happen in H/L poker.
Boris,
This is kinda funny. I almost stopped half way through your post and moved on because my grasp of the technical meaning of EV is slippery. But I'm trained the read the very end of your posts because that's often the best part. When I saw this: "This is a question about Poker Language." I got interested! lol
Taking "expectation value" literally, I'd say the answer is $0. You're already guarenteed to win the $600 in the pot. If you bet $1000, according to the conditions you set out, you will earn exactly zero dollars more.
If the correct answer to your question is NOT zero, then perhaps we need another concept/term for which the correct answer IS zero.
Tommy
the best part is always at the end huh? I'll have to work on that. part of that is because you have to give some boring background info before dazzling the audience with your intellectual sunrise. hehe. don't lecture me about mixed metaphores.
The general consensus seems to be that $0 is a good answer. I can accept that. my only problem with zero is that it implies that the overbet was a neutral decision when in fact it was a huge mistake. but then with my view of the world the best you could ever hope for is a zero EV decision. kind of depressing I guess.
Boris,
Since I have a B.S. in mathematics (yep, bull s*it degree), hopefully I can shed some light on this .
There are 2 different ways to look at this. If you're looking for the EV of the whole hand played through to the river card, your EV = ($600 + below value) because you have the nuts on the river. So your EV of the hand at this point is $600 since you can't lose what's in the pot (assuming your opponent does not split).
If you're looking for the EV of the final bet on the river, it will be equal to an amount that your opponent will call. Thus if you bet $300 and your opponent calls, then this bet has an EV of $300. If you bet $1000 and don't get called, then as almost everyone said the EV = $0 for this bet and any amount that your opponent will not call the river bet. You cannot have a negative EV here since your opponent will not take $300 from your stack if you bet $1000 and he does not call. Also, you are not -$300 EV because this bet has not been placed and will not cost you anything.
Hope this helps and doesn't confuse, Mike
People who resonded have either said $600 (which, as Boris indicated, was my answer) or $0. Here's why I think that $0 is incorrect. Money in the pot is dead money. It does not belong to anyone until the hand is over and the dealer pushes the pot to someone. Therefore, even though I have the nuts, the money in the pot does not belong to me until the hand is over. So, when I check and my opponent checks, or when I bet and he folds, the $600 becomes mine. So, that's the amount of value I get from either of these plays, and is my EV. The fact that "I would have gotten it no matter what" is irreleveant, EV is only a measure of how much I win or lose through a certain action, not how much I win or lose compared to how much I was bound to win or lose if I took other actions.
well, were talking about choices here. what you do on the river has an EV, that is relative to the other choices.
so i guess if your EV is the same for all choices then it doesnt matter what you do.
so you seem to be saying that there is nothing you could have done on the river to make more money.
i think youll agree that if you bet some amount(x, say 100), that your opponent would call.
so your EV wouldnt be 'constant' for all choices here.
brad
The EV's are correct in my previous post. You have an EV of $0 if you muck your cards. By performing this act you will make $0 100% of the time. The money in the pot is not yours until it is pushed to you. You can also have a $0 EV if the (probability of winning the pot)*(size of pot you would win - your final bet) = (probability of losing the pot)*(size of your final bet) For example, say i bet $300 on river into a $600 pot and the odds of me getting called and winning are .25 (3 to 1 against) and the odds of me getting called and losing are .75 (3 to 1 in favor) then your EV for the bet is 900*(.25) - 300*(.75) = 0. Note in this scenario I have not taken into account the possibility of an opponent folding to your bet.
haven't read the other responses yet, but it seems obvious that the ev of the 1000 bet is exactly zero. You already own the pot by virtue of holding the nuts...you don't lose by betting too much; you just fail to gain. OTOH, a bet of 300 would have ev of +300.
G
everyone have a pretty good idea of what the ev of the 1000 bet was. zero is the answer and the pot provided 600 minus the chance it was a split. this was since he had the nuts, if he didnt it changes. the ev of the pot would be the % chance his hand would win times the money in there. now for the last bet. since he said it wouldnt be called, anything over 300 bet has the same value as checking behind a check.=zero. but never are we absolutely sure it wont be called. so suppose we guessed it would be called 30% of the time. then betting 300 and getting a sure call is the exact same thing as betting 1000 with a 30% chance of getting called. both yield an expected value(EV) of 300 bucks. most would take the sure 300 but maybe the other pays more in the long run as you dont show your hand as often and give less info, and your bluffs stay effective. see if you bet the amount that milks a player all the time its hard to bet an amount that wont get a call, and win a pot thats not yours. some food for thought.
Game Theory for beginners and advanced players
2 problems: one for beginners (P1) and one for advanced players (P2).
P1: A zero-one-game with 2 players (BETTOR & CALLER) - there is $1 of dead money in the pot to begin with - BETTOR can either bet the pot or check (fixed pot-limit)- CALLER can either call or fold. No raises is allowed.
Q11: If you are BETTOR with witch hands would you bet ?
Q12: If you are CALLER with witch hands would you call ?
... assuming the other guy played optimal strategy !
Q13: Same as above - but this time there is $1000 of dead money in the pot to begin with - (fixed pot-limit).
P2: Same as above (P1) - but this time the battle is between EARLY & LATE - who is both allowed to bet.
Q21: If you are EARLY with witch hands would you bet and with witch hands would you call ?
Q22: If you are LATE with witch hands would you bet and with witch hands would you call ?
Is this important ? I do believe it is !?!
Is it difficult ? If it is please try to responde with a poker-intuitive answer rather than a mathematical one.
Any comments appreciated ! Results later.
I give up.
1. Bet best 2/3 hands plus a few bluffs.
2. More checking of some big hands and most "better than a random hand"
MS Sunshine
Your response deserve an answer.
Defining 3 variables:
C: CALL with C or BETTER
R: BET with R or BETTER
B: BET/BLUFF with B or WORSE
Q11: If you are BETTOR with witch hands would you bet ? R=777,78 & B=111,11
Q12: If you are CALLER with witch hands would you call ? C=555,55
Q13: Same as above - but this time there is $1000 of dead money in the pot to begin with - (fixed pot-limit). Same as Q11 & Q12
Q21: If you are EARLY with witch hands would you bet and with witch hands would you call ? R=833,33 & B=83,33 & C=500
Q22: If you are LATE with witch hands would you bet and with witch hands would you call ? R=666,67 & B=166,67 & C=500
ALL numbers multiplied by 1000.
Wouldn't it be nice if we 'somehow could translate that knowledge into real poker' ?
Yeah, But did I get it right?
MS Sunshine
We have struggled here lately with the definition of a value bet. I gave a definition that I believe is reasonable. But it doesn't appear to be acepted by most of the responders. I'm wondering just how important a precise definition is to poker strategy. If we are to believe that Ray Zee is a winning poker player and he has struggled here to provide a definition then we may conclude that a precise definition is not tantamount to being a winning poker player.
I believe we all agree that value betting has an effect on your bottom line. Your win rate. I suppose the greater you are at it the greater the effect on your win rate. Given that I am correct, the importance of a value bet must be tied to it's effect on your win rate. That begs the question of just which situations will you find yourself in that offer a value bet opportunity. Which brings us full circle to the question :"What is the definition of a value bet".
Since a value bet is tied to specific situations, not yet defined, then a value bet definiton must be situation sensitive. The best that we can hope for, due to the infinitely possible situations in a poker game, is a broad definition that covers as many generic situations as possible. It just may be that the broadest definition possible is the best definition. This will allow the user to call on the concept when in a situation that meets the broad criteria. Thus the user will be (made) aware of the potential for using this tactic at all times even though the situations where it is most effective may not be a large portion of his play.
Just thinking out loud. What do you think?
Vince
Okay, I will take the bait and attempt a definition. A value bet is a bet made with the best hand or a bet made with a hand that figures to end up as the best hand. An example of the latter would be betting when you flop an open-ended straight-flush draw. You are a mathematical favorite to make either a straight or a flush by the river.
Jim, I don't agree that for a bet to be for value your hand has to be likely to end up the best hand. I think that all that is important is that you believe it will.
Consider the following: I was on a draw, but I miss. I now have absolutely nothing. I bet the river in the hope that my opponent will fold. We would all agree that this bet is bluff. But suppose that my opponent will fold 0% of the time when I make this bet. Is the bet still a bluff? I think it is, it's just a very poor one. All that matters in classifying the bet as a bluff is what my intent was, not whether I will actually be successful.
I think the same is true betting for value. If I bet with the intention of worse hands calling, then I am making a value bet. It doesn't matter whether I am correct or not because "betting for value" and "bluffing" are descriptions of the bettor's intention. Agree?
The problem is that betting with the intention of worse hands calling only makes since when you have the best hand or a hand that rates to be best. It does me no good to bet what I figure to be a second best hand hoping to get the third best hand, the fourth best hand, etc. to call. I have only helped the guy with the best hand at my expense.
best definition so far. once you publish your book with ciaffone it might become official.
I've been observing most of the posts on the concept of "value bet" and frankly I don't understand the confusion. To me, it is a simple and easy to define concept.
Winning Low Limit Hold'em by Lee Jones defines a value bet as:
--->A bet that you would like your opponents to call (as opposed to a bluff). Generally, it is because you have the best hand. However, it can also be a draw that, given enough callers, has a positive expectation.<---
I think the first two sentences of that definition are fine and is not tied to any specific situation.
Thats my take on it, JM
Vince, you're right that having a definition of the term isn't important to poker strategy or being a winning player. One could easily be a great poker player without ever having hear the phrase "value bet" before. The reason we look for a definition isn't that the definition itself will help anyone play poker, it is because a common definition will make it easier for us to discuss things, since in the future when someone uses the phrase we will all interpret it the same way. Also, the original poster wanted the definition to help him understand what he read in books that use it. The point of the discussion is to facilitate communication about poker, not poker itself.
"Value bet" has an impact on the bottom line because the term describes how close you get to betting with perfect information. Merriam-Webster defines "value" as, "a fair return or equivalent in goods, services, or money for something exchanged." If you could see all the cards, you would always bet for "value" because it would be fairly easy to determine when you were getting a fair return (i.e., the best of it). If you could read every player's mind, you would bluff for "value" because you know when better hands would fold to you and that your bluffs would give you a fair return (100% is fair in this fantasy). The problem you (and others) have run into is trying to assign a definition to something that really measures individual ability to close as possible to the viewable card-mind reading state from what can be seen and the players who are playing.
I use value bet to mean a bet where you gain EV gains if called. For instance with the nut flush draw on the turn, I could value bet against five opponents but not three
If you think your bet will tie two of those players to calling the river even if a flush draw comes then you can bet a flush draw for value on fourth street against 3 opponents. Although it is a little shaky.
vince
I live in Perth, Western Australia...which for those of you who aren't aware is the most remote city in the world..1000 miles from the nearest city to it.
I have been playing poker (low limit holdem) on paradise for a year, which I learnt by studying HPFAP and watching friends play. I've been beating it for 10 months.
The casino in Perth does not and will not in the near future spread holdem. Only Pot Limit 5 Card Draw ($5-10 blinds) and Half - Pot 7 card stud ($2 ante $5 low card bring in).
I have never played poker in a casino, although I have watched these games and seem to be filled with mostly drunk old greek men :-)
Anyway, the casino charges a 5% uncapped rake on these games.
My question is, would it be worth my time to learn to play 7 card stud, or even 5 card draw in order to play at my local casino, or is the rake too high to make it worthwhile. I own 7csFAP (S+M) but haven't bothered reading it yet.
Wardy
Wardy,
5% UNCAPPED rake. I would avoid these games like I would avoid the Ebola virus.
CJ
Learning "pot limit" and "half pot limit" are a lot more difficult than learning "stud" or "draw".
I agree.....but what I'm asking is....should I bother...given the rake.
On a side note...is Super/System still in print? Amazon.com doesn't have it.
You can find Super/System by hitting the conjelco link on the left side bar.
If you are looking for a source of income, a 5% rake game may not be the place to learn pot limit or draw. If you are a student of the game looking for experience, it might be interesting. You would have to play extremely tight. I know people who make their livings off similar games. They are very careful about timing when they go into the games, and when they leave them. They don't want to be sitting in there with a bunch of rocks.
G'day Wardy!
Interesting Post from Down Under, especially since it brings back memories. I know the Perth Casino well because I visited there a couple years ago - My father lives in Maylands.
Anyway, Australian Poker has gone down hill since my first exposure to it. That goes to back in 1985 when I was on hand for the opening of the Adelaide Casino. It might be the Greeks as you say but more so I would say that it was the regular face who you would meet.
After a few years I left and headed for the US but not for Poker reasons. Now I have a place in Atlantic City on the Broadwalk and as much Poker as I want.
Ah! The suns out today and the sharks who have been playing all day and night are back out to sea!
Good luck!
Laced throughout some of these forums are posts about very loose games 6 to 9 seeing flops for caps and most playing to the river. These games are the type where a "good" player has limited use of his tools, raise check raise etc. They are worthless and bluffing is not only not possible but not the least bit effective.
Lots of people think these are good games. Why? Cuz the pots are big and the players are bad. But, there comes a time in a game where eneough BAD players mean you don't have much better chance than the mutts you are playing against.
Just my 2 cents.
I have a hard time winning at games like this myself. I find that even if you start with premium hands, your hand doesn't hold up often. In the long run you will make money, but I don't like playing such a mechanical game where you fold anything but A's K's Q's and AKs.
There is a lot more short term luck involved in these games. An any two card guy can look like a genius one night... and mortgage his house the next... playing 3-6.
Just my 2 cents
Derrick
These games require and adjustment to the priorities of your poker skills. Yes, you may not be able to "bluff" but now you can cap the flop with a straight draw. Yes, KT is always a dog hand but now you can often raise with 87s. Yes, you should shun the notion of a "spectacular lay down" but now you can routinely call and win these big pots often. Yes, you will rarely be able to put a player on a particular hand but you will have him beat a lot more often.
- Louie
Isn't it very difficult to call a flop with 87s if you know most of the time it is going to be capped?
Derrick
Yes, you have a significant problem if it tends to be capped BEFORE the flop but not after. This drastically reduces the implied odds you usually need for speculative hands like 87s. But if action AFTER the flop is about the same as BEFORE, these hands are worthwhile in volumn pots.
- Louie
Who is talking abou tone player my scenario is discussing many river rats - you want to show down ALL these guys - I don't think so.
you can easily adjust to games like these play playing hands like 98s and 67s earlier than you normally would...as well as playing any pocket pair in any position.
another weapon you have is the ability to fold a single pair on the rare cases where aggression is shown.
you may not be able to checkraise often, but you can bet whenever you have a good hand, and get paid off handsomely when you win.
These games aren't hard to beat you just need to adjust.
Wardy
You are diluting your seof if youthink these are beatable - adjust what - all your skills are diluted to the point that ou are playing crapola just like the 8 other mutts - sorry I just don't agree.
ill go with Rounder on this one folks. in those games you lose alot of your tools and thats what makes the money. sure you gain alot by playing with good hands and big draws but you also have to go farther with them as you cant make a good laydown because you helped build the pot too big. what happens is that alot of the hands you play before the flop have the same value as your opponents. then since the pot is big many of the players are justified calling to the river. it takes away alot of your edge not to mention that hands take forever in these games so you dont get to play very often with an edge. it seems that tight playing and betting the goods is mostly the preferred method in these games and that makes all the tight players about equal so a good player loses most of his edge over just a tight player. you still make money as a good player but not as fast as in a tighter game with less players calling. doesnt make sense but true.
Over the years there is little in poker I've come to hate as much as getting involved in a "great" super-loose game which moves at a speed that would make a turtle look like a greyhound. There is absolutely nothing as frustrating as these games. Of course you are expected to win but the damn game might easily break before you do even if it lasts all night. The worst part is that the livest players are usually the ones making the game so ungodly slow. I guess they know in the back of their minds that they will last a lot longer and have more fun this way.
Seems like the looser the players the more they think a different color deck will change their crappy play.
"Seems like the looser the players the more they think a different color deck will change their crappy play"
And?
Vince
I agree. For years I searched these games out. They are fun to play in and they don't require much thought or effort. And the comraderie is often high as well. But, I seemed to suffer my biggest losses in these games without the accompanying big wins. I finally gave in and realized there might be some sort of strange interaction taking place in these games and that they were in fact difficult to beat. You get married to your hands, can't make a good raise or laydown, and the game goes very slow.
However, note this only goes for WILD games like this. I had the priveledge of being in a game two years ago where no one folded, but there betting patterns were so poor that they were incredibly easy to read. That was a perfect game because there was plenty of action and plenty of value and it was easy to get off a hand due to the way opponents bet (and called). I had great success at that game.
There is a big difference between 6-8 people seeing every flop and 6-8 players seeing a capped bet every flop. The first game is beatable, while the second is debateable and should looked at in the longest of long terms.
In a capped game it is almost impossible to make a substantial post-flop mistake by calling. Thus the dynamic of the game is that a good player's expectation starts out high pre-flop (via ultratight hand selection) and plummets througout the hand as any hand not obviously completely dead can have good (or close to good) odds to call. For all practical purposes these games are a matter of entering the "flop lotto" with an optimum advantage over the field. Hand selection is a matter of maximizing the general formula: (This formula just occured to me and I apologize if anyone else has posted/published it before)
winnings per hand = (Chance of winning * Average pot size) - (blind cost + rake + Average pot investment)
Chance of winning = % of pots won on average by playable hands. Given that post flop calls will never be a significant mistake, % won hot and cold vs. ave # of players should be adequate
Ave pot size = self exp. Blind cost = ave $$ lost per each played hand rake = max rake if cap, if no cap this could operate as a % of pot size; time charge games this would be, like the blinds, a function of hand selection as more hands played = less rake paid per hand.
Average pot investment = $$ it will cost in bets to play a hand to the river on average.
The variables controlled by the player are chance and blinds (also rake in a time charge game). Note that when chance goes up, blinds also go up as greater selectiveness means more blinds spent per hand played. The other variables are constant (on average) on a per hand basis.
A good player may be able to save an odd bet here or there by tells or the like. However, this formula would seem to give a good starting point in deciding if and how these games can be beaten
It would seem that whether this type of game is beatable can be shown by use of this formula (not by me right now because I need to get back to work) Even if beatable I would say this type of game indeed has more in common with counting cards in Blackjack than a "typical" poker game as it is more a question of tactics than strategy.
(The noncapped is more beatable because the good player risks less to see the flop, and the smaller pot size allows the field a better opportunity to make pre-flop mistakes. Furthermore, this type of game is more likely to feature a "loose-weak" type that can be knocked off of a slightly +ev draw or low pair/ high kicker by a raise on the flop. Thus there is no simple formula to describe it)
In my experience too it seems that the "wild" games of this sort were the least profitable (or, ugh, the most expensive).
I assume you are referring to games with a lot of preflop raising, in which case I agree. However, games with loose-passive players are very profitable.
"These games are the type where a "good" player has limited use of his tools,.."
Depressingly, in this type of game the only thing your 'tools' help you do(when you can't catch a hand, flop, or whatever)is "save bets" that your opponents would have lost if they had been you. But that is a poor "Consolation Prize" while you're getting thumped.
-Don
First of all let it be known that I am in no way in conjuction with Two Plus Two Publishing.
I've only been a participant on this forum a few short months. At first it was to check out information concerning what is now a defunct online site. Now it's part of my daily routine.
First and foremost my main priority in playing poker is to win money. How do I do that? I play to win. I am a student of the game and have been for about 3 decades now. To give you a hint at my age, I've got a big one coming up in November and "fifty" is the only real "F" word to me now (LOL). I have a poker library of books magazine and tapes. I study at the tables and away from the tables. I have played full time during 3 phases of my life and made money in all 3. Am I an expert? Not even remotely close. Do I have the desire to be and the willingness to try to be? Absolutely. Will I ever be? Probably not. I play medium stakes live (mostly HE) and my comfort level is $20-40 or Pot limit with $5-10 blinds. I have never played anything above $40-80 (I sat next to Davis S at the Mirage a few years ago and he was as snug as a tick on your dogs back). Besides winning that trip talking with him was the highlight of that trip. I was told that if I ever run into any of the so-called poker authorities in Vegas to stay clear because they wouldn't give me the time of day. Far from the truth. David wasn't over-talkative but he was a pleasant individual. I used to talk long distance with Roy Cooke quite often and when I was in Vegas he invited me to lunch once and we talked about poker and life.
Online I play mostly lower limits but at one site (the now defunct) I was a regular at the highest level ($20-40). In a cardroom I used to play regularly I was considered to be an expert by many. Why? Because they were a lot worse than I was, I guess. Yes, I consider myself a good player. And the reasons are (1) I play within myself (most of the time); (2) play in games where most of the players skills are inferior to mine and (3) still have that spark in me to learn more about people and poker.
To actually have poker authorities like Mason, David and Tommy Angelo along with players like Jim Brier, Rick N; Ms Sunshine and others (too many to mention) share their thoughts is truely gratifying.
This forum gives people like me; Dave from Cali and many others (students of the game or not) a golden opportunity to grow to higher levels of our game. And I don't necessarily mean higher levels as far as ($)limits, but higher levels of our play and our thinking.
The best part is it's all freely given by real people who have a passion for this great game.
Thanks to ALL,
Gene (holdemdude)
Good post. I second your remarks and am especially grateful to people who are willing to answer any question. I would like to include Louis Landale. Dave
What blows me away about this place is the lack of infighting. That's what I saw my first day here, and that why I stayed. I've been heavily involved in other online forums before (non-poker), where the topics were not nearly as potentially flamable as poker, yet there was far more bickering and nastiness, even though there were behavioral guidelines and enforcers (AOL message boards). I'm in constant awe of the community feel of 2+2.
Tommy
This is the best gambling site on the net! Nice post Gene.
Tommy,
I agree but have you ever read posts on RGP by people who rarely post or lurk here yet claim we are all 2+2 robots, zombies and so on? The pointless hostility towards 2+2 amazes me.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
It is a strange phenomenon. Could it be a certain dislike of the proprietors wearing off on the whole site?
Also, the notion that posters here think the same is pretty silly. Jim Brier and Rick Nebiolo are on opposites sides much of the time.
The best posters here also seem to geniunely have open minds. I have "argued" with Brier on several occassions and there never a hint of sarcasm or anger on either side. The same is true for most of the better posters.
Rec.gambling.poker does have some good stuff, but the quality of information and the presentation at this site is far superior.
Regards.
Great post. Yes, I think we have something special here. My thanks, also to David and Mason.
I read and post at both 2+2 and RGP. I'm getting to the point of never posting poker theory anyplace but here.
At least here, I feel I am among friends, who will politely tell me I have no clue about poker.
MS Sunshine
More like politely asking you not sit down at the same table that they are. Just keep moving right along. Just in case your wondering that goes for you too Mr!
Gene (holdemdude)
"The pointless hostility towards 2+2 amazes me."
I really believe it is your fault Rick. Those rgp'ers have seen those pretty boy looks of yours and they are jealous. I'm the only one that is jealous here on 2 + 2. I hope my ho(rse)tility don't show.
vince
I completely agree. It is all Rick's fault.
One nice thing about this site-- and I've been participating for about three years now-- is the general level of intelligence amongst virtually all the regular posters. If poker has disappointed me in one area, it's that it hasn't delivered me the smart, quirky people that I'd hoped to find when I first took up the game. But, thanks to this website, I know you're out there.
" . . . have you ever read posts on RGP by people who rarely post or lurk here yet claim we are all 2+2 robots, zombies and so on? The pointless hostility towards 2+2 amazes me."
I think that comes from the S&M bashers, like Backdoor hinted at.
"Fundamentalism" takes many forms besides religious and political and racial. All are consistent in that there is no give-and-take, only all-or-nothing. It's not that hard to find specifics in S&M to disagree with. But some players seem to think that if someone utters one false or suspect word, that everything they ever say is invalidated. That's just stupid.
"Festering" is the spreading of infection. Once bitten with the "I hate S&M bug," it's easy to picture a fundamentalist pointing his rage at a group of utter strangers. That's what fundamentalists do.
Tommy
up yours.
(hoping you get the joke).
I just love doing that!!!
You are correct about the lack of infighting, that is the primary reason why I do not read RGP very often. Well, that and the terrible format that drives me batty....
People who disagree need to provide logical sound reasons WHY they are disagreeing with you, and if they do, it hardly matters what "tone" they use. You aren't necessarily going to get delicately worded responses meant to keep everyone in a state of total bliss, but you will generally get well thought out responses, which is really all I ask....
Dave in Cali
p.s.
Some of your comments are exactly why I stay away from most forms of internet communication other than email and 2+2 forum. I like to have meaning in my conversations, not pointless arguing, it's a waste of brain cells (might as well just smoke stuff out of a can, at least you get some pleasure out of that, arguing is pure misery AND it burns brain cells!). Chat rooms are the WORST, they have a way of attracting mindless morons with a whole bunch of nothing to say. I do NOT chat, and I do NOT accept instant messaging from anyone! So if I am playing against you on paradise, at least you know I ain't cheating!
nt
nt
Gene
A few observations...
first off, everyone who posts on this site who has taken the time to meet with me has been very pleasant in person. I haven't met with any forumite whom I was disappointed with so far. Keep in mind, I have read many of their posts and usually debated with them for many hours worth of typing before we met, so I did have something to go on first. Amongst the most notable people I have met were Mason and Jim Brier, I was very pleased with how the conversations went on each occasion. I think if you carry yourself well and conduct yourself in an intelligent manner when on the forums, this will probably carry over "in person".
The forums are a great place to cuss and discuss poker, and I have definitely benefitted greatly since I started posting here three years ago. I don't claim to be an expert, but like you, I am usually light years ahead of everyone at my table, so it might appear that way to the untrained eye. Of course I primarily play low limits, which tend to be full of total novices anyway, so standing out as an expert is pretty easy most of the time.... Of course I pretend to be a typical "gambler" when I am at the tables, I doubt many people I have played with even have a clue how much effort I put into poker.
One other thing... I am dave IN cali, not dave FROM cali.... If I said where I was really from, they would be getting a rope....
Dave in Cali
After many hours of play, I've come to the conclusion that I'm really not a good player. Mediocre would be more like it. I'm lacking something that's making it hard to win money in the game. Maybe I just haven't spotted the HUGE flaws in my game yet, but I know I won't ever be a professional in poker.
This makes me respect those that are all the more. And it doesn't stop me from reading and appreciating the 2+2 forum. When I came on here about a year and a half ago I saw all these posts by S&M and my first thoughts were "OK, who's making up these screen names? I wonder how long it will take to get these fakers banned."
Then it dawned on me: these were the actual authors of the books! Quite a number of poker professionals take time out of their schedule to drop in and help those struggling with the game - free of charge. Some do this on a daily basis. It amazed me because I can't think of too many other fields where something like this happens. In fact, one might even call it counter intuitive. The more people you help in poker, the better they become and the worse you do. But on the other end of the spectrum is the idea that ANY way to get people interested in the game helps the game.
It's an interesting board. Not many trolls. Not many spammers. And the authorities are always there to help out anyone from around the world at any time of the day with any question they have.
I only wish I could learn more. But that's my fault, not the board's.
poker is a competitive game where friendships do evolve, but due to the nature of the game, i feel players can become withdrawn and (lonely)...i feel one of the reasons 2+2 is so addictive and usefull is players use it to connect in a way that can be difficult initially live, but yet satisfies one of our key 6 human needs...jmho...great posts everyone,,even i am becoming a better player...i am repaying mason by buying everything he has (or probably will) write, (no sacrifice since i enjoy the materials immensely)...waiting for july vol 3 mason...gl all
I have to agree with one thing here, the connectedness factor. It totally sucks sometimes knowing what I do about poker, mostly because virtually NO ONE can even begin to discuss it with me on any kind of level that stimulates me. Basically, if it weren't for 2+2 forum, I would be alone in a sea of poker morons, never receiving any stimulating poker conversations at all. There is not one single person who plays at my regular cardroom whom I discuss poker with, in fact, there is only one person that I know of that reads 2+2 at all, and he is very quiet and not talkative. Not that I would discuss it at the table or anything.... It sometimes sucks being unable to communicate poker with other people, but thank God for the forums and 2+2....
Dave in Cali
I'm sure you have mentors in life Dave. I thnk it's important to have one in poker as well. Someone that knows you and your game. It's too bad you don't talk to anyone live about poker let alone have a mentor. Do you just play in one cardroom? Use some of the email addresses on this forum for starters.
Gene (holdemdude)
"There is not one single person who plays at my regular cardroom whom I discuss poker with"
I especially like the type that says:"Humph...you cannorta win ifa you no getta da cards"
Vince
I'm thinking that in December we should all take a couple days off from 2+2 and get together and do some Christmas charoling and then play poker with our tips.
::: group hug :::
Tommy,
You have to have a good singing voice to get tipped!
Heck, you just might have to pay for the rights to Christmas charol with the other poker players.
But it would still be fun.
Walker
I'm in....I've been practising my vocal skills from day 1 I began reading this forum. I knew it would happen some day!
Dave in Cali:
You are correct about the lack of infighting, that is the primary reason why I do not read RGP very often. Well, that and the terrible format that drives me batty....
How do you find RGP's format terrible? Usenethas no inherent format the way a web-based board does. I suggest switching newsreaders if you don't like the way RGP shows up on your box.
Terrance,
I find Forte Free Agent to be a good choice for a newsreader. I especially like the feature that allows one to highlight message headers or specific threads and download message bodies while working on another task.
Regards,
Rick
Yup, I liked Free Agent and subsequently bought Agent (which I obviously like more, since it does more).
First, I have read all the posts in this thread and want to thank everyone for their encouraging comments.
I believe that the reason you see the negativity towards us that you sometimes do on RGP and a few other places is simple jealousy. Two Plus Two has been more successful than any of us ever thought was possible, and some people who are not part of it are just envious and try to make a name for themselves by attacking instead of doing the hard work of producing good material.
To give an example of being far more successful than expected we weren't sure if we would even get posts when these forums were started. Now we have problems which are related to getting an over whelming response. But those are the type of problems that you want to have.
But I think the real reason for the continued success of these forums is the amazing quality of information that appears in almost all the posts. People quickly learn that if they are to get the most out of Two Plus Two, they need to make good detailed posts with sound logical arguments supporting their position. What this does is to put the emphasis on the subject matter as opposed to personalities. This allows for vigorus disagreement, yet everyone gets along.
I think we all agree that we are fortunate these forums have turned out as well as they have. And I thank all of you for helping to make them that way.
nt
this forum operates from an intelligent mature point of view, whereas RGP is based on disfunctional egotistical paranoia.. My last post there was about a post bashing DS about one paragraph that supposedly referred to him as a cheater in his TOP.I was very angry and stated the fact and you wouldnt believe the email I got that was downright vicious. I no longer even consider remotely of visiting the site again,because the posts are mostly egotistical wars of words... This forum will always excell for those that seek to evolve as a card player. I cannot tell you how this site has assisted my game.. I am very much below the level of most here but I can not express my appreciation to Mason for always replying to my emails considering how his plate must be very full.
jg
"To actually have poker authorities like Mason, David and Tommy Angelo along with players like Jim Brier, Rick N; Ms Sunshine and others (too many to mention) share their thoughts is truely gratifying"
You are now on my "does not exist list".
Vince
Now I know what Mason means when he occassionally describes a player by saying "he was wearing a cap with 'Vince' on it!!!
Oh well, Vince. Your loss my gain.
:>)
LOL
Gene (holdemdude)
there is no one on 2 + 2 who projects his personality more than v.p., i know him...lol..gl you are a great player...
"Now I know what Mason means "
Mason who?
Vince
LOL!
You know; the Mason who's on the top of your "do not exist list". The list you just put me on.
Do I get a cap with "Vince" on it now? So I can wear it when I go to a new cardroom, so they'll think I'm; well I won't say.
Be cool Vince,
Gene (holdemdude)
My personal belief has always held that we are either predators or prey when sitting in a poker game. You can be a +1 Predator and shift to a +1 prey with the addition of one new player better than you or the subtraction of one inferior player from your game. Knowing where you stand on the predator/prey continuum is part and parcel in your table selection decisions.
As players acquire and master new playing skills, they rise on the continuum. If they were +3 prey in a typical 3-6 hold'em game at the Commerce when they first started, they might reach a skill level in a matter of weeks where they become +1 predators in that same game. Students of the game are supposed to grow and improve through study and practice. Progress is the expected norm. There is a certain satisfaction in realizing that you have improved your poker skills that transcends the incremental financial rewards that usually attend that improvement. Pride and a sense of accomplishment constitute some portion of that satisfaction.
My post has to do with the effects of skill deterioration. What would you do if the skills that you had painstakingly acquired, developed and honed started to erode and slip away from you? Suppose, for instance, that you had a benign brain tumor that restricted the flow of blood and oxygen to your brain. Suppose further that, in addition to this tumor, you also had a condition that resulted in moderate to severe global atrophy of your brain itself. As a consequence of these two main conditions you found that your abilty to process information quickly and correctly had gradually deteriorated to the point where you were making playing mistakes that pretty much guaranteed that you would be +5 prey in a typical $1-2 game in most cardrooms in Southern California. In addition to not being able to process information quickly and correctly, suppose that you also found that your impulse control had become seriously impaired? What would you do? Let's also assume, for purposes of this discussion, that becoming a floorman was not an option....... WELL, HERE'S WHAT I'VE COME UP WITH:
I've decided to try to arrange a FINAL (for me) small buy-in, small blind, No Limit Hold'em game at the Commerce Club on Friday, July 13th.........I'm hoping that we can get a small group of my past and present poker buddies together for this event. I'm calling it the Mason Malmuth Big Bet Poker Prey Invitational. Maybe we can enjoy a no host all you can eat seafood buffet before the game where we eat, drink, swap lies and get down with some proposition bets and pre-game predictions. All I can promise is that I'll be there and I'll have sufficient money on me to make at least several re-buys if necessary. Hope some of you can make it.
Big John
John,
Count me and the very lovely you know who in (unless I'm busted by then).
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
I've had a couple other emails so far and it looks like we might have a game. It will be good to see you and your curvaceous "student" once again. I have been sitting at home and playing lots of tourneys at Paradise Poker. I haven't been to a public cardroom since the Escargot tourneys at the Bike in February. I'll keep in touch and let you know if the game is a go later on. Give my best to the lovely "E"...
Big John
Hey - If you can heve your NLHE game during a tournement on say a friday or saturday I just might fly out from Chi town - I've been dying to get out of here for the last 6 months but something always comes up.
Don't count me in yet but put me down as a possible.
I'd just love to see you guys again.
Mike
John,
I talked to small caps scott at the Commerce and he thinks he can make it if he can tear himself away from destroying the yellow chip holdem games. He did seem to wonder if there was anything symbolic or ironic to the Friday the 13th date.
Regards,
Rick
Rick & Mike,
I talked with Scott Yeates and he is planning on being there also. I have a friend named Doug who I still need to contact. If small caps scott and his band of rOOling young turks can make it, we'll have a good old time. Rounder, you have got to get your priorities straight. There are tourneys in L.A. everyday of the year. Come on dowm. This will be your last chance to whip me in a public cardroom, don't let it pass you by.....
Big John
Consider 4 cards A, B, C, and D. Where A has a higher ranking then B which has a higher ranking then C, etc... (A > B > C >D).
I am wondering how often 1 hand will beat another if you don't take into account straights or flushes for the following scenarios:
| AB vs. CD |
| AC vs. BD |
| AD vs. BC |
My second question is how often does a straight of flush come into play outside of this?
Derrick Ashworth
Huh?
[1] If "A" is higher than the other cards any two-cards including "A" beats the other.
[2] Perhaps you are asking how often AK beats QJ, AQ beats KJ, and AJ beats KQ?
I am wondering how often the hands will win after the river card is turned up. Obviously if A is the highest ranking then A will always win before the flop.
derrick
What you are asking is how big a favorite are you with two overcards, one overcard, etc. against another non-paired pocket holding. I would be interested to see the exact numbers, too, if someone can furnish those.
I can tell you that with two overcards heads up, ie, AB vs CD, you will win about 70% of the time.
With one overcard, ie, AD vs BC, you will win about 58% of the time. The other matchups will be intermediate between these two numbers.
I know you are interested in much more precision than that, I'm just trying to continue the discussion, not answer your question.
CH
The Tabel below is calculated - not simulated ! No straight/flush No turn/river - only flop
| J2 | 23 | 22 | A2 | AJ | AK | |
| JJ | 17163 | 16676 | 15358 | 14336 | 14322 | 11996 |
| 133 | 620 | 1938 | 2960 | 2974 | 5300 | |
| Q5 | 54 | T2 | T9 | |||
| Q7 | 14577 | 12866 | 12533 | 12200 | ||
| 2719 | 4430 | 4763 | 5096 | 17296 |
ALL cases included ! Playing with straight/flush & turn/river will of course be in the favor of the dog.
Huh?
To answer this question, I tried a few different random values for A,B,C, and D.
With D = 4C, C= 5D, B= 6H, A=TS
AB vs CD wins 1047207 loses 631448 ties 33649 (win % + ½ tie %) = 0.62140
AC vs BD wins 1015998 loses 662513 ties 33793 (win % + ½ tie %) = 0.60322
AD vs BC wins wins 948417 loses 730094 ties 33793 (win % + ½ tie %) = 0.56375
With D = 4C, C= 5C, B= 6H, A=TS
AB vs CD wins 983134 loses 696505 ties 32665 (win % + ½ tie %) = 0.58370
AC vs BD wins 1023349 loses 653981 ties 34974 (win % + ½ tie %) = 0.60786
AD vs BC wins 942808 loses 734522 ties 34974 (win % + ½ tie %) = 0.56082
With D = 2C, C=JD, B= KH, A=AS
AB vs CD wins 1159003 loses 545357 ties 7944 (win % + ½ tie %) = 0.67919
AC vs BD wins 1115642 loses 588718 ties 7944 (win % + ½ tie %) = 0.65386
AD vs BC wins 978437 loses 725923 ties 7944 (win % + ½ tie %) = 0.57374
Can someone check at least one of these computations?
Cheers, Hein
Bay 101 used to have a regular 100/200 hold'em game, that would go maybe 3-5 times a week. right now, the biggest they have is 30/60, and almost never have 100/200.
why do these big games die? is it just as simple as a few big fish finally lose all their poker money, don't come back, and the pros move to a different limit?
In the Bay area, the tech stock crash may have the most to do with the lack of big games. When people's net worth gets cut in half and then in half again, they probably are nto going to gamble a lot.
For example, a friend of mine who works for the most successful IPO of 2000 became a MOP, sold a bunch of stock to buy a house and then when things crashed had a very real problem of selling enough stock to pay for the taxes on the stock he had sold to buy a house. He's not a gambler, but anyone in that situation is probably not going to feel like risking a lot of money playing cards at the moment.
Regards,
Paul Talbot
no doubt Talbot's answer has a bearing..but I think generally,counterfieter answered his own question...universally, big games die when they run out of "producers". Jim
...come to think about it, guess that's what happened here...the producers ran out of $$ because of the stock market.....reminds me of game that pretty much was "fed" by a local furniture dealer...big chain store moved in on him, and zap, he no longer had $ for the game. Jim
a thoughtful answer to the question, however, this game died before the year 2000, when internet stocks looked like they would continue to go to the moon....so that's not a plausible reason.
Bay 101 had a 20-200 Holdem last weekend, so all is not lost. I also suspect some players have moved to the Lucky Chances and Artichoke Joes no-limit games.
.
I have recently started playing poker full time and to help track how I am doing, I am taking careful records. I don't seem to be having a preponderance of winning sessions, however I am winning very nicely, probably too well thus far. I am winning about 57% of my session but my wins have been far bigger than my losses. I have only lost 40BB once. How normal is this?
JV,
You wrote: "I am winning about 57% of my session but my wins have been far bigger than my losses."
Focus on maximizing your overall profit rather than your win/loss ratio.
For what it's worth, though, you should not be surprised that your winnings exceed your losses after winning 57 percent of your sessions.
Your average win MUST be significantly larger than your average loss; otherwise you are playing too short in good games and too long in bad games.
Your maximim loss will be a personal thing. If a 40bb loss will prevent or degrade your play tomarrow, then bring only 35bb.
Your records seem to be quite normal.
- Louie
JV-
I don't see how Mark or Louie can give correct feedback without knowing how many hours and sessions this entails.
40 bb's is a pretty hefty loss depending on which and what type of game you're playing. If this happened in your first 10 sessions it might be significant. If it happened once out of 40 sessions, it probably doesn't mean anything. The same with win rate. I think you should probably be doing slightly better than 57% overall.
The type of games also has a lot to do with it. I think you should focus more on your hourly rate Vs. standard deviation, as this is more important than how many sessions you win anyway.
Kevin
Kevin,
You wrote: "I don't see how Mark or Louie can give correct feedback without knowing how many hours and sessions this entails."
Which part of my feedback do you think needs to take into account the number of hours and sessions JV has played?
That has happen yesterday in our local 5-10 game . i'm the SB , and the dealler make a mixdeal . The BB to my right his upset because he was dealt a very good TJoff (hehe) . So we restart the hand and I receive from the SB TcQc and the BB is upset one more time and he shows to everybody the 27off that he has received . NoBody limp until the cutoff who raise . So the BB is upset for a 3rd time and he says "You raise because you know that I wanna fold ?! " . Button fold and for sure I fold especially since I know that BB won't call . I just found that it was very unethical what BB and I told him . He told me that he can do whatever he wants with HIS cards . I don't think a serious place would allowed someone to make things like that very often .
how does the cutoff play? you have bad position, and a rather weak hand, but I don't think a three bet is unreasonable.
You don't like QTs getting 2:1 against a steal raise?
Well , I just have 2$ allreaddy in the pot , and headsup I prefer to give my oponnent the 2$ . I just don't wnat to lose 33 to protect my 2 if I am dominated .
What the BB did was very unethical. He basically folded out of turn...not protecting the other players to still act (especially the SB).
However, that being said...you must consider what is going on after that. The cutoff knows the BB is going to fold, so it is an obvious 'steal raise'. I would have 3 bet him with your holding and bet the flop no matter what hit. (Depending on the player, I might have done this anyways...wanting to eliminate the BB).
I've been playing poker since college, almost 20 years now. I've gone from 25cent bets to PotLimit. Throughout the years, i've been a consistent winner. The reason being, these are all home games and there have always been plenty of fish at the table. I don't think I'm a great player, but I know the games and odds much better than my opposition.
I play in three games - one a 5-10 game (mostly holdem, omaha8, 7s hi/lo), a pot limit 10-20 sb/bb max bet 300 game (omaha8, 5 card omaha8, 7stud 8ob) - these games i'm successful in. i play tight and win.
the game i'm losing my shirt in should be the easiest game to win. its a dealer choice betting structure - usually we start at 20-40 and go up to 50-100, or pot limit. recently, most games have been around the 50 max or pl. game is 90% omaha8. all the opposition will play garbage like 3-7-8-K. they will stay in on second best lows and second nut flush draws when a wheel flop comes. they drink. it is loose. yet i continue to lose. last three games, i've lost over $3000 total. over the last 15 sessions, i've lost 10 times. i am 100% certain the game is not fixed.
i realize that playing at these stakes three grand isn't that terrible, but with all these fish (there is one good player at the table, but his game is holdem. he thinks 2-4-k-k is an excellent omaha hand!!!)
after yesterday's loss, i thought to myself, perhaps my game is not suited to this game. it is a very loose, sometimes aggressive game and lots of times i don't know where i stand. because of this, a showdown is almost always necessary to win. yet, i seem to always be on the losing end of the showdowns. pot odds almost always merit the call at the end.
should i quit the game, tighten up, loosen up...HELP!!!!
In the O8 game you describe, I don't think 3k over three games is that big a deal, especially if it's big mitt. Playing tight before the flop isn't as important as playing extreamly tight later. Fourth st should give you the nuts with redraws to more nuts. Do not chase.
P.S. 2-4-K-K can be a monster in a PL O8 game. I can't imagine not seeing a reasonably priced flop with this hand in a PL game.
Hang in there. I think you may be just running bad. In this format you will see some incredibly bad players make some enormous cash-outs. It can drive you crazy and loosen you up when your fourth straight A234 flops a JQK :).
3K over last 3 sessions is only 30 Big Bets at 50-100 level. That is pretty good if you are running that bad. Last week in a loose 20-40 game I got stuck 50 big bets at one point in a 6 hour session. These type of fluctuations will happen, when there are so many people gambling with you. You just have to keep playing your positive EV gain and your edge will prevail.
G'day.
Found this site last week and have read most the info. Great site. Got the link from RGP. where i have lurked for some time but never posted. Actually i did once. Gave an introduction, got a few smart arse comments and never bothered again. These days it is not worth even reading. I love a healthy debate, but loathe ego-maniacs. Anyway i'll give you some background on myself and perhaps we can share some thoughts and information.
I am 23 years old and started playing serious poker almost 2 years ago. Poker is limited where I live (Australia) and my local casino has a small card room with 2 tables going on a good night. The limits are always 10/20,20/40 or 5/10 half or full pot. As you can see I have jumped in the deep end. My quest to learn this game has cost me a couple of thousand but that's cool, I can afford it and will hopefully make it back. At first I was playing the Thurs. night omaha hi game, which I studied and learned and now am good at, but I much prefer Holdem now, and everytime I get better and better. I am almost a break square player in these games now. I have done much reading and simulations, math etc. Now I need to become a winning player.
Now I've started playing online in lo-limit games to get up to speed for the real game. I've run into a bit of a problem. The games are loose! I have never played in a game anything like these before I went online. I started at paradise wih $100, got up to $600 in 0.5/1, 1/2 games, then lost it all in 3/6. I'm now playing lo-limits at the new ultimatebet.com site just for something different. Same thing, the players don't care, they just call. To me calling should be what u do least. I usually raise or fold. U either got it or not right? I'm used to being able to check-raise bluff and everyone fold. And a caller means a decent hand. Stuff like that you know? eg. last night flop came 10,J,6, leaving me and open nut str8/flush draw. So i check-raise bluff the flop, 4 callers. I bet the turn, 1 caller. By the river i have totally missed, but bluff anyway. The guy calls, shows 3,6 for a pair of sixes. WOW! But anyway, i know that is a good thing because i'm easily a long term winner on that play (maybe not the river) and I accept it. But I think my strategy is wrong in these games. Would you guys play more or less hands in these games? part of me says more because there is such crap in play; part of me says less because because you should be showing the best hand by the river. I have given this a lot of thought and figured u gotta either play real tight and not too aggressive, or a little tighter than the rest of them, but looser than a tight game!?!?! But I don't think my current 10/20 style play will win much here.
I am no stranger to odds and betting. For the last 2 years I have been employed as a bookmaker for US sports for an internet site. I know sportsbetting inside out and, being poker players, I'm sure some of you bet on sport. I would be happy to help out with anything there you would like to know. I stay away from sportsbetting forums - worse than RPG.
Anyway, I made that way too long, i'll keep it short in future! Look forward to sharing information on the best forum I have found on the net.
Later.
gday skipper, its good to have some aussies around here. i go down your way most winters for a while. what town are you in. we have a good other gambling games forum that has some really sharp sports people participating y0u may like. id say play extra tight till you get you bearings on the net games. good luck.
Hello square_fish:
The key to winning low-limit games is hitting the flop with the best draws and made hands. As you can see you can't bluff a guy that will call with bottom pair. Pretty unbelievable isn't it?
Straight forward poker wins the money in these games. You'll have to play tighter, and give up on most of your bluffs. These guys don't think about position, raises, and don't care what you got. You will not be able to use the poker skills you honned in the bigger games.
Good Luck
Mark
In soft games, I "play for the call". That is making a bet usually means that you will get called. So, I try to do it (bet)when it makes sense when I'm going to get called. Also, position is very important online, because you can't get a read on a person (per se).
Ed-
I know your handle, but I've never seen you on Paradise. When do you usually play, and what limits?
Guy
GEC,
You wrote: "Also, position is very important online, because you can't get a read on a person (per se)."
I suppose that not seeing your opponents might increase the importance of position, but there are ways of getting a read on people even online.
It sounds like "square-fish" is playing in some rather loose games, and I think you will find that looseness significantly decreases the importance of position.
looseness significantly decreases the importance of position.I feel that this is only the case if the game is also passive. In loose passive games, position is relatively unimportant because you know what your opponenets will do anyway (call). However, if the game is loose and agressive, position can become very important because there may be many people behind you whose actions you cannot predict.
Bobby,
Earlier, I wrote: ". . . I think you will find that looseness significantly decreases the importance of position."
You replied: "I feel that this is only the case if the game is also passive. In loose passive games, position is relatively unimportant because you know what your opponenets will do anyway (call). However, if the game is loose and agressive, position can become very important because there may be many people behind you whose actions you cannot predict."
My statement implictly assumes "all else being equal." Position is less important in a loose-aggressive game than in a tight-aggressive game. Position is less important in a loose-passive game than in a tight-passive game.
Your statements also implictly assume "all else being equal." Position is less important in a loose-aggressive game where all your opponents automatically fold to any river bet than in a loose-passive game where showdowns sometime occur. See?
"My statement implictly assumes "all else being equal." Position is less important in a loose-aggressive game than in a tight-aggressive game. Position is less important in a loose-passive game than in a tight-passive game. "
"Less important" as opposed to ..what? More important, above average important, below average important or just plain old vanilla important? Or maybe the correct phrase is more impotent?
Vince
Okay, we don't necessarily disagree on this, we are just saying different things. So let me restate my point. I think that how passive or agressive the game is has much more impact on the importance of position than how loose or tight it is. This is because agressive opponents can be so unpredictable, and having unpredictable opponents still to act after you is one of the main disadvantages to being out of position. Agree or disagree?
Holdem is such a game that by the very nature of how it is played makes position important regardless of game type or opponents. Whethere there are different degrees of "importance" is quite frankly not important.
vine
Vince, imagine if you had nine opponents at the table who would never bet, raise or fold, only check and call. Then your position would not matter at all.
"imagine if you had nine opponents at the table who would never bet, raise or fold, only check and call. Then your position would not matter at all."
O.K. Now imagine that only 8 played that way and the other was a solid player.
vince
P.S. Your example is not totally true. In fact if all your opponents played as you say then position would matter. The best position for you to be in is the big blind.
Bobby,
You wrote: "I think that how passive or agressive the game is has much more impact on the importance of position than how loose or tight it is. This is because agressive opponents can be so unpredictable, and having unpredictable opponents still to act after you is one of the main disadvantages to being out of position. Agree or disagree?"
I agree that unpredictable opponents generally increase the importance of position (all else being equal). But I frequently play against quite predictable aggressive opponents (e.g., maniacs).
"I agree that unpredictable opponents generally increase the importance of position (all else being equal). But I frequently play against quite predictable aggressive opponents (e.g., maniacs)."
So all things being equal just what degree of importance do you put on position? Mark if you don't answer I'll know you are ignoring me. If you are ignoring me I'll know it is because I pissed you off. If I pissed you off and you ignore me I will have the last word. We can't have that now can we? Please ignore this post if you dare.
vince
You can combine your two instincts on starting hand changes in loose games by playing more speculative hands. AX suited, for example, is playable if you're pretty sure it won't be raised preflop. That way you can play starting hands loosely, but only continue if the flop hits you hard and always show down the best hand (nut flush or two pair). You'll find the games online are usually very passive (like you said, call call call call) which enables you to be speculative.
Where in Australia do you live? I'm in Adelaide, where there's no holdem at all at the casino.
Chris
Hi square fish You should play high cards or pairs. Can value raise as will get some callers. Hit the flop or get out. Can bluff only if you have been showing down exceptional hands for a while. Don't overdo bluffing. If someone stays with you to the river they have something. Good luck. Dave
in my limited experience playing online, I decided that I might be better off playing somewhat higher limit games than you mentioned..for example, in 10-20 you will not see very much of the 3,6 hands at the end...and more players fold when they should (not ALL do) thus there are times when a bluff has a chance to win. Other subject--recently read post somewhere from guy who had started playing at highlandsclub.com and liked the play and benefits such as monthly freeroll $10,000 tournament...just finished vist to their website..don't have a great big bunch of players there...but I may open an account and give them a try...seems the are trying to do EXTRA for players! good luck, wherever you play, Jim
Chris,
You wrote: "AX suited, for example, is playable if you're pretty sure it won't be raised preflop."
In loose games, I often find Axs to be playable even if it has been raised pre-flop. Hell, if there are enough opponents, I might throw in a raise or two myself. Of course, if you don't understand how to play well post-flop, then you might want to muck those Axs hands in loose-aggressive games.
You wrote: "That way you can play starting hands loosely, but only continue if the flop hits you hard and always show down the best hand (nut flush or two pair)."
You might want to muck those Axs hands in loose-aggressive games. When the pot is big, you might be able to continue if you flop bottom pair. In such a situation, S&M even recommend betting out from early position with bottom pair (HPFAP, 1999, p. 169).
Against opponents who are fond of bluffing, as "square-fish" found out, you often can call on the river with just a small pair.
Square Fish,
You wrote: "These days [RGP] is not worth even reading."
You'll find plenty of people here who share your view. I don't. Over the years, I have figured out which posters I often can learn from and which posters usually are not worth reading. And I don't follow every thread. That's how I approach 2+2 as well.
You wrote: "I have done much reading and simulations, math etc. Now I need to become a winning player."
You also have about two years of experience. Now, you need to start thinking more about the game. You need to understand the key concepts of poker and how to apply them.
You wrote: "To me calling should be what u do least. I usually raise or fold. U either got it or not right?"
In public cardroom and online games, you probably should be folding most often, especially pre-flop. In loose games, calling often is your most profitable post-flop betting action. Sometimes you probably don't have it, but the pot size means you should call anyway. Sometimes, you don't have it, but you do have a nice draw, and, if you don't want to (or cannot) cause your opponents to fold, you might just call.
If you want to establish yourself as the "alpha male" at your table, raise away. If you want to make lots of money, consider calling.
You wrote: "eg. last night flop came 10,J,6, leaving me and open nut str8/flush draw. So i check-raise bluff the flop, 4 callers."
With KQs and 15 likely outs with two cards to come, you probaly will win about half the time. Your check-raise was not a bluff. It was a value raise (although not by some people's definition).
You wrote: "By the river i have totally missed, but bluff anyway. The guy calls, shows 3,6 for a pair of sixes. WOW!"
Your opponent is looking at a pot with at least 23 small bets in it. If you would bluff once every 11 times in this situation, then your opponent was correct to call. And if you want to win money in loose games, you should learn how to call with a single low pair in those situations, too.
You wrote: "But anyway, i know that is a good thing because i'm easily a long term winner on that play . . ."
If you want to win lots of money at poker, then your goal should be to maximize your expectation rather than to maximize the number of pots you win. In your example hand, it appears you pretty much did everything you could to maximize your chance of winning the pot. The question you should be asking yourself is whether you maximized your expectation.
wow thanks for all the replies guys. Some real good advice in there. i'm gonna keep plugging away at lo-limits on the net til I get my head around it all. Surely this si easier though. there doesn't seem to be much thinking involved. To me, these loose holdem games seem more like omaha games but just with worse hands on the end. In this game I never bluff, and it's basically about calling with odds. It seems more like playing correct blackjack, where there is always a right and wrong move. To me this is not much fun, I like thinking games. I had a good win last night at UB, but it wasnt by playing tight. I was 3-handed in a very small game against 2 players that tought they were playing 10 handed. I raised nearly every hand and won 100 big bets and copped a little abuse for being a maniac! Well if ur gonna fold, i'm gonna raise. Of course I wouldnt do this all the time.
Chris - I'm in Canberra. We have holdem about once a week. Occasionally we play pot limit, which is always a great game. I thought they had it over there - i know there's a poker room, but i've only played blackjack there. The only regular (nightly) table here is a 3-card manilla table. If you havn't played it don't. I have a sister there i visit ocasionally and be be keen for a home game (buy in no more than 1K) when i'm in town.
Anyway, thanks again to everyone who replied and i'll catch yas all later.
P.S. Mets -135
Square Fish,
You wrote: "there doesn't seem to be much thinking involved."
This might explain why you seem to be having trouble in loose games. If you want to maximize your expectation, you will have to do quite a lot of thinking. Perhaps you could start by thinking about how you might have played your example hand differently.
BTW, welcome to the forum.
Mark - I suppose i meant not as much as in a different game. My point is it seems more mechanical.
As for my example, Do you think I should have just checked and called while I didn't have the best hand yet? Is it correct to raise with an open str8 flush draw. IMO it is. The only reason I wouldn't is if I were pretty sure everyone was going to fold my raise. Surely checking the turn for a free river card is not the most profitable option in this hand.
My biggest error was betting when I knew I was beat. But the way I see it, I was getting better than 10/1 about him folding, but I suppose he was getting the same odds for me bluffing. How would some of you more experienced players played this hand in a loose game?
Should just check and fold the river after showing such strength in previous betting rounds? I'm still scratching my head as to what this guy had me on. His hand only beat A high. Fair enough about the odds, but sometimes u just know ur beat regardless of the odds.
BTW your advice is great Mark, your comment about ev. really got me thinking, though I still can't see a better way to play this hand.
I find your
Square Fish,
You asked: "As for my example, Do you think I should have just checked and called while I didn't have the best hand yet?"
I think the best way to play the hand depends on many factors, including your opponents, their tells, their current emotional states, their current table images, and your current table image.
You are more familiar with these factors than I am. That's why I suggested that *you* might want to "start by thinking about how you might have played your example hand differently." If you want others to tell you how you should have acted, you could post the hand on the "General Texas Hold'em" forum.
Do you think your expectation would have been greater if you had called the flop and attempted to check-raise the turn?
You also asked: "Is it correct to raise with an open str8 flush draw. IMO it is."
Sometimes it is correct, and sometimes it is not. It depends.
You wrote: "The only reason I wouldn't is if I were pretty sure everyone was going to fold my raise."
What if you expected all but one of your opponents to fold to your raise?
You also wrote: "My biggest error was betting when I knew I was beat."
If you were certain that you were beat and would be called, then it was an error. I'm not sure it was your biggest error. If you were less than certain that you were beat and would be called, then it might not even have been an error.
You suggested: "But the way I see it, I was getting better than 10/1 about him folding, but I suppose he was getting the same odds for me bluffing."
He was getting slightly better pot odds than you, since there was one more big bet in the pot by the time he had to act.
You asked: "Should just check and fold the river after showing such strength in previous betting rounds?"
It depends on the size of the pot, the chances that you will get called (or raised), and the chances that you are beat if you are called (or raised).
You wrote: "I'm still scratching my head as to what this guy had me on."
What would *you* have put yourself on? What other hands would you have played in this fashion?
You stated: "Fair enough about the odds, but sometimes u just know ur beat regardless of the odds."
No. Not unless you know the odds are 100 percent against you.
P.S. Mets -135
How did you come up with my beloved Mets? This is the first game they won all season.
Can anyone tell me the specific calculation for determing your bankroll requirements assuming you know your standard deviation and hourly earn to within say 1 sb/hr.?
I'm sure it's covered a book, but I'm too lazy to look it up. Thanks in advance.
Kevin
I use (standard deviation)^2 / (win rate). I am not sure what the standard is.
Cheers, Hein
.
What's the difference between a strategic play and a tactical one?
A strategy is a plan. A tactic is a maneuver.
Tactics may be employed to carry out a strategy.
If your strategy is to bluff a tight player when he has position on you, one tactic you could use would be a check-raise bluff.
A strategic play, therefore, may be to just call with Aces under the gun in one instance to demonstrate your willingness to play them deceptively. This play is part of your large plan to be able to bluff a tight player when you are in early postition. The check-raise bluff is a tactical play you could make later, taking advantage of the strategic play you made earlier by establishing a tight, deceptive image.
I think that answers your question. My question is, why do you ask?
Craig H
.
I don't want to use the words "Tactics" and "Strategy" for the following notion (although others would), but an important distinction is:
[1] Making a play intended to maximize the EV of the current decision. E.G. you should bluff if your chances are favorable compared to the size of the pot.
[2] Making a play intended to maximize the EV of the session(s). E.G. you may decide to make a marginally bad bet-for-value as this will increase the chances of sucessful bluffs later. Or you may raise weakly "for a free card" to disguise the times you do it with a draw.
I like Craig's definitions; where you may adopt a strategy of stealling uncontested pots on the turn, and adopt a few tactics to support it.
- Louie
There's a saying in chess; "Strategy is what you do when there is nothing to do. Tactics is what you do when there is something to do".
As relates to poker, I'd call strategy the basic plan you are using; tight aggressive play, targetting a maniac, avoiding the rock, etc. I'd call tactics things like raising for a free card, checkraising when you hit your flush, betting for value.
eg; I am dealt 76s in early position. I raise -> a strategic raise as I am varying my play(br>
Flop: K72, one of my suit I checkraise the flop -> a tactical play, designed to disguise my hand and potentially buy a free card on the turn
Turn: 3 of my suit I check and its checked through -> a combination of tactics and strategy: taking the free card (tactical) and making it likely I'll be called if I hit the river (strategic) because I checkraised and then checked, indicating some kind of strange bluff
River offsuit 7 I check and get to checkraise. -> tactical play, set up by strategic play and extreme luck
How about thinking of it this way: a tactical play is used when it is done based on how your opponent will immediately react to your action. A strategic play is made in order to help you in the longer run (even if the longer run is only one street ahead).
Thats how I think of it anyways
Ask the military. But for poker purposes Strategy is your plan. Tactics are the tools to impliment your plan.
vince
Tactics is what you do during a hand: gain information, thin the field, gain value, bluff, semi-bluff, try to gain a freecard, etc.
Operations is how you implement tactics: bet, check, all, raise, fold, check-raise.
Strategy are what you do for the session: play tight aggressive, play loose aggressive, play tight passive, play loose passive, shift gears, playing requirements, image projection, stack management.
Is retreating a strategy or a tactic?
Tactic. The reason behind it is the strategy.
It can be either. When the Iraqi army retreated from Kuwait that was clearly a tactic, and a desperate one at that.
But if you read about the (US) Civil War you will see that when the Army of Tennessee which was led by Joseph E. Johnston retreated through Northern Georgia towards Atlanta that it was clearly a strategy. (He was facing a much stronger Union army under Sherman.) This retreat allowed Johnston to always fight at an advantage and it also allowed him to recruit on the way towards Atlanta. Thus when the two armies arrived at Atlanta Johnston's force was actually stronger than when the campaign had begun and Sherman had not only lost a fair number of men, but his supply lines were stretched thin. Fortunately for Sherman Johnston was removed from command before the fighting for Atlanta began, and the new Southern commander (Hood) changed strategy and became more aggressive.
The way I see it you employ tacticts to execuit an over all strategy.
Tactics are variables in your over-all strategy.
Gene
Read any of Steve Badger's articles in Card Player magazine. I think it is the only thing he writes about! :-)
Can someone tell me what the best book you can get on hand reading is. or other available information to improve your hand reading skills
I dont know a good book which teaches you hand reading. I do know two other very good things to improve your handreading.
1. Play a lot
2. Read the two plus two posts every day and try to answer them, before you look at the other responses (I do that every time, and I found it very helpfull... I might say stupid things, or things that already have been said, but you learn a lot from it, because you actually thought about it first)
Hope this helps a bit.
Regards
Okay, I know this is basic--but, I read references to fast play in the literature and am really unsure what it is. Is it just loose aggressive play? Why does Skalansky's "The Theory of Poker" say that fast play is potentially more profitable than tight-aggressive, though more susceptible to unacceptable levels of fluctuation? What is an example of a fast play?
Thanks, Darren
Playing fast means playing very aggressively. It means trying to take advantage of every edge, no matter how small, to the maximum. A golf analogy: you have a 30 foot downhill putt with a steep left-to right break. You can try to make it for a birdie, but by being aggressive, you risk 3-putting for a bogey. Someone playing fast would try to make it. Someone playinig more conservatively would try to lag it up, knowing he probably won't make it, but he probably won't 3-putt either.
Someone playing fast will raise in most situations where either a raise or call (or fold) could be correct. By putting more money in the pot, he will win bigger pots and might cause others to loose up as well. But he will lose more when he loses.
i kind of agree. fast play is pushing every edge no matter how small. i don't believe it is always raising and betting though. a good fast player knows when to check-raise, when to bet out, when not to reraise to get more callers, etc. a good fast player will know when to fold too. fast play is more effective from a person with good reading skills too. if you know what your opponents have and how they will play it then you know how to play accordingly. raising with just the slightest advantage may be considered fast play. raising because you know that both your kicker and your opponents kicker cannot beat the board kicker and will result in a split pot unless you raise and give them a chance to fold their weak kicker is fast play maybe. what else? do i have it right?
It basically means that if it is checked to you you bet , if it is bet to you you raise .
Most people that are playing this way for a long period of time are either a manic player or they are on tilt , or they are stuck alot and are trying to make it back quick.
If you push every draw hard every time you will have huge swings and probally lose over all.
I would like to solicit opinions from experienced casino players regarding the following questions. At what level of live play ($5-$10, $10-$20, $15-$30, etc.) does playing "good solid poker" begin to have a negative expectation due to the advanced hand reading or game theory or whatever of the other opponents. It is taken for granted that low level is full of fish and I have heard that small pros like to play $30-$60. Is there a level where gsp poker players fit in profitably?
I understand that fish and solid players can be found at all levels from time to time, but I am seeking generalities.
I don't think "good solid poker" could ever have a negative EV, but I guess that depends how one defines "good" and "solid." Where I play, the 30-60 game is vastly different from the 20-40 game. There are many more players who are very aggressive; I would say it's 3 bets pre-flop 50% more often than in 20-40. You almost fear a turn on the flop more than you fear a raise in 30-60, whereas in 20-40 it's the opposite. And there's a raise on the turn much more often than in 20-40. Players' thinking is generally at least one level higher on average.
I would imagine this varies from casino to casino, but in general, you do need to play the player more and the cards less as you move up. Also, in hold 'em, I think it's important to have a couple of bad players in your game; I don't fear very good players in a game if there are a couple who play poorly.
Don't know if I quite answered your question, but hope this helps.
"At what level of live play ($5-$10, $10-$20, $15-$30, etc.) does playing "good solid poker" begin to have a negative expectation due to the advanced hand reading or game theory or whatever of the other opponents.>>
If one of the defining pararmeters of "good," is "flexible," then the answer is never. At what level does an utterly predictable tight style fall prey to a table dominated by folks who know how to beat a tight, predictable player? Best I can tell it depends where you live. In California I've hardly ever seen a game (up to and including $40-80) that couldn't be beaten by an ultra tight player with average hand-reading ability. In Vegas I've seen some 20/40 games where that player would be better off saying roll me over.
Tommy
This is a great topic. I just came back from a two week vacation out west. I played 10 nights at the Bellagio (30-60) and 4 nights at Commerce(30-60;40-80). I went to the Bellagio with an attiude that I wasn't going to let the regulars push me around. I played back at them. I tried to buy too many pots, (check raise bluffs) and called down too many hands heads-up with middle pair, AK etc. I just had my mind set that these people were not going to intimidate me. I only had two winning sessions out of ten at the big B. I normally play a very tight, solid game and I'm a winning player(just about 1 1/2 SB's an hr.)with about 800 hrs. of play.
My question is: Can solid play beat the 30-60 game at the Bellagio?
By the way the Commerce games were good. I was told that they were going to be wild and crazy. They were pretty sane and straightforward. (I was 3-4 there)
I'm betting your definition is different than mine. Because even plays (such as checkraise semibluffing with second pair and a four flush on the turn) that look imaginative and "unsolid" should be routine for the well schooled player, even when he is playing on automatic solid pilot. That type of solid play will beat almost all games 30-60 and below and many bigger ones. Playing by what I suspect your definition of solid play is, will work up to 8-16 but only sometimes higher.
David,
Great post! Solid players should understand. Did you notice that the player you answered made one of the cardinal sins of poker? He played poker with an "attitude". Most folk don't realize just how damaging volition's such as: "I won't be intimidated", can be. Your focus now becomes one of defending your honor (ego) instead of winning.
Vince
Can I get some definitions on what you guys mean by solid play? Also if you were to say that a player seldom "gets out of line" what exactly does this mean.
David--A well known and very good player at the Bellagio told me that nobody in the 30-60 game is making a BB an hour. He said that that included Roy C., Mason, Ed Hill, Don, Tyson, Toothpick Doug, Marvin etc. He said that some are close, somewhere between a SB and a BB. Could this be true??
Unless you play sparingly and select the best games, you will not make $60 an hour in the Bellagio 30-60 holdem game. The only possible exceptions are the top ten players in the world, all of whom are playing higher and probably making even more.
From your list, only Roy Cooke would be close. Last year, I asked Roy Cooke how he was doing. He stated that he had played about 500 hours and won over $27,000. This was in October of last year. I don't know how he ended the year. I don't believe Ed Hill plays $30-$60 very much at all. I think he is more of a $15-$30 player. However, Ed is a very good player.
Overall, the Bellagio $30-$60 game is one of the worst games in the country for playing on a daily basis. It is usually a tight, aggressive game which is the worst kind of poker game to be in. If someone was trying to make a living playing middle limit poker they would be much better off playing $20-$40 in Tunica, Phoenix, Mt Pleasant(in Michigan), or in Oceanside, California.
In his post above, David made the comment that the players who could beat the $30-$60 game for one big bet per hour are playing in higher limit games where they can make even more money. This is not clear to me. One of the reasons that players like Lenny Martin, Lee Salem, and John Hennigan do well in the higher limits is because they usually find games where a rich tourist is throwing a party. It is not clear that playing strategies which work well in these situations would necessarily work well in typical Bellagio $30-$60 game.
I am not convinced that in a typical tight, aggressive full tabled limit hold'em game that beating it for one big bet per hour over many thousands of hours of play is really feasible. The one big bet per hour idea is notional and not based on extensive empirical data. It may be that the best you can expect from these games is more like one small bet per hour and maybe not even that.
The strategies that beat the bigger games would not be optimum for 30-60. However most of the best players could adjust. I believe I could make $70 an hour in that game, especially if I could wear a Jim Brier costume.
Jim,
I question the prevalence of the "typical tight, aggressive full tabled limit hold'em game." I play a little lower than you (10-20 and a tiny bit of 15-30), but I can assure you that the typical 10-20 game in AC is very much like the semi-fishy games that are often described on the medium stakes forum (e.g., five people routinely seeing the flop; cold calls with QJo, etc.). Maybe the regular games in Vegas are much tougher, but I am convinced that a $20/hour win rate at a weekend 10-20 game in AC is readily attainable.
PS: I have no doubt that it would be very difficult to beat the 30-60 game in LV or AC for $60 an hour.
I second what Fish has to say regarding the 10-20 game in AC (Taj). These games will have usually 2-3 fairly loose, weak players at any given time. Although I don't know anybody's long term winnings, I would think someone could get 1BB/hour out of this game.
But that 30-60 Bellagio game sounds scary!
Rahul
"Overall, the Bellagio $30-$60 game is one of the worst games in the country for playing on a daily basis."
The obvious question is, why do you play in it? How much $15-30 do you play? I've heard over and over that the $15-30 games at the Bellagio are consistently soft. If that's true, and if I lived in Vegas and was forced to play at the Bellagio, I'm sure I would play almost all $15-30 and only jump in the $30-60 when it was ripe. What's your thinking on all this? I need to know because I'm falling for a gal who lives there. :-)
Tommy
The answer doesn't matter. You are about to go broke regardless.
David,
May I confess something to you? I had you sized up all wrong. Justifyably so, and I think you'd agree. I've read reams and reams of words that you've written, and nowhere among them, not even a speck, was there anything funny. I figured it'd be impossible for a funny man to write that much and come off so dry. So I had you pegged as humorless.
Then you come out with the absolute funniest post I've ever seen on 2+2. Just goes to show that first impressions, and the next 100 as well, can be misleading.
Tommy
i remember david posted on other topics board about a discussion concerning relationships and marriage and david's expert advice included that this should be on the high stakes bulletin board...perhaps any discussion about "serious girlfriends", should be either High Stakes, or perhaps...other gambling games...just kidding gl...make the move to lv...love conquers all...jmho..
Hey Tommy,
I just bought the 21st century edition of HPFAP (thirty pounds over here in the UK...thats 45 dollars!) and there is a page early on where David and Mason apologise for any lack of skill in their writing. But, they say, with the money the book makes you "you can afford to buy lots more books by Ernest Hemingway".
OK, its not in the Bill Hicks league, but still...!
Indeed, they start off by saying "neither of us claim to be professional writers". But both Mason and David have written many books on poker and gambling in general as well as scores of articles. How can they not be professional writers?
against their kid sister at the kitchen table for matchsticks..hehe
From what I've seen, there are two types of poker writers. Poker players who happen to write, and writers who happen to play poker.
"they start off by saying 'neither of us claim to be professional writers.'"
I presume what they mean is, "Our writing is not up to snuff with what one typically associates with 'professional writers'"
Or something like that.
I think it's good that they added the disclaimer, but it's also lame that they felt the need to. They could hire someone to sweeten their prose.
Tommy for hire
.
I stopped playing $30-$60 at the start of the new year. I play nothing higher than $15-$30 here in Vegas normally unless there is a tournament or a big convention in town. I travel to Phoenix, Tunica, Oceanside, Los Angeles, and Michigan to play $20-$40 and higher.
"I stopped playing $30-$60 at the start of the new year"
cooke beats the game. Mason beats the game. Others beat that game. Tough or not it's beatable and not by only the very best. I don't play in that game mainl becaus of Bankro;; considerations. I attached a number I need to my BR fo 30 - 60 (S&M advice) and I don't have that number. Although after playing many hours of 15-30 I don't believe that I need as big a br as I thought. But I still won't play there (unless I'm on tilt). The reason I don't play is not because I don't feel I can win it is becuase it is above my comfort level. I stated this before concerning Jim Brier. I'm pretty sure that I'm correct. It is above his comfort level. However, I noticed that Jim said he travels to tothere places for 20 and above games. I'm curios now how much above 20 in other places do you play. Maybe I'm wrong but I think that Jim, an excellant player, has a problem above 20 for psychological (prospect of losing a large sum of money)reasons. The same may be true of Mason above 30-60. Everyone has their limits.
vince
"The reason I don't play is not because I don't feel I can win it is because it is above my comfort level."
Isn't that the same as saying this?
"If I was a bird, I could fly."
You are correct Vince in that there is a comfort/discomfort level that every player has to find for himself. I have the bankroll to play $30-$60 and higher but I don't like tight, aggressive games. I like loose games preferably passive or sometimes aggressive. I also like games that are friendly where people are having a good time unlike the grim $30-$60 affairs at the Bellagio. I would play in $100-$200 game if it were loose and passive enough. Furthermore, it is better to beat a $20-$40 game for $25 per hour than to beat a bigger game for the same amount because your swings are much less in the lower game usually.
Whew, thanks. My faith in your wisdom is restored.
Well, almost . . .
"I travel to Phoenix, Tunica, Oceanside, Los Angeles, and Michigan to play $20-$40 and higher."
With that kind of travel power, how can you leave out San Francisco? Besides the sheer beauty of the area and the soft games, you've mention several times how much you've been impressed by the cordiality in areas outside Las Vegas. I think you'd enjoy the games here.
Tommy
You are right. I need to take a trip to Lucky Chances or Bay 101 sometime.
I have only made one trip to the bay area. I would like to go back, but I doon't know where to stay at a reasonable rate. When I was there, the weekend rate I paid was $129. On Sunday, it went up to $299. I would have to be running real good to overcome that.
Here's my guess. If the rates were normal, it'd be cheaper to live in a hotel than an apartment, and people would. Sick, I know, but true.
Tommy
In my local cardroom, all games are limit, except that they are No Limit at the final table of tournaments, so I don't get much practice at it. (Nor do any of my opponents.) So I only need to know this for these final tables, but it's worth knowing for that.
I've read people talking about the `standard 3XBB raise'.
Firstly, does this mean raise TO 3XBB or raise BY 3XBB?
Secondly, what is the rationale behind a raise of this particular size, rather than a smaller, or bigger, or all-in raise?
Of course, there may be all kinds of considerations to consider in any particular game (especially in a tournament, where you are scrutinizing stack sizes etc.), but I am really just interested in reading some general basic principles in choosing size of raises.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
i heard a quote in a movie once that may just be movie talk, but is good to think about anyways "the key to no-limit hold em is to put a man to a decision for all his chips." good to think about.
yeah, but not a good strategy to open with pre-flop in NL
If the blinds are 50-100, I usually make it 350 to go which is a pot sized raise.
The reason for a standard raise is simply so that your opponents can't put you on a hand. If when you are 1st in the pot you always raise the same amount, they can't put you on a steal, big hand, drawing hand based on the size of your raise. It is a big enough raise that you don't give the BB an easy call. It is not set in stone. There may be situations where it makes sense to raise more or less depending on the opponents.
Now if only have 500, then raising to 350 does not make any sense. You only have 150 left so when you don't have a reasonable flop bet left you should go all-in.
If you have a limper then I would tend to increase the raise.
Ken Poklitar
"The reason for a standard raise is simply so that your opponents can't put you on a hand"
It is certainly not the reason for picking 3xBB though, which is the question. In poker, even no-limit poker, you win because your opponent makes mistakes and you don't. Raising a certain amount every time may or may not be correct I'm not arguing that. For sure if you always raise the same amount your opponent will have a dificult time putting you on a hand. So you gain an advantage there. But there is an arguement for raising an amount you feel your opponent will call depending whether you want him to call or not. There is a similar arguement for jamming the pot if you don't want callers. So to always bet a certain amount as I mentioned may or may not be the correct strategy. The 3x the BB allows an opponent that is more than a 4 - 3 underdog to make a mistake and call (not that you always want callers). Most of the hands you raise with should haave a good probability of being better than a 4 - 3 favorite over someone that calls. Since you are speculating on your hand you pick an amount that on average gives you the edge over your table composition
vince
Vince,
For me the reason I like to use raise 3x rather then 6x or 1x is it seems to work well. You want to raise enough that you can pick up the blinds and that when you get callers you more then likely have a better hand then the callers. Plus if you are re-raised you can easily drop the hand if you were on a steal. The more you initially raise the more pot committed you feel.
If you always raise to 6x then the only callers may be big hands. So you may pick up the blinds often but when you may lose more often when you are called or re-raised.
If you only raise the minimum then you are playing like limit poker which allows players to get in cheap including the blinds.
For me in the 1st few rounds of a tournament I tend to raise a bit more because many players will call a pot size raise. So if the blinds are 25-50, I might make it 200 or 250 to go.
As usual the actual players on the table may change how the optimal raising should be done.
Ken Poklitar
in general I agree with Vince....main point I would like to make is that many players who have limited amt fo N/L experience think it's all about moving in their entire stack---so many times I see these guys get an ace & face,and move in for a race---that's not what it's all about. Of course, the answer to your question is "it depends"...do you want to build the pot? do you want to try to win right there? what is your position both tablewise and stackwise? has action been fast, or slow, etc etc Jim
If you continue to say mean things about me on this forum, I will take every action that is forthcoming. This is not some idle threat. And I mean that quite literally.
Straight Flushes, Mike Caro
I do not believe that the above was a legitimate post.
I do believe th above was a legitmate post. As for the Caro post. Mike always signs Straight Flushes with Mike Caro underneath. Of course that may be a problem on this site.
vince
It was certainly funny enough to be legitimate. I find a lot of Mike's stuff a scream. I bet if we find out it will be because it's forthcoming.
,.,.,.
David,
You wrote: "I do not believe that the above was a legitimate post."
I would put my money on it being legitimate.
You have to read some of Mike's posts rather carefully. In this post, all he said is that he will do what he will do. I think you could make the same statement about all of us. We will do what we will do.
Now the above post sounds like something Caro would write. Maybe Caro is really Glover. That would make sense. I think they both had roles in "One flew over the Coocoo's nest". I think Caro played the Nurse and if Glover is really Caro then Caro is really talented because Glover played the guy that killed himself. That would mean Caro played the guy that killed himself and the Nurse that drove him to it. Jesus, Caro really is a genius. I just hope he's not mad.
vince
The Mike Caro poster is a fraud guys, dont be such suckers. Anybody can type in Mike Caro's name, then type in his e-mail address then sign off with that "straight flushes" crappola. I read alot of Mikes material in Cardplayer magazine and find the Caro thread totally out of character.
I too agree that this post is not from Mike Caro. If you check our forums over time you will notice that we get posts from Colin Powell, Saddem Hussein, Al Gore, Bill and Hilary, George W. Bush, Al Capone, and Vince Lepore.
n/t
Hey-- Just because I'm hated the world over and am a total jagoff, doesn't mean I don't enjoy a good game of poker!!! I have been getting killed in my weekly home game and come to you idiots looking for help with strategy and poker theory... Until I conquer the world, I will own that table!!
By the way, I occasionally like to play low limit at the Mirage in disguise. Say hello if you get a chance..
Friends Forever, Saddam
hats with the name Vince on them, and do they think VW stands for Very Wonderful?????
"Al Capone, and Vince Lepore. "
Mason is turning 50, he may be getting senile so we will cut him a little slack, Butta when Ia lasta spokea to Big Al hea no wasa laughin. Careful with the Italian jokes, Masona. Look at the trouble David got in messin with the boys.
vince
Mason, I'm pretty sure the last two on your list are one and the same.
David's response must be correct, Caro is not that stupid. Jim
You wrote (in part): "David's response must be correct, Caro is not that stupid. Jim"
Hi, Jim --
In that case, Caro is apparently more stupid than you think.
Straight Flushes, Mike Caro
if he is stupid at all, then he is more stupid than I think-because I don't think HE is stupid.... not him, just whoever is using his name. Jim
G'day players.
I have a question about short-handed strategy. I like to consider myself an ok heads-up player, although of have not played it a lot I have beaten some decent players. I basically play a very agressive game, where my opponents will often be calling me down with A high because they think they may have me beat. I find this pays off when you have a strong hand.
Lately where I have been playing on the net (ultimatebet.com)at extremely low limits, in my effort to beat master the loose game. However, because the site i'm playing at it very quiet, i'm usually sitting there waiting, and when a player comes we go heads up and I usually win (not blowing my own horn here, not many low limit players hve a clue headsup). Usually there gets to be 3, 4 or 5 players at this table at one stage in the (australian) night. My idea with this online thing was to play a tight, straight game, losing the tight game aggression I am used to, and cut bluffing out of my repetoire.
But in these games I have been playing my usual agressive self - and to my surprise, the players are folding and I have been winning pretty good. The players fold far too many hands pre-flop and tend to stay in only with top pair or second pair with kicker. The game is easy. Am I using an effective 3-4 player strategy here? when i get it headsup it's hard for me to stop betting with any pair. I am wondering if my sucess is more due to weak players, effective strategy or both. Last night for the first time at this site a player finally started coming over the top (with crap) which threw me a bit and I had a 40BB losing session (no sweat). his player was more agrressive than me - I would say he was WILD, and a long term loser against me and this game.
When this table is full, I have a much harder time winning and must play premium hands and get out if I miss. What i've noticed is that the players I've played short handed play the same game in a full table (from too tight short to too loose full) IMO. Do you think my strategy of constantly raising to buy pots in these short games is a winning one? My conclusion is that I am not a good short player, but the others are bad. What do you guys think?
Your last paragraph seems to hit the nail on the head. Yes, in a full game you NEED top-pair-solid-kicker to routinely show-down winners. That's why you do NOT play T9o (but they do). In a short game you NEED any pair to win; and since they are laying down far too many pairs your brain-dead strategy of routinely betting works out just fine.
Yes, so long as they keep laying hands down you should keep raising pre-flop and betting the flop (and possibly betting the turn); but you must of course slow down when you DO get a play.
Your long-term-profit, however, will come from keeping the situation as it is. If you bet like a maniac you may steal more hands in the next hour but even the most steadfast "rock" will eventually adjust. So you need to be seen folding or checking enough to prevent them from adjusting; where "enough" is a very tricky subjective matter. Consider folding the bottom 1/4 of hands and checking about 1/5 of the flops; this way they know you have "something" which is enough to keep the flock peacefully lined up in the slaughter house.
I notice the "WILD" player was doing the same to you that YOU are doing to the others. No doubt YOU are folding too many hands against him; thus rewarding his wild play. I suggest, also, that unless YOU adjust he is going to keep beating you.
- Louie
Yes, this is a very good shorthanded strategy against tight players. However, don't overdo it. At low limit full tables, varying your play much is usually unnecessary since most opponents aren't that observant. This is not the case shorthanded. If you are stealing blinds (and stealing flops) on every single hand, even the slowest player will start to catch on.
Thanks for replying guys. It makes sense what you guys say about not over doing it. I pretty much try not to, and don't play any 2, but usually come in with a raise. A call on the flop means they have a pair or a strong draw and when they check the turn they are usually drawing, but I have been caught out here betting the river when the apparent draws miss, and get beat buy 2nd pair with a kicker or something similar. Why they would not bet my checked turn is beyond me, but because of reasons above, I find position to come into play a lot more when speculating with rags. I don't defend blinds too heavily for this reason. Is that a good strategy?
Louie - I was not timid with the wild guy, it was pretty much a headsup raising war and he came out on top. I will beat him in the long run. Would you guys stay away from someone wild in a game like this and just prey on the weaks or would you maximize your edge against the wild guy as well? Personally I thouroughly enjoy the action of players players like this, and am prepared for the resulting fluctuactions.
Again, thanks for replying, this is a great forum you got here.
first a question---does the term "square fish" translate to anything particular in the language of good old U.S. of A.???
next, I'm not too sure the term "brain dead" as used above really fits here.
in the most simple explanation: fewer players = fewer cards out. fewer cards out = fewer good hands out. fewer good hands out = increased value of all hands which do not play well in full game. And also increased value of aggression......Jim
Does anyone have info on poker in Tunica, Miss? Where to play, where to stay, phone no's, websites, etc. I'm interested in low-limit, holdem or omaha, ring or tourney. Thanks.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Horeshoe has 12 tables. 7-Stud $1-5, Holdem $4-8,$10-20 and $20-40, also PLO $10-25 and/or $5-10 blinds. Tournaments Mon. & Wed. at noon.
1-800-303-shoe ask for poker, then Teresa for rooms.
Say hello. I am John the swing shift supervisor
MS Sunshine
Is the tournament at the Horseshoe or Gold Strike? Thanks.
I posted this on the Internet section yesterday and got no responses. I think I probably should have posted it here, so here goes.
I've been playing at the $3-6 heads-up HE tables at Paradise for about 2 weeks now and have managed to to win a majority of the time. I've also been fortunate to keep my losses to between 5 and 10 BB.
Until last night.
I started playing against what appeared to be a typical opponent (and when I say typical, I mean that I've been more agressive than most of my opponents); who limped when he could and didn't raise much post flop unless he hit the flop. I was up somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 BB ($125) when I noticed he added a substantial amount (around $800) to his table stakes. I had around $400. My first thought was great, this guys's willing to lose a bundle.
From that point on for about next 15-20 hands it was like a different player had taken his place.
If I didn't raise pre-flop he would. If I did, he would 3-bet, 3 out of 4 times. If I didn't lead out he would and if I bet or raised he would raise or 3-bet. And I do mean with "any 2 cards", FULL TILT BOOGIE MANIAC!
To make matters worse the deck started hitting him big time. Whatever he needed he got. And most of the time it was on the river. Even when I won a good size pot it didn't slow him down. I even tried chatting with him but he didn't take the bait. I ended up losing around $140. I don't like to lose but the money wasn't my main concern. I was drained!
I know because of where my frame of mind was that calling it a night was my best play and that's what I did.
Looking back now with a clearer mind than I had last night, I'm wondering what I could have done differntly.
Raise less BTF with anything but premium hands and strong hands?
Call less from the SB?
No pure bluffs and less semi-bluffs?
Better off not playing against this type of opponent?
Etc, etc, etc....
All suggestions and comments welcome.
Gene
This result is well within normal varience of 2-weeks. Don't get bent out of shape for that reason. If he was truly on mega maniac and just kept outdrawing you, then don't get bent out of shape for that reason either.
Being aggressive pays big dividends when in cowes the opponent into playing predictably. Go out on a limb if the opponent feels he's been pushed further out. If your aggressiveness does NOT cower the opponent, then you are on the wrong end of the limb.
If you are cowed then you do in fact need to play more conservatively. Figure you'll need to show down winners meaning you will have a hard time playing more than half the hands before the flop.
Anyway, good for you leaving when you felt bad. Yes, this is not a particularly good opponent to play against.
- Louie
I've also heard rumblings on other forum sites that Paradise Poker is "suspect" when it comes to their random algorithm. There's a bit of talk of people hitting more hands right after they buy in (or re-buy), compared to what should be expected. The situation you are describing looks to be along those lines.
No pure bluffs and less semi-bluffs?The answer to this one is obviously yes. If you were still trying to buy pots with nothing, or with weak draws, when he went on tilt, you were making a big mistake.
Maybe it was a different player. I know husband and wife couples who play the same account. I wouldn't play against a super agressive player heads up.
In limited time playing at PP, I would agree that something seems suspect with the way the cards fall. Heds up particularly, players seem to have a pair in the hole at the same time/etc. I think you could have a combination of your opponent going on tilt just as "something" having to do with the site turned in his favor. Needless to say, I don't play on line anymore. Good Luck!
..
Long ago & far away, When 7stud was the game I did play, Now it's hold-em, oh how I rue the day!!
not sure what caused me to recall this, but back in my 7stud days I concluded that it was mostly luck that effected the wins, and that skill was a tool that kept the losses down to a tolerable level.
Was that true then? Does it apply to hold-em? Jim
In a sense that is true of most gambling games. If you were dealt a blackjack once in 25 instead of once in 20, you couln't beat the game regardless of your skill. Playing lowball, all of your profits come from pat sevens or better. Your skill at best keeps you even without them.
Louie goes out on a limb ...
In stud its impossible to adopt a winning strategy where the weak players should not often show down their hands against yours. That is, they are usually getting the right odds to chase. In holdem, it IS possible to adopt a very tight yet winning strategy where it would be rare for anybody to get the right odds to draw.
That is, there is no very-low varience winning stud strategies but there are very-low varience winning holdem strategies; at least against weak players.
Does that answer your question?
- Louie
Yes, solid winning holdem has high varience.
I was just reading Abdul's post about chopping and was rudely reminded of one of the horrible leaks in my game; namely, that I'm about as gullible as they come when it comes to players acting at the table.
Actually, I have two major leaks: this and Fancy Play Syndrome, of which I appear to have an incurable case. But the gullibility flaw is the one that prompted this post.
If someone puffs up their cheeks and sighs when the turn hits I'll boldly bet my underpair since it's so obvious they missed. Then, when I find myself check-raised, I'm confused and a little hurt. Similarly when they nod their head when the river drops and fire out a bet. I look at my Q's, blow them a silent kiss and bid them farewell-- "see you in another 221 hands, my loves!- only to be shown some goofy busted draw.
I've tried to get over this, but I can't. It's hopeless. I'm too trusting. And while I'm sure that Abdul is a good deal savvier than I, I'm just sure I would have fallen for the same trick. Only I probably would have lost about 4 BB's on an A high flop :)
Have you read Mike Caro's Book of Tells aka Body Language of Poker? Maybe it would help when you could map a real world tell to something in that book.
If anything I have the reverse problem. If my opponent grabs his chips and leans forward acting like he is going to bet, I interpret that as acting, strong means weak, and it's like waving a red flag in front of a bull - my chips go flying into the pot.
-Abdul
Abdul-
Thanks, and yes I have Caro's book. But I think it might be hopeless (my gullibility, not the book) :)
Gullibility and FPS. So you do whatever the opponent wants you to do whenever they want to tell you to do it, and when they don't you routinely do the 2nd best thing on your own. Golly, you're doomed.
The key to tells is whether or not the opponent is acting. Those that act routinely exaggerate their motions to insure you are watching. Those that are NOT acting perform subtle mannerisms. The difference between "*sigh*" and "@SIGH@" is about the same as "sulk" and "pout". So against opponents capable of these reverse tells ask yourself: [1] "Would I have noticed his mannerism had I not been focusing on him?" and [2] "Does he know I'm focusing?" If either answer is "yes" he's probably acting. Take your time then do the right thing.
That first paragraph is a good example (well actually, its a bad example, but its MY example...). Adding "Golly, your doomed" exaggerates the sarcastic emphasis to the point that you should realize it was playful sarcasm. That is, I was acting sarcastically. Had I not put that in the point would be more subtle and you may deduce I was being cruelly (?cruefully?) sarcastic. Or perhaps I inserted that to make you THINK it was playful ... but I digress.
- Louie
Although I've read alot of poker of info on the web, this is my first time to post on this (or any other) forum, so be nice. My questions concern the low limit structure at the Grand Casino Coushatta in Louisianna. This game is like any other 3-6 table except you have the option of betting either 6 or 12 on the river.
Question 1: What adjustments (if any) should be made regarding pre-flop hand selection?
It seems to me that since the table plays like most low-limit games (loose-passive), a decent player could loosen up a bit pre-flop since you know that you will get paid off double on the river when you do make a hand.
Question 2: Profit-wise, how would this betting structure compare to, say, a normal 4-8 or 5-10 game?
Alot of people think low-limit games are difficult to beat because so many players see the flop with questionable hands. Wouldn't the fact that you can double your bet on the river somewhat makeup for the times your good hands get beat by suckers drawing out?
Finally, any other feedback regarding this betting structure would be appreciated.
I am familiar with this structure. "The Big River Bet" is found in Lake Charles, Louisiana at the Isle of Capri cardroom in both their $3-$6-$12 and $10-$20-$40 games as well as at the Grand on the Coushatta Indian Reservation in Kinder, Louisiana. I have submitted an article to CardPlayer which should be coming out in their July 20, 2001 issue entitled "The Big River Bet" that discusses this structure. There are only two other sources I can point you to which deal with this peculiar structure. The first is from an article by Bob Ciaffone which he published in CardPlayer a year or so ago. The second is in a book by Gary Carson, not yet published, entitled "The Complete Book of Hold'em Poker" and Gary has a chapter on this structure.
Basically it is a trappy game. Players will slow play more and wait until the river to reveal the strength of their hand as opposed to a typical game where a player will raise or check-raise on the turn. It also makes bluffing on the end more attractive because you can put your opponent under increased pressure to fold. It has been my experience that against typical players the use of the big river bet is done on their good hands. Some of the better players will occasionally make use of the big river bet to bluff. It makes betting a hand on the end for value more problematic because you cannot assume that your hand is still good if you were just called on the turn and a blank comes at the river.
The structure should allow you to play slightly more drawing hands, since your implied odds would be higher. By this I mean that the amount you can make if your long shot hand turns into a monster is higher proportional to the initial preflop call than it would be in a standard game, so you have more incentive to play it. Similarly, you like non-drawing hands (e.g. big cards looking to flop top pair top kicker) less than you would in a standard game, because the people with flush draws are able to charge you more if they hit, so you don't like people drawing against you as much. This should affect both your preflop and postflop play.
Hello,
(I posted this on the "Other Topics", but other heavy discussions are going on at the present)
I will be in Vegas for a week of fun and poker and I would like to observe some of the local pros and top players in the area.
I was wondering what time of day/night I might expect to observe some named players?
Also I plan to play some 10/20 or 8-16 and 6-12. Which casino, the Mirage or Bellagio would tend to have average players like myself at these limits? My bankroll is not very large and I want to have a decent chance at winning.
Thanks for any advice.
Mike B.
In his recent article in Card Player, he talks about the well known players getting into the $ at WSOP and about the match-ups between some of them. He concluded with "the cream does rise to the top."
There may be a few of you young, city-slickers who do not know where that phrase comes from - so, let me explain. I, too, was raised in the city, population 4,800 but I had friends who lived in the country, had chickens for eggs, cows for milk, etc. As they milked the cow, the milk went into a bucket placed below the cows teats. It was then carried into the house and poured into various other containers. There was no cream on top at this point.
Later (perhaps overnight), after the milk had set for some time, the cream would indeed rise to the top. Modern man devised "homogonized" whereby cream does not separate and rise.
THE POINT IS that it took TIME for the cream to rise. Now if we take some of the players which Mike Sexton named, and scatter them out among the Paradise Poker tournaments - how will they fare? Will they all rise?
Jim
I was brought up in a city where homogonised milk was brought to us in bottles every morning. The cream still rose to the top.
It is the even more modern pasteurised milk where the cream no longer separates and rises.
The players of the poker world named by Mike Sexton will also become pasteurised if I was at the table.
Spikey
If you noticed, the limit hold'em event at the WSOP ended up with a lot of unknown names at the final table. This is not a coincidence. There are 3 reasons for this.
1. The luck factor in a limit hold'em tourney is very great. On the right day, anyone who can breathe and count to ten could make the final table at a limit hold'em tourney.
2. There are many many more skilled limit hold'em players than any other kind. Many more people play limit hold'em than any other type of poker. Very very few people play no limit hold'em in live games. It's a miniscule portion of the regular poker playing population. Same for the other non-limit-hold'em games. Thus, the "cream rises" in no limit tourneys and pot limit omaha and duece to seven but NOT in limit hold'em.
The edge for a world class limit hold'em player over a good limit hold'em player is just not that great. Anyone who entered the tourney with even mediocre limit hold'em skills had probably the same +EV as Phil Hellmuth and Scotty Nguyen and Ted Forrest (minus the ear piece he he -- THAT WAS A JOKE!) and any other world class player.
Lastly, the Paradise Poker tournaments are 10 man shootouts with a quickly escalating blind structure. It is almost all luck at that point. There is no time for a skilled player to weather the vagaries of luck.
Therefore, Phil and Danny Negreanu and Annie Duke and all the rest of the gang could play Paradise Poker tourneys non stop for the rest of their lives and probably do no better than you or I, which in all honesty, is not all that great.
natedogg
.,.,.,.,.
"Therefore, Phil and Danny Negreanu and Annie Duke and all the rest of the gang could play Paradise Poker tourneys non stop for the rest of their lives and probably do no better than you or I, which in all honesty, is not all that great. "
I played a couple dozen tournies at Paradise and never have I seen a situation that demonstrates so clearly the significance of the rake.
Playing the $100 events with no rake, if you come in third place every other tournament, or second place every third tournament, or first place every fifth tournament, you'd be a break-even player. That alone was disheartening. But wait! What about the nine-bucks juice?
Assuming that you bust out early sometimes, it costs about $10 per hour to play those tournies. So if you play 40 hours in a week, you'd have to maintain the average win rate above, PLUS an additional first place win of $500, to overcome the $400 cost of playing and make a whopping $100.
And sure, there is some dead money. But plenty of good players too. I think it's unbeatable in the long haul.
Tommy
I read the article and was a little skeptical. He says the cream rises, and then names all the players who won and then says, "there you have it, the cream." He could put random strings in there and the premise would be the same. I am definitely not saying that Scotty Nguyen is not a good poker player, but at least one of the named players is a fish.
JG
I was pleaying 15-30 Holdem at the Taj when this hand came up. Although i like to play, i will fully acknowledge that my game needs alot of work.
I was in the small blind and saw the 10-9 of spades, there were 7 callers to me and i called and so did the bid blind, making the pot nine handed. Now this game was fairly loose, with one guy ramming and jamming every hand no matter what he had, and a second guy calling every hand, no matter what he had.......in fact, both guys had turned over A-J suited with a board of 3-10-k-5-6 with the bettor betting on the end and the caller calling.......it was an interesting table.
Anyway, the flop came Qs-5c-6c, the big blind bet and there were 5 callers to me..........long story short, i hit runner runner spade to win the pot, but i am not sure if my call on the flop was correct, marginal, or horrible. Since i did not fear a reraise, i thought that i had the right price to take off a card.
COmments would be appreciated
Maveric
Your call was something between marginal and horrible. I would say just plain bad would be a fitting characterization. Your primary "out" was runner-runner spades. The probability of this happening is about 4% [(10/47)*(9/46)] so your drawing odds are about 24-to-1. Now your correct pot odds are about 15-to-1. But it is really worse than this because you are having to pay money on the turn to see the river when you hit your first spade. Adding to your woes is the fact that you have a lot of opponents and your draw is not to the nuts. In other words, you may hit your hand and lose anyway. This will cost you some serious money when this happens. There is also a two-flush and a two-straight on the flop which means that some heavy action may break out on the expensive street so it may cost you more than just one double bet on the turn to see the river even when you hit your first spade. Scenarios may well unfold where it is costing you $15 right now plus $30 or $60 or even more on the turn to keep playing. This all damages your implied odds enormously. You have a clear fold on the flop despite the great pot odds.
Pot odds of 14 to 1.
Your outs are a non nut runner runner flush and some runner runner straights. I would judge this to be at most two outs, which means you need pot odds of about 24 to 1.
You have an easy fold.
It is probably right to fold but it is nowhere near as clearcut as the above two posters say. The biggest problem with the hand is that you could make your backdoor hand but still lose. If you knew you wouldn't you should in fact call. The two answers above forget two things: (1)The backdoor straight is not insignificant. Its about 3%. You also could make running trips. (2)The fact that you have to call again on fourth st when you hit your spade is probably no big deal since there will probably be about three other players putting in that fourth st. bet.
All I can say to your post Dave is that I would sure like you in my game if you would consider calling in this spot.
Poker according to all you experts is to put your money in the pot when you have the best of it and protect it when you dont. If not your just gambling it up.
Welcome to Saturday night at "Joes' House", lol.
I didn't say I would consider it. I said it was a closer decision than the others thought. Where is your game?
T9h – Qs6c5c 15SB
When I say this is two outs, I am attempting to factor in all relevant factors, so that the two outs can be directly matched against the pot odds.
While there are lots of straights, you will only be able to call a raise on the turn if a ?h, Jd or Js hit Oh! and 8s & 8d.
Hmmm that’s nearly 6%, and as the better is on your left you might get a chance to draw to one of the gut shots. Still can’t see calling even one bet if the hand pairs on the turn?
OK maybe three outs is closer, still an easy fold.
Lets do the math, I remember once I thought one shouldn't call w/a backdoor flush draw and 3 to a straight getting something like 19-1. However I was wrong.
I wonder how often T9s makes the straight (w/no flush on board), or a flush.
P(KJ or J8 or 87(w/no flush))+P(flush)
= 1/(47C2)[8+8+8+10C2]=~6.4% which is 14 2/3 to 1.
What if no one has a club draw?
Then P(T9wins)=1/(47C2)[14+14+14+10C2]=~8.4%, which is 11.4 to 1.
I don't think this is such a bad call, actually a little more analysis is needed (eg run the scenarios, but if they will pay you if you hit and it pbly won't cost more than 1 bet on the turn (if you see a favorable turn), I think this really isn't a bad call). Note the runner runner straights really make this call, w/o it you should fold.
you know, there are a lot more things non-mathematical to consider about this hand that nobody is ocnsidering. for one, your opponents may not put you on this hand when it does hit, and you will probably be able to check raise the river or raise, or bet and reraise because your opponents will not suspect this hand from you. then when you turn it over, you are advertising your 'horrible' call and winning the pot!! what a bonus!! you get to show how 'loose' you play, yet you also drag the pot. your opponents may respect your bets a bit more on the river and you may be able to steal a few more pots with this image. it will also give you bigger pots when you happen to slowplay because nobody will be afraid of your hand when you call and your 'draw' doesn't get there, and they will pay off the hand you had the whole time. there are many reasons to play a hand that may look mathematically incorrect. sometimes no limit players will call with bad drawing odds because they know that if they do hit, they will bust their opponents. overall, anytime you say that a situation is a clear cut fold, or is an easy raise, or a have-to call, there is something that they are not considering. very very rarely is there a clear move that is so overwhelmingly obvious that you should be banned from a cardrrom if you DON'T make that move. careful about playing too formulaic or your opponents will eventually be able to beat you if your style is too rigid.
I have recently read and re-read HPFAP and first of I would like to thank David and mason for writing it, its the best book i have read on the game.
I have been playing poker for about 8 months now, and when I first started I thought(as many players think) that I was a good player but most of my early success came from more then my fair share of luck. When my luck ran out I thought that I was very unlucky but in fact I wasn't that good. I played too many hands esspecially UTG adn I didn't realize it. I never payed any attention who was already in the game and the fact that my hand could be dominated. I would call a raise with any two face cards or small pairs. I would play hands like small pairs j10o q10o kj qj UTG or in early possition with out second thought now they go in the muck.
Blinds: I hardly ever call (steal)raises out of my blind, or marginal hands in multi-way pots. But when some one tries to steal my blind I will ocasonally call out of my blind no matter what i have and if I see a flop that does not have many possibilites I will bet and the raiser will fold usually on the flop on the turn. Its great to have a tight image! They figure that since i called the raise i must be hudge, and i like that :)
I also love the semi-bluffing part of the game I have learned,(i remember when I first started people told me there is no bluffing in this game and i belived them.)Those extra bets u can pick up really add up.
I would like some opinion on some playes that i begain to do regularly:
1. if some one raises I will re-raise with a medium pocket pair to isolate them the only time that I won't is when the raiser will only raise with large pocket pairs. IF I big cards come on the flop and I am bet into I will fold or if Im checkraised will fold as well and people always asume that I had QQ or JJ no one ever expects a medium pocket pair. I have found this to be a very profitable play for me and would like you're opinion on it.
2.occasonally raising on the button with 99, and suited Ax or qjs.
I have realized that there is alot more to this game then most people or even I realize. I find that my reads save me alot of money, I am able to fold top pair on the turn when it looks like im against 2 pair of better kicker, a couple of months back I could have never been able to do that.
I would like to thank all the people that stress game sellection on this forum.
I still have a long way to go and hopfully i get there
thanx for all the help
In a lot of the hands that are analyzed I see what I perceive as an aversion to doing any kind of mathematical analysis of the EV involved in determining the right play. Since I know Jim and Vince are open minded and can take it I'm going to use them as my whipping boys but they aren't the only ones. In some fairly recent posts Vince was IMO deriding the use of game theory in any kind of analysis of poker situations to the point of being near hostility IMO. Vince I really believe that if you haven't tried it you shouldn't knock it. In the most recent version of Mason's hands to discuss it was pointed out by more than one poster that having a player call a bet when the odds didn't justify the call resulted in a higher EV for Mason. I pointed out that IMO Morton's rule didn't apply in this situation either. However, none of the mathematical arguements made the least impression on Jim. Here is what he responed to me in the final comments portion of the thread:
"Tom, it would be difficult to formulate a math model for a garden-variety situation like this. It would be too assumption-driven. We are dealing with incomplete information just like with all hold'em situations. There may well be certain scenarios that unfold where calling might be the best play. There may be scenarios where folding might be the best play. But I strongly suspect that if you could survey a large number of good players you would find that the majority of them would raise. There is no way to prove what the "right" answer is."
Sorry Jim your post is major cop out. Difficult? maybe. Impossible? No. Worthwhile? yes. If you go back and read the Theory of Poker you'll find a very good analysis of a hold'em situation where the information is incomplete. Furthermore in your responses to this thread you never discussed the situation in light of the most important factor of all in determining the right play, the size of the pot. In fact you ignored every mathematical arguement presented. As far as this statement:
"But I strongly suspect that if you could survey a large number of good players you would find that the majority of them would raise."
Puuhhhhlease!!!!!!!! Let's just say that I would rather trust mathematical models than a players survey.
I'm not a math wizard but I do know that it is very worthwhile and insightful to analyze poker situations mathematically. Many times it can reveal a play as the right play when we would not have thought so. I've been playing hold'em for about 18 years and as time goes on I find that my usage of mathematical analysis increases more as time goes on. Enough said out.
"But I strongly suspect that if you could survey a large number of good players you would find that the majority of them would raise."
If you were to define a good player as someone who wins a small bet or more per hour at $15-$30 or $20-$40 then I think the above statement is accurate.
If you were to define a good player as someone who wins a big bet per hour at higher limits than these, and there are only a very small number of people like this, I don't think you would get the same answer.
"I'm going to use them as my whipping boys but they aren't the only ones."
Tom,
I probably downplay the significance of EV more than Jim and Vince combined, but I'm definitely not hostile about it, so let's see what we got here.
<< In the most recent version of Mason's hands to discuss it was pointed out by more than one poster that having a player call a bet when the odds didn't justify the call resulted in a higher EV for Mason.>>
I see that as an understatement of fact.
My problem with the EV-approach has to do with how heavily the EV considerations get weighted compared to other things. In Mason's hand, if we look at one betting option on one street, then sure, Mason makes theoretical money by letting the guy draw with bad odds for one small bet, as opposed to blowing him out with a raise. That's nothing more than accurate number crunching, right?
But in my opinion, there are other factors that can be, and often are, sufficiently important to justify making a play that is known to be "mathematically wrong" at that moment in the hand.
How does one assign a number to the value of earning last position with a flop raise? How does one assign a number to being the aggressor? How does one assign a number to the info gained by raising the flop that in turn allows for the increased likelihood of making good plays on the turn and river?
Tom, this is a sincere question. When you are playing, how much EV-type thinking goes on in your mind in the heat of battle? Say, on Mason's hand, it's your turn on the flop. Do you consciously think in terms of EV, and the live-one's drawing odds, while you are deciding whether or not to raise?
"if you haven't tried it you shouldn't knock it."
I love the CONCEPT of EV. For example, the first time I heard about EV, that calling with a draw in some situations has a +EV, even though I have the worst hand at the time, it hit me like a bolt. It's a great way to think about those betting decisions for which it can be usefully applied.
But I don't think it's a viable way to actually play, at least not for me, because in order to come up with useful numbers in mid-hand, I'd need to assign numerical values to things like, "Oh, he's ordering food right now, that means he'll play a touch tighter preflop, narrowing his range of hands to . . . "
Or maybe I just don't understand EV, and I'm not kidding. Please be gentle.
< But how much of that analyses is useful at the table? I think the perceived rift between math-types and non-math types results simply from the varying opinions of where math can be usefully APPLIED, not from a disagreement as to the importance of math in poker in general.
For me it always comes back to weighting parameters. If I'm last to act on the turn, facing a bet, and I have a draw against a lone opponent who will bet the river no matter what and call if I raise, I can base my calling decision entirely on math.
If he might not call when I hit and raise, then the math moves slightly down in weighting to the same degree as my uncertainty as to his action.
If he might not bet out, if he might check and fold, etc. Each "might" lessens math's importance and shifts the weighting gradually toward other things. In most situations, there are enough "mights" to warrant that I focus primarily on figuring them out, forced to use info other than math because it simply doesn't apply to food and tilt and recently-played-hands and his-wife-just-left-him and the countless other peripherals that can affect a betting situation.
Looking forward to your reply,
Tommy
All these things have an EV impact even if we can't define them precisely. When we adjust for them we are really just throwing it all into the equation and ballparking everything. I think the main arguments from players regarding "intuitive thinking" or "people-thinking" vs. "EV-type thinking" are mostly due to perspective, and there really is no conflict (except in the eyes of the beholder). The fact that some people are more inclined in certain directions causes them to favor those approaches, but it is really all a large multifaceted equation with some parts only being estimated. The faster one can derive a good estimate of everything combined and map out a few likely future scenarios the better off one is in poker (as long as one can then execute the necessary actions, hehe).
In sum I basically believe that it is all EV, but that what players put into the equation (and the answers they derive) is what accounts for so many varying perspectives (and of course different plays).
Tommy,
You suggested: "My problem with the EV-approach has to do with how heavily the EV considerations get weighted compared to other things."
What other considerations do you think should be taken into account? What your horoscope looks like? What lucky numbers appeared in your fortune cookie? The color of the vehicle parked closest to the cardroom's main entrance? I suppose one's tolerance to risk could be considered, but it usually won't have much effect on your decisions if you are playing with a sufficient bankroll for your game.
--------------------------
You wrote: "But in my opinion, there are other factors that can be, and often are, sufficiently important to justify making a play that is known to be 'mathematically wrong' at that moment in the hand."
There are lots of reasons for making "mathematically wrong" plays at the poker table. Perhaps being the "alpha male" at your table is more important than making lots of money. Perhaps you are playing to have fun and having fun means getting involved in lots of hands. There are dozens more.
If your goal is to maximize your expected profit, however, then I'm not sure what factors would justify making a "mathematically wrong" play. Perhaps you mean factors that you haven't bothered to include in your mathematical analysis. In that case, why not include them in your mathematical analysis?
--------------------
You asked: "How does one assign a number to the value of earning last position with a flop raise?"
By using mathematical models and comparing hand outcomes (and their likelihoods of occuring) where you earn last position with a flop raise against hand outcomes (and their likelihoods) where you do not. Compare their average results.
You also asked: "How does one assign a number to being the aggressor?"
By using mathematical models and comparing hand outcomes (and their likelihoods) where you act aggressively against hand outcomes (and their likelihoods) where you do not.
And you asked: "How does one assign a number to the info gained by raising the flop that in turn allows for the increased likelihood of making good plays on the turn and river?"
By using mathematical models and comparing hand outcomes (and their likelihoods) where you gain this information against hand outcomes (and their likelihoods) where you do not.
------------------------
You asked: "When you are playing, how much EV-type thinking goes on in your mind in the heat of battle?"
Different players can perform different amounts of mathematical analysis in their heads during the heat of battle. Many players, however, can perform plenty of mathematical analysis away from the table and then take advantage of this information during play.
Lots of players, for instance, know that with nine full outs and two cards to come, your chances of completing your flush draw are approximately 35.0 percent. Not many players compute this number during the heat of battle.
---------------------
You wrote: "I love the CONCEPT of EV. . . . It's a great way to think about those betting decisions for which it can be usefully applied."
Can you think of a betting decision for which it cannot be usefully applied?
-----------------------
You suggested: "But I don't think it's a viable way to actually play, at least not for me, because in order to come up with useful numbers in mid-hand, I'd need to assign numerical values to things like, 'Oh, he's ordering food right now, that means he'll play a touch tighter preflop, narrowing his range of hands to . . . '"
So, do you simply ignore the fact that he is ordering food right now and will play tighter preflop? If not, how do you take this fact into account? You might not consciously assign a specific numerical value to this fact, but I'm guessing you might attempt to estimate how it effects the EV (although you might not think about it in these terms) of your various betting options.
--------------------------
You wrote: "I think the perceived rift between math-types and non-math types results simply from the varying opinions of where math can be usefully APPLIED, not from a disagreement as to the importance of math in poker in general."
I think much of the rift comes from not understanding the many factors that actually can be accounted for in the mathematics of poker.
--------------------------
You noted: "For me it always comes back to weighting parameters."
Isn't that just another way of saying that you attempt to estimate the different EVs of your different playing options?
---------------------------
You explained: "In most situations, there are enough 'mights' to warrant that I focus primarily on figuring them out, forced to use info other than math because it simply doesn't apply to food and tilt and recently-played-hands and his-wife-just-left-him and the countless other peripherals that can affect a betting situation."
Of course mathematics can be applied to these kinds of things. In mathematical modeling, you could refer to those "mights" and "peripherals" as "variables" or game tree "edges."
----------------------------
I think you take take a more mathematical approach to the game than you realize.
Mark,
Your post overwhelmed with me insight and info. Sincerest thanks for your time.
You wrote: "Lots of players, for instance, know that with nine full outs and two cards to come, your chances of completing your flush draw are approximately 35.0 percent. Not many players compute this number during the heat of battle."
I do! I track the pot size with no effort and I know the drawing odds for whatever number of outs with one or two cards to come. And I use that in the heat of battle. To me, that's poker math. (I'll call this "hard math" for easy reference in this thread. ) It comes up constantly, it matters, it works, and, and this is the gist of my query, it is FAR more quantifyable than this:
Me: " ...he's ordering food right now, that means he'll play a touch tighter preflop, narrowing his range of hands to . . . "
You wrote: " ... I'm guessing you might attempt to estimate how it [the food thing] effects the EV ... "
Of course an occasional betting decision would be effected by the food. What I don't understand is how you can talk about drawing-odds and food-influence (<--a soft-math parameter) in the same breath, when one is absolutely calculatable and the other isn't.
------------------
You wrote: "Of course mathematics can be applied to these kinds of things. In mathematical modeling, you could refer to those "mights" and "peripherals" as "variables" or game tree "edges."
I had no idea there were mathematical models that could incorporate things like a potentially-info-gaining-by-raise, or that a player is eating, or that he had a bad day at the office, or, Mark? Seriously, can mathematical models of such things really make me more money?
That segues into my next question. The importance of soft math. (Please don't interpret condescension in my wording. I'm trying to sort the black and white out of what looks gray to me.)
I hate using myself as a case history but I've got no choice here. I've made something like $400,000 at low and mid-limit hold'em over ten years, and that makes me think that your thorough understanding of EV is not required to win. What I'm wondering is, to what degree does a thorough understanding of EV improve results?
In and out of poker, I'm more artsy than mathy. If I arrange my bookshelves efficiently, but also with visuals that please me, the visual aspect of the arrangement is like a hobby. Is your study (and others) of EV like a hobby in this sense, more of a trait-driven activity than a profit-driven one? ---------------
You wrote: "I think much of the rift comes from not understanding the many factors that actually can be accounted for in the mathematics of poker."
I'll concede without understanding it, that the human elements of poker 'actually can be accounted for in the mathematics of poker.'
My contentions are that 1) lumping cards-and-bets math in with food-and-emotion math, if that is what you do, is an intellectually dishonest and misleading usage of the word "math." 2) the detailed understanding and usage of EV mathematical models that include soft math is orders of magnitute less important than a like understanding of plain old hard math.
Tommy
Tommy,
Earlier, I wrote: "Lots of players, for instance, know that with nine full outs and two cards to come, your chances of completing your flush draw are approximately 35.0 percent. Not many players compute this number during the heat of battle."
You replied: "I do! I track the pot size with no effort and I know the drawing odds for whatever number of outs with one or two cards to come. And I use that in the heat of battle. To me, that's poker math. (I'll call this 'hard math' for easy reference in this thread.)"
I think you missed my point. I'm guessing you don't actually sit there and calculate these drawing odds during the heat of battle. Instead, you probably have memorized these numbers that you or someone else leisurely computed in the comfort of your own home.
And just as you find these numbers helpful at the poker tables, I suspect you probably would find that other numbers also would improve your game. Just because most of us cannot compute these other numbers "in the heat of battle" doesn't mean we cannot do the math at home and apply the results in future games.
A more concrete example might help illustrate my point. Suppose you found yourself heads up on the turn with an opponent who just came all-in. You hold Ac6c and the board shows Tc9s3c/4h. How many small bets need to be in the pot (ignore rake and tip) for you to call if you put her on any set or T-9? What if you put her on any set, T-9, or A-T? And if you put her on any set, T-9, A-T, and any 8-7 hand that includes exactly one club?
If you practice calculating these numbers away from the table, you might find that you can come up with some rather accurate estimates in the heat of battle. If you practice enough, you might even nail the right answer quite frequently.
I don't know if that example qualifies meets your definition of "hard math," but I consider it to be math. Some would argue that it is "instinct," "guts," or "feel." For them, it might be better described as "subconscious math."
-----------------------------
You wrote: >>[Hard math] comes up constantly, it matters, it works, and, and this is the gist of my query, it is FAR more quantifyable than this:
Me: " ...he's ordering food right now, that means he'll play a touch tighter preflop, narrowing his range of hands to . . . "<<
If by "FAR more quantifyable" you mean "easier to memorize," then you probably are correct. But it isn't that hard to quantify the effect of ordering food: simply describe the range of hands (and the likelihood of each hand) that you expect he plays after ordering.
How to you guage the effect of ordering food if not by some sort of conscious or subconscious mathematical analysis?
---------------------------
You wondered: "What I don't understand is how you can talk about drawing-odds and food-influence (<--a soft-math parameter) in the same breath, when one is absolutely calculatable and the other isn't."
I hope I've explained why I have trouble accepting your premise.
---------------------------
You asked: "Seriously, can mathematical models of such things really make me more money?"
I hope I've explain why I think they really can.
---------------------------
You wrote: "I've made something like $400,000 at low and mid-limit hold'em over ten years, and that makes me think that your thorough understanding of EV is not required to win. What I'm wondering is, to what degree does a thorough understanding of EV improve results?"
I'm not saying you need to consciously make all these "soft math" calculations to win at poker. I would say, however, that most serious players probably would have even greater profits if they spent more time thinking about "soft math" issues.
----------------------------
You asked: Is your study (and others) of EV like a hobby in this sense, more of a trait-driven activity than a profit-driven one?"
Personally, I'm more interested in the challenge of studying mathematical models (although the additional profits are a nice side effect). I won't speculate on how others feel about this.
----------------------------
You wrote: "My contentions are that 1) lumping cards-and-bets math in with food-and-emotion math, if that is what you do, is an intellectually dishonest and misleading usage of the word 'math.'"
I disagree. It might be a broader definition than what you would use, but I think it is a commonly accepted one.
You continued: ". . . 2) the detailed understanding and usage of EV mathematical models that include soft math is orders of magnitute less important than a like understanding of plain old hard math."
Again, I disagree. My experience indicates otherwise. But you might be including more in "hard math" than I am detecting.
Mark,
You are one thorough poster. Are you the same guy folks were moaning about a few months back?
"I don't know if that example qualifies meets your definition of "hard math," but I consider it to be math. Some would argue that it is "instinct," "guts," or "feel." For them, it might be better described as "subconscious math." "
I think "subconscious math" is an appropriate coinage. You're taking the hardest math, the individual calculations based on each of the opponent's possible holdings, then assigning a probablity that those hands are actually held by the opponent, then crunching numbers. Right?
Because the assignment-of-probabilities is math that slithers away from verifyable quantities, I'd say this is more like medium-math, leaving soft-math available for those quantities that don't involve cards.
< That was a most illuminating paragraph. I'm seeing the picture now.
< We're diving into how the brain works. I can't rebut the argument that says all decisions are made in a way that resembles mathematical analysis. The key word there is "resembles." But what your words suggest to me is that when we "guage an effect" of anything, an actual mathematical analysis is inherently in play. I don't think so.
We might be semantically stuck here. I'm used to that happening. :-)
--------------------------- "I'm not saying you need to consciously make all these "soft math" calculations to win at poker. I would say, however, that most serious players probably would have even greater profits if they spent more time thinking about "soft math" issues."
Several times you've mentioned the think-about-it-at-home aspect of this topic and I keep forgetting to say I thoroughly agree that take-home ideas can be employed in-the-heat-battle and that this ongoing process is very important.
----------------------------
Me: " Is your study (and others) of EV like a hobby in this sense, more of a trait-driven activity than a profit-driven one?"
You: "Personally, I'm more interested in the challenge of studying mathematical models."
Understood.
----------------------------
Me: "My contentions are that 1) lumping cards-and-bets math in with food-and-emotion math, if that is what you do, is an intellectually dishonest and misleading usage of the word 'math.'"
You: "I disagree. It might be a broader definition than what you would use, but I think it is a commonly accepted one. "
I defer to your expertise on the academic definition of "math." In other words, I don't want to go there. :-)
Tommy
Tommy,
You wrote: "You are one thorough poster. Are you the same guy folks were moaning about a few months back?"
Some of those folks were moaning about my being thorough. :)
It looks like we are getting closer to understanding each other's points. Unfortunately, I don't have time to provide a proper response, since I'm preparing to leave town for a few days.
Perhaps we can pick up where we left off after my return.
The only thinkg I would add to what Mark wrote is that I believe you can train your mind to think deeper and faster in the "heat of battle."
Tom,
While you are right that doing this "ev stuff" can often be imprecise, a little fuzzy, and all but impossible to do at the table, there are two things that distinguish it from a lot of the hand waving that goes on here.
1) It offers up concrete things to criticize. I don't know if you've read the archives here, but there used to be a college student named "scott" who put a lot of effort into these kind of analyses, and there were golden.
2) There *is* time to do it away from the table. This is primarily useful because the *next* time you are in that situation (or a similar one), you'll have a much stronger understanding of where the correct decision is coming from.
- Andrew
I agree that it all comes down to EV, and further believe that even when we act upon psychological or other specific insights we are assigning a weight to their importance and we are also assigning a probability of success to the actions we take. This is true even if we do it all unconsciously or subconsciously.
I too find that my usage of a mathematical approach to poker has increased over the years, and shamefacedly admit that it is purely due to deep-rooted laziness that I have not developed this approach more extensively.
To do a "mathematical analysis" of this would require making a lot of assumptions about what the small blind would have and what the limper might have. One thing is clear. You could not assume that they held random cards because people don't voluntarily make bets with random holdings. Consider the small blind. He limped in. He is betting a flop of J-9-2 into two opponents one of whom limped and the other who could have random cards. He did not raise preflop. He is not attempting a check-raise on the flop. So what hands might he have given that you have J-3 and it only costs the small blind 1/3 of a bet to take a flop? If he has a pair it might be TT,88,77,66,55,44,33. With AA,KK,QQ, or JJ he might have raised from his small blind preflop but who knows? Would he bet the flop with pocket jacks, nines, or deuces having flopped a set? Who knows? What about suited cards. Would he play any suited ace,king, queen, etc.? Any two suited cards? What about big cards? Could he have AK,AQ,AJ,AT,KQ,KJ,KT,QJ,QT,JT, etc.? Would have raised preflop with any of these? Given that he did not raise preflop can we rule out any of these? Would be lead at the flop with just overcards? Would he play any ace for one chip from his small blind? How about any king or queen? Would he lead at the flop with just one overcard? Can we assume that when he leads at the flop he has a jack, a nine, or a deuce in his hand? Could he have a draw with T8,QT,Q8,87? Would he lead with these hands as well? Given that two of the four jacks are accounted for, what are the respective probabilities of him having a top pair of jacks and be leading here versus having a middle pair of nines, a bottom pair of deuces, a pocket pair, or a come hand?
Not to be facetious but when you get this figured out, then tell me the range of hands the "live one" who just limped might have. How does a "live one" handle a raise on the cheap street versus a call? Do we assume that he will call for one bet but play decent poker when it is two bets to him and always fold? Maybe we should assume that he will play X% of the time if it is one bet to him but only Y% of the time if it is two bets to him. But then X and Y would vary depending upon his hand holding and how it fits that flop.
The point is Tom that there is no "mathematical" way to determine what is right here because there are simply too many variables and one always has to make simplifying assumptions in order to run a model and get an answer. But the answer you get may well be more a function of the assumptions you made rather than the realities of the situation.
In closing, the technique of polling competent players for their opinions is a valid one when no analytical or closed form mathematical answer is possible. With regard to using hourly earn as the metric to determine how valid someone's opinion is, the point is mute because no one has access to the personal playing records of all the good players assuming such records even existed or could be trusted.
Jim,
You wrote: "The point is Tom that there is no 'mathematical' way to determine what is right here because there are simply too many variables and one always has to make simplifying assumptions in order to run a model and get an answer."
It can be difficult to mathematically compute accurate answers. That doesn't mean it is impossible to do so. The more accurate you want those answers to be, the more difficult it generally will be.
If you want to be absolutely certain of your answer, then mathematics won't always provide such an answer. But neither will polling experts.
You also wrote: "But the answer you get may well be more a function of the assumptions you made rather than the realities of the situation."
If that's the case, then you could make more accurate assumptions and/or create a more complex mathematical model.
You suggested: "In closing, the technique of polling competent players for their opinions is a valid one when no analytical or closed form mathematical answer is possible."
If a poker problem is too complex for a mathematical analysis to produce an answer that is accurate enough for your purposes, then what makes you think a poll of competent players will provide a more accurate answer?
Mark Grover wrote: "If a poker problem is too complex for a mathematical analysis to produce an answer that is accurate enough for your purposes, then what makes you think a poll of competent players will provide a more accurate answer?"
I believe Tom and Jim are correct in that a group of experts could produce a more accurate answer than poorly understood math.
As an example, in pari-mutual betting (specifically at the horse race track), it has been demonstrated by Hausch et al [1] that a group of people can produce accurate estimations where math has yet to provide as accurate an answer. Hausch discovered that in pari-mutual betting, the amount of money bet on a specific horse to win, when divided by the total amount of the win pool, is a reasonable estimation of the probability that that specific horse will win. As you are aware, the money bet in a pari-mutual system represents a kind of vote that each bettor makes for the horse(s) they believe will win, place, or show.
While not all of the people betting at the racetrack can be considered experts, they do seem to posses some collective ability to do what mathematical analysis has thus far failed to do. Heck, some of them are even using horoscope predictions and others pick a horse because of the owner’s name or the jockey’s colors.
Therefore, I believe Jim and Tom are correct that a group of experts could produce a more accurate answer intuitively, when the math is too complex to be well understood.
William
[1] Hausch, Donald B., William T. Ziemba and Mark Rubinstein (1981) “Efficiency of the market for Racetrack betting” Management Science, Vol. 27, December 1981, The Institute of Management Science.
William,
You wrote: "As an example, in pari-mutual betting (specifically at the horse race track), it has been demonstrated by Hausch et al [Dec. 1981] that a group of people can produce accurate estimations where math has yet to provide as accurate an answer."
The accuracy of this study's conclusions, of course, depends on which mathematical model(s) were compared with the pari-mutual betting.
During 1983-84, when I played around with jai alai (another type of pari-mutual gambling), my mathematical model easily outperformed the betting public. It even made a profit despite the 18+ percent house "rake." I did not publish my model.
Furthermore, I knew people whose mathematical models were making profits at horse racing. They did not make their models public, either.
And trust me when I tell you that mathematical analysis and computers have come a long way since 1981.
It is possible that the answer you reach from your own mathematical analysis would be less accurate than the answer reached by Jim's polling competent poker players. That doesn't mean the answer from a better mathematical analysis also would be inferior.
Hi Mark,
I understand you and many others have been able to out perform the general public with pari-mutual betting and to even make a net profit. I have made good money at the ponies for many years myself and as a matter of fact I did not publish my model either, but that is not the point. The point is, neither you nor anyone else of whom I am aware can outperform the public at predicting the win probability, on a race to race basis, based upon the limited information available to the public from which they make their prediction.
You ask the question: “If a poker problem is too complex for a mathematical analysis to produce an answer that is accurate enough for your purposes, then what makes you think a poll of competent players will provide a more accurate answer? “. My answer is that it has been demonstrated in the literature on various occasions that a group of people (not necessarily experts) can produce a reliable recommendation even though the math is not yet understood or exceedingly complex. I’m surprised you did not know this Mark.
Mark Wrote:
“And trust me when I tell you that mathematical analysis and computers have come a long way since 1981.”
Actually, I don’t need to trust you on this issue since I am one of the ones involved it the day-to-day march forward of mathematical modeling.
Mark Wrote:
“It is possible that the answer you reach from your own mathematical analysis would be less accurate than the answer reached by Jim's polling competent poker players. That doesn't mean the answer from a better mathematical analysis also would be inferior.”
I agree; you are completely correct Mark although I might have worded it differently. One comment though, my “own mathematical analysis” may not be as inferior as you seem to assume and it would have been better if you had not personalized that inference.
Mark, I agree with the other statements you made to Tom and I think your response was excellent, but you happen to be incorrect regarding your belief that a group of experts could not produce an adequately accurate answer when the math is too complex.
Later, William
William,
You wrote: "The point is, neither you nor anyone else of whom I am aware can outperform the public at predicting the win probability, on a race to race basis, based upon the limited information available to the public from which they make their prediction."
My mathematical model for jai alai easily outperformed the public at predicting the win probability, on a game-to-game basis, based upon the same information available to the public. I also am aware of several mathematical models for horse racing that did so as well. It would be very surprising if my model could make a profit without being able to outperform the public in this respect.
-----------------------
I asked: "If a poker problem is too complex for a mathematical analysis to produce an answer that is accurate enough for your purposes, then what makes you think a poll of competent players will provide a more accurate answer?"
You replied: "My answer is that it has been demonstrated in the literature on various occasions that a group of people (not necessarily experts) can produce a reliable recommendation even though the math is not yet understood or exceedingly complex."
That doesn't answer my question. I don't dispute that people can produce "reasonable estimates" when the mathematics is complex. I just wondered why Jim felt that good mathematical models couldn't produce even better estimates.
Jim seems to feel that if mathematical analysis cannot provide a definitive poker answer, then we are better to rely on polling of competent players. I disagreed and pointed out that a non-definitive answer from mathematical analysis still could be more accurate than a poll result. I'm sorry if you didn't understand my point.
-----------------------
You wrote: "Mark, I agree with the other statements you made to Tom and I think your response was excellent, but you happen to be incorrect regarding your belief that a group of experts could not produce an adequately accurate answer when the math is too complex."
I don't know if the belief you somehow attributed to me is correct or incorrect. What is an "adequately accurate answer?" When is the math "too complex?" I'd have to understand this belief before I could tell you whether I agree with it or not.
---------------------------
I've learned that it sometimes can be rather pointless discussing these kinds of matters with you. So please forgive me if I fail to explain myself further.
Mark Wrote:
"I just wondered why Jim felt that good mathematical models couldn't produce even better estimates."
A fair question, assuming a good model exists, but that is not how I read what you wrote. I have no problem with this question because you have pre-qualified the answer through using the word 'good'. In this case, I assume that your meaning is that a ‘good’ model would be more accurate or else it would not be ‘good’ by your definition. However, it is also true that the best model currently available may not produce as accurate an answer as a polled result.
"I disagreed and pointed out that a non-definitive answer from mathematical analysis still could be more accurate than a poll result. I'm sorry if you didn't understand my point."
I agree that it 'could' be more accurate than a poll result. However, I also believe that a poll result can produce a more accurate result than a poor model.
The rest of our discussion is off topic, so I will not pursue it further.
William
Just to set the record straight I prefer using mathematical models.
I understand Tom and I agree with you completely.
William
Mark wrote: "If a poker problem is too complex for a mathematical analysis to produce an answer that is accurate enough for your purposes, then what makes you think a poll of competent players will provide a more accurate answer?"
Because it's like running the EV mathematical model multiple times, with each trial using the best estimates of the values of the variables that have been provided by seperate minds.
If I plug in my best-estimates of the variables and come up with an answer, call it A, and you and 20 others do the same using your own estimates, and every one of you comes up with answer B, then surely I'd be forced to reexamine my estimates of the values of the variables, and also my method of deriving said values.
But here again, as I think Jim is saying, all of this can be done in prose, and that is exactly what we DO do here.
Tommy
If 50 players that make 1 small bet per hour give me one opinion on a play and 1 player who is an expert that makes 1 big bet per hour gives me an opinion on the same play that is totally different, whom should I believe?
Believe the 50 players who make one small bet per hour. The guy making one big bet per hour may be a statistical deviate and not be getting the extra bet because of his skill. In large populations where a big luck factor is involved, you will have your statistical deviates. He may be a three, four, or even five sigma deviate.
Tom,
"If 50 players that make 1 small bet per hour give me one opinion on a play and 1 player who is an expert that makes 1 big bet per hour gives me an opinion on the same play that is totally different, whom should I believe?"
The first thing you can believe is that "There's more than one way to skin" has been verified. :-)
Allow me to clarify the orders of magnitude I have in mind. We're talking about 50 very good players (vgp's), and one very very very good player (vvvgp).
I'm tripping over my fingers here trying to think of a play that could get a contradictory opinion from the vgp's and the vvvgp. If such a play existed, it would exist because the vvvgp's reason for the play is beyond the scope of how the vgp's think. That would suggest that if one's abilities are at the vgp's level or lower, it'd be best to go with the vgp's opinion.
Tommy
Tommy,
Earlier, I asked: "If a poker problem is too complex for a mathematical analysis to produce an answer that is accurate enough for your purposes, then what makes you think a poll of competent players will provide a more accurate answer?"
You replied: "Because it's like running the EV mathematical model multiple times, with each trial using the best estimates of the values of the variables that have been provided by seperate minds."
Having multiple people agree on a single set of best values to input into a mathematical model might produce better results than a single person determining those values. Inputting multiple sets of estimates usually will produce multiple results.
.
Tommy,
Earlier, I asked: "If a poker problem is too complex for a mathematical analysis to produce an answer that is accurate enough for your purposes, then what makes you think a poll of competent players will provide a more accurate answer?"
You replied: "Because it's like running the EV mathematical model multiple times, with each trial using the best estimates of the values of the variables that have been provided by seperate minds."
Having multiple people agree on a single set of best values to input into a mathematical model might produce better results than a single person determining those values.
Inputting multiple sets of estimates usually will produce multiple results. If those results are "call" eight times and "raise" twelve times, does this mean the more accurate answer would be: randomly call 40 percent of the time and raise the rest of the time?
"Inputting multiple sets of estimates usually will produce multiple results. If those results are "call" eight times and "raise" twelve times, does this mean the more accurate answer would be: randomly call 40 percent of the time and raise the rest of the time?"
Have you read any books by Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist?
You could replace a few words in your paragraph above and be talking about the countless animal behaviors in which they act on prescribed percentages: do this X percentage of the time, do the other thing Y percentage, etc.
You'd love his stuff.
Tommy
If I understood Mason's final comment, he would have been one of the players who, in your poll, would have answered raise. Yet he felt, upon further reflection, that this was wrong. He should have called, not raised.
You have to, I agree, make some assumptions in trying to figure things out, whether you are trying to figure the math or anything else, but because things are difficult, that doesn't make them impossible. Maybe that's why your buddy R.C. goes into his "huddles": what he's trying to figure out might be difficult, but with time, he can come to the correct (or at least best) conclusion, either mathematically or otherwise. Weak play may signify slow-playing a monster, but if might just be because of a weak hand. To factor in the possibility that the small blind might have continued to slow-play A-A doesn't make much sense.
"To factor in the possibility that the small blind might have continued to slow play A-A doesn't make much sense."
I agree but how do you factor in all the other considerations that I itemized in my post? I don't believe I ever stated that the possibility you cite is one that needs to be considered.
You mentioned the possibility of the small blinds having A-A and thus I assumed you were saying that this was indeed on possibility that needed to be factored into your mathematical analysis.
The math has always been the weakest part of my game, but David's recent (or not so recent, can't remember) rejoinder to Rick and me telling us shame on us when we said a certain problem was not a mathematical one is still correct: while a mathematical calculation may be difficult, and there may indeed be other consideration other than math, to simply not consider the math is usually a mistake.
I agree that most players, myself included, would have answered "raise" to your poll. If the math shows that a call is correct based on the assumptions we've made, then raise is wrong. That is, if we raised because we felt the bettor has a worse hand and the player behind, had, say, K-Q, and the math shows that we would make more money calling, then call is correct and raise is wrong.
"If the math shows that a call is correct based on the assumptions we have made, then a raise is wrong".
I agree but that is a very big "IF". My contention is that based on the assumptions I have outlined, which only apply to the small blind, I don't believe a satisfactory math model could be developed especially when you factor in what the live limper might have. If I am mistaken, then I would welcome Tom, Mark, Mason, Abdul, or anyone else providing the "mathematical analysis" to show that calling is right.
My problem is that one specific scenario is picked to suggest that an unorthodox play would be correct versus the normal play. However, there are numerous other scenarios where the normal play is indeed correct. But these are simply set aside in many cases.
Much of the mathematical analysis done in hold'em is based on preflop play where you can frequently assume that opponents hold random cards. Indeed, preflop play is the most amenable to computer simulation which is one of the reasons why preflop play gets so much coverage in books and articles written about hold'em. But once boardcards appear we are taken out of the world of random probability and into the world of conditional probability where board textures, number of opponents, positional considerations, previous betting actions, current betting actions, and opponent characteristics now come into play. I have yet to see anyone write simulations that adequately address postflop play. This is why Lawrence Hill's articles are of very little value because they typically ignore all the postflop factors and assume that all five boardcards are simply run out without regard to how hands get played.
>>I am mistaken, then I would welcome Tom, Mark, Mason, Abdul, or anyone else providing the "mathematical analysis" to show that calling is right. <<
If I am mistaken I would welcome you to provide the "mathematical analysis" to show that raising is right.
I came into this thread late but feel that I need to comment because over on the medium stakes forum, I agreed with Jim that this problem is not amenable to mathematical analysis. I too would like to know how you can possibly prove mathematically that calling is correct.
Even if this problem and all poker problems can be analyzed mathematically (and the jury is still out on that one as far as I am concerned but I can be persuaded otherwise), do you not agree that there may be shortcuts that can do nearly as good a job or perhaps even a better job. In other words, given that you have to make so many assumptions to make this theoretical mathematical model work, is it not possible that the GIGO principle could cause you to obtain a wholly erroneous solution to the problem?
Woh I don't know where to start. What might satisfy me probably wouldn't satisfy you as far as a model is concerned. Perhaps we could come to a meeting of the minds regarding the characteristics of a model that would lead us to the making some insightful conclusions.
Let me put the problem another way. How small would the pot have to be before you would consider just calling instead of raising? In Mason's hand there were 4 small bets when it got to him. Would you just call if there was 1? How about 2? How about 3? See what I'm getting at? Or is your opinion that it is never right to smooth call?
I had a discussion with Andy via email regarding mathematical analysis and what I see as a flaw in some of the thinking here regarding mathematical analysis. Anyway I stole the computer from my daughter and her friend for 10 minutes and my time is up. Be back later.
"Woh I don't know where to start. What might satisfy me probably wouldn't satisfy you as far as a model is concerned. Perhaps we could come to a meeting of the minds regarding the characteristics of a model that would lead us to the making some insightful conclusions."
I certainly have high regard for your judgment and therefore allow you unfettered discretion in this regard.
"Let me put the problem another way. How small would the pot have to be before you would consider just calling instead of raising? In Mason's hand there were 4 small bets when it got to him. Would you just call if there was 1? How about 2? How about 3? See what I'm getting at? Or is your opinion that it is never right to smooth call?"
There is no doubt that the pot is a puny one. In fact, you simply *can't* have a smaller pot in a 3 player setting i.e. if say, it was just you in the bb and the sb bets out, I certainly think that just calling is the better play (unless you are up against a player who will always 3 bet you if he has a better Jack in which case the raise for info may be worth it but not many players I know play this predictably).
My reasons for raising (as already pointed out by me, Jim, Tommy and others on the medium stakes board and here) do more with other factors such as buying info, making it easier to play the turn and river, gaining position and control of the hand etc. My real question is therefore how do you go about making assumptions for those types of things to get a reliable mathematical answer. And I ask the qusetion not as a challenge but to get an answer for educational purposes.
I don't know, skp-- I mean, how hard can it be? Figure maybe something like this (and if this sounds dumb forgive me, as I readily admit I'm out on a limb here).
Figure the following probabilities:
a) the chances that the sb would bet 2nd pair as opposed to top pair.
b) chances that the live one will overcall with a three out hand
c) chances that the sb will bluff bet (or bet 2nd pair) all the way to the river.
there's certainly more to put in here, but this could be a start. And I know that if the probability of "b' and "c" combined is high then the case for calling suddenly gets stronger, since if you're right-- that the sb has nothing ,and that the live one will call with something like A6- you're basically looking at doubling the size of the pot with a hand that has anywere from a 5-35% chance of losing.
I guess what I'd do is calculate these three probabilities, then try and establish a range of hands that the live one could have and therefore determine what the chances are that he'll draw IF he has one overcard compared to the chances that he'll draw with an even worse hand.
At any rate, if I figure I've got a 50% of doubling the size of this pot and there are probably at most 11 cards that can hurt me, then I'm just callng for sure. In fact, I make this play routinely, although I usually require a top pair of K's.
I don't think it's a bad play, and in fact I'm not sure that playing this way makes the later streets tougher to play at all. Maybe sometimes, but.. consider the live one. What do you do when he calls two cold and the SB calls? Where are you now? And say a Q hits the turn? If you just called on the flop you might be able to just check the turn and see what the live one does. If he bets and the sb calls you can dump.
I've never been much of a math buff, but I'm constantly surprised at what the 'percentages' tell us about poker. I remember a couple years ago David posted a hand where the hero had pocket A's, the board was QQxx and it was two bets cold to the hero. Now at the time it seemed like you could make a fairly compelling case for mucking, but when we discovered that a call was correct IF the two bettor would check the river a mere 5% of the time we all sat back and wondered.
So. I think that mathematicians can play a monstrous role in the development of strategies for HE, and I don't think building a mathematical model for these kinds of things is probably as daunting as it first appears. Just figure all the relevant probabilities and add 'em up (or, whatever you'd do to them. I'm sure you don't just add them).
While I haven't quite understood the total gist of Tom's post, I wouldn't be surprised if what irritates him is what irritates me-- namely, this dogmatic insistence upon 'not giving a free card'. Now I'm not accusing YOU of this, but this certainly is a pervasive sentiment on this forum and I know I get sick of hearing it. Hell, I give free card ALL THE TIME in small pots with wildly aggressive players, since the reward-- namely, greatly expanding the size of a pot which I'm usually a prohibitive favorite to win--- far outweighs the risk-- namely, getting may ass ripped by a four-or-less out hand. Sure, everyone 'says' it's a bad idea, but who is this everyone?? And what proof do they have that the prospect of increasing the size of a pot by 50% or more doesn't compensate for those few times that you get beat?
In the hand in question I might have called the flop and raised the turn IF the SB was a habitual bluffer and a very scary card didn't get there. Although, with the flop being the way it is-- J9x-- I probably would have raised just like anyone else, since I'd just as soon make the live one pay for a gutshot-with-one-overcard draw. Also, if the SB is any kind of player at all he probably wouldn't bluff into a co-ordinated board like this with a live one left to act... but, my suspicion is that the difference between calling and raising is a lot closer than it appears, and if someone ever did build a model for these kinds of hands that we all agreed was a good model I bet many, many players would be surprised at the results.
Just my two cents. And start playing shorhanded :)
Guy
I too don't pay too much attention to the "never give a free card" theory that people always seem to get hung up on. However, it does (obviously) play a bigger role in 3 way pots and where your pair is something like a Jack (as opposed to Kings or Aces).
My inclination to raise in fact is probably not driven by this concept. It has more to do with other factors such as gaining info, gaining position, taking control of the hand, disguising your second pair and drawing hand raises on future hands etc. Those are the factors that I think might be tough to put into the mathematical blender but again, I could certainly be persuaded otherwise.
skp-
You have an excellent point about how the play of one hand could affect the play of the next, and I think (as you) that this would be very difficult to accurately quantify.
Still, I think a model that takes most of the relevant factors into consideration could be constructed. In fact, if you boiled it down, I imagine we could come up with about 10 factors that need to be put in the mix, and all these factors could (I think) be assigned a numerical value. For instance:
If there's a 40% chance that the SB isn't betting a better hand than mine, and there's a 20% he'll keep betting this hand all the way to the river, and there's a 35% chance that the live one will call with a hand that has (on average) 4.3 outs, etc. etc. etc. Something like that, anyway. I'm not presumptuous enough to suggest I could build something like this, but it seems feasible enough (to me, anyway).
Guy
x
I can't Tom. If I could then there would be no debate. Poker is a game of judgement and math has a subservient role. Math is great when all the necessary assumptions are neatly laid out and all the information is readily available. That is why computers can become great chess players and great backgammon players. All the information is out there in these games. Poker is a game of incomplete information. I doubt that a computer program will ever be on the top ten list of great full tabled limit hold'em players.
most of the time i'm playing P/L, so I must keep an eye on pot odds vs drawing odds, and I must think about the player who reraised before the flop, but has now checked, at times I must think about whether or not a guy will come back over the top at me if I raise,etc, etc.---thus I do not understand how, in a live game, there is time for full EV analysis??? Jim
Jim,
You wrote: ". . . thus I do not understand how, in a live game, there is time for full EV analysis???"
There isn't. Your point?
Jim,
You wrote: "Much of the mathematical analysis done in hold'em is based on preflop play where you can frequently assume that opponents hold random cards. Indeed, preflop play is the most amenable to computer simulation which is one of the reasons why preflop play gets so much coverage in books and articles written about hold'em."
If your understanding of mathematical analysis for poker is based on hot-and-cold simulations, then I'm less surprised by your conclusions.
Computing EV for pre-flop betting decisions is not an easy task for good mathematical models. Post-flop EV is much easier to model. At least that's been my experience.
n/t
Amen!
Actually to do the analysis you mention (for MM hand in question) isn't that hard given player profiles and possilbe hands. It is rather tedious though.
I guess Im late to read this, and will read the other responses now...
When I read this it reminds me of a gambling question I was once asked somewhere, by someone at the time who thought he knew all the answers, but I'm not so sure...
A game show host invites a player to "pick a box". There are 3 boxes, and one hides a prize. You pick a box; and then host then opens one of the other boxes, and says to the player, "It's not this box, do you want to change your selection before we find out where the prize is?". The question now is, should you change your selection???
The average non-math house wife would generally say "No", and indeed even my gut hunch would be NO!
Do some thinking on the answer if the game show host didn't know that the box he uncovered was going to be a blank, and the answer is "It doesn't matter if you change".
Do some math on the answer if the game show host did know that the box he uncovered was going to be a blank, and you will find that you double your chance of winning by changing boxes.
So now your answer to the original question might be to just answer with a question back..."Did you know the box you uncovered was a blank before you did it" to the host. (If his answer is yes, then your answer is yes(change), and vice versa).
But you think about it some more, and then say to yourself, "By changing, it can only get better at best, and stay the same at worst, so why bother with this "answer a question with a question", and just say "Yes".
All sounds sensible.
BUT think about it some more.
What if the game show host only gives you that option if you had it right in the first place. Now you are actually doing yourself a big injustice by changing, especially after being so smart to do all the math. The house wife gut feeling was correct!!!
Whilst I myself do value mathematical models very much, people using math have to be so careful, especially with poker.
I remember now that the question came from an issue of Australian Skeptics about 9 months ago I estimate. The question is answered here far more fully than it was in the publication by the author, and indeed I should let them know this post out of curtesy.
Spikey,
I don't think what you are saying is correct.
I don't think it matters, if the game show host (call him Monty), knows where the prize is or not.
But this is based on the proviso he will show you another door. If we allow the possibility of him not showing a door things do change (viz like the scenario he will show a door a disproportionate # of times when you are right).
I don't see how an honest Monty will change your probability of winning.
Lets work this out like all probability questions should be worked out... by spewing out the equally likely outcomes...
Here are the 3 boxes shown 6 times to show the different outcomes, assume you always choose Box 1 to start with, and then Monty chooses a box. I have shown Monty's choice in capital. If an 'N', then it is the situation outlined, if a 'Y' then he just uncovered the prize and is not applicable (we are only looking at the times that he drew a blank).
B1 B2 B3 If stay If change y N n win lose y n N win lose n Y n N/A N/A n y N lose win n N y lose lose n n Y N/A N/A
As you can see, either column has 2 wins and 2 loses, your chance of winning is still 1/3 regardless.
BTW the original author of the question thought that the probability changed, so you are not alone; but think about it anyway, how can an honest host change the chance of another box holding a prize?
Spikey,
Assume there are three boxes, each with a one-third probability of holding a prize because the prize is in only one of the boxes.
You pick box 'A', which has a one-third chance of holding the prize.
The other two boxes ('B'+'C') equal a joint two thirds chance of holding the prize.
The host shows you that box 'B' has no prize.
Obviously, box 'A' still only has a one third chance of being correct. However, since only box 'C' remains to account for the other two thirds chance, it does indeed quite literally now have a two-thirds chance of being the correct box.
This of course assumes that our host is honest which was the point of your question when you asked, "but think about it anyway, how can an honest host change the chance of another box holding a prize?"
That therefore is how an honest host can change the chance of another box holding the prize. Since the remaining unpicked box now has a two-thirds chance of being the correct box rather than its original one-third chance, you should now change to box ‘C’.
William
I just scrolled out the proof for you that you don't double your chances of winning after an honest host opens a blank. I can do no more.
In actual fact after the blank box is revealed the probability is now 50% that the prize is in your box, and 50% chance that the prize is in the other box. From the original position though, the probability is still 1/3 in your selection, and 1/3 in the remaining uncovered box. 1/3 was the host's pick, which opens the prize.
This is my last post on the subject. I'm going to do a "Vince", and say that anyone who follows your line is an idiot.
Spikey
Actually Spikey, I am a moron like Vince and not an idiot. In fact, I am charter Moron #2 in the Moron club, so there. :-P I bet I don’t have to tell you who the founding Moron is, do I.
You do not need to post further if you wish not to, but I would appreciate it if you would consider the following nevertheless.
I did read your ‘proof’; however, it was not an accurate model of the problem.
Please, just do this little thought experiment… Assume there are 1000 boxes, the host knows which box contains the prize and you pick one box. The host now shows you 998 boxes, which contain no prize.
The answer is that the box you originally picked still has one chance in one thousand of being the correct box because it was picked from a population of one thousand boxes. Since we know that there is still a probability of one that the prize is in one of two boxes then we can calculate the likelihood that the last remaining box has the prize. To calculate the probability, we simply subtract the likelihood that your original pick was correct from the total probability and we will discover the likelihood that the remaining box has the prize.
1-.001 = .999
Therefore, the probability that the box you did not originally pick has the prize is .999 and the chance that your original pick is correct is still one in a thousand.
By the way, in order to qualify as a Moron, you must find an opportunity to be correct when the self-proclaimed math ‘experts’ think you are wrong. It is not enough just to be wrong in order to qualify.
Spikey, I must admit that I do have a lot of respect for you. You are mathematically skilled, but still open minded which is a refreshing trait on this forum. I enjoy reading your posts.
Thanks, William
How can I refuse a request like that.
Ok, but I wouldn't do justice to your question right now coz I'm very busy right now, but I promise I will get back to you, maybe 24 hrs, or even 48hrs.
Spikey
Ok William you moron, I've now read your post very carefully and am prepared to answer.
Your post is all correct, I think you've just misinterpreted something down the line. We are getting confused over whether the host knows where the prize is or not, and then the subsequent analysis is different in the two cases. I called a host that didn't know where the prize was an "honest host" but that probably isnt' a good adjective, but lets give them two different names. Lets call a host that knows where the prize is "Dick", after "Dick Dastardly", and the host that doesn't know where the prize is before he opens a box "Goofy".
Now in your example we have Dick, and I agree that if your original selection has a probability of 1/1000, and that the final box after Dick has opened 998 boxes is indeed 999/1000. In my original post I said that you doubled your chances with Dick. That is because there were only 3 boxes, and after Dick opened a blank, your original selection has a probability of winning of 1/3, but the other one now has 1 - 1/3 = 2/3.
So we should be in agreeance here.
But if Goofy (who knows nothing about where the prize is) opened 998 boxes, all blank, then the remaining box has only a 50% chance of containing the prize, and the probability of your original selection winning is also now 50%(it went up from 0.1%). This is because when Goofy uncovers a blank box it is "an accident". In your example the remaining 999 boxes (including your 1 selected box) all have an equal liklihood of winning. While Goofy keeps uncovering blank boxes the probability of your selection winning goes up until yours is the only one left, where your probability of winning is 1.
Of course, if Goofy did uncover 998 blank boxes on his first show, then I would suspect that he is really Dick, because somewhere along the line, a real Goofy would most likely uncover the prize before he uncovered all those blank boxes.
I'm quite happy to be a moron too because we didn't understand each other.
Spikey
Spikey, I guess I am going to have to put our new found friendship at risk here. Please consider the following...
First, I agree with you that we were talking about a different type of host.
Second, we agree that a knowledgeable host exposing 998 boxes would give one enough information to change boxes every time. In fact, each empty box he exposes makes it more compelling to change our pick. What the host is doing is improving the information that we have to make a choice over the information we had when we made or original choice.
Third, we agree that it would not be very often that our non-knowledgeable host could get through 998 boxes without accidentally exposing the prize.
However, I would content that information is information whether he turned an empty box over on purpose or accidentally. Therefore, I do not believe it makes any difference whether our host knew the prize containing box or not. Each box he exposes give us more information from which we can make a more informed pick. On the other hand, our original pick still enjoys only a one in one thousand chance of being correct; a probability which does not change as the empty boxes are exposed.
Thanks for your indulgence. :-)
William
"However, I would content that information is information whether he turned an empty box over on purpose or accidentally".
If there were 5 boxes, and I had box 1 selected, and Goofy turned a blank on box 2; I would go "Oh goody, now I've got a better chance that I've picked the prize", but then I am an idiot I guess.
If there were 5 boxes, and I had box 1 selected, and Dick turned a blank on box 2; I would go sarcastically "Well fancy that!!!", and not think that my chance of winning improved (unless I was able to change selections).
But that's just me, I must be an idiot.
My original work stands as my work nonetheless.
Regards.
Spikey you are anything but an idiot. Cheer up, even Albert Einstein made a fundamental error in his definition of the mass term for photons. He mistakenly used his kinetic energy equation for particles to predict the kinetic energy of a photon. Needless to say, this was an embarrassment to him later in life.
Your mistake regarding probability is relatively (no pun intended) trivial when compared to Einstein's error of galactic proportions.
Best wishes, William
I must apologise for the drawing not appearing properly.
I drew it properly in this editor, but it wasn't reproduced properly.
I'm not going to do it again either until I get an explanation of what happened though. There was a heading line with 6 lines in showing values in columns. It is kaput.
Spikey, you must use HTML in order to display tables properly on this forum. There are some tips in the hot to post section.
William
Attempt 2 at the diagram.
B1--B2--B3-If stay---If change ------------------------------ y---n---N---win------lose y---n---N---win------lose n---Y---n---N/A------N/A n---y---N---lose-----win n---N---y---lose-----win n---n---Y---N/A------N/A
Attempt 3...
B1--B2--B3--If stay---If change. -------------------------------. y---n---N---win------lose. y---n---N---win------lose. n---Y---n---N/A------N/A. n---y---N---lose-----win. n---N---y---lose-----win. n---n---Y---N/A------N/A.
In a lot of the hands that are analyzed I see what I perceive as an aversion to doing any kind of mathematical analysis of the EV involved in determining the right play.
Tom, Show me a post by me that derides the use of mathematical analysis of EV to determine the correct play. You eill be hard pressed to find one if one does exist at all. Mind you I`m sure I have made some wise ass remasituations rks about the use of math in some situations. Situations that I do not feel warrant a math analysis.
Vince was IMO deriding the use of game theory in any kind of analysis of poker situations
Tom,i believe and have said so many times, that game theory is a valid tool for developing a poker stategy. The problem we have here is that those claiming to use game theory to develop poker stategy are in fact using poker to demonstrate game theory. Maybe you are not smart enough to recognize the differnece but I am so I do it for us both.
Vince I really believe that if you haven't tried it you shouldn't knock it.
Tom,
Don`t be silly. Do you believe Jim and I are freaking idiots?
Vince
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 24 June 2001, at 9:04 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Sunday, 24 June 2001, at 4:38 p.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 25 June 2001, at 6:23 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Monday, 25 June 2001, at 10:24 p.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 June 2001, at 8:24 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Thursday, 28 June 2001, at 10:43 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (codesavvy@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 25 June 2001, at 12:48 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Monday, 25 June 2001, at 3:18 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 24 June 2001, at 9:16 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 24 June 2001, at 4:13 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Sunday, 24 June 2001, at 4:51 p.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 24 June 2001, at 11:12 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Monday, 25 June 2001, at 12:26 a.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 25 June 2001, at 3:14 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Monday, 25 June 2001, at 11:17 p.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 June 2001, at 1:04 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (codesavvy@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 25 June 2001, at 12:48 a.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 25 June 2001, at 3:15 p.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 25 June 2001, at 2:20 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (codesavvy@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 25 June 2001, at 3:39 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 25 June 2001, at 9:18 p.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 June 2001, at 9:00 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Monday, 25 June 2001, at 11:37 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Monday, 25 June 2001, at 11:57 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Monday, 25 June 2001, at 11:43 p.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 June 2001, at 8:32 a.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andy@frenchcraft.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 24 June 2001, at 10:47 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 25 June 2001, at 2:26 a.m.
Posted by: andy fox (andy@frenchcraft.com)
Posted on: Monday, 25 June 2001, at 12:19 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 25 June 2001, at 1:35 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (codesavvy@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 25 June 2001, at 1:57 p.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 25 June 2001, at 8:57 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (codesavvy@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 25 June 2001, at 9:15 p.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 June 2001, at 1:27 p.m.
Posted by: GD (boopotts@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 June 2001, at 7:05 p.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 June 2001, at 7:56 p.m.
Posted by: GD (boopotts@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 June 2001, at 10:34 p.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 June 2001, at 12:13 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 25 June 2001, at 9:27 p.m.
Posted by: jellow (jbrowder@yotalzone.com)
Posted on: Monday, 25 June 2001, at 10:18 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 June 2001, at 12:08 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 June 2001, at 12:04 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (codesavvy@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 25 June 2001, at 8:09 a.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Monday, 25 June 2001, at 9:37 a.m.
Posted by: Spikey (spikey_mikey@bigfoot.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 June 2001, at 10:23 a.m.
Posted by: Spikey (spikey_mikey@bigfoot.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 June 2001, at 10:35 a.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 June 2001, at 10:46 a.m.
Posted by: Spikey (spikey_mikey@bigfoot.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 June 2001, at 9:25 p.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 June 2001, at 11:32 p.m.
Posted by: Spikey (spikey_mikey@bigfoot.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 June 2001, at 11:50 p.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 June 2001, at 12:52 a.m.
Posted by: Spikey (spikey_mikey@bigfoot.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 June 2001, at 1:31 a.m.
Posted by: Spikey (spikey_mikey@bigfoot.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 June 2001, at 6:59 a.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 June 2001, at 10:05 a.m.
Posted by: Spikey (spikey_mikey@bigfoot.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 June 2001, at 11:21 p.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 28 June 2001, at 12:09 a.m.
Posted by: Spikey (spikey_mikey@bigfoot.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 June 2001, at 11:56 p.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 June 2001, at 12:55 a.m.
Posted by: Spikey (spikey_mikey@bigfoot.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 June 2001, at 12:14 a.m.
Posted by: Spikey (spikey_mikey@bigfoot.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 June 2001, at 12:17 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 26 June 2001, at 9:35 p.m.
The regular 7-card stud game I play in has a very unusual betting structure. There is no ante, the bring-in is $2, and the betting can be raised $6 at anytime. On 3rd and 4th streets, players may raise any amount from $2-$6, but their raise must be equal or greater than the previous raise amount. On the later streets, the betting limit is locked at $6.
The game is one of the loosest and most passive you will ever see. Players routinely see 4th street and 5th street with anything; even if you pop the pot to $8 right off the bat with a premium pair, you will usually get 1-2 callers (or more). There are few raises ever, mostly checks and calls from weak players.
While I find this game boring and unimaginative compared to the others offered by this casino, I can beat this game for 2.5 times the amount I am able to take at any other game.
I am looking for any suggestions as to how one should play in this game. Does the following strategy allow me to earn the greatest possible amount?
I play an absurdly tight game and never bluff, because the players have no regard for either of these two facts. (If I find that I am not getting any calls, I might semibluff with a "weak" hand like AKQ- lol.) Since there is no ante, I can afford to fold away hands frequently. Usually, being forced to bring-in allows you to see at least 4th street, since there are few raises, even by players holding premium hands.
I wait for great hands, big pairs and high three flushes. I pop them right away, since I usually get callers who will chase for a while. Even if they fold on 4th, they've donated $8 to me on 3rd! I also play more three-flushes and three-straights for the $2 bring-in, since the game is loose.
One category of hand I never play in this game that I would in a "normal game" is small pair/big kicker. Since you usually have to show down a hand, I do not like to play any hand that needs improvement, but does not play well multiway. I think it is good strategy to dump these hands right here. Even trying to steal the bring-in (on those rare occasions when it is possible) is not worth it, since risking $8 for $2 dead money seems wrong. Thus, I routinely throw away A/6-6, since I know people will call. There is no reason to play marginal hands when all big hands get played with.
Is my tight, unimaginative, and boring strategy correct for this strange structure, or could I be taking more money from these terrible players? Thanks for the help.
Mike
is this the stud game at the Soaring Eagle in Mt. Pleasant Michigan? ive played there, and i always thought it was an odd betting structure.
.
I am reading "Hold Em for Advanced Players" and have some confusion over a couple of points. Specifically, on pp-20, you say that in early position with a raise to your right, you should limit your play to grp 1 and 2. Does this mean you should just call or re-raise? Also, do I need a caller to do this? On pp-21 you say that if there is just the raiser then you should fold or occasionally re-raise. How does this relate to your first point? Could you give me some additional guidance on how to play with a raise to your right. I have the same question with the first two cards in middle position frm pp-30. You say if the pot has already been raised, almost always re-raise with AA, KK, AKs and AK. Does this mean you need at least a caller in addition to the raiser, and should you always re-raise or just occasionally re-raise and usually fold? Thanks for your time and help. Bob
Whether you call or reraise depends upon the hand, the game, the number of opponents, and what you know about the raiser. You should normally reraise with group one hands in general and just call with group two hands assuming the early raiser is a solid player. Frankly, I would be more prone to reraise with ace-king offsuit and just call with pocket jacks even though pocket jacks is a group one hand and ace-king offsuit is a group two hand. You do not necessarily need a caller between you and the raiser to do this.
The statement on Page 21 is pointing out the fact that if someone raises in early position and there are no callers between you and the raiser, then the authors view this as a reraise or fold situation. However, I believe that there are some hands you can just cold-call with. These are ace-queen suited, ace-jack suited, king-queen suited, pocket jacks, and pocket tens. Being suited adds enough value to scrape up a cold-call in my opinion even when you do not have any other players involved.
Relative to Page 30, you do not need a caller between you and the raiser to reraise with AA,KK, AK suited, and AK offsuit. I would also add QQ. You should never fold and always reraise with the possible exception of AK offsuit. I think cold-calling versus reraising is borderline.
I am close to retirement, if not there already. I have 7 figures in stocks, bonds, money market.
However, when I lose $1000 at 20/40 and win $10,000 in the market, I am pissed off for the day. But when I make $1000 at 20/40 and lose $10,000 in the market, I am happy all day.
Am I nuts? SHould I see a psychiatrist?
No. You are perfectly sane. Winning or losing on the stock market is something that most of us do not take personally even though it happens to us on a personal basis. You have no control over the market.
But poker is much more personal. We are led to believe that poker is a game of skill and that if we play well we will get a good result. When we get a bad result, we take in personally and feel that it must be because we are a bad player. Intellectually, we know this is not true since the luck factor is so dominant in this game. But emotionally, that is how we feel. The more passionate and serious you are about the game, the more this can become a problem.
If someone gave me the choice of having a million dollars all at once or winning a million dollars over a ten year period playing poker, I would much prefer the latter over the former. The reason is because I would get incredible joy from being able to win so much money so consistently over such a long period of time. When you are winning at poker, nothing else really matters. Winning at poker affirms your existence and confirms your worth like nothing else.
.
men take poker very seriously...a guy can lose 2k at bj, but get more upset losing 300 at poker,, that can lead to tilt..jmho gl
its amazing. that is exactly how i feel. i will need to print that post out and read it everytime i come home feeling bad.
Kanine - So long as you, and those for whom you feel responsibility, do not have to suffer for lack of food, housing, and/or medical/dental care, I don't think money has much to do with real happiness.
I wonder what the effect of being "pissed off for the day" has on your heart. I had a high pressure job, and then a heart attack and operation. Now I'm happy to be alive.
I would be stressed too, if I lost $1000 playing poker. My solution is to not put myself in that position.
Buzz
I can remember winning a tournament in early 2000 it was a tough NLHE tournament I also took gas in the makrket for over $25K that day when one of my stockes cratered.
I know how you feel - it is perfectly understandable by most of us deviates who like to spend most of our time trying to out wit each other.
:-)
also besides jim's great point, the stock market is a 'paper loss (win)'.
when you cash out for the day in poker, its a real loss or win.
bankroll, long run, etc., but its still a real loss (win).
brad
thats a bad analogy (paper win/loss)...because if i choose to, I can cash out everyday in the stock market. and if i choose to, i can not cash out every day in poker, i mean, i could buy $25,000 worth of chips and use that as my count. hey, actually that might be an idea that may help me in the long run
An unknown player sits on my right today in a 15/30 holdem and for the first two hours of play called every hand pre flop and was there to the river almost every hand unless he had absolutely no chance. Meanwhile I had seen about two flops.
After two hours he finally folds before the flop. He turns to me and says with authority “Holdem is a game of patience”.
What should I have said in response? This was a verbal "change up" and I was a loss for words so I just shrugged.
Regards,
Rick
i woulda asked him what hand he threw away...cause this does happen and i really wonder why a guy finally decides not to play a hand after literally seeing 20 flops in a row, and yet they will appear very definite about not playing that hand???
Rick - How about smiling at him and asking, "Do you think I'm playing too many hands?"
Buzz
"After two hours he finally folds before the flop. He turns to me and says with authority “Holdem is a game of patience”.
What should I have said in response?"
You might have said, "Yeah, lots of patients here tonight. Are you going to make them well?"
:-)
i would say "you must have really had a bad hand".
come to think of it, i did say that tonight, to a guy who told the table that 'you cant play like me unless youve got a *lot* of money'. everyone pretty much agreed.
brad
I like scalf's answer but I might have said:
"Yeah but be careful the blinds will eat you alive"
Rick,
Hi. Nice question. I sat to the right of a guy yesterday online who played every hand for 3 hours when I saw about 20-25%. He lost about $1k in 5-10, it was amazing. He was kind of obnoxious, I needled him a lot, but he didn't even get it: "Hey was that Q3 sooted, I missed seeing em" I would ask the table, when I knew very well that the Q3 was offsuit, and he won when a second 3 hit the river. It was a riot.
When he FINALLY folded pre-flop, I did ask what he folded...he said "ask your mother"...hahaha.
Mark
I would have replied: "Yeah, sometimes you have to wait five or even ten minutes to get a hand."
How about, "Yeah, sometimes you have to wait five or even ten minutes to get a seat?"
"But persistence pays off..."
How about:
"Yeah. That's the great thing about Omaha..."
It seems to me, that the defining characteristic of a positive EV reply is that it wouldn't in any way -- one way or the other -- encourage him to think about preflop hand selection. A non-sequitor joke might be good. I would not try and make some joke that went over his head... despite the great temptation.
`Yeah, but I hate it when I woulda had it!'
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
There's always, "BUWAHAHAHAHA!"
Rick, Was this game at the Commerce ? I think i was there and played with him. He was really seeing everything.
Rory
what about just totally 'sincerely' agreeing with him? something like "oh, i know! some people will play anything, but you and i know better..."
The game was at Hollywood Park and it was the first time I saw him. The guy eventually blew off about five racks. I made sure I sat a couple seats to his left :-).
Rick
In the "disappointed" post below Tommy Angelo made a comment which really struck me as important and may be worthy of further discussion. He asked how you would weight, or assign numerical value to something like becoming last to act or becoming the aggressor. I feel this concept is so much more valuable than determining the mathmatical EV of a particular decision. I have a great example hand to illustrate:
Last night I was playing in a NL tournament and was in middle position holding 9-10 of hearts. It was early and I had a medium-large stack. A very tight player in fourth position raised to 3X the BB. I reraised the size of his raise and everyone folded- he called. There is no way this play made mathmatical sense. In fact, I know it was a negative EV play IF you only consider hand strength. But, I knew that a reraise would get me heads up with position against a tight player. You can't assign numerical value to that- but it makes the play correct. I knew what he had- a big pocket pair, not Aces. He had no way of knowing what I had. I had position on him, and the benefit of being the aggressor. The only way I was going to lose this hand is if the flop hit him... in any other case I should have been able to out play him for the pot. The flop came an Ace and two rags. He bet, I raised and he threw his pocket Kings in face up.
I would argue that an expert player makes much more money from positional plays, reads, and situational variation in play than he or she does from simply calling with a draw when the pot odds warrant it, or raising against a drawing hand to make their call incorrect. Perhaps this opinion is just a reflection of my bias, since I never do any formal calculations while sitting at a poker table.
And Tommy was only half kidding when he pondered the value of playing against an opponent who just got their food delivered. Only a made hand will be more important than eating at that moment... so beware; that Pad Thai may seem cheap, but it'll cost you an extra small bet if I'm sitting to your right.
Craig H
Craig: "... how you would weight, or assign numerical value to something like becoming last to act or becoming the aggressor. I feel this concept is so much more valuable than determining the mathmatical EV of a particular decision."
The thing I don't understand is why would I even want to assign a number to non-cards-and-betting factors? It sounds like a wasted level of energy. If I assign a number, the degree of uncertainty as to the number's accuracy will be identical to the degree of uncertainty as to my "feel" or "hunch" accuracy, since the number plugged into the EV formula would be derived from feel and hunch in the first place.
I think Occam would grab his razor and slice out the middle step.
Tommy
I did not see this before my post ` EV and position', and I agree with it. The problem is not that theory misses certain factors. Instead, the problem is that situations are way too complicated to analyse completely, so at some point you need to appeal to your own intuition (or feel or hunch or whatever). Of course, the mark of a good player is that their intutition is right in the long run.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
There is one point you are missing. EV literally takes into account absolutely everything that is relevant, and so it certainly includes position. Since it may be extremely complicated to take everything into account explicitly, you try to simplify things in practice, but even then you would not ignore position.
You are right to say that position is important, but you are wrong if you think that EV does not fully and comprehensively take into account position and everything else that matters.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Craig,
I hope you feel as if your play was an error with that 10-9 suited. The "heads-up" factor doesn't make the play correct at all. It might make the play correct "if" both stacks were quite deep. In a tournament, this is rarely the case. I would say that you were fortuneate that an Ace flopped, otherwise, you would have had serious problems with the play of the hand.
I understand the point you are making and it is certainly important to consider. The example in this post, however, reminds me of a Card Player article that Barry Shulman wrote "Don't Try this At Home" or something like that. The protaganist called a raise with K-J (i think diamonds). The flop was an Ace with all clubs. He supposedly put the raiser on a set of Aces. Anyway, he ends up bluffing his opponent off the set of aces when the 4th club falls on the river. While he sited it as an expert play. It was purely ridiculous. First, he needed to catch a club which didn't pair the board! Second, he needed to know for sure that his opponent would lay down his set of Aces. Given that he felt his opponent would lay down his Aces 100% of the time if the situation was right, there wasn't enough money in the pot to justify the "draw". This isn't expert at all, it's just folly. I don't mean to come across too harshly, as I think your idea has quite a bit of merit. I just don't think that this is the best example to illustrate your point.
The play of the hand is "mostly" mathematical. The advantage you are giving up before the flop, must be compensated by implied odds (given that your read of your opponent's hand is correct). Your conclusion that your opponent needed to hit the flop was correct. What you determined incorrectly was that he was going to miss enough flops to make your play worth it. Again, if both of your stacks were deep, this wouldn't necessarily be true.
I appreciate your point of view, and here's why I would argue that my play was correct:
There are several ways that I could win this hand; I could hit my flush, my straight, trips, or two pair. Also, if an overcard to his pocket pair (I didn't know exactly, of course, that he had kings) hit, I knew I could bet him off his hand based on his prior play. Obviously the chances of my hand simply ending up better than his are around 2.5 or 3 to one against. If you factor in the money I will make by bluffing with an overcard on the board, the play is closer, but I'm still a substantial underdog.
Here's the value of the play: First, I can get away from the hand easily because I know where we both are from the get go. Second, and very importantly, I have a chance to bust him if a flop like 6-7-8 or 9-9-10 comes because he cannot put me on my hand. He has no chance (essentially) of busting me. And thirdly, the play gives me an opportunity to advertise a little bit. What the advertisement will end up being depends on the outcome of the hand. If I have to show down my 9-10, everyone will see that I am willing to reraise from middle position with garbage. I can use that image to my advantage later on. If I win the pot uncontested, then I've shown that I'm willing to reraise a tight player making an early position raise if I have a big Ace (assumed). The knowledge of my own image may help me get away from a big loser against the same player trying to trap me with a monster hand in a later round.
In this precise circumstance, the play was correct. And unlike in live play, in tournaments you can make the arguement "if it worked then it was correct." I hope very few people agree with me, because I would hate to play against someone who would play 9-10 the way I did when I'm holding pocket Kings.
Craig H
Craig,
You wrote: "There is no way this play made mathmatical sense."
Then why did you make the play? (I'm assuming you wanted to maximize your tournament expectation.)
You wrote: "In fact, I know it was a negative EV play IF you only consider hand strength."
EV involves more than hand strength.
You wrote: "But, I knew that a reraise would get me heads up with position against a tight player."
Reraising might have a higher EV than the EV of calling or folding. Or it might not. It depends.
You wrote: "You can't assign numerical value to that- but it makes the play correct."
Why can't you assign a numerical value to that?
How do you define EV?
Mark,
What is the definition of EV?
Tommy,
I think it would improve communication on this forum if participants discussed how they believe EV should be defined (and perhaps some sort of general consensus achieved).
I'll be away for the next few days, but I'd be happy to initiate such a thread upon my return.
.
I was certainly wondering about the validity of math based decisions myself but didn't want to sidetrack the original thread.
There are a number of aspects that make a difference at the table besides whether mathematically things are in my favor or not.
The woman in seat three with the low cut top, who's showing off her ware's and the boy's really like the pattern of the fabric. The emotions of the players in the hand, whether they are up or down. What's on TV and who's watching. Who's playing craps or blackjack on their nature breaks. ....the list goes on and on.
Poker has more facets than just one or two, and most can not be weighted imo.
Mike
Request some help please. I have a small wager with a fellow poker player. He got AK of diamonds twice in a row. What's the odds? I responded that it must be 1325 to 1. He says it has to be much more... something about "permutations". My limited math ability could not refute the permutations thing....but it seems to me that the odds on the first event followed by the second event would be the same since the possibilities have been "reset"....even if the same player got the same hand both times....but I can't prove this. Any insights into how this works would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
The chance that you get dealt the exact same hand twice in a row is:
2/52 * 1/51 = 1/1326 (that is any hand twice in a row).
The chance that you get AKd twice in a row is:
(2/52 * 1/51)2 = 1/1,758,276 (which is the same chance that you get dealt the 7d-2c twice in a row).
The chance that you get dealt AKs twice in a row is: (8/52*1/51)2 = 1/439,569. This could mean the first time you have AdKd, and the second time you could have AsKs.
This is assuming a hand like Ad-Kd is the same hand as Kd-Ad (combinations not permutations).
An argument for your case... once you have been dealt the Ad-Kd, the chance of it repeating is 1/1326. It is only 1 in ~1.8 Million when you pick a combination to be dealt before seeing it the first time.
Derrick
Hackman - Think of having two decks of cards, (both well shuffled).
If the order of the cards doesn't matter, there are 1326 possible two-card combinations in a 52 card deck. The chance of being dealt any one of these two card combinations is 1/1326, rather like the chance of rolling any particular number using only one die is 1/6.
Now think of having two dice (both well shaken), rather than just one die.
The chance of rolling any particular number on both of two dice is (1/6)*(1/6) = 1/36.
You can probably fill in the missing step yourself.
Buzz
While I agree that 1BB/hour is a realistic expectation of earn for a very good player/game selector, I think there is a simpler way of deriving this number than the way S&M&Z do.
If 2BB/hour were the more accurate number, there'd be MANY more pros than there are because lesser abilities would be rewarded with 1BB/hour, and further down the ability ladder, 1SB/hour, enough to live on, enough to quit the job. If 0BB/hour were accurate, there'd be none. Quickly we know the answer lies somewhere in between.
A casual glance at the life-styles of mid-limit pros suggest that they make about 30K to 40K per year. Divide it out and that comes to about 1SB/hour, suggesting that the best of the best could make more than that, in which case 1BB is a good estimate of the top expectation that a pro-who-is-better-than-most-other-pros could earn.
Both methods, casual and S&M-mathematical, result in the same answer. If they didn't, we'd have a potentially dandy discussion. That they do result in the same answer lends credence to both methods and their answers.
Muddying the casual-estimation approach is the well-known and documented go-broke-in-other-gaming-venues trait that many able poker players share. A guy might make 80K in a year at 20-40, 1BB per hour, and blow 50K of it at sports, and still pay the bills with the other 30K. His lifestyle would appear that of a 1SB/hour winner, when actually his win rate is far higher.
If the purpose of knowing potential win rates is to have one's feet firmly planted in reality before quitting the job and turning pro, and that so often seems to be the most practical application of this topic, then a rough estimate is all we need. We know it's possible to be a poker pro, and we know the high-end limit of expected income. Given the high-fluctuation nature of what actually happens after the boss is gone, attempting to me more accurate than that strikes me as wasted energy.
Tommy
Not disputing your estimates, but they are rather disappointing. 30-40K sure seems like an extremely modest income, especially considering the absence of such perks as paid vacations, health benefits, pensions, etc. Also how does a full-time pro go about establishing credit? If this is a realistic earnings expectation, it's difficult to understand why anyone talented enough to win consistently at poker would not be using his/her talents to earn far more in some other field.
because its not about the money to these guys
"30-40K sure seems like an extremely modest income,"
Let's say a person needs 30K to live comfortably. If a guy is taking a job, the difference between 30K and 60K is obviously huge. But at poker, the difference between 30K and anything over 30K if far less significant than the difference between 30K and anything UNDER 30K. Survival first, perks second.
"how does a full-time pro go about establishing credit?"
During the regular-job years. lol
"If this is a realistic earnings expectation, it's difficult to understand why anyone talented enough to win consistently at poker would not be using his/her talents to earn far more in some other field."
Is it really that difficult to understand? Maybe the time-freedom thing is extra important to some compared to others. Ironically, it's the time freedom that is the downfall of many wanna-be-a-pro players that play well enough to pull it off. Once used to a job-induced regiment, it can be hard as heck to hold a balanced life together when the only scheduled events are social.
Tommy
I "grew up" in the card clubs of LA and was always amazed by the amount of effort people would expend to legitimize their earnings. On this forum it is not uncommon for someone to preface their posts with a little resume detailing how they've earned between 1 and 3 BB per hour playing 10/20 to 30/60 over the past 10 years. But in real life, I've seen people actually pull out detailed logs and tax returns proving that they earn the magic 1 to 2 BB/hr. When I would ask them what's up with the Le Tigre shirt and Keds, or why they take the bus to the card room, the conversation would quickly turn to the horses, Vegas trips, friends who stiff them, and of course, ex-wives. I never was quite sure which was fabricated: the logs or "other" bad beat stories.
For numerous reasons, most of them having to do with issues of self-worth, cardplayers/gamblers take an enormous amount of pride in being able to boast about beating the game. But I think the bottom line is this: if any winning poker player invested the amount of time and energy that they invest in gambling into a more conventional job, they would earn more. And it wouldn't matter what the conventional job is. (remember, you usually get paid just for being at a conventional job- you don't get paid for being in the casino). Also, as with most of us on this forum, poker is my main pasttime. If I played poker for a living, what would my main pasttime be? If you really want to get depressed, ask a pro that question.
Much has been written about how potentially miserable being a professional poker player is. Still, if I knew that I could earn my current income as a professional poker player, I would quit my job today. I guess it's fortunate that I'm not that good.
Craig H
sort of proves that old saying (about poker)--it's a hard way to make an easy living. Jim
Craig:
I like your comments but I think there is a bigger picture to this whole thing about playing poker. It's the fact that what time you spend is YOUR time and no one elses. I think Tommy A. stated this on the other forum and this is one of the reasons he has choosen to be a pro. Now, having said that, there are many factors that go into making this decision: financial, family, security for the future, and boredom. Maybe I can elaborate a bit using my situation and the what I am faced with.
I have worked at the same job for 20 years and was hired out of University. I have considerable pension benefits saved for my retirement or whenever I need them. I have taken the last 2 winters off and have earned $50,000 @ year playing a professional sport here in Canada (winter months only). They have renewed my contract for another 2 years and I am faced with my workplace not allowing me the time off. My wife is a fulltime teacher and she has medical/dental coverage and earns a good wage. We have no kids.
I took up poker 4 years ago and basically played 2-3 time @ week while under the sports contract. I met 2 pros who play poker for a living in Vancouver and became friends with them. They have taught me some of the tricks of the trade. I play 3 times @ week at home at our local casino and am a modest winning player.
So, I ask myself, what is it most that attracts me about quitting my job? Any of these above? Not one by itself but all of them? Of course. But you want to know the biggest factor, MY TIME IS MY TIME. No one else owns it (a case could be made for my wife). I can have time to do the things that I want. Whether it be taking my wife out, poker, roller blading, fixing up the house because I never have time, or taking my choclate lab out for a long walk (which he loves).
I guess my point is different circumstances for different people. Would I advocate a young guy to take up poker as a main source of his livelyhood. NO, I would not. But if as he ages, the circumstances were right, whats wrong with wanting to be incharge of your own life and those you love. Every situation is different and we must have our own reasons.
Regards,
Dugie
Craig,
"But I think the bottom line is this: if any winning poker player invested the amount of time and energy that they invest in gambling into a more conventional job, they would earn more."
Agreed.
"If I played poker for a living, what would my main pasttime be? If you really want to get depressed, ask a pro that question."
If someone has complete time-freedom and can't find a way to fill it with enjoyable, fullfilling pasttimes, then, well, I dunno. I just can't imagine anyone being that dull.
"Much has been written about how potentially miserable being a professional poker player is."
Written by a full-time poker pro? I've yet to see that.
I saw a book-excerpt article by Alan Shoonmaker (sp?) in which he brutally misrepresented what it's like to be a pro player, and from what I understand, he's never been a pro player.
What ever happened to walking a mile in the other guy's shoes first? That's the first time an article aggitated me by being so bogus while being supported by exactly NO first-hand research. It was as if a non-golfer was writing about the woes of professional golf. Dear non-golfer, by all means offer your conjectures, but don't speak as if you've been there.
< Now you're talking!
Tommy
I think that top players can realistically expect 1.5 to 2bb/hr if they excel at shorthanded play. I know one chap who has pulled in about 2.8bb/hour at 20-40 Planet Poker spanning a period of 10 months and approximately 1200 hours i.e. he has made 130 to 140K in 1200 hours playing 20-40. No kidding. Mind boggling.
I further suspect (although this is just a guess based on my observations) that there are at least 2 other players there who make between 1.5 and 2 bb per hour playing shorthanded.
Of course, all this is easier said than done though as I think very few players out there can realistically hope to play that well in a shorthanded setting....unfortunately, I am sure that I ain't one of them so I wont be quitting the day job anytime soon...damn:-)
skp-
To this day it surprises me that you haven't thrown yourself headlong into shorthanded play. I can't begin to figure it out.
It's that variance thing...mentally not yet there to handle it. I have played about 3 or 4 hours in the short tables on and off. Have done fairly well except for 1 session when docriver (who posts here and plays a fine poker game) gave me a lesson or two while taking several hundred dollars of my hard earned ring game money in about 20 minutes...doh...But you know what GD, when I make the transition (and I will someday), you will be the first to know. Thanks for the words of encouragement.
skp-
But that's the thing-- the variance concern is largely a myth. True, there are swings, but you're making more decisions-- and if your decisions are better than your opponents (and I'm sure, in your case, that they are), you're just going to make more money. And, since you're getting more hands an hour, your profits should skyrocket.
You'd be amazed at what happens at the shorthanded tables online. Now it's true that I won't play any higher than 3-6 online (I still don't trust it, collusion worries etc.) but the play in the shorthanded games is just TERRIBLE. They get so worried that they're going to get blinded to death that they come with just about anything, which means you can often aggreessively bet mid pair (or something like 88 on a K75 board) all the way, being passively called down by 33 or a big ace high.. you add in all the mealy little 'rounder' types, who love to raise UTG with any ace (because 'it stands to be the best hand before the flop, and even if it isn't they'll outplay their opponents later') and you've got all the ingredients for a ripe game.
Anyway, I strongly encourage you to start giving it a whirl. Small limits, maybe 5 hrs. a week. You'll just love it. And, you'll doubtlessly become VERY GOOD at it.
By the way, you suck to watch play. I lurked at your table for about 1hr 10min two weeks ago and watched you play a mere two hands. What a drag.. :). Although I have to tell you you were WAY out of line when you three bet out of the BB with that T8c against the button raise, then went on to make your flush.. :)
shhhhh!:) yeah, the short games are a joke. for now.
The short games on Paradise right now are really a laugher, as all the bad players from the full ring games have suddenly become enamoured of the 5 player tables. But, like you, I imagine this will wear off. In fact, I bet in 6 months Paradise will wish they'd never made the change, since a few good players will just clean up and all the fish will be broke.
The problem is that the bad plays you describe are ones I would probably make...doh.
But I do take your point about how it can be very profitable once one gets the hang of it. I may try it tonight. If you are logged in, check it out and you can have a field day posting skp errors on the Forum...hehe
Oh...on that Tc8c hand...hehe...don't remember the hand...probably got there like the Athenians as well:-) Well, my excuse is that I probably decided to do something to wake you up after yawning you out for 80 minutes.
If you ever see me there again, do say hi.
Ciao
skp
would you care to share the names of those 3 players?
Only by e-mail. Contact me if you are interested.
On-line is a bit different since you get dealt many more hands per hore per hour and you don't toke. 2.8 BB/hr on-line might be the same as 1.4 BB/hr in a B&M with far less hands and toking.
Paul Talbot
Yes and no,
Excellent players generally have more tools (people reading skills) than they do online. Also, the average level of play is about a half a notch higher online than in the casinos. That said, I'd probably say that there is no way to directly transfer an estimate from online to live play. It all depends on where your strengths were. I wouldn't be surprised if a player making 2 BB/hr online would make between -.5 and 2 BB/hr in live games.
I for one am one of those anomolous players who has a positive BB/hr online and a negative BB/hr in live play. Of course, I've also play over ten times as much online as I have played live.
Just call me Mr. Fish when I go to BARGE.
- Andrew
Andrew-
I can't believe you're not a winning player in casino play.
BTW, I wanted to tell you how much I appreciated the study you did a while ago on which hands to play out of the blinds vs. pot odds. I still use that information daily.
Thanks again, Guy
Where is the study that GD speaks of?
I would be most interested in seeing it if possible.
Thanks.
Andrew had a link to it in one of his old posts, although I can't remember when it was.
Despite reading their books I have no recollection how S&M&Z determine 1BB per hour. What do you mean?
To put this in perspective, I think $30-$40K is probably starting salary for a college graduate. But presumably professional poker earnings are "lightly taxed". This would make it equivalent to $50-$65K taxable. Of course jobs have some health and retirement benefits. I'm not sure what pro players do about mortgages, health insurance, or retirement plans.
Anyway, Vegas is cheap, has great weather, and Tommy loves the lifestyle. You can't beat that. But in cities like New York or L.A., a family couldn't make it on that money. I considered a one bedroom apartment for $3,600 per month.
BTW, I have no problem with hobbyists spending time and energy to beat small games. There are plenty of golfers and chess players who keep detailed records too.
Because of your name, I assume your from Hangul. Has poker caught on there, even privately? I may go teach there for a year.
The way I operate, there's much more to making a living at poker than playing poker. We talk about the importance of game selection and seat selection and time collection. Here's some nitty gritty on those areas in action, from notes I took during a recent, typical session:
I arrive at midnight, fresh. A smorgasbord of opportunity. Two $20-40 games (one a must-move) and one $40-80, all full, a short list for both. I like going in late because it's quieter with less microphone usage, and more comfortable with fewer bodies in the building. More important, I like being there as games break up, offering more shorthanded opportunities, and its easier to select the best games and seats, and dodge the house drop now and then, as the lists dry up and the games shorten and break.
Because I called in, I'm near the top of both lists. I take an open seat in a $6-12 game, come in behind the button for free (house policy in low-limit games), fold every hand for a round and a half and then get called to the $40-80. I flash the "time out" signal to the floorman, as usual, and scout.
I ask both the players that are behind me on the 40/80 list if they will be taking the seat if I pass. They both say no. Because of where the button is, it'd be four hands before I took a hand in the 40/80. If I lock a seat right away, I'd have to pay the half-hour collection because there is a list, but I know that the list is dead, so I tell the floorman to take me off the 40/80 list and I stay in the 6-12 and look at my three remaining hands before my next big blind before quitting the $6-12.
In the meantime, the floorman calls the other two names for the 40/80. They pass, and now the 40-80 has one seat open with no list.
The open seat at the 40/80 is two to the right of a high impact player who sees many flops, raised or not. If it was one-to-the-right of this player, I would not take the 40-80 game right now. The extra seat between me and him means I have position on him on my two favorite hands per round, the button and cutoff, instead of just one, the button, and that's enough to sway my decision. Having a player like him on the button when I have the cutoff is a tragic waste of the cutoff.
Even with no list, time collection is still taken from new players if they sit down within ten-minutes after collection. By the time the BB gets to my seat in the 40/80, ten minutes will have passed. I confirm my plans with the floorman, to take the BB when it comes to my seat, and not pay time, and he says no problem. We've walked this path before.
I play 40-80 for an hour and 20 minutes and quit two hands before my BB when a dealer sits down and collects time. The must-move 20-40 is five-handed and I go there, able to pick a seat with the two snuggest players on my left. Perfect.
The must-move $20-40 breaks an hour later when it gets down to three of us. House policy is that the must-move list remains intact if the game breaks with fewer than five players. This means that I eventually have a free round coming in the main 20-40 game. And I plan to use it. Not wanted to play $40-80 for what might be less than half and hour, I go back to 6-12.
An hour later I'm being dealt in behind the button in the 20-40 without posting, with 10 minutes of free play time before the next half-hour collection.
The 20-40 game and the 40-80 are equal in terms of opponent's abilities, so the next game-selection criteria becomes which game will break first, to insure that I'm not shut out if the games combine with more than nine players wanting to play. Too soon to tell.
An hour later both games are six-handed and two players from the 40-80 game lock seats in the 20-40 and the 40-80 breaks immediately. The 20-40 fills up and now I have no more game-selection or time-collection decisions to make for the rest of the session.
Two hours later I'm stuck $900 for the session, and tiring, and I just butchered a hand, so at the next time collection I quit and leave.
Tommy
I found this post interesting in light of the fact that two of your earlier posts use the phrase "seems like wasted energy."
Craig H
Good post, Tommy.
All this without the instructive benefits of cable television?
:)
so I take it you like the time collection (as opposed to button charge) for the 20-40?
Yeah, I like the change to time-collection in the $20-40, mainly because it's so much simpler for the dealers to pay attention to the preflop action. With the button-collection we'd be all ready to see the flop right about when the dealer's attention was back to the hand after making change and all that. They'd see bets and raises all over the place and not know what was happening, through no fault of there own. The time-collection is much smoother.
Tommy
Taht's more thinking than some of my LL oppenents put in in a whole year of playing! Nice post, I enjoyed to look into your world.
Mike
sounds like a job...not much fun
You took notes about this? Amazing. As if we didn't know before, we can see why Tommy must be such a tough customer at the tables.
Tommy is a wonderful writer, a wonderful player, a wonderful thinker, and, I can attest from a personal communication from him, a wonderful guy.
Survival is not why I play poker. I play to get away from those decisions Tommy handles with such apparent aplomb.
i hope that you aren't always down $900 after a table-hopping session like that. im sure that was just one example, but it is a good example of how to avoid the extra house charges when playing poker. however i have to say that by jumping tables so much, you are giving up a lot in the way of table image, which can be super-critical to a player's game and playing decisions. the way i see it, always playing with fresh faces can mean the difference sometimes between winning a pot, or a preflop raise, or any number of situations where you stand to fluctuate at least one bet per decision (usually anyway). do you feel that avoiding the time charges and the rake are worth that? or is the case possibly that at this level there are fewer players and your opponents are easier to 'catalog' in your head, and you don't have to sit in a game before you know how your opposition tends to play. please enlighten me on that.
I also enjoy your posts, this one included. If I were to play devil's advocate, however, I would ask you whether all of the thinking, moving, etc. that went on is one of the reasons you became tired, and butchered a hand. If not, I fully understand and agree with your moves. If so, then maybe one would be better off picking the best game at the time and concentrating on playing it without all of the other distractions.
Just a thought. Again, I learn a good deal from your posts and hope we play together some day.
Mick
"do you feel that avoiding the time charges and the rake are worth that?"
The primary purpose of any game change I make is to put my money to better use. The time-charge considerations are always incidental to that. But so often if takes just a small amount of additional effort to move to a "better game" AND save some on collection.
If I can take a ten minute break that results in 20 minutes free playing time in a game I was going to move to anyway, then I figure, why not take the break? If I were to sit down right away and pay and play, I'd really be paying a half-hour collection for 10 MINUTES of table time.
Plus, once a person become "rake sensative," it's like a sickness to save when possible because it can literally be the difference between going busted and staying in action at some point down the road.
"or is the case possibly that at this level there are fewer players and your opponents are easier to 'catalog' in your head, and you don't have to sit in a game before you know how your opposition tends to play. please enlighten me on that."
I already know all the players well. I'd never do the full-throttle table-hopping thing in a strange room. By definition that would mean I don't have the info for such decisions.
Tommy
makes sense to me.
SNIP FOR BREVITY
I already know all the players well. I'd never do the full-throttle table-hopping thing in a strange room. By definition that would mean I don't have the info for such decisions.
Tommy
Basic assumption: Playing in a room where your player knowledge is limited to three or four players at most, all of them hop tables enough to likely be at your table at least once during an 8-hr session. Your knowledge is general and of the, "He seems to steam when he's sucked out on, she seems to play anything unless she's got two raises to her before the river, etc.
This information is based on: Being a good general observer of human behavior. 30 to 50 hours play where the people in question have overlapped approximately 25%. 10 to 15 hours of non-play observation.
Given this, do you feel that there's value in switching tables solely on your interpretation of the game at your table? Since you don't have enough information to make the switch based on anything other than comparison of your table and the others in the room, if you "feel" your table has lost playability for you, will you lose more or less by changing tables? With the limited information available, will your table change be essentially neutral?
Do you feel changing games in this fashion will help or hinder your ability to learn to read the games and players?
Now, how do you feel about the same situation for a player with less than 100 hours of play but good situational awareness?
Jeff
always switch tables if you can when you get that "feeling" the table is not right for you. that may do more for a players earn than many things combined. when the table somehow plays badly for your style and you dont know why and cant adjust you most likely become a loser at that situation. so its best to quit or change.
so i guess you fly a beech baron huh.(poker reading skills put to work)
Grin, nope. I don't fly a Baron. It's a nickname dating back to when I was in the Army. I still use it because people have been able to locate me online that way.
Oh, I reraise your Beech Baron... ;-)
Jeff
"You took notes about this?"
Only for the purpose of writing about it one time.
I don't think you are a very good player.
First, let me appologize for my spelling... it will be amazingly bad.
Second, please don't read this post as an attack on anyone involved in the poker community, but rather as constructive critizism designed to improve our game.
That said, I have noticed many publications and posts on forums involve the use of gender specific language when speaking about players. By gender specific language I mean the use of "he", "him", etc, when the sex of the opponent is not known. For instance, when inventing situations many authors always refer to their fictional opponent as "he." I think this practice is detrimental to our community.
I have a regular poker game that I host weekly. Unfortunately my attempts to involve women in the game have been unsuccessful. Most claim that they do not "fit in" to the all male game. I have attempted to do all that I can in order to make women feel confortable in this environment, but unfortunately they do not. I believe that this problem exists beyond my home game and infects the larger poker community (evidenced by the fact that their are significatly fewer woment than men). I think it would us good to do everything we can to make women feel welcomed in our community, including using them as examples in our poker discussions. I suggest that we adopt a strategy used in many academic circles of alternating our pronouns. For instance, the first fictional opponent is he, the second is she, etc.
Some one will probably say that they know a women who does not feel excluded by the community -- I am aware such women exist. However, please consider how some women first approaching the activity might feel when they start investigating poker. These women, who perhaps are in a community with few or no women poker players will read publications that appear to not address them and in some cases may choose to leave the game. I think we owe them due consideration when we write.
I appologize to the length of the post, I will respond to any further conserns in turn. Please again, understand I have no reason to believe that ANYONE who reads this has or had malicious intent. Gender specific language is a cultural practice we have had for years, I believe now is the time to change it.
Thank you for your careful consideration, kevin
The problem is that the English language does not have a gender non-specific (but not neuter) pronoun. `He/she' and `s/he' are cumbersome and unnatural, and `it' and `they' don't really work either. And mixing up a few he's and she's is still being gender specific for each player. You would need to invent a new word that means `he or she, but not it' and get people to use it. No-one has succeeded in doing this. In the mean time, I think it doesn't really matter too much. Even if soemone writes in a gender specific way, you can always, in you mind, READ it in a non-gender-specific way, if you so choose.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
(n/t)
I agree with her completely. Since Kevin doesn't specifically say he's not a woman, I suppose it's possible that she's not a man. His message is a good one, and her tone obsequious enough to make his point politely. I, for one, will follow her advice from now on and, beginning with my response to his post, alternate my pronouns.
Craig H
PS: I really do agree with Kevin, I'm just having some fun with it.
Im sick and tired of all this political correctness that is in our society, in the last ten years it seems that a person can't do anything without upseting somebody. Political correctness is stupid because nomatter how hard a person tries they cannot please everybody. There are always going to be a few who are offended. Screw them, they can shove it for all I care. Im sick of it all, you can't even find good music anymore, because it is all geared to fit into what the t.v. stations want. Im tired of seeing wussy boy bands and pretty girls with no musical talent on mtv.
^
gee whiz man. nobody said anything about political correctness. in fact, the thread has nothing to do with politics so far, as i can see. we are all enlightened adults. we can use he or she if we feel that these ideas need to be expressed. but why can't we always assume its a man in the example if we aren't sure? the odds are that its a man, considering the poker community in its present form, so why not use a mix of pronouns that accurately represent the gender mix in the poker community? the point is, it doesn't hurt to use 'he' for one example and then to use 'she' in the next example as long as you are consistent. if this bothers you then don't read poker books and forums anymore. they may have references to women players, OOOH SCARY. but i don't think that we can blame the backstreet boys on alternate pronoun usage, so perhaps you should reexamine your post man. our culture has slipped far below just being worried about gender offense in speech and in print. we have sunk far lower than that, and this decline has brought us low enough that these products/bands/people? are something that society wants. fortunately for us, we have the right to listen to other music, and even make our own music if we choose.
First, I may have been a little harsh in my post, but I was only telling the truth.
And I do beleive using gender neutral terms has to do with trying to be politically correct.
What upsets me, is in our society people get upset over little things that are so MINOR. I think this has to do with the nature of mankind. All through history, man has done one thing and that is destroy itself. However, our society today doesn't have that luxury. We have no major war to fight, we have no major cause or purpose. So people look for "little" causes to fight, to make up for this fact.
I think it is ridiculous, where has "mans" heart gone?
Im tired of seeing pretty faces on magazines and t.v. in fact, im tired of t.v. itself. Im tired of big corporations spending billions of dollars on advertising. Im tired of fashion designers like Tommy Hilfiger and Calvin Cline putting up billboards of what people are suppose to look like.
All of this has harmed our society, people are so easily manipulated it is discusting.
Im not saying Im immune to being manipulated, but momma didnt raise no sucker.
Just some things to think about.
Unfortunately my attempts to involve women in the game have been unsuccessful.
Is there a connection between your interest in non-gender-specific language and the fact that women don't want to play in your game?
It is an example of how women feel excluded by a game that is dominated by men. I told the story in order to explain why we should take action to make women feel more welcome in poker games.
kevin
Just use "it" instead of "he" or "she." Now nobody can take offense and you won't have to worry about it further.
^
According to Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary the word "he" can mean:
"anyone. that person. As in he who hesitates is lost."
The pronoun "he" is not always gender specific depending upon the context.
Sure, the dictionary defines it that way. However, in cases where a word can have two meanings it is possible to misinterpret the word. If there was a specific statement regarding the usage of "he" at the begining of the book or essay then the context would be clear. There is no such statement in any poker publication that I have read.
Consider what happened in your mind last time you read a discription of a fictional hand which refered to another player as "he." Have you ever imagined that player as a woman? I haven't. This seems to indicate that despite Mr. Webster, "he" is not generic (even when used in a generic context). I wish I was at home right now, there have been several studies done that support my conclusion. If you interested I would be happy to send you them.
thanks, kevin
i once read a book that included characters that were gender neutral (it was a sci-fi book) and the gender-neutral charcters were referred to by the invented pronoun 've' (pronounced like 'he' but with a 'v' in the beginning). it was a bit confusing at first because the author didn't explain it, but it made sense later as you got used to it.
We shouldn't worry if we offend because we are just being natural if we use a common term (not an actual slur), instead of trying our utmost to please everyone. We are not offending anyone. Those who are offended are choosing to take offense.
If your goal is to attract women to poker I would suggest getting in shape, dressing sharply, cultivating a sense of humor and playing High Limit. This is the image that most women find attractive in a poker player and about poker in general. You will not attract women to poker or to your game by being Casper Milquetoast (which is what PC-ness is all about).
Now I will further state something WHICH I AM SURE IS A FACT. With the sentiments you expressed in your post YOU WILL HAVE NO SHOT EVER at High-Limit poker until you get some balls. Now you can choose to take offense at that statement or not but I am just telling you for your own good. Furthermore you just might want to consider how and if this is affecting your personal life.
Good luck and best wishes,
"M"
^
^
.
^
I'm geeky when it comes to this stuff and here's the scoop. Definitive books on English usage come out about every ten years and the use of male pronouns still stands as being correct.
Books on writing go further and implore the writing student to NOT use the cumbersome contructs, he/she and his/her, or the distracting alternating approach.
Tommy
i respect you as a writer, and as a poster on this site. but i have to say that if we let a book tell us what is 'right' in regards to writing style, then there is a problem. if the book says that male pronouns are right, and so we all use them, then how is that conception that it is right going to change? writing is something that we as individuals, as writers, define. common writing rules would proscribe that i use capitalization, however i believe that if you understand my meaning wuite well without it. and it saves it for usage when perhaps it IS necessary for emphasis. i understand that this is an informal internet forum, but it can stand as an example of the flexibility of writing standards, and how vivid and powerful something can be when you break those 'rules' of writing...
Please. Just once. Say something even mildly offensive to me and help restore my faith in humanity. If this is what the future of communication in the world is coming to...well, I just can't take it anymore. Please offend me just a tiny bit as a personal favor. And it doesn't count if you apologize before or after.
Kevin,
By convention (general agreement), in order to avoid awkward constructs, the masculine pronoun is used to mean anyone, male or female, when the sex is not known, or relevant. Given this, using she when, by convention, using he is correct, can be misleading, as well as annoying.
Tom D
I appologize for posting so often... I wasn't originally planing on responding to this message, but there are so many people who say "the constuct he/she is bad." I agree its a pain to use... please read my post again. I never suggested using "he/she" I suggesting alternating pronouns. This avoids the awkward constucts, while also maintaining gender equity.
kevin
baggins wrote: "but i have to say that if we let a book tell us what is 'right' in regards to writing style, then there is a problem."
This isn't so much a matter of what "is right" as it is what "isn't wrong." Using the masculine pronoun is never wrong in any magazine article or poker book.
Kevin wrote: "However, please consider how some women first approaching the activity might feel when they start investigating poker."
Do you think it will be their first exposure to masculine pronouns used this way?
Tommy
Tommy,
The solution is rather simple in most cases: use a plural subject and the plural pronoun "they." Or, use synonyms instead of the pronoun. Although "he" will do, it does do most often because the writer is male. Admit it, don't you find it annoying when them womyn writers use "she" all the time?
BTW, recently, a panel of language enthusiasts voted "she" as the word of the millennium. Seems that the English language only possessed the singular male pronoun and a pronoun for more than one woman before "she" came into use. So, if you want to use "she" now and again, rejoice, it's number one!
John
PS. About those damn usage manuals . . . .
John,
"The solution is rather simple in most cases: use a plural subject and the plural pronoun they.'"
If only it WERE that simple. Just for fun, let's play revise-that-sentence.
Here's an excerpt from an actual rule book. Your job is to revise out the "his."
----------
"If a player fails to act when it is his turn, and three or more players act behind, the right to initiate action may be forfeited."
----------
You wrote: "Admit it, don't you find it annoying when them womyn writers use "she" all the time?"
I'm not easily annoyed, but I am easily distracted. STRUNK and WHITE suggest that a "careful" writer has the reader's comfort in mind.
Tommy
Tommy,
Easy: "If a player fails to act in turn. . . ."
Fewer words, too.
John
< Fewer words is good, but you've lost the meaning with your solution.
"If a player fails to act when it is his turn, and three or more players act behind, the right to initiate action may be forfeited."
This rule is not about "failing to act in turn." That wording could draw to mind the all-familiar "action out of turn" rules, another animal altogether, like checking on the button with two players ahead of you who have not acted yet. Your recommended phrase denotes this familiar rule infraction situation, unrelated to the rule I quoted. That's confusing.
This rule is about failing to act when it IS your turn. See the subtle difference? Yes, your solution could be eventually interpreted with the same meaning, but if the goal is to have a rule book that a newly hired floorman could reference and understand quickly during a ruling, and I think that's a good way to judge the clarity of a rule book, then do you still think your solution does the trick?
Tommy
Tommy,
Perhaps not, but let me give it another try.
"A player who has failed to act in turn may forfeit the right to initiate action when three or more players have already acted behind that player." This, I think, removes the doubt, but, then again, I'd hate to be that new floorperson interpreting the word "may."
BTW, I really don't have a problem with using "he" or "him" either. And, as a side note, The National Council of Teachers of English has decided that the plural pronoun works just fine with the singular noun and should be considered acceptable. So, "Each student must bring their books to class" is okay with the NCTE. I just can't jump on that bandwagon, though.
John
John, "The National Council of Teachers of English has decided that the plural pronoun works just fine with the singular noun and should be considered acceptable. So, "Each student must bring their books to class" is okay with the NCTE. I just can't jump on that bandwagon, though."
Me neither, at least not by design. Sometimes the plural pronoun feels like it can slide by unnoticed. At those times, it can become a lesser evil that "he" IMO and I'll use it. But sometimes the plural just sits there with a "say what?" sign on it.
Tommy
Posted by: John Cole (jcole5044@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 June 2001, at 5:32 p.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 June 2001, at 10:45 p.m.
interesting way to think abou the situation tommy. and thanks for the honest respectful reply. but i have to say, in reference to the idea that women have been exposed to the word 'he' as a generic pronoun enough to understand and not be offended by it, that the solution doesn't logically follow to be to continue with the status quo. if i am used to waking up coughing up a lung every morning because i smoke a pack of cigarettes a day, that doesn't mean that i should go on smoking. if everybody on the highway goes 60 miles over the limit, that doesn't mean it is a safe practice and we should all do it. if i consistently refer to my girlfriend as a friend, she may become just that. if i tell sexist or racist jokes around people who are offended by them, even though i hold no racist/sexist bias, they will still be offended by them. if i continue to assume and insinuate that i am better than other people, they are going to stop liking me, and will not listen to the good things i have to say. basically, im saying that, just because sometimes things have become accepted ways of doing something, doesn't mean that they are the best way of doing them. and these methods should be examined as to whether i am being exclusive of other people, or ignorant of health issues, or ignorant of safe driving measures, or disrespectful of someone's feelings, or self-indulging of my own ego.
So far I've only addressed current correctness.
As to wanting to improve the language, for whatever reason, and to heck with the modern-usage guides, I'm all for it.
The reason I prefer to use AND read generic male pronouns is because I see them as the least of evils, in any genre.
When I see "he" refer to a group that includes females, I hitch. It feels weird.
But when I read "he/she" or alternating genders, I hitch worse. It feels more weird.
Writing, my goal is to get past this trouble spot by distracting the reader as little as possible. So I use the option that is familiar and that distracts me the least when I'm reading.
Not a rib, but just so you know, whenever I read one of yours or anyone else's posts with the alternating genders, I get thrown off track everytime a "she" shows up and I literally have to read the entire sentence again to figure out what the content was. That's exactly what I DON'T want to do a reader when I write, and the masculine pronoun is, again, the least of evils toward that goal.
That poker happens to be male-dominated, increasing the potential sensativities of a woman entering a man's world, well, I'm not insensitive to that. If our language evolves to where something other than male pronouns becomes familiar and less distracting, I think poker writers will welcome the change and use it more readily than the writing pack.
Tommy
Tommy says: I get thrown off track everytime a "she" shows up and I literally have to read the entire sentence again to figure out what the content was.
Tommy, not to be insulting, but this sounds like your problem and not the writers. You seriously can't read a description of a hand with a female player referenced?
I hope Mason Malmuth will forgive me borrowing from his essay.
Here's an example. Suppose on fifth street you have
5c Ah 5d Qs 7h
The first player bets and you put her on pair of kings, and there are two players behind you.
If you found the pronoun change I made hard to read, I really think you should reexamine how you view women. I hope you didn't.
thanks for your consideration, kevin
I have no reading impediment and I've been told many times by many woman that I am "Far more in touch with my feminine side than most men." So I'm okay on those counts.
The reason the alternating pronounds throw me is because this is how it comes across, and not just to me.
A sample paragraph with everything but the pronoun appearences omitted:
"A player bet ... he got raised ... then she raised back. On the next round he check-raised. She folded on the river."
The first time a "she" shows up, I have to pause to figure out that a new character was NOT introduced. That is not MY fault, it is yours.
I'm most offended that you conjectured that my preferences and opinions about a routinely discussed question of english usage somehow reflects on my utterly unrelated views on gender roles.
Tommy
Tommy says: The first time a "she" shows up, I have to pause to figure out that a new character was NOT introduced. That is not MY fault, it is yours.
Of course that paragraph is confusing. The initial bettor's sex changes.
I think your misunderstanding my suggestion of switching pronouns. I suggest that when you create a fictional character for your writing that sometimes make that character a woman. Not that your fictional characters change sex during the story.
An example is: "No one calls the blind, until the button. He raises, then the blind reraises him, he calls her raise."
Two characters one is male the other is female. Certainly a character should have a consistent sex throughout the story, but some of the characters should be female.
Sorry that you were offended. I mispoke, I think we are talking about different things.
kevin
Kevin,
"I think your misunderstanding my suggestion of switching pronouns. I suggest that when you create a fictional character for your writing that sometimes make that character a woman. Not that your fictional characters change sex during the story.
An example is: "No one calls the blind, until the button. He raises, then the blind reraises him, he calls her raise."
Two characters one is male the other is female. Certainly a character should have a consistent sex throughout the story, but some of the characters should be female."
Okay, I see what you're saying now, and you're right, I didn't get it the first time around.
"I think we are talking about different things."
Right.
Tommy
well, i agree. we need to find a way for our language to evolve to include gender neutral pronouns that aren't confusing. perhaps this is a question that can be looked into deeper as it relates to the evolution of the english language. but we all know that evolution implies change. and with change, some periods of awkward confusion. perhaps we just need to start introducing a single new pronoun that denotes gender neutrality. and use it, and use it, and use it. and then use it some more, and explain to people why it is there. and use it every time we make up an example or speak of somebody whose gender is unimportant for the story or example. (i think we will use it quite a bit, and its use will definitely be ingrained in the readers' heads after a short time.) that is, unless you specifically intend to refer to a male, or specifically intend to refer to a female, the new pronoun should be used. i know this sounds weird. i know that it will be quite awkward at first. i know that we are so set in our thought patterns that this will be something ou very brains will fight. but if we want to move forward, change needs to happen. while i agree that our current manner of pronoun usage is not horrible, and can be used quite effectively without much confusion or real gender-alienation, it must also be said that an obvious negative aspect can be addressed and had possible solutions that may be hard to implement, but quite possibly well worth the change.
"but if we want to move forward, change needs to happen. "
communist.
youre what lenin called a 'useful idiot'.
brad
I have seen alot of post recently about "earnings" and "Pro Players", "1BB/Hr this" and "Perpertrated Fraud" about how hard it really is to make it as a REAL Professional Poker Player, etc. Now what about all those Big name Tournament Players? Are they classified as Professionals? Their money earned can actually be verified, some have even earned millions. Have they really mastered tournament Poker or have they just really have had more than their share of luck? Are tournaments won by the skilled or by the ones better at managing their luck? (I like that last question) I have a theory about tournaments and those name players. Here me out then discuss: There are only say, 10-25 events a year that the highest level players can play in. Now take an extended winning streak and apply it to tournaments and this is where the big names come from. A month winning streak in a regular ring game where you feel like you can do no wrong could be the equivalent of 2 years+ in tournament land. They are in the spotlight because of their turn. Like Last years "Player of the year - David Pham". Thousands play, but few get the luck consistently. And those that do get magazine articles, etc and this huge personna for a little while (2-7 years?). Sort of like that guy at your table (Ring Game)who you know has serious flaws to his game but you keep seeing him win for a month or so, maybe longer. He brags about how much he has won, but you just know that when the cards even out, he can't possibly be a long term winner.
Sorry so long.
Bud
Interesting post...
I play almost exclusively tournaments and travel to 3 or 4 of the "major" events each year. I'm not a pro, by any stretch of the imagination, but I earn more than I pay in buy-ins and I've played against all the big-name players. Here's my take:
The very best players are amazingly talented individuals. They win consistently by virtue of their superior play. A prime example is TJ Cloutier. Considered the best no-limit hold'em player in the world, he has played tournament poker as his primary source of income for 17 years. We all know the kind of year he had last year... he got lucky. He also had one very unlucky year and lost money. The other 15 years he won consistently, though I don't know exactly how much. Phil Hellmuth recently went through a two year period without winning a big event. He also has booked losing years. Of course, this year he's running a little better. Tournament players are subject to the same fluctuations that ring game players are subject to... they just manifest in different ways. Sklansky has shown that a player who is twice as good as the field can play in 100 tournaments a year and go two years without breaking even. The converse is true for someone half as good as the field. So, some of the big names are simply on a lucky streak, and some of the no-names are really world-class players. The true test is time, just like in any other type of poker.
David Pham is a great tournament player. He had a lucky year last year, but he will make money in any year in which he is not extremely unlucky. Same goes for Chris Ferguson. Nani Dollison, on the other hand, may be an example of the "lucky streak" player you are talking about. She has a very aggressive style which lends itself to large fluctuations- and winning 4 major events in one year's time is quite a favorable fluctuation. My apologies to Nani if I'm wrong, but I would guess that she will lose money 8 or 9 of the next 10 years playing tournaments.
I'm interested to hear what others have to say on the topic. Nolan Dalla's player rankings are helpful in this respect: any player who has made his top 20 more than twice is certainly a world class, winning tournament player.
Craig H
hall of fame you must have "stood the test of time"...good post,,gl
Yes
Budman, it does take luck...but it also takes skill. to win any single event , even the most skilled player MUST have some luck too. but as others have posted, the records would seem to prove that skill is a larger factor IN THE LONG TERM. lol Jim
First, Great reply Craig!
Now onto Jellow. You are right. I never said that skill isn't needed or that it is all luck. But what I am just pondering is WHAT kind of skill? I think that "skill at managing your luck" is the difference and the X-factor to tourney's. Of course all the other skills can and do come into play like reading people/hands, or outplaying by being more agressive, etc. But how do you explain someone like Kevin Mcbride or a Jim Mcmahanus (Something like that) or a Jeff Shullman for that matter? Kevin and Jim are classic examples of what I am talking about. Kevin was playing poker for 6 months he says (exageration I am sure, but it couldn't have been more than a year)and he took SECOND in the WSOP. I've watched that tape over and over and you can see his very weak play, bad calls, inexperience all throughout and had Scotty not flopped the monster on the last hand, Kevin could VERY WELL be on that wall you talk about. The luck was there and he was able to CAPITALIZE on it (every pot he won JUST happened to be big while others were stealing blinds!).
Then you have the Hyper aggressive players that Craig talks about where they will lose 8 out of every ten years they play. I put Jeff Shullman in this catagory. I have played in tourneys with him and my god, He puts tables on tilt. Raising and reraising with stuff like 5-9o and then a flop of 5-5-A for example when someone has AK! How lucky can you get? He went far in the '00 WSOP and had some victories in 2000 as well. Hidden proof of my concept right there... Had his success, spotlight and fades away. He will appear again. His hyper style will get him a huge chip lead again sometime. He may even go on to win some more here and there and then tell everyone who reads CardPlayer how he knew that the guy was holding AK and then describe his genius thought process. But what is his ratio? How many tourney's does he play a year and how many does he win or place in Money? (I am NOT picking on him, just using as an example)
Take 800 people and flip a coin letting them call heads or tails. You will, on average get 400 winners, do it again and again and you will still have people left. Down to 200, then 100, then 50 and WOW 25 people have correctly called the coin every time this far! You will then start to have people start explaining how they do it and their methods, they will get noticed as "expert coin flipping pros", maybe even write some books. Do it again and get 12 and then down to 6. These people become the "Stars" of coin flipping. They are idolized by many millions of other coin flippers, Huge personna's, etc.
Extreme example but the metaphor is perfect...
Bud
you are right, Budman. In my first post I said that even very skilled player must have some luck to win in a single tournament.....carrying on with your thought AND agreeing....even a player with a LOW level of skill can have enough LUCK to win a single event. It's that long term record that brings greater skill into focus.
For the long run, let that other guy have luck, I'll take skill...BUT if you and I are going to set down to play, then you can have the skill let me have the LUCK (if I can'y have both). lot's of it to you, Jim
n/t
BUdman great response I agree with your take on the situation. Very often at a poker table you will see the solid player who puts himself in good drawing hands, is knowledgable and considerate of position, and utilizes the mathmatics of pot vs. Drawing odds take down a big pot only to hear in the background "Lucky Draw". Go ahead and give creadance to the luck of the draw to an extent. However Poker is built upon putting yourself in the best position for the luck or randomness of the cards to benefit you. To play poker for a living on a consistent basis you have to put yourself in these positions!!!!
ok, i have to ethically come clean here and ask for you thoughts. i was playing in a 1-2 game, one night, up about 200 bucks after about 3 hours, and this lady sat down on my left. she bought a rack of chips, ordered a beer and proceeded to play the game. now, this woman knew how the game worked, the ranks of hands, how to read the board, etc. but she had no clue as to starting hands, betting strategies, relative hand strength, etc. she would play every hand to the river, and if she didn't have at least a pair by the river, she would then muck on the river. if she had a pair or better she would call. she was blowing through her rack like you wouldn't believe. she was a very nice lady, and nobody at the table had a problem with her play. we all loved her. but i felt bad that she was losing so badly (though im sure she could afford it.) but i felt she would enjoy herself more if she were to be able to outplay somebody once, or make a good early fold at least. since she regularly showed her cards to me when i was out of the pot, i always knew what she had. i don't think anybody else saw me kibitzing, and nobody said anything. so occasionally i would whisper to her to throw her hand away (always stressing that it was ultimately her decision.) sometimes i told her to call, and she did and won a good size pot. she loved it! then came a hand where on the turn she had a gutshot straight draw that needed a T to complete it. i told her if she didn't get the T to fold. well, the T came, and she was a bit excited, but nobody noticed. she wanted to bet out, but i told her not to. she hadn't initiated betting once since she sat down and this would have been a sure signal to everyone else. i told her to check, and then somebody would bet, and then she could raise. you should have seen the look on everybody's faces when she checkraised. everyone told her how good a play it was, she loved it and was quite happy to take a large pot down. she even handed me one of the chips, and told me to save it because it was lucky. i didn't give her too much advice after that one, but every once in a while id tell her to throw her hand away. does anyone think that this was a horrible thing for me to do? i think the table realized that i had helped her after she checkraised, but nobody said a word about it, so i figured they weren't really mad about it. any thoughts? i realize this isn't following the strictest of ettiquette in poker, but she still lost 2 racks in the game. she just got to enjoy it a bit longer than she would have. i enjoyed having her next to me, as she was quite a stitch, and a very sweet lady too.
I think you did a bad thing. You were playing more than one person to a hand, and denying others the right to a fair game while having an unfair advantage yourself.
I am glad to see morals are dollar based values. Does anyone feel an obligation to tell people at the craps, blackjack tables, or slot machines that they can not win? I hold to my opinion.
Where did the chips from the '...up about $200.00...' come from? Who donated that money, was it given because they like the 'coach' and wanted to donate their money to him? How come the 'coach' was up about what the lady lost? Could part of the reason be he was playing one less person than others at the table?
If the lady wasn't coached at the table, the outcome would have way different. The coach 'coaches' when he is not in the hand so the woman plays better than she would by herself. When the coach is in the hand, she plays a poorer hand because she is basically clueless. So the coach has a big advantage on the table.
For people playing $1 - 2 poker it is serious poker, as it is all they can afford to play for whatever reason. If I had been in that game, I would be seriously upset to learn that collusion took place in what I thought was an honest game.
While it would be easy to say that what you were doing was wrong, I really don't have a problem with it. 1-2 hold'em is more like Church bingo than poker, in terms of the intensity level, so I feel it's ok to have a more relaxed experience and try to introduce people to the game. Perhaps you helped this lady become interested in learning to play the game better. And importantly, you said nobody at the table seemed to mind.
Anyone who would argue that the stakes don't matter, and that you need to conduct the game with the highest standards at all levels has never played in a game bigger than $30/60. The stakes are everything. It's like the difference between playing miniature golf and playing at the country club. Are you really going to charge someone a stroke if they whiff at the putt-putt course? So as long as the players didn't object, it's no big deal.
If we want an ethics discussion, we should talk about chip-dumping in major tournaments or partner play in the big games at the Bellagio.
Craig H
I'm in general agreement with Craig. The real key is that the other players didn't mind....if they do, then of course you can't continue. Jim
`If we want an ethics discussion, we should talk about chip-dumping in major tournaments or partner play in the big games at the Bellagio.'
What is chip-dumping?
Chip dumping is when a group of players make an agreement to intentionally loose all their chips to one player in a no-limit tournament. The concept is that an expert player who has tripled or quadrupled through is at a tremendous advantage with such a large stack. The dumpers get their buy-ins back plus a fee, regardless of the ultimate fate of the "expert".
I've heard that it has happened in major tournaments. I will not give names because it is, afterall, conjecture and I do not want to tarnish a professional's reputation with unfounded accusations. I would be interested to hear from anyone who knows more, though.
CH
Craig,
You wrote: "Perhaps you helped this lady become interested in learning to play the game better."
As Dan pointed out, it would be acceptable to give advice after the hand is over.
You claimed: "And importantly, you said nobody at the table seemed to mind."
No, what Baggins wrote was: "i don't think anybody else saw me kibitzing, and nobody said anything."
Nobody saying anything doesn't justify his behavior, especially if nobody saw his coaching. If he marked the cards and nobody said anything, his actions still would be wrong.
After the check-raise advice, Baggins said, "i think the table realized that i had helped her after she checkraised, but nobody said a word about it, so i figured they weren't really mad about it." Once people might have realized what was going on, "i didn't give her too much advice after that one . . ."
It might well be the case that nobody at the table minded the coaching. But Baggins never asked. Why not?
Baggins should have asked the other players if anyone objected to his violating the "one player to a hand" rule. If no player objected AND if the floorperson allowed it, then he should feel free to coach.
If I was the floorperson, however, I probably wouldn't allow it--even at the $1-$2 level. In one of the cardrooms where I used to play, coaching was tolerated at the $3-$6 level. More and more players assumed it was an acceptable part of the game. Soon, coaching started to occur in the $6-$12 games and then in the $10-$20 games. Players at those levels would complain, so the coaching just became quieter (or silent nods).
Mark Glover--do you mean to say that if that sweet little old lady sat down in the 40-80 game, you wouldn't want anyone to help her??? Remember that she is probably somebodys mother--possibly grandmother too--and would seem to need help even more at this higher level. Poor lady, some people just have no heart! lol Jim
Jim,
You asked: "Remember that she is probably somebodys mother--possibly grandmother too--and would seem to need help even more at this higher level. Poor lady, some people just have no heart! lol"
At a public cardroom, I would check-raise my own grandmother. In fact, I have. And she's done the same to me.
that's great Mark, I like it! lol JIM
I don't think you committed a mortal sin, but you really should not coach people during the hand.
There would have been nothing wrong with coaching her after the hand was over.
This lady doesn't have a home game to play in (or she would be there). I agree with the others that as long as nobody objects,its fine to coach someone that needs a little help.
I think the most unbeleavable part of your post is beening up $200 in 1-2 after just 3 hours. You shouldn't even think about moving up, you'll lose too much money!!
You are wasting your energy. This person wants to gamble and have a good time and pretty much expects to lose. So spend your time joking around and making sure she has a good time and she will come back and play badly in the future. When a player like this sits down, they want entertainment. Play the part of a quirky poker player, stare other people down and say things like "I don't think you GOT IT!", dont check, say czechoslovakia, and so on and so forth. Put on a show for the fish, and she will return...and maybe bring friends.
The added bonus is distracting the rest of the table (of course, in the games I play, it distracts the fish and puts the serious players on tilt because they want to play a serious game of poker dammit and this is not the place to have fun dammit, so shut the hell up dammit and will he ever shut up and maybe I can play this K3s and shut him up and crap he just turned over AA). Of course, I guess this isn't for everyone; one player once told me I had a unique talent for putting other people on tilt.
David "Mike Caro Jr" Ottosen
While you may not have thought of it this way (but your evil subconscious probably did--just kidding), I'd put your actions in the "keep the fish happy" category. It's much the same as buying the fish a beer or throwing a few chips back to them after beating them for the tenth pot in a row, or telling them jokes, etc.
You are making the game more fun for her which means she is more likely to 1) stay till her chips are gone, 2) then rebuy and 3) come back.
I assume the rest of the table realized this so no one was giving you nasty looks.
Since it was 1-2 I'll just assume you were actually being nice to her though.
Keep the games fun...
Paul Talbot
well thanks for your thoughts. i know full well that i 'shouldn't' help another player at the table. but she still lost 2 racks while she was there, and i never did anything that cost another player a pot, just maybe an extra bet or so. i wouldn't have done it if the game were any higher. not in 2-4 or 30-60. but 1-2 is where a lot of people go to have fun while they play. this lady was having fun, and so was i, and so was everybody else at the table. i don't usually coach players. but i thought this lady might enjoy herself more if i did. no harm no foul, really. and as for being up $200 in 3 hours, well lets just say it was low-limit holdem in southern california. i have often been able to go on runs like that. looser starting hand requirements in LLHE can still rake in the big pots. its a different game, and you just can't play as tight in these games as you should in a regular game. lots of maniacs and calling stations, no rocks, and very few tricky customers. it helps when your looser hand requirements hit the flop too. i figure i can get away from hands easily if they don't hit the flop in those games, and if i get what i want on the flop i can push it for the maximum profit. you also have to push every edge in that game. top pair top kicker is frequently good in that game (although a little bit less than other games, because the bad draws sometimes get there...) and can be bet and raised for value quite often. anyway, lets just say that it was not a super lucky night (that would have been where i was up 200 from 1-2, went to 2-4 and went up 100 more, and went to 3-6 and went up 200 more allin about 8 hours. which wasn't lucky either, my opponents were just really bad, not calling my bluffs, and then paying off my good hands.) just a good night.
I had a similar experience but this time it was a younger lady. But rather than coaching her during the game, I pulled her aside and suggested to her some of the basic books that she can purchase to improve her game. Guess what, she is a better player now.
Baggins,
Earlier, you wrote: "sometimes i told her to call, and she did and won a good size pot."
Now, you claim: ". . . i never did anything that cost another player a pot, just maybe an extra bet or so."
Can you explain this apparent contradiction?
yes, she would have called anyway if i didn't say anything. she was asking me if she should fold. i always told her it was up to her. i also coached maybe 10 hands total in the whole time all of this took place. perhaps that will help put this in prespective. also, remember that i posted this because i felt a bit guilty about coaching, and wanted to hear opinons. opinions not major rebuke, and snide remarks, and insinuations that i took advantage of the situation in an unfair way. if i hadn't coached her at all, i would still have taken advantage of her poor play, and she would be no wiser, and have less fun, and lose quicker. i also was ahead the $200 BEFORE she sat down, from straight up play. i never looked at her cards if i was in the hand, and actually played very few hands against her. i actually said to the table a couple hands after the check-raise thing that i had told her about that, and they all laughed, and nobody said a word about it. i also would have stopped immediately if anybody said anything to me about it. does that clear anything up?
Baggins,
You wrote: "if i hadn't coached her at all, i would still have taken advantage of her poor play, and she would be no wiser, and have less fun, and lose quicker."
I never discussed this aspect of your actions, but since you mentioned it . . .
I certainly can see how it might give you the *appearance* of being self-serving and greedy. By coaching her, you help her preserve her bankroll. By allowing her to play longer, you make it more likely she will be around to get involved in future hands against you. (Whether you actually ened up playing many hands against her usually is irrelevant.) Aware opponents might be left with the impression that your coaching hurts their EV's and helps your own. And rightfully so.
yes but, the REALLY aware ones may see that by helping her a bit they can get a piece of her pension check each month for a long time! Jim
Only if Baggins truly has reformed. ;-)
This is a toughy. Like Craig, I do think the stakes matter. And I think it is significant that no one complained. That sounds like a vote of endorsement to carry on.
But.
The "one player to a hand" rule is clear and fundamental. If she's procedurally confused, mid-hand assistance is fine. But to talk about betting decisions during a hand strikes me as a rare case of an absolute wrong.
If it would bother you to play against a player who was getting coached on what to bet and when, then something doesn't add up, even within your player-friendly code.
Tommy
since everyone here is saying kind of the same thing, and i already knew what i thought, here's what i have to say. i do realize that it was unfair, and i dont think anybody would say that i should continue to coach players at the table. i realize i probably shouldn't have done it, and that, though the harm was minimal, it still made a difference. in retrospect i will not be coaching anybody else in this manner again. but the question i have for you all is: how bad is what i did? i know it was wrong, but is it really worth a huge fuss? or just a reminder not to do it anymore?
"but the question i have for you all is: how bad is what i did? i know it was wrong, but is it really worth a huge fuss? or just a reminder not to do it anymore?"
If you were to say, "I don't think there is anything wrong with what I did and I will continue to do it," then I'd say what you did was way way bad.
As it is, I don't think you did anything wrong because you're willing to self-examine and tweak your ethical code.
Tommy
I disagree with the people who said that the stakes matter in this situation. Cheating is cheating, and violating the "one player to a hand rule" is cheating regardless of the stakes. You can argue that it's "less wrong" to cheat at 1-2 than it would be to cheat at 30-60, but "less wrong" is still wrong. If you don't agree, would you say it's ok for me to play online 1-2 with a friend and tell him my hole cards, but it's not ok to do the same at 20-40? There's no fundamental difference between colluding by sharing hole cards and colluding by coaching someone during a hand.
I do agree that you can treat situations differently at lower stakes because the games tend to be friendlier or because you're there to be friendly, but you should make sure that you're not interfering with someone else's enjoyment of the game, and any form of cheating just doesn't fall into a "grey area" as far as I'm concerned because that could well interfere with someone else's enjoyment. An example of a "grey area" might be if I played in a 1-2 game, I would be very liberal with telling someone that they were holding their cards in a way that I could see them. In a 30-60 game, I would at most tell someone once and that's it. I might also be a lot less likely to call a string raise in a 1-2 game if someone make the string raise accidentally, or letting someone take a bet back if they meant to call but accidentally raised. But that's because these situations affect me only, and I wouldn't care about the stakes in a 1-2 game.
I also don't really buy the argument that "because no one said anything, it's ok." It's not as if you asked the table "Hey, is it cool if I help her play her hands when I'm not in the hand?"
I think the part that bothers me about this thread is the idea that "It's 1-2 and everyone's just there to have a good time, so it doesn't matter." In a casino poker game, you have no idea why a stranger is playing in the game. I personally played 3-6 professionally for a little while when I was starting out, before I was able to build up a bankroll for bigger games, and it would have pissed me off quite a bit if I found out there was any collusion in the game because I depended on that money for living expenses. (As to why I played such low stakes professionally, I was very young and not qualified for any job that paid more.)
The converse is that you have no idea why someone's pissing away money like that, which is why I tend to mind my own business. If she seems to be having a good time, let her have a good time. Maybe she doesn't have the same motivations as you and could care less about "outplaying the table" or "making a good fold." Maybe she's wealthy and losing a couple hundred dollars is meaningless. In any casino there are tens of thousands of people each day giving there money away in -EV games like roulette and craps, which is why I tend not to care at all that people choose to donate their money in a game that could potentially be +EV.
-Sean
sean stated that there was no fundamental difference between coaching someone on a hand, and telling them your hole cards during play. let's think about that one for a minute. knowing somebody else's holse cards can have a drastic impact on how you play a hand. if, for instance, i know that you have the Ad and another unsuited card, and i have the KdQd and the flush comes, i can know for certain that i have the best hand, while nobody else at the table can know that. this is quite fundamentally different than telling someone that they should proably fold. yes, it is cheating, and violates the OPTAH rule. but anyone can see that there is a glaring difference, which you claim there isn't. if i tell somebody in the hand with me, my sole opponent let's say, that he should fold his hand when in fact i have the nuts, and have bet, hoping he'll raise, knowing he'll at least call, i am coaching him, telling him true honest advice, and yet i am using it to my advantage. i can do the same thing in a hand by telling players my hole cards. you wouldn't call it cheating if i did that, but you would call it cheating if i whispered to somebody to fold.
sean stated that there was no fundamental difference between coaching someone on a hand, and telling them your hole cards during play. let's think about that one for a minute. knowing somebody else's holse cards can have a drastic impact on how you play a hand. if, for instance, i know that you have the Ad and another unsuited card, and i have the KdQd and the flush comes, i can know for certain that i have the best hand, while nobody else at the table can know that. this is quite fundamentally different than telling someone that they should proably fold. yes, it is cheating, and violates the OPTAH rule. but anyone can see that there is a glaring difference, which you claim there isn't.
Uh, sir? You didn't explain exactly what this "glaring difference" is, but perhaps you're missing the fact that you, the coach, know what hand you folded already? -Sean
I sometimes think I would rather enter a game posting from the cutoff rather than the BB thinking a random hand with position is better than up front.
Comments and why?
Gene (holdemdude)
If you are player #7 post.
If you are player #5 or less take the big blind.
If you are player #6 the most agreed play is to post.
MS Sunshine
One of the places a I play at requires you to post as a new player, one doesn't. These places also have a collection on the button as opposed to rake from pot. I always choose to come in at the cutoff. To me position os more important.
Tonite I sat down in a very loose agressive 6-12 he table. I posted in the cutoff. I checked my A10o and we see a flop 6 ways. I flopped an ace and there was a flush draw on the board. A loose "bet the draw" type player in the middle bets. no-one calls to me and I raise. SB cold calls....middle guy 3 bets I call. He bet out thru the river and I just check called all the way. His flush didnt get there. I win.
But position allowed me to 2 bet and push out a player that would have made 2 small pair. I'll take the cutoff.
I always enter on the big blind now, and my reason is extra flakey. When I post behind the button, I'm such a sucker for the cutoff seat that I can't find a hand that I'd fold for one more bet, which meant I started almost every session seeing a flop, which meant I almost had crap, and I was starting out gambling right off the bat when what I really wanted to do was start the day by folding both blinds and getting the button right away with a snug image recently and briefly reinforced.
Tommy
Tommy...to become and maintain winning poker status, recognizing our own shortcomings is secondary to taking action to improve on them. This is an excellent example that you are doing that. I too have the same difficulty in finding a hand I'd muck for a raise. Over my career I hate to even try and estimate my long term losses versus winning from late posting.
Good thoughts, Tommy...thanks!
Gene (holdemdude)
I don't have that problem Tommy. I still maintain or give somewhat of a tight image when I muck it in the cutoff. Which I do frequently. If it aint playable it aint playable. I only loosen up for 1 more bet considering my position if I have enough players and it's a decent drawing hand for the necessary pot odds. Like when it's two bets to me, (i'm in for one already in cutoff) there are 5 players and I have 78s, 910s, 56s, etc. suitedconnected or better. Otherwise I dump it.
In a 10 handed game: you get 10 hands for 1.5sb when you post in the BB; or .15sb per hand. If you enter the game and post only 1bb in the cutoff, you get 7 hands for 1sb or .14sb per hand. The advantage of playing you blind in much better position makes this a automatic decision.
- Louie
I will predict that there will be at least one more major conceptual change to Hold Em. That will be the realization that by increasing the blind in a limit game you dramatically change the game e.g. 10/20 w 5/10 blind vs 15/30 with a 10/15 blind. And this change will act to speed up poker and make it more interesing, once again, and be the great equalizer for the good players who like a faster game; and maybe give the right brain players a slight advantage over left brain players - lol.
What if you had a 15/15 blind or even a 10/10/15 blind. The rocks would be in trouble and the more imaginative (and less patient, but solid, players) would finally have a game where they can show their stuff.
Just as Hold Em revolutionized and sped up poker (limit low ball was almost finite and draw poker was too slow), so I think more understanding of larger blinds will change poker again.
Sklansky and Malmuth discuss in their book how a short game can be a great advantage if played well. Well take this thought one step further and you realize that a larger blind will acheive the same advantage, but in a more controlled way.
Yes, I can see in the future where the old 10/20 - 20/40 games will just be for the old codgers, like me -lol - and give way in many instance to 15/30 types of games where there is more legitimate and necessary speed. And the young kids will love it and talk about the old guys that are still hanging on to the small blind games.
I heard someone say recently about low ball - you need to show your drivers license to prove you are over 50 or they won't let you play - lol.
possibly because I got out of bed a short while ago, or maybe I'm allways this thick headed--but i really did not understand exactly what you propose?????
I will say though that in my experience poker players seem to HATE change. A few years ago, I had a P/L game in which we used 3 blinds of 5-5-10 and I decided to change for three reasons: (1) to squeeze a few more dollars into the game from players who wanted to wait for A,A etc (2) to speed the game up since two small blinds would not have to take the time to call in an unraised pot (3)and in case of unraised pot it automatically put two more players into the hand, thus possibly causing more action. The players tried the new structure but bitched constantly _____I finally gave up and returned to the old structure. Jim
My point is this: I think there is a concept of how different blind structures favor different types of minds, personalities and certainly play. Sklansky and Malmuth talk about the extra money opportunites playing short handed, but larger blinds will achieve the same thing in a consistant and reliable manner; and their statement implies opportunity - and in my opinion, one not yet fully realized in the poker community.
We can see this concept at play (pun intended)at Hollywood Park where the 15/30 game (which is played very fast)and is several times more popular than the 10/20 game which is played very slow by contrast.
Yes, I agree, everyone hates change, except for a few of us - grin - but change seems to have a way of coming around (to borrow a great line from Hard Times).
I guess all I am saying is that I believe Hold Em is still in the stages of being refined for the best blind situation that will stimulate play, even up the playing field (another pun, sorry) for the left and right brain players), and will still reward the skilled. And I think looking at the contrast between the 10/20 and 15/30 game as play with a 5/10 blind vs a 10/15 blind gives a good example.
I live in Ohio and every weekend there are numerous Las Vegas Nights held for charity in Akron and Cleveland. The Hold 'Em action is great. In fact, I've seen better action at these poker tables then in some casinos!
I have built a web site where vegas night operators can post their events. Users can view current events, get driving directions, print out coupons good for $5 match play or $10 off $100 buy-in, view future events, and read and post messages on the message boards.
I would like to extend this service to other states and cities. If you attend local vegas nights in your city or are a vegas night operator, take a look at www.ohiolasvegasnights.com and send me an e-mail at olvnpitboss@aol.com with your interest.
It'll be cheaper than advertising in your local newspaper, offers more features to your customers, and is up 24x7 rather than just a weekend ad.
x
I didn't see this message as a complete spam. This site is a service to poker players in Ohio. It is a quick and easy way to find out where good Hold 'em games are being played in the Akron and Cleveland area. I was interested to see if other cities have as many local vegas nights as we do here in Ohio and see if a web service such as www.ohiolasvegasnights.com would benefit others as well.
As a retired card counter (too boring), and a semi-retired horseplayer (too frustrating) I've read the major poker books and practiced several thousand hands on poker software. What is the next recommended step? Do poker players mind someone watching their game? I know as a blackjack player I never had a problem with spectators, but I suspect poker players might feel differently. Any suggested locations for beginners in Tunica? Thanks.
log-on and play .25-.5 and .5-1. watch the 20-40 games and try to guess holdings. learn how to determine common mistakes made by weak players. learn how to take advantage of those errors.
Strangers are unlikely to let you watch over their shoulders. Many casinos don't let you watch at all; friend or not.
Compared to actual and simulated blackjack, the realities of actual poker is MUCH different than the simulators. You've had plenty of practice; now start playing in a low-limit game. When you are comfortable with the realities and mechanics then pick a more suitable level.
- Louie
If you are in the Tunica area Sams Town offers a 2/4 limit Hold'Em game. It is a great place to get some experience and the lessons will be less expensive!!!!! This would be a good place to play in a full game, and not risk a ton of money a $100.00 buy can last all night if you play your cards right and hit some hands!!!!!
How did you get into poker? Here is my story...
| go to casino with some buddies GAMBLE have some drinks. | ||||||
| while walking to the bar pass the poker room | ||||||
| recall watching Rounders | ||||||
| buy into a 3-6 game for a rack | ||||||
| get in trouble for not taking chips out of rack | ||||||
| Get really lucky playing every hand and make $200 in 45 minutes | ||||||
| buddies bust out playing roulette and come find you to leave for the bar | ||||||
| go to the bar thinking you are by far the best poker player known to man | ||||||
| Rent Rounders again | ||||||
| . | ||||||
| . | ||||||
| . | ||||||
| Figure out you don't always win | ||||||
| buy some book and read the glossary and try again | ||||||
| Some guy mentions that you didn't have pot odds to draw to your ignorant end gut shot straight as you are stacking the chips. Of course he is an idiot. | ||||||
| Read about pot odds when you get home after winning then losing 4 racks of 1's at 3-6 | ||||||
| Read the whole book | ||||||
| go back and put your name on the 15-30 list... enough of playing with the LL losers. I am now a proffesional. | ||||||
| Figure out what the minimum buy in is. Lose that in the first hand, and buy in for the miniumum again. | ||||||
| . | ||||||
| . | ||||||
| . | ||||||
| Read a book (and practice a bit of it) and actually start only losing about 1 BB an hour | ||||||
| From here there are many stages... | ||||||
| Ultra Aggressive (oops forgot I was supposed to be tight as well) | ||||||
| Ultra Tight... Yah, I folded AKs to his raise, but I was pretty sure I was behind. | ||||||
| Good for first hour then boredom tilt... can't figure out why I didn't win tonight... but if anyone asks oh yah, I win all the time... great supplemental income... blah... blah... blah... | ||||||
| Read Theory bood and start tracking your wins/losses... what I am not making money at this... quit for 2 weeks... | ||||||
| this is actually where your game starts improving and you have moderate success because you want to write wins in your book | ||||||
| Forget to write a few of those losses because they didn't really count anyway. | ||||||
| Go on a hot streak... $3000 profit at 3-6 in one month... think about quitting your engineering job. | ||||||
| Move up to 15-30 | ||||||
| lose 900 in one session... go back to where you belong after taking 2 weeks off. | ||||||
| Start doing weird EV calcs at work for fun??? | ||||||
| .Dream about the WSOP and how there is no way you could lose to a guy who raised 300K with 7-2o. | ||||||
| . | ||||||
| . | ||||||
| . |
| go to casino with some buddies GAMBLE have some drinks. |
| while walking to the bar pass the poker room |
| recall watching Rounders |
| buy into a 3-6 game for a rack |
| get in trouble for not taking chips out of rack |
| Get really lucky playing every hand and make $200 in 45 minutes |
| buddies bust out playing roulette and come find you to leave for the bar |
| go to the bar thinking you are by far the best poker player known to man |
| Rent Rounders again |
| . |
| . |
| . |
| Figure out you don't always win |
| buy some book and read the glossary and try again |
| Some guy mentions that you didn't have pot odds to draw to your ignorant end gut shot straight as you are stacking the chips. Of course he is an idiot. |
| Read about pot odds when you get home after winning then losing 4 racks of 1's at 3-6 |
| Read the whole book |
| go back and put your name on the 15-30 list... enough of playing with the LL losers. I am now a proffesional. |
| Figure out what the minimum buy in is. Lose that in the first hand, and buy in for the miniumum again. |
| . |
| . |
| . |
| Read a book (and practice a bit of it) and actually start only losing about 1 BB an hour |
| From here there are many stages... |
| Ultra Aggressive (oops forgot I was supposed to be tight as well) |
| Ultra Tight... Yah, I folded AKs to his raise, but I was pretty sure I was behind. |
| Good for first hour then boredom tilt... can't figure out why I didn't win tonight... but if anyone asks oh yah, I win all the time... great supplemental income... blah... blah... blah... |
| Read Theory bood and start tracking your wins/losses... what I am not making money at this... quit for 2 weeks... |
| this is actually where your game starts improving and you have moderate success because you want to write wins in your book |
| Forget to write a few of those losses because they didn't really count anyway. |
| Go on a hot streak... $3000 profit at 3-6 in one month... think about quitting your engineering job. |
| Move up to 15-30 |
| lose 900 in one session... go back to where you belong after taking 2 weeks off. |
| Start doing weird EV calcs at work for fun??? |
| .Dream about the WSOP and how there is no way you could lose to a guy who raised 300K with 7-2o. |
| . |
| . |
| . |
The best tools for learning poker I found to be...
| 1. Experience |
| 2. This Forum |
| 3. People with experience |
| 4. Reading |
Great story--
I started playing about three years ago after seeing a HE table in a casino back in Colorado. I'd never played the game before, so I went out and bought Lee Jones' book-- which proved to be very costly indeed, although I didn't know that at the time. Anyway, I had a pretty good feel for the game early on (within the first 30 minutes or so I learned that uncoordinated boards with just a few players were good spots for a bluff), but I struggled. Then, just when I thought I'd figured it out I went and lost 885$ in one session at the 2-5 table.
What a disaster. From there I began to tighten up, and started to win consistently, although at about 700 hrs. of live action I developed this nasty little habit of always pushing any hand I raised pre-flop with. This cost me about 1100$ of my bankroll before I realized that my AK was going to get called down by 55 everytime when the board read JTT43. From there I began playing very, very tight-- almost weak tight, really, although I'd bet like hell when I thought my hand was good-- and started winning at a rate I could be proud of.
It's funny, because I think my own experience is widely shared by most aspiring players. You reach a certain level of competency and begin pushing every hand, figuring your breathtaking hand reading skills will take care of the fact that a) you're behind at the moment, and b) you're going to get called down. I see this all the time on these forums, where new posters put up hands where they had no business calling and raising, and it takes me back. That's one of the reasons why I think Jim Brier is such a popular poster; I'd rather chew on tin foil then play as conservatively as he does (no offense, Jim), but the fact is that his style will take the money in virtually any game, and many players who feel like they play well but don't have the results to show it probably find his conservative advise attractive-- if only because they're sick of losing. While there's a place in HE for tricky plays the fact is that they don't often work, and Jim does a great job of reminding players that just because you 'know' the guy has a J9o with a KKJ87 board DOESN'T mean he's going to fold if you bet with your AQ.
That was good advice GD! And a good story.
Man that was an awesome post. I believe anyone that has played poker for a long period of time regularly has been through all of the swings that you mentioned. The only thing I would add that you did not implicitaly add in the story is to be sure to put those winnings back in order to keep playing regularly. There is no teacher like experience, and that 900 dollar loss does not sting as bad when it comes out of those big winnings. In order to stay in the game you must build and sustain a bankroll no matter what your knowledge or abilities. We all reach hot streaks and points when we think we can "Beat the Game". However, we all have losing sessions and that is a fact of Life. Even for a WSOP player!!!!!!
Never knew much about poker or gambling. Older brother and his friends begun playing poker after seen Rounders. watched Rounders. liked the movie (well made movie) thought about giving poker a shot and did. started playing with own friends (hold'em), liked it a lot and started winning off the bat (thanks to rounders mainly--"grind it out, get your money in when you have the best of it protect it when you dont" look up poker on the internet stumble across Mike Caro's MCU website. begin reading Caro's work (everything--on net) look up other poker sites and read as much as possible continue playing once a week with friends kept reading played online stumbled across twoplustwo forums (i don't even remember how) and have been reading here ever since continue to play
there ya go
Interesting question.
I'd like to read some longer responses.
I remember I used to play w.some freinds in high school and never really thought much of it. I never quite "got" why poker was a game of skill. (someone pointed out, well when you play games like gut it isn't, but if you play 7stud and pay attention to the cards it is)... i used to be annoyed my freind wante dto play poker for $ but would never play me in backgammon...
Many years later in graduate school a freind of mine told me Id be great candidate for a poker player. He was wathcing me play chess at the time on the net. He asked me some questions like," you still like playing chess after all these years?" " you still buy books and read them?" " you aren't bored?" I wasn't close to bored and was very involved in the game I was playing.
My freind said most poker players haven't read anything, and my studiness would enable me to be a winning player in no time. he said one book and i could start winning... i wasn't sure to believe him...
SO i went w/him to the casino to check it out. He gave me a few things to read (something on hand rankings, and stratgey) but I decided not to play, as i realized i knew nothing, but was still interested.
I started playing alot of holdem headups w/him, and another freind (occasionally we would have a 3 way game!) . A few months later we went to the casino. I had bought and read fundamentals of poker, holdem poker, and the theory of poker by this time.
SO finally we all went to the card room. I lost about 100, the first night, and the 170 the second. I borrowed my freinds last 40. and won about 220. I was unbelievably exciting. Everything went right in that last session. In alot of ways playing in the casino was similar to first playing chess tournaments.
I was hooked!
It took a while before things really clicked. Its hard to believe 3 years ago i didn't even know the rules for texas holdem.
Hold'em has rules? Oh shit... ;-)
great one. mine goes something like this: some friends get together with some beers and rolls of nickels and played draw all night. have a lot of fun, and win about a dollar WOOHOO!! mention how fun it was to another friend, who tells you that he has played some other poker games with guys from work, and explains the basics of hold em, omaha, and 7card stud. decide to get some people together to play these new games. have to use sunflower seeds for chips because the gas station doesn't sell poker chips and its 2 a.m. win about 4 bucks. use 4 bucks to buy some plastic chips and decks of cards. lose ten bucks playing every hand. start to get other people playing, and have it become more and more regular. start to learn how your friends play and use that to your advantage. go play in a game with new people. lose 30 bucks. buy 'Thursday Night Poker' by Peter O. Steiner, and Caro on Stud. read books and get laughed at for reading poker books. start winning a lot and consistently. read more books, and finally buy 'Rounders' instead of renting it for the 10th time. turn 21, and take some money from insurance settlement to the casino to play some low limit games, because 'hey, im winning 10 - 20 bucks when we play 10cent-50cent games, that means i can win $100-$200 playing $1-5$ stud' lose $400 playing stud for 14 hours straight after leaving at 11 pm and arriving at 4am at casino. read books again. lose 20 bucks at game with buddies. realize that they aren't playing good strategies, so you have to adapt. win 20bucks back next time we play. go on a road trip to seattle and tacoma across the country and see a whole bunch of public cardrooms, which we don't have in illinois. get back and take some more insurance money to a closer casino. win $300 on some better playing strategies and a good run of cards. realize ive been playing stud a whole lot lately. get to casino next night and stud game is broke up, so decide to play omaha. lose buy-in in an hour of horrible play. decide not to spend any more of insurance money because i have no job, and need to eat. get a job, and read more, and look at poker stuff online, and practice a lot. start playing the stud game again at the local casino. start making $100 last for 10 hours or more in $1-$5 stud. decide that it is an improvement. play more regularly and lose a little sometimes and win a little sometimes, steadily getting better. quit playing for a while to save money for a trip, but vow to play holdem next visit to casino. decide 2 months later that i can spare $100 from trip fund, and drive to casino with a buddy and find that only the holdem game is open. take the available seat in the $5-$10 holdem game and buy in for $100. win first hand out of big blind when you see a free flop with K2 and flop comes 227. checkraise. J. bet, get one caller. J. checkcheck, show deuce, opponent grumbles. now i have $150 more, and can be more aggressive. 6 hands later get QQ and limp. flop is AQ4rainbow. bet, raise, call. win that hand, and walk away an hour later ahead $460. move to Los Angeles with some friends but no car. get goodpaying job in L.A. and meet people on the job who play at the commerce and bicycle. go with them after work and win 80 bucks at 2-4 in an hour. go next day as well and win another $90 in an hour and a half. start borrowing car from roomate and playing small tournaments. make it in top 25 in stud hi-low tournament. play nolimit tournament next day and take 7th place. start playing low limit games regularly, and having bad streak. streak ends, and i go up $500 in 8 hours playing 1-2 and 2-4. sit at stud table and lose 60 bucks in like 7 hands and realize that i am now off my stud game. start to live on poker winnings after job ends. lose bad one night and decide to move back to chicago for school. stop in vegas at 3am on greyhound trip back to chicago. wish i had $$ to play poker there, but realize that 1 hour there is not enough time to play right. get back to chicago and decide that next may i am going to vegas to play a couple WSOP sattelites, just for the hell of it, and hopefully play in the big one, just for the kicks. rest is history... (i watched rounders again tonight, just for reference) (i also am at the 'just moved back to chicago' section of my story right now, not to mislead anyone that i have gone to vegas to play the big one yet.)
Good question Derrick :)
When I was a kid I got a book on gambling from the public library. I read it and found the poker section very intriguing. So I've always loved the game and would occasionally play for pennies with friends.
Later in life I obtain the honorary "Dean's Vacation" (with only 2 classes to go for my degree) so I move home to Grande Prairie and basically bum around. I read up on counting cards in blackjack on the internet so I take a trip to the casino armed with basic strategy and no bankroll. I curiously inquire about becoming a dealer because it looks like fun. So I do. On the first day I find out that the dealers have a weekly poker game going. As somebody who likes poker (and did well vs my friends) I go to the game.
Games are Hold 'Em, Omaha, and Pinapple. No ante or blinds, $1 for first 2 rounds and $3 on last two rounds. I remember my first hand there like a movie in my mind. To me these were the biggest stakes I had played for poker and I remember having shaky hands when I raised to $2! I was a bit intimidated because the dealers there knew the games fairly well (I thought) but I remember discussing a hand and I realized that even though it was my first time playing that I could reason things out better than most of the players there. That's when I figured I had potential.
I do well the first night so now I am hooked. I buy Ken Warren's book and devour it. I read up on the internet. I start playing GPoker in my spare time and by now I am getting much better in theory. I even started recording my wins, and in this measly $1-3 game I was averaging $100 per 6 hr session.
So I take a trip up to Edmonton and play the $3-6. My first few times I didn't do all that well as I was not used to the rake and blinds and was also intimidated again by the stakes and veteran players. However, by the time my "Dean's Vacation" was up and moved back to school, I was a winning player. For my final semester I did nothing but study and play poker. When I finished my degree, I looked around a bit during the day for a job. Then I would play poker at night. Eventually I stopped looking for a real job and just played poker because I was having so much fun. During this stretch I see my university classmate Derrick Ashworth and convince him that poker is a sweet game :) I'm still having fun now, maybe I should get my damned resume out there though!
Was working at IBM. After work one night, co-workers had a nickel-dime-quarter game. I won $35. Went to the library the next day, got Yarley's Education of a Poker player.
I found a few small stud games.($1-3) Then games that were a little higher. Right from the start I won. What did I know about poker? Zippo. Natural ability? Don't think so. Game selection? Bingo! That's right, there was only one game in town. I picked that game, because even though I knew nothing about poker, they who had played for years and played every hand, knew less. Oh yeah, I also pick that game, because it was the only game in town.
IBM started working us 7-days/10 hour each for awhile. This started to conflict with poker. So, I quit, IBM, of course. Went on a 3 month winning spree, won $10k at $6 limit, never lost once playing 4 times a week.
Had to leave New York state, because my head was so big it would no longer fit.
Went to Vegas. Was there one month, left busted. Returned to upstate New York, my head fit fine now. I did this a few more times till I could eck it out in Vegas.
That's my start.........
MS Sunshine
I grew up on the Isle of Skye in Scotland; an hour bus trip there and an hour back to school. We played 3-card brag for pennies for the journey. One guy always lost his dinner money.
...fast forward 14 years (no gambling there)...
I get a job out here in Bermuda in 1998, a few guys at work start a little social game for dollar bets (social means we get roaring drunk, break stuff, argue, take the piss, generally have a great time). Totally clueless poker with the daft wild card games, guts, and other crap. I still play in this game for the entertainment.
One day a friend in my lab looks up poker on the internet and finds an article on tells - turns out to be totally useless in our game since he convinces someone else to throw away about $20 in endless raising when he was sure I was bluffing when I actually have a full house.
Anyway, I do my own internet search, trip up on 2+2, read a bit of the Other Poker Games forum. 7CSfAP is mentioned several times. Back in Glasgow xmas shopping I come across the aforementioned book, skim through it a bit, and decide to buy it. Now I spend over an hour each weekday reading 2+2 and play on the internet due to lack of cardrooms here (so Rounder would say I still haven't got into poker yet...).
In the past year and a half I've bought about 25 poker books, a motorbike and half a holiday to Bali through my initial winnings from that purchase of 7CSfAP and expanded to play other poker games (the jury's still out on my quality of play though...).
G
A friend of mine is addicted to gaming of any kind. When I turned 18 (three years ago), he convinced me to head up to the Soaring Eagle Casino (in MP, Michigan) for some _lackjack. (I am missing a key on my key_oard.) Always studious, I read up on the game and was convinced I was going to _eat it. The _ook I read put heavy emphasis on "Money Management" (hahahaha) and I thought I had the game _eat.
We go to the casino, and I'm up $400 without even _linking. When I proceed to lose it all _ack, I decide _lackjack is not the game for me. I wander into the room, and I never came _ack to the floor.
My first time playing I just sat down at a 7-card stud ta_le. I remem_er playing a pair of fours one time, sticking around with them to 6th street, calling a dou_le _et on 6th, hitting a small two pair on the river, and paying off another dou_le _et. Needless to say, I went home a loser this night. And for a few nights after that.
Then I was introduced to the word of God, aka The Theory of Poker. To make a grueling and arduous story short, I spent all of my spare time studying poker, and, though I am merely a low limit player, I have made $10 an hour over the past two years playing Paradise, enough so that I have chosen to spend my summer playing cards, rather than working 9 to 5. I will never have the skills to play professionally, _ecause there are certain concepts that I read a_out here that indicate most of you guys are way a_ove my level. Whatt other form of entertainment do you get paid to participate in?
I, too, find it miraculous that I did not know how to play hold 'em three years ago.
Mike
I first played poker when I was 8...my dad was a keen golfer and since we lived in the country there was a lack of babysitters and we got to hang out at the golf club while my parents played, then hang around some more while they got drunk after.
Sometimes there was a fairly big (sometimes up to 14 players) low limit draw maximum bet $5 game...I used to watch my dad play over his shoulder and sometimes sneak a beer.
Well one night my dad had had a few an his trips to the men's room were becoming more frequent...he got dealt his cards and had to go...I took his seat.
I picked up his hand and saw two queens two 8's and another card...i put all his money in the middle and drew 1 card...my hand held up and he bought me more mars bars than a kid could ever need.
that was the last time I played draw poker..
after that I was always allowed to watch when my parents played cards (usually on vacation). 4 handed pairs euchre was their game of choice and I played any hand where my parents got up to get drinks, go to the bathroom or otherwise had something they needed to do. I'm not sure how much skill is involved in euchre but I was usually on the winning team when I played...by the time I was 13 Dad wanted me to be his partner.
My parents don't bother asking me to play scrabble or cards with them anymore...
I then took up playing "Magic: The gathering" when I was 18, and spent a year travelling the USA playing that to support my vacation...and met a lot of fellow players who became good friends...both in Australia and the USA.
about a year ago some of these friends (who had been playing in poker home games since adolesence) discovered Paradise Poker, and began to play regularly. I didn't believe at that time that poker was a game of skill, so declined to join them. A friend loaning me a copy of HPFAP and hearing of their success convinced me otherwise....so i bought in for $50 at Paradise and have been playing ever since.
I've never played holdem at a casino....only 1 casino in Australia even spreads it, and its 2500 miles from where I live.
Last week I travelled to the casino here and played Pot limit Draw for the first time in 16 years....sat down, paid $20 to draw to an ace high flush before a raising war broke out behind me and I mucked my cards....3 hands later they closed the table.
The guys who introduced me to Holdem are all regular readers of this forum, and occasional posters. Thanks guys..you know who you are :)
Wardy
while this is an interesting series of posts, what I really want to know is how do you get OUT! Jim
It's very easy to get out of poker. The poker room manager comes up to your table at about 5:43AM and says, "Come on guys, we're closed in two minutes, you might just have enough time to cash out and get out before they lock the doors."
You then play two more hands while the manager turns funny shades of red, the security guys come in, menace the last people at your table, you cash out with a very cranky young lady at the window and make it to the door only five or six minutes after they close.
Very simple to get out once you learn you can force the manager into apoplexy before he actually turns violent... the security guys, I'm not so sure about... ;-)
Walking home from my normal job one afternoon and Jim Roy who I went to University stops me on the street and we chat a bit, Im expecting to hear about his engineering job when he tells me he's playing poker full time and I sorta give him a "uh, ok". Then my brother teaches me how to play hold'em when he comes home to visit. Then another friend comes back from Vegas and says "We must learn poker". So we start at the casino. I remember my first session vividly. I won exactly one pot in 2 hours and it was on a stone cold bluff where I had absolutely nothing (a precursor to my later play). Playing 3-6 looking at the 1-2 pot limit game and thinking someday...Was having a lot of trouble reading hands (by which I mean telling what I had and what the potential of the board was) so I started playing play money on paradise until this wasn't a problem to do instantly. Then Jim suggested reading here (if you look you can still find an early post from me where I checkraised a button bet from the SB with a flopped full house and got accused of trolling). Read HeFap, ToP, Super System, watched 12 WSOP videos, and soon...the pilgrimage to Mecca...yes, the soon to be storied July trip to Vegas.
I decided to take a few days off work to play in the Bridge event in the 1999 Mind sports Olympiad in London. About the strongest field I have played in, something to do with the UKP10K in prize money I suspect.
The bridge was in the afternoon, so I looked around for something to do in the morning. I decided to try the Poker, a much lower key event, probably something to do with the fact that it is illegal to play Poker Tournaments for money outside a Casino, even if it is 100% sponsored (sic). So no cash prizes..
So about 30 others and me were taught the rules of Razz, and I played my first Poker tournament. Finished forth.
I then booked in to play in the seven-card stud on the Friday, and bought a book on the game, which I spent the rest of the week reading. It might have helped because I managed to win it. Most of the players were complete beginners so it probably does not mean much.
However the end effect was that Poker had got my interest. I then spent about three or four months reading every book on Poker I could buy (about UKP500’s worth), while practising what I was learning on IRC. From there it was an easy step to playing the money games on the Internet.
It would be great to hear from some more well known greats.
I would love to hear from David, Mason, Zee, Jim Brier, Tommy Angelo, Fossilman... and any others.
I have really enjoyed reading this thread, thanks guys.
Derrick
The 1st time I played was with a bunch of co-workers in the mid-eighties. It was nickel and dime stuff. Wild cards, wierd games and a lot of fun.
Several years later I moved to Rhode Island. I played in an occasional game with the next door neighbor and some of his co-workers. Again it was fun but nothing serious. Around that time I went to Atlantic City with my wife and I noticed a poker room. I decided to play some low limit stud. I sat down with $40 and proceeded to win a few hands and then lost it all. I remember thinking that my opponents all seemed old and I am sure they were regulars. I also remember that I was sucked out on a few times.
Now move 3 or 4 years forward and I move to Washington State. A co-worker mentions that we should have a poker night. We start a 10-50 cent game that still happens once a month or so. Around this time we also decide to go to the local casino and also find poker and hold-em. One of those trips I also found about tournaments. I played a bunch, winning some money but no big payoffs. Between Rounders, the tournaments and playing headsup with my friend I decide I like No Limit. The local tournies I was playing would start limit and then switch to no limit. I go back to Rhode Island for work for a few weeks and go to Foxwoods and play some of the tournaments. On one Tuesday evening I play my 1st pure no-limit tournament and I am fortunate to split 1st place. After the tourney, I talk to the other winner who tells me about 2+2. The other winner is none other then Fossilman. Since then I have focused mostly on tournaments.
Ken Poklitar
Start out playing a game at my best friend's in college. He had played casino poker already and was very good at games in general and knew I was too. Weekly .10-.50 spread game. Any flop game--HE, Omaha, Tahoe, Crazy Pineapple. Don't even rememember how I did but loved to play our weekly affair. Soon enough I was talked into going to the local cardroom (Bellingham, WA) for a $12 tournament with free lunch. Playing 3-6 not long after that. Lucky to have good players in my home game who explained correct play. Finally borrow HPFAP and devour it. Friend writes a little program to help memorize starting hands. Cool.
Hit Vegas for a long weekend after school lets out in 1998. Spend hour after hour at the 3-6 game at the Plaza downtown, noontime tourneys at the Luxor and some 2-6 HE at Excalibur. Maybe won a little but thought I was a great player I am sure. I'm hooked. Three years later I still play .10-.20 weekly game with a couple of the same people and some online and at cardrooms around Seattle. Hit Vegas a couple times a year. Waiting for the bankroll grow so I can play higher.
KJS
In high school our football team would go to a week long camp at a college campus. During the downtime between practices, a bunch of us would get together and play blackjack for quarters. Then one day one of the guys introduces a bunch of us to poker. Nickel-dime-quarter. I'm hooked. Fast forward to college and my roommates and anyone who wants to play get games going that last all night. We were all terrible, and somewhat pathetic, as usually myself and my other roommate would play high card for $1 at the end of the night. Especially if I had a bad night. After graduation, we'd still get together for occasional games, still playing mega-wild card games, guts, screw your neighbor, acey-ducey, etc. Then one time after we play, I am talking to a girl at work about the game and she asks if I have seen Rounders. No, I haven't. She lends it to me. I watch it 3 times in one weekend. She lets me keep it. I buy Andy Nelson's book and read and re-read it. I play with my friends a month later and win big. I think I am ready for WSOP. I get Lee Jones book. I go to AC and play 2-4 Holdem and win $23. I am the second coming of Doyle Brunson. I keep playing in occasional homes games, plus on my PC with TTH. I hit a losing patch, including a $60 loss ($1 big bet) and a $65 loss at the casino in AC. I am scum. I suck. I get TOP. I read it over and over. I introduce my college buddies to Holdem. They are hooked and will pay to see the flop even if it costs them their firstborn. Now every time I play, we schedule the next card game the day after. I am now playing on line for play to get the practice. Looking forward to a week in NJ that will include a few trips to the TAJ. It's a shame I didn't find these books and this forum sooner.
Grew up in Indiana and got my BS and MS in Engineering at Purdue. Took my first job in Upstate NY, and a friend talked me into going to te local casino. I'd Never been in a casino before, and the $5 blackjack tables ate my franklin up entirely too quickly. I still looked at money from the perspective of a student's budget, and was not pleased. We went back about a month later, I lost $150 after being up $100, and was not pleased.
While surfing at work, I discovered rgb, and was flabbergasted to learn blackjack could be beat. I am a very competitive person, have played chess and bridge pretty seriously for years, and nothing gets me more interested in a game than a good drubbing. I get Million Dollar Blackjack from Amazon, and practice for 6 weeks at my kitchen table while I save up a 1k roll.
Flash forward two years and over 2000 playing hours later, I am nicely informed by Frank, the casino manager, that while I'm a nice guy, they aren't going to take my action anymore on the blackjack tables.
Two months later, they open up a poker room. I buy HFAP and TOP, and burn through about 1/4 of my blackjack BR trying to beat high mid-limits. I wise up, took a new engineering job, put the rest of my BR in mutual funds, and start over with a 1k BR, resolving to beat the small games before moving up.
Funny story: I taught my girlfriend HE (with HFAP, of course) and took her to the Taj for her birthday. So we're sitting together at the 2-4 table, and we give our cards to the floor. He comes back with a smile, and asks if I'd hit the tables yet. I am floored, and asked him if we had met before. I get up to chat with him, and he takes me over to the computer, where they have me down: "solid counter, 1x25 to 2x250". I knew I got made at Bally's and the Trop, but was never shuffled up on or shallow-cut at the Taj! And I haven't given them any action for two years! Cracked me up.
Anyway, being booted off the blackjack tables was the best thing that could have happened to me. If you're a solid counter, you're just a trained monkey, with the only art being in evading the floor. Poker will be something I can get better at my whole life.
I have really enjoyed all the posts, great topic!
zooey
Walked in one day, started playing and was HOOKED ON THE ROOM. I have continued playing, but, had it not been the PLEASURE of playing in that room, I wouldn't be playing today. Caesar's has it detractors, but it was the best place, I ever played. Many players didn't like it, because management didn't let the players run the room.
I'd played maybe a dozen hands when I was in the US Army in the early 80s. Mostly draw with everything but what's in my hand being wild. Got smoked, decided "professional poker" was a hoax.
Got out of the Army, grew up. Got a real life. Hated being a Responsible GrownUp(tm)and decided I needed a hobby other than the medieval re-enactment group my wife and I belong to. Went on a disability for way too many miles on my skeleton when I was in the service. Decided being grown-up sucked so I grew back down and decided to do something fun. Caught a TV special about the WSOP and realized the guy who came in second was the same guy who my grandfather had nearly jumped on top of in a vacation trip to Vegas in the 70s. Saw the amount of money won by Jesus Ferguson and then saw the career total's for T.J.. Decided that my earlier description of professional play as a hoax may have been a bit premature. Also decided that there was no way I could ever play poker because I'd done it so desperately badly before.
Fast forward about two weeks and the local video store has -Rounders- on special. Rent it, watch it. Do an internet search to get some background information on the screenwriter. Screw up the Google search and wind up researching poker rather than the writer of a poker movie. Learn names like Sklansky, Malmuth, Caro, Zee, Brunson. Spend most of my available cash on TOP the two Krieger books, Poker for Dummies, Lee Jones' book and a couple of duds that I don't remember.
Discover that poker doesn't have seven different wild cards, changes in draw depending on who bought which brand of bourbon, etc. Lightning flashes, thunder rolls, bands of heavenly angels cry out from the heavens. ... ... ...
Okay, no heavenly choirs. Not even any thunder and lightning. The dim realization that I can actually find something fun that's not as expensive as medieval re-enactment (okay, bad thinking here) and will let me meet new people.
Went to the local casino's poker room and played in their Sunday Hold'em tournament. Bumbled my way past the second break. Tried to stone bluff my way past a gentleman who'd flopped a straight. Realized I needed more study. Went home, fired up the computer and did more searches. Found RGP, from there I found 2+2. Read a lot. Bought some Wilson software. Played about a bazillion hands. Realized some of the incomprehensibly stupid mistakes I'd been making.
Went to a different card room. Played 3-6 Hold'em. Wound up being up by almost $400 after a couple of hours.
Lost it back... won it back... lost it back... won it back... you see the trend here? I noticed it was taking longer and longer each time to lose it back. Read some more, studied some more, played on the computer some more. Plugged some more glaring leaks in my game.
Had Real Life(tm) get in the way, spent my entire BR to fix car. Rebuilding BR to go back and whack at the cards at the Muckleshoot's card room again.
Some where in there I noticed I was having a hell of a lot of fun, learning a hell of a lot about poker and life in general and decided to give up on being a Responsible GrownUp(tm), play some poker, enjoy being alive and stop sweating the day to day hassles.
So far it's been incredibly rewarding, indescribably frustrating, terrifying, exhilirating, devastating, epiphanizing and occasionally boring beyond mortal comprehension. All in all, likely one of the best decisions I've ever made.
Now I just need to stop chasing the boats with my trips and learn to accept the basic fact of life. Pocket aces always suck out to a player hitting their straight when they limp in with 72o. Sun is hot, water is wet and pocket rockets are at the mercy of 72o in the hands of a housewife who's still reading the hand rankings off of the cardroom's cheat sheet.
Jeff
I needed money to go to college. 25 years later it's an avocation, not a vocation, thankfully.
(With apologies to my friend Tommy, the below is just for laughs)
I arrive at 6 P.M., hopping mad from sitting in traffic and smelling like a smorgasbord. I am a virtual buffet table of opportunity for my opponents. (I would be a smorgabord but I can't spell it.) Six 20-40 games, seven 30-60 games, eight 40-80 games and a partridge and a pear tree. Each game has one seat open and the players take up a collection to see which table will offer me the most money to sit. I like going in at 6, because the decibel level is somewhere in between a rock concert and a sonic boom. I like being in games with cross-dressers and geisha girls, so naturally I take a seat in a game that features two of each. Wish I had a camera.
The game breaks up when one cross-dresser is arrested by the local authorities for violating a local ordinance prohibiting dancing with a mailman and one of the geishas (Ms. Gish) gushes at a gash (gosh!) on a hand I've butchered (my right one, if you must know).
Though 3 tables have offered me a grand to sit with them, I select the toughest 40-80 because I want a challenge. I post just to the left of the big blind and, after checking the first time around, call a raise and re-raise with 7-2o. Deception is the name of the game, after all. I rake in an $1800 pot when I catch a 4th spade to match my deuce on the river, beating 2 sets.
The game breaks, but I refuse to change tables. I am physically carried to a 1-2 lowball game. The other players are so old that, if you listed their years of birth chronologically from most recent to least recent, the resulting list would stretch back to the Magna Carta. Two players appear not to be breathing. Talk about the cards being dead. Anyway, I pay collection for the 40-80 and, determined to play better, muck my first two cards (2-3), forgetting I will be getting 3 more (which turned out to be A-4-5). I move on (or I should say, I'm moved on) to a 60-120 hold 'em game and post immediately to the left of the big blind.
In the meantime, the floorman keels over (coronary thrombosis or some such thing). No one notices for a full 10 minutes, as he's usually lying down on the job anyway. They eventually toss him in the muck.
Reverting back to my standard playing style, twenty-six hours later I'm stuck $6300; unbelievably, I lose with 7-2 thirteen consecutive times, the last time, incredibly, when I flopped a deuce. Can you believe it? I pay my last collection and leave at once, fresh for my day's work at the IRS. I tip the parking valet a quarter, reminding him that such gratuities must be declared as income. He must have mistaken me for a person having sexual intercourse who's parents were not married, judging from his spoken reaction, uttered at a decibel level somewhere between rock concert and a sonic boom.
n/t
.
"I arrive at 6 P.M., hopping mad from sitting in traffic and smelling like a smorgasbord. I am a virtual buffet table of opportunity for my opponents."
You wild and crazy guy you. I'm still giggling.
And because of this thread, I finally learned how to spell smorgasbord. I had no idea about the "d" on the end. Always thought it was a "g." Yes, 2+2 is a fine educational tool.
Tommy
And because of this thread, I finally learned how to spell smorgasbord. I had no idea about the "d" on the end. Always thought it was a "g."
Only on Star Trek.
...hmmm...
Can someone please tell me the probability of flopping a set with a pocket pair and how you work it out.
Yabba dabba doo!
Probability of NOT flopping a set (or quads):
48/50 * 47/49 * 46/48 = 0.882...
(Before the flop, you see two cards, leaving 50 in the deck. Two cards make your set. So, on first card of the flop, the probability of no set is 48 cards that don't help divided by 50 unseen cards. Now you have seen three cards, so the probability of no set on the next card of the flop is 47 cards that don't help divided by 49 unseen cards. And so on for the third card. Multiply these three probabilities to get the probability of no set card coming on the first three cards.)
Probability of flopping a set (or quads):
1 - 0.882 = 0.118...
(We calculated the probability of NOT flopping a set (because we thought about it a little bit beforehand and decided that was easiest (Ya, this is one of the inexplicable "tricks of the trade."), so to find the probability of flopping a set, we subtract the NOT probability from one (which is the probability of ALL flopped hands, right?).)
Odds against flopping a set:
1/0.118 - 1 = 7.5:1
(Odds against are expressed in number of losers vs. number of winners. (Another way to express it might be as: 0.882:0.118. Divide both sides by 0.118 and you get 7.5:1 again.))
I hope this helps.
thanks heaps, that helps a lot.
I think it is 7.5-1
The prohibition on string betting says that one can't place a bet (to call someone else's bet) and then decide after doing so that they actually want to raise. Therefore, you have to go out with all your chips at once if you want to raise (unless you declare it verbally).
However, you are allowed to go out with more chips than you need to call, and then decide whether you want to call or raise. For example, if there were a five dollar bet to me I could go out with a handful of chips (say, $12 worth) and put down five dollars worth, wait, and then put down another five, or put down five dollars worth, wait, and then put the rest back in my stack and just call. How is this different from string betting? It lets you wait and see your opponents' reaction as you move your hand out with your chips before deciding whether to call or raise, so I don't see what makes it any better than moving the chips out in two separate motions.
Bobby: "However, you are allowed to go out with more chips than you need to call, and then decide whether you want to call or raise."
Not everywhere.
From the Lucky Chances rule book:
"64 If a player makes a forward motion with sufficient chips in hand to raise, starts cutting chips into piles, stops and looks around to gauge reactions, and then says "raise," this could be ruled a string raise."
Tommy
I pointed this out in a post about a year ago and most responses said they didn't see it as a problem. I do see it as a problem. I believe the rules here in So. Calif. is that the raise needs to be made in one smoooth motion. That is, if you stop to gauge reaction, it's a string bet. But this rule is not enforced. I've seen guys take enough chips out to make it seem like they were raising as as they're putting them down, the opponent, thinking he was being raised, mucked his cards. This is an angle pure and simple.
I don't quite know what the solution is. I'd almost be in favor of a rule that states you have to declare "raise" before you put any chips in the pot or you can't raise. This would certainly take some getting used to, but perhaps there could be a grace period.
What does everyone else think?
Everything you say makes sense to me. I think the fairest rule would be that you have to place your bet in one motion (as now), but if you bring out enough chips to raise (or more than enough) you must raise (except, obviously, that what you declare verbally stands).
I think, like you, if you bring out enough chips to raise, it should be a raise. It is very annoying to me when my opponent grabs a stack of chips, reaches out with them as if to raise, and just calls. It's like a body blow. For that brief second, you feel the pain of having lost the hand.
I've asked dealers and floormen to rule that way, but nobody seems to hear what I'm saying.
Tom D
I swear I'm not on the Lucky Chances payroll, but I must point out yet another rule they have that I'd never seen before that made gasp in joy.
Only players call string raises. Dealers never say a word, no matter how subtle or flagrant a string-raise is.
Think about it. How can it be right to put an important, routine judgement call in the hands of the dealer? Such judgements are the floorstaff's job.
Let's say a guy does a borderline string-raise and now it's your turn. You can call the floor, in which case the crime is retold and the floorman says it was a string-raise or it wasn't. Or you can just accept the raise and play on. If the string-raise was an angle shot, it is YOU who retains all options. It's the best possible protection.
This rule, combined with a specific rule that delayed-look-around-and-gauge-reactions raises "may be ruled a string-raise," means that when someone does the reaction-gauging type of string raise, you can call the floorman, and the house-rule encourages the floorman to rule it a string-raise, and poof, problem solved.
Tommy
One of the solutions we have down here in mississippi, at least at the grand casinos on the coast, and I am trying to spread the idea, is the line.
on every table there is a clear heavy black line. if the chips cross the line, they are in the pot period. if you put too many out there you have raised and may go back to your stack for enough to complete the raise. If you have put in enough to call and didnt say raise loud enough for the dealer and other players to hear then you have called, period. Untill you push your chips across the line, check, or muck you havent acted. Its simple, its easy, and cheep to impliment. and makes for a much smoother game of poker.
I've never played on a lined table but I've never heard a player who has say it was a bad idea.
Tommy
Do you know why they didn't like it? I always thought the line rule sounded like a good idea, although I've never actually seen it in practice.
I don't know why table lines aren't used, and I can't even conjecture. My faith in the evolutionary nature of rules forces me to believe that we're better off without the lines, without even knowing why. It'd be different if they hadn't already been tried.
But then, sometimes a good idea shows up at the wrong time. Maybe a review of table line's effect is in order now. I don't know.
Tommt
Tommy,
Just to let you know: Foxwoods has a similar rule--and has also adopted the "buy the button" rule. Last week five players at one table bought the button when they returned from breaks.
Now, if I could only figure out all of my friend Rick's preconditions, I might do the same.
John
John: "Foxwoods has ... adopted the "buy the button" rule."
Awesome! Especially with the no-smoking rule.
"Now, if I could only figure out all of my friend Rick's preconditions, I might do the same."
Serious? I can't think of a situation where I WOULDN'T employ the buy-the-button option.
Tommy
The purpose of disallowing "string bets" is to prevent an opponent from getting a reaction from the opponent before deciding whether or not to raise.
You have described, lets call it a "reverse string raise", where opponents get this information anyway. Yes, its a bad rule.
A better rule would be that a player must issue his action "in one motion" (where verbal declarations are binding) which will prevent the angle shooters from doing what you describe, AND will allow players to make raises which are "obvious" even if he didn't have enough money to start.
- Louie
I've been playing for about 8 months now and have read quite a few books and articles on strategies. However, one of my confusion is how or when to play unsuited AX below AT especially before the flop. My basic strategy or should I say guidelines are: 1)Check on the BB on an unraised pot; 2)call at SB on unraised pot if there are at least 4 players; 3)call on late-mid and LP with at least 4 players; 4)rarely call a raise if I act after the raiser, otherwise fold. I am also more inclined to play A2-A5 rather than A6-A8 because of straight possibilities. Am I doing the right thing or are there other ways. Of course, I take into consideration the types of players I'm dealing with. Appreciate your comments and suggestions. Thank you in advance.
the only time I play this piece of cheese is shorthanded. If in the blinds I will not call a raise unless the cut-off or button open raises. in which case I will 3 bet from the sb. IMHO, Ax suited is way over rated so it only follows that Ax offsuit is a crap hand in most games. If by chance you get a free play in the bb with Ax offsuit you have to be real careful and be able to lay down top pair. this sounds like an easy thing to do but in live play its a different story. I don't think you can be too far from wrong to always fold this hand in a full tabled ring game with 3-6 players on average seeing the flop.
IMO, unsuited A-x is basically worthless. Consider it as such and you can't go too wrong.
1) Check on the big blind in an unraised pot: correct.
2) Call at small blind on unraised pot if there are at least 4 players: the more players, the more likely your x will do you in. You can call with A-x if it costs you only 1/2 or 1/3 of a bet; if it's 2/3 of a bet, muck.
3) Call on late-mid and LP with at least 4 players: fold, especially with 4 or more players.
4) Rarely call a raise if I act after the raiser: you should never call a raise with A-x, unless you have seen his cards and yours are better, in which case you should raise.
5) A2-A5 vs. A6-A8: if players in your game are constantly coming in with Ax you might prefer A8 to A2. This is from the blinds; you should never voluntarily put a full bet in the pot with Ax, unless you are on the button and the blinds are habitual folders to a raise.
Here is how I play it:
For free in the BB. For 1/2 a bet in the SB.
It is a very bad hand that can very easily turn into a good looking second best hand. When I do end up seeing a flop I am often praying for my undercard to be the highest on board more than I am praying to see an Ace.
KJS
In my opinion, playing Ax in the small blind is a HUGE, HUGE mistake and that alone will turn a winning player into a losing player. You will get trapped when you flop an ace.
Just my opinion though...
sam
2)call at SB on unraised pot if there are at least 4 players
Actually, weak offsuit hands like Axo, K7o, etc. tend to play better with fewer people in the pot. You'll have more chances to steal pots and if you flop a pair you're less likely to be dominated.
3)call on late-mid and LP with at least 4 players
Yuck. You really need to read one of the Hold'em books on this site, one of the books by Lee Jones or Lou Kreiger.
4)rarely call a raise if I act after the raiser, otherwise fold.
You should replace rarely with never outside of the blinds.
I am also more inclined to play A2-A5 rather than A6-A8 because of straight possibilities.
It doesn't really matter. The only time these hands are really worth anything is in a shorthanded pot, and in a shorthanded pot you don't really care about making the few straights that A2-A5 can make. Contrary to what many believe, a 6-8 kicker is a bit better than a 2-5 kicker, because as Abdul has taught us, kickers do more than kick.
-Sean
Contrary to what the books say, A9o/A8o are probably worth a call on the button after several very loose limpers.
I will only play this hand in the big blind when it is checked to me. There are a number of inherant dangers with this hand. The two big weaknesses are directly related to the fact that the hand is unsuited and the kicker is small. Sure, there are rare times when you will flop three to your suited ace and get a fourth on the turn or river. However, this is a rare occurance and often a hand that does not justify the pot odds vs. the odds of making your hand. Occasionally you will flop trips with your x card. However, the small pair on the board and the number of overcards make this hand fraught with danger and virually unplayable. This hand will win some smaller pots from time to time. However, it will be vunerable to losing some big pots. The kind of flops and turn and river cards that are ammunable to this holding build large pots and lead to raises of which you will be calling as an underdog!!!!!! Just my opinion on the matter!!!!!
I often raise on the button with this hand if all fold to me.
I also occasinoally 3-bet this hand from the blinds if all fold to the button, and I think he is trying to steal-raise.
Is this incorrect?
I am not sure about raising on the button, but I am reasonably sure 3 betting this hand from the big blind is a huge mistake. First you are out of position. Second you must be all most positive he/she is on a steal and your A holds up(preferably with a 6-8 kicker b/c he/she may hold an A also). I think I can probably go on about this and I am sure there are many other problems with this hand-this is a crap hand period so if the button tries to steal from me he will not be trying b/c I will surrender and choose much better holdings to defend with.
A debate has been going on in various forms on this forum. I want to hear opinions on this. In fact I want people to explicitly vote. The question is: could you sit down at a table with no rake (zero sum game) where your opponents' combination of playing strategies is such that you have negative EV, no matter what strategy you adopt?
Let's formalize things and spell out some assumptions. It is some standard form of high only poker. There are at least three players. There is no rake, so it is a zero sum game. Even though players may have a positional advantage on certain hands, there is a rotating button, so the game is fair in the long run (and all measurements of EV assume that everyone takes all positions equally). Your opponents are not communicating or cheating in any way (and nor are you). There is a so-called `optimal strategy' OP such that if all but one of the players play strategy OP then the last player can maximise his EV by also playing strategy OP, in which case everyone's EV is zero. (Technically, this is known as a Nash Equilibrium.)
I make the following claim.
THERE EXISTS a combination of opponents' strategies such that FOR EVERY strategy used by hero, hero has strictly negative EV.
Here is an example, which I first saw in a post by Mark Glover. Call the player to hero's left, `lefty'. All players except hero and lefty play optimally. Lefty plays optimally except that he always raises with the nuts on the river. Then I claim that no matter what strategy hero plays (even though he knows how his opponents play probabilistically), his EV is strictly negative (i.e. less than and not equal to zero).
This seems completely obvious to me, although a rigorous mathematical proof might be difficult.
But in any case, if you agree or disagree. let's hear some responses. Get out there and vote.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Dirk asks: "A debate has been going on in various forms on this forum. I want to hear opinions on this. In fact I want people to explicitly vote. The question is: could you sit down at a table with no rake (zero sum game) where your opponents' combination of playing strategies is such that you have negative EV, no matter what strategy you adopt? "
In theory yes, in reality no.
"Here is an example, which I first saw in a post by Mark Glover. Call the player to hero's left, `lefty'. All players except hero and lefty play optimally. Lefty plays optimally except that he always raises with the nuts on the river. Then I claim that no matter what strategy hero plays (even though he knows how his opponents play probabilistically), his EV is strictly negative (i.e. less than and not equal to zero)."
Mark's description is a great example of a theoretical situation that proves your point very well, in theory. However, I believe this situation could not happen in reality because the players facing our hero would not actually be able to actually play optimally. I would not be afraid to sit in this game assuming they honestly attempted to play optimally at all times, would you?
So, if you are asking about a real world poker game, then I vote no. On the other hand, if it is a theoretical world you are talking about then I vote yes, because Mark's example is an excellent example of a game that our hero cannot win.
William
Theory!
YES!!!!! :-)
William said:
`` Mark's description is a great example of a theoretical situation that proves your point very well, in theory. However, I believe this situation could not happen in reality because the players facing our hero would not actually be able to actually play optimally. I would not be afraid to sit in this game assuming they honestly attempted to play optimally at all times, would you?
So, if you are asking about a real world poker game, then I vote no. On the other hand, if it is a theoretical world you are talking about then I vote yes, because Mark's example is an excellent example of a game that our hero cannot win. ''
But what are you really saying here. Any practical limitations that apply to hero's opponents would apply to hero too. He would still be at a disadvantage with lefty to his left. Anyway, if you want to pine things down you have to define them. It's not clear to me what you are actually claiming here.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
I do indeed believe that Mark's example is an excellent and well thought out theoretical construct.
Although Mark’s example is correct in a theoretical world, I contend that it would not necessarily work as described in the real world if hero is allowed to play as an expert poker player rather than just playing optimally. I used the term ‘expert’ just to eliminate the possibility of any confusion as to the skill of hero, but I really believe an intermediate player could beat the game also.
In a theoretical model where things can be simplified in order to create an example as elegant as Mark’s, one can postulate such a thesis with authority. Mark’s example is nothing if not elegant, kudos to Mark because I did not originally think that such an argument could be made. However, in practical application, these issues are far more complex and need not behave the way a simplified theoretical model does.
I contend that many of the poker players on this forum could beat this game in the real world because of the increased complexity of the real world. I theory it is one thing to say the players play optimally, but in the real world constant optimal play is not achievable at this point in history.
William I do indeed believe that Mark's example is an excellent and well thought out theoretical construct.
Although Mark’s example is correct in a theoretical world, I contend that it would not necessarily work as described in the real world if hero is allowed to play as an expert poker player rather than just playing optimally. I used the term ‘expert’ just to eliminate the possibility of any confusion as to the skill of hero, but I really believe an intermediate player could beat the game also.
In a theoretical model where things can be simplified in order to create an example as elegant as Mark’s, one can postulate such a thesis with authority. Mark’s example is nothing if not elegant, kudos to Mark because I did not originally think that such an argument could be made. However, in practical application, these issues are far more complex and need not behave the way a simplified theoretical model does.
I contend that many of the poker players on this forum could beat this game in the real world because of the increased complexity of the real world. I theory it is one thing to say the players play optimally, but in the real world constant optimal play is not achievable at this point in history.
William I do indeed believe that Mark's example is an excellent and well thought out theoretical construct.
Although Mark’s example is correct in a theoretical world, I contend that it would not necessarily work as described in the real world if hero is allowed to play as an expert poker player rather than just playing optimally. I used the term ‘expert’ just to eliminate the possibility of any confusion as to the skill of hero, but I really believe an intermediate player could beat the game also.
In a theoretical model where things can be simplified in order to create an example as elegant as Mark’s, one can postulate such a thesis with authority. Mark’s example is nothing if not elegant, kudos to Mark because I did not originally think that such an argument could be made. However, in practical application, these issues are far more complex and need not behave the way a simplified theoretical model does.
I contend that many of the poker players on this forum could beat this game in the real world because of the increased complexity of the real world. I theory it is one thing to say the players play optimally, but in the real world constant optimal play is not achievable at this point in history.
Again, my answer is... In Mark's example, it is possible.
In the real world, the 'optimal' players can be defeated because they would not be able to achieve optimal play against an expert opponent sitting in hero’s chair.
William
William, no offense, but when you use words such as `expert' and `optimal' it seems that you are just playing with words. I can't see the actual substance of your argument.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Then set up the game and let's play. Your GTO players will not succeed because they will not be able to actually play GTO against a good poker player.
I know you can't really set up the game because there are no GTO players on planet earth.
It's a real world thing Dirk, please do not be offended, but I neither require nor expect you to understand. If I am still alive, come see me after you have another 15 or 20 years experience under your belt and we can both laugh at how badly I explained such a simple truth, how blind you were, or both.
Later, William
You agree with me that the theoretical example is correct, and I agree with you that no real human being could play GTO strategy. All I am trying to say, and I believe this is a totally uncontroversial statement that applies in both theory and in actual poker games, is that your EV depends not only on how good you are and how good your opponents are (that would only give a rough first estimate) but also depends on your and their playing styles, and their relative positions. Do you agree?
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Dirk Wrote:
"All I am trying to say, and I believe this is a totally uncontroversial statement that applies in both theory and in actual poker games, is that your EV depends not only on how good you are and how good your opponents are (that would only give a rough first estimate) but also depends on your and their playing styles, and their relative positions. Do you agree? "
We are so close to agreeing completely. I agree regarding position, but style is something that should be mutable if one wants to really prevail in the more advanced games and I have therefore have a difficult time agreeing with you about that one point.
I do agree that style is very important and I also believe that many if most players cannot change their style effectively enough to adapt to all style related situations. I have known players who were equally skilled, but one could always beat the other because of their respective styles. I have also known many players that were adequately skilled and flexible enough to neutralize the style issue altogether and that is why we may never come to agreement on this issue.
No hard feelings though. Overall, I believe we have kept this little debate of our on reasonably civil terms.
Thanks for your last response Dirk; it helped me understand your thinking.
Sincerely, William
Earlier I thought we would have to just agree to disagree, but now we can probably agree to agree.
By the way, when I use the term `playing style', I mean to term to include the ability to change gears. To me the term `playing style' refers to the whole package. So perhaps we agree completely.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
If you include the ability to read your opponents' hands and a part of the style package then I would say that, all other things being equal, the person who reads hands the best will be the most significant long-term winner. However, I would not call 'reading hands' a stylistic factor; rather I would call it a skill factor.
I am sorry Dirk, but I think we are as close to agreeing as we will ever be on this issue. At least we are until we meet 15 or 20 years from now and you, in through your newly acquired years of wisdom finally agree with me. :-)
Later, William
I don't understand why hero's ev is strictly negative in Glover's example. Can you point me to (or provide) a fuller explanation?
Thx
Don,
If I remember correctly, my example went something like the following. (It's long but fairly easy to understand.)
Assume a three-player, zero-sum hold'em game involving Hero (seat #1), Oddball (seat #2), and Lucky (seat #3). Assume none of the players gives away any "tells." Assume there is a game theory optimal (GTO) strategy for this three-player game. As Dirk noted, if all three players played GTO strategies, then all would have EV's of zero.
In this example, Lucky does play this GTO strategy. Oddball also plays GTO, with one quirky exception. If Oddball has the nuts on the river, all three players are still in the hand, and Hero bets out, then Oddball always raises.
Hero's goal is to maximize her EV. She is fully aware of both her opponents' strategies, so she will play a game-theory maximally exploitive strategy. That is, she will take advantage of her opponents' mistakes whenever possible.
So what do you expect will happen?
Most of the time, both Oddball and Lucky will make GTO (i.e., non-exploitable) plays. Hero also will play GTO when this occurs (since the best she can hope for is zero EV in these situations).
Occasionally, though, the quirky exception will happen, and Oddball will raise with the nuts on the river.
Sometimes, this raise will be the proper GTO betting action, since Lucky often would fold to even one bet while Hero usually would call the raise. In such situations, a raise by Oddball has a higher EV than a call by Oddball. Oddball loses no EV when this happens.
Other times, however, this raise will be a GTO mistake, since Lucky occasionally is likely to overcall (but fold to a raise) when Hero is unlikely to call the raise. In such situations, a call by Oddball has higher EV than a raise by Oddball. Oddball loses EV when this happens.
Since Oddball occasionally will lose some EV unnecessarily, his strategy's overall EV clearly will be negative.
Lucky will benefit from Oddball's GTO mistake. This is because he will sometimes fold to the unbeatable raise when he otherwise would have overcalled (and lost a bet). Since Lucky will lose slightly fewer bets than he would if Oddball had played GTO, Lucky's EV will be positive.[1]
What effect will Oddball's GTO mistake have upon Hero's EV? Since Oddball has the nuts, Hero cannot exploit this mistake. Oddball's error never will benefit Hero, so it will not cause Hero's EV to become positive.
At best, Hero only can attempt to maintain a zero EV. Will she succeed? No.
To maintain a zero EV, Hero (when she does not also have the nuts) must fold every time Oddball makes a non-GTO raise. If Oddball makes a non-GTO raise and Hero (without sharing the nuts) calls or re-raises even one time, then Hero gives up a bet that she would not have lost if Oddball had correctly called. This would cause Hero's EV to be negative.
Can Hero fold all her non-nut hands whenever Oddball non-GTO raises? No.
GTO strategy surely dictates that Oddball sometimes must raise Hero's river bet with, say, the third-best possible hand on occasions when Hero's maximally exploitive strategy requires her to sometimes call (or re-raise) with a second-best possible hand.[2] If Hero always folded in these situations, her EV would be negative.
GTO strategy also dictates that Oddball occasionally bluff-raise Hero's river bets, so Hero's maximally exploitive strategy must require her to sometimes call (or re-raise) with non-nut hands. If Hero always folded in these situations, her EV would be negative.
So, always folding non-nut hands to any of Oddball's river raises would cause Hero's EV to be negative. Yet, calling even one of Oddball's non-GTO river raises would cause Hero's EV to be negative. Since there is no way for Hero to know which of Oddball's river raises are GTO and which are not, she is damned if she always folds and damned if she doesn't. Thus, Hero's EV will be negative even if she does everything possible to maximize it.
P.S. Your name rings a bell from my duplicate bridge days. Should it? I know Mike Smolen developed the Smolen Transfer Bids, but Don Smolen also seems familiar.
----------------------
[1] Logically, Lucky's EV could be damaged by Oddball's non-GTO raise if: (a) the raise actually caused Lucky to call and/or re-raise more frequently than he otherwise would, and (b) this extra aggression ended up costing more than what is saved by any extra passivity caused by Oddball's non-GTO raise. It should be obvious that this will not happen if Lucky is playing a GTO strategy, but I'm simply waving my hands and leaving it as an exercise for the reader to figure out why.
[2] Here is an example. Hero holds AhAd, and Oddball holds 5h5c. Some slowplaying occurs, and all three players make it to the river, where the board shows 5s5dAc/As/3s. Hero bets out with her quad aces (the second-best possible hand behind an unlikely 4s2s). Oddball certainly should raise at least occasionally with his quad fives (the third-best possible hand). Lucky folds. When Oddball raises, surely a maximally exploitive strategy would not cause Hero to fold her non-nut hand.
I think the argument just given could be translated into a rigorous mathematical proof. As far as I am concerned, this (particular) question is absolutely resolved.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Of course it was real real obvious that you were looking for only one answer all along. I don't think this could ever happen anyway no matter what you think.
Joe
Mark,
I played quite a lot of bridge between NYC and DC in the 1960's. Do you go that far back?
Don,
In the 60's, I hated bridge--a game I considered very boring. Hell, a quarter of the time you didn't even get to play your cards! And playing defense wasn't much more fun. Live and learn.
My serious bridge days were in the 80's and early 90's. Doubt if we crossed paths. I must be thinking of someone else.
I'm guessing the details I provided above were more than you required, but perhaps Vince will finally understand the idea. I'm out the door for a few days of vacation, but if anyone has any questions about my example, Dirk (or others) probably can provide the answers.
Go out and play some fucking poker !
Hey Gremlin. I don't make these posts for education or enlightenment. Nor do I make these posts to improve my game. I just make these posts to PISS YOU OFF!
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Can you choose your seat? Are the opponents allowed to name you explicitly in their strategy?
For instance you can easily counter Mike G’s example, if you can choose your seat. If the seat is random, then you still have 0EV before the choice of seat. Mike G’s example would appear to be explicit collusion against a SEAT.
If the opponents’ strategy can depend on where you are sitting, then clearly you can have successful collusion. However that would appear to be no longer implicit collusion.
I believe (not proven) is that if you can choose your seat then you can always guarantee 0E, as long as the opponents cannot name you explicitly in their strategy. I.e. only have their strategy depending only on their opponents’ strategies and game conditions.
Yes, if you can choose your seat you can put lefty on your right and have +EV. You may even have +EV with a random seat, with this example.
A related question, (and as far as I know, unanswered question), brought up in an earlier thread by Tom Wiedeman, and also here by you, is `what if you can choose your seat?' (with the provisos you spell out.)
Another necessary proviso may be that the opponents strategies are fixed in advanced (though they may be probabilistic are very complicated). This proviso would be to counter the suggetsions in Kim Lee's post (see below) about betting $102.37.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
On reflection, I think an Always –EV situation can still be arranged even if the other players cannot name you explicitly. Basically they arrange to gang up against a foreign system.
Lets assume that two players are playing system A, and B. A third player arrives. Now lets say each of system A and B is optimal except for a couple of exceptions.
If the player before them is not playing system A or B then they always raise with the nuts on the river ala MG.
If someone else is using the same system as you, then you procedure to play –EV poker. Which means that other player playing the same system as you will be -EV as well, as they are playing the same system as you.
Piers,
In a two-player, zero-sum poker poker game (with advantages such as position neutralized), a person playing a game theory optimal strategy is assured of a non-negative EV. Such an optimal strategy is non-exploitable.
Dirk posed a theoretical question as to whether an "infinitely smart" player in a three-person, zero-sum poker game could end up with a negative EV. I offered my example. At that time, fixing seats was not prohibited.
Later, a discussion ensued about an amended form of this question where Hero was allowed to pick her seat and "person-specific targeting" was disallowed. The general consensus was that the "infinitely smart" player probably would be assured of a non-negative EV in such a scenario.
Yes.
This won't happen if the game is too simple .
You haven't proven Glover's example, but it seems plausible. However it depends on the order of the players. You would make money if "lefty" sat on your right half the time.
Ray Zee has already told you he has occasionally played to force people to lose - don't you believe him? He was willing to pay a small price to chase undesirable people from the game. This case depends critically on Ray's ability to identify the player though.
Nevertheless, in complex games the players can effectively communicate their identities through play (as in bridge bidding). For example, if the flop comes 237s then they could raise by $102.37 in No Limit. So even though they are seated randomly and anonymously they might figure out who you are on an early street and then exploit this on a later street.
We assume that hero has complete knowledge of his opponents strategies. Does this mean he could emulate an opponents signal giving and thwart the identification, or is he outnumbered anyway?
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
If people are seated randomly and anonymously on every round and they play the same strategy then they make the same amount of money. In this sense you could escape identification by imitating your opponents if you know their strategy. But if players with drawing hands subsidize each other then your symmetric Nash strategy will lose against the collective.
For example, with three people there is the odd-man-out game where you simultaneously choose heads or tails, and the first player who doesn't match loses. You can collude by copying the move of your partner. Suppose we can look at a flop before deciding our strategy. There are lots of ways to randomize. But your opponents might unwittinglly play the same way (heads if there are more red cards than black in the last 3 flops). Your "random" strategy might break-even against a tough table but lose everytime against these two opponents.
Well, I know two down and three flop is hold-em and four down and three flop is Omaha, five down and three flop is cincinnati - so what is three down and three flop? - that could be the best game of all - lol.
Charles,
3 down 3 flop could be known as 2 different games:
1) Kentucky hold'em 2) Pineapple (either Crazy or Tahoe)
1) Kentucky hold'em you have to either call, raise, or fold. There is no checking in this game. I've played in this once as a test game and found it to be quite enjoyable but costly. This game is usually at spread limits like 1-2-3-4 or 2-4-6-8 where it gets more expensive per street. I think there's also an option of tossing 1 of your hole cards either before or after the flop.
2) Pineapple usually seen as crazy where you get three cards down then toss one before the flop. From there it plays like regular hold em.
3) Tahoe pineapple is similar to three card omaha. It's played as high/low and you have to play either 1 or 2 cards from your 3 (can be different for high and low). Personally, I think it's a better game than usual omaha because decent hands will not get drawn out on as often.
Hope this helps, Mike
Five down and three flop is Big Mitt. In cincinatti the board turns one at a time. At least it used to...
x
the local casino here has had a game going for about 20 years. It is called 3-card manilla (derived from 2-card manilla) and goes like this:
Stripped deck 7's up (32 cards) each player gets 3 down and 1 community card is flopped before any betting. 1 card is turned up follwed by a betting round until there are 5 community cards. On the 4th community card It is played as blind's choice for $5 or $10 and there is only 1 small blind left of the button (but here the button IS the blind?!?!). So if player makes it $5 blind then that is a 10/20 hand and $10 blind 20/40 hand. I have seen them playing as high as 40/80 on occasion (aussie dollars!). This game is full every single night, and other games only run on thurs. fri. sat. nights. There are a couple of guys making a living off this table and a few blowing their super fund. The game, so i've heard, is of greek origin, though this may be a fallacy due to the fact that the table comprises of a large portion of greek ethnic players.
Just thought you might be interested.........
forgot to mention, 2 hole cards must be used like omaha
In Southeast Alaska Cincinati is played exactly like Omaha hi/low split. It is the preferred game at the highest stakes where all of the player's know each other very well. Hold Em in these circumstances proves too slow (these are all very good players because they are the only ones in town to survive the local no limit game - lol) - Omaha is increasingly being play more equal to cincinati. I don't know which one I like better, but I lean towards Omaha. But I like cincinati - lol.
Posted by: square_fish
Posted on: Friday, 29 June 2001, at 12:27 a.m.
Posted by: Charles Ramage (ramage@alaska.net)
Posted on: Friday, 29 June 2001, at 2:22 a.m.
This is a true story: I was going to school at san Jose State, California. We had a local game that all of the poker players at the school would play at - a house game! - and it ran pretty much around the clock.
When the counter culture movement came along it was just my cup of tea. The world was completely straight in those days (hard to believe - lol). Anyway, the rumor was I was taking all of these drugs and had gone crazy - lol - and I was sort of not encouraged to play at the house game any more.
Well there were clubs downtown, but everyone was frightened to go play there, but now I had no choice. In those days of course the game was low ball. And as we all know the differnce between a club and a house game is that in the club you don't draw two cards - period - just like you don't play danglers in Omaha. so I finally learned how to play real pokeer.
Six months later everyone was a Hippie - lol - so I was invited back into the game. Within in a week I had won virtually all of the money in the house and one fellow Pat Dempster (still remember his name) asked me if I would please not come there anymore - lol - my finest hour - lol.
I got into poker in the 2000's, so pardon me for asking...
Why don't you draw two cards in a club?
What is a dangler in Omaha?
Thanks.
The open-raiser has a pocket pair and the next player has AK and three-bets. Or flip the holdings around. Doesn't matter.
One or more others see the flop along with the raisers.
The flop comes 2-2-2. The pocket pair bets out and the AK raises.
Is this cheating?
Obvious answer: If there was signaling and such, yes. If there wasn't, no.
But the result is the same either way -- a bet and raise to blast the other players out and vie for the dead money -- whether they know each other's hands or not.
When I bet out in situations like this one, I almost always want the next player to raise. Sometimes my decision to bet is based on the "protection," or "team play," I can or cannot expect from my left-hand opponent.
The hand that came up tonight was, I open-raised with 5-5 and the next player reraised with 6-6. Four of us saw the flop of 10-4-4. I bet out, expecting to be raised no matter what. He'd raise with any pocket pair, and he'd raise with AK or AQ or even lower overcards than that if, say, he got spunky with QJs preflop.
So I bet, he raised, the other two players folded. The turn and river were both paint, likely hitting the folding hands.
We checked the turn and river. It wasn't softplaying, that's just how it happened to go down. All four checks were reasonable and understandable.
Whenever a hand like this comes up, it doesn't matter if I'm the bettor or raiser on the flop, it always feels like "us against them," meaning me and my raising partner. Except that we're after each others throats at the same time.
Just a thought. No point intended.
Tommy
If you are otherwise "partners" such as playing out of the same bankroll AND you would play DIFFERENTLY if you were not, then its unethical whether you are signalling or not.
Your first example is a little weak. If the AK knows the bettor has a pair then he only raise IF the he knows he's drawing to a split since the other's have lesser A and K, the pot is big enough to draw to 4 outs, AND his raise will drop other players. QJ is drawing dead against the full house AK needs to win. Its a good raise if AK may be the best hand right now, or someone behind will fold a pair. So, ... its cheating if AK raised to protect his "partner" with the vulnerable pair.
There's nothing wrong with making a play at poker that is good for you and good for some other player. Its unethical or cheating to make a play that's knowingly bad for you that even better for a particular someone else, if you have any kind of "recipricol" understanding with that person.
- Louie
Louie,
The bit about "being at each others throats" was meant to clarify a lack of "recipricol understanding." (nice wording)
And yeah, the example had holes.
It's just that sometimes when I'm the preflop three-bettor and the initial raiser bets out right in front of me and there are players left to act behind both of us in what is a big pot already, I feel a sense of duty, to raise. And I count on others to do the same thing when I'm the one betting out.
It doesn't matter if the other aggressor is a stranger or a regular. There's nothing even close to cheating going on. It's a fleeting kind of team-play, lasting exactly one bet on one round. I just think it's neat, like how Ohio State fans and Michigan fans can hate each other so, but then root for the other team in the Rose Bowl.
Tommy
It seems to me just plain good play to anticipate another player's action and use this to thin the field (assuming it is in your interests to thin the field).
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
This "team-play" can also be found in loose games where say top two pair and nut flush draw jam the flop. They are basically chopping up all the players with lesser hands and draws.
Jim
it is quite good strategy to sit next to somebody you know is aggressive. hopefully on his/her immediate left. seat selection can be a tremendous asset in you game. if you were in a semi-weak/passive game wouldn't you rather have pocket aces directly to the left of the UTG player who raises when he enters the pot? of course you would. you want to be able to get people in a position where they have to pay a whole lot more than it is worth to draw out on you. you want to be in a position where there is likely to be bets in front of your action, so you can choose whether to let your opponents in for one bet (when you want a bigger pot for bigger pot odds on yoru good draws), or 2 bets, and possibly more (when you have a strong but vulnerable hand). this strategy is true whether or not your aggressive opponent knows it, and it is true whether or not it is good for your opponents hand to get heads up. if you had ahead of time discussed this kind of play and decided to use it so that you can both split the profits from the play, and had ways of 'signaling' when this play was to take place, that would be cheating. but the play can only be made when you know your opponent is aggressive enough to bet and raise, and when you have position. this obviously can't be done when you are out of position or your opponents don't bet or raise a whole lot.
What do people think of semibluffing draws? I know from an early position if you flop a flush draw in HE or on 5th have a live 4 flush in stud, it's been advocated to bet into the group with a semibluff - a bet that either wins the pot right now, or protects (?) a hand that can improve to the best hand in the next card or two. Heck, against enough opponents, it can be a good idea to put the money in there on implied odds. In a late position, you can bet or raise for the free card next round, too. My question is, how often do you do this? Also, it would seem if betting your draws can often become acceptable, how do you keep the weaker players from doing it, i.e. people who don't recognize the bluff aspect of their bet and bet anyway "for value"? Thanks.
Joe
I have found that my blind play and the hands I get in the blinds usually determines whether I have a winning session or not.We spend a lot of time dissecting particular hands and maneuvers and not enough talking about blind play. Unless I have missed some extensive threads on blind play please give me your own thoughts on blind calling and folding and aggressive or passive plays in mid-limit type HE, with typical tight aggressive group. Thank You A
"I have found that my blind play and the hands I get in the blinds usually determines whether I have a winning session or not."
It's bigger than that. Blind play is what determines who has a winning life or not.
I too am dismayed by the small percentage of poker-literature space devoted to the blinds, especially when we consider that we are dealt about 1/4 of ALL our hands while in the blinds, and that when not in the blinds we are usually facing at least one opponent who is.
It's only everything.
My song is getting old: When in the blinds, fold. When not, raise.
Tommy
Tommy: Assuming what Archie says is true, even just for the sake of argument, wouldn't your advice be less correct now? Since there are more players cold-calling raises, wouldn't this suggest raising less when not in the blinds? And since there are more players in each hand, wouldn't this suggest folding less often when in the blinds?
Does anyone keep track of how many flops they see from the blinds vs. not from the blinds? I think I'm going to start keeping track, but I bet anyone doing this would be more than a little surprised to find out how high a percentage of hands they are playing from the blinds.
Andy,
" ... wouldn't your advice be less correct now?"
Do you mean the thing about folding the blinds and raising otherwise? Andy, I think you'll agree that a more general (hazy) statement could hardly be made.
A slightly less muddied version would be, fold the blinds way often than others do.
< Depends on from where.
<< And since there are more players in each hand, wouldn't this suggest folding less often when in the blinds?>>
That is EXACTLY where I think folding, when others would call, is a money maker.
Is it better to be getting 14-1 on one small bet with seven players in the pot, or to get 10-1 on one small bet with 5 players in the pot?
I don't see any difference. And even if there is a difference and I knew what it was, it would fall far behind positional considerations in getting my attention.
Tommy
Forum Followers:
I believe this is an important subject too discuss in more detail bcause it seems like to me that the games are getting looser and looser every where I go. My local Casino has very loose/passive games at the 10-20 level where on average 1/4 of the pots are raised and an average of 5-6 people will see the flop for a raise or not. Pots are very rarely 3 bet pre-flop. My 2 recent vists to LA playing at both Hollywood Park and Commerce pretty much confirmed to me that the loose/passive game is prevelent at all levels including 15-30 and 20-40.
So, my question is, are you playing too tight in these games? To elaborate, I am talking about pre-flop and what hands are you calling with when you are assured of a 5-6 way pot even if a raise is made in early position. I think Tommy Angelo stated in a previous post about a pre-flop raise and 4 callers that his J8 suited on the button is a raise calling hand because of the implied odds associated with the number of callers. So lets start from there. If this 10 year pro will call a raise with a 2 gapped suited connector, do you normally muck this hand and wait for better gambling opportunity?
In the new 21st Century HPFAP, Skalansy/Mamuth have devoted some 30 odd new pages to their book detailing how to play in these games. In a previous chapter on late position play, they conclude that calling a raise with 10-9s and 88 is the right play if you are assured of a muli-way pot.
So, are you playing too tight and letting these opportunities go by?
Regards,
Dale Duguid
Gerald,
I think you're playing with fire here. Loose games are inherently beatable. Looser-than-recommended preflop play can still win, if ones postflop play and hand-reading is consistently good. But, it can never be wrong to play tight in a loose game, in my opinion.
And for the record:
Gerald wrote: "I think Tommy Angelo stated in a previous post about a pre-flop raise and 4 callers that his J8 suited on the button is a raise calling hand. . ."
Yes.
<< ... because of the implied odds associated with the number of callers.>>
No. I didn't cite that a reason and I never would. The reason I call in that situation is because I have the button, period. I would fold the same hand from the BB for one bet, no matter how many players were in the pot.
" ... In a previous chapter on late position play, they [S&M] conclude that calling a raise with 10-9s and 88 is the right play if you are assured of a muli-way pot.
So, are you playing too tight and letting these opportunities go by?"
This is an example of how a perfectly sound S&M teaching can result in people playing WORSE. Players justify playing shakey hands out of position as they recall a sentence from a book, conveniently forgetting that the play was deemed correct by S&M ONLY because of being in a late seat.
For me, "late" is not good enough. I gotta have the button, or the cutoff with a tight player on the button or some indication that the button is folding.
Tommy
Tommy:
Page 166 21st century HPFAP:
" On the other hand, if you are in a loose, passive game where they usually call, but occasionally raise, you should play any AXs under the gun. You should also be playing a hand like J9s under the gun, and anything better. You should play these hands because you are going to win a lot when you hit them. That is, you take advantage of bad play. You would also play all pairs. Conversely you often shouldn't raise with AK or AQ in spots where you would raise in tougher games."
Does 5-6 action on every hand with 1/4 of these pots raised meet the criteria of loose/passive? I think so.
You state "The reason I call in this situation is because I have the button, period. I would fold the same hand from the BB for 1 bet, no matter how many players were in the hand"
Well, OK, but most players are going to call in the BB in a loose/passive game. Remember Tommy, this is not a tough game we are talking about.
Experience tells me that in a 6-7 handed limit game, the best hand is gonna get the money, plain and simple. Are you overvaluing postion in a multiway pot as opposed to shorthanded in a limit game? I think position is huge in a shorthanded contest, but multiway, the best hand is gonna get the money most of the time.
My point to this whole discussion? I too do not normally call raises with junky hands like J9s and 10-9s out of position. This just seems too much like gambling to me. But maybe that the point the authors are trying to make, sometimes, if the game dictates, you have get in there and make adjustments to your game.
My apologies on the assumption of the implied odds thing.
Regards,
Dale Duguid
r u the champion curler?
I'm the curler. A champion curler? Well, in some peoples eyes but maybe not in others. It depends on who you talk to. But thanks for asking.
Most people here have never heard of curling so you must be from Canada.
Regards, Dugie
Gerald,
Me: "The reason I call in this situation is because I have the button, period. I would fold the same hand from the BB for 1 bet, no matter how many players were in the hand"
You: "Well, OK, but most players are going to call in the BB in a loose/passive game."
And most players are losers. Oh? Did I say that? lol
My point now is NOT about what I do or what you do, just that in order to win, we have to do something different than the masses. That "everyone else does it" strikes me as a signal that a different approach is worth a look.
"Experience tells me that in a 6-7 handed limit game, the best hand is gonna get the money, plain and simple. . . . multiway, the best hand is gonna get the money most of the time."
Fine. But how much? And how much does it lose when it missed the draw? All that matters to me is the DIFFERENCE between what a hand rates to earn or lose out of position AS COMPARED TO being in position. Isolating either case is like one hand clapping.
When we make the best hand with, say, J-9s after calling a raise from the BB, we earn less, in the long run, than when we hit that hand from the button. When we don't make our hand from the blind, we lose more than if we were drawing from the button. Do you agree with that paragraph?
Tommy
Tommy:
You state: "When we make the best hand with, say, J-9s after calling a raise from the BB, we earn less, in the long run, than when we hit that hand from the button. When we don't make our hand from the blind, we lose more than if we were drawing from the button. Do you agree with that paragraph?"
100% - I agree and I understand your approach.
So are you saying that S&M comments regarding pre-flop calls in early position (or mid position) in a loose/passive game are not the norm for a player like yourself? And if you agree to this statement, this is in contrast to statements in HPFAP. Your opinion on this is?
Regards, Dugie
Dugie and Backdoor,
Great questions.
Dugie wrote: "So are you saying that S&M comments regarding pre-flop calls in early position (or mid position) in a loose/passive game are not the norm for a player like yourself? And if you agree to this statement, this is in contrast to statements in HPFAP. Your opinion on this is?"
Yes, I play tighter than S&M recommend in the situations you described. The reasons I think it's best for ME to fold, say, J9s UTG in a loose-passive game, go beyond position. On position alone, my defense is weakened by Backdoor's question [paraphrased]: "Why reject one profitable situation simply because another (on the button) is more profitable?"
One well-covered topic here at 2+2 is that many times our decisions simply don't matter. There is such a thing as a break-even play.
I think that if calling, say, J9s UTG in a loose-passive game is a profitable play, it ain't one by much. What I've done with my game, without even realizing it at first, is try to figure out which decisions in the early seats are nearly break-even plays, and choose the path of least fluctuation, meaning, fold.
I very much like low bankroll fluctuation, over a year, over a month, over a session. Big swings mean big losses, and big losses mean potential poker-funk, and that means taking days off that were earmarked for playing, to get my head right again. I will gladly pay a known fee, say, the profit I lose by folding J9s, to insure a smooth life. Yeah, call it insurance, cuz that's exactly what it is. I am not a machine and I know that so I defend against my frailties in advance.
Sorry for always jumping to the big picture. I have a hard time looking at frequently recurring poker situations under a microscope because all I have here is a telescope.
Here is yet another thing I picked up at 2+2 that I really like. "If a game is such that it is wrong to [fill in the blank] then you shouldn't even be in the game."
The implication there is that the game is too tough to be profitable. I apply this concept in reverse to loose-passive games.
If the game is sufficiently loose-passive that playing J9s is a good play, then I don't want to be in the game.
Those games have too much fluctuation compared to what I'm used to. My edge comes from bluffing and poking and getting reads and dancing about, not from making the best hand. In a very loose-passive game, my weapons are taken away. So I don't want to fight.
Sure, I could play the normal hands in the normal spots, like J9s UTG, and cast my fate to the cards, even while retaining a distinct edge. Or I could change games or come back tomorrow and find a game more to my liking. When I AM in a loose-passive game, and play tighter than snot in the early seats, I am simply waiting for a bigger edge. I have no problem with passing up hundreds of 51-49 edges, because by doing so, my swings stay low. Telescope.
If I said or implied that calling with J9s as S&M suggest is a "bad" or "losing" play when taken in isolation, then I retract. For me, in the long run, I believe my best choice is to fold.
Tommy
This is not a commentary on specific hands but on the concept of decreasing fluctuations. In Mason's book Gambling Theory and Other Topics he has a discussion about how the great players take more of a chance on going broke. They do this because the plays that max out their EV are plays that are inherently more risky thus causing bigger fluctuations. However, I think that it can be dangerous to give up EV in poker for the sake of diminishing fluctuations. If the play is 50-50 between calling or folding and raising is minus EV, then yes folding will decrease your fluctuations. But giving up EV is not the same as this. Tommy mentions in his post about forgoing 51-49 propositions where the odds are in his favor thus giving up EV. Take a player who makes $15 an hour playing at $15-30 with a standard deviation of $300 an hour. If this player could make $18 an hour how much would his standard deviation have to be in order to maintain the same bankroll, which is based on this player never going broke? I calculated that this player could tolerate in increase in standard deviation of slightly less than $30 an hour (approximately $28.64 per hour) and still play with the same bankroll and never go broke. Now I doubt if forgoing this much EV results in fluctuation increases that amount to this much given the fact that players who approach 1 big bet per hour have some pretty low standard deviations. At least this is what Mason has reported on the forum many times. If a player forgoes this much EV this insurance is costing this player $6000 a year or $500 a month based on 2000 hour playing year. That’s too much money to pay for the insurance policy in my mind. If this hypothetical player wanted to maintain the same ratio of standard deviation to win rate ($360 an hour standard deviation) they merely need to add 20% to their bankroll. For the hypothetical player I’m discussing, it amounts to a significantly less than $6000 and that’s a one time occurrence. For this hypothetical player is it really worth forgoing $18000 after 3 years IF he increased his standard deviation by 20% in lieu of adding $2700 one time?
Let’s put this another way. If a player was to play in such a way as to increase his EV as previously mentioned how much of a bankroll would such player need to go from taking no chances of going broke to a 5% chance of going broke while maintaining the same bankroll? I calculated that the standard deviation would have to increase by about 64% (approximately to 493 from 300). So if the hypothetical player can increase his win rate by 20% and it results in a standard deviation that goes into the stratosphere by increasing 64% he is only taking a 5% chance of going broke and that’s if he stays at the same limits.
If the hypothetical player increases his win rate by 20% ($15 an hour to $18 an hour) and his standard deviation only goes up by 10% (to $310 an hour) his bankroll requirements decrease by 9%. Therefore this player can free up almost $1200 in cash and still be assurred of never going broke. Finally if it results in no change in standard deviation this player can free up almost $2000 in cash and still be assurred of never going broke.
Great post, Tom. Virtually everything I know about EV and SD has come from your posts and Mark's.
"This is not a commentary on specific hands but on the concept of decreasing fluctuations."
Totally. That's because my reasons for folding the specific cards/situations in question extend beyond the cards.
"If a player forgoes this much EV this insurance is costing this player $6000 a year or $500 a month based on 2000 hour playing year. That’s too much money to pay for the insurance policy in my mind."
Perhaps I'll welcome bigger swings by pushing smaller edges as a result of your words. You've opened my eyes to the possibility that I might go broke BECAUSE I keep my swings low. I hadn't thought of that before. Thanks.
One thing that comes with the insurance policy, that you didn't address, is that the smaller swings help me avoid poker-funk, an odd sort of mild depression. Second to "never going broke," that's a big concern of mine.
"So if the hypothetical player can increase his win rate by 20% and it results in a standard deviation that goes into the stratosphere by increasing 64% he is only taking a 5% chance of going broke and that’s if he stays at the same limits."
Okay, that does it. Give me back that J9s. :-)
Seriously, I'm going to give this a whirl for while.
Tommy
Mark is much more knowledgeable in this area than I so if he contradicts what I said he is almost certainly right and I missed something.
Tommy,
The passion with which you defend your position is admirable. So, too, is your openmindedness.
Whatever you do, don't allow the twoplustwo mentality to screw you up. If what you are doing works, I wouldn't make more than tiny adjustments over a long while.
As Rounder said, the twoplustwoers are just "stepfords".
Regards.
>>The passion with which you defend your position is admirable. So, too, is your openmindedness.<<
I agree totally.
>>Whatever you do, don't allow the twoplustwo mentality to screw you up. If what you are doing works, I wouldn't make more than tiny adjustments over a long while.<<
What is the twoplustwo mentality? Enlighten me please.
>>As Rounder said, the twoplustwoers are just "stepfords".<<
The ideas regarding bankrolls, win rates, and standard deviation deal with facts regarding mathematics and statistics rather than recommendations by authors.
I'll stick my dick in the wind and guess that the "two plus two mentality" refers to what I heard about 2+2 before I ever saw the place, that the posters are elitist, overly objective, so convinced of their rightness that there's no point in saying anything but "I agree." Stuff like that.
Or maybe it just means the blind following of other's advice.
Whatever it is, if it's a bad thing, doubtful I'll fall prey.
As to my open-mindedness, you exaggerate. I am absolutely and utterly closed minded on many aspects of poker. A soft example, I'll never ask to see another player's hand, no matter what he does to me or others. A harder example, I'll never show a bluff at limit hold'em. When it comes to behavior, my code is set in stone and it ain't gonna change. When it comes to betting, I'm not open-minded for the sake of being open-minded, but rather, because I think flexibility is profitable.
Tommy
Tommy: "As to my open-mindedness, you exaggerate."
I agree.
Tommy: "I am absolutely and utterly closed minded on many aspects of poker"
I agree.
Tommy: "When it comes to behavior, my code is set in stone and it ain't gonna change."
I agree.
Tommy: "When it comes to betting, I'm not open-minded for the sake of being open-minded, but rather, because I think flexibility is profitable."
I agree.
Isn't life so much easier this way? Agreed?
Yours truly,
Agreeing Eagle. :)
p.s. dont take this post seriously, agreed? (on the net you never know!)
Me: "I'll stick my dick in the wind and guess that the "two plus two mentality" refers to what I heard about 2+2 before I ever saw the place, that the posters are elitist, overly objective, so convinced of their rightness that there's no point in saying anything but 'I agree.' Stuff like that."
You: "I agree. .. I agree. .. I agree. .. I agree. Isn't life so much easier this way?"
No.
Whew, I'm glad that's over. Hey! Wanna see my poker face?
:-|
First of all, my post was meant somewhat in jest.
Tom: "The ideas regarding bankrolls, win rates, and standard deviation deal with facts regarding mathematics and statistics rather than recommendations by authors."
Standard deviation derives from data. The data is not created in isolation. Increasing one's number of hands played might theoretically increase win rates and reduce bankroll requirements. But the hands are not isolated. The delicate balance the player has developed over time maybe thrown into disarray. Calling more in the blinds might very well decrease one's profit in other spots (in spite of my posts debating the contrary; debate is part of the forum.)
In a well balanced eco system, increasing the predators hunting ability vis a vis the prey seems like a good thing for the predator. It would seem to increase the predators win rate and decrease standard deviation. I am betting that there are quite a few extinct predators in the history of the world who believed that too.
My mumbo jumbo aside, I think it is wrong for a successful player to alter his style substantially if bankroll is an issue.
Regarding "twoplustwo" mentality: It happens in all groups. There is a gravitational pull towards the middle, or in some cases, towards the will of the "leadership". In most cases its subtle, others less so. In some groups, there is an almost evengelical desire to convert others to a thought process. The twoplustwo mentality is relatively benign.
Some are born great, some have greatness thrust upon them, but greatness is not acquired by consensus.
Regards.
Recapping:
Gerald [You: "Well, OK, but most players are going to call in the BB in a loose/passive game." ]
Pinball Wizard: "And most players are losers. Oh? Did I say that? lol "
"My point now is NOT about what I do or what you do, just that in order to win, we have to do something different than the masses. That "everyone else does it" strikes me as a signal that a different approach is worth a look."
Most players play AA before the flop, does that mean that this is incorrect and needs to be looked into?
-----------------------------------------
Tommy: "Fine. But how much? And how much does it lose when it missed the draw? All that matters to me is the DIFFERENCE between what a hand rates to earn or lose out of position AS COMPARED TO being in position. Isolating either case is like one hand clapping."
So, if both situations make money, why would you want to forfeit one for the sake of the other? Does forfeiting one situation make the other more profitable? AA is more profitable than KK, does this mean we should fold KK and only play AA? Why not play both? Why not have our cake and eat it too?
Regards.
nt
Backdoor,
"Pinball Wizard"
I listened to the album containing that song, all four sides, everyday for an entire summer when I was 12. And I have still have the album and a functional turntable.
Me: "My point now is NOT about what I do or what you do, just that in order to win, we have to do something different than the masses. That "everyone else does it" strikes me as a signal that a different approach is worth a look."
You: "Most players play AA before the flop, does that mean that this is incorrect and needs to be looked into?"
You're kidding, right? Somewhere between folding 7-2 and not folding AA there are surely decisions that most players make that a winning player doesn't, right? That's all I'm saying.
Me: "All that matters to me is the DIFFERENCE between what a hand rates to earn or lose out of position AS COMPARED TO being in position. Isolating either case is like one hand clapping."
You: "So, if both situations make money, why would you want to forfeit one for the sake of the other?"
Good point. See my reply to Gerald.
Tommy
From above:
------------------------------------------------------
You: "Most players play AA before the flop, does that mean that this is incorrect and needs to be looked into?"
You're kidding, right? Somewhere between folding 7-2 and not folding AA there are surely decisions that most players make that a winning player doesn't, right? That's all I'm saying.
------------------------------------------------------
Exagerrating to make a point. The vast majority of plays most losing players make are "correct". The difference between winning and losing is usually a relatively low percentage of plays. Your post seemed to imply to me that if a losing player did something, it was probably wrong. Not necessarily. Even one or two big leaks in one's game can bleed off all the profit. Said player otherwise can seem quite sound.
Next hand!
"Next Hand!"
What? You think that's enough to keep me from getting the last word in?
Alright alright. Go ahead and shuffle.
:-)
I wouldn't ever come in a raised pot with J 8 suited or 10-9 suited in a limit game; 8-8 is different. I might double pop in a number of situations on or near the button.
It hit me last night...we gotta do something special for Tommy...he's given us all so many great ideas,humour, and vitality... I wonder, what to do,,,then zingo...went to gaming supply catalog...there it was...like double cheery pie...Poker dealer button ..$6.00 ($US)..I suggest we all buy Tommy a button and ship it to his house,,,just think, just when he thinks he's out of position...He's back on the button (We'll hire a cat burglar to place them under every cushion in his house) ..He'll open the medicine chest..out will fall a dozen Dealer buttons,,what a way to start the day...Tommy style,Whatdo you say fellers in there????
You're too kind. So happens I already have a few dealer buttons laying around. They make great coasters for shot glasses. :-)
Tommy
If you really need a coaster for a shot glass, you're doing it all wrong.
x
.
Great idea. I also suggest a white tipped cane to help him out when he's in the blind... (sorry about that one).
Would Freud consider the button to be a phallic symbol?
....a BIG button, of course...
:)
i apologize to mason and all posters for incorrectly posting on this general theory board...better players understand postion better than tyros like me...i needed this to solidify my knowledge base..gl all..thanks for all your outstanding posts and comments gl ta,,and all
That was my table of HE10-20 this week , I'll describe then clock-around : 3 very descent players to left , not so bad Phillipino , rich loose-aggressive , stupid loose aggressive very-very rich , loose-passive old-man and to my right a guy who pretend to be pro even if he lose around 2BB/HOUR in average . There is coming my question ; I have seen the very descent player limp with Ace-rag and 9Toff on the button when there was no raise BTF and both maniacs in the hand . I just want to know if it's valuable to play garbage like that even if you consider that there are small chances that a raise come from the blinds.
It seems strange that there would be a multi-handed limp-off pot in an aggressive game.
To answer your question, both of these hands play particularly well in position. If the game is (1) time-raked, (2) aggressive enough so that players come an for a raise with any big hand, and (3) lead-oriented as opposed to trap or check-raise oriented, then I could see playing these hands. You didn't mention how they rake the game, but it sounds like you may be in game that meets these criteria.
yes, considering that it appears good payoff when you hit....just remember to quick release if you don;t get good fit on the flop. Jim
The rake is 5$ if there is 100$ or more in the pot and nothing if there is 99 or less .
5$ rake on a hundred eliminates your options here. You can't play either hand.
What is a reasonable estimate for the average hands played per hour? How much slower are low limit games than higher limit games? Thanks.
I assume you mean number of hands dealt an hour, not how many you should expect to play rather than fold.
For limit hold 'em, probably around 30 per hour at the low limits and five, maybe up to 10 more hands an hour at higher limits (where fewer pots will go to showdown).
In Omaha maybe as low as 20.
On-line you could just about double these.
Regards,
Paul Talbot
We average dealing 30-35 hands per hour for 3-6 TH and 40-50 for 6-12 TH.
I'm back to work. So I'll be hanging out here instead of playing. After two good summers, I had a disappointing summer break this year--making less than a quarter of what I made last year.
Everyone, I am looking for opinions with regard to my first trip to the cardrooms and how to rate myself on my play. I went to Tunica and played about 25 Hours of Texas Hold'Em, and a 6 Hour session of Omaha 8 or better Hi Lo. I lost $300.00 in total after 31 hours of play I was up on most of my sessions and lost $200.00 of this at the Hi lo game. Therefore, I lost $100.00 in 25 hours at Texas Hold"Em. I have read alot of text on the game but this was my first trip to the cardroom, and my first time playing Texas Hold EM live. I welcome any opinions on how I fared, and how I can put this into perspective with my future play. I enjoy holdem and feel that I held my own on the trip considering the above factors!!!! Thanks in advance for your response!!!!
It's possible you played extremely well and it's possible you played extremely poorly. Short-term luck can be as much a factor in winning or losing in one sessio as skill. Perhaps you played well but the cards were running bad. Perhaps you played poorly and should have won.
Rather than being only results oriented, make sure you are playing well. Good results should then follow, not necessarily each time you play, but in the aggregate. It is impossible for any of us to judge how well you did. If you were to follow this up with 10 straight losing sessions, or 10 straight winning sessions, and gave us examples of how you played some hands, a more definite evaluation could be considered.
The most important thing, in my judgment, is: can you afford to lose $300?
of course Andy is right, but what to heck ---- for your first time out---you should feel good about losing only 100 playing hold-em. good start Jim
This is a very good post. As Andy points out your emphsis should be on playing well. The problem is that what you may think is good play may not be. One way to check on this is to remember hands that you played and compare them to what the better books say and to post a few on these forums and think about the comments that you get.
If you played for 3 days and only averaged losing a 100$ a day i think you did pretty well.
Omaha/8 can be a fairy tough game to play untill you get used to it.
Experence counts for a lot you just need to play more to see how you will do over time.
If you're already 21, and you're just beginning to play, then it's probably too late.
Also, the casino is the worst place to play. Too much rake in the small games and too many tough players in the big games. Aren't there any card games where you're from?
I wish to inquire if anyone has any information on a variation of seven card where the three hole cards are dealt first followed by an opening betting round. Fith, sixth and seventh streets are then dealt face-up with a betting round after each street in the usual way.
I played this variation back in the '60's in my hometown of Danville, Ill. Since gambling was iilegal, the poker games were usually held in the backrooms or basements of taverns, and the betting structure was usually $2-$4 with a 25 cent ante. I have not seen this variation described in any book on poker or more recently on any poker website.
The major advantage of this variation is that it greatly speeds up the game (which favors the house). Other advantages are that more starting combos are available, esecially in HI-Lo games, and elimination of the possibility of an exposed card on seventh steet, which just annoys everbody and "taints" the hand.
If anyone has any info, I would appreciate hearing your comments and criticism of this variation.
There's a variation called Mississippi seven that's played in a similar fashion. You didn't mention 4th street, I believe Mississippi has 4th and 5th st. delt together, and 7th straight up. It's promoted as a good big bet game. If you search the 'Other Game' or 'High Stakes' archives for Mississippi, you'll find some discussion of it.
I am famliar with Mississippi, but it has the same deficiency as traditional seven card stud: a three card starting hand. The variation I described has a four card starting hand: three down (hole) cards and one upcard (fourth street). There are many variation of seven card stud, which attempt to make "the old man's game" more excting and to increase the action. Most of all these, however, are just plain wacko and only suitable for home games where the objective is to just have some fun among family and friends.
When Mike Caro's website came on-line, I asked him if he had ever played this seven card stud variation and he informed me that he had never seen it played this way. I found this quite surprising since this variation is but a slight change from the standard game. Regular seven card, even when played HI-LO, can become a real drag when your down on your luck and the cards are running poorly. My poker gut tells me that this simple variation would be popular with stud players especially among those who play HI-LO. Can you imagine the betting action if two players started with four cards to make a 7 or better low ?
Give this variation a try if you play in a friendly home game. And let me know what the players think.
My method of managing my bankroll is somewhat different from most. What I do is calculate my average earn per hand, updating this figure every 1000 hands, and "pay" myself half of that earn for every hand I play. Additional winnings go into my bankroll. That way, whether I win or lose in a given session makes no difference as far as my take-home pay.
For example, if I average 0.1 small bets per hand in my regular game, I will take 0.05sb * h out of my bankroll at the end of a session, where h is the number of hands played.
I've found this method to be effective at reducing the psych-out factor of a losing session. What do you folks think about it?
The real question I had was how to calculate my chance of going broke over the next H hands, with earn (per hand) E, bankroll B and standard deviation (per hand) S. Note: I keep all records on a per-hand rather than per-hour basis now, because the hand is a fundamental unit of poker whereas the hour is not. I find wide variance in the number of hands per hour at most tables.
-- Dirk
"I've found this method to be effective at reducing the psych-out factor of a losing session. What do you folks think about it?"
If it has this effect, it's a good system, IMO.
I stopped keeping records because the logging of losing sessions, especially strings of them, had a bad effect on me. The benefits of knowing how I'd done did not overcome the drawbacks of knowing how I'd done.
Tommy
"I stopped keeping records because the logging of losing sessions, especially strings of them, had a bad effect on me. The benefits of knowing how I'd done did not overcome the drawbacks of knowing how I'd done."
So you don't keep any stats at all? I find this very interesting. I have thought about not keeping stats as well because of the sense that I seem to be more concerned with puting another figure in the win column as opposed to the lose column and I think this has affected my play, especially when I am down.
I think most people who stop keeping stats do so because it is too painful to see just how much money they are losing playing poker. Probably not the case with either of you...but in general I believe it is the case.
Hypothetical question. If you were a part time player who had other income, how much sense would it make to keep records? If you don't know how much money you won or lost how could you ever fib on your taxes? BTW I think keeping records is a good idea.
"If you don't know how much money you won or lost how could you ever fib on your taxes? "
of course with the IRS one is guilty until proven innocent.
another way to put it is that they assume everyone is fibbing, and what they do is figure if (how much) they can extort. if you have the paperwork to prove that you arent guilty, then they figure its not worth the effort to steal your money.
brad
I'm not being argumentative here but I thought that the "Tax Payers Bill of Rights" addressed the guilty until proven innocent mode of operation.
From the ammended tax code
Link:
http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/prod/ind_info/tbor2.pdf
BURDEN OF PROOF ON UNITED STATES.—Paragraph (4) of section 7430(c) is amended by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C) and by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new subparagraph: ‘‘(B) EXCEPTION IF UNITED STATES ESTABLISHES THAT ITS POSITION WAS SUBSTANTIALLY JUSTIFIED.— ‘‘(i) GENERAL RULE.—A party shall not be treated as the prevailing party in a proceeding to which subsection (a) applies if the United States establishes that the position of the United States in the proceeding was substantially justified. ‘‘(ii) PRESUMPTION OF NO JUSTIFICATION IF INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE DID NOT FOLLOW CERTAIN PUBLISHED GUIDANCE.—For purposes of clause (i), the position of the United States shall be presumed not to be substantially justified if the Internal Revenue Service did not follow its applicable published guidance in the administrative proceeding. Such presumption may be rebutted. ‘‘(iii) APPLICABLE PUBLISHED GUIDANCE.—For purposes of clause (ii), the term ‘applicable published guidance’ means— ‘‘(I) regulations, revenue rulings, revenue procedures, information releases, notices, and announcements, and H. R. 2337—13 ‘‘(II) any of the following which are issued to the taxpayer: private letter rulings, technical advice memoranda, and determination letters.’’. (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— (1) Subparagraph (B) of section 7430(c)(2) is amended by striking ‘‘paragraph (4)(B)’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraph (4)(C)’’. (2) Subparagraph (C) of section 7430(c)(4), as redesignated by subsection (b), is amended by striking ‘‘subparagraph (A)’’ and inserting ‘‘this paragraph’’. (3) Sections 6404(g) and 6656(c)(1), as amended by this Act, are each amended by striking ‘‘section 7430(c)(4)(A)(iii)’’ and inserting ‘‘section 7430(c)(4)(A)(ii)’’. (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section shall apply in the case of proceedings commenced after the date of the enactment of this Act.
wow. thats amazing. i wonder if there is any correlation between that and the fact that IRS audits are way way down compared to previous years.
brad
Speaking as someone who used to work for them, I can tell you the reason audits are way down is because IRS payroll is way down. The agency has come under a LOT of political fire in the last few years over a series of scandals (agents accessing taxpayer info w/o authorization being the biggest one).
And BTW -- I just worked on their computers, I have no lingering loyalty. Especially since they laid me off. ;-)
"I think most people who stop keeping stats do so because it is too painful to see just how much money they are losing playing poker. Probably not the case with either of you.."
It most definitely is the case with me. I kept records on and off for about seven years. Every time I stopped it was during a running-bad phase.
The only reason I ever kept records in the first place was because everyone who seemed to be in the know said to do it. So, just as they taught me to fold 7-2, they taught me to keep records. Trouble was, I never looked back at the records anyway, except to cry when I was getting crushed.
So I quit for good three years ago and I like it much better this way, probably because record-keeping hindered my growth toward really and truly looking at poker as one long game.
Tommy
Interesting approach as a lower limit player 3/6, and sometimes 5/10 I put back all of my winnings for a given session. I have found that this not only funds me for the next round of games but, the psychology of a losing session does not wieght on me as heavily when the losses are taken out of a large pot of profit. I manage money this way for psychological and budgetary concerns. Of course my bankroll fluctuates but, I usually stay a standard measue ahead, and always have the money to buy into the next game. Just my thoughts would love to hear others.
The "hand" may be the fundamental unit of poker (although each "decision" is a candidate), but the "hour" is the fundamentaly unit of work. You would rather earn .1sb/hand in a holdem game then .13sb in an Omaha game, since you get more hands per hour at holdem. Also, some GREAT games earn lots per hand but play so slow they are barely worth it. Also, calculating hourly rate allows you to compare your poker wins with other methods of making money: if you are making $25/hour at poker you can easily turn down a $20/hour job. "Per Hour" is also a lot easier to account and measure. It also encourages you to do such things as keeping the game moving along.
2+2 offers calculations for going broke. In your case, you can calculate how much money you subtract per hour and subtract that from your "hourly rate"; use this adjusted rate in the calculations.
I like the notion of "paying yourself" in such a manner that it reduces the affect of serious losses on your psycy.
- Louie
I don't quite understand specifically how you "pay yourself". Do you do it after every session, after every 1000 hands, or what? When you lose after 1000 hands of play, how do you pay yourself? When you "update" your earn rate after 1000 hands, do you pay yourself according to your total earn rate, or your earn rate for that 1000 hands?
Depending upon how you are actually implementing this, you could have some problems when (note: not "if") you have a 10,000 hand losing streak. But if you give me a few more details, I may be able to work out your risk-of-ruin math for you.
Tom Weideman
wait a minute....let me get this straight....you mean some people actually take money OUT of the B/R??? Wow, I've never tried that. Jim
I pay myself after every session, according to number of hands played. And I recalculate my average earn by simply adding the latest 1000 hands to the running total (i.e. it is cumulative). Hope this clarifies things.
The viability of this system over a 10k hand losing streak is what I want to find out. Haven't had one yet, knock on wood!
After a losing session my pay comes out of my bankroll. After a winning session, pay is deducted from the win and additional winnings go in the bankroll.
Okay, I think I see what you are doing, but I don't understand why. Why do you wait for 1000 hands to recompute your average earn, when you can do it after every session just before you pay yourself?
Anyway, this method of siphoning from your BR is almost sure to bust you if you started off with a good earn rate. By "good" I mean "better than your actual". For example, suppose you are capable of earning 0.03 small bets per hand in the long run, but you start off earning 0.08 small bets per hand for the first 1000 hands. Then for the 2nd 1000 hands, you will be paying yourself 0.04 small bets per hand, which is actually faster than you are able to earn it in the long run! When you combine this with the likelihood of an eventual downswing, it pretty much guarantees you will be busted.
If you started off with an earn rate lower than your actual one, you are of course much better off than the above case.
As you accumulate more and more hands, you will get closer and closer to taking out half of your true expected earnings. This makes your method of siphoning funds equivalent (for the purposes of bankroll management) to cutting your earn rate in half. This increases your risk of ruin by a square root. What does this mean? Well, if your bankroll, earn rate, and standard deviation are such that your probability of going bust is 0.05 (5%), then halving your earn rate will increase your chance of getting busted to sqrt(0.05) = 0.224 (22.4%). Quite a big change.
Tom Weideman
"Well, if your bankroll, earn rate, and standard deviation are such that your probability of going bust is 0.05 (5%), then halving your earn rate will increase your chance of getting busted to sqrt(0.05) = 0.224 (22.4%). Quite a big change. "
This is not true. The chance of going bust is BR dependent not earn rate dependent. If BR is adequate for a specific limit then earn rate is not a factor in determining chance of ruin and a player can in fact pay himself his earn rate at any point he wants to. Given that it is an accurate earn rate. If his goal is to increase his BR then that is another matter.
vince
Dirk,
I have trouble staying awake during a session. I never know how many hands I've played and quite frankly I don't want to know. I quit my job so I wouldn't have to work. Your method sounds too much like work. Just my opinion.
vince
What happens if you have a 1000 hour losing streak? Are you going to force yourself to cough up money out of your pocket and add it to your bankroll when that happens?
A football player misses a key block late that allows the other team to score.
But coach, you never gave me a breather during the whole fourth quarter. But coach, you knew my old knee injury had flared up. But coach, that guy I missed was fresh off the bench. But coach ...
Except we are the player AND the coach. We can only make excuses to ourselves.
You knew the guy had you beat but you called anyway. But coach, I was tired. But coach, I flopped a set. But coach, I caught him bluffing earlier.
If a good coach resides within us, he'll slap the whine off our face and throw us back in the huddle and scream, "Don't look forward or back. Just make the block on this next play."
Tommy
Tommy awesome post you bring up a great point with regard to one of the most important ingredients for success at the poker table and it does not directly involve the cards. This ingredient is your attitude. We have all seen sound players that know the game inside out but, their judgement or propensity to go on tilt make them easy prey at the table. The attitude that you describe along with a knowledge of the game will make you a better player. The psychology of the game can not be seperated from the tactic approaches. The two ingredients must work together. I would challenge that the attitude is harder to have and refine than the knowledge of the game and actual Poker Playing skills. Would like to know how others feel on this post.
I agree with you that this is an excellent post. You could replace the word "attitude" in your post with "discipline" and it would work just as well. Many players have the discipline before the flop to play only good hands but once they hit a piece of the flop they don't have the same discipline. For instance when they hit second pair or something like that and they know they are beat they don't have this same discipline. They make the bettor "show" a better hand. Furthermore, if these bets were added up at the end of the year I think the player would be surprised at how much these undisciplined plays costs him.
you are still playing and others are driving taxis..great post..gl
Tommy: "If a good coach resides within us, he'll slap the whine off our face and throw us back in the huddle and scream, "Don't look forward or back. Just make the block on this next play."
Nor should the coach within allow his player within to play when he has a sore knee or is playing tired. Like the baseball manager pulling a tired Greg Maddux from the eighth in a tie game, he should do it without concurrence of the pitcher. The pitcher may scowl, the competitor in him unhappy, but the coach/manager should pull the trigger anyhow, if its best for the team.
YOU ARE the team.
Regards.
What do you do then?
n/t
x
I recently made a post about my first trip to a casino cardroom I was asking for analysis on my play, and I mainly listed results. A number of asute collegues on the forum reminded me that the result may have nothing to do with the quality of play i.e. the short term luck factor. First and foremost thanks for your input on my first post, and I will attempt to give some insight as to my actual play. Would love to see responses fromt Mason and others. Here is an abbreviated summary of my strategy and some examples. Playing at a 2/4 Hold em table. Passive players not alot of Pre-flop raising. Played mainly suited cards 10 players at the table played a majority of my hands from positions 7 to 10 with 10 being the button. Only unsuited cards that I played were connectors above 10 unless checked to me in big blind of course. Raised with pairs 10 or better from positions 7 to 10 and saw the flop with these pairs everytime. Tried to vary raising pre flop with pairs and suited connectors J or higher. When flopped top pair would bet it out. Flops of two pair or trips would wait until the turn to bet. Reasoning was that top pair as a precarious holding at best wanted to bet for information to see if there would be a raise. Wanted to slow down a little on my better Flops to wait until the betting limits doubled. Would check and raise with Top two pair or trips or better on the turn with a rainbowed non threatening board. Even took down a few pots when a high card poped and in last position made a bet as a pure steal attemtpt. I apologize for the length of this post. I have read a number of text on Hold em and feel that I used some sound strategy in my play. I want to get better at Holdem and welcome any and all suggestions especially fromt the authors on this site whom I have read and respect. Thanks in advance for your imput!!!!!
In a low limit, loose-passive game, don't bother slowplaying trips or two pair. These holdings are still vulnerable enough to be bet or raised on the flop in most situations, and you'll find that you actually get paid off more anyway.
Also, raise and reraise preflop with your real big pairs from any position, not just 7 through 10 like you said.
Only unsuited cards that I played were connectors above 10 unless checked to me in big blind of courseI certainly hope this doesn't mean mean you were dumping AQo. AJo is a quite playable hand as well, although there is nothing wrong with dumping it in very early position (especially when your still new to hold 'em). KJo is a hand that you can see the flop with in some situations (later positions). So, connectors aren't the only playable unsuited cards.
Also, trying to vary your preflop play usually doesn't have that much value in these low limit games. I would focus on doing what you feel is correct, rather than trying to be deceptive.
Good post and great advice. As to your point it is well taken. I played all suited connectors 10 or above. I definitely played the gapped connectors you referred to just did not state this well in my post. I also raised with pairs 10 or over all the way through on non threatening boards/flops and turns.
A play is described where KQos should check the turn in order to get action from a wider range of hands on the river. Well and good. There is an asterik in this example saying that changes in the structure of Hold'em have made this play debatable. That is what I don't understand.
The example is marked small pot. If the money is small enough I can see that it would make sense to give a free card to the various mediocre hands in order to get action from them on the river where they will be second best the majority of the time. Isn't this a straight odds comparison dependent on the size of the pot? How does it have anything to do with whether the button has a blind nowadays or any other change to the structure? What is the reasoning for giving more weight to betting now?
The "ante"/blinds are bigger. At the time, the blinds, if I am not mistaken were a third of the total amount. (This also changes why checking raising is much more important in today's structure than it once was.) This means the pot on the turn is likely to be $65, which is more than the $60 pot max size outlined in the text.
The play hinges on the the mediocre opponent hands which are estimated at 35 percent. These hands are now more likely to call, whereas before these hands may have folded. Also, as the pot size increases, risking the pot vis a vis gaining an extra bet, becomes less and less correct. Again only the mediocre hands fall into this category. You still remain better off checking with a worse hand and betting when the opponent holds a straight draw or a fair hand that will call.
Glancing at it, it still seems pretty close to being correct.
This can be calculated by making EV equations for each condition, but remembering the general rule that you shouldn't risk losing a fair sized pot for a single bet, holds up most of the time. This pot is on the edges.
Regards.
I don't have it in front of me, but I assume the example was hold 'em under the old structure and that Sklansky is describing a 10-20 game with a single $5 blind.
This is the strutcure used in Super System as well which means some of its hold 'em strategy is outdated.
Paul Talbot
Tom,
You mades ome rather unflaterring and unjustified comments concerning me in a similarly titled post as this one. I responded with the below but you didn't bother to respond. I consider you to be a fair person so I am really disappointed that you didn't respond. To give you a second chance I am rewritten my previous posting my response for your review and comments.
Vince.
Tome wrote with regards to me and Jim Brier: "In a lot of the hands that are analyzed I see what I perceive as an aversion to doing any kind of mathematical analysis of the EV involved in determining the right play."
Tom, Show me a post by me that derides the use of mathematical analysis of EV to determine the correct play. You will be hard pressed to find one if one does exist at all. Mind you I`m sure I have made some wise ass remarks about the use of math in some situations. Situations that I do not feel warrant a math analysis.
Tom wrote: "Vince was IMO deriding the use of game theory in any kind of analysis of poker situations "
Tom,I believe and have said so many times, that game theory is a valid tool for developing a poker stategy. The problem we have here is that those claiming to use game theory to develop poker stategy are in fact using poker to demonstrate game theory. Maybe you are not smart enough to recognize the differnece but I am so I do it for us both.
Tome wrote: "Vince I really believe that if you haven't tried it you shouldn't knock it."
Tom,
Don`t be silly. Do you believe Jim and I are freaking idiots?
Vince
>>Do you believe Jim and I are freaking idiots? <<
No
>>Do you believe Jim and I are freaking idiots?<<
Why bring Jim into this?
poor vince
Wasn't the hand which prompted this discussion one in which everyone didn't want to even consider any mathematical analysis bc it was too complicated etc.
Even though one might say "since the flop raise, made a player play correctly " "thus the raise is may not be correct" is some sort of mathematical analysis....
I'm a frequent reader, 1st time poster at 2+2. I'm seeming to have a problem that I don't know how to deal with. After allways being very patient and not tilting one day I suddenly (after takeing a beat) started to feel my mind going astray. On my way back from the poker room I though that what I needed was a break from the game, some time away basically. I decided that 2 weeks would be a good amount of time to refresh. Well I let the two weeks pass without thinking or playing the game. When I returned to the card rooms however, it seems as though I have lost my patients with the game and 1 beat that involved a questionable play is starting to affect my play teribly. Basically what I am asking is there anyone who has been through this, or is there anything I could try to get myself back to playing my best?
Thanks in advance
I've been through it many times and it still happens. Somehow you have to relieve the pressure to win. It builds as we ponder the chunks of money we've got through since out last winning streak. It builds further as we walk in the club wondering what sort of disasters await.
Shoo! Bad thoughts go away!
Detach from the money. Detach from the feeling of being a loser. Don't ask me how. But at least know it's possible. Go to the club, not to make money, not to outwit your opponents, but simply to play a game, with (hopefully) some people you'll be glad to see and they you.
Hope that helps.
Tommy
Gary,
Many people suggest just trying to book a win. Any win, no matter how small. That means if you win your first hand but still feel like you're not playing your A-game, stand up. You booked a win. Then do it again. Getting these small wins will hopefully boost your confidence to where you start re-gaining your patience. Lucky I have not personally going through this, but I've only been playing about a year or so. You can do it!
spanQy
Has your enthusiasm waned? It sounds like it.
Tom D
I have not had a problem with tilting. I've seen many players who have, and I'm not sure most of them can control it. Believe it or not, Anthony Robbins may have some good ideas regarding this subject. Basically his premise (that he learned from others) is that you need to associate more pain with the act that you are trying to quit than pleasure that it provides you.
It seems that what occurs when a person tilts is that their urge to "win a pot" or "put a beat on someone" is more important than their desire to win money in the long run by playing soundly. Necessarily these feelings must be reversed.
I began my gambling career in Blackjack. Being a mechanical game, you really never have to make any decisions. If you play the hand correctly it makes money and if you play it incorrectly it loses money. Very simple, and straight forward. It is for this reason that I can no longer play any casino game where I'm not a favorite. No matter what happens in any individual wager, if the house has the advantage (like, almost always) I feel pain whenever I play.
This feeling needs to be developed, and I wish I could steer you in the right direction. You might read one of Anthony Robbin's (or somebody else's) books on the subject.
I erroneously stated, "if you play the hand correctly you win money...." This should read, "if you play correctly you're a favorite to win money".
I also noticed that when I hadn't played in a while during my return I didn't play well. I was very in hurry to get into the action. (This usually subsided within the hour (the desire to jump into the action)).
I definitely felt rust after even two weeks.
I think practicing on the poker servers can help to keep you sharp. And keep you playing well.
As for tilting, I used to take a walk when annoyed, sometimes a very long walk if I was very annoyed. I used to tell some of these hand stories to some freinds of mine in the card room.
Maybe some of these things can help.
GOod luck.
I would appreciate any comments on something that happened the other night when I was playing. I suspected this man and woman of collusion. On a couple of hands earlier in the evening, they were raising and re-raising each other when there was a third person in the hand. For some reason, I got a gut feeling womething wasnt right. I did not say anything to the floor until I got involved in a hand with them. The situation, I am in early position with K-Q of clubs. Woman to my immediate left calls, everyone folds to man at other end of table who raises, everyone else folds except me and the woman who both call. Flop is K-8-2 rainbow. I bet, woman raises, man re-raises, I call, it gets capped by both of them who re-raise each other. I call and decide I am going to stay until the end no matter what. Reason-the club has a rule that only the people in the hand at the end can ask to see another players cards. First question-what do you think of this rule? On the turn a 7 hits. I check, it again gets raised/reraises, capped with these two. River is a stone brick. Again I check/call and again raise/re-raise happens between these two. Woman turns over 8-7 for two pair. I ask to see the man's hand, he tries to slide it in the muck but dealer gets it and turns up pocket Queens! I show my hand then say to the dealer "something is not right here" she asks if I want to talk to the floor. I say yes, floor person comes over. As I am explaining the hand and my suspicions, I find out these 2 are husband and wife! Second question-what do you think of husband and wives playing in same game? I know you cant stop it but it does raise some eyebrows/questions. The floor decides to have the man go to another table. When they tell him, he goes ballistic. Cussing, looking at me, the whole bit. Wife does not say one word the whole time. Questions-do you think they were colluding? Talked at length with the floor who ultimately said he did not think they were, he thought they had been too obvious and not been playing it very smart if they really were colluding! I realize I should have notified the floor when I first suspected them, but other than that, did I make any mistakes in how I handled the situation? (Other than the money I lost, but it was a fairly low limit game of 5-10 but I had to given the rule of the club). Thanks.
Given the play of the hand, and the events you described, I would say they were definitely colluding. There's just no other feasible explanation. The fact that they were too obvious is irrelevant. (If someone commits a crime in front of several people, that doesn't make them innocent because it was `too obvious'.) I think the floor was just being chickens#!t, and was trying to minimize his own hassle. Everyone at the table should have told the floor they would never play with either of these two again. By the way, I've often played with a couple at the table, and have never had the slightest reason to suspect collusion. But in your situation, I would be certain collusion had occurred.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
yes it does seem bad, and I do not think you did the wrong thing. Had I been in your shoes I think that i would hve set out a hand or two so that I could quietly go to floorman and explain the situation....then he should have observed for proff positive, and then taken appropriate action---bar them from the club. Point is, I would be shooting for the max end reswults, Jim
Collusion is tough to define. It's possible that in their minds, the husband and wife were not doing anything wrong.
The key missing info is, how frequently do they play at that club, and how big is the room? If they are regulars, then the house and players are surely full aware of everything, implying that the husband-wife betting styles have already been ruled on, directly or indirectly, by the player/house quorum, and deemed within bounds.
If it's a small room, they can get away with more, regardless of their intent or cunning. That's just the way it is with small rooms.
Tommy
Floormen tend to be completely gonad-less. They won't do anything about anything.
Speak to the other players; if they refuse to play with them, that'll solve the problem.
Also, I seem to remember a firm rule against couples playing at the same table in California casinos (I think).
Ray has posted this obvious collusion is easy to beat. It doesn't seem smart for them to jam a pair of queens against a pair of kings. In principle they have the advantage of raising twice when you can only raise once. But in practice there was a chance for a disproportionate payoff on top pair. It seems like you shouldn't respect the second raise much. And you should avoid reraising if you want to keep them both in. What else should you do?
wouldnt you all want a table full of these idiots. if you cant make more against people like this than in a normal game a player needs to do some thinking. all that aside its not good for poker to have anyone colluding. so tell the floor and expect little from them. some cardrooms dont allow couples to be in the same game especially 10 20 and under. in the bigger games the players are more experienced and love it.
remember though even if this hand looked bad which it didnt to me, it happens alot where two people just jam each other alot for whatever dumb reason they have. if you get caught in the middle ofcourse its easy to get mad when you lose but think about how much the worst of it they really are taking playing like this.
I don't think it matters that they were colluding in a way that experts could easily beat. It's the intention that matters. Their play did not make sense in terms of individuals trying to maximize their EV. Even if their collusion was naive or unsophisticated, it is totally against the spirit of the game.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
before you call someone on it you must be sure and not make an assertion on a play that doesnt make sense to you but may make perfectly good sense to a person not thinking and playing for fun. but your right and as i said it must be stopped if it is indeed collussion and not two people playing revenge poker against themseleves.
I guess you would slow-play monsters if you got sandwiched in between these players. And you wouldn't easily fold to a 3-bet from them. How else would you adjust to make even more money? Are some draws playable since you are getting 2:1 when they try to drive you out of the pot?
They were stone cold cheats. Capping with a 3rd under pair is idiotic. They were obviously trying to represent a set on th flop. On the turn, the wife signals the husband to jam since she caught 2 pair. Your refusing to cap after the flop is an indication tha that y ou don't have a set, and the board would not be indicative of a decent player having two pair. You were taken. A very simple read. I would not want to be in a game with individuals like this at all.
sure almost all draws will do wonderful against these people as most draws are less than 2 to 1 against winning. and the hands they are pushing barely beat any playable hand anyway.
of course ray zee is going to know everything about this subject.
For those of who u don't know, ray zee has been accused of being one of the biggest poker cheats. Is this true? who knows? Do I doubt it? heavens no!!
I would rather play with this husband wife/team any day than ray zee. He is a laughing stock within the poker community. Anytime he sits down at any game, any player who knows what is going on will immediately leave.
Ray Zee, "always been carried by the other two." Now I know why.
PS: if u get to read this post, u are very lucky, because mm has not deleted it yet.
Ray's posts are always polite and incisive; they provide specifics to back up what he says. Recently some anonymous GCA guys posted various accusations on Usenet. Why don't you substantiate your insinuations?
Ray has obviously been "carried" by Malmuth and Sklansky in the sense he hasn't been a sole author. I presume his coauthors were smart enough to get some contribution from him.
FWIW I would rather play the incompetent husband and wife team than play Ray. The only exception might occur if I thought Ray chose a juicy game and I could stay out of his way.
Tom, or Whoever You Might Be:
I find your statement very unethical and offensive against the person who is widely respected on this forum.
First, when you make an accusation like this, you should sign it under your full name so as to affirm you conviction. Second, name the legitimate sources of your claim in order to validate it. Third, unless your sources are proven and therefore legitimate, you should not be spreading false accusations to defame another individual, least of all on this forum. Fourth, in absence of any proven allegations, you better spare this forum from any smear campaign against others. Remember, in this country everyone is innocent until proved guilty.
Thus, if you have any decency, you ought to apologize to Ray Zee.
Show the class!
OK, ur right. I apologize to ray zee. this was out of line. I am sorry. I do not have any facts.
I just don't get it. On the flop it's your KK against a QQ and an 88, they are jamming, and you expect collusion? They hit one of seven outs. If they were married, I'd suspect they were having a fight, brought it to the table, and were trying to hurt each other.
A) It is possibly the worst adaptation of the rule that I have ever heard. B) You should have brought your suspicions to the floorman when you first had them. What if the man would have been successful in getting his hand mucked? A floorman has the right to see any hand at any time, if you would have brought the problem to their attention you may not have had the problem that you did. (Investing $80 just to see the hands) C) They may not have been intentionally colluding, however, it is a contract of marriage to protect your partner. There is a subconscious need for one to protect the best interests of the other even though they may be honest people. In many clubs/casinos, husbands and wives are not allowed to play together and it is for this very reason.
This happened a couple of months ago, so I can't remember exact details, but it's something like this.
It was a small holdem tournament, final table. I can't remember the play of the hand, but at the end I had AJo, the board was A85/Q/5 (suits irrelevant) and I had one opponent, who was quite weak as you'll see. I showed down my AJo. My opponent disgustedly threw his cards face up in front of him, A3o, saying `dammit, outkicked again' and I was immediately relieved to see that I had the better kicker. The dealer immediately swept his cards into the muck, pushed me the pot, and gathered the cards and started shuffling for the next hand. Nobody said a word. Then (and remember this all just took a few seconds), I realised it should have been a split pot, (AA55Q) but now the pot was mixed with my stack, so I just let it go. The game continued without comment.
Was this ethical?
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
This is exactly the type of situation that draw ethically lines.
I think it depends on WHO the other player is. If it was one of our parent's or children or a spouse (in good standing), I assume we all would speak up about the error.
What about a good buddy we know only from the casino?
What about a complete stranger?
What about the dealer-abusing beer-guzzling jerk that everyone hates who just dumped coffee on me last week and made it look like an accident?
Anyone who would give that last guy his proper chips is a saint. I couldn't do it. But it would never be wrong to give the rebate. Thing is, just because one course of action is never wrong does not mean that the opposite action is automatically wrong.
I think the rightness of wrongness of this situation is case-dependent.
Tommy
Where was the dealer? The guy didn't muck em if he turned them face up in front. Inexperienced or bad players deserve to be protected by the rules too. You probably had nothing to fear in the long run from this guy anyway. Giving him his due may have kept him in the game longer.
Mistake made, situational ethics are not good. Honesty and fair play have to apply to all after the battle is over, otherwise I think it's akin to angle shooting. My guess is you may have slept poorly that night.
i most likely keep the money. if its a buddy, i for sure keep the money, and bust his balls til next tuesday for not reading the board. i dont play tournaments though.
on one night there was a kid who couldnt read his hand correctly. he would only show one card if he *thought* he had a pair. on two occasions his other card changed his hand from worst to best when the dealer revealed it. on two other occasions at the river i told him to show both of his cards! he should know by now.
anyway the board is:
K-A-J-9-Q
I have A-K. pot is huge, but headsup on the river.
i check, he bets, i call. he turns over an ace and says "pair of aces".
i show my 2 pair, and tell the dealer (a timid young girl whos been givin me the eye) to muck his hand and she does. i win. no way im waiting for him to turn over his other card and say "oh look, i have a straight!"
ethical?
he probably had a baby kicker anyway.
last night/this morning?, a hand.
4-handed.
UTG/cutoff limps, i muck 6-3, dangit!
sb folds, bb checks.
FLOP:
6-A-6
check,check
TURN:
6-A-6 -- 2
bet, call.
RIVER:
6-A-6 -- 2 -- X
bet, call.
BB shows K-2, cutoff holds his 2-3s so i can see it, but doesnt table it, then mucks.
I'm not in the hand, I dont say squat here.
After the dealer mucks the hand and pushes the pot i tap on the ace and the cutoff curses under his breath.
Could you have returned the chips when you realized that the pot should have been split? Why or why not?
IMHO since you didn't realize the error until the next hand was in progress and the chips already in your stack, I don't see an ethical problem. For the first time ever I don't agree with Tommy (sorry Tommy). Who the opponent is is NOT a factor. The situation is what it is whether it is the guy you hate or your best buddy. This is poker remember. If you realized the error prior to the pot being pushed or at a time when you could determine eaxactly how much was in the pot; then yes you should speak up. But that was not the case, it happens, let it go. You did nothing wrong. The dealer made the mistake and you didn't catch it until too late. Sleep well. The Kount
I think your need to ask this question is the answer in itself. What some find ethical will be different from others. It's your conscience. One question: what would you have done if someone would have spoken up a minute or two after you realized the error?
this actually happened to me and i realized before the pot was completely pushed to me and mixed with my stack. i didn't say anything... perhaps there are situations where i would. but i think there is a fine line in poker and this is on the side of 'do what you can get away with to win the pot.' if he hadn't called, you would have won the whole thing. if he hadn't shown his hand face up, you would have won the whole thing. why should YOU correct HIS mistake when that is the dealer's job, and you are trying to take advantage of opponent's mistakes to win money at poker? i realize that this is a fuzzy line, and there is a lot to be said about it. but i think it all comes down to the fact that you are there to win. and to win at poker involves taking advantage of other people's mistakes, whether they are calling mistakes, raising mistakes, hand selection, bad reads, folding errors, or whatever. poker can and should be a ruthless game sometimes. maybe i should also say that if they same guy dropped a bill on the ground, and nobody else were around, no matter if it were a $1, a $5, a $20, or a $100 i would pick it up and give it back to him. interesting.
I mostly play Hold'em, a little 7-stud, and I'm learning 7-stud hi/lo.
Can you give me any examples of tricky plays I can add to my game besides betting or raising on a draw? My game is so straight-forwardly boring.
Thanks
OK, I'll bite.
[] When the J raises and the K 3-bets, you can 4-bet with (87)Q 2-flush.
[] You can raise the flop with pocket 22 hoping for a "free" card; cha-ching!!
[] When the weak-tight player raises UTG and the very sensible but assertive player 3-bets from the middle, you can call with AJ.
[] Call a raise with (79)8 2-flush, call another raise cold when you snag a 5; Call on 5th with no help; then call on 6th when you make the straight when the pair bets out and the 3-flush raises him.
[] Routinely play on the flop in reverse to the quality of your hand; bet weak ones and slow play good ones.
[] Raise in early position with any suited hand.
[] Vary your play in marginal situations; otherwise play straight forwardly.
- Louie
I don't understand the last one.
Tom D
The first ones were obviously sarcastic; rooted in my irrational hatred for a desire to be "tricky". This last one was sound advise: Get "tricky" only in marginal situations where, for example, the difference between calling and raising is very little.
Since I read most of your posts, and since you are never wrong, I knew what you were up to. That's why I questioned (jokingly) the only legitimate advice you gave. However, since you didn't include a winking happy face, I fear there is an army of novice 2+2ers armed with your trick plays waiting to put bad beats on me. Not funny.
Tom D
Martin,
Most "tricky plays" will win you a bet or two per session at the most(every once in a while you might even win a small pot), but will cost you 4-5 bets per session because you're playing with a drunk in seat 2 and a calling station in seat 5. You're probably going to lose more than you win. In most games(ESPECIALLY low-limits) sticking to straight-forward poker is going to drag the pots. Most opponents in these games won't even notice the tricky plays because they're too busy watching TV, eating their sandwich, and talking to their buddy at the stud table. If you find poker too boring, perhaps you should take your poker money and go skydiving or something more enjoyable.
If you play so predicatably and your opponents can easily put you on your hand you lose. There are alot of plays in all games in which you can vary your play w/o giving up much.
Very often you can make an optimal play and the play looks very tricky eg capping w/a flush draw on the flop, raising the turn w/the idea of checking the river, reraising a K w/live A hig 3 flush etc etc etc. Alot of "tricky" plays in stud especially are actually optimal, (eg raising a pair on 5th w/a pair and a four flush) but if you make these plays you will get very strange looks (or at least i do). And thus get action on some hands more predictable players won't.
* Heads-up against an aggressive opponent who seem to be on a steal, check raise the flop with overcards or bottom pair/overcard-kicker and bet the turn no matter what.
* Cap the flop if you get 3 bet when raising for a freecard.
* Limp-reraise.
* With top-pair good kicker headsup, check the turn.
* Check A/K/Q top pair-weak kicker in the BB and fire on the turn if it gets checked around. You still have the option of checkraising the flop if the button bets.
Don't overdo you trickyness, straight-forward works good enough against weak opponents. It also reduces variance.
Sincerly, Andreas
Good tips, what are some of the hands you would be more likely to limp-reraise with? Suited aces? Medium pairs? Big pairs if it's getting raised a lot behind you?
I don't use the limp reraise often at all, probably the only time is when I have AA/KK and there is a raising maniac behind me.
I would never (virtually never atleast) limp-reraise with suited aces, except maybe AKs if there were _lots_ of callers, say 7 or 8.
Tricky playes should rarly be used against multiple opponents. I mainly use them against tricky opponents to get them to stop giving me a hard time.
Sincerly, Andreas
Could someone please provide me with formulas for the above so I can enter them on a spreadsheet.
Thanks,
Dale Duguid
I'm surprised that you got no response. There is an essay that is taken directly from Mason's book, Gambling Theory and Other Topics, that gives a method for calculating your standard deviation (the square root of the variance) at poker.
As for EV, practically all of our discussion revolve around this topic. I'll give you a very general forumla:
Percentage of times hand wins = P Size of the pot = S Cost to play the hand = C
EV = P * S - ( 1 - P ) * C
Of course the way you play the hand and a host of variables effect P, S and C.
Percentage of times hand wins = P Size of the pot = S Cost to play the hand = C
EV = P * ( S - C ) - ( 1 - P ) * C
I have always found it easier to think of it as: the amount you win times now often subtract the times you lose times how often. its just easier to work in my brain(even though the equation is neater looking and the same thing)
Ev={%youwin)*{how often you win}-{%youlose)*{how often}
So if you make a play that you win $100, and you do that %20 of the time, losing say $30 the other 80%:
100*.2-30*.8=20-24=-4, its a negative 4 dollar play.
--- calculating odds is really the same thing in different format; saying you need 4-1 on a call but are only getting 3.33-1 is the same thing as an EV equation.
A good use of the EV is comparing strategies.
say comparing above to a slightly different strategy in the same hand:
120*.3-50*.7=36-35=1 which is a plus $1 dollar play. So perhaps by making a timely raise we increased our chance of winning from 20 to 30% and also increased our winnings from 100 to 120. we now lose 50 however but less often (70%).
so we did a good thing.
hope this helps
Tom's equation simplifies to P * S - C.
If there is 3 players left on the river and the third flush card comes what are the odds that some one holds one?
I belive that I have been missing out on some betts by checking on the river when the third flush card showes up.
how many would bet top pair good kicker?
how many would bet top 2?
how many would bet any 2 pair?
thanx alot for youre replies in advance
how many would bet a set?
Chances change drastically based on whether these are sensibly selective players and whether they have called raises. When a tight player calls a raise the chance he has a flush draw is MUCH higher than when a loose player does so; partly because loose players are more likely to jump raises with weak pairs but also because these players are much more likely to HAVE a small pair rather than a flush draw to start with. That is, there are a LOT more loose non-flush-draw hands than lagitimate flush-draws.
You should be much more inclinded to bet if the holder of the possible flush is unlikely to raise with it, unless its the nuts.
Its impossible to say what I would bet. Some situations I would bet for value confidently with just one pair; others I would check-and-cry-call with a set.
- Louie
You can't figure out the probability of a third flush card completing someone else's hand. Take into account who is in the pot on the river, and how many people are in the pot. Try to put them on a hand. If you put them on a made flush I would be more cautious. For instance if I have big slick, and a K or A comes with 2 to a flush on the flop, and I bet out and get 4 callers, I would bet at least one of them is on the flush draw.
Would I bet Top Pair Good kicker... no probably not. If I am last to act and it is checked to me maybe... but probably not.
Would I bet top 2... again, if I was out of position... probably not. If it was checked to me and I was last to act... probably depending who and how many opponents are in on the river. This means the board is not paired... the 2 pair are in my hand.
> If there is 3 players left on the river and the
> third flush card comes what are the odds that some
> one holds one?
I made a post on this subject to rec.gambling.poker which I am attaching below. If you look at the second table, you can see that the first column in the 9 opponent row indicates that there is a 76.2% chance that no other player was dealt two flush cards of your suit.
-----------------------------------
[snip]
One question related to your post is "What is the probability of the following three things happening if you hold two suited cards:
1) Exactly 3 of 5 cards on the board match your suit,
2) One of your opponents has two cards of the same suit,
3) One of those opponents has a card higher than your highest card?"
This question is similar to Barbara's post except that it does not assume that all of the board cards are lower than our highest card. (So my losing percentage for J-T suited vs. 9 opponents is smaller.) Here is what I get for the probability of conditions 2 and 3 holding when you have a two card flush and condition 1 holds.
Your Top Card ----- Number of Opponents
| Top Card | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | A | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | K | 0.5% | 1.0% | 1.5% | 2.1% | 2.6% | 3.1% | 3.6% | 4.1% | 4.6% | Q | 1.0% | 2.0% | 2.9% | 3.9% | 4.9% | 5.8% | 6.8% | 7.7% | 8.7% | J | 1.4% | 2.8% | 4.1% | 5.5% | 6.9% | 8.2% | 9.5% | 10.9% | 12.2% | T | 1.7% | 3.5% | 5.2% | 6.9% | 8.6% | 10.3% | 11.9% | 13.5% | 15.2% | 9 | 2.1% | 4.1% | 6.1% | 8.1% | 10.1% | 12.0% | 13.9% | 15.8% | 17.7% | 8 | 2.3% | 4.6% | 6.9% | 9.1% | 11.3% | 13.4% | 15.6% | 17.7% | 19.7% | 7 | 2.5% | 5.0% | 7.4% | 9.9% | 12.2% | 14.6% | 16.9% | 19.1% | 21.4% | 6 | 2.7% | 5.3% | 7.9% | 10.4% | 13.0% | 15.4% | 17.8% | 20.2% | 22.6% | 5 | 2.8% | 5.5% | 8.2% | 10.8% | 13.4% | 16.0% | 18.5% | 21.0% | 23.4% | 4 | 2.8% | 5.6% | 8.3% | 11.0% | 13.7% | 16.3% | 18.8% | 21.3% | 23.8% | 3 | 2.8% | 5.6% | 8.3% | 11.0% | 13.7% | 16.3% | 18.8% | 21.3% | 23.8% |
( For example, if you hold J-T diamonds and have 9 opponents, there is a 12.2% chance that another player had A,K, or Q of diamonds suited if there are exactly 3 diamonds out of 5 on the board.)
To fill in the values of this table I figured out the probability that your opponents held 0,1,2,3, or 4 suited hands in your suit if there are exactly 3 of 5 cards in your suit on the board. Below I have listed those probabilities
# of opponents ----- Number of Opponents dealt two cards of same suit
| # opponents | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 97.1717% | 2.8283% | 0.0000% | 0.0000% | 0.0000% | 2 | 94.3904% | 5.5626% | 0.0470% | 0.0000% | 0.0000% | 3 | 91.6558% | 8.2040% | 0.1399% | 0.0003% | 0.0000% | 4 | 88.9674% | 10.7535% | 0.2778% | 0.0014% | 0.0000% | 5 | 86.3250% | 13.2121% | 0.4595% | 0.0034% | 0.0000% | 6 | 83.7282% | 15.5809% | 0.6841% | 0.0068% | 0.0000% | 7 | 81.1766% | 17.8608% | 0.9506% | 0.0120% | 0.0000% | 8 | 78.6700% | 20.0529% | 1.2579% | 0.0191% | 0.0000% | 9 | 76.2080% | 22.1583% | 1.6051% | 0.0286% | 0.0001% |
(For example, if you have 9 opponents, hold two diamonds, and the board consists of 3 diamonds and 2 non-diamonds, then 76% of the time exactly one of your opponents was dealt 2 diamonds.)
Hopefully someone will confirm these numbers or prove them wrong. It would be nice to have a formula instead of tables, but I couldn't figure it out. Barbara Yoon sent me an email describing a method to verify the table entries and I was able to verify one entry (with some difficulty).
Cheers, Hein
I have been playing poker HM for 3 years and have been playing 15/30 and a little 20/40 the past two years.
So far this year my numbers are as follows:
won 40,040.,lost -39,378 for net win of 302, 430 hrs = .70 HR.
I was wondering why what this means, this is not very good for the time spent. Any thoughts or advice would be welcome. Does this mean that i am an average player and am lucky to be breaking even ?
I would like to see my losses drop in half the second half of this year while my wins stay the same. Is this resonable ?
Thanks in advance.
Stranger
Don't forget the cost of playing. Out here your 430 hours would cost about $800. That means you made decisions that were $800 "better" than your opponents in order to bread even.
In general, at $20-40, in order to net one small bet per hour, you need to outperform your opponents by one big bet per hour. This means the difference between netting 1SB/hour and 1BB/hour is NOT double in terms of rating our decisions. Making 1BB/hour is about 1/3 better than making 1SB/hour.
Tommy
If I were you I would serious consider taking up double hand
20/40 drops are typically aroudn $7/half hour, that's $14 an hour - at 430 hours, that's well over $800 - how did you get $800?
"20/40 drops are typically aroudn $7/half hour, that's $14 an hour - at 430 hours, that's well over $800 - how did you get $800?"
14 x 430 = 600
(14 + 4 (tokes and such)) x 430 = @800.
18 times 430 is about 8 *thousand*, not 8 hundred. I think that is what tango was talking about.
Leaving aside this slip in the maths, the reasoning in Tommy Angelo's first post was still correct though, IMO. It costs about one small bet per hour (18 approx = 20) to play, so if you break even you have actually taken one small bet per hour from your opponents. But you've given it to the casino, the dealers and the cocktail waitresses.
Oh no!! Not again!
"18 times 430 is about 8 *thousand*, not 8 hundred."
Uh, well, yeah. An order of magnitude there, an order of magnitude there. It all works out in the wash.
Estimating your standard deviation at $320 an hour your win rate expressed as WR in $ per hour can be expressed as:
-45.60 <= WR <= 47.00
please show your work.
thanks.
nate
A players results lie within + or – 3 standard deviations.
Let WR = win rate per hour expected.
Let N = Number of hours played
Let SD = Standard Deviation
Let OWR = Observed Win Rate per hour During N hours played
Therefore the players results lie between:
WR * N – 3 * SD * N ** ½ <= Amount Won
And
Amount Won <= WR * N + 3 * SD * N ** ½
If he was running at –3 standard deviations after 430 hours his expected hourly rate would be
WR = OWR + ((3 * SD * N ** ½) / N)
/* Additive term since he is running at –3 standard devitians */
Substituting for OWR, N and SD
WR = .70 + (3 * 320 * 430 ** ½ )/ N
= .70 + ( 960 / 430 ** ½ )
= .70 + 960/20.73
= .70 + 46.3
= 47
If he was running at +3 standard deviations after 430 hours his expected hourly rate would be
WR = OWR - ((3 * SD * N ** ½) / N)
/* Negative term since he is running at +3 standard devitians */
Substituting for OWR, N and SD
WR = .70 - (3 * 320 * 430 ** ½ )/ N
= .70 - ( 960 / 430 ** ½ )
= .70 - 960/20.73
= .70 - 46.3
= -45.60
Therefore his hourly win rate is
between -45.60 and 47 dollars an hour inclusive.
thank you very much!
this stuff is from Gam. Theory & O T ???
i thought within +/- 3 std dev is 99.7% or something like that, which is close enough, is this considered a normal dist.?
Yes and yes I believe.
Having only played 430 hours means that the results you are getting are statistically insignificant. It takes several thousand hours of play before you know where you are at in a middle level game like $15-$30 or $20-$40. For what it is worth, I have a friend from Houston who won almost $40,000 the first 1000 hours he played $20-$40 hold'em. Over the next 800 hours he lost $13,000. So for the first 1000 hours of play he averaged about one big bet per hour. But over 1800 hours of play he has only averaged $15 per hour which is less than one small bet per hour. Since then he has played about 500 hours and not won much of anything which means that his cumulative earn is only $27,000 for 2300 hours of play.
I believe my friend's experience is a common one. This is why you see some players rise to prominence for a short period of time and then gradually vanish from the horizon. When the Horseshoe closed their poker room in Bossier City, Louisiana in January of last year, there were a number of players who moved to Vegas. All of these players had big hourly earns in the Horseshoe $20-$40 game. One of them won over $30,000 in a two month period playing $20-$40 at the Mirage. She was the talk of the town and came to the attention of such luminaries as David Sklansky, Mason Malmuth, and Cissy Bottoms. Within three months she was busted and is now playing $6-$12 at the Orleans.
I believe these players are all quite skillful at the game. They were just as skilled when they were losing as when they were winning. But the luck factor in this game is so overwhelming that results achieved over a few hundred hours of play or even a thousand hours of play are simply not indicative of what the real long run potential is. Players who happen to average one big bet per hour in a $15-$30 or higher limit game over several thousand hours of play are doing because they are statistical deviates not because of their playing skill in my opinion.
>>I believe these players are all quite skillful at the game. They were just as skilled when they were losing as when they were winning. But the luck factor in this game is so overwhelming that results achieved over a few hundred hours of play or even a thousand hours of play are simply not indicative of what the real long run potential is. Players who happen to average one big bet per hour in a $15-$30 or higher limit game over several thousand hours of play are doing because they are statistical deviates not because of their playing skill in my opinion. <<
Although I agree with this statement for the most part a players standard deviation must be considered. From this forum's inception, Mason has maintained that lowering your standard deviation can be accomplished mainly by reading hands. I remember him stating that his standard deviation for $20-40 was about $280 an hour or 7 big bets an hour. A standard deviation of 10 big bets an hour is considered by a lot of players to be "normal."
For arguement's sake let's say that Jim's friend had a standard deviation of 12 big bets an hour. So after 1000 hours his win rate would fall in the following $ per hour range:
-5.50 <= WR <= 85.50
The same results for Mason would indicate that his win rates were in the range of:
13.40 <= WR <= 66.60
If you accept that winning over 2BB's an hour at $20-40 is probably not acheivable on a long term basis I think it's fair to say that Jim's friend probably ran a little bit "lucky" for his first 1000 hours of play. In fact there is a small chance that this player is not a winning player.
On the other hand we can say that the player with the small standard deviation is certainly a winning player and that there is a fairly good chance that he had close to a normal run.
Finally Jim writes:
>>But over 1800 hours of play he has only averaged $15 per hour which is less than one small bet per hour. Since then he has played about 500 hours and not won much of anything which means that his cumulative earn is only $27,000 for 2300 hours of play.<<
After 2300 hours assuming something like a 12 big bet per hour standard deviation the win rate is in the following $ range:
-18.25 <= WR <= 41.75
I would say that Jim's friend is either playing worse or has run a little unlucky for the last 1300 hours. IMO he is much more likely playing worse (this is one reason why I think records are a good indea).
If a player makes $40 an hour with a $280 standard deviation for 2300 hours we would say that his win rate lies in the $ per hour range of:
22.50 <= WR <= 57.50 an hour
just courious--is the friend from Houston named Paul? lol Jim
(n/t)
Does anyone know how I could find out who gives "poker lessons" around Las Vegas or Arizona? I'm not looking for just anyone, I want someone who knows what they're doing, and I would like to find someone with both live game and tournament savy. I've read (a lot of) books, but I know from college that I need some personal interaction and discussion to really make an improvement in my game. I just don't know how to find the right person. Any suggestions?
It depends upon how much you are willing to spend. I know of four experts who give lessons. Here they are:
1. Bob Ciaffone
Bob "The Coach" Ciaffone has been teaching poker for many years and is available at 1-517-792-0884. He charges $25 per hour. He teaches limit, pot limit, and no limit Omaha and Hold'em primarily. I would try him first.
2. David Sklansky
If you are going to play high limit poker ($50-$100 and above), Sklansky has been helping many of the top players in poker for years. However, he charges something like $800 for a three hour lesson.
3. Roy West
Roy is an expert in low limit stud. He writes an article for CardPlayer and has written a book on beating low limit stud. He advertises in CardPlayer and provides his phone number. He has helped many beginning players with their stud game. You can get his number from CardPlayer. I believe his rates are reasonable.
4. Rick Greider
Rick plays middle stud and I was told that he gives lessons. I have never met him and I have never talked to anyone who has taken lessons from him. He plays in Las Vegas at the Bellagio and the Mirage but I don't know how you would get in touch with him.
In addition, I believe Steve Badger might give lessons on Omaha but I am not sure. He has a website.
has anyone out there tasken private lessons and was it worth the money?
heck I can think of much worse ways to part with 25$ my next trip to vegas
I have taken lessons from Bob Ciaffone and it was well worth the money. I would send him about 50-100 problems each month. He would respond with a written critique of each problem. I would also have a short phone discussion with him each month if I did not understand some of his answers.
Jim:
Did you consider offering Hold'em lessons yourself?
Based on my reding of your posts as well as your CP articles, I think you would provide an excellent low- and mid-limit stakes Hold'em teacher.
Perhaps, something to think about.
Regards,
Ivan
I have also been giveng some lessons recently. I don't solicit them and they are expensive.
how much and how would people interested contact you - via email? and do you teach via email, telephone or in person - or a combination?
I can be contacted via email, and the lesson can be given over the phone.
When you say they are expensive, does that mean if we have to ask how much they are, then we probably can't afford them?
I've been taking lessons from Ed Hill. They are very very expensive, but the increase in my win rate more than justifies the expense. I highly recommend that all serious players seek the help of top players who are willing to share their knowledge.
knowledge that is imparted in lessons or is it the process of actually asking questions, going over problems..i.e. the process that actually propels the tyro to success??
Do you know of anyone in western Washington who both teaches and is competent to do so?
Jeff
No.
I have given poker lessons occasionally in Phoenix. I don't charge as much as I should. Email privately if you are interested.
JG
I have played 90 sessions at this casino mostly 20-40 some 10-20. I consider myself a little better than average player.I am considered by the other players to be fairly tight.My problem is I can't make my good hands stand up.I usully play about 8 hr sessions. I have not had a 1000 win yet.I was wondering if that is normal. the games that I play in are usully fairly loose 4-5 callers pre flop.
have you ever been up 1000?
whats your standard deviation?
you know that you'll be within 2 stddev's 86% of the time (well i think im close anyway). so 14% of the time you wont be. so 7% of the time youll be in the right tail of the curve. so if you have 700 hours, you should have had an average of 50 hours (now how do you do the +/- std dev for this 50 hour figure?) where you had a rush and are up 2 std dev (about 1000).
brad
gee, im guess im not too swift. its 68,95,99.7 for 1,2,3 standard deviations respectively. so ...
you know that you'll be within 2 stddev's 95% of the time (well i think im close anyway). so 5% of the time you wont be. so 2.5% of the time youll be in the right tail of the curve. so if you have 700 hours, you should have had an average of 20 hours (now how do you do the +/- std dev for this 20 hour figure?) where you had a rush and are up 2 std dev (about 1000).
now if you play really really tight your stddev could be below 400, so i guess this really doesnt help. sorry.
brad
you can use std dev. this way right?, even though we're estimating somehow (using mason's formula in his book).
brad
That is very unusual to play 90 eight hour sessions and never win a grand at $20-$40 or even $10-$20. What are your results overall? Are you a winning player and if so, how much? It sounds like you have played about 700 hours.
The inability to get your hands to hold up is the biggest single reason why an otherwise good player cannot get good results. I believe that if all the facts were known, an hourly suckout cost could be computed for every player. Differences in hourly suckout cost frequently explain why good players get different results. Someone who can beat a middle limit game for one big bet per hour is not getting sucked out much. There are other lower order factors as well like how often you get to drawout, how often you get heldover, and payoffs. These constitute the luck factor in this game and they are simply not the same for everyone.
Jim
In the last year I beat the 10-20 game for about 1 small bet per hr. over 1000 hrs online .I had about 7 1000 wins in shorter sessions.In this casino I play in I am down about 3000 in the 90 sessions. I've been playing hold'em for 6 years and had 1 losing year, my first year.I keep seing players good and bad sit down and play 3-4 hrs and cash out 2000-3000.I realize I could have a couple of leaks in my game.I have been ahead around 1100 a couple of times but ended up giving some back.
I do not believe your failure to book a $1,000 win in a session after 90 attempts has any significance; it's an arbitrary figure and as such it should be - for the most part - ignored.
However, your failure to have even one "bustout" MIGHT suggest you are playing a bit too tight.
After this many sessions it seems as though you should have "stumbled" over over at least one sitting of 25+ big bets - even if you are only a one SB/hour winner.
(According to accepted theory you should win $1,000 in an HOUR every 150-200 hours.)
I would take a look at whether or not you ARE playing somewhat too tight or perhaps (far more likely) too non-aggressively, but all in all I don't think your failure to have had a thousand dollar sitting means much.
Best wishes,
J D
If you are winning even a little bit over-all its inconcievable that you have never won $1000 at 20/40; so long as you don't have a "strategy" of leaving when up $800.
You are surely playing with very low varience. While being very selective pre-flop will do that, so will not playing aggressively enough when you DO play.
I suspect [1] you let the oppoenents draw cheaply too often, and [2] you too easily abandon your weaker hands.
You have my permission to adopt the following combination strategy early in the hand: [A] if its close between calling and folding then fold. If its close between checking and betting then bet. [C] if its close between calling and raising then raise.
Another way to say this is this: be selective, but show down a winner a high percentage of the hands you play.
- Louie
you could have been unlucky during the times you were getting good winner and got knocked down. but the real thing in my mind is how long are your sessions and when do you quit. that is more the determining factor. plus how aggressive are you in building pots.
Many players report a standard deviation exceeding 10 big bets per hour. Standard deviation increases with the square-root of hours. That means your standard deviation in an 8-hour session of 20-40 should be around $1,131. In other words 16% of sessions should have a win exceeding $1,131, and 16% should have a loss exceeding $1,131.
With such low volatility I suspect you play tight in a very passive game. With 4-5 callers and no raising you can play a lot more drawing hands like small pairs and suited connectors. Meanwhile overcards lose value because of the "implicit collusion" against a field of drawing hands. You need to aggressively drive out these draws before the flop to protect your big cards .
(also posted on RGP)
I am starting to work on an open source equivalent of the Wilson turbo software. I'm going to concentrate on hold'em at the moment. What I need are some player profiles - you know a calling station, a rock, a maniac etc.
If anyone wants to help they can email me with a profile.
Example : Extreme Calling Station (always check/calls except with AA or KK preflop, top 2 pair on flop, and nuts on the river)
PreFlop: if holecards = A_wired or holecards = K_wired then bet/raise
else check/call Flop: if top2pair then bet/raise
else check/call Turn: check/call River: if nuts then bet/raise
else check/call
At the moment limit it to profiles with fixed behaviour - they don't adjust to who are they playing against, but they can refer to position, number of players, previous betting etc.
Suggestions welcome!
thats good for the worst of all possible players, but what about the suckout artist, plays any two cards before the flop, fold if he has absolutely nothing on the flop, but will continue on with any pair or any runner runner draw after the flop. bets and raises top pair or better regardless of kicker (you only thought that three on the river was a blank, muhahahahahaha) usually will go into check/call mode if raised. wont necessaraly bet when he improves after getting raised on an earlier street.
just some ideas, let me know if you need anybody to help coding this, I cant but I know people who might be willing to help you along
Thanks for the suggestion. I have applied to SourceForge for a project site and I'll post a link once it has been approved.
My roommate is thinking about training a neural network to play poker for his masters thesis. since my primary game is holdem and he intends on basing it on my play (boy is this computer going to be a sucker), i figure the game is going to be holdem, so if he decides on that route he will be enthuistac to say the least. (anyway its more intresting than cotton reports for the usda--- his last project)
In a 6-12 game at the Mirage 5 players see the flop without a pre-flop raise. I have Ad9d in the cutoff. The flop is Kd 8d 5h. Middle poison player (MPP) bets and he gets three callers. The turn is a 2?. MPP bets and the player to my immediate right raises. Should I fold here?
I cold called 2 bets. Early position player folds and the MPP re-raises. The player to my right thinks for awhile then folds. After I call he says to me “I can’t beat a set” (I get a feeling of collusion here) The river is another rag without a diamond. MPP bets and I fold.
I felt it cost me to much money chasing the flush and that I should have folded without calling two bets. If the board pairs when a diamond comes I could be looking at fullhouse.
What do you think?
Rich
Things like that happen all the time. If you suspect anything wrong you should talk to a floorperson. Since there was a big discussion about cheating they take any comment very serious there at the Bellagio. But i think that this was just a normal hand. Too bad you didn't make your flush. Better luck next time. I vote: this is a clear call.
I think that you have an automatic call.
Rich - Without the re-raise, you're getting good odds to call. If you could have foreseen the re-raise, then perhaps you should have folded. However, I don't know how you could have foreseen the re-raise. Therefore, your call with the nut flush draw was correct, IMHO.
As to the possible collusion, I don't think the evidence is strong enough. You're right to be suspicious since raising and then folding before the showdown is a collusion technique. However, the suspects could have used the tactic one more time on the river. the fact that they didn't tips the scales in the direction of coincidence, IMHO.
Even so, I quit the game when my suspicions are aroused, just in case.
Buzz
> In a 6-12 game at the Mirage 5 players see the flop without a pre-flop raise. I have Ad9d in the cutoff. The flop is Kd 8d 5h. Middle poison player (MPP) bets and he gets three callers. The turn is a 2?. MPP bets and the player to my immediate right raises. Should I fold here?
Before the flop there are about 5 SB. After the flop 9 SB. On the turn, after the bet and raise there are 7.5 BB in the pot.
Let R = probability of a re-raise. Assume that if you get the flush, you will win the pot plus another 0.9 BB on river. If you call, approximately 9/46 times you will win about (7.5 + R + 0.9). 37/46 times you will lose (2 + R) BB. If you believe that, then you should call if R < 5.7%.
This equation ignores the effect of the 5d hitting on the river and the additional expectation you get from the other players calling.
What do you think?
yes, the call was correct....not only did the flush draw odds vs pot odds look good, but looks like an ace might have given you 3 more outs, making a bit less than 3 to 1 against your hand. lol Jim
Bets preflop: 5 SB
Bets on the flop: 4 SB
On the turn a blank hits and there are 3 more BB to you and you have to call 2 BB with the risk of a re-raise. You have 9 outs (plus maybe an A), but we will stick with 9 outs to be safe. You need 37:9 or just over 4:1 you are getting. Your current odds are 7.5:2, but you can usually expect the original caller to call, so you are getting implied odds of 8.5:2 (almost even money). If the player reraises you are getting 9.5:3 of the raiser folds, or 10.5:3 if the original player calls.
If you hit you will most likely get 1 BB from someone, so your implied odds are at least 10.5:3 in the worst case.
It is a very close call, but you do have an A over cards, and you are drawing to the nuts. I think you have to make it.
BTW, once you call the 2 BB, you should call the rest of the bets.
Derrick
I think a raise on the flop is mandatory here. You have 9 nut outs and an ace overcard, (plus a backdoor gutshot, which is probably worth about half an out). Primarily, you want to raise for value. You can raise for value on the flush draw alone with only 2 callers. A lot of people don't realize how strong a draw can be, but if you're in a 3 way pot and are up against, say, top pair and middle pair, and neither holds an ace or a card in your suit, you should win this pot a bit more than 45% of the time, and you're actually in better shape than the guy holding top pair on the flop.
You might ask how the flop raise would affect your turn dilemma, but had you raised the flop, first, you'd be getting a better price on your turn calls, and second, if you're lucky enough to get a free turn card, you mightn't even end up in this situation because you've represented more strength than you actually have.
-Sean
Don't you think?
I've been playing head-up hold'em on line for about 6 weeks and I can already tell the difference in my play. I guess it's because you're constantly having to *think*, with no long stretches without playing a hand. Plus you're sorta forced to do what Caro says you should do when you're first starting out(in regards to practicing catching *tells*), and that is to 'focus on just one person.' So now i think I'm a little better a finding peoples tendencies. [Plus I've loosened up somewhat, I'm not entirely sure why, but that's what's happened.]
I sure hope you "loosened up" A LOT playing heads-up vers a ring game. While the "Viagra" threshold for a full game may be a pair and a flush draw, its about 2nd pair good kicker heads-up.
- Louie
I meant that I've loosened up as a player over-all as a result, meaning it's crossed over into my ring & tournament play.
I'm giving lessons and here's how it works. I come watch you play for one hour. Then I make up a list of infractions. Each infraction is assigned a dollar amount based on importance and means.
Then, whenever you play, I won't be there, and what you do is keep track of your infractions, then add up the total due, and pay me. All I make is the penalties.
The list of infractions will not include anything pertaining to cards or betting. Improved results guarenteed or your money back.
Tommy
ok, I'll sign up.
Tommy,
OK. You can watch me play the 50 cent game at Paradise.
Regards,
Rick
I still cuss the dealer for anything. I still throw cards at the floorman. I still berate all the bad players.....
I want my 2 bucks back!!!!!!
Come on down to mississippi, not only will I pay but I am shure I can either catch you a mess of catfish or send you home with a freezer load of venison. (depending on the season). either way you get good biscuts and gravy for breakfast (what they call biscuts and gravy at the mirage reminds me why they had that little scuffle in 1861).
besides after experiencing our summer weather california will seem preferable for its climate, if not its poker games.
MissGambler,
"besides after experiencing our summer weather california will seem preferable for its climate..."
Yeah, it's kinda boring here, 68 degrees and dry and sunny every single day, day in and and day out. :::yawn:::
If I go belly up someday I wanna be a San Francisco weatherman.
Tommy
At foxwoods they have recently initiated the buy the button feature on their flop games. Basically this means that if you have been walking and come back to the game and the button is to your immediate right you can post the big blind and a dead small blind, get a hand and get the button the next hand.
The question is:
is it better to exercise this option or to wait one hand let the button go by and post the 1.5 bets after the button in the cutoff position?
i think its definitely more polite to buy the button.
other considerations are probably too close too call.
brad
You get a lot more hands for your buck by buying the button. Do it.
A no brainer. Buy it. For the price of one small blind, you get two more hands, and more importantly, you get the button!
(A quip I sometimes use when buying the button is, "You guys only get to rob me once this round.")
Tommy
When figuring out odds and pot odds, how do you get the x-1 numbers? I can figure out the number of clean outs I have and the number of unseen cards (45 is easiest to use, I guess since it is divisible by so many numbers). Do I divide the number of unseen cards by the number of outs and then compare that to the size of the pot divided by my marginal bet? The play is okay if the x from the pot calculation is bigger than the x from the outs calculation? An explanation would be greatly appreciated...I am playing tonight and want to try to implement this (I have already gotten used to keeping track of how much money is in the pot and want to apply it). Thanks in advance!!
C Mc
Let's see if I can answer this. Correct answers are not guaranteed. The examples provided are extremely simplified.
To calculate pot odds, compare the amount in the pot to the amount with which you have to call. For example, if the pot has $60 in it and it's $20 to call, your odds are 60:20 = 3:1.
If you know the number of outs you have, you can calculate the odds against improving your hand. Classic hold 'em example: you hold AhKh and there two hearts on the board at the turn. Assume only a flush will win. The odds against hitting a flush on the next card are: (cards that don't help):(cards that help) = 46 (unseen cards) - 9 (hearts): 9 (hearts) = 37:9 or a little more than 4:1. Compare this to your pot odds. If your pot odds are less than 4:1 (like the 3:1 in the previous example), then trying for a flush is a losing proposition.
You asked, "Do I divide the number of unseen cards by the number of outs and then compare that to the size of the pot divided by my marginal bet? The play is okay if the x from the pot calculation is bigger than the x from the outs calculation?"
Close, but not quite right. As illustrated above, divide non-outs (not unseen cards) by outs and compare to pot size divided by bet size. If the pot calcuation is bigger than the outs calculation, then continue. (Let's check our example: 60/20 = 3 < 4 = 37/9, so one should not continue.)
Abdul Jalib describes another way of calculating whether to chase with a hold 'em hand in his "Theory of Sucking Out":
http://www.posev.com/poker/holdem/strategy/outs-abdul.html
David Sklansky covers this topic in The Theory of Poker.
P.S. No question is stupid, Grasshopper. 
In another thread someone mentioned "Like that 9-8 you're always raising with from the button or cutoff." [paraphrased]
Then last night a guy three-bet with 7-5 from three off the button and took down a big pot (I wasn't in it) and as he scooped chips he kneed me and whispered, "I learned that from you."
My reply was to get up fast and go smoke.
Here's the deal. I see fewer flops than all but the tightest of the tight. We read and write here at 2+2 about folding hands like KQ and A-10 in early seats. But hardly anyone actually does that routinely. I do. That means I am also folding A-9,A-xs, K-J, Q-J, J-10, medium suited connectors, all of them, in the muck, hour after hour. I am definitely a tight player. My standard deviation is low low low. I frequently fold every hand, including the button and blinds, for several laps at a time.
The occasional situational seizures I post about are just that, occasional, made more effective by a constantly reinforced tight image.
I can't bear the thought that someone is out there flailing away with 9-8 because of my posts. That's why I wrote this.
Tight is right. Amen.
Tommy
Do you think your SD is low (heh, I thought you didn't kept records) because of your tight preflop play or because of your hand reading skills. Assuming you think both contribute which one do you think contributes more, how much more, and why?
mph
Michael,
"Do you think your SD is low because of your tight preflop play or because of your hand reading skills. Assuming you think both contribute which one do you think contributes more, how much more, and why?"
I think the tight preflop play lends more than hand-reading. Also more significant than hand-reading is that I am so often last to act after being the aggressor, which means I get checked to a LOT, and plenty of times I check too. This means I get check-raised fewer than most players and that keeps the swings down. And I rarely take-one-off with overcards and players behind me. I think that's a big contributor to lower swings as well.
"(heh, I thought you didn't kept records)"
Still true. Understandable I'd catch some flack for saying I have a low SD when I don't even know how to calculate it. But I understand the concept.
What is the primary purpose of tracking SD? Is it for comparison to our prior stats and to theoretical optimums? I've got no problem with that. It makes perfect sense to do those things. It's just that I didn't learn about SD until long after I had already done the same type of self-inquiry without a microscope. If my monthly nut is, say, $3000, and I go a few years paying bills just fine and my bankroll rarely swings more than 7K over ANY time period, and my typical loss at $20-40 is in the $200-800 range, and my typical win is in the $300-$1000 range, I can know my swings are relatively small, even without verifying stats.
Tommy
Tommy,
If you don't keep records, how do you report winnings and claim deductions on your tax returns?
If any IRS agents are reading this, Vince has stated that he doesn't keep records either. ;-)
I'm from another solar system. I applied for a social security number when I left home five-thousand years ago, but the application hasn't reached earth yet.
"Vince has stated that he doesn't keep records either. ;-)"
Hey Mark, does this mean you are talking to me again or just about me? Or maybe you meant Vince Lombardi, another great Italian.
vince
it's the only thing...
Vince,
1. I recently took a little vacation and was away from the internet.
2. I haven't been reading many of your posts lately.
3. Among your posts that I have read, I haven't found much that warranted a response from me.
If you are interested in a discussion, I'll ask you the same question I asked Tommy: "If you don't keep records, how do you report winnings and claim deductions on your tax returns?"
His reply wasn't worth a follow-up. I'm guessing yours won't either.
Mark,
I'm not looking for bad blood here. I'll tell you why I didn't and won't reply to your question.
"If you don't keep records,"
That part sounded like you were calling me liar.
"how do you report winnings and claim deductions on your tax returns?"
I do not believe you asked this question because you were genuinely interested in learning something of value that might help you, or because you were genuinely curious. Please tell me I am wrong.
Love,
Tommy
Tommy,
Earlier, I wrote: "If you don't keep records, how do you report winnings and claim deductions on your tax returns?"
You stated:
>>"If you don't keep records,"
That part sounded like you were calling me liar.<<
I'm sorry if my comment caused anyone to think I was calling you a liar. Please rest assured that I was not. From my point of view, it seems like a stretch to reach such an extreme inference.
There are several reasons why I prefaced my question with that conditional phrase.
1. It would seem rather presumptuous for me to say, "You don't keep records, so how do you report winnings and claim deductions?" I could have said, "You claim not to keep records, so how do you report winnings and claim deductions?" But that also could be stretched into my calling you a liar.
2. The logical part of me often expresses itself with statements of the sort "if this, then that." If I had simply asked you, "How do you report winnings and claim deductions on your tax returns?", then the question seems (to me) to be coming from out of the blue. Prefacing the question with "If you don't keep records, . . ." helps provide useful context and grounding to the question.
3. I tend to be a skeptic. I don't know you well enough to take everything you say at face value. When you indicated you don't keep records, I didn't have reason to automatically believe that as fact, nor did I have reason to automatically disbelieve it. I didn't know, and I expressed this uncertainty when I wrote, "If you don't keep records, . . ." Please note that having uncertainty is quite different from believing you are a liar.
4. I didn't even know for sure that you really were claiming you don't keep records. For all I knew, you and Michael were engaging in some joking banter, the full context of which I was unaware. Or you might have just meant that you don't track standard deviations.
You also stated: "I do not believe you asked this question because you were genuinely interested in learning something of value that might help you, or because you were genuinely curious. Please tell me I am wrong."
Part of the reason I asked was to let you know that if you don't provide fairly detailed poker records, you could have a problem if the IRS ever audited your returns.
And, yes, part of the reason I asked was genuine curiosity. Many of the poker players I talk with claim [there's the skeptic in me, again] they don't keep records, claim they don't think poker earnings are not taxable income, or claim they don't need poker records to support their tax returns.
Many of these players are business executives and professionals who seem reasonably intelligent. It's possible that they truly are ignorant about how poker winnings are taxed. It's also possible that they would rather avoid learning very much about the issue. I was curious if you would be willing to shed a little light on the subject.
I didn't really expect you to provide a reply to my question, but I was hoping you might. *If* you don't declare your poker winnings (and I'm not implying that is the case), however, then you probably should not reply on a public forum.
Mark, do you pay taxes on your poker winnings? I hope I'm not being too intrusive. I'm kind of new to poker. Just trying to get a handle on what people do, and you seem like a good person to ask. Thanks.
Yes, I do pay taxes on my poker winnings. With respect to this, I suspect I am in the minority.
"Yes, I do pay taxes on my poker winnings. With respect to this, I suspect I am in the minority."
I agree. I'm sure you are in the minority. The majority of poker players don't win.
vince
Vince,
It appears you are ignorant about how poker winnings are declared on U.S. tax returns. Perhaps you do not declare your winnings.
Thank you for the response.
"I think the tight preflop play lends more than hand-reading. Also more significant than hand-reading is that I am so often last to act after being the aggressor, which means I get checked to a LOT, and plenty of times I check too. This means I get check-raised fewer than most players and that keeps the swings down. And I rarely take-one-off with overcards and players behind me. I think that's a big contributor to lower swings as well."
Interesting. I would have thought that better reads helping to save big bets and pots late in the hand would contribute more to lowering variance.
I assuming your mostly talking about limit here?
.
You don't have to justify how you play, and you should quit smoking.
Your post does point up the potential problems we who post under our real names might have. Those problems include (but are not limited to) others seeing how we play, others learning our strengths, weaknesses and peculiarities (not just poker peculiarities), and others flailing away with 9-8 because of a misunderstanding or your posts.
Tommy is right. Amen
Andy,
"Your post does point up the potential problems we who post under our real names might have. Those problems include (but are not limited to) others seeing how we play, others learning our strengths, weaknesses and peculiarities ..."
There was a recent thread about this and I still agree with Backdoor. The gains far outweigh the drawbacks for guys like me because there are VERY few, if any (besides the two or three I already know about) opponents who play mid-limit where I do and read 2+2.
For someone like Mason, living where he does, and presumably not still constantly varying his game, I'd think the drawbacks could outwiegh the gains.
"you should quit smoking."
It's a simple arithmetic problem. I've quit 20 times and started 21 times. If only I could balance the equation! And besides, what the heck would I do when I'm UTG? Sit at the table and get dealt KQ? lol
Tommy
While sweating Tommy last nite and generally just BS-ing as I wasnt interested in the games that were going, I saw Tommy throw these hands away. even late position(not button)J10, and KJo. Rest assured he doesnt make a habit of 9-8.
Now can I get my $2.00 poker lesson money back?
Larry,
"Now can I get my $2.00 poker lesson money back?"
The check is in the email.
Tommy
Tommy:
From reading your post I can help but thisnk that you are not distinguishing enough between a raised and non-raised pot. For example, I play KQ almost everytime if I'm first in regardless of my position. If raised, it's a very different story.
Mason,
"From reading your post I can't help but think that you are not distinguishing enough between a raised and non-raised pot. For example, I play KQ almost everytime if I'm first in regardless of my position."
I do to with the exception of the first two UTG slots. Do you think I'm giving away much? Would you say this is a nearly break-even situation?
"If raised, it's a very different story."
Right. Maybe this is where our locales call for different approaches. Again, I don't know. Around here, I'll lay down KQ against about 30% of the field if no one else comes in between them and me. If your lay-down-vs-a-raise is higher than that with KQ, could we both be "correct" because the raising standards are higher in Vegas than CA?
Tommy
I don't know what Mason will say, but I suspect that KQ is profitable from all positons in a fairly loose, passive game, marginally profitable early (but not utg) in all other but the toughest games, and unprofitable in a very tough game until about 4 off the button.
Providing it is not yet two bets to you.
"Maybe this is where our locales call for different approaches. Again, I don't know. Around here, I'll lay down KQ against about 30% of the field if no one else comes in between them and me. If your lay-down-vs-a-raise is higher than that with KQ, could we both be "correct" because the raising standards are higher in Vegas than CA?"
No way. Against a legitimate raise (as opposed to a possible steal raise) I will fold for two bets close to 100 percent of the time with KQo and call with KQs. That's too big of a difference for it to just be the players.
Mason,
I dont get the calling with the KQsuited. How can suited change a 99% fold into a call in a shorthanded pot?
Regards.
Mason: "Against a legitimate raise (as opposed to a possible steal raise) I will fold for two bets close to 100 percent of the time with KQo and call with KQs"
Are you saying you call with the KQ-suited close to 100% of the time?
a few months ago, around tax time, I read an article about I.R.S.---seems so many have claimed losses up to amount needed to offset wins reported on W2-G forms, they (IRS) have decided to put new audit emphasis on ALL returns involving gambling. If that article was correct then "believable" records have become much more important and we should act accordingly. Jim
Being able to put our opponent on a hand can be a BIG help in playing a hand; fact is, sometimes we are so sure of our "read" it gives us the confidence to do the right thing (including mucking our hand).
Having said that, then it follows that it is to our advantage for the opponent to NOT be able to put us on a hand. So, how much is that worth? Surely not enough to allow us to waste a lot of chips showing poor plays. How then?? Jim
By playing different hands similarly and similar hands differently.
Lets say in a particular situation you know that overall there are lots of hands with which you'd call but a few with which you'd raise. Well, it may very well be worthwhile to abandon raising altogether. You lose a little EV on the hands you WOULD raise with but can easily gain even more than that on the others that have been disguised. Such a situation, for me, is if I 2-bet before the flop and get 3-bet. Another is if I get check-raised on the flop. Flat calling with 2-pair helps protect my weak 2nd pair bets.
The "trick" is to manipulate your marginal situations, not your poor ones.
- Louie
>By playing different hands similarly and similar hands differently.
I think the first of these is more important. Some former world champ, can't remember who, said something like "unpredictability is about playing different hands the same, not the same hand differently" - I think its in either Biggest Game in Town (Alvarez) or Total Poker (Spanier).
Yes, those of us who push the threshold of "too loose" should play different hands similarly; primarily because we can have a wide variety of hands. Those who are a lot more selective should put more energy on playing the same hand differently; primarily because these selective players usually have the same kind of hand most of the time.
Louie: "The "trick" is to manipulate your marginal situations, not your poor ones."
I SO TOTALLY agree with this. My quest is to know which situations are even-money, and willfully use those for variance. Ideally this sends the message of, "He doesn't do the same thing with the same hands in the same situations."
Then, when I DO do the same thing nearly all the time in other situations, doubts will (hopefully)linger in their minds.
Tommy
How is attacking the blinds effected by:
a) The blinds (at least one) will only defend with legitimate hands.
b) The blinds (at least one) always defends.
In which case should you be more willing to attack them? What is the logic here one way or the other.
Finally, in a shorthanded game, 5 handed, that is relatively aggressive preflop, what is the minimum to defend out of the big blind?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
"How is attacking the blinds effected by:
a) The blinds (at least one) will only defend with legitimate hands.
b) The blinds (at least one) always defends.
In which case should you be more willing to attack them? What is the logic here one way or the other."
Presuming we're talking being on the button against only the blinds, against players who routinely defend, I'm more interested in how they play AFTER the flop than before. The spunkier they are, the more likely I am to fold preflop.
Against legit-hand defenders, well, let's see if they have a legit hand. Raizzit! Let's go to an extreme and say I raise with 7-2 and get called by QJ. Is this bad for me? I don't think so, not if he routinely checks the flop, and I routinely bet, and at this point I can figure out how he feels about his situation.
Tommy
that's a name I see on posts here on 2+2, but I can tell you it is a FRAUD.
Being a near- by neighbor (Texas), I have naturally gone over ther some to play poker. Not sure, but think I have been in every poker room in the state including Silver Star. Those folks don't want to gamble, they just want to play the nuts!! Jim
You must have not played the $6-12 hold'em game at the Silver Star. Go on a Friday (payday) and bring a wheelbarrow to carry your chips home. The $10-20-30 omaha high game is loose also.
Were you here on a weekday?
There's a particular bluff I use fairly often and I wondered if anyone else used it, or whether it was in fact quite common. The general idea is: when there has been no raise preflop, the flop is checked around, and the turn pairs the top card on board, immediately betting out from early position can win the pot with nothing.
I've tried in this in several games of varying sizes (up to 10/20) and I'd say it works more than half the time. Yesterday I got SIX people to fold when I did this. The hand was:
I hold 44 in the SB. Six callers, I call. Flop is 10, 9, x with a spade draw. Checked around. Turn is a 10. I immediately bet. Everyone folds except one guy. River is a blank (no flush) I bet again and he folds.
Another time, I held rags in the BB (two low cards). Flop is K, J, x with a flush draw. Check around, four people. Turn is a king. I immediately bet. One caller. The flush misses the river, I bet, he mucks.
In these situations, the flush draw missed the river, but I would have had to bet anyway because I can't win by showing down the hand.
I believe this bluff works because: 1) if your opponents are at all observant, it looks like you were trying to check raise the flop 2) even if they have something, like bottom pair, they know they can't beat trips
Does anyone else make this play? I've won a number of pots with absolutely nothing in this manner.
Betting from the blinds on the turn when its checked around on the flop is pretty "routine"; whether top pair pairs or not.
If you anticipate a reasonable profit from this sort of bluff then you should support it by routinely checking reasonable hands from the blinds: If you routinely bet marginal pairs from the blinds on the flop only the most UNobservant will suspect you have a pair on the turn.
The main reason this works is because nobody has anything.
- Louie
what do you do when someone reraises you after your river bet?? Jim
Fold. Is there any other option?
Of course, if you are raised on the turn or on the river, muck immediately. That's the beauty of it - they'll let you know you are beat right away.
I guess a broader form of this bluff is simply when the flop is checked around and the turn is a card that is not likely to have helped anyone (like a 2 or 3), try betting out from early position. This can work, but I don't believe it works as well as when the top card pairs.
The post that said "the reason this works is that nobody has anything" is absolutely correct. The point is, you don't have anything either, but are using your position to represent something. (THe difference between this and a usual "steal" bet is that this bet is from EARLY position rather than late.)
i've done this sometimes. early position bluffs work better than late position bluffs in my experience. mostly because the one thing LLHE chumps have learned is the idea of a position bet. they realize, or think they realize, that an early position bet usually represents more strength. i was in a pot where i had AKs UTG and raised preflop. still had about 6 people in the pot. flop comes with babies and i bet out. everybody calls. turn is queen. i check, and it gets checked around. river is a queen, and before i get a chance to bet, seat 2 starts to bet. now he is a decent player, and tends to bluff alot, especially when the previous round was checked around. i tell the dealer that i hadn't checked yet, and wished to bet, and i did so. the second guy folds instead, and so does the rest of the field!!! i was amazed. but i have tried it since then. and it does work often.
That and a couple of other favourite bluffs of mine are set out in an essay in the "guest essays" section of this site.
The bluffing article is the first one I ever wrote and it shows:-)...Nevertheless, I think that you may find it interesting.
sorry I wasn't more specific in my first post...point is that after your bet on the river, I raised you with nothing, knowing that YOU were bluffing...that works too!! Jim
Skp -
Aha ! I'm glad to see that another player had discovered this as well. I knew that I couldn't be the only one to use this type of play. In particular in note that you say when the top card pairs the turn, "you should bet as much as 90% of the time." I've gotten in the habit of doing this.
I like your 2nd bluff - betting out from the blind when and A or K hits the flop against 1 or 2 opponents.. I also like the 4th bluff, in particular because it will porobably only work against a "good" player..
Va. has no public cardrooms so games can be hard to find. The only local hold'em game I know of is a 1-5 spread limit with one $2 blind. There is pleanty of action and almost all bets and raises are for $5. With this flat limit on all betting rounds are there any obevious strateges? (p.s. Table allows eleven players and there is often $100+ in the pot before the flop.)
There used to be a lot of action in Southwest Virginia. Things have slowed down some, but with coal way up it'll pick up again.
My feeling is that "High-Low-Split Poker for Advanced Players " by Ray Zee is an excellent book
The hard thing is when u order books thru I-net, U don't know what's in there, if each author has their table of contents, that'd be great
Anyone who read that book pls give me some more info. Any other books?
Thank you for your help
Click on books in the left window here and you will get some information that will be helpful. Buy the book here.
There are many book reviews, etc., on the WWW. Try typing something like "gambling poker book review" in your favorite search engine. Also try a similar search at booksellers (e.g., Amazon); reader reviews may be available.
A few links to help get you started:
http://www.conjelco.com/faq/poker.html#P6
http://www.jetcafe.org/~npc/reviews/gambling/index.html
http://www.kimberg.com/poker/reviews.html
unless you want to win lots of money at the game against tougher players i wouldnt get it. all it will do is make you play well and realize what you have been missing all this time(:>. good luck and you can get it quickly here from the site.
I m just a newbie in Poker. No rush to get the book quickly as I think Poker is so much harder than BJ (i m using simple HiLo with indices fr -1 to +8).
If U R the author of this book, may I say that an author when he talks about his book is like a mother talking about her son ("All mother thinks their goose a swan" remember?)Kidding only!
I m sure your book is 1 of the best Poker books + it's definitely unique with the introduction of CC
Thanks all for your respones
What does evry1 think about 1. CC at 7-stud? 2. This book about remebering cards?
Sorry I get confused myself. Sure Ray Zee book is excellent + I'll order it. But what about Roy West 7-stud?
Thanx in advance.
After playing poker for about 2 years i recently got pretty serious. I am at the Taj or Trop in AC about twice a week, about 5 hours each session. Although it doesn't sound like a lot, it is compared to playing once a month in a cardroom in NYC.
I have read Hold'em for Advanced Players plenty of times, but it was John Feeney's book that really helped me analyze my game better. He had a lot of good ancedotes and advice for player's whose games are just slightly off.
By the way, are there still any operating cardrooms in NYC (I don't live there now)? The one I played at got shut down...
Peace Beeb
I just talked to a NY'er a few weeks ago, said his club was still open (forgot the name, sorry).
Check around, post this message in the Other Topics forum for more info
Hi David, I have just finished reading hpfap, and it is a great book. I have little experience , and I just feel as though some things are missing(in my head) , but i cant put a finger on it. Is hpfap too advanced for me, and should i possible read your other holdem book to fill in the blanks?? Or is there some other book i should read first(like beginner to winner by krueger, or lee jones' book). By the way, i am not saying the book has things missing, its more they are missing from my knowledge! By the way i also read theory of poker. Brilliant. Thankyou kandinsky
Try Hold Em Poker (see Books link on left), which was the original book
Some low limit players like Lee Jones' book, some others here hate it (including Mason, based on his review in Gambling Topics)
I've posted quite a bit of stuff recently about fluctuations and bankrolls (I learned it all from Mason) but I don't think that one should use that as the first reason for losing. I try to review the hands where I lost pots and think about them as thoroughly as possible to see if there was a better way to play them. Almost all the time it has pointed me to some obvious mistake or to some aspect of the game that I'm not knowledgable enough about or haven't thought enough about rather than some freakish event.
"I try to review the hands where I lost pots and think about them as thoroughly as possible to see if there was a better way to play them. "
Tom,
My unsolicited advice to anyone thinking of sitting at your table is: "Think again".
Vince
Reading Tommy Angelo's post about where the tight players like to sit in relationship to him brought to the surface some interesting thought. I ahd been kicking this around, but never spent any energy contemplating what the impact is to me. Off to thinking out loud....
I am out on the town (or in a new town) and go to the ABC casino for some $3-6 or $4-8 HE. If most casino's are like the one's around where I play, over half the players know each other, and each others playing style. They have as Tommy suggested optimized their seating selection for themselves.
Here I come, sitting in one of the few seats that are being refilled about every 45 minutes. I don't know this because I just arrived and think I am lucky to get a seat so quickly.
Now comes the interesting part. The odds are against me. I do not think that the seat I was so lucky to get will be optimized for my playing style. If I am lucky enough to realize this I have two options.
Either change my playing style, or leave the table. I think what happens from this point on depends on my experience level. Comments?
"I do not think that the seat I was so lucky to get will be optimized for my playing style."
Actually, if players shift to put you on their right BECAUSE you are a new face, this is good for you, because the types of players who would make such a switch are the ones you WANT on your left. By their shifting, you are protected against randomly ending up with the livest players on your left.
Tommy
A project to create a free poker simulator is starting to get underway: Check it out here
From your website you have the following question and answer:
>>Will it be able to play pot-limit or no-limit?
>> Creating skillful bot players in these games will be harder but we'll give it a go.
I think you will find it more difficult to program good limit players.
I know that some people believe limit is harder than pot-limit/no-limit and I don't know enough to have an opinion. All I meant that programming wise limit is a lot simpler (check/bet, raise/call/fold) i.e. a limited number of decisions to be made.
>> All I meant that programming wise limit is a lot simpler (check/bet, raise/call/fold) i.e. a limited number of decisions to be made.
But this is exactly what makes it harder, especially in loose passive and loose aggressive games.
In a ring limit game, you often have multiple opps staying for many betting rounds.
The key in making a good poker simulator isn't making opponents which make "correct" decisions, it's making opponents whose decisions are conistent with the kinds of decisions real players make.
This is even more difficult than producing an optimal poker player for the simple reason that there is a wide range of playing styles that poker players exhibit.
- Andrew
"What is your role in the project? Just getting it started, not a leadership role."
Its been my experience with "free" projects that somebody needs to do a fair bit of the initial work else the project collapses as a wealth of well meaning cooks argue over design.
"What work needs to be done?
"Poker Players Writing succint, specific descriptions of the decision making process for bot players of differing types and skill levels - the lower the skill, the easier this will be. "Programmers Express the above descriptions in source code. Write software to detect situations e.g. top two pair on the flop, nuts on the river "
You need to build some infrastructure to communication information between player models before any of this can be done. Thats a task that you or you plus only one or two others should undertake. That way although it might have some design flaws it will have some level of architectural cleanliness that model builders can code to.
Here's some twisted thinking that appeals to me on an emotional/romantic level.
I try like heck to operate entirely from on-hand funds. By 'operate' I mean everything, buy-ins, rent, food, travel, concerts, everything.
When the in-house funds run dry, I have to dig into reserves, and I hate hate hate that. (I typically reload with 5K and place full emphasis on replenishing the reserves.) So what happens is, an utterly arbitrary break-point exists, or rather, broke-point, when I'm not at all broke, but I convince myself that I will be. This motivates me to take measures -- tighten up my game, cut back on frolicky expenditures, even drop down in limit sometimes -- whatever it takes to avoid digging.
So happens I've currently gone a year or two without having to reload from the reserves. That is the definition of "success" in my wacky world.
A few weeks ago I was down to $700 when I sat down to play and bought in for all $700. If I went bust this session, I'd have to dig. I was down to $130, planning to play one more lap and NOT take the blinds because I'd be too short-stacked. Tomorrow I'd be at the bank. Oh well, so it goes.
When the blinds came, I thought, man, I've got a firm policy against going all-in, but I sure don't want to go to the bank, so maybe I'll get lucky. I folded both blinds and I had $100 left when I picked up a K-6 suited on the button and limped in a multi-way pot and flopped a flush draw and I was all-in on the turn and BINGO, the flush hit on the river.
Since then I payed the bills and I've got several K of on-hand funds. Let's just say I NEVER have to hit the reserves from here on out. This means that, in retrospect, I would have lived the rest of my life off of $100.
Like I said, twisted. But somehow, emotionally and romantically appealing.
Tommy
run out of poker dealer buttons to send you so i hope you will accept frozen hockey pucks, if you stack them up they resemble dealer buttons...gl
funny, i had the same story a while ago, except it was a little different because i loaned the last of my 'on hand' cash to someone, who promptly repaid me. next time i saw him (btw, he's not a poker player) i said, gee, good thing you repaid me, otherwise i wouldnt have this x thousands of dollars now.
brad
this shows how tough it is to be a professional poker player, even for good players.
"A few weeks ago ... I had $100 left ... and BINGO, the flush hit on the river. ... Since then I payed the bills and I've got several K of on-hand funds. Let's just say I NEVER have to hit the reserves from here on out."
You ran good over a few weeks. But you already spent some winnings on bills. Wouldn't it be a reasonable statistical fluctuation to lose several thousand in a month? And won't living expenses eat up a few thousand over the next few months?
Risk of ruin = Exp(2*(costs-mean)*bankroll/variance),
where costs, mean and variance are all measured (say) monthly. Suppose your mean at 20-40 is $40 per hour with a standard deviation of $500, and you play 100 hours per month. Then you have a monthly mean of $4,000 and a monthly standard deviation of $5,000 (variance is standard deviation squared). And suppose your monthly expenses are $2,500. Then you would need a bankroll of $38,376.42 to have only a 1% risk of ruin.
Kim Lee,
"Wouldn't it be a reasonable statistical fluctuation to lose several thousand in a month?"
Yes.
"And won't living expenses eat up a few thousand over the next few months?"
Yes. >3K/M
"Then you would need a bankroll of $38,376.42 to have only a 1% risk of ruin."
Cosmic that you'd come up with that number. I'm a cautious 1000BB kinda guy meaning 40K is my minimum comfortable cushion for $20-40.
With 40K I put my risk-of-ruin at half-a-percent tops between now and whenever my mind slips because I'd take every precaution -- drop down in limit, stop spending, play the lowest-flux game possible -- long before forced into a career change. With 10K I think my risk of ruin is less than 10%.
Surely the $100 story is evidence of my obsession with waking up funded. :-)
Tommy
I would like youre opinion on medium suited connectors, they have been killing me
First of I hardly ever play them and when I do they usually cost me money
Here is an example from the other day
10-20 game
I'm on the button with 87d five limpers to me and I limp (I couldn't belive that there was so many in)
flop jd,10d,6h early position bets out 2 call late middle position raises I just call with my inside straight draw and flush draw
turn is a J early position bets out again everyone folds to me and I call, this is a very agressive player and I don't put him on a boat, plus I have seen him routinely check=raise his monsters.
I miss completly on the river
First of can I get some comment on my play
This type of situation happens to me all the time and I was wondering If I would be missing out much in EV If i stoped playing them. I hate drawing hands I hardly ever seem to hit them and they always cost alot.
Like J10 suited, I have not been able to win with that hand for at least 3 weeks and some people seem to swear buy it. I don't like floping a top pair with it cause you can be dominated buy many other hands. And I seem to miss my draws all the time.
Anyways I would just like to get you're opinions on these drawing hands.
Medium suited connectors can great, but you have to keep a few things in mind. You obviously all ready know what odds you need to play them. When the flop is favorablE, you must make sure you are not on the ignorant or small end of a straight, or the baby side of a flush.
If you are on the ignorant end, your win rate is cut down about 60% if I remember correctly. If you are not on the ignorant end, and you have the nuts, raise, raise, raise!
Mike
does the suit make a difference?
Although the chances are slim, should you put any stock into playing AT for a raise when the bad beat jackpot (Aces full of Tens or better cracked) is enormous?
One consideration is the exact rules for the jackpot. For example, where I play, the jackpot requires Aces full of tens or better beat by four of a kind or better, rather than just Aces full of tens or better beat.
So where I play, if one hand is AJ and another is AT and there is AAJTx on the board, the jackpot is NOT hit. The most common way to hit the jackpot is with hands of Ax vs pocket TT, JJ, QQ or KK, with AAAyz on the board where kicker x beats (or ties) y and z.
I guess I didn't answer your question. I'm just pointing out another consideration.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
most places down here require that one ace be in the aces full hand as well, basically that mean you have to have AA, your opponent XX (where x is big enough to qualify) and a board of AXXYZ since usually all four cards, your two and opponents two must play. I dont know how to work the math but I would suspect that under all of these restrictions straightflush over straight flush isnt much rarer or maby even more common then the aces full cracked
I haven't played stud in years. Are the swings greater in HE or stud? Thanks.
I believe there is an article here on the forum, or maybe it was in a poker mag. At any rate if memoriy servers me correctly, swings are less in HE.
Mike
Low limit internet HE. Various scenarios but always a heads up pot, opponent raises before the flop.
The flop has 3 cards all less then king.
I check, the opponent bets quickly...so fast its a blur.
Turn and river are other small cards, every time I check boom, the opponent continues to bet immediately with no thought at all.
Every time I have any small part of the board or a pocket pair I have called, and almost every time the opponent has an unimproved AK or AQ no pair.
A9
I have seen that too. Against a hand (pair or better) folks slow down and think about what they are doing.
Against someone I think does not have a pair and lets say I am in the BB. I frequently check-call the flop and then bet the Turn (if I have a pair or better.) To try and blow them out of the pot.
Good observation.
Standard part of many tells... "when someone tries to appear strong theay are often weak."
If someone had a big hand like AA, KK they would be thinnking "o.k. I probably have the best hand but what could this guy have" and then still bet. But the person with AA or KK would not likely indescriminitaely bet yet someone with Ak who is hoping you fold will be regardless of what appears.
Now that this has been posted, the better players will reverse it when they find the right opportunity.
nt
I think the tell is common in live poker as well as on-line. Actually, I think it is more reliable in a live game. It's possible to misinterpret, or read too much into, the speed of on-line betting. If the on-line opponent (heads-up) had pocket Aces, for example, and decided he was going to bet them out to the river, unless raised, he might click bet/raise ahead of time, while the hero is stalling to make it appear as if he has something to think about.
Taking this furthur, for which I apologize, this same opponent, with pocket Aces, playing live, would not grab a handfull of chips and dangle them threateningly while his opponent contemplates his options.
Good stuff, I think, on-line or live.
Tom D
Tom D
(I posted this earlier, but can't find it or the replies.)
Does anyone have any info about poker rooms in Tunica, Mississippi? Tournaments? Ring games? Types of games played? Stakes?
Also, what about practicalities such as food, accommodation?
Thanks in advance.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Dirk
The Horseshoe has the best poker room. Rates are 25 per day during the week. They will give you a buffet ticket or a snack bar ticket, try the Philly Cheese sandwich. They spread 1-5 stud,4-8,10-20,15-30,20-40 hold-em,4-8 Omaha-8. sometimes they play pot-limit, half triple draw A-5, half 2-7. Occasionally they spread a pot-limit Omaha-Hi game. The competition ranges from real easy to real tough. The staff is polite and friendly. Ask for Teresa during the day or Susan at night. Good luck!
Dino.
They will also bring you food at the table, just ask. I once ate a free breakfast before paying a big blind. (the horseshoe)
sams town, good 4-8 games, sometimes get a 10-20 or two going and its a quieter room. also the grand has just about the only omaha game in town, 3-6 with a kill I dont know what holdem they are spreading now but they used to have a 7.50-15 game going and a 1-5-10-10. the comp policy there is bad, all the food is bad, and the table side food servace takes about 1.5-2 hours even on a slow night. and you have to order when they want to take it. basicaly unless you have to play omaha dont go there. But the room is quiet
I head down there from Nashville, TN once a month or so. The weekend action's great. Haven't been there during the weekday, but there is a weekly no-limit tourney at the Horseshoe.
Accomodations - I usually stay at the Grand. Rooms are cheap($35 poker rate for weekdays and $49 for weekends, free if you play in a red-chip game). Haven't stayed at the Goldstrike because room rates are outrageous and the Horseshoe is always booked. Bally's is a horrible hotel, and I'd never stay there again.
Food - Horseshoe for sure has the best buffet and restaurants. The buffet at the Grand leaves something to be desired, but I recently found out they have a "poker menu" at the steakhouse(half-chicken, ribs, filet, and something else) for free, and it's damn good.
Games - I usually rotate between the Horseshoe and the Grand. The Grand always has a great 3-6 full-kill Omaha game(I usually buy in for a rack and walk out with 5 or 6) from noon to 6 am-ish. They also have a pretty weak 10-20 on the weekends. They also spread 1-5 stud. Their house game is a 2-5-5-10 spread limit hold'em. Blinds are 1-2, and limp in for 2, raise from 2-5(for a total of 4-7 to go). This is usually a crazy game, but a great one. Every once in a while they'll spread 15-30 instead of the 10-20 game. (Once we even convinced them to spread a 1-2 pot-limit half-holdem half-omaha game, but we only got 7 players). The Horseshoe spread hold'em up to 20-40(jackpot for the 2-4 game is up at 90K and it got hit last weekend for 98K!), 1-5 stud, and a real good 4-8 Omaha/8(half or full-kill....the full-kill game is WONDERFUL). For the PLOH players they have a 5-10 and 10-25 game all weekend. They also have a 25-50(I think) half-duece half-lowball pot-limit(max bet of $500) going all the damn time, but it's the same 3 or 4 guys sitting in there.
Tourneys - Check out PokerPages.com for tourney info.
Can anyone recommend good books on No Limit Holdem, or No Limit Poker in general? Can you say what's good about them? I prefer theoretical books, like those of Sklansky and Malmuth, rather than anecdotal books.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
There's really only 3 books I know of
1) Super/System by Doyle Brunson et al - Got it online a few weeks ago for $45 before shipping(conjelco)
2) Pot-limit & No-limit poker by Ciaffone and Reuben - Also available from conjelco for a good price.
3) Championship No-limit & pot-limit poker by Cloutier and McEvoy - Don't have this one, but again available at conjelco
does anyone know of a poker room in las vegas that doesnt tolerate cheating by bending the picture cards and aces? i play low limit hold em, and run into this in all of the vegas card rooms i've played in. any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
I don't know about Vegas, but here in the Los Angeles area, if I see a bent card in the deck, I point it out to the dealer and ask for a new deck. Never had a problem getting a new deck. In fact the floorman usually looks the entire deck over closely.
Fortunately, this does not happen too often. Sometimes I have seen the culprit do it. Now when I call it to the dealer's attention, the culprit knows they were caught red handed.
Alden Chase
thanks for the suggestion, i have asked for a deck change and usually get another "bent" deck. the dealers and floor people in vegas seem totaly unconcerned about this problem. maybe i should start playing in los angeles. :)
most of the time the deck you are using came from other games long ago. so the bent cards do not reflect on the current game. alot of players accidentally bend cards when squezing the corners for a look. dont worry as ive almost never had anyone playing them at you. just ask for deck changes if they are blatant and remember what they are and use them to your advantage if the other players at the table refuse to be concerned when you point it out to them. in california they put in new decks often .in vegas they wear the faces off before a new deck gets in.
There were a lot of defective Kem cards floating around about six months ago. Due to a manufacturing problem, the face cards and aces were warped. These cards vanished from AC around four months ago. It is possible that they are still floating around LV. This is not deliberate cheating, but it is a problem.
That was still a problem in Vegas about two months ago when I was there. Was playing at the Mirage at the time. It was just brutal, I couldn't believe they would play with those cards but nobody else seemed to notice (or mind) so I used it to my advantage.
It seems like different forum participants often have different concepts in mind when they discuss expected value (EV). This makes effective communication more difficult. Tommy Angelo asked me to describe the definition I use, so here it is. Feel free to disagree or suggest improvements.
EV is easy to define but harder to explain. Fortunately, a friend (who desires anonymity) wrote some essays on this subject, and I will shamelessly (but with permission) borrow many ideas and passages from those works.
-----------------------
Essentially, the EV for any poker betting decision is the profit you should make, on average, by taking that action.
Stated somewhat differently, a betting decision's EV is the sum of the weighted profits for that decision's possible outcomes. Each outcome's profit (commonly called "loss" when negative) is weighted by the likelihood that the outcome will occur. To keep things simpler, I ignore profits that might occur after the hand in question is completed.[1]
Mathematically, this definition can be expressed as:
EV(X) = ( E1 * P1 ) + ( E2 * P2 ) + . . . + ( En * Pn )
where X is a betting action,
E is a particular outcome's profit,
P is a particular outcome's probability of occurring, and
P1 + P2 + . . . + Pn = 1.0.
Some readers might realize this equation is the same as that for "mathematical expectation."[2] Expected value is just another name for mathematical expectation.
-----------------------
Perhaps the easiest way to explain EV is by applying the concept to an example.
Playing in a $20-$40 hold'em game, Abe and Bev find themselves heads-up at the turn with the board showing Th9s3h/4c. Abe, who is careless about protecting his cards, holds 3d3c and bets his final $40. Bev, who has seen Abe's cards, holds Ah6h. If the pot currently contains $220, should Bev call Abe's all-in bet?[3]
Folding has an EV of exactly zero, because you are interested in your average profit during the *remainder* of a hand. If Bev folds, she can neither win nor lose any more money.
"Wait a minute," you might protest. "I understand the chips I contributed to the pot aren't really my chips anymore. But folding does cost me something. It costs me any chance I have of winning that pot." While the possibility of winning does have value, you account for your "fair share" of the pot when you compute the EV of your other betting options.
What is the EV of Bev's call? In this simple example, calling has two possible outcomes. First, the river can bring a heart that doesn't pair the board, thus giving Bev a $220 net profit (she will have spent $40 to win the resulting $260 pot). Second, any other card could arrive on the river to give Bev a -$40 net profit.
What are the likelihoods for each of these two outcomes? Since Bev has seen 8 of the 52 cards in the deck, the river card could be any of the 44 unseen cards. Seven of those unseen cards win Bev the pot, while 37 push it to Abe.[4] If we assume each unseen card has an equal chance of appearing on the river, then the probabilities for the two outcomes are 7/44 and 37/44, respectively.
Plugging these numbers into the EV formula yields:
EV(call) = ( $220 * 7/44 ) + ( -$40 * 37/44 ) ~= $1.36
By calling, Bev can expect to make about $1.36, on average. Since $1.36 is greater than zero, calling has a greater EV than folding in this particular scenario.[5]
If the pot contained even one small bet less, however, the formula would tell a different story:
EV(call) = ( $200 * 7/44 ) + ( -$40 * 37/44 ) ~= -$1.82
In this slightly modified version, Bev should fold, since the EV for calling (-$1.82) is less than the EV for folding ($0.00).
-----------------------
[1] The above definition for EV can accommodate future profits (e.g., from "image" plays and deceptive hand balancing), but it complicates the explanation (unnecessarily, for now).
[2] See equation 2-19 in Richard A. Epstein's THE THEORY OF GAMBLING AND STATISTICAL LOGIC (1977), p. 23.
[3] Assume Bev wants to maximize her EV.
[4] Note that the 9h and 4h give Abe a winning full house.
[5] Notice how Bev's calling EV dovetails with her "fair share" of the pot. Her "equity" is 7/44 of the pot. If she calls, the pot contains $260 and her share is about $41.36. Subtract the cost of her $40 call, and you have the familiar $1.36 EV for calling.
.
n/t
n/t
a simple camparison of pot odds to drawing odds...when pot odds are greater, call...etc. Jim
Jim,
You wrote: "a simple camparison of pot odds to drawing odds...when pot odds are greater, call...etc." (Ellipses in original.)
In the simple example I used, you are correct to point out that comparing pot odds to the odds against your winning is a short-cut method for determining whether to call or fold.
I think it is important to make it clear, however, that the pot odds short-cut cannot be used as a wholesale replacement to estimating the EV of your various betting options. Sometimes this short-cut is very accurate, sometimes it is adaquate, and many times the serious poker player will find it inadaquate.
It works in my simple example because Abe and Bev are in a heads-up, all-in situation. Bev doesn't have to compare her raising EV with her calling EV. She only needs to determine whether her calling EV is positive or negative--the magnitude doesn't matter.
Bev is getting pot odds of $220-to-$40 (or 5.5-to-1). The odds against her winning are 37-to-7 (or about 5.3-to-1). Since her pot odds are greater than the odds against her winning, Bev knows her calling EV is positive and her best betting option is to call.
---------------------
I'm unaware of a similar short-cut that helps you determine whether raising is better than calling. When I cannot rule out the possibility of raising, I often need to estimate both my raising EV and calling EV to determine my best move.
Note that the pot odds short-cut becomes less accurate when one or more betting rounds remain and your opponent(s) might contribute to the pot after you make your hand. (This is the "implied odds" concept.)
The short-cut also falters when a future board card could hit your hand weakly and you might have to call occasionally with a hand that is probably second best (or worse).
Or when your call will not close the betting.
And you will encounter situations when you might call bets on two or three different betting rounds in pursuit of your draw (e.g., you flop a four flush). (This is the "effective odds" concept.)
-------------------
In short, it's good to know about the pot odds short-cut, but it also is good to know how to estimate the EV for your various betting options.
An excellent essay. I only have one problem with your example:
You made the assumption that Bev has seen Abe's cards, and this seemed to skew the mathematics. We as real players would have to base our EV values on what we actually know. Since we are looking at outs to the nuts, we would know that if the board pairs our nut flush is not longer the pure nuts. The true odds if nothing is known to Bev except her cards and the board is:
Cards that make the nuts: 7 (2,5,7,8,J,Q,K)h
Everything else: 39 ((52 - 6) - 7)
Total cards unknown: 46
EV(call) = $220*(7/46) + (-$40)*(39/46) = -$0.43
making the call a negative EV play in this case. As you were correct in pointing out, only a non-pairing heart is an out to the nuts in this case, and that I would think that should be assumed whether you know your opponents' cards or not.
Again, thanks for the essay. It finally put EV into real terms.
David,
You raise a valid point when you note that players rarely know their opponents' hole cards. It occurred in my scenario because I wanted to keep the example very simple.
The EV definition/formula certainly works even when you haven't seen your opponent's cards, as you are aware.
That said, I cannot agree with your revised equation:
EV(call) = $220*(7/46) + (-$40)*(39/46) = -$0.43
With the board showing Th9s3h/4c, your equation indicates Abe's range of hand holdings is guaranteed to be some combination of T-T, 9-9, 4-4, 3-3, and/or 9-4. Perhaps the earlier betting actions strongly point in this direction.
Let's assume you indeed are 100 percent certain that Abe holds T-T, 9-9, 4-4, or 3-3. In this case, it doesn't really matter how likely Abe is to hold a particular set, but let's say the probabilities are 0.4, 0.3, 0.2, and 0.1, respectively.
If you don't make certain logical short-cuts, the EV(call) equation for this scenario is more complicated than the EV(call) equation in my original simple example, but it still is very managable. Give it a try and see if you still think it comes out negative.
Mark -
Ah yes, I see your point now (even without doing the math). I guess I was looking at the probability of having the pure nuts (thereby guaranteeing a win), instead of the probability of flat out winning the hand (which is what EV seem to be really intended for). In math terms, it seems like I was calculating P(A) (event A being hitting the pure nuts) given that B has already happened (Abe already having two pair or a set).
Thanks for setting me straight on that. Another great example of context being as important if not more so than the pure mathematics.
-David
For those interested in the mathematics . . .
PROBLEM: At the turn, the board shows Th9s3h/4c. Abe bets his final $40, so the pot now contains $220. Bev has Ah6h and estimates Abe's possible hands as T-T (40 percent), 9-9 (30 percent), 4-4 (20 percent), and 3-3 (10 percent). Is her calling EV greater than her folding EV?
SOLUTION: If we ignore some logical short-cuts, then it seems reasonable to say that Bev's call can result in eight possible outcomes:
1. Abe has T-T, and Bev wins.
2. Abe has T-T, and Bev loses.
3. Abe has 9-9, and Bev wins.
4. Abe has 9-9, and Bev loses.
5. Abe has 4-4, and Bev wins.
6. Abe has 4-4, and Bev loses.
7. Abe has 3-3, and Bev wins.
8. Abe has 3-3, and Bev loses.
Let's look at the third outcome in detail.
What is Bev's profit if the third outcome occurs? She will have spent $40 to win a $260 pot, so her net profit will be $220.
What is the likelihood that the third outcome will occur? There is a 30 percent chance that Abe holds 9-9. If Abe holds 9-9, then there are 44 cards that are unknown to Bev (4 board cards, her two hole cards, and the two Nines she assumes Abe is holding for this outcome to occur). If a heart arrives on the river and it does not pair the board, Bev will win the pot. There are 7 such cards (regardless of whether Abe holds 9h9d, 9h9c, or 9d9c--think about it). So, her chance of winning the pot when Abe holds 9-9 is 7/44 (or about 15.9 percent).
Because both events must occur (Abe must hold 9-9 and Bev must receive a winning river card), we multiply the probability of each event occuring to come up with the probability that both events will occur.[1] In this case, 0.30 * 7/44 = 0.0477.
Now, let's look at the fourth outcome in less detail.
Bev will have spent $40 to lose, so her net profit will be -$40. The likelihood of this outcome is 0.30 * 37/44 = 0.252.
In this scenario, all of Abe's sets have the same chance of beating Bev (37/44). This should enable us to fill in the EV equation.
EV(call) = ( $220 * 0.40 * 7/44 ) + ( -$40 * 0.40 * 37/44 ) + ( $220 * 0.30 * 7/44 ) + ( -$40 * 0.30 * 37/44 ) + ( $220 * 0.20 * 7/44 ) + ( -$40 * 0.20 * 37/44 ) + ( $220 * 0.10 * 7/44 ) + ( -$40 * 0.10 * 37/44 )
After all the arithmetic, EV(call) ~= $1.36. Since Bev's calling EV ($1.36) is greater than her folding EV ($0.00), she should call.
-----------------------
[1] These two probabilities generally are not independent, but the probability of the second event occurring (Bev wins the pot) was computed with the assumption that the first event already occurred. Thus we can simply multiply the two probabilities.
d
This past weekend I was playing in a $10-$20 hold-em game and was looking for some help on a hand that i played and got drawn-out on. Here's some background on the game -- the table had just started-up about 20 minutes prior to this hand -- I had only played with 2 or 3 of the players before, so i wasn't aware of the types of hands the rest of the players played, but from the start of the game it was a tight table. I was in middle possition with AJ (offsuit) everyone had folded to me I RAISED & the button was the only caller. Flop came J9x rainbow --- I bet was raised by the button and I made it three bets (he called). The turn was a blank, so I bet the button called. The river was K (no flush), so i checked it to the button he bet i called --- He showed me QT (offsuit) for a King high straight ------ Was my play all that bad? Was my three bet on the flop or my call on the end completely wrong?
How could you have played it any better. You charged your opponent full price when he was a big dog. I think the only question is whether betting out on the river would have been correct. I don't know, but that King hit like a ton of bricks. I probably would have gasped.
Tom D
I hope somebody will disagree with me here, but I think 3 betting flop is a mistake, unless you think you are getting (current or future) steal equity out of it that I just don't see here.
If he has a straight draw, which I don't think is that hard to see is a decent posibility here, he isn't _that_ big of a dog when there are still two cards to come. I think if turn is a not-straight looking card then you bet again and opponent is making a bigger mistake by calling (smaller pot). Also this makes river bet more (or closer to) correct since you've shown less strength. Also if straght-scare card does come and you check the turn, he is more likely to make a bad bet on the turn, since you've shown less strength.
Back to flop again, if is has two pair or trips at least you save one small bet.
I don't like your reasoning for not 3-betting the flop. Sure you will give him a smaller pot, thus worse odds to draw on the turn, but you are giving him infinite odds now by not charging him. Simply put, he will miss his draw more often than not and you are letting him off cheaper by not charging him. Now if you have some reason to believe he has a better hand than you you can just call, but then don't bet the turn at all.
I think your play was fine. AJo is borderline for a raise, but if you are late enough and first to act it's the right move.
You have to 3-bet the flop and when he just calls you should expect you have the best hand. When he just calls the turn you are sure you have the best hand, and check-calling the river is correct.
You can't gain much by betting the river. If you have the best hand I doubt he'll call you, and we won't lay down a better one. If you check he might bluff the king and you should call.
Be glad you are playing with someone who cold calls two before the flop with QTo.
I think you played it perfectly through the turn. As to the river ...
I usually bet the river in these spots, the key scale-tipper being whether I can safely fold if the button raises. Against a player who, after taking a passive role in the hand, will only raise the river with two-pair or more, I'd absolutely bet the river and I think it's an essential money-making play.
Tommy
Tommy, how do you make money by betting the river here? He would NEVER lay down a better hand than yours, and do you really think he would even call you if he doesn't have a pair of Kings? (Maybe JQ?) I just don't see him calling with something you can beat. I would NEVER bet in this situation. Is this a leak in my game. (And I understand about being able to fold if he raises, but in the case where he has a better hand than mine I would prefer check/call so he can show it to me.)
Yes, most players will call you with QJ here, among a few other hands.
I agree that QJ would call, but I think there is a much better chance you'll find a hand that will raise you than a hand that will call you.
I get called by enough wacky hands, and find myself having pot odds to call with enough wacky hands if I make it to the river, that I think this is worth betting. Of course really it depends on the player, but in the absence of other info I think you make more by betting here.
Also, if you are one of those people that very often checks the river with medium strength hands, people can start to safely fold when you do bet the river, which is a bad thing.
Sammy,
"How do you make money by betting the river here?"
In general, with top-pair-top-kicker on the turn, against a lone opponent who called the turn, I think it's best to close my eyes and bet the river.
People DO call when they "shouldn't" far more often than they check behind when they shouldn't.
Facing a check, they usually make the right play and check. Facing a bet, they sometimes make the wrong play and call.
Routinely betting the river has permeating effects. Players are less likely to call the turn against a river-better, and more likely to call the turn against a river-checker. And when they fold time and again after missing the river, that's lot's of hand of mine they don't get to see.
Tommy
As bob ciaffone syas, in limit holdem if you only have thehand that you have been representing then it is almost always correct to bet the river. In this case I think it is fair to say that a pair of J's with a high kicker was represented.
the reason for this is that players are correct to call with much worse hands than yours because of the size of the pot. So if they will call correctly with worse hands than yours why not bet? if you are raised you can fold,and a check call strategy will allow players to get too good a read on your play.
Pat
you played it just right .. .. all the way. and I agree with Sammy on his comment to Tommy, more chances that a bet on river will cost $ than make $. Jim
I don't know. I think what Tommy is trying to avoid is the situation of only putting money into the pot when you're going to lose it. If your strategy is check/call, and your opponent bets all hands that beat you, and checks all hands that don't, you can only lose those bets.
If your strategy is to bet/fold (to a raise), and your opponent folds all hands that would lose to you, and calls or raises all hands that beat you, you are no worse off than you would be using the check/call strategy. However, if your opponent will call with at least some hands that will lose to you, you still lose the same number of bets when he has you beat, but you make money those times he doesn't.
There is an upside to the check/call strategy if your opponent will sometimes try to bluff you off the pot, and there is a downside of the bet/fold strategy if your opponent will sometimes bluff raise you off the pot.
So, in this particular situation, without some knowledge of my opponent, I still don't know what the right play would be. Of course, knowledge of your opponent might allow you to check/fold in this situation.
Tom D
7 stud hi structure ?'s -screwy or me
Yesterday I ran across a 5-10 7 CS hi game with a structure I though was kinda screwy. This game featured a .50 ante and a $5.00 small bet . This would define this game as one with a fairly tight structure. But what was unusual (IMHO) was that it had a $2.00 bring in instead of the usual $1.00.
I thought to myself this game wont last primarily because of 3 reasons.
1. It would be hard on the bring in and he bring in is too high .(twice that of completing games in the area (LV) which have a $1.00 bring in.)
2. It would be hard to protect your hand with a raise to complete to the small bet of $5.00. And if you did you would be giving all kinds of hands fair odds to go after you with. ( 11:5 as opposed to 2:1) And if anyone called the bring in prior to your raise players behind you would be getting even more.
3. It would be hard to steal given knowledgeable players.
-Am I correct about these assumptions? -What is the best way to protect big pairs on 3rd St. (early/late) with this structure? -What changes should be made in my calling/raising requirements on 3rd St. and beyond ? -When playing this structure (assuming a 5% to $4.00 rake) what opponents possessing -What type of characteristics should one align him/herself against?
Please comment about the above and add any pertinent information you feel is valid to this topic.
specific answers appreciated
timmer Xposted: planetpoker/forum RGP twoplustwo
If you have ever played 6-12 stud you know that the bring-in in that game is $2; the 1st raise is $4 - a completion of the full $6 bet.
This is awfully close to the game you just described -a game I play in on a regular basis in Atlantic City.
I don't think the necessary changes in strategy are as important as knowing the following.
THE POTS ARE GOING TO BE ENORMOUS ! ! !
There are several reasons for this.
1. Because of this structure the rocks tend not to be seen at these tables very often; they get diareah if they ever have to bring it in more than two hands in a row.
2. The large bring-in causes the pot to grow at a very rapid pace. If just three players call the $2 you are looking at a pot that already has $12 in it; if they DON'T play loose from that point on you're even better off - but trust me, they do. The tendency is to call the $2 with just about:
any pair, 3-flush, 3-straight, or 2 burried overcards to the board. (BTW, to them, 8/9/JACK is a 3-straight)
And because the bring-in is 40% of a full bet it is almost unheard of for anyone to call the $2 then fold for ONE raise (the completion raise).
3. Because of #2, if they call on 3rd they will call on 4th the overwhelming majority of the time. The fact is that while their 3rd street calls are often too loose they have now created a situation where they're actually playing close to correct in calling on 4th.
- I'm assuming the 4th street bet is $5, in other words there is nobody showing a pair.
About the only advice I can give in 25 words or less is to abandon ALL forms of slowplaying other than small trips (usually wait till 5th when the bet doubles but even this rule has alot of exceptions) AND -
Be especially aware of your need to manipulate the size of the pot. This may sound like a contradiction to #2 but it refers mainly to not building a HUGE pot on 3rd street with (for example) a pair of Kings unless your hand is EXCEPTIONALLY live - and even if it is if there are more than two players contesting you beware of making the pot so big they are correct in chasing you with a small gutshot. After all, your most likely improvement will be to 2 pair - a hand that does not beat a straight.
I don't know if we're permitted to "hawk our wares" on this forum, but this particular game is one I have crushed since the day they cut the ribbon on the poker room at the Taj Mahal. The only reason I don't play it more is the concentration factor needed to play good stud is something I can only maintain for 2-3 hours.
Sadly, after that I begin to lose focus, and/or develop a vicious headache.
If you are interested in contacting me you can do so at the address listed on this post.
If you choose to go it on your own I would say your results should be a bit better than in Vegas (with the $1 bring-in) - - - and no, your swings will not be that much higher. (However, they WILL be higher.)
P.S. Don't be too concerned about the rake -
1. the dealers (at least most of them) are very sloppy in raking this game - sloppy in YOUR favor - as long as you are tipping at least something. $1 is standard for a real pot; 50 cents on a small pot is fine and it is not expected you tip on the RARE pot under $20.
2. many of the pots you win will be in excess of $100 making the $4 rake a little less painful in terms of percentage (and as I said above, if you are tipping it is common to see $100 pots raked for as little as $2.)
Best wishes,
J D
While playing last night at a home a game the subject came up about 4th of July weekend and the crazy games that seem to follow on the gulf coast. Usually middle limit 10-20 to 20-40 hold'em. A friend was telling us about his trip and the games. They stayed for 4 nights and stayed the games where GREAT. I asked the obvious question how much did you win. They said they LOST $7,000!!! The debate opened up over the games and there beatablilty if they lost $7,000. Both are good players who consistantly book winners in hold'em. This is my opinion....
I would rather play in a game with avgerage or slightly smaller pots compared to the limit then HUGE pots that EVERYONE is calling for.
The games (15-30 hold'em) the avg pot was $450-$500 with 6-8 pre-flop callers. Raises sometimes narrowed the field but not much. During the late night hours 12am-7am straddles where placed by 2-3 players per round. These pots where HUGE but the worst hands seemd to be winning.
IMO crazy hold'em games like this are horrible. You can NEVER bluff at a pot or value-bet. Position refers to how you sit in your chair and not your relationship to the button. Preflop raises seem to mean nothing as no one folds, especially those who straddle. I understand that those big swings and chances to win big pots keep poor players coming back but when is a game too crazy? When does the game change from "playing " to "praying"?
Thanks for your input. º¿º
would you prefer to play with a bunch of rocks that maby, just maby you could take 100$ out of the game when you leave???
Can anyone calculate what the odds of any player having aces in a 9 handed Omaha game are? Thanks.
Well I'll try.
First off I am not certain what you are asking: the odds of one specific player having aces, or of *someone* at the table having aces.
For the first question: There are 12 ways two get two out of the four aces in the deck. But there are also 12 ways of picking two cards out of the four in your hand. That means that there are 12*12*50*49 four-card hands containing at least two aces. There are 52!/48! = 52*51*50*49 four-card hands, so the odds of getting dealt aces are 44/(52*51) ~= 0.017 (1.7%) Notice that your chances of getting aces are independent of the number of players at the table.
The odds of at least one person at the table having aces are simply 9 times this number, or about 15%.
Jere - Let’s say you hold K-K-Q-Q-rainbow at a table with eight opponents. The pre-flop odds of any one of your eight opponents having a pair of aces, I think, are approximately 3.3 to 1 against.
Let's say no cards have been dealt yet. The pre-deal odds of any of the nine players at the table, including you, being dealt a pair of aces, I think, are approximately 3.5 to 1 against.
Buzz
Here we go:
There are 6 ways of choosing 2 aces for your hand (AcAs, AcAh, AcAd, AsAh, AsAd, AhAd). There are this many ways of choosing two other cards from the 48 remaining:
C(48, 2) = 48!/46!2! = 1128.
***Note: C(48, 2) reads "48 choose 2."
So, there are 6 * 1128 = 6768 ways of picking a 4-card Omaha hand where exactly two of the cards are aces.
The number of possible Omaha hands (choosing 4 random cards from a 52-card deck) is:
C(52, 4) = 52!/48!4! = 270,725.
So, the probability of a player getting dealt a pair of aces in Omaha is 6768/270725 = 0.025, which translates to odds of 39:1.
--Chris
I agree with Chris 6768/270725 = 2.5% = the chance that a particular player will be dealt two aces. Also, the chance that a player has three aces = 192/270725. And 4 aces = 1/270725.
At an n person table, the chances that 1 or more people have aces are
(6961 * n - 36 * n*(n-1) / 2 ) / 270725.
n=1 0.0257124
n=2 0.0512919
n=3 0.0767384
n=4 0.102052
n=5 0.127232
n=6 0.15228
n=7 0.177195
n=8 0.201976
Cheers, Hein
Hein -
I used
[a^b-(a-1)^b]/a^b
where a is the inverse of the individual probability and b is the number of players. I'm sure someone else thought of the formula before me, but I did come up with it on my own. (It popped into my head a couple years ago when I was thinking about something else). A reliable mathematician indicated (in a post) my formula was only an approximate method.
Since the results of my formula tend to run about 10% low for 8 or 9 players, I raised the result for this particular problem by about 10% to get closer to the truth.
My estimated probability for 9 people was/is 0.2038(1.1) = about 0.22, which converts to odds of about 3.5 to 1, as I posted above.
When I did the problem for 8 opponents at a 9 player table, I assumed Jere would already be looking at a aceless hand and therefore I started from a slightly different place to get the 3.3 to 1 odds. (I could have made some other assumptions as well, but didn't).
Using my formula for 8 people, I get 0.1833. Raising that result about 10% I get approsimately 0.20 as the probability (making the odds 4 to 1 against). That's very close to your own posted result for 8 people.
If you don't mind telling, where did you get
(6961 * n - 36 * n*(n-1) / 2 ) / 270725?
I'm obviously not a mathematician, but I do enjoy solving poker problems involving numbers.
Cheers,
Buzz
That's what I was wondering. I had assumed the 36 would represent the number of times that two players held AA, which would be consistent with the rest of the formula, since n(n-1)/2 is just C(n, 2), or the number of ways 2 players out of n can be chosen to have AA. But how does the 36 come about?
--Chris
Hi Chris - Guess we'll have to hear from Hein to know. My guess is 36 is the number of cards dealt to all nine players. But the 6961 is still a mystery to me at this point. Also, I'm not sure why C(n, 2) is being used here. But I think Hein got the right answer, or close to it.
I thought one had to use "semi-deals" to do this problem exactly, but I'm very interested in other approaches.
Buzz
"That's what I was wondering. I had assumed the 36 would represent the number of times that two players held AA, which would be consistent with the rest of the formula, since n(n-1)/2 is just C(n, 2), or the number of ways 2 players out of n can be chosen to have AA. But how does the 36 come about?"
I presumed C(n, 2) was used here because that is the number of ways to pick 2 people out of n to have two aces. In this case, C(9, 2)= 36.
"So, the probability of a player getting dealt a pair of aces in Omaha is 6768/270725 = 0.025, which translates to odds of 39:1."
Chris - Correct.
Now get to the odds of one player out of nine holding aces. (It's not nine times 0.025).
Buzz
The probability of any one person having AA in their hand is 0.025. So, the probability of a person not having AA is 0.975.
The probability of no one at the table having AA is just (0.975)^9 = 0.796. So the probability of at least one person at the table having AA is 0.204, yielding odds of about 3.9:1.
--Chris
Hi Chris. Thanks.
"The probability of any one person having AA in their hand is 0.025. So, the probability of a person not having AA is 0.975."
That statement seems correct to me.
If you had a deck with only four cards, the four aces plus the king of hearts, and you dealt a card to each of four people at the table, the probability of any one person having the ace of spades would be 0.20 and the probability of a person not having the ace of spades would be 0.80.
"The probability of no one at the table having AA is just (0.975)^9 = 0.796."
I don't think that statement is correct.
Going back to the game with four players and only five cards, and using your same logic, I think you can see that
(0.80)^4 = 0.4096,
does not represent the probability of no one at the table holding the ace of spades.
Buzz
he used a flawed example - in his example there MUST be someone who has the Ace of spades.
Anytime you are trying to figure out the chance of something "happening at least once" the only PRACTICAL way to do the calculation is to figure out the chance that it will fail each time and multiply THAT number by itself "X" times with "X" being the # of trials.
You then subtract this number from ONE (X-1) and this will yield the chance that it WILL happen at least one time.
One of the easiset examples is the flopped flush draw in holdem.
After the flop we can account for 5 cards; 47 are left unaccounted for.
If we used the "add my chance of hitting it on the turn to my chance of hiting it on the river" approach we would arrive at the conclusion that there is a 38.3% chance of success - - -
9/47 = 19.15% (19.15% x 2 = 38.3) THIS IS WRONG !
Can you see why ? ? ?
It doesn't take into account the chance of succeeding TWICE, and we are only interested in the chance of hitting "at least once". (If we adhered to this line of reasoning and we were allowed FIVE more cards as opposed to two, we would have almost a 100% chance of success; clearly you can see how this CAN'T be right.)
The correct way is to calculate the chance of MISSING twice and then subtracting this number from "1" (with the # "1" representing all the possible outcomes.)
Let's try.
We have a 38/47 chance of missing on the turn and a 37/46 chance of missing on the river - IF WE MISS ON THE TURN.
38/47 x 37/46 = 65.03%
1 - .6503 = .3497 (34.97%)
One more example ?
If I have 5 children what is the chance that "at least" one will be a girl ?
The chance that ALL FIVE will NOT be girls is:
.5 x .5 x .5 x .5 x .5 = .03125 (3.125%)
The chance that at least one will be a girl is:
1 - .03125 = .96875 (96.875%)
There is one very big difference here (although it has no effect on the concept we are discussing).
These are "independent trials"; if my 1st child is a boy it has no effect on the gender of my next child.
In the flush draw example, missing on the turn makes it "easier" to hit on the river; the deck is short one card that represents a failure.
OK, OK - Who is having a bad day and would like to confuse this entire issue by pointing out that anytime a child is born there is approximately a 51% chance of it being a male ? ? ? (Nature's way of keeping things as equal as possible since males do not live as long - on average - as females ? ? ?
I guarantee that if I had not included the disclaimer, ROUNDER would have been the first ! ! ! >>>)))
I hope that helped.
J D
it isn't very difficult because the # of turn/river combinations is 1,081 - - - a managable number.
I can hit my flush draw twice; this will happen 36 times out of 1,081 ( [9 x 8] / 2! )
I can miss it twice.; this will happen 703 times out of 1,081 ( [38 x 37] / 2! )
I can get EXACTLY one of my flush cards; this will happen 342 times out of 1,081 ( 9 x 38 )
36 + 703 + 342 = 1,081
NOW I NEED A NAP.
- J D -
JD - Fine.
But this thread is about a much more complicated situation.
There are nine four-card hands. What is the probability any one of them has a pair of aces?
Looks to me like maybe Hein has found a way to solve the problem without resorting to "semi-deals" and also without resorting to an approximation technique.
I don't think Chris's final approach was correct, thus my five-card four-person example to show where, IMHO, he went wrong.
I'm interested in knowing more about Hein's formula. How about you?
Buzz
"he used a flawed example - in his example there MUST be someone who has the Ace of spades."
JD - Who used a flawed example? Do you mean me (Buzz)? There are five cards but only four players in my example. There doesn’t have to be someone who has the ace of spades.
But thanks for your response.
Buzz
there were 4 cards and 4 players.
In the words of the greatest philosopher of our time,
DOH ! (LOL)
Best wishes,
- J D -
That's because I made probably the oldest mistake in the book...I assumed that the events were independent, when they obviously are not.
To illustrate with a simpler version of your example:
If I take three cards (one As and two other cards), and two people, the probability of either one getting the As is 1/3. Now, if the two events
(Person A doesn't get the As)
and
(Person B gets the As)
were independent, I could calculate the probability of Person B getting the As given that Person A didn't get it as
P(B given not A) = P(B) * P(not A) = (1/3)*(2/3)= 2/9.
However, you can see that the actual probability is 1/2, since there are only two cards remaining once A is given a card, one of which is the As.
In short, the math is quite a bit more complicated than I made it out to be, and I'm not even going to attempt it on a Friday afternoon. :-)
--Chris
...LOOK WHAT CRACK DOES TO YOU!!!
I guess figuring out complex math wasn't the only thing beyond my capabilities on a Friday afternoon. I should have my diploma revoked for writing this.
Please disregard the above post...the events AREN'T independent, but the explanation I gave is totally incorrect.
--Chris
I have played for five days straight and won all five at a 10-20 game
yesterday I don't know what happend to me but I made alot of mistakes and still somehow ended with the best results of all five days
one example
im in late middle position and everyone folds to me i hold 88 and raise guy next to me reraises, Its the first time that he reraised so that should have rang a bell but no
flop k, q, j, i check he bets and stupidly i call
turn is an 8 worst thing that would have happend he bets I check-raise and he reraises so Im sure that he has a higher set then me but i still call the turn
river is a 7 and a possible flush and we both check, he shows pocket kk
I made a few stupid mistakes like that
another stupid thing i did was misread the board and thought I made a flush on the turn and check-raised got called all the way and lost. I still can't belive I missread the board like that, I can't remember the last time that I did that. I guess the only good thing that came out of that is that everyone thought I tried to put a move on the guy so people ended up calling me down more then they usually do.
I ended up winning 600 for the night but if I played mistake free I would have ended up winning 1000 witch really bothers me.
thanx for listening...got to re-read HPFAP...always makes me feel better
sounds to me like your mistakes were more of someone who is tired or has played too long. Sometimes, if you are not used to playing everyday (you mention you played 5 days straight) you tend to get a little fuzzy in your thinking and your attention span wanes.--Big Al--
You said that without the mistakes you would have made a thousand but you also said that the mistakes may have gotten you some extra bets on hands that you hit. It is not "may", those mistakes did get you extra bets on good hands. How much you would have won is an unknown. Instead of thinking about that, enjoy the cash, recongize the mistakes as you have, and prepare for your next battle.
You've got the problem 90% licked: you know you won despite the fact that you played badly. Sometimes you'll lose despite the fact that you've played well. Realizing this is the first step towards becoming a winner. He might have had pocket Aces when you spiked your set on the turn and you would have won a big pot instead of losing. It doesn't change the rightness or wrongness of your play.
No one plays mistake free but the drive to minimize them is what separates the winners from the losers.
I read an article about retriveable hands by Brian Mulholland in Poker Player that I found to be very interesting. Then, I sat down at a 3-6 HE game last night and my first hand led to the following scenario: On the river, heads up, the button bet and I called. He threw his cards, face down, into the middle of the table and said, "You win." I then put a tip for the dealer on my cards (still not exposed) and pushed them toward the dealer. The dealer was thinking about his girlfriend or anything but the game and wanted to muck my hand and give the pot to the other player. The other player then takes his cards back from the middle and turns them over saying "Maybe I have you beat" (not the case). The dealer said that the player had the right to retrieve his hand since it had not touched the muck. The floorman was called (I wanted to know what the ruling would be) and he said that if I had thrown my hand in the muck, the pot would have been mine. Clearly, the dealer should have mucked the other players hand and given me the pot without any further options.
Any comments?
I tended to retrieve hands more liberally then most floormen on the close calls but in this case he verbally conceded the pot in turn and his hand is dead. His action caused subsequent action behind him which is why it is so unfair to give him the pot under any circumstances.
That being said, in the real world protect your hand until the other hand is mucked since it may not be made clear what was said or done to the floor at the time of the decision.
Regards,
Rick - who has never had a winning hand killed in fifteen + years of play although I was in a tug of war with a dealer with one hand :-).
Good Call Rick, I agree. Once the player has made a concession regarding the pot, he/she forfeits the right to win. A hand is also dead when it touches the muck, that is simple. Here is the grey area. If a player simply pushes/throws his hand face-down, is it a fold or not? The criteria that I use is what has happened subsequent to his action. If another player has acted, I consider the hand dead. If an opponent is lured into revealing his/her hand, I would probably consider it dead. I have to rely on the dealers opinion of how clear the folding action was. Nonetheless, it is in your best interest to simply keep your hand until awarded the pot.
Whatever other errors I have made (or may make in the future) I have NEBER had a winning hand killed.
It makes my blood boil when I see a "seasoned" player(one who is in most cases a winner - even if only due to his or her tight play, i.e. weak tight ergo a small winner in a weak game and a perpetual loser in a tough game) take advantage of an error made by a player who is OBVIOUSLY in a cardroom for the first time in his or her life.
These incidents do not occur only in $300 15-30 pots, they are commonplace in $30 3-6 pots; and they are an embarrassment to all involved.
I am often not aware of every rule in the book when I set foot in a room for the first time. (Upper mgmt. is seldom aware of every rule in the book; sometimes this is due to ignorance - other times there ISN'T a rule that covers a particular situation or occurrence. I'd love to be able to remember the name of the cardroom that had a sign on the wall that said, "When in doubt, we will do everything possible to see that the pot is awarded to the player who DESERVES it, technicalities be damned").
I know there is a need for rules, but I cringe when I see someone deprived of a pot (or even a bet) because of some antiquated and in most cases pointless one.
I was playing in a 15-30 game in the Bay Area a few years ago. There was a woman in the game whose play seemed to indicate that she had never seen a deck of cards prior to that evening, nonetheless she was ahead close to $1,000 due to an unbelievable run of luck.
In one hand she had spiked a set of Tens on the river in a pot that had been 3 bet pre-flop and the board showed "Ah", "Kh", "7s", "6s". She snared the Ten of clubs - her only out since she held the Ten of spades and the heart would have given another player a flush.
Finally the "table instigator" nailed her on a minor (albeit legitimate) infraction; it did not cost her the pot it did cost her a bet.
String raise - and it clearly WAS one but there was no way it was done with intent.
She was visibly upset; she had rivered the nut flush and was unhappy about not being able to get paid off in full for the hand.
BTW, the player who called it KNEW beyond any shadow of a doubt that he was beaten; "she" may have played badly in nearly all other respects but if she raised - she had a hand.
She leaned over and said to me, "I'm new at this and I was NOT trying to take unfair advantage and HE should know that".
Even though she said it so that only I could hear her it was clearly obvious to anyone watching that she was complaining to me about the event.
I asked her - loudly enough for anyone at the table to hear me - if she wanted to REALLY get even with the player who had called for the ruling ? She looked at me in a way that indicated she was not averse to the idea.
I looked her right in the eye and said -
"You seem like a very nice person, but you haven't a clue as to how this game is played - you have had the luckiest night I've EVER seen anyone have but if you stay you are almost certain to give it back; you'll probably even go off for a good chunk of your buy-in. If you really want to get even, LEAVE - because there are 4 people at this table who do this for a living and two others who may not do it professionally but do make a nice bit of extra money by playing. THAT is the meanest thing you could possibly do to them; they're all sitting here waiting for your luck to change so they can get at your chips, and that includes ME ! If you want to put them in their place take your winnings and leave, even if the money isn't that important to you". (It didn't appear as though it was; she seemed as if she was just killing an evening. She was in town on business - I forget what it was she said she did).
She stood up, gathered her things and said, "I am kind of tired from the flight anyway, I think I will call it a night". (Every player at the table looked at me as though if they could have gotten away with it they would have killed me on the spot.)
Before leaving she asked me if I knew of a nice hotel nearby; she was concerned about not being able to find her way back to where she was staying in the dark - I guess she hadn't planned on staying at the cardroom for as long she did.
I told her that there was a nice place about 4 miles down, and that it was in a very safe neighborhood. I was staying there myself but I wasn't planning to get a room until the morning. She thanked me, we exchanged business cards and she left.
About 30 minutes later my cell phone rang, it was her.
She asked me if I had paid for my room in advance and how long I was going to be in town. I told her that I had not and that I was planning to be in the area for 3 days.
She then told me that while driving to the hotel I had suggested she had happened to pass a Hilton - - - and that my room THERE was paid up for the length of my 3 day stay. To say the least I was a bit taken back.
She told me that I had done a very nice thing and that while she was fairly well to do, she was still much happier to have left the game a winner. (My appologies to those of you who were hoping we wound up sharing a single room; it would have made for a better story but it did not occur - much to my dismay.)
When I checked in their was an envelope waiting for me at the front desk containing a round trip ticket to Vegas, along with a note thanking me yet again for my kindness.
NO we didn't meet up there either ! (LOL)
That night I made 7 enemies and 1 friend.
- I also got to do something I seldom do - for that matter something I seldom have the urge to do - grind my heel into the forehead of someone who really had it coming.
I thought it was a cute story; I hope some of you enjoyed it.
P.S. She was doing some consulting work for one of the major airlines so the ticket to Vegas didn't cost her a dime but the room cost $130 a night - $390 - just about a third of her win at the game. (The pot where she was called on the string bet almost filled her 3rd rack.)
I know there are those who will say I should have kept my mouth shut but for some reason on that particular occasion I just couldn't.
BTW, I wasn't expecting anything in return, but since I was playing for a living at the time the Hilton was NOT a luxury I allowed myself very often. It was a nice change of pace from the "MOTEL6" which had come to be my usual haunt. (Hey, $40-$45 a night and I was trying to earn a living.)
Best wishes,
- J D
x
Rick,
I cannot recall having had a winning hand mistakenly mucked by a dealer, but I once actually had to grab a dealer's wrist as it was the only way to stop him from sweeping my cards into the muck. The cards were already well on their way and if my reflexes were any slower it would have been too late.
A fellow I have played with over the years once had a stack of chips on his cards for protection in the pot of the night in an O/8 game. On the river, he capped the betting with this stack only to find out that after announcing "kings full" he had no hand at all. Of course, he was in the 10 seat.
"Must hit the muck" is a common rule for dead hands at most casinos. If so, the player may retrieve the hand. If you had mucked yours then that's too bad for you; which is indendant of whether the dealer "should" have mucked the other player's hand; which he should have.
Don't release your cards until you HAVE the pot. Amen.
- Louie
Thanks to all for your responses.
I did not muck my hand due to prior experience with such situations. I did not trust the dealer, who in this instance had no clue what happened. Thus, if Larry's comment about relying on the dealer were the case, I might have been screwed.
When I said that I would rely on the dealers judgement, please understand that if the dealer stutters or slurs or appears biased in the situation, all bets are off and I will try to award the pot to the player with the best hand unless it appears that they were deliberately flirting with the rules.
Interesting story, A friend of mine was playing in a club game where the players dealt their own game. The game was 10-20 pot limit and my friend "Bob" was the dealer. before the flop, he put in a backraise of $150 with AA. The flop came A J 10. Pot was $360. Player A bet $300 and Bob called and raised $300. Turn was a blank. Pot is now 1860. Player A checked, Bob bet $1200 and was called. River paired the 10 giving player A Jacks full and Bob Aces full. Pot is 4260. Bob bet his last $900 and gets called. Goes to show his aces full and discovered that he had mucked his own hand while dealing. $6000 worth of tears fell that day.
Many years ago, in a draw game, I opened from the button with a pair of kings. I was called by the player UTG who took 3 cards. I was positive this player had a pair of aces, so I drew one card to my kings and bet out. My opponent called. I tapped my cards on the table twice, indicating a concession, and then turned my hand over saying something like, "You've got me, just a pair of kings." He turned over his cards which were also a pair of kings and when we studied the kickers it turned out I had him beat.
He called over the floorman and told him I had conceded. I told the floorman exactly what I did (and there was agreement by both my opponent and everyone else at the table as to what I had done) and the floorman ruled in my favor since, at this club, a verbal declaration was not binding and I still had my cards and had turned them over face up for the showdown.
There's no question the floorman ruled in my favor because (in order of importance) A) we were buddies, frequently drinking together in the bar; B) I was a regular player at the club, whereas my opponent usually played across the street; C) my opponent was obnoxious and known to be so; D) I was a nice guy; E) I regularly toked the floorman whereas my opponent did not; and F) the letter of the rules did indeed favor me.
Two weeks later I witnessed another floorman rule exactly the opposite in a similar situation in a hand in which I was not involved.
Caveat emptor.
I just observed a game that had trip aces on the board. The two people in the showdown had A7, and A5, but they split the pot. Why didn't A7 take it all since he had a better kicker?
well, if there were *trip* aces on board they split cuz there arent supposed to be 5 aces in the deck.
*but* i think i know what you mean:
there were TWO aces on board.
for example if the board was A-A-4 -- J -- K
Then they both would play
A-A- --J --K from the board and the ace in their hand to make AAAJK for each of their hands.
You play whatever 5 cards make your best hand, you dont have to play both of your hole cards.
The hand is figured by just five cards. So if players are still tied with 5 cards, it dosen't make any difference if the sixth are an ace vs. a two.
I just wanted some feedback about my play (sort of). I play in a $10-$20 Hold'em game that's a mixture of bad players and passive tight players. I'm definitely aggressive and probably a pretty average player in general.
Here's my problem. I've played 10 times now (not enough to have a proper track record, but enough to realize I've got a problem). Problem is, I can't leave the table.
Of the 10 times I've played I've had 7 winning sessions and 3 losing. Net, over the 10 times I'm up $1,850. 5 of those times I've been up over $1,000 at one point (usually after a max 5 hours of play), and only once have I actually left up over $1,000 ($1,925 that particular time). I had two bad losing sessions, or I'd be up a lot more (easy to eliminate those as I realize now there is no way I should have been playing those two days as there were major personal issues I was dealing with).
How do you guys decide when to leave? I realize now I'm giving way too much money back. It's too easy to sit there, thinking you're going to go up even more. Do I set a limit and leave whenever I hit it?
Thanks.
d.
Play happy (or don't play).
---give back too much--- ME TOO!!
luck is like the tide on the beach, it comes in, and it goes out.
set a limit, a fixed limit, on amount you will put into a game--yes we keep playing because so many times we have made that turn around--but it doesn't always work, thus we take a big hit, Don't do it.
do not set a fixed limit on the amount you will win. use a sliding limit which kicks in at x point for example, lets say you decide the max you will give back is 25%, but that 25% does not start till your win is at least 600 ( or 800). you can arrange your chips in such a manner as to know at a glance when you have come back down to stopping point. if you continue to win, then
raise the stopping point, again and again..
I love to play, and if there is anything I hate to do it's to leave early....but if money counts... Jim
If you are a winning player, this doesn't matter. Do not set a "stop-point" for yourself. Every hour you spend at the table is a positive EV situation (for a winning player, in the long run). The trick is to continue to play your normal game when you are up big...and not to think of yourself as invincible and getting involved in pots you shouldn't be in. Also, when you get tired or bored, etc., leave. Don't play at anything less than your best at any time. That's how to keep winning. You can't beat your long-term win rate by walking away from the table at a certain point (if you continue playing, that is).
C
I have solved this in a very simple manner. yes I know all about long term ev and such, but I have a bad time telling when I am too sleepy to continue playing.(i get sleepy and start making bad judgements, especally concerning how sleepy I actually am) therefore I have a simple rule. every time i get up a rack I cash it out. I dont take the money off the table, i just put it under my chips. thus if I drop so low that I need this money to play a hand i immediately cash out or if I dont feel at all sleepy at least take a long walk, to evaluate my play. basicaly what I do is set evaluate points of loosing, where i can get away from the table, clear my head, and reconsider further play. It has saved me a lot of cash so far and definately plugged the biggest leak I have discovered so far.
If (like me!) you lack the self-awareness of knowing when you are not up to the task of playing well or are otherwise in a poor situation, then you should set some arbitrary rules like the ones suggested (or adding one: play for a set number of hours).
If you find it hard getting up way ahead (though you suspect your skills are diminished), you're going to find it nearly impossible to get up way behind (particularly when you see your competition is poor), even though your skills may be diminished and the fact that you are getting killed will make you a target.
So you really need to enforce these arbitrary rules and not play games. BUT, and here's the IMPORTANT thing: the REAL problem you have is that you lack the necessary self-awareness and these arbitrary guidelines do not fix that problem in the slightest. Fixing that may be a lifetime challenge, but with experience and self-analysis you can make some improvement -- and you need to think about it.
The point that it's all about EV and getting up from a table where you are a big favourite is a mistake is a point well taken -- but it's a mistake you'll have to make until you've fixed the bigger problem.
I usually leave when I'm falling asleep at the table or when a bunch of rocks have entered the game. Another good rule is when everyone's eying your stack and they keep buying in for 1 or 2 bills, it's not a bad time to get up either. Up over 1K in a 10-20 game is a good day, and you're probably not going to win a lot more unless there's a bunch of drunks at the table. Another factor is play time. You're strongest game might be in the first 5 hours and you might start playing with less focus after that, and you start giving the money back. If that's the case then play at the max 6-7 hours if it's a good game, then go take a nap. It'll be there later.
spanQy
As long as you're a favorite to win you should, in theory, never leave the table. And if you're a dog to better players, or you're not at your best for personal reasons, you should, in theory, never play. It's all one big, long game, so whether you win $1,000 or $700 today is irrelevant, again in theory, so long as you played your best.
I say "in theory" because some of us have either limited time to play or because some of us allot certain specific hours for leisure activities, and we tend to like round numbers. There are times my wife says, OK, go play, but make sure you're home at 4:00. So I play from 12:00 to 4:00 basically regardless of how I'm doing or how good or bad the games are. Not ideal conditions, but the reality of my life. I too feel much better about a $1,000 win than a $900 win (much better than I feel about a $900 win vs. an $800 win) and feel much better when I win $1,000 in the last half hour after basically being even all night than if I was up $2,000 and "gave" $1,000 back.
If you feel badly when you either give back too much of your winnings or lose too much, institute a stop-loss system for yourself. You might decide that once you get up $600, you're not going to give back more than $200. So if you get to the point where you're winning just $400, you're out of there.
I've noticed a lot of players play better when close to even. They try to push their winnings too hard when way ahead (or play too conservatively to protect their winnings) or they try to play too many hands in a desparate effort to get even when behind. So perhaps the giving back you've noticed when way ahead, or the big losses you've incurred, are the result of this. I find it also helps to take a break by walking away from the table for 10-15 minutes when I'm way up or down to make sure I'm looking at things from the correct perspective when I return.
Sound like you're doing fine, though. $1,000 is a big win in a $10-20 game. Perhaps your style of play lends itself to big swings.
Good luck.
Boy I hate arbitrary rules.. But here is one that I force myself to live by. After 3 hours of play, I get up and go for a 10 minute walk. Clears my head, slows me down. While on my walk, I ask one question... How are the other players viewing me? Are they scared of me? Have I become a target? Do they respect me? Which ones do not respect me? I know, I said one question...
At any rate, if I feel that I am still in control of my game then I return to battle, if I am no longer comfortable in the game for a variety of reasons, I simply cash out. This applies whether I am winning or losing. Having the best of the game only applies to when you are playing your best game and whether other people are even aware of that fact. If they are not, and you are not. It's home time.
Larry
Hi, all
What specific advice would you offer for a player with minimal experience, lots of reading about the game, good basic poker skills and a need to build a bankroll from a very short initial buy-in.
I realize that playing for longterm value results in a much larger shortterm variance. What specific steps would you advise in order to minimize the variance and assist with bankroll development?
Simply playing tight enough to shit a diamond if you eat a charcoal briquette? Jump tables whenever things, "don't feel right?"
I'm playing primarily 4-8 Hold'em and currently I'm interested in limiting losses in the short term in order to build a large enough bankroll to cover the variance over the long term. Advice, suggestions, input?
Jeff
Jeff:
Well, I may not know much, but I'll tell you what worked for me. In March of 99 I convinced my very skeptical wife to let me separate $500 as a bankroll to play 5-10HE in Chicago (talk about a small bankroll!). 356 playing hours later, I've never had to add another dollar from "our" money and even after a horrible year so far, the BR still stands at about $1200.
My advice:
Play like Lee Jones, not S&M. Low variance, super tight, boring, straight-forward poker. Resist the temptation to play the marginal hands pre-flop. Remember your goal of playing - win money. Period. Best of luck, it sure is a great game.
Michael
PS- I know I'll get a bunch of cr@p for the Jones thing. So don't get me wrong, HEFAP is my poker Bible... but if it wasn't for Lee's book, I wouldn't have been around to afford it.
Be the flop... See the flop... You're not being the flop, Danny.
I agree 100%, I did basically the same thing. One thing Michael may neglected is table and seat selection. Stay away from loose and/or aggressive games, they will eat your bankroll for lunch.
If within say 40 minutes you haven't made a name for yourself at the table, find another. You won't get any respect and they will bet and raise you to death.
As for playing tight, play tighter, being the tightest player at the table doesn't make you a tight aggressive player.
Mike
Jeff,
First of all, game selection is key. You don't want to be at a wild, no-holdem foldem, raising war. Save that for when you build your bankroll. What you need to look for is a table where there's a bunch of calling stations, not much raising but 5-7 people coming in for the flop.
Secondly, play tight tight tight, especially in early position. Up front, only play AA-JJ, AKs, AQs, and AKo. Nothing else. In the middle you can add 88-1010, AJs, KQs, AQo and other hands of this caliber. In late position you can add other big suited cards like j10s, QJs, etc. Don't play hands like J10o, 89s, 56s, or other shaky holdings if you're trying to minimize your fluctuation.
Third, play solid. Since you're going to be at a table with a bunch of calling stations, bet your good hands instead of going for the check-raise. Don't semi-bluff bet or raise(betting or raising with the open-ended straight or a 4-flush). Fold if you miss the flop.
Fourth, don't bluff. Even when the pot's screaming to be bought, don't. Someone will probably call you down if they have a piece of the board, and many times with Ace-high.
Fifth, against a raise, only play those hands which I recommended for early position play. If you don't have a hand you would raise with in early position, you don't have a hand you can call with in any position(even if 5-6 players are coming in for the raise).
These should help, although there is no guarantee that the poker gods aren't going to strike you down. It happens. Is there any chance there's a lower game in town where you might be able to play? If so, this would be your best bet(look for like a 3-6 or 2-4 game). It's not going to be a fun way to play, but it should drag you a bit of checks.
Happy Hunting,
spanQy
i play super-tight in a no-foldem game, mega-rake, 6+ see most flops. pretty passive though.
i jam hard with top pair good kicker or better (all the players in my game "flunked out of kicker school"), but i rarely chase with 2nd/3rd pair. its hard to know what are really outs with 3+ players chasing gutshots, backdoor flushes, and similar middle-pair five outers to the river.
the pot gets big pre-flop so after the flop (IMHO) its all about check-raising or raising to make people fold or call 2 cold to make my hand hold up.
with such a high rake i just dont think loose play is a good idea.
my advice: play tight. quite a bit tighter than the books recommend, especially in a raked game.
Is money really that tight? You can make a great start with 100 big bets - only $800. And you could take a shot with much less. Most twoplustwo posters are hobbyists who make more at their jobs than at poker. So the obvious answer is to work overtime or get a temporary part-time job.
Maybe you want to reduce variance to prove to yourself you are a winner. A friend recorded many hours of winning $4-8 before moving up to $10-20 even though he made $200K. In this case the risk-reducing suggestions are more relevant.
This is one of the things that make this such a great place for advice. This is a great example of folks posting good advice willing to help!
I learn a lot on this forum that I might never have learned other places. Glad I am an active part of this forum; keep posting good advice, there is never too much of it.
Mike
how long did it take to win 200K at 4-8?
brad
Just this week a friend of mine with 25 years in this bussiness and one who derives basically all his income from playing now, talked about this subject.
Discipline. My biggest fault. When things arent goin well I dont leave. Mostly cause when I suffer a bunch of beats by way-bad hands, and know I should be the one collecting the chips, and remember S&M saying stay when you are a favorite. Then I stay too long. Way too long. Sure I've made numerous recoveries to the profit side. But often it just leads to bad play.
So this is what we discussed to build a BR and find out how you really stand.
Bring enough for 20 BB only to the smallest game...say 3-6. Play only 8 hours max...no more. When you win enough for 20 BB in the next higher limit, say 6-12 or 240 move up. When you accumulate 20 BB for the next limit 9-18 move up. The the same till you have the 20-40 20 Big bets. If at any time during this the 8 hours expire you leave. And at any time you don't feel comfortable in the game you leave.
If you go broke you leave. Promise self not to buy in for more cause the game is good.
Do this for ten days minimum. If you are not ahead at the end of your period figure out why. Where is the weakness in your play? etc.
What do others think of this?
I have had a major problem with that myself, now I stay for a predetermend number of hours and leave. If Im not going well I stop.
I used to think that I could play throught the bad times and come out even in the end but I would make errors in judgement that I would not normaly make.
I also set a mental stop loss
Im not saying that this is the perfect strategy but I don't belive that I have reached the level needed to handle it. I probably won't have it for at least a year. One of the reasons for it is partly because I don't have a hudge bankroll and am building one myself.
Players that have a good BR 300bb don't have to worry about going broke, I have taken alot of losses in the past because of that reason.
"What specific advice would you offer for a player with minimal experience, lots of reading about the game, good basic poker skills and a need to build a bankroll from a very short initial buy-in. "
Get a job. I'm serious.
Vince
O.K Baron I read the other responses. Mine above is the best advice anyone has given you. Here I will elaborate. Bankroll is important. Why is it important? Bankroll determines your risk of ruin at the limit you are playing. Sklansky and Malmuth have written about BR requirements for limit players at various limits. I ccould repeat them here but if you are as well read as you claim you will have this information.
You wrote:
"I'm playing primarily 4-8 Hold'em and currently I'm interested in limiting losses in the short term in order to build a large enough bankroll to cover the variance over the long term."
I said "get a job". You cannot learn to play poker correctly if your primary goal is "limitng losses". Your primary goal must be to win money. Your primary method must be the correct application of an effective strategy and tactics. Poker winning is best accomplished through situational analysis coupled with appropriate action. When you are learning you will make mistakes. Trying to limit losses will affect you in a number of ways. Least of which is frustration when you make a mistake. The greatest problem you may face will be from being successful. Yes when you are learning being successful by learning incorrectly will be your biggest obstacle to learning how to play poker correctly. One poster built his BR from $500 to $1200 after 365 hours. This person in my opinion is headed for a giant downfall. You play poker to win money sure but you must go through the ups and downs that are inevitable or you will one day find yourself in a situation that you may not understand and will destroy your game and your BR no matter how big you build it. I could go on but i'm tired and I'm fat and I need to go to the gym. But trust me I'm right do not limit your play when you are learning. Play to what you can afford but play to win. If you find yourself in a situation that calls for a certain play then make the play. If you are trying to limit your losses you may hesitate and not make the correct play. Play poker!
vince
Hi, Vince
Okay, "get a job." I understand that part. Because of circumstances that involve disabilities and the like, I've got what's likely to be the best job I'm going to get. I've managed to get the monthly expenditures down low enough that I can afford to put a certain amount into my bankroll each month. Unfortunately, that amount is such that it will likely take between 18 and 30 months to build the "Malmuth Minimum" BR for a 4-8 game.
When all is said and done, I'm just not up for waiting that long to resume casino play. FWIW, I've played two tournaments since April to the tune of $130.00(US) which netted me experience and insight into observing players. No money however. Regardless, the two $65.00(US) entry fees were worth more than their simple monetary value. On top of that, I invested $100.00(US) in May to start playing ring games. As it has worked out, other than being down to a minimum buy-in a couple of times, I've nursed that "C" note along until the current time. With ups and downs, I've about quintupled it. I realize that being up $400.00(US) after two months isn't a major achievement. I've also only logged 62 hours of table play so I'm actually in the black as far as hourly rate goes.
The problem I'm running in to is a lack of experience. If you take the approximately four hours I've spent in the two tournaments, that brings my total poker experience up to 66 hours. Other than approximately a dozen hands played one evening in the barracks, those 66 hours are the sum total of my poker experience.
I've discovered that if I suck it up and play desperately tight, but hammer the hell out of the other players when I do go in to a hand, I can generally add a bit to my stack. Of course, I still get spanked by the simpleton who hits his full-house when I've got the nut flush. He simply ignored raise after raise and caught runner-runner. That's the nature of the low limit beast. I'm not really sweating those losses.
In addition, I keep fairly complete notes so when I do screw up and blow a hand, I can reconstruct it and figure out how not to do it again. I make mistakes (I know, it's hard to imagine someone making mistakes after nearly 70 hours of play, but it's true). I understand that sometimes the best play in the world can be scrunched by the cards. I can live with that, that's just part of the game.
I understand completely that playing the pot odds hands will win money in the long run. This is just plain math. Again, I have no problem with that.
Where my concern lies is that I'm afraid I'm misunderstanding something in the literature, not seeing something when I hang out on the rail and watch other games, just plain having an ongoing brain fart or something else that's making me miss something very basic and essential.
I think my choice of phrasing was bad. "Limiting my losses", isn't exactly what I'm after. I'm going to lose. The sun rises in the east, a fire is hot, politicians lie and I'm going to lose in poker. This again is just part of the game. (FWIW, yes it pisses me off when I lose. I have yet to go on tilt but that's just because of my basic personality, I'm not an emotionally reactionary person. I may bottle it up and have a screaming fit once I've gotten home, but I really haven't tilted or steamed at the table.)
I think what I'm trying to get at is; are there basic and fundamental aspects of play that I'm missing that will give me another edge in the game? I've read Sklansky, Malmuth, Zee, Brunson, Lee and a bunch of others. Some have been outright bullshit and have been tossed the second they suggested I learn how to get with the flow of the low cards when the low cards are winning. I know not to cold call three bets with my AJo unless all three betters are absolute preflop bet-grenades and I'm very certain they'll bail on a raise on the turn. I've got a fairly good grasp of strategy. What I'm concerned I'm missing is the tactics to implement that strategy.
I don't have a lot of money to play, I can't afford to bet the +EV hands that will hit big in the long run if they're going to risk breaking me in the short term.
Again, what am I missing? Is it just experience? Is it some reference I haven't read? Do I need to pray to pokergod three times a day?
In short, I'm making progress by just playing very tight and spending the hands I don't play studying everyone around me. Is the technique for building from a short stack just what I'm doing or have I missed some critical, and probably frighteningly obvious, aspect of the game that would help me? I honestly do understand that I need the experience. This concept falls into the category of, "Duh!"
Basically I want to know if I'm missing something that is critical to my situation or if I'm actually in a position where I'm honestly making the best of a mediocre situation.
As an aside, I've been thoroughly smitten by the game. A suggestion to just stop playing for the next year and a half isn't likely to be followed.
As another aside, I'm reading the books, re-reading the books, using the Wilson software to run simulations as well as playing an average of 2500 hands a day using the "tough" lineup. I'm going to as many card rooms as I can and watching from the rail until I'm either numb or asked to leave. I'm asking the obviously good, as opposed to simply winning, players for advice and insight. I'm reading the online forums and coresponding with as many players as I can.
It's just like when I was in the Army. I want every advantage I can find to improve my tactical position. In the Army, that may have been interviewing a WW-II veteran recon trooper for his insight into a typical tactical situation. In poker, it's asking the local pro what the hell I did wrong and then trying to get an explanation of his view of what would have worked better.
I have the talent to become a good player. That's not ego, while I have many flaws, bragadocio isn't one of them. I will freely admit when I don't know something or I'm not able to do it to a level I consider acceptable. What I need is ways to maximize my education and experience so as to take the best advantage of the talent I have.
Responses are always appreciated be they positive or negative criticism. I don't even get particularly annoyed with flames. If they're well done, they go into a file because even with someone being an asshole, I can appreciate the craft and artistry that goes in to making a well written flame. If people are more comfortable replying off list, I can be reached at: x012358@icqmail.com
Many thanks to you and to everyone who follows with their responses. I honestly do appreciate it.
Jeff
"I think what I'm trying to get at is; are there basic and fundamental aspects of play that I'm missing that will give me another edge in the game?
I don't have a lot of money to play, I can't afford to bet the +EV hands that will hit big in the long run if they're going to risk breaking me in the short term."
the simple truth is that you need to be awash in money; more money in your pocket than you could lose in a day, more money in your dresser than you could lose in a week, more money in the bank than you could lose in a month ...
thats just the way it is.
brad
I see a lot of posts in all of these discussion areas about the ability to "put" people on certain hands given the bets/raises/calls that they have just completed. While I understand the concept, I am unsure how do go about honing this skill. I seem to have about a 25% success rate if I'm watching a hand and the play is post-flop (and I've only been doing it on-line so far). It is amazing to me that people can put people on certain hands before the flop even comes (maybe I've been playing too many loose to see people actually betting/raising good hands).
Are there any books that give the basics of this skill, or it really something that just has to be learned over time and experience?
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.
-David
Basically, you put someone on a range of hands and adjust accordingly depending on the play on the following streets. HPFAP has a good chapter on hand reading as applied to hold 'em.
As for putting someone on a hand before the flop, you need to know your players. Yes, I might raise every now and then with pocket 4s UTG, or with 7-6s, but you're much better off putting me on A-K or A-Q or a big pocket pair. So when the flop comes 7-6-4, it's not impossible I flopped a set or two pair, but more likely, especially if I raised pre-flop, I missed the flop completely. As Tommy Angelo has pointed out, if a player raises, it's somewhat easier to delimit his range of hands than if he limps. But of course you've got to pay twice as much for this delimiting information.
Read through Bob Morgan's posts on his 30-60 hand vs. Mason to see how his thinking put Mason on a likely hand, without eliminating in his mind the possibility of other holdings.
Some things to consider: [] The looser the opponent's standards the more difficult it is to put him on a hand since he has a wide variety of hands. Focus on the tight players. [] The more comfortable you are with what YOU are going to do the more mental energy you have left over to figure out what the opponent has. The tighter you play the quicker it is to get comfortable with your own play and the quicker you will read the opponents. [] You can start hand reading by recalling a single opponent's betting actions and determining what YOU would have if you did what he did; just don't make the major mistake of assuming that's what he has (trust me, few opponents play like you or me). [] After seeing a shown hand, reconstruct the hand and try to justify that holding. Be careful, however, to guard against the possibility that the opponent does NOT usually play that hand in that situation that way.
- Louie
this is a skill that is developped with experience. when i first began playing, i found it impossible to put people on hands usually because i was too focused on my own play and gave only a little amount of thought to what my opponents had. i don't think this is wrong b/c as a beginner i was making a lot of mistakes and i just wanted to concentrate on the "right" play. i was also a little nervous and caught up in the action of playing in a casino, etc... as time passed i became more comfortable, more things were natural and i didn't have to think of some of the very basic things i was putting so much energy into before and i was able to concentrate on my opponents more as time passed. my card reading skills have gotten much better, i still have a long way to go but remembering where i was just a couple of years ago, i realize i've made a lot of progress. i'd say just work hard at this skill, always trying to read hands even when you're not in a hand but basically experience is the key, if you continue to play and work hard on all aspects of your game your card reading skills will certainly improve.
testing
Just to let you all know I don't post much, but surely do enjoy the words you all share.
Anybody out there living in Singapore?
You're in an aggressive and *very* loose game. You feel most of your opponents are playing terribly, but within an hour you are 30 BB down because you *keep* getting busted by the guys who call 3 and 4 bets pre-flop with 5-10 suited, or 6-9 suited, and make their flushes.
Question: Does there come a point when you should *stop* raising with premium hands, because you are just helping create the big pots that give them the odds for their speculative hands/lousy stinking pieces of crud?!
If you have sufficient bankroll you should always raise and re-raise your premium hands. If you don't have sufficient bankroll you shouldn't be playing.
Yes! If you're talking about hands like AK offsuit and AQ offsuit, QQ, JJ from the blind, then yes, there are often times when you don't want build up the pot any more than it already is, especially if you're in early position.
Mason has made it clear that there are times when you don't want to give your opponents correct odds to chase you after the flop.
If you're in late position holding hands like AK suited or high pocket pairs, then raise like crazy in a wild loose game with many callers. This is were your profit is going to come from, especially the large pocket pairs. Just be prepared to endure some wild swings in your bankroll.
btw, there has been much good discussion here about the large variance inherent in on-line play and we all experience it. It has been recommended that you have 300 BB's to comfortably play at the level you have chosen.
Good luck!
You seem to contradict yourself. If you agree that there is some case for not raising and building the pot, then surely absolutely the LAST situation to do it is in late position in a family pot?? This is where you are going to get get called or 3-bet, and create exactly the sort of monster pot that gets won in these games by staights or flushes rather than premium starting hands...
yes, abit contra there. first part sounded right to me,i.e. may need to slow down to not build pot odds for their draws
But depending upon bankroll size and your degree of risk aversion, you generally want them to draw because odds favor the made hand in the long run. Jim
Risk aversion has nothing to do with it, and I think you are missing the point by your statement "the odds favor the made hand in the long run". The odds don't favor the made hand if the drawing hand is getting 9-1 odds on a hand he is 8-1 to make -- he SHOULD call in that spot, and folding would be a mistake.
If it is given that your opponents will always call on the flop with any draw, you sometimes want to refrain from raising solely to build a pot. This causes them to make more mistakes by drawing to hands that the odds aren't covering. If you had raised, the same call wouldn't be a mistake!
Dirk, at times i guess we can be both right and wrong at the same time
yes if pot odds are larger than drawing odds, it is correct to call...your example was pot=9-1, and drawing was 8-1...fair enough, but that 8-1 means 8 loss to 1 win...thus favoring the made hand (by 8-1)
as to risk aversion, this factor has little or no meaning to some players, yet is very important to others...in due time we learn to sometimes see this aversion in other players and even use it to our advantage...some players will not make what seems to be the correct play because they
just don't want to put more chips in the pot without a lock. good luck to you Jim
“You seem to contradict yourself. If you agree that there is some case for not raising and building the pot, then surely absolutely the LAST situation to do it is in late position in a family pot??”
I tried to make a distinction between late and early position, being suited and which hands increase in value in large mulit-way pots. Hands such as AA,KK,QQ,JJ,TT and AKs go up in value in late position in a large family pot and when the action gets to you, tip a toast to the table and raise again. You're only making these hands even more valuable. I was speaking in brief generalities because this subject deservers more space than I can give it.
It may not be desirable to raise with QQ or less in the blind in a family pot. Your position has you at quite a disadvantage. There was an excellent discussion about this here a couple of months ago.
AKo, and AQo go down in value in a family pot, especially in early position. If you force another pre-flop raise on your opponents, they are now often correct to try and chase you down. I apologize for my cryptic generality in this complicated concept. The latest addition of HPFAP will explain it much better.
"This is where you are going to get get called or 3-bet, and create exactly the sort of monster pot that gets won in these games by staights or flushes rather than premium starting hands... "
Yes. And don't also forget to add sets and full boats to that list.
"their speculative hands/lousy stinking pieces of crud?!"
Yes I think you should stop raising, or maybe better yet, stop playing, until you accept that all the cards come from one deck.
Tommy
you're so damn full of wisdom... this one should appear in a book if it doesn't already. and maybe ill make a t-shirt of it for when i play in cardrooms.
"all the cards come from the same deck." beautiful...
Baggins,
"you're so damn full of wisdom..."
Are you poking fun?
Apparently I am forever irked by lofty judgments made on a level field.
One of the regulars at 2+2 just emailed me to ask what's up with the new more-confrontational/less-diplomatic tone. Good read on his part. I recently quit smoking and I am quite insane and should not be allowed near a modem.
Tommy
Don't criticize another until you walk a mile in his shoes. That way, you're a mile away, and you've got his shoes. -- unknown
Tommy,
Take the smoking thing one day at a time. Its a bear but you will be much better off when its done. Your willpower is your best asset. I quit almost 2 years ago and will never go back. My body and bank account are much much better off. Keep it up!
KJS
...from the same deck.. Wisdom??? possibly, but there may be others who are not even sure he is playing with a full deck.
LOL good response! In fact I have done exactly that, I am taking a break for a few days, which I never ever do. I always thought myself quite tilt-proof but clearly that is not the case.. I lost more bets in a quicker time than I ever have before and it clearly rattled me badly. Just one of those things... lost several very large pots on the river and at the moment it just feels so damn "unfair" that playing, raising, calling, whatever, is not a good idea!
Black Ace
oops, forgot to say, despite the p*ssed-off tone of my original message I was asking the question seriously - IS IT RIGHT in certain game conditions to simply stop raising ?? eg a game like I was in where people were happy to call 3 and 4 bets with very weak hands like 5-10 suited and pots were big enough that the draws were always going to the river??
(really I should have simply left the table, because I just didn't know where I was in the game, I couldn't work it out at all with my limited experience)
Hi all. This ain't Tommy, but I'm sitting at his computer watching him, observing the animal in his habitat. He's indisposed, eating chocolate like a starved rat, taking his smoking cessation one lingering second at a time. It is most definitely not pretty.
Matt
a poker dealer button in his abode???
Dealer buttons are now everywhere, including a particularly nice one from yourself serving as a coaster for a shot glass.
I going to come out against the "damn the torpedos" advice, for one reason--table image. I try to stay attuned to what my image is because it can affect the play of hands. Sometimes my image or table presence needs rebuilding, especially when I feel like the boob of the party.
A secondary reason to back off and regroup that may result, in part, from losing my grasp of my table image, is befuddlement. I don't play well when I'm befuddled, so temporizing (if the game is good) is prudent, I think.
Tom D
If heard about the concept of not raising preflop, but i don't get it: If they don't get proper odds to chase in an unraised pot, but do get proper odds in a preflop-capped pot, then it can only be because they try to recover some but not all of the money they wrongfully put in preflop. How can that ever be bad for you?
I understand that you will win less often, but if you win, you will win a lot more, as your oponents only have proper odds because they built the pot themselves: they can only minimize their losses by chasing but never make up for not correctly folding preflop.
cu
Ignatius
If I understood the answers to my prev post, the odds are approximately 4 to 1 against any player having aces preflop in a 9 handed Omaha game. If I have an ace in my hand, such as AKQJ, what are the odds that any other player now has aces? Thanks.
Jere - I make it approximately 7 to 1 against.
Buzz
testing
Maybe this belongs in the beginner section, but if you're playing Omaha hi/lo ten handed, and a card comes on the turn that gives you a monster number of outs(say 20 or more), how can you "literally" have that many outs when there are only 6 cards remaining in the deck?
Please straighten me out here, Dan
Well there's something fishy going on there, Dan.
Kidding. :)
How about Sredni just asks you a question?
Do you know what the others players cards are?
Sredni is not being a wiseass, but if you just think about that question I am sure you will answer your own soon enough.
Sredni likes to teach people how to fish instead of feeding them one dinner.
Peace.
Because unless you have knowledge of WHICH 6 cards are still in the deck (in other words, which cards are NOT available because they were dealt to begin the hand) you MUST consider any and all cards that haven't shown up - either on board or in your hand - to be possible river cards.
There is probably someone out there who can phrase it a bit more smoothly than I did, but I assure you that is the correct answer.
Gotta run - it's my blind. (Tonight is our monthly home game... is a MAJOR source of revenue even though played for relatively small stakes.)
I hope I was able to explain it in a way you were able to interpret.
Best wishes,
- J D -
P.S. If that didn't take and nobody else responds, please feel free to contact me at the above address.
Also, you may want to consider adding your e-mail address to any future posts; there's nothing at all to be ashamed of when overlooking the obvious but given that questions of this nature tend not to recieve alot of attention, you would be doing yourself a favor if you gave us all the option of sending an answer to you privately.
Just a thought - - -
Dan, with all due respect, you are missing the concept. Outs refer to how many cards could make your hand. If you only have 1 card left in the deck you would still have 22 outs as long as you didn't know the other cards - the one card remaining could be any one of th 22 cards as far as you know.
In hold em and Omaha you usually only get to see five cards, so if all five cards were your outs then you would still have 17 outs.
The catch is that you count ALL cards that you don't know the value of. It isn't that you have 20+ outs in the deck just waiting for you. Each one of those cards could be in your opponents' hands, in which case you have no outs withing the deck. The other extreme is when the next 6 cards in the deck could all give you the nuts. It is really the average of the two extremes that you play with to calculate odds. So, to play with an example, you might say that I see 4 cards in my hands, and 3 on the flop. There are now 45 cards that I don't see that could be drawn. 22 of those help me. 23 of those cards don't. (Help=22. Not help= 23. Or 22:23 That is how you calculate odds. Be careful though when you use this to get pot odds. You are drawing to a straight. I am drawing to a flush. Two of your outs to a straight will make my flush. Now there are 2 more cards that actally don't help you. Hope that helps.
"The other extreme is when the next 6 cards in the deck could all give you the nuts. It is really the average of the two extremes that you play with to calculate odds."
Those two sentences really clear things up for me, particularly the first sentence.
Thanks you very much!
Dan, concerning your last post...to be sure to avoid confusion let me suggest that fou forget the two sentances to which you referred... and concentrate on the remainder of that message..that's where the whole story is EXCEPT for aminor point which I don't want to assume that you understand...after you compare unseen cards to number of outs to determine odds, then those odds apply to whatever # of cards that remain in the deck. lol Jim
The unknown cards in the opponent's hands are still "in the deck" as far as your chances go. The top card off the deck is just as likely to be a spade as the last card; as is the 5th card from the top after you deal some player the first 4 cards.
I've always heard that the first rule of winning poker, or anything else really, is to play against people you can beat. I'm having trouble with rule zero. That rule is; You must have people for a game before you can play. I got a pool of about 15 guys, mostly coworkers who are interested, yet won't take 5 minutes to plan to be available to play that evening. I have played in home games that break up for two reasons that I see. 1. The rules are nonexistant. and 2. The stakes aren't significant to anyone there. I have all the rules printed up so that a begginer can read and understand them and I've checked that the stakes are interesting and comfortable to each player. No one really shows up. Aside from jokes of me not being popular, does anyone have a suggestion on how to draw the masses? The setting is a mostly friendly game and the stakes aren't serious. There are also about 6 guys in the larger pool who are begginers and might know the hand rankings for high. Thanks in advance!
,.,.,.,
Here's what I do for our $2/$4 weekly home game. (The game is dealers choice but the only choices are Hold'em, Seven Stud, Pineapple, or Omaha - and the 'dealer' can call the game high only or hi-lo eight or better.)I take a dollar out of each pot for a bad beat jackpot and I make the bad beat pretty hard to hit, four of a kind has to get beat to take down the jackpot. If the game is Omaha, four Jacks, Queens, Kings or Aces has to lose to win the jackpot.
Also, I keep track of everyones hours in the game and when the jackpot reaches $5,000 we take half the money and have a freeroll tounament. The ten players with the most hours in the game get a seat in the tournament. The top three finishers get $1,500, $750, and $250. For guys that only play $2/$4, hundred buy-in, this can be pretty cool stuff! (I should probably explain that I live on Kodiak Island, which is cut off from the rest of the world. I had to teach most of my players Hold'em and Omaha.)
The reason I do all this is IT TIES PLAYERS TO THE GAME. Some guys see their dollars going into the jackpot and they don't want some other sucker getting 'their' money. Some guys like the chance to win a big chunk of money on any given hand. Me... I just want players to show up every week!
I keep track of the jackpot and the players hours using a spreadsheet and have a new printout every week. Also, players showing up on time get an extra hour added to their total. Encourages them to get there on time.
Ken Gordon Kodiak, Alaska
You're a genius. Well done. Home games are very tough to keep going, whether you're the host or serious player. Often, they evaporate after a few games. It appears you have things well in hand. I love the bonus hour for being on time. I hope you get something for the time and effort.
Tom D
Could you explain what's meant by this? Free chips for the invitees? Thanks!
Yes, that is exactly what it means. Quite often a poker room/site will offer free roll tournaments as a means of promotion or reward for certain criteria. Usually a free roll involves a limited number of chips with accelerated blind increases often turning them into a crap shoot. Nonetheless, they can be fun and very educational.
Cheers.
Thanks! Much appreciated!
Some forum participants have little use for mathematics when it comes to poker. That's okay. Everyone plays the game for their own reasons and brings to the table their own strengths and weaknesses.
Making an informed decision to ignore some mathematical concepts is one thing. Rejecting those concepts because one misunderstands them is a different matter.
In hopes of clarifying the concept of expected value (EV), I offered a definition last week and showed how one might go about computing or estimating it.[1]
David noted that the example I used was very restricted because one player had seen her opponent's hole cards. His observation was valid, but I deliberately presented an extremely simple scenario to make the mathematics easier to understand.
With this post, I intend to show how you can estimate the EV for your various betting options when you can put your opponent only on a range of possible hands.
-----------------------
I trust my explanation will put David's concerns to rest. I hope it also clears up what I consider to be some misunderstandings about EV that have been presented on this forum.
Some people make a distinction between easy math and difficult math. That's a legitimate distinction. It's relatively easy to compute drawing odds for a given number of outs with one or two cards to come. It's also fairly easy to memorize a table of those odds so you can apply them in the heat of battle.
When your opponent's food order arrives and you conclude he is going to play tighter, it might be harder to estimate the effect this information has on your betting decisions.
While the math probably is easier in the first scenarios than in the second, I think you misunderstand mathematics if you conclude "one is absolutely calculatable and the other isn't." Furthermore, if your goal is to make as much money as possible in the long term, I believe you misunderstand EV if you think other factors can be "sufficiently important to justify making a play that is known to be 'mathematically wrong.'"[2]
-----------------------
To help make my points, I have prepared a short quiz. If you are less mathematically inclined, feel free to just glance at the first three questions. You can understand the gist of this quiz by answering only the final three questions. If you do want to take a stab at the first three questions, you might benefit from reading my thread from last week.
NOTE: With permission, I base much of this quiz on essays written by a friend (who desires anonymity).
Playing in a $20-$40 hold'em game, Abe and Bev find themselves heads-up at the turn with the board showing Th9s3h/4c. Abe bets his final $40 and builds the pot to $190. Bev holds Ah6h. Assume she wants to maximize her EV.
1. If Bev puts Abe equally on any set and any T-9 (a total of 21 equally likely hands), then should she call or fold?
2. If Bev puts Abe equally on any set, any T-9, and any A-T (a total of 30 equally likely hands), then should she call or fold?
3. If Bev puts Abe equally on any set, any T-9, any A-T, and any 8-7 hand containing exactly one heart (a total of 36 equally likely hands), then should she call or fold?
4. In this situation, Bev normally would put Abe on any set, any T-9, and any A-T. Bev's calling EV would be $X. If Abe's food order arrives, however, Bev would expect Abe to tighten his play slightly and only bet out with any set and any T-9. Bev's calling EV would be $X - $2.47. What number would you assign to the effect of Abe's food-arrival tightened play?
5. Again, in this situation, Bev normally would put Abe on any set, any T-9, and any A-T. Bev's calling EV would be $X. If Abe's girlfriend arrives to watch Abe play, however, Bev would expect Abe to semi-bluff occasionally and bet out with any set, any T-9, any A-T, and any 8-7 hand containing exactly one heart. Bev's calling EV would be $X + $21.86. What number would you assign to the effect of Abe's girlfriend-arrival increased propensity to semi-bluff?
6. True of false. It is intellectually dishonest and misleading to use the word "math" to describe the process of determining the effect that food-arrival tightened play has on EV.
-----------------------
Some forum participants might contend the "detailed understanding and usage of EV mathematical models that include [the effects of food-arrival tightened play] is orders of magnitude less important than a like understanding of plain old [drawing-odds] math."
I think this attitude reflects a decision that only easy mathematical solutions are useful.
It is okay to say, "I don't want to do difficult math, so difficult math has little conscious affect on my poker decisions." I disagree, however, with the view that knowledge gained from difficult math is less important than knowledge gained from easy math.
-----------------------
ANSWERS
1. You could enumerate the possible calling outcomes, their profits, and their likelihood of occurring, then add all the weighted profits. This is explained in my thread of last week (especially in my post entitled "Unknown opponent cards: Answer").
For example:
* Abe holds TsTd, and Bev wins ($190 * 1/21 * 7/44).
* Abe holds TsTd, and Bev loses (-$40 * 1/21 * 37/44).
. . .
* Abe holds 4h4d, and Bev wins ($190 * 1/21 * 7/44).
* Abe holds 4h4d, and Bev loses (-$40 * 1/21 * 37/44).
. . .
* Abe holds Tc9c, and Bev wins ($190 * 1/21 * 8/44).
* Abe holds Tc9c, and Bev loses (-$40 * 1/21 * 36/44 ).
EV(call) = ($190 * 1/21 * 7/44) + (-$40 * 1/21 * 37/44) + . . . + ($190 * 1/21 * 7/44) + (-$40 * 1/21 * 37/44) + . . . + ($190 * 1/21 * 8/44) + (-$40 * 1/21 * 36/44) ~= -$1.17
Since Bev's calling EV (-$1.17) is less than her folding EV ($0.00), she should fold.
If you want to apply this kind of math in the heat of battle, however, you probably should find short cuts for computing or estimating these EV numbers. In this scenario, all Abe's sets have an equal number of outs (37), and all his T-9's also have an equal number of outs (36). This allows you to simplify the EV equation.
EV(call) = ($190 * 12/21 * 7/44) + (-$40 * 12/21 * 37/44) + ($190 * 9/21 * 8/44) + (-$40 * 9/21 * 36/44)
If you remember some high school mathematics, you can simplify this equation even more.
EV(call) = ( $190 * x ) + ( ( -$40 ) * ( 1 - x ) )
where x = ( ( 12 * 7 ) + ( 9 * 8 ) ) / ( 21 * 44 )
or
EV(call) = ( $230 * x ) - $40
where x = ( ( 1 * 7 ) + ( 3 * 2 ) ) / ( 7 * 11 ) = 13/77
or
EV(call) = ( $230 * 13/77 ) - $40 ~= -$1.17
------
2. Using the short-cut version:
EV(call) = ($190 * 12/30 * 7/44) + (-$40 * 12/30 * 37/44) + ($190 * 9/30 * 8/44) + (-$40 * 9/30 * 36/44) + ($190 * 9/30 * 9/44) + ($-40 * 9/30 * 35/44)
or
EV(call) = ( $190 * x ) + ( ( -$40 ) * ( 1 - x ) )
where x = ( ( 12 * 7 ) + ( 9 * 8 ) + ( 9 * 9 ) ) / ( 30 * 44 )
or
EV(call) = ( $230 * x ) - $40
where x = ( 28 + 24 + 27 ) / 440 = 79/440
or
EV(call) = ( $230 * 79/440 ) - $40 ~= $1.30
Since Bev's calling EV ($1.30) exceeds her folding EV ($0.00), she should call.
------
3. Again, the short-cut version:
EV(call) = ($190 * 12/36 * 7/44) + (-$40 * 12/36 * 37/44) + ($190 * 9/36 * 8/44) + (-$40 * 9/36 * 36/44) + ($190 * 9/36 * 9/44) + ($-40 * 9/36 * 35/44) + ($190 * 6/36 * 33/44) + (-$40 * 6/36 * 11/44)
Do the math, and you get EV(call) ~= $23.16, so Bev should call.
As you practice computing or estimating these EV numbers, it should get faster and easier to do. For many serious poker players, it even becomes feasible to apply this math while at the table.
------
4. I would say Abe's food-arrival tightened play decreased Bev's calling EV by $2.47.
------
5. I would say Abe's girlfriend-arrival increased propensity to semi-bluff added $21.86 to Bev's calling EV.
------
6. I believe such an assertion is false.
-----------------------
[1] Mark Glover's 10 July 2001 thread entitled "A definition of EV (expected value)."
[2] I understand different people have different goals at the poker table. Some are more risk averse than others. Some are less concerned about profit and prefer to get involved in many hands. There are plenty of other reasons that also sometimes justify making "mathematically wrong" plays. If you want to make the decision that maximizes your long-term profit, however, then you need to make the mathematically correct decision.
> * Abe holds TsTd, and Bev wins ($190 * 1/21 * 7/44).
shouldn't that be 9/44? (9 flush cards out)
> * Abe holds 4h4d, and Bev wins ($190 * 1/21 * 7/44).
shouldn't that be 8/44? (8 flush cards out)
> * Abe holds Tc9c, and Bev wins ($190 * 1/21 * 8/44).
shouldn't that be 9/44? (9 flush cards out)
etc?
Bobby,
At the turn, the board shows Th9s3h/4c. Bev has Ah6h.
Upon first glance, it might appear that any heart that arrives on the river is an "out" for Bev. But this is not true. If Abe currently has a set or two pair, then some hearts will win the pot for Abe.
If Abe holds TsTd, for example, then Bev has only 7 outs, since the 9h and 4h give Abe a full house. Indeed, if Abe holds any set, then only 7 cards will push the pot to Bev (Kh, Qh, Jh, 8h, 7h, 5h, and 2h).
Similarly, if Abe holds Tc9c, then Bev has only 8 outs, since the 9h is no good for her. This is true for any T-9 combination Abe might hold.
testing
$6 turns to thousands of dollars!
I came across this article over the internet and I decide to give it a try. I am posting it because I thought others would like to try it too!!! The only thing I changed in the article is adding my name, deleting name one and changing numbers on the other names as instructed.
LOTS OF CASH, FAST AND COMPLETELY LEGAL, THIS REALLY WORKS!! THIS REALLY CAN MAKE YOU EASY MONEY!! IT WORKS!!! BUT YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW IT TO A LETTER FOR IT TO WORK!!!!
A little while back, I was browsing through newsgroups, and came across an article similar to this that said you could make thousands of dollars within weeks with only an initial investment of $6.00! So I thought," Yeah, right, this must be a scam", but like most of us, I was curious, so I kept reading. Anyway, it said that you send $1.00 to each of the 6 names and address stated in the article. You then place your own name and address in the bottom of the list at #6, and post the article in at least 200 newsgroups. (There are thousands).
No catch, that was it. So after thinking it over, and talking to a few people first, I thought about trying it. I figured what have I got to lose except 6 stamps and $6.00, right? Like most of us I was a little skeptical and a little worried about the legal aspects of it all. So I checked it out with the U.S. Post Office (1-800-725-2161) and they confirmed that it is indeed legal! Then I invested the measly $6.00. Well GUESS WHAT!!... within 7 days, I started getting money in the mail! I was shocked!
I figured it would end soon, but the money just kept coming in. In my first week, I made about $25.00. By the end of the second week I had made a total of over $1,000.00! In the third week I had over $10,000.00 and it's still growing. This is now my fourth week and I have made a total of just over $42,000.00 and it's still coming in rapidly.
It's certainly worth $6.00, and 6 stamps. Let me tell you how this works and most importantly, why it works....also, make sure you print a copy of this article NOW, so you can get the information off of it as you need it.
STEP 1: Get 6 separate pieces of paper and write the following on each piece of paper "PLEASE PUT ME ON YOUR MAILING LIST." Now get 6 US $1.00 bills and place ONE inside EACH of the 6 pieces of paper so the bill will not be seen through the envelope to prevent thievery. Next, place one paper in each of the 6 envelopes and seal them. You should now have 6 sealed envelopes, each with a piece of paper stating the above phrase, your name and address, and a $1.00 bill. What you are doing is creating a service by this. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY LEGAL! Mail the 6 envelopes to the following addresses:
#1) Tiffany P.O. Box 3264 Winchester, VA 22604
#2) Holly 1946 N. Heath, Meridian, ID 83642
#3) Dylan 385 Turkey Trot, Hot Springs, AR 71913
#4) Carol 1 Joseph St, Derry, NH 03038
#5) Dezandra X. Carmeleo P.O. Box 263 COMO, W.A 6952(Australia)
#6) Dave 52, Waterlow Road, Maidstone, Kent,England, ME14 2TP
STEP 2: Now take the #1 name off the list that you see above, move the other names up (6 becomes 5, 5 becomes 4, etc...) and add YOUR Name as number 6 on the list.
STEP 3: Change anything you need to, but try to keep this article as close to original as possible. Now, post your amended article to at least 200 newsgroups. (I think there are close to 24,000 groups) All you need is 200, but remember, the more you post, the more money you make!
---DIRECTIONS ---HOW TO POST TO NEWSGROUPS----
Step 1) You do not need to re-type this entire letter to do your own posting. Simply put your cursor at the beginning of this letter and drag your cursor to the bottom of this document, and select 'copy' from the edit menu. This will copy the entire letter into the computers memory.
Step 2) Open a blank "notepad" file under accessories in windows and place your cursor at the top of the blank page. From the 'edit' menu select 'paste'. This will paste a copy of the letter into notepad so that you can add your name to the list.
Step 3) Save your new notepad file as a .txt file. If you want to do your postings in different sittings, you'll always have this file to go back to.
Step 4) Use Netscape or Internet explorer and try searching for various newsgroups (on-line forums, message boards, chat sites, discussions.)
Step 5) Visit these message boards and post this article as a new message by highlighting the text of this letter and selecting paste from the edit menu. Fill in the Subject, this will be the header that everyone sees as they scroll through the list of postings in a particular group, click the post message button. You're done with your first one! Congratulations...THAT'S IT! All you have to do is jump to different newsgroupes and post away, after you get the hang of it, it will take about 30 seconds for each newsgroup!
**REMEMBER, THE MORE NEWSGROUPS YOU POST IN, THE MORE MONEY YOU WILL MAKE!! BUT YOU HAVE TO POST A MINIMUM OF 200**
That's it! You will begin reciving money from around the world within days! You may eventually want to rent a P.O.Box due to the large amount of mail you will receive. If you wish to stay anonymous, you can invent a name to use, as long as the postman will deliver it.
**JUST MAKE SURE ALL THE ADDRESSES ARE CORRECT.**
Now the WHY part: Out of 200 postings, say I receive only 5 replies (a very low example). So then I made $5.00 with my name at #6 on the letter. Now, each of the 5 persons who just sent me $1.00 make the MINIMUM 200 postings, each with my name at #5 and only 5 persons respond to each of the original 5, that is another $25.00 for me, now those 25 each make 200 MINIMUM posts with my name at #4 and only 5 replies each, I will bring in an additional $125.00! Now, those 125 persons turn around and post the MINIMUM 200 with my name at #3 and only receive 5 replies each, I will make an additional $626.00! OK, now here is the fun part, each of those 625 persons post a MINIMUM 200 letters with my name at #2 and they each only receive 5 replies, that just made me $3,125.00!!! Those 3,125 persons will all deliver this message to 200 newsgroups with my name at #1 and if still 5 persons per 200 newsgroups react I will receive $15,625,00! With a original investment of only $6.00! AMAZING!
When your name is no longer on the list, you just take the latest posting in the newsgroups, and send out another $6.00 to names on the list, putting your name at number 6 again. And start posting again.
The thing to remember is, do you realize that thousands of people all over the world are joining the internet and reading these articles everyday, JUST LIKE YOU are now!! So can you afford $6.00 and see if it really works?? I think so... People have said, "what if the plan is played out and no one sends you the money? So what! What are the chances of that happening when there are tons of new honest users and new honest people who are joining the internet and newsgroups everyday and are willing to give it a try? Estimates are at 20,000 to 50,000 new users, every day, with thousands of those joining the actual internet.
Remember, play FAIRLY and HONESTLY and this will work.
If you have a 1% advantage playing blackjack and you bet $20 to $25 dollars a hand what is your hourly standard deviation and how do you calculate it? (By the way, playing heads up with the dealer approximately how many hands per hour can you play?)
Assuming your hourly std dev for a 10-20 poker game is about ~ $200 an hour, how much more bankroll is required for blackjack vs poker? Thanks.
I belive the prober br for 25 a hand for blackjack is 25000.
don't know standard dev but I belive it depands on the game that you are playing. But its could be much more then 200 an hour thats only 8 units and thats nothing. say you have a true count of plus 3 u bet 4 units and have to split double and u loose.
visit this site, its one of the best on the net for bj and its free.
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/blackjackcardcounterscafe
I've run bad before, for long periods of time, but every time I do I go through such pain. It's been six weeks now that I've been losing. The way I get beat is particularly frustrating. I flop a flush, someone flops a bigger flush, I flop a straight someone flops a bigger straight. If I have two kings, someone has two aces. You know the drill. Over and over and over again! I'm starting to lose it. When will it ever end? What's really hard is that before this started I was running pretty good (isn't that always the case?) and then bam, the trap door opens and you fall in face first. My confidence is shot and my attitude is sinking fast. I take a week off, feel great and bingo, same ol same ol. I know it'll end, but it sure hurts while it's happening.
Understand these unlucky swings are inevitable and its how you handle THESE situations that will determine your status as a "professional" much more than your skill at getting "free cards" and the such.
Even if you don't go on tilt your demorilzed state will prevent you from making that once or twice a night great move that accounts for a large portion of your win, and will encourage others to take these shots at you.
Turn this situation into an opportunity to hone your skills. Play down, play tighter, play shorter, do homework, read books. Make the most of it -- don't let it make the least of you. That's kind of catchy, eh?
- Louie
"Turn this situation into an opportunity to hone your skills. Play down, play tighter, play shorter, do homework, read books. Make the most of it -- don't let it make the least of you. That's kind of catchy, eh?"
I think that Louie has given you very good advice, especially the play tighter part. One thing that happens when running bad is that your judgement may get off. Thus those marginal situations where you made a small amount of money in the long run can now become pretty good losers. Once you get back to doing well you can always add those hands back in.
Right up there with "Just Say No", and a whole slew of others.
:o)
Can't find better advice than this. Hang in there Bill. It will turn, eventually. Six weeks, or even three months, is not really that long. See yourself in the future looking back at how well you are handling this mere hiccup in a very professional manner today. Good luck.
We are playing in a game that is dominated by short-term luck. I know players who have had 500-1000 hour losing streaks. Losing streaks are the reason that beating a middle limit game for one big bet per hour over many thousands of hours of play is hard to attain. Losing streaks are also the reason why many good players quit playing poker regularly and find other things to do with their time.
I recommend you step down to a lower limit and stay there until you recoup most of your recent losses.
"I know players who have had 500-1000 hour losing streaks."
I disagree with this if the game is limit hold 'em. That's because in limit hold 'em the coefficient of variation (cv), that's the ration between your (true) win rate and standard deviation, for a very good player can be 15 percent or higher. When that's the case you can't have losing streaks this long. Of course, there are many marginal players who think they play well who do not.
Note: I would define a losing streak as the length of time that it takes your bankroll to go from some predetermined point to a low point. This is not what my Gambling Theory book addresses which discusses the maximum length of time to go down from some predetermined point and then to come back to reach it again (so that your net win over this period of time is zero). Notice that this second statistic will be a much larger number (more hours) than the first statistic. However, even using this second statistic 400 hours is all that is required with a cv of 15 percent, and that's the number at three standard deviations, which would be a very rare occurence. If you were interested in a 95 percent chance of assuring a win you are now talking 120 hours (with a 15 percent cv). So again you can see that 500 to 1000 hour losing streaks, not time to assure a win, are just not possible for a good player if his game is limit hold 'em. (An exception might be someone who always plays in a tough [high limit] game. Now his cv won't be so good. That won't apply to at least 99 percent of our posters including me.)
Did I read this right? A player who makes $60 an hour in a $30-60 game should have SD of $400 an hour? That is plum low!!!!
Yes, you read it right.
Ok, let's add-in and try to ballpark a somewhat intangible aspect. When running bad for a rather extended period, practically everyone starts to suffer a bit in the area of judgment. A few key situations may be misread or misplayed here and there...not that often, but these pivotal situations can be quite costly. Let's totally ignore the tilt factor since I pretty much agree with you that most really good players just don't have tilt problems.
How much would you adjust your figures to compensate for the almost inevitable decline in judgment most players experience when struggling under a really bad run?
another way to put it (i think), is how much do you make off of your marginal (decision) hands?
brad
You should make very little off them. That's why they are called marginal. But here is something that I have written about before. In poker, and especially in hold 'em, many hands are either small winners or big losers.
I short time ago there was a discussion about foregoing a higher win rate in order to have fewer fluctuations (lower standard deviation). I pointed out basically that this was probably wasn't a good idea and that if your standard deviation was increased in such a way that the ratio of your win rate to standard deviation was the same or less your bankroll requirements stay relatively constant. It seems to me that you are saying that increasing your win rate tends to decrease your standard deviation as well. To be fair the discussion revolved around playing more hands and you have maintained (making sound logical arguments) that reading hands will lower your standard deviation. Perhaps as your skill level increases you can simply play more hands profitably. There is a question here. In general do you maintain that increasing your win rate also tends to decrease your standard deviation especially for mid limit games?
Some interesting figures based on Mason's claim:
WR= Win Rate
Standard Deviation = SD
CV = 3/20 for an expert
CV = 1/20 for a journeyman pro.
Hours Played = H
Number of Hours to guarantee win is calculated by:
WR * H = 3 * SD * H ** ½
H = 9 * SD ** 2 / WR ** 2
Substituting WR for the expert:
H = 9 * SD ** 2/ ( 9/400) * SD ** 2
H = 400
Substitution WR for the journeyman pro
H = 9 * SD ** 2 / ( 1/ 400) * SD ** 2
H = 3600
Therefore the journeyman pro has to play 9 times as long to guarantee a win. That's close to an order of magnitude!
Bankroll Required.
WR - 3/2 * SD/H ** ½ = 0
A minimum is found when H = 9/4 * SD ** 2 / WR ** 2
H for the expert
H = 9/4 * SD ** 2/ ( 9/400) * SD ** 2 = (9* 400)/(4 * 9) = 100
Therefore the bankroll required by the expert is
3/20 * SD * 100 - 3 * SD * 100 ** ½ = 15 SD - 30 SD = 15 SD
H for the journeyman pro
H = 9/4 * SD ** 2/ ( 1/400) * SD ** 2 = (9* 400)/(4) = 900
Therefore the bankroll required by the journeyman is
1/20 * SD * 900 - 3 * SD * 900 ** ½ = 45 SD - 90 SD = 45 SD
Remember that the standard deviation for the expert is smaller than the standard deviation for the journeyman. So if we estimate that the journeyman has a 50 % higher standard deviation than the experts then the journeyman requires a bankroll that in 4.5 times as big as the expert.
To summarize the journeyman has to play 9 times as long to guarantee a win, makes 1/2 the win rate, and needs 4.5 times the size of the expert’s bankroll to do it. I find this to be both amazing and encouraging.
n/t
In gambling there are very few things that will increase your win rate and decrease your standard deviation. In fact, in general, I believe that those things that increase your win rate will often increase your standard deviation by a lot. For example, an expert who adds in a few more hands at the hold 'em table might see his win rate go up 10 to 20 percent but have his fluctuations at least double.
However, I do know of two things that will increase your win rate and lower your standard deviation. They are the surrender rule in blackjack and reading hands in poker.
So since we emphsize poker here, if you becaome an expert at reading hands, and choose not to add in the extra hands (and play fast) you can expect your standard deviation to be surprising low, especially if your game is hold 'em. I know this from my own experience, and have seen my sd drop from year to year as my reading skills have gotten better.
Now for a short note, and this could be a lengthy thread all in itself if someone wants to pick up on it. If you are an expert player and do choose to play fast by adding in a few hands and being a little extra aggressive on some others, I do not believe that these hands will make you any money. In fact, they might even cost you some. This has a lot to do with the community cards in the center of the table and the fact that there are usually 8 or 9 other players in the game.
So why would anyone want to do this then? The answer is that it will allow you to win more on your good hands since typical players will now tend to stay with you longer. But this comes at a tremendous price, and that price is a much larger standard deviation.
"To summarize the journeyman has to play 9 times as long to guarantee a win, makes 1/2 the win rate, and needs 4.5 times the size of the expert’s bankroll to do it. I find this to be both amazing and encouraging."
I didn't check the math but this is precisely what happens. An interesting point is that terrible players have extremely high standard deviations. We all know this is true because whenever we see someone at the poker table with a huge win such as $5000 in a $30-$60 game it is almost always the worse player at the table.
If the math were right, every rational decision maker would want to be the expert with the higher standard deviation rather than the journeyman pro. A higher win rate in the long run is a plus. This higher win rate should be accompanied by a higher standard deviation (which it is).
This is the classic risk-reward trade off (the journeyman risks less by keeping his SD low, but also wins less). This doesn't seem to correspond with the fact that the pro needs a bigger bankroll than the expert to avoid ruin (4.5 times as big per Tom's post).
This bankroll requirement for the pro seems to suggest that the risk-averse (due to limited financial resources) should desire to have the higher SD too.
Even the risk-averse (due to monthly expenses) should be willing to accept the higher SD since those can be covered with money not needed for the bankroll requirement or saved from times of exceptional performance.
Thus, if Tom's scenario is correct, I see no positives to having the lower standard deviation. Thus, I assume that something must be wrong, as there is usually a trade-off between risk and reward. I am applying my financial knowledge (my field) to this scenario. If something specific to the game of poker makes this apply, I would be greatly interested to hear about it or any other reply that explains how Tom's assertions can be consistent with rational actors. Thanks!
C
I think that you have misread what is written above. We are saying that the expert has a lower, not higher, standard deviation, than the journeyman pro.
CV = 3/20 for an expert
CV = 1/20 for a journeyman pro.
SD=sqrt(var)
SD=.387 expert =.22 journeyman pro
Thus the expert has a higher SD. Am I misinterpreting the term CV?
C
I think so. I think CV = Expectation / Standard Deviation. Therefore a journeyman making $30 an hour with a $600 an hour standard deviation has a CV of 1/20. The expert making $60 an hour with a standard deviation of $400 an hour has a CV of 60/400 or 3/20.
Thanks for the clarification. I must have been really tired yesterday afternoon...makes perfect sense now (I was both confusing your distinctions between journeyman and expert and misinterpreting variables). Thanks again!
C
Since Poker, as opposed to Blackjack, is a game where players compete among themselves, the Variance in the results of a player is a function of his Expectation, which is a function of how well he plays against the others at the table. (One could involve in the edge calculation the weak players only, with the assumption that our player minimizes butting heads with equal-or-better-'n-him players.)
It should be quite obvious that a huge edge (e.g. a world class player sitting down to play with putzes) results in very low variance. In that example, it would be highly improbable to see the "worst player getting up with a huge win".
There is a term, used in 21 and introduced by Blackjack researcher Brett Harris, that denotes the number of hands (sometimes expressed in hours of playing time, with additional assumptions, like 100 hands/hour) theoretically required to be played with a certain set of rules and strategy until the player reaches his goal to be ahead by at least one standard deviation.
It is expressed as N0 = Variance / EV^2.
The fewer playing hours you need as your N0, the better the game you're playing - which, in poker, translates to "the bigger your domination over the other players at your game".
Rules rule in 21, but, in poker, rules domination.
Good advice from both Louie and Jim. Also, I note you say you're losing with small flushes and straights, perhaps you should not be playing some of these hands. I'm not denying your run of bad luck, but sometimes, especially when we're running bad, we try to push too hard, and end up playing 8-7s more than we should.
Keep playing well and it will turn. This is something that happens not just to poker players. Both the Dodgers and Yankees had recent 9 game winning streaks and now all of a sudden they both look like they can't beat Little League teams. This too shall pass. Hang in there.
"and then bam, the trap door opens and you fall in face first."
Wow Bill. I really do feel your pain. If all else fails you could go into an equally stable career, writing.
I used to think I was tougher than the rest by sticking it through the inevitable hours days weeks months of losing. Naw, that ain't toughness. It's stubbornness.
Tommy
For a session or two, take a shot at a higher limit game. Maybe your not focusing as good as you should be. Your mind will be in the right place after you try this.
I understand your logic, Willie, but with his confidence shot, I'm not sure this makes sense. I'd rather see him take a step down and get back to a relaxed feeling in the game. If things don't go well in the bigger game, he'll have a correspondingly bigger loss, and he'll probably be facing tougher players than he's used to at his normal level.
True, true, true. But maybe he's somehow bored with the stakes he's been playing. That might cause him to play too loose. He'll be focusing on playing his best when he moves up and not his bad luck. Scared play won't make it so if moving up makes him play scared, then no.
I hope your losing streak gets worse till you get broke, quit, and stop coming here to find someone to hold your hand, shameless whiner that you are!!!!!
...for six weeks... How many sessions is that, or how often do you play? Jim
Poker Veteran,
I'm sorry your parents didn't love you as a child. I hope your post was therapeutic and helped to release some of your repressed anger. Let me know if you need me to hold your hand again.
Poker Veteran: Only a cold hearted loser would post such an ugly message. Talk about shameless!
Poker Veteran,
When was the last time you won? Your post is quite pathetic to say the least.
Mr. Veteran, I am sure that you know that this site is for helping people improve their game by learning from others. Not just how to play hands but also to learn about dealing with many levels of the game. I believe that there is a positive message in what you said though. Sometimes we all need a kick to get us in a different frame of mind. As a veteran, you have likely gone through losing streaks of this nature and dealt with it in your own way. Sharing your experiences would be extremely valuable for someone with lesser experience than yourself.
Cheers. Larry
Were I play the rake is $5 for every half an hour, I don't know if its good or bad cause I have only played in 2 cardrooms and they both have the same rake
The players there have come up with a method to save on the rake and I would like youre opinion on it.
One person puts up the money for the rake and then who ever wins the next person to win a pot over 100 pays half and next person that wins the second pot over 100 pays the other half to the person who put it up.
I belive that this system is good for the tight players at the table and it saves them money in the long run but it hurts the loose players but suprisingly some of the tight players choose not to be in the timepot wile the loose players always are in it.
They have a funny saying "as long as I win a pot I can pay time every time"
I have not kept records on his but to my best recolaction the worst that I have done with it is break even and some days I have never paid time.
I would like youre opinion on this concept.
"I belive that this system is good for the tight players at the table and it saves them money in the long run but it hurts the loose players but suprisingly some of the tight players choose not to be in the timepot wile the loose players always are in it."
There's something pure about just paying and playing and not fussing with the dodge-the-time-pot sub-game.
"I would like your opinion on this concept."
The concept is fine. When the house runs the time-pot, it's smooth. When time-pots are a player-agreement, some tricky particulars need to be worked out, and in a large player pool that's damn near impossible.
Tommy
Slick,
I like this method and join in whenever the opportunity arises.
Three good reason for me:
1) Usually much quicker for the players(table captain) to gather up the money and we can play on.
2) I usually do not play nearly as many hands as most thus, others typically pay my time.
3) When that 20-1 shot hits where I do happen to win and pay the time, I am glad. I get some +earn and the players appreciation :-).
Bob
Time pots are bad in my opinion.Just look who is quite often trying to organise them some supper tight break even player who has a lot of free time on his hands.When you start playing with better players in the upper middle limit games it becomes a game in its self ,how to play all day and night with out paying time.In the end it effects the game to much because smart players will know how to skip paying time.Such as by 1, simply staying out of the bigger pots until the time is payed (not playing draws or much of anything) because the rake is going to be huge for the winner making it not worth drawing or playing most hands,2 it effects the betting you will see the better players being careful not to go over the limit to make it a time pot (some what cheating)this effects play in a big way ,for example just to advoid paying time checking it down as soon as you get heads up (with a friend?)or close to the time pot limit so you dont have to pay time .Let the honest players at the table go over the limit on the next hand and pay the time .This when or if all the players tighten up you get a lousy game until the time gets payed, but you can sit in a time game for free if you got a few gamblers.I dont care for all the head games that come with time games.But if a table of players say they love time games and are dumb enough to gamble and it is at a bigger limit i will play because if you are a good player you cant lose,but i feel it aint right because I know first you play to skip time then you try to win a little money during your free time .It can be fun with the right table of players but I feel its a little dirty and gets a lot dirtier when the rake is quite high and you cant stop some people from soft playing each other to skip paying time such as when they are the only ones in the pot or with a gambler, checking along with the winning hand so as to not make it a time pot.
I think time pots are bad, both for the reasons you mention and also because they make the game feel "clubby," with the regulars pressuring tourists to participate in something they don't really understand. This is bad for the game.
The "save time" excuse is baloney. It takes 3 seconds to collect time. With a time pot, minutes are wasted calculating who owes what to whom.
I refuse to participate in time pots, and I find that when I refuse, two or three tourists follow suit, and the time pot doesn't happen. I am happy to report that few players even propose time pots at the Taj these days.
$10/hour is a very favorable rake ESPECIALLY for tight games that get lots of hands per hour.
Well certainly play tighter while the current pot can be raked 20%. But it also aides the tight players who don't bet their hands enough since this situation encourages betting infrequently in order to keep the pot small. If the pot is $90, betting $20 for value on the river is a losing play if it costs you $25 time-pot if you get called.
If you play reasonably aggressively don't participate.
- Louie
i understand what youre saying about the game being different for the time it takes to pay the time. 90% of the time is paid within the first five minutes fo both of them to be paid. When the game becomes fairly tight (witch is very rarly) the time pot stops. I have noticed that some players play different when the time is on but they give of alot of free info because of it. One thing that they do is never bluff.
Last night in 8 hours of play I payed nothing. One player paid 50% of the timepots and enjoyed every minute of it, and another payed 30% both played alot of hands and were very happy to win a pot and paying didn't bother them.
I have also seen some tight players loosen up just cause its a time pot and they want to build a pot, I don't know why?
Time pots are fine for those how like them but somebody is getting hosed and this is no way to treat new players.Someone ,a floor man or player should show some class an try to explain to the newer players that some of the good players will end up just about never paying time and the big gamblers will pay just about all the time then let the player decide after being informed.
I notice some people, mainly David Sklansky mentioning that high I.Q.s could make the difference for a "great" player.
I recently took 4 I.Q. tests on the web. While none of them are official, the results mesh with stuff like my ACT/SAT scores when I was in highschool, public school assessment test scores, grades, etc. from when I grew up~ so I figure it is an OK estimate.
I was just curious what is considered a "high" I.Q.? HIgh as in, it is significantly different than the average poker player. Something like 130+ I'd imagine, isn't that like the 2nd standard deviation?
Is the difference between a 100 IQ poker player and a 120 IQ poker player significant? What about 100 IQ poker player and 150 IQ? What about 85 IQ poker player and 100 IQ poker player?
Any thoughts on this?
What IQ is required to play poker at the following levels: OK? Good? Great? Expert? This probably can't be quantified, but give your "gut" feeling, or some anecdotal and/or empirical evidence.
Nate,
Great question ! I envision it this way, I think quick thinking skills added with a fairly decent IQ would make a better poker player than someone with a very high IQ and slower thinking skills. I know Sklansky talks about this in one of his books. I play a tremendous amount of blitz games in chess to stay sharp at the poker table.
My IQ is high enough to figure out that I'll never win the W.S.O.P, but it is high enough to enable me to come out a winner, more often than not, in low-limit and mid-limit games. Mark
" My IQ is high enough to figure out that I'll never win the W.S.O.P,
but it is high enough to enable me to come out a winner, more often
than not, in low-limit and mid-limit games"
I don't think it is possible to have an IQ high enough to beat mid-limit games and not be able to win the WSOP. I can think of at least two amateurs who finished 2nd in the last decade whom(at least at the time) would be dogs in a 40-80 ring game. (Of course, I can think of a couple hi-IQ tourney stars who may be as well...) :)
JG
...I.Q.U.2>
IQ is a meaningless pseudo-statistic. I recommend Stephen Jay Gould's book "The Mismeasure of Man".
IQ is a meaningless pseudo-statistic
how did i know that i would get replies like this?
thanks for the book recommendaTION though, i will check it out, this stuff interests me!
My IQ is 110 and I have been playing for a livig for long time. Sklansky's IQ is probably at least 130 and he can't even wear the same color socks. Go Figure.
How does IQ equate to color differentiation??
I read that book. Gould does an extensive historical and also mathematical investigation. I also recommend this book. But I doubt that even Gould would make such an outrageously absurd claim as `IQ is a meaningless pseudo-statistic'.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
There is no such quality as generalized intelligence. Tests that purport to measure it are meaningless. Gould does make that point in his book, several times.
In fact IQ tests are worse than useless. They are harmful. Ask any kid who gets stuck in all "special ed" classes as a result of scoring low on one.
Ok. Fine. But that's not what you originally said.
well I couldn't resist. I just had to go and take an IQ test.
here's the breakdown of categories:
Average: 85 - 115
Above average: 116 - 125
Gifted Borderline Genius: 126 - 135
Highly gifted and appearing to be a Genius to most others: 136 - 145
Genius: 146 - 165
High genius: 166 - 180
Highest genius: 181 - 200
Beyond being measurable genius: Over 200
my guess is that most of the people posting on this forum have an IQ of between 126 and 145. they have real flattering names for the categories but I think thats just to pump up your ego. For IQ to give you a significant edge I think you would have to be operating above the 166 level and be playing against players with IQ's between 116 and 125.
I agree completely, I know a few players who can not chat and play at the same time, but they are great players because they have excellent focus.
I think the IQ advantage may help you take advantage of a few situations from time to time, or if you play full time, you will make plays the rest of us haven't figured out yet.
In general, poker is methodical and boring, so I don't see a high IQ, being a big advantage over other tools you need to play well. jmo.
Mike
IQ reflects as much on the nature of the test as the tested.
If they also had tests for quickness-quotient, cleverness quotient, and calmness quotient, then perhaps some weighted combo of those, along with intelligence quotient, could produce a useful poker-quotient.
Tommy
"If they also had tests for quickness-quotient, cleverness quotient, and calmness quotient,"
er... Poker?
Maybe employers should just ditch IQ tests and insist that you quote your bankroll on the CV. And it'd be great to be sent to Vegas for an interview!
Nate,
I have only a moment but - - -
Anyone with an IQ of 85 would be considered mildly to moderately retarded. (This is not a value judgement - it's a medical definition.)
In other words, this person might well have a problem remembering the rank of poker hands. He would almost certainly have no ability of perform the logical reasoning required to play at even a competent level.
Intelligence is simply a measure of "problem solving" ability.
Even those who question the validity of these tests - such detractors usually point out cultural bias (and there is some truth to this) - cannot argue with the fact that some people are more capable than others of thinking "outside the box".
A physician can be extremely successful without having a high IQ since a great deal of what he does is based on rote memory. This isn't meant to denegrate doctors; it's simply a statement of fact. The same could be said about accountants or automobile mechanics - there are probably a few of them out there that are GENIUSES but these vocations can and are filled in large part by people of average (or slightly above avg.) IQ.
A poker player can excel at his chosen craft (this has been discussed at length) by preparing in advance for as many events as possible - in other words it's not a necessity that he be able to think things through in the heat of the battle. Even if he's incapable of this he's fortunate to be living in a time when there is a great deal of excellent written material. (Rote memory again...)
However, the player with the higher IQ can and usually will be able to play almost any "form" of poker with success right from the start; he'll be able to "solve the problem" (so to speak) whereas the player with the lower IQ may fail miserably. I know of many very good stud players who tried holdem and lost small fortunes while learning the game. They all either bought books or went back to stud; only a few adapted on their own, and ALL of the latter had high IQs - the higher the IQ the faster they adapted. (In actuality I did not test any of them but they were all extremely intelligent; a test would have been a waste of my time and theirs).
I guess what I'm trying to say is that while there may be a few savants out there mopping up at the tables, I think it's safe to assume that the majority of players who win on a regular basis are above average in IQ (or intelligence, if you prefer to draw a distinction).
There's also no doubt a point of diminishing returns; a player with a 160 IQ is not going to have a big edge over someone with a 140.
Then there is the fact that psychology plays a very big part in poker and I'm not sure how much of a cause and effect relationship there is between intelligence and the ability to get inside another player's head. I doubt having a high IQ is a hinderance in this area, I'm just not sure it helps all that much.
Well I've done it again; I've written almost a dozen paragraphs and wound up saying what could have been summed up in one sentence.
I do not know of a single successful player that is less than extremely intelligent, although I do know of several [legitimate] geniuses that either struggle to win small amounts or are actually losing players.
I guess it's a little like the old saying "all poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles."
Ask yourself the same question.
Of all the players you see that you know to be winning players, how many are dullards ?
My guess is not many.
Best wishes,
- J D -
P.S. I sent you an e-mail, did you recieve it ?
i agree. i have a cousin who is in the borderline genius category who just absolutely stinks at poker. the difference between himself and a dullard is simple: he can probably be a good, if not great, poker player if he tried. it just happens that he hasn't and he struggles with self-discipline and patience, two traits that kill him.
intelligence isn't everything, but it sure doesn't hurt.
Mojay
Some of the worst players I know are engineers and math geeks.
There is a story about a hand of 5 card draw (for the life of me I can't remember the book; I THINK it might be either the 1st or 2nd volume of POKER ESSAYS); the three main characters were Mike Caro, the "hero" and a third player who wasn't mentioned by name.
After the draw the "third player" bet out attempting to represent a made hand. (He had drawn one card.)
Mike Caro paused and called.
The "hero" was about to throw away Jacks up believing that his hand was not strong enough to overcall; if I recall the exact details Mike Caro had drawn one; the hero (who had opened with Jacks from middle position) had drawn three.
Just before he mucked his hand it occurred to him that Mike Caro (being a recognized expert at reading tells) might well be calling with a single pair knowing that the [other] one card draw had missed.
As it turned out that was exactly the case; the bettor WAS bluffing and Caro had called him with two tens.
THAT was an example of a player using raw intelligence as opposed to advanced poker theory to win a pot; it was also a play that a player with a low IQ would not have been likely to make. (Note I said not likely; a moron might have had a lucid moment and guessed right but this was clearly a play that an intelligent player had a better chance of executing).
This next hand shows where adequate preparation would almost completely negate the need for a high IQ.
The board : K/spades, Queen/spades, 4/hearts, 2/clubs
Player #1 : a big hand - either top two pair or a set
Player #2 : Ace/spades, 3/spades
The plan :
If player #2 rivers a flush (that doesn't pair the board), he should bet out.
If the river is either the 4/spades or the 2/spades, he should check (and call if player #1 bets).
If player #2 rivers a straight he should go for a check raise. He might even get more than two bets out of player #1; if #1 is over agressive (and not very observant) he might misread #2's hand and think that his is still invulnerable. Even if this does not occur the check raise is almost guaranteed to work.
It's pretty simple reasoning (even to me, LOL).
In the first scenario #2 is happy enough if he wins the hand - he surely doesn't want to check raise or lead out since he has little to gain and alot to lose.
In the second scenario #2 has the nuts but is unlikely to get more than one bet out of his opponent. In this case a check raise would be a terrible play since #1 is very unlikely to bet.
In the third scenario #2 has his opponent by the short hairs. It's virtually impossible for #1 to see the "5" as a dangerous card, ergo he's going to be happy to step right into it and bet when checked to. It's also a near certainty that he'll call the raise; there is even a small chance he'll take it to three bets but in any event most would agree that a check raise is the best play.
Complicated but all thought out in advance - almost no intelligence required... "formula poker".
Did any of that help ?
Best wishes,
- J D -
J-D wrote:
****
Complicated but all thought out in advance - almost no intelligence required... "formula poker".
****
There are many other ways to think this particular scenario out in advance (or at the table, for that matter), and some of these might lead to better ways to play this hand. In fact, I'm not even sure (that is, I have not done the math) that any set of assumptions about one's opponent 's play would necessarily lead to the strategy espoused, since parts of it seem somewhat internally inconsistent.
I won't go into these inconsistencies, but my point is that taking the time to work out a method of play ahead of time does not benefit players of lesser intelligence but rather I believe it is quite the opposite. At the table, SPEED of thought is more of a premium than quality. Away from the table intelligence is a premium, because one can use this advantage to work out solutions that lesser minds cannot. The one thing less-bright players have going for them away from the table is the chance to learn things (by rote) from the smarter players who share with them (this is actually probably what J-D meant). What can sometimes make fast-thinking dimwits decent players is when they build up a large arsenal of rote maneuvers, and possess the ability to assess the situation and access these maneuvers very quickly (again, speed is important at the table). Meanwhile a much smarter person may know how to work out the play from scratch but has insufficient time to do so at the table. One could argue that truly stupid people can't really think that fast, and I agree with this to some extent (ie. I don't think complete idiots can win at poker), but quick access of rote memorization hardly requires much IQ. How smart do you have to be to recall the name of the artist who sang "Thunder Road"?
There is one other issue that hasn't been brought up yet regarding how intelligence affects poker prowess. Very often personality can strongly affect how well someone plays poker. Generally aggression is an important quality, so dumb people who naturally play aggressively can frequently play fairly well. By this I mean they don't have to learn too many rote maneuvers before they move into the "winning player" status. Players that are naturally passive have to come considerably farther to reach this point. Players who are intelligent can conceptualize the importance of aggression and put it into action even if they are naturally passive. This, along with the ability to work out answers away from the table gives them a big edge over their peers. People in this category who also happen to be able to think with great speed are the very best of all.
Tom Weideman
"Away from the table intelligence is a premium, because one can use this advantage to work out solutions that lesser minds cannot."
This statement is only true if the problem is really, really hard and the smart guy is really smart. I don't think a 160 IQ guy has any advantage over a 140 IQ guy. The 140 person could easily overcome any disadvantage with a little extra effort away from the table. Basically I don't think there is a smooth relationship between poker potential and IQ. Either a person is hopeless or he has enough god-given (ha, I'm and atheist) smarts to apply himself successfully to poker.
"What can sometimes make fast-thinking dimwits decent players is when they build up a large arsenal of rote maneuvers, and possess the ability to assess the situation and access these maneuvers very quickly (again, speed is important at the table)."
I would like to know which rote maneuvers will make a person into a winning (I assume thats what you mean by decent) player.
How can you call some one a dimwit if they can quickly assess the situation and execute the correct "rote maneuver"?
>> "What can sometimes make fast-thinking dimwits decent players is when they build up a large arsenal of rote maneuvers, and possess the ability to assess the situation and access these maneuvers very quickly (again, speed is important at the table)."
How can you call some one a dimwit if they can quickly assess the situation and execute the correct "rote maneuver"? <<
You might want to read the last sentence of the paragraph from which you clipped the above quote:
"One could argue that truly stupid people can't really think that fast, and I agree with this to some extent (ie. I don't think complete idiots can win at poker), but quick access of rote memorization hardly requires much IQ. How smart do you have to be to recall the name of the artist who sang 'Thunder Road'?"
If you need further explanation, look up "conditioned response" somewhere. It applies to many situations, including canine salivation and specious responses to my posts.
Tom Weideman
Specious?? Aw, come on, does everyone around here have to talk like David? I'm wearing my dictionary out, hanging out here.
MS Sunshine
you probably discovered that Mr. Weideman used the word improperly.
It often happens when we attempt to be facetious.
OOPS ! Sorry (LOL)
` Best wishes,
- J D -
Great One writes, "If you need further explanation, look up "conditioned response" somewhere. It applies to many situations, including canine salivation and specious responses to my posts."
This is actually a clever attempt at creating a conditioned response. What it means is "do not challenge my posts or I will use my enormous intellect to belittle you." So next time the complete idiots, truly stupid people and even the fast-thinking dimwits will think twice before questioning the dogma.
GO: " You might want to read the last sentence of the paragraph from which you clipped the above quote: "
This means "I know very well you read it, but you are too stupid to understand it. What you fail to realize is the clear and unequivocal relationship between the fools. The lowest is the complete idiot (I don't think they can win at poker), second would be the truly stupid people who I regard as more intelligent but I am not quite as certain they cannot win, and smarter yet, not even a fraction of my own intelligence, comes the fast thinking dimwits. By learning rote plays they can become winning players (yes I know I avoided saying what rote plays they can learn to play mechanically, because of course this is too obvious to explain and surely does not mean I am full of shit). So it is no doubt you are confused because anyone who even remotely questions my post is in one of the three above categories."
That is just a rough translation. Since I am a complete idiot (many think I am a fast thinking complete idiot, which is a bit of an oxymoron. Of course, I thought fast thinking dimwit was an oxymoron, but since Great One used it, it can't be. No. Most certainly not.)
For those wondering the about the "Thunder Road" reference, it is a shot at Steve Badger. This is a way of the GO rationalizing how others (all us idiots) are more successful in poker than he is. GO figure.
Gotta go now. Have to memorize some more winning plays. We complete idiots have our worked cut out for us.
Bruce Springsteen rules!
>>For those wondering the about the "Thunder Road" reference, it is a shot at Steve Badger. This is a way of the GO rationalizing how others (all us idiots) are more successful in poker than he is. GO figure.<<
Actually, it was a way of inducing Badger to post to 2+2 under an alias, despite his claim that he would never do so again because he doesn't want to help 2+2 make money.
Mission accomplished.
Tom Weideman
"...specious responses to my posts."
Uhhh, like, whatever?
I guess I shouldn't have been so obtuse. My point was that trying to memorize rote maneuvers is a futile way to become a good poker player.
I'm also not convinced that a person who quickly arrives at correct poker decisions could be considered a dimwit. A key factor in any measure of intelligence is the ability to rapdily distinguish between germane and irrelevant information. Efficient thinking is good thinking, especially at poker.
On RGP they would point out that you misspelled Germany.
MS Sunshine
`
no, i didnt receive an email(you were talking to me?)...
also there is no address in the post, where'd you send it?
I sent it to the address you gave me several months ago.
It was: nate@thegrovers.com
I received confirmation that it had been received.
Am I using the wrong address ?
Let me know - mine IS at the top of my post(s).
johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com
Take care - - -
J D
im not *that* nate...
was the email personal, or post related?
"Anyone with an IQ of 85 would be considered mildly to moderately retarded. (This is not a value judgement - it's a medical definition.)"
Not true. There is no medical definition of IQ, because IQ has nothing to do with medicine. It is repudiated by the vast majority of psychiatrists and survives now only as a relic in public education... sadly perverted from its original creator's intentions.
The actual definition of IQ is an individual's mental age divided by their chronological age, times 100. Thus a ten-year-old who behaves like an average fifteen-year-old would be considered to have an IQ of 150. Of course, this definition has little or no meaning for persons over the age of 20. The designers of adult IQ tests have tried to sidle around this problem but have never addressed it.
"Even those who question the validity of these tests - such detractors usually point out cultural bias (and there is some truth to this) - cannot argue with the fact that some people are more capable than others of thinking "outside the box"."
Cultural bias is the least of the objections to IQ tests; you are probably thinking of the SAT. IQ tests typically have very little in the way of culture-specific material. But that doesn't matter, because they don't actually measure anything. They correlate only very weakly with any real-world measure you care to name. They're a statistical straw man -- there is no "there" there.
As far as thinking outside the box: I'm not entirely clear what you mean by that, and I doubt you are either. Certainly no test has ever been designed that would identify such an ability. Assuming that IQ tests *do* identify it is fatuous and harmful (when applied in education).
The test of poker skill is simple and obvious. How much money have you won over how many hands? (This assumes the number of hands is large enough to be statistically meaningful.)
That's all I will say about IQ since this isn't the place for it -- it is a major bugaboo of mine if you haven't guessed -- but I will recommend again Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man".
I don't wish to belabor the point so I'll only address the one issue with which I vehemently disagree.
The use of the term "medical" was incorrect; the term I should have used was CLINICAL.
Anyone with an IQ below 85 WOULD BE categorized (quite correctly, in my opinion) as MILDLY REATARDED.
If you wish to argue semantics you have chosen the wrong person.
If you wish to argue whether or not one's IQ important I can refer you to a published psychometrist; she may take exception to your belief that they correlate only weakly with any real world measure.
By the way, the term THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX refers to a persons ability to overcome a problem referred to as "functional fixedness". To one extent or another we all suffer from this shortcoming; some of us are only mildly affected but none of us are completely immune.
The only part of your post with which I took exception was your assertion that since you didn't know what the term meant I probably don't either.
Perhaps next time you encounter a term or concept with which you are unfamiliar you might wish to consider asking what it means rather than questioning whether the person espousing the idea "knows what it means".
I gave a fairly concise answer to a complex issue; you had a wonderful opportunity to show me up.
Unfortunately in baseball parlance your response was a "swing and a miss".
As a gesture of courtesy I will save you the effort of researching it and define the term for you; I refer to "functional fixedness".
The term is defined as the inability to see beyond the "normal and traditional" use of everyday objects.
More important than the definition is the problem(s) it presents its sufferers with.
For example, have you ever used a butter knife in lieu of a flathead scewdriver to loosen or tighten a small screw ?
If you have, you have overcome the tendency that is present in many people to see a butter knife as having one and only one purpose - applying butter.
Have you ever used the screwdriver - the same one you were unable to find when you needed to tighten that screw - to open a can of paint ?
Bingo, you did it again. You're two for two.
The fact that you were ignorant as to the DEFINITION of the term doesn't seem to have impeded your ability to PERFORM it. (Perhaps I should say to overcome it.)
The "I" in IQ stands for intelligence.
The accepted clinical definition of intelligence is the ability (or lack thereof) to solve problem(s).
The definition found in most dictionaries is "the ability (or capacity) to aquire and apply knowledge".
These are similar enough though there are obvious disparities.
` ` ` ` Best wishes,
- J D -
"The use of the term "medical" was incorrect; the term I should have used was CLINICAL. Anyone with an IQ below 85 WOULD BE categorized (quite correctly, in my opinion) as MILDLY REATARDED."
I wasn't arguing semantics. Few psychiatrists or clinical psychologists would administer an IQ test as part of a diagnosis. IQ has fallen into almost total disuse among psychiatrists in the last fifty years. The only people who still take it at all seriously are the military and public education (in the US -- in other countries even they probably don't).
"I gave a fairly concise answer to a complex issue; you had a wonderful opportunity to show me up. Unfortunately in baseball parlance your response was a "swing and a miss". "
Who's trying to show you up? I am simply pointing out that IQ is a concept without merit. I notice you did not address any of the flaws I pointed out regarding IQ tests. Have you read Gould's book or any other publication critical of IQ?
"If you wish to argue whether or not one's IQ important I can refer you to a published psychometrist; she may take exception to your belief that they correlate only weakly with any real world measure."
Please do. I have a BA in psychology but I confess I have hardly picked up a journal since college. I would be very interested in any citation you can give.
"The "I" in IQ stands for intelligence. The accepted clinical definition of intelligence is the ability (or lack thereof) to solve problem(s). The definition found in most dictionaries is "the ability (or capacity) to aquire and apply knowledge"."
The fact that you can define a concept doesn't mean that it exists (as a singular quantity), or that IQ tests measure it.
Any comments on that ?
In case you forgot, that would be the concept that you didn't understand - the one that I "probably didn't understand either."
I think I demonstrated my understanding of it, was I able to offer an illustration that helped you to "get it" ?
- J D -
Functional fixedness seems like an easy idea to define at first glance, but it really isn't. People certainly have varying degrees of functional fixedness vis-a-vis words, objects, behaviors, spatial configurations, etc. And what is so special about it anyway? Is it fair to equate it with "intelligence"? I would think -- just talking off the top of my head here -- that a person who is expert in the use of a particular tool (for example) would demonstrate MORE functional fixedness than a total novice, because the novice has no preconceived ideas. A South American Indian, shown a European toilet seat, might decide to wear it around his neck or use it as a backrest. Does that mean he demonstrates less functional fixedness and therefore is more intelligent than you or me?
It's not that functional fixedness is not an interesting concept. But it is certainly unfounded to try to equate it with intelligence, or to assume that a test that purports to measure it actually does so accurately. Tests have to be validated. They have to be shown to predict some independent measure. IQ tests don't.
i think toilet seat necklaces are the latest fashion in MENSA. at least that's what i heard. and you are full of it. just spewing out of your rear end for the sake of argument, which you have very little of. i don't mean to insult or attack you, but you keep jumping in and saying things that just don't make much sense. id expound on this, but its late, and there are other people waiting to use this computer.
baggins
Baggins,
The phrase "spewing it out your rear end" rarely comes from those who do not mean to insult or attack. I'm guessing you're going for humor here?
John
"The phrase "spewing it out your rear end" rarely comes from...."
I think you are right, John. It probably comes from the mentioned spewing place. In the words of a infamous bard: "To spew or not to spew, Off to an outhouse with thee".
Vince
Vince,
Shakespeare did have a character that almost literally spewed shit. In As You Like It, Jacques, known for "The Seven Ages of Man" speech, which is often cited as Shakespeare's wisdom, is named so because Elizabethan slang for "outhouse" is a "Jacques," the French form of "john," I'm sorry to say.
John
Jacques is the French form of Jack.
Jean is the French form of John.
If either of these statements is incorrect, I will be forced to strangle my wife for allowing me to embarass myself in public. It was her idea to straighten out the confusion.
However, I'll have to wait until she returns home; she is in France visiting her family. I chose not to join her since I am not good enough for her, according to her father (Jacques).
At least her brother Jean seems quite fond of me.
Born and raised in Marseille in case you were curious - Best wishes,
- J D -
** That's right, a bona fide French born and raised wife. That ought to answer the question, "why is he always smiling" ?
OK, so she's not Parisian; we all have to play the hand that's dealt us. She was EDUCATED in Paris. (LOL)
J-D,
Yes, of course. But, the Brits did call an outhouse a Jacques (or jakes). Thanks for the correction; you've saved me from looking like an idiot in the future.
John
what if we 'think outside the box' and come up with a definition for intelligence that is not generally accepted? can we define 'Intelligence' more intelligently than the people who phrased the most accepted definition? if the definition is generally accpeted, doesn't that mean that the definiton pretty much just suits the average human, and the intelligent people don't get a vote on the definition of their word? what about creativity? don't we have to factor that into the standard for a good poker player? in my opinion, creativity and intelligence, coupled with a good 'card sense' (a feel for hand value, a feel for reading other players' hands, a feel for whether you have the best hand, a feel for whether you should check-raise or bet out) will take you far in poker. any thoughts on this?
know that this issue would draw responses from almost everyone on the planet with access to a computer ?
(Well, maybe it's cause I'm so darned intelligent.)
1. Creativity is vital, but the type of creativity you [seem] to be referring to is usually found in people of higher intelligence.
Remember my prior post ?
One of (if not the most) commonly accepted definitions of intelligence is "problem solving ability" - a skill that absolutely requires creativity.
Sorry in advance if this sounds like nit-picking, but -
2. We cannot "define 'INTELLIGENCE' more intelligently than the people who phrased the most widely accepted definition".
- We can define it more ACCURATELY.
- We can define it more ARTICULATELY.
- We can even define it more INTELLIGIBLY; in fact I was of the impression that this was the goal we were aiming for.
We CAN use our intelligence to come up with a better definition for the word "INTELLIGENCE".
This should open up a new can of worms, but to the best of my knowledge (and I'm considered a bright and intelligent person-:) there is no adverbial form of this word. In other words, as far as I am aware, there is no such word as "intelligentLY".
Nonetheless, over the years it has become more and more acceptable to simply alter the form of a word in order to make its use more managable.
One could consider the "invention" of a new word to be a form of - - - CREATIVITY.
DAVID, MASON, we need a new branch of the forum; I am having just way to much fun with this.
Best wishes,
- J D -
P.S. Since you are relatively new (at least to me) I hope it goes without saying I am only trying to have a little fun here. There are only two posters whom I'd ever intentionally attempt to embarrass.
I'll leave out the name of the first since he seems to be trying to change his ways (and not s--t on everyone whose posts he replies to).
As to the 2nd, "Rounder" doesn't post here much these days anyway. -:)
"A poker player can excel at his chosen craft (this has been discussed at length) by preparing in advance for as many events as possible - in other words it's not a necessity that he be able to think things through in the heat of the battle. Even if he's incapable of this he's fortunate to be living in a time when there is a great deal of excellent written material. (Rote memory again...)"
This is as far as I got in your post. Why? Because this is preposterous. Poker cannot be played by rote. You must think at the poker table to be successful. The "great deal of excellant writing" out there is nothing more than a great deal of guidance not memorization material. Try playing poker by "rote" against competent thinking solid poker players and the one thing I will gaurantee is that you will lose by "rote". I gotta go now. Bye.
Vince
vince
A good IQ is a huge disadvantage to me sometimes, because I am sometimes unable to remotely comprehend the plays that I see the simpletons make (especially on the free online tournaments).
Buba. That really was the name he used. Buba lived on a ranch near North Zulch which isn't very far from College Station, Texas. Buba drove to Houston to play in our P/L game about every 6-8 weeks. Buba was one of those guys you just couldn't believe--never knew whose turn to act, never knew how much had been bet, etc. In short, Buba was BUBA. We have seen him make some of the worst plays you can think of.
He stopped playing with us after about a year...don't know why because he hardly ever lost. Jim
Boris -
I saw that sight where you got the chart for the IQ and took it. Was it me or was it sort of easy? If anyone else wants to take this 13 minute test and see how you do it's at:
www.iqtest.com
Jeff Gomberg
It was if you are able to do "that" type of thinking in a timely fashion.
I got a 162.
I've always done well on IQ tests, but never that well.
Maybe the questions were not the most difficult in the world but they are not intended to be; the amount of time you need to complete the test factors in heavily.
I scored 1430 when I took my SATs some 20 years ago; if I had unlimited time to complete the test I'm close to certain I'd have scored 1600.
I don't recall any questions on the test that left me staring into space muttering, "huh" ?
I do recall (because of time constraints) having to guess at 4 or 5.
- Who knows ? THOSE 4 OR 5 might not even be the ones I got wrong. (LOL)
Best wishes,
J D
it did yield a score within 5 points of two longer standard iq tests i have taken before...
An I.Q. of 100, or the 50th percentile, represents the population average. An I.Q. of 104, or the 60th percentile, represents the average high school graduate. An I.Q. of 115-116, or the 84th percentile, represents the average college graduate. An I.Q. of 125-126, or the 95 %ile, represents the average Ph.D. or M.D. An I.Q. of 132, or the 98 %ile, is required for Mensa Membership. Thus, this I.Q. represents one person out of 50 in the general population. Suprisingly, an I.Q. of 141, just 9 points higher, is much rarer. An I.Q. of 141 is the 99.5 %ile or one person out of 200. An I.Q. of 150 is the 99.9 %ile, or one person out of 1000. You are correct when stating that an I.Q. of 130 is 2 sigma or 2 std. deviations from the mean. An I.Q. of 150 is 3 sigma.
I believe that a person with an I.Q. of 100 does not stand much of a chance in the long-run playing poker heads-up against a person with an I.Q. of 130 or above if the person with the higher I.Q. works very hard on their game and spends a great deal of time thinking about the game.
I once saw that Skalansky achieved a perfect score on the math portion of the SAT. This probably makes his I.Q. at least 156, or the 99.99 %ile. How many people would like to play heads-up or short-handed for days on end with him? As a point of interest, I once saw that Stu Unger had an I.Q. of 185 (don't know if it was true) Anyhow, this would put him in the 99.999995 %ile in the general population. Suffice it to say that he was a pretty good poker player.
Sklansky got a perfect score on his SAT, but that could have been due to a lot of memorization. Don't forget his father educated him and he had been working on it since he was three. Nevermind.
I think the only reliable measure of how good a poker player you are is how fast your bankroll is increasing.
"Smarter" people may find it easier to master certain aspects of the game that lend themselves to reasoning or analysis, but that doesn't mean these people will be winning players in the long run, if they are deficient in other areas. Nor does it mean that a "less smart" person cannot master the same skills, although it might take more effort.
In order to assess whether or not I.Q. may play a role in an individuals success in poker, we have to make an unreasonable assumption that all other factors are equal. Life experiences plays an important role in how successful an individual will be in any forum because it greatly determines an individuals self image. Self image is the greatest determiner for success. One must believe in themselves prior to achieving success. I would rather play with a genius of low self image than an average ind. with high self image. Self image will play a role in how aggressive the player is, how tricky, how astute and how in tune to the game they are. These qualities are extremely important to the game of poker. Also, it is easier to determine a players self image than it is to determine IQ. How does the player dress, how do they conduct themselves, how fast do they speak, how clearly do they speak? Self image is hidden within these attributes and like I said, a high self image will determine success more than a high IQ.
I believe every lie you tell me.
That's what my mom used to tell us kids. Devastating, she was. (Another classic was, "You pick the question, I pick the answer.")
Does it really matter what we say or indicate at a poker table as to what we had when our cards are not shown? I used to lie about my cards in the way I was taught to by other players. And I'm damn good at it. But I stopped, completely, when it occured to me that's it's all wasted air. Sure, I could send false signals. But so what? If the goal is to conceal info, then how could ANY message be as concealing as no message at all?
I really do believe every lie you tell me. If I fold on the river and you tell me you had such-and-such, I believe you, in the same way I would believe you if you told me there are invisible dragons on the moon, or if you told me anything else that was irrelevant and unfalsifyable.
The truth or falsehood of your statement pales in importance compared to your compulsion to speak at all. That you speak implies that you think I care. Well, I do care. I care that you think I care. I care that you think anything you say has meaning once your cards are in the muck. So I'll watch, and listen, and make of it what I can, and I'll be one up on you because I never give back.
I believe that succumbing to the urge to defend ones betting actions by showing cards when not required is a profound weakness. Second to that is the urge to lie, or tell the truth, because, hey, does it matter? I believe you either way.
Tommy
On occassion after losing a hand to a longshot draw I used to show my cards to who I believed were my lesser skilled opponnents to show them how lucky they were and how ridiculous their play was/is. My actions were not only fruitless but they were insane. What do I want here, for them to change their play? Of course not. But I used to think I did. I used to wish these opponents would have done the right thing and mucked their J-7 suited instead of cold-calling in MP to my UTG raise with AA so they wouldn't have caught that J on the river to make 2-pair and beat my aces. What I discounted were the countless hands that these opponents chase, chase and then chase some more and then still call in the land of Oz with bottom pair.
I agree with you. Sit, listen and soak up everything you can. People have a reason for saying things but the best deception is not to say anything at all.
Gene (holdemdude)
Neither engage in the chit-chat nor consider other's chit-chat is excellent advise, unless you are confident you can out-wit the opponent with the chit-chat. When the strong willed opponent says something, ignore it. When the weak-willed says something there is a good chance you can deduce the actual truth to your advantage.
Key word is "confident".
- Louie
I can understand where your coming from but... rules are meant to be broken. I will sometimes lie about what I had if I think it will make the other person feel better. you know, reduce their paranoia factor.
When I win a pot without a showdown, I sometimes show a good hand (or much less frequently, claim to have had a good hand) to an opponent when I want to reinforce his tendency to fold when I bet. I realize there is a risk that certain opponents might see through this attempted manipulation.
I resist the temptation to show my cards after an opponent gives me a bad beat, since it is counterproductive to embarass opponents in that manner.
"If the goal is to conceal info, then how could ANY message be as concealing as no message at all?"
I think this advice is good for 90% of the players, probably more. Yet there are certain players who have such a natural skill for deception, that I believe it is advantageous for them to use it. Put another way, would you rather your opponent perceive NO message from your words/behavior, or that they perceive the WRONG message?
You are correct that most players, in trying to send the wrong message, inadvertantly send valuable information to perceptive opponents. It would suit them better to remain consistently silent, and keep everyone guessing. I hear some players say, "I only show my uncalled hands when I'm strong, to gain respect for my bluffs", while other players only like to show their bluffs, thinking it will get them paid off on future strong hands, or perhaps tilt their opponent. They don't realize that they are actually showing all their hands.
I believe that it is easier to read an opponent than it is to fool one. If I were to watch you play thousands of hands, over time I would undoubtedly pick up tells. You could minimize my reads by keeping still and silent every hand. The more you attempted to "act", the easier it would be for me to notice patterns and weaknesses. Ideally, if you gave off NO tells, the best I could do is 50/50, guessing strong or weak.
However, as I said before, there exists a small percentage of players who are so gifted, they could keep you guessing wrong more often than right. They are able to read your reads in essence, and stay one step ahead. Overall though, I agree completely with your point about keeping quiet.
I don't tell opponents what I had unless they ask, and if they ask, I never tell them the truth. Often I "can't remember", or I just tell them, "I had the winner."
When they fold after I bet and the ensuing talk or behavior compels me to indicate something, I'll occasionally say, "Good laydown."
It covers everything. If he folded the worst hand, he made a good laydown for him. If he folded the best hand, he made a good laydown for me.
Tommy
2tight wrote: "I don't tell opponents what I had unless they ask,.."
Whenever somebody asks me, I usually say something like, "What's the point?. I'm just going to lie."
What about showing your cards? In this case you can choose to give your opponents information that they know to be true. This is quite different to making an unverifiable, unfalsifiable statement. Do you (Tommy or anyone) have any comment on this?
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Anyone can tell me where I can get Caro's Poker Probe?
It is not listed on his web site. It is still sold?
Does it simulate showdown stud, HE, Omaha, highs and splits? For how many hands --- I heard 10K ?
Is it worth it?
Thanks,
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
Nicolas,
Click on the ConJelCo link on your left. It's listed in their catalog under software titles.
I find it useful for doing all-in simulations with two or three players for Hold'em. It does the Omaha, Stud, and others. You can set up the simulation to deal 1M hands for stats.
nt
For the math guys out there, what are the chances of this....
I limp UTG with AKo in a game that had been way too tight until now. Card Room Manager (CRM) raises behind me, Tight Prop Player (TPP) smooth calls(!) all fold to me, I think about mucking but call.
Flop is K-x-x I check, CRM bets, TPP calls, I check raise. (I know if I bet out I will be raised. I gain no information from this play, so I opted for the check-raise because I can then safely fold if I am 3-bet.) CRM folds, TPP calls. I bet out and am called the rest of the way. We both have AKo and chop. The CRM asks dealer to show his mucked cars, and they also were AKo!
Anyways...what are the chances of 3 players getting dealt AKo with a K hitting the flop?? I just wonder where the case A was.
Clark
i was playing horseshoe 10-20 a few months ago and there was a hand where it showed down i had AKo as did 2 other players and the one other player to make it to the showdown had the losing AQo. so we all made like $5 off him (the board was rags).
220 times 220 times 220, more or less.
I'm not a math weanie but I bet that there are 12 ways to make A,Ko so you should be able to figure this out pretty easily. If there are 12 ways to make AKo then the probability of it being dealt to just one lone player is (52*51/2)/12= 110.5 (if there are 10 players then it is 11 to 1). Ok now you have 3 A's and 3 K's left. So there are 9 combinations of A,K but two of them are suited so there are 7 A,Ko left. Now you have (50*49/2)/12 = Who cares? Figure it out from here yourself. Remember that when you get to the part where there is one King left in the deck you must subtract the number of cards you have removed from the deck and multiply by the remaining number of cards to determine the odds of this occurring.
vince
Is fastplay the opposite of slowplay ?.... Lets suppose a situation , your in a low limit game of HE (5-10 or 10-20 ) and an average player ( not too much loose , not too much tight , not too much passive and not much aggressive ) but he has few tricks but sometime fall in love with a big pair...The kind of player who will usually lose a BB/hour . oK , so that player raise in a early position and you call with black nines in the pocket , they all fold except the BB , Flop come Kd9d3c ,preflop raiser (PFR)bets , you raise , BB fold and PFR call . So what he could have ? AQ , TT , JJ or QQ , seem to be possible , because he would have re-raise AA , AK and KK . The turn is a 5c and he bets into you , at this point you know for sure that the 5c doesn't improve the hand of PFR . He makes the bet because he wants to know if your on a flush draw and he doesn't want to give a free card just in case . So , if I raise him and he has a hand like TT , JJ , QQ or AQ , he will fold it , SO , i think that a call is better here , to make one more BB on the river if he checks call you . So I think that I should slowplay that hand on the turn only if there are no other opponents ...
yes you call on the turn and raise him on the river as he will bet. At least if this is Marcel.
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
NO, fast is not opposite of slow. You can slowplay a hand (such as your set by not betting aggressively), but fast generally applies to a game rather than a hand. Players are not as tight, and are more aggressive overall..."speeding" is common in a fast game.....hmmm, guess speed and fast do go together don't they.
Hope others can better explain fast. Jim
Yes , it could be him , but I don't know how many big bet per hour he loses , I should ask him if he keep a tracking of his lose rate ...
I think "fastplay" more refers to how you play marginal hands, whereas "slowplay" refers to your strong hands. Raising with a strong hand is "normal".
In order for your flat call on the turn to be correct, the opponent must be quite likely to fold for a raise on the turn AND likely to pay you off the river if you don't, AND that combination added to the cost of the "free" card you are giving has to be more likely than he will call a raise AND pay you off. That particular combination is unlikely.
Flat-calling the turn could be for long term strategic reasons, such as setting up river bluffs when you DO have a flush-draw or just playing "tricky" to confuse the opponents.
- Louie
I think your analysis of your own example is flawed. Just for example, your opponent could be betting on the turn with something like KcJc. Many players will raise before the flop with a suited KJ.
testing
I went to www.iqtest.com and took their IQ test. I got a 148. That's bogus. I should be about a 110. If I'm a 148 then Sklansky is a 180 and we all know that's not true.
I think they inflate the scores so that you will think you're smarter than you are and then you might buy all of the stuff they are trying to sell.
My question is this: if a bunch of people that post here go there and take the test they could report their scores back here, you could just put your score in the header. I'm curious how everyone stacks up and if it is close to the actual IQ's of those that happen to know their real IQ.
If you take the test they need a name, address and e-mail address. You can fake the first two but you have to use a real e-mail address in order to find out how you did because they send you your actual score.
This is how the scores break down according to the e-mail I received:
Our test usually gets within 5 points of the professional tests--a
remarkable feat for a 13 minute test.
Our test gives you a quick and fast measurement of your abilities, and
that can indicate directions for you to take.
Average: 85 - 115
Above average: 116 - 125
Gifted Borderline Genius: 126 - 135
Highly gifted and appearing to be a Genius to most others: 136 - 145
Genius: 146 - 165
High genius: 166 - 180
Highest genius: 181 - 200
Beyond being measurable genius: Over 200
nt
I got a 107 by going TFTFTFTF... and a 98 by ansering FTFTFTFT.
nt.
This test does not compare to the challenge of the SB IQ test I took in high school 50 years ago. There was no complexity to these questions, it was just a matter of speed.
See Dexter post at RE: Another kind of test. I was not smart enough to post the message in the right place.
A.I., you wrote:
"I went to www.iqtest.com and took their IQ test. I got a 148. That's bogus. I should be about a 110. If I'm a 148 then Sklansky is a 180 and we all know that's not true."
Why would you assume Sklansky is not 180? I would actually guess he probably is (at least).
i am not convinced that this test is completely accurate. but it can't be far off. i have tested quite high in other standardized, more accepted tests. whatever.
nt
.
I usually test in the 145 to 150 range, but I took some nitro-glycerine tablets today. I would have gladly paid the $9.95 fee if I'd tested in the 180 range. If I owned the web site, everyone would test out at 140 or above.
I would take the test but I already know that I'm stupid. So why validate it? Does that make sense?
Vince
nt
nm
I'd like to play poker against you guys... I haven't seen so much bluffing (aka lying) since the last time my friend Scott played poker at Casino Arizona and dropped about $500 in a $3-$6 game in about 3 hours.
I agree totally.
149
Vince, it's IQ, not weight.
That would be 249.
vince
.
Haven't you seen the movie "Twins"? Maybe we both were the good stuff.
Vince
The following test will give you a general idea of the current level of your EQ (Emotional Intelligence). I scored 113. www.queendom.com/tests/iq/emotional_iq.html
The test at www.iq.com is too simple and much too dependent on speed to have any real validity. However, I was surpised to see that I was actually within 5 points of the I.Q. score of 137-138 I achieved taking the Miller Analogies Test (MAT) on June 21st of this year. On this test I scored a 76 out of 100 questions. The test has 100 analogies that must be answered in 50 minutes. This test has been given since 1926. About 50,000 people take it a year. (probably more profitable to the company than selling poker books) I paid $55 to take the test at a local university. It was administered an proctored just like the SAT.
A MAT score of 66(I.Q. 132) qualifies for Mensa membership. I just joined Mensa because it has a Poker Special Interest Group. I am hoping that I can play in some private games with physicians that play 80% of their hands pre-flop and read books on cardiology when it is not their turn to act. (I actually played in a 5-10 hold-em game once with a cardiologist on a Sunday afternoon that was playing 8 out of 10 hands while reading a book on heart surgery while he supposedly played. He lost $400 but probably made 15K before noon the following Monday.
If I find out anything good about Mensa and poker I will report it here. Many of you that post on this site are very smart. Otherwise, we would be watching some stupid T.V. show rather than writing these long posts and taking stupid I.Q. tests on the Internet. (And at your local university) Later.
n/t
OK, I went to this site and took their emotional intelligence test. I scored a 107, whatever that means. I then took their standard IQ test. http://www.queendom.com/tests/index.html Click on "Classical IQ Test." It was 60 questions and much more difficult than the one at www.iqtest.com. I scored a 130. Trust me I'm not that smart. How did you 'all do?
Here is how they rank the numbers:
In general:
average.
significantly below the population average.
average, but it's in the normal range.
the normal range.
above average.
absolutely brilliant.
nt.
133
Much harder than the last one, but still kind of silly. How does knowing where Napoleon's last battle was make me intelligent, and not just educated? Also, the "which of these didn't fit" questions seem poorly constructed.
I had 122. I'm not a fluent english speaker (dont know if this matters), and there were some things that I had to look up.
Interesting was (for me at least) that I had 100 at Logical reasoning, 93 at pattern recognition, and the rest was between 60-70.
Regards
The following sub-scores are reported on a scale from 0 to 100.
Pattern Recognition (Series) Your score = 100
Classification (Odd one out) Your score = 83
Analogies Your score = 90
Arithmetic Your score = 88
Logical Reasoning Your score = 100
General Knowledge Your score = 77
I don't consider myself 'absolutely brilliant'.
The Titan Test is extremely hard. It is an untimed high ceiling test. Test is located at:
http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/titan.html
This is at the "uncommonly difficult I.Q. tests" website. This site is for people obsessed with this sort of nonsense.
No answers are given. Must pay a fee to get your score. You should take a month or so to work on it. Maybe this will end these foolish absurdities for awhile. In the meantime, I will either be playing poker or working in my secret laboratory.
i answered the answers i really thought were correct, although i KNOW that some of them are considered 'wrong' by the testmakers. i have damn good arguments why i am right about the answer instead of the answer i know that they wanted. this happened for several of the questions. i think you have to take into account the intelligence of the testmaker when evaluating the test's validity...
I agree. I took the test and I know there were answers I gave that could have had alternative answers. The maker of this test is Ron Hoeflin. The grader of the test is Ron Hoeflin. Like poker, you have to "think what he's thinking" before answering on this test. It is interesting that the "world-class I.Q. test takers" answered most of the questions "correctly". IMHO I.Q. tests are a game just like poker. I love to compete and that is why I take tests such as these and play poker.
nm
You know...it shouldn't really matter how "hard" the IQ test is. They're standardized test, and they take the mean of all scores, and that's the "average" score. Then they use the Bell Curve and determine(usually at their discression, though) what score would constitute "genius", "moron", "smart", "ultra-geek", etc.
spanQy
137, but strange thing, scored low on the mathematical component which has always been very strong for me. Hmmmmmmmmm.
I also got a 130. But I hardly think this test measures intelligence. Knowing about Napoleon's final battle, or how Julius Caesar was killed, or what an iguana is measures knowledge, not intelligence. There were several questions of the "which of these is different from the rest" where one could logically differentiate more than one item based on different criteria.
I remember taking IQ tests as a kid and scoring in the genius levels. I felt then that the tests measured knowledge and specific math skills rather than intelligence. I still think so. IQ tests are a fraud.
<>
IQ Your score = 131 points
Pattern Recognition (Series) Your score = 100
Classification (Odd one out) Your score = 50
Analogies Your score = 90
Arithmetic Your score = 77
Logical Reasoning Your score = 100
General Knowledge Your score = 77
Looks like I could use a lot of help on animal recognition :-)
n/t
But believe it or not, I correctly predicted my exact score before I hit "send," having absolutely no idea how the scoring system works, so I suppose that should make up for the discrepancy.
-Sean
They say I have to take it again next year.
Seems like I am less than average.
For those of you who beleive that the results of IQ tests are meaningless, I would venture to guess that you're pretty much a dumb-ass.
Thank you for this intelligent analysis.
The tests are not meaningless, but too often they measure knowledge of speicific facts or spcific math skills, rather than intelligence.
Certainly the ability to conduct a civilized conversation without resorting to gratuitous name-calling might be a better sign of intelligence than scoring high on a test.
nt
no msg
I scored 75. Those bastards. I consider myself "absolutely brilliant" and the test was WAY off. In fact, I consider myself "more brilliant than others who consider themselves absolutely brilliant" but they didn't have that category. What a load of crap.
Just goes to show you that all IQ tests are a bunch of hooey.
natedogg
155 iq, i play in a mensa nl game. most of the players suck.
SHOWOFF...it really turns me off when a person goes around patting himself on the back...OK, so you got a big score, you don't have to rub it in! Jim
Please joing my organization, Densa. We accept memebers with IQ's up to 79.
I never knew a low IQ guy who could play poker - there are many High IQ's who can't play much eigther but if you find a winning player oa a good tournament player I will lay you 10/1 this guy is smart and successful in other of lifes ednevers.
So if you can't crack 120 in an IQ test - I suggest staying off the felt. Of course they can give false resadings and 75 is just a few points above my cats (and Forrest Gumps) IQ so maybe you ought to retake it.
:-)
natedogg,
Since we've played poker together I can vouch for your brilliance. I will gladly be a reference if you need someone to claim that you can do better than 75. However, 90 may be pushing it so please think through your requirements.
Vince
after all this math stuff being discussed i decided to do a little analysis besides hourly rate...
i come up with ~1.25 BB/HR win rate with a 5BB/HR standard deviation!?!?
this is over a coupla hundred hours, and more than 30 sessions.
SD seems a bit low-I am unsure how to interpret this.
i play really tight in a high-rake game, and dont do much drawing, but of course always chase with pot odds. also i jam with good hands and usually get paid off. thank goodness noone is watching, heh heh- i shouldnt get paid off.
also- game is loose/passive/predictable LL.
ps i cant spell/type
Good evening,
I used to play a lot of poker. Texas hold-em to be precise. I played for about a year and half or so and lost about $7,000 or so. I am not a winning player at the game, and although I loved playing, the losses were getting out of hand. The issues I dealt with were either playing too aggresively or (when getting bad beats) too weak tight, but this is besides the point of my post.
There has been some talk on this forum about the luck factor of the game, and Mason Malmuth points out in gambling theory and other topics that a winning player in 2-7 low ball can have a two-year losing streak. My question is - with a possibility of such a long statistical losing streak possible, how can anyone tell at one point or another whether they are a winning player? What if you are actually a losing player and are having an extended streak of good luck (your 82s holds up time after time)?
This problem has made me decide that professional poker playing is not in the cards for me (LOL), and I will probably only play recreationally in the future. But I would appreciate some viewpoints from the 2 + 2 group. What measures have some of you taken to insure (or determining) that you are a winning player?
Regards, JOE
One obvious necessity for determining if you are a winning player is to keep accurate records. Self delusion is rampant in the poker room. Players remember the wins, chalk them up to skill, then try and ignore the losses and chalk that up to bad luck.
Out where I play, I estimate that about 10% or so of the players are long term winners. Another 10-15% are about break even and the rest are losers. So to be a winner, you've got to consistently figure you are the best or one of the two best at the table. If you are a winner, you've got to consistently be seeing your opponents make bad play after bad play after bad play, and they probably don't even realize the magnitude (or perhaps even the presence) of their mistakes.
To be a winning player, you've got to have good hand reading skills. You cannot be a winning player without getting and saving the extra bets that comes from good hand reading. I've noticed that this is one thing that separates the break even, "mathematically sound" players from the winning players.
And then there comes emotional stability and control. There are some break even / small losers who would be winners if they could control themselves. And it's more than just tilt and tilt avoidance. Some players show so much seriousness and take the ups and downs of gambling in such a way that it invites weaker opponents to play better ONLY AGAINST YOU.
Being a winning player takes work. You need to work when you are in the hand and when you aren't in the hand. Lots of players turn their brains off when they aren't in the hand. It's tough to win that way. You also need to work away from the table. You need to think about hands you played and alternatives for getting and saving those extra bets. If you've got some poker playing software, you should be routinely beating it.
I thinks that Chris has made some great points in his post and I would generally agree with his viewpoint. However, let me take this response into a opposing viewpoint. Poker skill aside, and the variations of luck in the game your game selection is more critical to being a long term winner than your actual skill in the game. I would say that this statement holds true a majority of the time. The basis for this is the fact that most of the money made in poker is not a result of your brilliant plays, but rather the mistakes of others in the game. I dont consider myself to be a great poker player. However, I do consider myself to be good at game selection. I only pick games that I have an advantage in, and routinely get the best of it in them. If you find a game you can beat stay in it. Study and try to better your game away from the time. You dont have to be a Great poker player just better than the guys that you are playing against. This is one of the greatest statements ever made in the poker literature!!!!!
The game Mr. Malmuth was referring to was Ace-Five limit lowball, not deuce-seven; I am NOT an expert at either but I know enough about both to tell you there is a difference. Also it's important to point out the specifics of this hypothetical example.
1. The player in question was a $30 per hour winner in a 30-60 game; one small bet/hour is not a world class achievement at these stakes. In other words, it's good but hardly outstanding - especially in a game where it is common to see fifty or more hands per hour.
2. By his own admission, the game he chose for this example is probably the game with the highest level of volatility of any you will find in a public cardroom. If it isn't THE most volatile game it is definitely close to it. (High-only [limit] Omaha might have a higher varience but this game is almost never spread.)
In conclusion, I would HATE to have to make my living solely from playing poker; if my net worth (bankroll, so to speak) was large enough to allow me to withstand both the financial and psychological aspects of a long losing streak, I truly do believe I possess the talent to succeed at it. The problem for me is (or would be) the fact that I lack the one other requirement - the ability (or at least the desire) to play it 5-6 days a week.
I am close to certain I would begin to despise the game if I were forced to play it on a daily basis.
I cannot imagine there being very many people who are as fascinated by this game as I am.
There are very few things I enjoy as much as playing poker but I'll pass on HAVING to play.
I don't much care for HAVING to perform any activity; poker would probably prove to be no exception.
P.S. I don't have an answer to your question regarding how a person knows whether they are a winning player.
I suppose I could be trite and say a winning player is someone who has won consistently (we'll assume it to be a given that the stakes are significant), however the number of hours he or she must log in order to be sure it isn't just a run of good luck involves so many variables - quality of opposition would appear to be the most important - I'm not sure how accurate you'd be able to be even after a lifetime.
Please don't misunderstand me.
There are a number of players whose results have been so overwhelmingly impressive it is all but impossible to label (or should I say LIBEL) them as "lucky", yet even many - if not most - members of this group would have little choice but to admit that luck has played a major role in determining exactly HOW successful they have been.
Most of the people I know are where they are due - at least in part - to one or two "flukes" (for lack of a better word). This is especially true for those who chose poker as their vehicle.
I often play in "wild" games (translation: extremely volatile) which I would be unable to participate in had I not won a huge amount of money during a 2 month long "hot streak" a few years ago. I have a very high profit expectation in these games - usually the other players in them just want to gamble - but I would have to pass them up if I NEEDED to have a steady flow of revenue coming in from playing poker. I am fortunate to not have this need.
* This is very similar to the possible two year losing streak you alluded to, however I am not playing with a one small bet per hour expectation; 3-3.5 BIG bets is closer to my long run expectation, but I've had a few losing streaks that would have broken both my spirit and my bankroll were I less comfortably capitalized.
One such streak lasted more than 150 hrs during which I managed to unload in excess of 200 big bets.
However, if you use the figures found in GTAOT my "cv" or "coefficient of variation" in these games is not an undesirable number.
The chart entitled "hours necessary to ensure a win" shows that a 20-40 player who wins one big bet ($40) per hour and has a standard deviation of $500 per hour will almost assuredly be ahead after 1,406 hours.
My win rate in these games - almost all are 5-10 - is close to this in terms of dollars but far in excess of this in terms of "bets". (Note I said close; I don't have a $40 hourly win rate but it is well above $30.)
However, even in games as volatile as the those I find myself in, I do not have a standard deviation anywhere near $500 per hour. $200/$250 is what I've calculated it as being; it could even be as high as $300 but it's not likely. I'm pretty good with numbers and I have a large enough sample size to work with that I feel safe in saying it is no higher than 250.
A $30/hr win rate coupled with with a $250/hr standard deviation (and remember I said WELL ABOVE 30) tells me I was [virtually] guaranteed of being ahead (I always assumed this to mean permanently) after 625 hours. I got off to a "lucky" start and was (permanently) ahead long before this, BUT some of the swings I encountered on the way had me reaching for the dramamine. -:)
By the way, in spite of a handfull of $1,000 nosedives I never came close to falling behind far enough to test the theory that the required bankroll for these games was $4,688. As I did point out though, I started out with a burst of good fortune; in other words I am not questioning this figure - I'm only mentioning that I never dug myself a hole deep enough to test it.
Truth be told, I was ahead for good after three rounds of play - THAT WAS LUCK.
So, at what point in time do I earn the right (or has it already occurred) to say, "I am a winning player" ?
According to all the formulas - and the reduction in my "revised" standard deviation due to length of time played, there is a .0000003 (or 1 in 3 million) chance that I have just been lucky.
There is - again according to the formulas - a .99995 likelyhood that I'm at least 50% as good as my results have led me to believe. In plain english, there's one chance in twenty thousand that I am a $15/hour winner who has been running VERY lucky and has won twice what my skills should have allowed me to win.
Draw your own conclusions from these numbers (and I do not mean that to sound smug).
Mr. Malmuth may (or may not) agree with the following statement, but with thousands of players having put in as many hours as I have in similar games...
Somewhere out there must be someone who posesses far less skill that has won more money than I have.
I have a friend who is ahead more than $100,000 from playing craps; I wouldn't even begin to calculate his standard deviation but I can tell you that given the size of his bets and the number of hours he has spent at the "extremely exciting gaming tables" he should be BEHIND at least TWICE this amount. He bets in a way that should make his hourly loss ~ $100/hour and he has spent ~ 2,000 hours playing.
However, four of the most incredibly profitable trips I've ever seen (his biggest win was $80,000+) coupled with the fact that he only allows himself access to $500 per day (bear in mind, that's $500 per day for the trip; he usually goes for a week and on the last day whatever he has left is fair game) have combined to almost guarantee he will leave this earth a winner at craps. He is in his 50's and goes to Vegas three or four times per year.
I think we can all agree that he is not a SKILLED dice player; no such animal exists.
So I guess if he can be that lucky there must be some chance that my success was the result of good fortune.
1. If I sit down to play an 10 hour session, I expect to win but OFTEN lose.
2. If I play five or six such sessions (a week's time) I expect to win and SELDOM lose.
3. If I play twenty or twenty-five sessions (a month's time) I expect to win and with (one exception) I have NEVER lost.
Who am I kidding ?
I'm just a lucky guy ! :-)
Best wishes,
- J D -
Thanks guys for your thoughtful responses.
JOE
I know you've all had it with all those worthless IQ tests (I got a 188 but I don't care because it proves absolutely nothing). But there are many people in this forum (even though I know who exactly they are, common decency stops me from naming specific names) who will easily ace the following test: www.queendom.com/tests/fx/kiss_ass.html
Hey PV I've missed reading your posts but who you callin a kiss ass? Hey I got 149 you 188. I guess that translates 49 points of worthlessness according to your evaluation. So if 188 is worthless then what is 149? Oh my god please don't tell me. No wonder I was FAHKLEPT!
vince
PV,
I got a 40 on your test. Did I pass?
Regards (I know saying this is kiss ass),
Rick
According to me, you failed. You need to score 20 or less in order to pass, according to me. Don't worry, there is always room for self-improvement in this all important area of character development. It is a journey without end. Good luck in your pursuit of excellence. Never give up.
... or would saying that be a little bit too kiss ass ;-).
Regards,
Rick - just another vomitous mass
Rick,
Do you like "piteous vomitous blob" better than "pathetic vomitous mass"? This will help the religious types to be able to discern this from a commentary on a churh service.
Your opinion is of utmost importance. Without your approval, the weekend will be ruined.
Regards.
Have a pathetically vomitous weekend, you piteously vomitous blob!!!!!
Say it isn't so.
How'd you know?
Not that you give a hoot or that I give a hoot if you give a hoot but I took your test and got 20. Now thats just about as low as I am capable of going, so don't ask me to improve to a lower number. We all have our limitations. Even superman had his kryptonite.
Sredni Vashtar
188-149=?
:-)
What's FAHKLEPT? Is it related to the term "kleptomaniac", or am I wrong? Thanks.
What's FAHKLEPT?
I have absolutely no idea.
vince
PV,
I got a 5. The comments said that I should kiss ass more. What do you think? Not that I really care what you think, but I do find your posts somewhat amusing occasionally.
Good Luck
Mark
Congratulations!!! See my response to Rick Nebiolo. And please do give him some words of encouragement and inspiration.
PV,
Alas, I scored a 20. But, I got a job, so I probably need to add about 15 points.
John
Do yourself a favor - quit your job. By doing so, your score will go down to an even more honorable 5. Any benefits from this prudent and rational action will outweigh all of the benefits you'll get by not taking immediate control of your life by continuing to kiss ass from 9 to 5.
PV,
I didn't say it is a 9 to 5 job.
John
PV are are disgusting. i took your test and scored a miserable 0. i can never go out in the world and face people of importance, you will get sued for this and ill take your last miserable penny.
The score of zero means that you will never have to go out in the world and face people of importance. Do you know why? Because, you, like me, are the only one who is important.
Caveat: All of these numbers assume a winning player i.e. win rate greater than 0.
Per Mason’s post the other day referring to CV I thought I’d post some formulas for calculating bankroll, number of hours needed to guarantee a win, expectation, range of win rates, and losing streaks. If you recall CV is the ratio of win rate divided by standard deviation.
Let:
N = the number of standard deviations your bankroll is based on.
SD = Your standard deviation.
WR = Your win rate.
CV = WR/SD
Therefore:
Bankroll = ( ( N ** 2 ) * SD ) / ( 4 * CV)
Hours Needed to = ( N ** 2 ) / ( CV ** 2 )
guarantee a win
Let:
H = Hours played
MoneyEarned = ( H * SD * CV )
Fluctuation = Largest fluctuation for number of hours played = ( N * SD * ( H ** ½ ) )
Therefore:
MoneyEarned – Fluctuation <= Expectation <= MoneyEarned + Fluctuation
Let:
OWR = Observed Win Rate
AWR = The true win rate.
Therefore:
OWR - Fluctuation <= AWR <= OWR + Fluctuation.
Losing streaks are "normal" so arbitrarily I’ll say that a "normal" but long losing streak occurs within one standard deviation. What is the max time for such a "losing streak? Well using N = 1 and plugging back into the formula for the number of hours needed to guarantee a win the answer is: 1 / ( CV ** 2 )
So what kind of CV would a player would have a 1000 hour losing streak within 1 standard deviation?
1000 = 1 / ( CV ** 2 )
CV = ( 1 / 1000 ) ** ½
CV = .0316
Which is approximate 1/ 31.62. Plugging back in to the formula for CV:
1 /31.62 = WR/SD
SD = WR * 31.62
So if your win rate is .5 big bets per hour your standard deviation is 15.581 big bets per hour. This is a very large number.
What about the expert that has a CV of 0.15?
The bad but fairly common losing streak would be 1/ (.15 ** 2) hours or 44.4 hours.
What about the journeyman pro who makes 1 small bet per hour with a 10 big bet per hour standard deviation?
The bad but fairly common losing streak would be 1 / (.05 ** 2) hours or 400 hours.
I can't believe this is still being propagated. Corrections to all the math you use for your calculations here were posted in this very forum so very long ago, and yet it still doesn't seem to be common knowledge.
I recommend you go back to the December 1997 archive and look up the thread "Bankroll Requirements". There you will find a discussion about how risk of ruin (which is obviously related to "guaranteeing a win") relates to bankroll, win rate, and standard deviation.
Tom Weideman
Right I forgot all about that discussion but I went back and looked it up. The formula given for bankroll in that thread was: Let: BR = Bank Roll R = Risk of Ruin SD = Standard Deviation WR = Win rate BR = -ln( R ) * (( SD ** 2 ) / ( 2 * WR )) Substituting CV = WR/SD BR = -ln( R ) * ( SD / ( 2 * CV ) ) I did a table for comparing the bankroll requirements for each formula. I did a set of calculations for the expert and the journeyman pro. The first 3 rows of data are the numbers for the expert. The second 3 rows of data are the numbers for the journeyman pro. In the column labeled "Bank Roll Formula 1" I used the formula that Tom refers to. In the column labeled "Bank Roll GTOH" the formula derived from Gambling Theory and Other Topics is used. In the column labeled "Percentage Extra Needed" it’s the extra percentage of the GTOH bankroll needed to accommodate the formula one bankroll. The columns labeled "Std Dev". And "Win Rate" are in big bets per hour. The columns labeled "Bank Roll Formula 1" and "Bank Roll GTOH" have units of Big Bets. The last row of data for the two players has a standard deviation of 4.471921. This is the standard deviation where the two formulas yield the same bankroll. As far as the hours needed to guarantee a win and fluctuations I don’t see how those would change based on formula 1. There is a dispute between Jim and Mason regarding the commonality of a 1000 hour losing streak. I don’t see how the formula from the thread you mention changes what I wrote. The differences between bankrolls required is substantially different.
| Percent Risk Of Ruin | Std Dev | Win Rate | # of Std Devs | Bank Roll Formula 1 | Bank Roll GTOH | Percentage Extra Needed |
| 0.15 | 6.67 | 1 | 3 | 144.50 | 100 | 44.5 |
| 5 | 6.67 | 1 | 2 | 66.58 | 44.45 | 49.79 |
| 0.00454445 | 6.67 | 1 | 4.471921 | 222.21 | 222.21 | 0 |
| 0.15 | 10 | 0.5 | 3 | 650.23 | 450 | 44.5 |
| 5 | 10 | 0.5 | 2 | 299.58 | 200 | 49.79 |
| 0.00454445 | 10 | 0.5 | 4.471921 | 999.91 | 999.91 | 0 |
This is a fair amount of work for someone who doesn't give a hoot about his variance but thanks for the insight. It crystallizes what I probably should grasped from the old thread, but it happened when I began studying poker, and all I recall was the point being sort of lost amidst the bickering.
Thanks for reminding me LOL.
Forget IQ, this is the scale that my opponents are using to beat me.
Go to http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/
Choose "Run an experiment", and follow more choices.
Let me know how you go, I personally haven't taken it, but I know I'd be no good most days.
last night i was involved in a hand heads up with a guy sitting immediately to my right.
an ace had flopped to my slick and i have him outkicked.
on the river he checks and says im all in...
he has $3 left...
i throw out a $12 bet and wait for the dealer to make him throw his last money in... the way i see it, thats my money...
anyway, should i have taken his last $$$? is there a better chance he would have rebought if i left him the $3?
It's your right to bet, but it makes you look real cheap to take his last three dollars.
You don't think this guy would've bet his last $3 if he made two-pair on the river? That's ridiculous... There's nothing wrong with nate's bet. The guy's lucky he only lost another $3 and not $12.
Nate,
Damn right you bet and take his last $3!!! I can't think of how many times I went soft on a guy/gal when a blank hit the turn. Then the river hits their kicker and they come betting out. What kind of courtesy have they shown you?
I check-raise my own grandfather... does that make me a bad person? No... and he understands as he would do the same thing to me.
Please don't interpret my response as hostile... it's not that at all because I enjoy your informative posts very much. However, taking pity or having mercy in a game where you either smoke or get smoked gets me a little excited and irritated. These unwritten rules of "common courtesy" are piles of mule-muffins IMO. I'm glad that Mojo shares my sentiments. Save the pity for the kitchen table.
Best wishes, Mike
Where I play it's kind of a courtesy usually to treat a player as all-in if he has only a very small amount of money. It's not a rule, just a custom, and you can still bet if you insist on it.
In your situation, factors in favour of letting the other player treat himself as all in would include (a) he was a player reasonably well known to you who would act the same if the situation were reversed, or (b) he was a player new to the room whose decision whether to rebuy or return might be influenced. Personally, I always let people treat themselves as all in in such a situation unless they are obviously jerks.
One thing to watch for is that if you let a player treat themselves as all-in, and they lose, they can't play another hand until they rebuy. They can't bet the tiny amount of money left in the next pot.
In some card rooms, especially pot limit, some small amounts of money cannot be bet. E.g. some games use antes of 5 or 10, but after the first round, only multiples of 25 go.
Oh no!! Not again!
A slightly different tilt on this. What is the player pool like where you play? Is there a tremendous amount of turnover, like in Vegas, or is it a smaller room that relies on return customers. If it is the latter and this is a new player, then allow him to keep his last 3 bucks. When doing so, ask him "Would you like to just declare all-in?. This should help him understand that to play on, a rebuy is in order. Where I play, we have a relatively small player pool and sometimes we have to treat new players a little differently than we would a regular. When I am in Vegas however, I would checkraise to make sure I got the last of someones dough.
cheers. Larry
testing
n/t
There are many reasons to play poker and assuming that a major motivation is money you made the correct play in betting out your hand. Would that guy have given you $3.00 dollars out of the pot if he was dragging it? I dont think so. $ are $ whether they are on the first pot and the first bet or the player is down to his last $3.00!!!!!!
.
if i dont know the person i usually bet the money in a strange place but will accept his allin if he seems like he is not trying to save a bet. also if ive ever played with him and he bet his last money on a good hand ill make him pout it in. or ill ask him if he ever bets his last money or always saves it. this put you in the good seat rather than looking like a cheapskate. but its never wrong to have him put it all in especially when he has half a bet left.
I can see giving certain players a break at times, but overall I don't like the apparent trend towards bending the rules on lots of little things. If you decide to give him a break that's your business, but I have seen many instances where the dealer appeared oblivious and acted as if the guy really was all-in. That is annoying and makes you look like the bad guy.
The way I see it, if the guy doesn't want to risk that last few bucks he should have bought in for less. Still it's a personal decision and there are some players I've given the break to. I just don't like it when the dealer doesn't correct the player and tell them they're not all-in when they erroneously announce that they are. After all that's the dealer's job. Then you can decide to bet or not, but at least things would be clear like they are supposed to be.
the entirely correct M. the dealer should not let the player declare allin and correct him. then its the other players decision if he wants to let him off the hook. a dealers job is to protect the players and this falls into that category. it would all come out in the wash as you would get to save the three bucks back from the dealers tokes.
if he had already decided to re-buy before this play, then he would have re-bought regardless...whatever you would have done wouldn't have made a difference...
Your opponent was taking a shot at you by announcing he was all-in when he wasn't. If the river card hit his kicker, he'd probably have "discovered" that he still had a few chips to bet. Take the money!
You can't declare all-in then find some chips later. No licensed cardroom allows that.
If your chips were on the table when you verbally said all-in, then it will count.
TESTING
We are thinking of going to Tunica, MS Mon thru Wed (7-23thru 7-25). Where is best place to stay? Best place to play low limit no fold'em hold'em. And of course how are the games/action during the week? We have never been there before and would appreciate advice. Thanks in advance!!
Well--you're probably going to like it.
Try to get the poker rate from the Horseshoe or Grand---call the poker room first.
Several posts, trip reports, stories in the 2+2 Archives--mostly in Other Topics.
The last time I was in Tunica you could stay in the hotel Casino if you played in their poker room exstensively. Have a pretty good 2/4 game with a jackpot in excess of 100,000.00 if noone has hit it to date.
The Gold Strike has the best rooms and you can walk to the Horseshoe. The rooms are good at the Horseshoe also, but harder to get. There's plenty of low-limit action in the two rooms to keep you awake for 3 days straight.
1) After how many hours do statistics based on your play become meaningful?
2) What does standard deviation, of both hourly rate and actual win/loss info, mean to me at the table? In other words, what is it telling me?
3) I believe I read that John Feeney said you should see about 15% of flops. Does this include the blinds?
This is a great forum and thanks in advance for your help!
Greg
1) After how many hours do statistics based on your play become meaningful?
It depends on the type of statistic you're talking about. After about 30 eight hour sessions you can start to rely on your standard deviation numbers. Once you know your standard deviation, you can start making some tentative conclusions about your game. But unlike standard deviation, hourly rates can take a long time to become become meaningful.
2) What does standard deviation, of both hourly rate and actual win/loss info, mean to me at the table? In other words, what is it telling me?
Standard deviation is a statistical measurment of variance or luck if you will, which one can reasonably expect over a given period of time. The higher the standard deviation, the more swings (or the further away from your actual hourly rate) you can expect over a given period of time. While a high standard deviation does not necessarily indicate bad play, expert players tend to have low standard deviations, while loose/poor players will experience standards deviations which are quite high. Mason Malmuth's book "Gambling Theory and Other Topics" is a very good source of material for this subject.
3) I believe I read that John Feeney said you should see about 15% of flops. Does this include the blinds?
John Feeney is a loose cannon! Seriously, I see closer to 13% of flops. Keep in mind, John is an expert player who can profitably play a few more hands than your average Doe. 15% sounds about right. I guess I'm REALLY tight... Much of this also depends on the type of game and players also. Ya think John's 80-160 game plays looser or more passive than my 20-40? (just kidding : ))
Is there any online source for odds on making a hand for games such as razz and hi/lo stud?
three different answers.
What are the odds against two players having pocket Aces in the same hand in a 10 handed game ?
I'm also wondering whether the correct way to deduce the chance of ONE person getting them is:
1 - (220/221 to the 10th power)
- I'm thinking that a form of the "bunching factor" is at work here and would therefore force us to use a different formula to arrive at the correct answer.
My reason for asking is that while we've all seen it happen - most of us several times in our lives - I saw it happen TWO HANDS IN A ROW yesterday.
BTW, two decks were in use and the event occurred once with each deck; the dealer had just been replaced and the new dealer was using the "other" deck.
(My interest is in the math, but I'm sure someone would have alluded to something being "fishy" had I not pointed this out.)
I came up with approximately 6,000 - 1 using a method that SEEMS to make sense.
I will post the method I used to arrive at this figure later today or tommorow.
Thank you in advance and best wishes,
- J D -
1-(220/221 to the tenth) is not perfectly accurate since the first player not having aces, slightly affects the chances that the second player doesn't have them, and so on. The events are not quite independent. The answer would be close to that though, as would the simple 10/221.
As far as calcululating the chances that two players both have aces in a ten handed game, that is ironically easier. First calculate that the the aces are dealt specifically to the one and two seat. That is 4/52 x 3/51 (which is of course 1/221) x 2/50 x 1/49. That is one in 270725. But the two aces could be in any two seats. In a ten handed game there are 10x9/2=45 ways to choose two seats for the aces. And because those ways are mutually exclusive, you can simply say that the chances two players have aces is 45/270725 or about one in 6016.
"about one in 6016."
Smarty pants!
Vince
This is the third in a series of posts that attempts to improve our understanding of expected value (EV). A better understanding of EV might well lead to an increase in our poker earnings. It also could facilitate more effective communication when we discuss certain aspects of poker theory on this forum.
In the first post[1], I offered a definition of EV and provided a very simple example of how you could compute it. The math was easy because: (a) Abe and Bev were heads-up, (b) Abe's turn bet put him all-in, and (c) Bev had seen Abe's hole cards.
In the second post[2], I relaxed one of the simplifying conditions and showed how you could estimate Bev's calling EV when she had not seen Abe's hole cards.
In this post, I restore the assumption that Bev has seen Abe's cards and, instead, relax the provision that Abe's turn bet puts him all-in.
This new scenario reveals several new concepts, two of which I will discuss. First, Bev now can compute her raising EV (in addition to her folding and calling EV). Second, the example demonstrates the effects that future betting rounds can have on Bev's current calling EV.
Again, I acknowledge that much of the material for this post comes (with permission) from essays written by a friend (who desires anonymity).
-----------------------
Playing in a $20-$40 hold'em game, Abe and Bev find themselves heads-up at the turn with the board showing Th9s3h/4c. Abe, who is careless about protecting his cards, holds 3d3c and bets $40 (leaving $40 in his stack). Bev, who has seen Abe's cards, holds Ah6h. If the pot currently contains $200 and Bev wants to maximize her EV, should she fold, call, or raise?
Answer: Bev should take whatever betting action has the highest EV. She should compute (or estimate) the EV for each of her three options and select the one with the best EV.
Given the definition of EV offered in this series' first post, we know folding always has an EV of $0.00. If Bev folds, she will neither win nor lose any more money during this hand.
Once you estimate Bev's raising EV and calling EV, the answer should be obvious.
-----------------------
You need a little more information before you can properly estimate Bev's raising EV. What is the likelihood that Abe will fold to a raise? With this board and his set, we conclude there is very little chance Abe will fold if Bev raises. Our best guess is he will call her raise 99 percent of the time.
Now you have all the numbers you need to plug into the EV equation from part 1 of this series.
Bev has seven outs (since two of the remaining hearts give Abe a winning full house). If Abe calls and she wins, then Bev's net profit will be $240 (the $320 pot minus the $80 cost of her raise). If Abe calls and she loses, then Bev's net profit will be -$80. If Abe folds, then Bev's net profit will be $200.
You could think of this raising scenario as having three possible outcomes (with their associated weighted profits):
1. Abe calls the raise, and Bev wins ($240 * 0.99 * 7/44).
2. Abe calls the raise, and Bev loses (-$80 * 0.99 * 37/44).
3. Abe folds to the raise, and Bev wins on the turn ($200 * 0.01).
EV(raise) ~= ($240 * 0.99 * 7/44) + (-$80 * 0.99 * 37/44) + ($200 * 0.01)
EV(raise) ~= -$26.80
Since Bev's raising EV (-$26.80) is less than her folding EV ($0.00), Bev should not raise. She should either fold or call.
-----------------------
After ruling out a raise, some might suggest that Bev could take a short cut to avoid computing her calling EV. All she needs to do is compare her pot odds and the odds against her winning. If her pot odds are bigger, then she should call, according to this argument.
The pot contains $200, and Bev must put in $40 to call. Thus, the pot is offering her 200-to-40 (or 5.0-to-1) odds. The odds against her winning are 37-to-7 (or about 5.3-to-1). Since her pot odds do not exceed the odds against her winning, this short cut method's conclusion is that Bev should fold.
The pot odds short cut, however, fails to take into account the extra money Bev might extract from Abe if she hits one of her seven outs. (Obviously, she will fold if she misses and Abe bets.)
In other words, this short cut neglects "implied odds." EV, on the other hand, does not (if it is well estimated).
-----------------------
You need more information before you can properly estimate Bev's calling EV. What is the likelihood that Abe will bet out on the river? And, if he checks, how often will he call Bev's river bet?
Remember that, on the turn, the board shows Th9s3h/4c. Let's say Abe is fearful that Bev is on a flush draw, a Q-J straight draw, or an 8-7 straight draw. Suppose our best guess is that Abe will check if the river is any heart, King, or 6. Otherwise, he will bet all-in. If Abe checks and Bev bets, Abe will fold only if the river is the Kh or 6h. (Please note that Bev has the 6h in her hand, although Abe does not know this.) Thus, Bev should call Abe's river bet or bet the river herself only if one of her seven outs arrives.
If Abe checks and calls her river bet, then Bev's net profit will be $240 (the $320 pot minus the cost of her $40 turn call and her $40 river bet). If Abe checks and folds to her river bet, then Bev's net profit will be $200 (the $240 pot minus her $40 turn call). If Abe bets the river and Bev folds (or if Abe and Bev both check the river), then Bev's net profit will be -$40.
You could think of this calling scenario as having four possible outcomes (with their associated weighted profits):
1. Abe bets the river, and Bev folds (-$40 * 31/44).
2. Abe checks the river, Bev checks, and Bev loses (-$40 * 6/44).
3. Abe checks the river, Bev bets, Abe calls, and Bev wins ($240 * 6/44).
4. Abe checks the river, Bev bets, and Abe folds ($200 * 1/44).
EV(call) ~= (-$40 * 31/44) + (-$40 * 6/44) + ($240 * 6/44) + ($200 * 1/44)
EV(call) ~= $3.64
Since Bev's calling EV is greater than both her raising EV (-$26.80) and her folding EV ($0.00), she should call Abe's turn bet.
-----------------------
In the series' first post, we saw that Bev should not call when Abe's all-in bet meant the pot contained $200. In this third post, we learned that Bev should call Abe's non-all-in bet, since she can extract extra money from him sufficiently often on the river.
Notice also that, in this post, the pot odds short cut's conclusion to fold differs from the EV equation's conclusion to call. This is because the short cut neglects "implied odds," while the EV equation took it into account.
Is estimating EV worth the extra effort? Players must decide this for themselves.
Beginners might prefer to devote their mental energies to more fundamental aspects of the game. Recreational players might derive greater enjoyment if they don't worry about estimating EV. Even some serious players might dislike EV calculations (or perform them poorly) and find their time is more profitably spent searching for tells, focusing elsewhere, or even relaxing their minds so they can play longer sessions.
Some players, however, improve their profits at the poker tables by consciously estimating these kinds of expected values.
And most of us, I suspect, could improve our understanding of poker theory by improving our understanding of EV--even if we never tried these mathematical calculations at the table.
-----------------------
[1] Mark Glover's thread of 10 July 2001 entitled "A definition of EV (expected value)."
[2] Mark Glover's thread of 15 July 2001 entitled "Understanding EV (Part 2): Unseen cards."
Mark - Excellent series. Just one question.
You wrote, "..... and her $40 river bet)."
How did you decide what Bev's river bet should be?
Buzz
Buzz,
You asked: "How did you decide what Bev's river bet should be?"
In my scenario, Bev is "playing in a $20-$40 hold'em game." On the river, her bet must be $40 (if she has at least $40 in her stack). I guess I'm implicitly assuming she has at least $40 in her stack.
"Again, I acknowledge that much of the material for this post comes (with permission) from essays written by a friend (who desires anonymity). "
Why? Is he ashamed of being your friend? How come Abe doesn't reraise?
"Is estimating EV worth the extra effort?
Maybe, if it's done correctly, can be understood and is easily incorporated into one's strategy. Haven't seen any of that yet.
Vince
Mark and Vince,
I gotta go read these old posts. And who IS this "Bev" gal, anyway?
Abe
Abe,
I thimk "Bev" is short for beverage. Mark must have been drinking when he created her and this EV series.
vince
"Notice also that, in this post, the pot odds short cut's conclusion to fold differs from the EV equation's conclusion to call. This is because the short cut neglects "implied odds," while the EV equation took it into account."
The implementer is to blame not the method.
Take the % time you will be paid off on the river and add it to your pot odds. In this case its 6/7 + 5. You need 5.3-1. So you are getting a small overlay with this assumption. To approximate the EV take the % difference and mulitply it by the bet size. At a glance we see that this is about 9% of the big bet.
The other cases can be done with pot odds as well, although it does get trickier. So, too, does standard EV calculations. I would prefer standard EV calculations for more complex situations. These types of calculations can rarely be done at the table by most people. Away from the table calculations are useful and rewarding.
Fulcrumization is the most practical and useful technique of all, but that is beyond the scope of this forum.
I won't be able to respond further to this thread.
Regards.
"I won't be able to respond further to this thread. "
Backdoor,
That's a shame because you were making the most sense.
Vince
"I won't be able to respond further to this thread. "
Oops.
You and I are the only ones around here who EVER make sense.
:)
Regards.
Backdoor,
I suspect we mean different things by "pot odds short cut." When I refer to that method, I mean immediate pot odds--unadjusted for future actions. It is a method used by many players who introduce a little conscious math to their games.
Please don't get me wrong. I think it is good for players to understand the pot odds short cut and the implied odds short cut. And I think it benefits many players to understand EV.
I also believe it is useful to understand the limitations of these various methods. The example that I used in my post demonstrated a couple limitations of the pot odds short cut:
* It doesn't indicate whether calling or raising is the better action.
* It doesn't take into account the extra money you might be able to extract from your opponent(s) if you make your hand.
You wrote: "Take the % time you will be paid off on the river and add it to your pot odds. In this case its 6/7 + 5. You need 5.3-1. So you are getting a small overlay with this assumption."
That's a simple explanation of what I would call the "implied odds short cut." Note that this description also has some limitations, including:
* It doesn't indicate whether calling or raising is the better action.
* It doesn't take into account extra money you might extract from your opponent(s) if you make your hand on the turn.
* It doesn't take into account the costs you might incur if you make your hand on the turn and get drawn out on the river.
* It doesn't take into account the costs of a possible raise coming from behind you if more players are still to act on this betting round.
* It doesn't take into account the costs of possibly drawing twice if you are at the flop and might see both the turn and the river (or possibly drawing three times if it is now preflop).
* It doesn't take into account the costs when you make your hand and still lose the pot.
* It doesn't take into account multiway situations.
Of course, computing or estimating EV has its own limitations as well, including the fact that it can be difficult to perform during the heat of battle.
You suggested: "These types of calculations can rarely be done at the table by most people."
I, for one, am surprised how often some people can compute (or at least generally estimate accurately) EV if they practice and receive some training. Short cuts also are available for EV estimates (see Part 2 of this series for some rather simple short cuts).
... if you knew that x=y-z, y=a+b, z=p/r, and you are told the value of a, b, p and r, would you find it strange if someone insisted that you can't determine x because you don't know what y and z are?
regards.
Backdoor,
You asked: "if you knew that x=y-z, y=a+b, z=p/r, and you are told the value of a, b, p and r, would you find it strange if someone insisted that you can't determine x because you don't know what y and z are?"
Would I find it strange? It depends. Mostly, it depends on: (1) how well I thought the person understood math, and (2) whether that person was aware that I knew those equations and values.
None of my posts here should be construed as having an opinion against using standard EV calculations. I make them all the time. I have also developed (what are in my mind quicker) alternatives for the simpler calculations (that cover most simpler situations) When these situations get complex, it does become much trickier to make these adjustments mentally. This is true of both types of calculations., although standard EV is easier to keep straight (for me).
One version of EV is EV=X*WR-Y*LR, where X is the pot size, and Y is cost of playing. WR and LR are win rate and loss rate.
Now are not pot odds a function of bet size and pot size? Are not WR and LR functions of "the pot odds needed".
Is not the cost of playing measured in bet sizes?
Do your objections apply to properly adjusted pot odds or to simple unadjusted pot odds?
Regards.
Backdoor,
When I teach relatively complex poker concepts to my students, I often find it beneficial to take things one step at a time. That's essentially what I am trying to do here.
You wrote: ". . . standard EV is easier to keep straight (for me)."
I, too, usually find standard EV calculations easier to understand than the faster alternatives, which is why I presented the standard EV equation in my original post.
You are quite correct, however, to note that alternatives exist and that they can be very useful. I've pointed this out as well.
---------------------
You asked: "Do your objections apply to properly adjusted pot odds or to simple unadjusted pot odds?"
I don't "object" to either. I believe "simple, unadjusted short cuts," although easy to compute, normally have significant limitations in terms of accuracy. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear in my earlier posts.
I suspect we pretty much agree on the concepts of EV and short cuts and are just getting tangled up in some definitions.
I see a continuum. At one end are precisely computed EV calculations. At the opposite end are simple short cuts that novices might be able to usefully apply at the table.
In the middle, we find methods that you seem to call "properly adjusted pot odds" and I refer to as "loosely estimated EV." And there's the rub. When I talk about a "pot odds short cut," I see a method that normally is relatively inaccurate (although oftentimes useful). When you talk about a "pot odds short cut," you see a method that is a relatively accurate estimate of EV. We are using the same term to describe two different methods.
I think we agree, however, that as one moves along the continuum, one generally trades off precision for speed.
Mark - Thanks. Of course. I see it now.
You wrote, "Suppose our best guess is that Abe will check if the river is any heart, King, or 6. Otherwise, he will bet all-in"
When I read the "he will bet all-in" I thought of no-limit and forgot that the game was $20-$40 and abe had $40 left. I wondered about the thought process in deciding how much to bet on the river when making the flush and how one might figure E.V. in a no limit game. I should have re-read the whole post again before responding.
Anyhow, thanks for taking the time to explain.
Buzz
understanding and implementing may be two different things.
as to value, it would have tremendous value if it was worth half of what Mark thisks it is worth.
Coward,
Earlier, I noted: "Is estimating EV worth the extra effort? Players must decide this for themselves."
You wrote: "as to value, [EV] would have tremendous value if it was worth half of what Mark thisks it is worth."
I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
You're making this a lot more complicated than it is.
Pot odds determine whether there is enough money in the pot to justify at least a call, regardless of other considerations. Forget about computing EV and all that stuff. If the pot is paying 5:1 and you're only a 3:1 dog, you should at least call. Folding would be a huge mistake, obviously.
But when the pots odds don't justify a call, implied odds MIGHT. For example, if you're getting only 9:1 to call a gutshot straight draw on the flop (about 11:1 to make on the next card) but you know your opponents will put at least 4 more big bets in the pot even if you make it, you're really getting 17:1. So you'd probably want to call unless you're trying to minimize your bankroll swings and are willing to give up a little bit extra EV to do this.
Whether raising is profitable depends on the odds of making your hand vs how many EXTRA bets a raise will get in the pot ON THIS ROUND OF BETTING. Never mind what's in the pot already, and never mind what's going to happen on later rounds. If your odds are 2:1 you need 3 callers for a raise to add to your overall EV rather than reduce it.
When raising, you should consider implied odds only if a raise now makes it MORE likely that opponents will call on future rounds. Sometimes it will, if it makes the pot big enough.
>>Whether raising is profitable depends on the odds of making your hand vs how many EXTRA bets a raise will get in the pot ON THIS ROUND OF BETTING. Never mind what's in the pot already, and never mind what's going to happen on later rounds. If your odds are 2:1 you need 3 callers for a raise to add to your overall EV rather than reduce it.<<
I disagree with the following "Never mind what's in the pot already" and "never mind what's going to happen on later rounds." For example the profitability of a semi-bluff raise is dependent on how much money is in the pot (for that matter any bluff raise). Raising on a "cheap street" often has advantages of slowing down your opponent on an "expensive street" allowing you to get to the river at a reduced cost. Raising with a second best hand to knock out opponents is another strategic maneuver that doesn't fit the criteria you mention.
Tom,
Good points. ;-)
I started composing my response before you had posted yours, so I didn't see it until it was too late. I could have omitted some of my comments.
Just to clarify, I was addressing the specific issue of how to determine whether a raise or call for value is mathematically correct. This was perhaps not clear enough in my original comments. Of course you should also consider the tactical situation.
As for bluffs and semi-bluffs, it's somewhat misleading to say that the profitability of a semibluff or bluff is dependent on the size of the pot. This could be construed to mean that the bigger the pot, the more EV a semibluff has. This is arguably not the case, since the larger the pot, the more correct it is for your opponent to call. When the pot becomes sufficiently large, the opponent will always call, and the semi-bluff becomes a pure -EV play.
Of course what you really meant is that when semibluffing or bluffing, you should compare the size of the pot to your estimated chances of winning he pot.
I think you're twisting things around. The only thing I meant to do was refute your claim.
You claimed the following:
>>"Never mind what's in the pot already" <<
I responded:
>>For example the profitability of a semi-bluff raise is dependent on how much money is in the pot (for that matter any bluff raise).<<
You made a claim and I refuted it very simple.
Here's what I originally wrote:
Whether raising is profitable depends on the odds of making your hand vs how many EXTRA bets a raise will get in the pot ON THIS ROUND OF BETTING. Never mind what's in the pot already, and never mind what's going to happen on later rounds. If your odds are 2:1 you need 3 callers for a raise to add to your overall EV rather than reduce it.
I stated in the follow-up post that I did not intend for this to cover bluffing or semibluffing or other tactical considerations. It was meant only to explain the underlying mathematics of raising for value. It is mathematically correct in that context. You're trying to put what I said into a context I didn't intend, then saying what I said was wrong. I agree that it doesn't apply to bluffing or tactical raising.
"It was meant only to explain the underlying mathematics of raising for value"
And it is correct.
vince
"For example the profitability of a semi-bluff raise is dependent on how much money is in the pot (for that matter any bluff raise). "
How much money needs to be in the pot for a semi-bluff raise to be profitabile?
vince
There isn't a simple answer as I'm sure you know. Let's see if I can remember all the relevent criteria regarding the size of the pot:
- It depends on your odds of making your hand if called.
- the probability of getting re-raised.
- the probability of getting your opponent to fold.
Did I miss any Mark, Vince or Chip Riffle?
Tom,
I believe you are correct but I'm, quite frankly, not sure. Thus my question. I have not given semi-bluff raising much thought. Shame on me.
Vince
There's a passage from TOP that is summarized by the following:
There is a $40 pot.
The bets are $20 fixed.
You have a 4 flush which you know that it's 4 to 1 against making.
You know your opponent is weak but has you beat and bets $20.
You're getting 3-1 on a 4-1 shot so a call is negative EV.
If you raise there is a 25% chance your opponent will fold instantly.
Therefore the combined chances of winning instantly and making the flush make the semi-bluff raise a better play than calling or folding.
Good example. I even think I almost know how to determine if my opponent will fold 25% of the time. Those numbers always made me cringe when I first started reading S&M. Man I was like how in the hell do I know if the guy is gonna fold 25, 30, 40 or whatever % of the time. I almost stopped reading their stuff because of it.
Vince
>>I even think I almost know how to determine if my opponent will fold 25% of the time. Those numbers always made me cringe when I first started reading S&M. Man I was like how in the hell do I know if the guy is gonna fold 25, 30, 40 or whatever % of the time. I almost stopped reading their stuff because of it.<<
Good points I don't know how you come to precise estimate either.
Tom,
Off the top of my head, I would add:
- How much extra money you expect to extract from your opponent(s) if you make you hand.
- The chances that you might make your hand and still not have the best hand.
- The chances that you might make the best hand and, on a later round, get drawn out on.
- How well a semi-bluff on an earlier round sets up a pure bluff on a later round.
I'm sure there are other factors to consider as well.
Thanks your response is appreciated.
O.K. so let's see. Tom says consider three things and Mark has added 4 things for a total of seven things to consider before determining if there is enough money in the pot to semi-bluff. Mark also said that there are "other factors" to consider also. O.K. so if you have enough time to consider these 7 things and some time left over you can consider these other things so I though I would list some of the other things. But please don't consider these if you think they may hold up the game.
- What's for dinner?
- Beethoven's fifth - What does it mean?
- Was Luca Brazzi really a bad guy?
- How many cards are left in the deck when one is removed?
- Is a high protein diet better than a low carb
- Does Ray Zee like fishing or is he lying
- Poor Mason Malmuth.
- Condescending is not a bad thing
If this is not enough to consider I have more. Hope they help.
vince
Chip,
As I explained to Backdoor, I think it is good to understand the pot odds short cut, the implied odds short cut, the raising short cut, AND the EV equation.
I also believe it is useful to know the limitations of these various methods.
You wrote: "Pot odds determine whether there is enough money in the pot to justify at least a call, regardless of other considerations."
By "regardless of other considerations," do you mean regardless of whether there are players behind you who might raise? Do you mean regardless of whether you currently are at the flop or the turn? If so, then I would have to disagree with you.
You advised: "Forget about computing EV and all that stuff."
Why? Personally, I find situations when EV's increased accuracy is worth my spending time to compute or estimate it. I also find it often is very useful to me when I am away from the table. I think I gain a better understanding of poker theory by understanding EV, and I suspect that helps my poker profits.
You wrote: "But when the pots odds don't justify a call, implied odds MIGHT."
As I noted earlier, it is useful to understand the implied odds short cut--and its limitations. See my comments to Backdoor for a partial list of this method's limitations.
You wrote: "Whether raising is profitable depends on the odds of making your hand vs how many EXTRA bets a raise will get in the pot ON THIS ROUND OF BETTING."
Again, it is useful to know this raising short cut--and its limitations. Whether raising is profitable depends on many other factors, including:
* Is this a good moment to attempt a pure bluff?
* Is it correct to try a semi-bluff?
* Will the pot equity that you might steal by causing other players to fold outweigh the cost of a raise (and possible reraises)?
* What are the chances that a raise will get you a "free" card on the next betting round(s)?
* What information might you gain by raising?
Yes, EV calculations/estimates also have their own limitations. But I think many people can benefit from a better understanding of EV and from learning when EV might be applied usefully.
I was referring strictly to the mathematics of value betting. You should of course consider all of the information at your disposal. That should be a given on this forum, and it might facilitate discussion and conserve bandwidth if we assume our colleagues already know it.
There's really no need to consume mental energy calculating EV at the table. What you need to know is whether you have the best of it, which is a binary condition: either you do or you don't. This is another way of saying you have +EV or you don't. The exact amount of EV is useless information, since if a play is +EV it's correct regardless of the amount.
There are situations where both raising and calling are +EV, in which case you need some means of determining which option produces the higher +EV. For those purposes, the sorts of quickie computations I mentioned work pretty well, although nobody should ever just do math at the table and ignore everything else that is going on.
I'd also like to add that some people use "implied odds" in a rather goofy way, to mean bets put in on future rounds, but not future bets put in on the same round. Since you don't know for sure who's going to call, bets or calls not yet made on the current round should be treated as implied odds, not pot odds. So I go back to my statement that pot odds might not give you enough for a call, but implied odds might, keeping in mind that implied odds are an estimate while pot odds are always known.
Chip,
You wrote: "I was referring strictly to the mathematics of value betting. You should of course consider all of the information at your disposal."
And I merely pointed out how your calculations failed to consider some of the information at your disposal.
You continued: "That should be a given on this forum, and it might facilitate discussion and conserve bandwidth if we assume our colleagues already know it."
Okay. Given that there could be reasons for raising other than (or in addition to) value raising, how do *you* go about deciding whether to call or raise?
You wrote: "There's really no need to consume mental energy calculating EV at the table."
I assume you meant there's "no need" for *you* to do so.
You wrote: "There are situations where both raising and calling are +EV, in which case you need some means of determining which option produces the higher +EV. For those purposes, the sorts of quickie computations I mentioned work pretty well . . ."
First, I don't think you provided any quickie computations for estimating the EV for raising--not even for a simple value raise. Could you offer any now?
Second, by "work pretty well," I assume you meant "work pretty well" for *you*.
As I noted in my original post: "Is EV worth the extra effort? Players must decide this for themselves." In my previous responses to you and to "backdoor," I listed some of the limitations of the short cut methods you described. Personally, there are times when it is worthwhile for *me* to expend mental energy calculating/estimating EV at the table in order to overcome all or some of the short cut limitations.
Of course, your mileage might vary.
I haven't read all the posts, so I'm not sure if anyone has already asked this, but wouldn't it better show the utility of such calculations if you used an example where the answer (call) wasn't immediately obvious, without any calculations at all, to anyone with just a little experience? By the way, I am not trying to be condescending or pompous or whatever you complained about another poster being. I seriously think that if you want to demonstrate the value of this math, you might do a better job of it if you used an example in which it did actually have some value. That is, a situation in which one could not so easily arrive at the correct answer without it.
"I haven't read all the posts, so I'm not sure if anyone has already asked this, but wouldn't it better show the utility of such calculations if you used an example where the answer (call) wasn't immediately obvious, without any calculations at all, to anyone with just a little experience?"
Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha! I'm not laughing at you. I'm laughing at the thought of Mark Glover trying to come up with an example. Forget it. His whole theory is off the top of his head, bull! He's got this thing about Sklanky's writing that just won't let him go.
Vince
EM,
You started to ask: ". . . wouldn't it better show the utility of such calculations . . ."
Let me interrupt you for just a moment.
My primary objective wasn't to show the utility of EV calculations. It was to show how you go about performing such calculations. Once you understand how these calculations are done, you should be able to determine for yourself their utility. As I noted previously, I think the utility will be different for different players.[1]
------------------
You asked: ". . . wouldn't it better show the utility of such calculations if you used an example where the answer (call) wasn't immediately obvious, without any calculations at all, to anyone with just a little experience?"
First, I'm not so sure the answer is immediately obvious to people who do no calculations at all. How do those people come up with their answers?
Second, calling is about 0.09 big bets better than folding in the example I used. That seems like a fairly close call (forgive the pun) compared to many poker decisions. If the pot only contained $170 instead of $200, do you believe most of the people who saw such an obvious call, without doing any calculations, now would hesitate about their answers?
Third, many players with just a little experience who do a little bit of calculating (i.e., the immediate pot odds short cut method) would have come to the wrong answer (fold). Demonstrating this was one of my secondary objectives and was a reason why I made the pot size $200 instead of $170.
------------------
You opined: "I seriously think that if you want to demonstrate the value of this math, you might do a better job of it if you used an example in which it did actually have some value."
Please feel free to offer your own example, if you wish. (Or simply change the pot size in my example to $170.)
------------------
[1] Which is just another way of saying different people have different utility functions.
Possibly I shouldn't have said "no calculations at all." It's just that it's so simple to do the required estimates for the sort of situation you presented, that most players with only a little experience can do it in their heads in a few seconds. More experienced players have more or less memorized the situation, and so will not likely need even to consciously make any estimates.
After reading the very recent thread entitled "Understanding EV (Part 3): Implied odds," I'm curious whether you would agree or disagree with the following statement:
"If you are going to take a short price from the pot in hopes of winning future bets, you had better be awfully sure that your hand will hold up when you make it." [David Sklansky, THE THEORY OF POKER (1999), p. 59.]
If you're relying on implied odds to make a call correct, then the call is a borderline call. If there's a reasonable chance that when you make your hand it will still not be good, then you need a overlay to have positive expectation on the call.
Certainly I agree with the statement. Sklansky's book is not the #1 poker book in the world for nothing.
Bob J. B.S. Computer Science U. of Texas M.S. Mathematics U. of Houston M.S. Mathematics U. of Illinois
"Certainly I agree with the statement. Sklansky's book is not the #1 poker book in the world for nothing.
Bob J. B.S. Computer Science U. of Texas M.S. Mathematics U. of Houston M.S. Mathematics U. of Illinois "
I agree to!
Vince Lepore, Master of B.S. Everett High, School of idiots.
Bob,
Did you read my explanation of "implied odds" from an EV perspective? Did you understand that explanation?
Mark, I hate to digress, but I'm not sure that you quite understand how posts like that come across.
I suspect that you're trying to be helpful, and stimulate conversation, but just posting asking someone if they understood what you wrote reads in a very condescending tone.
I imagine that Bob did in fact read the other thread, and still agrees with the statement in the theory of poker. He's not an idiot, and while I don't think that you are calling him one, I do think that a reasonable person could easily interpret your post as implying that Bob is not the brightest bunny in the forest.
And I'm sure he's quite the bunny. :)
I'll post my reaction to the original question in a separate post.
Thanks, Target
"I suspect that you're trying to be helpful, and stimulate conversation, but just posting asking someone if they understood what you wrote reads in a very condescending tone. "
So you think Mark has a problem using a "condescending tone"? You must be new.
vince
I was actually trying to be helpful rather than attacking him. I think Mark contributes a lot of interesting stuff to the board, and I'd hate to see him leave.
On the other hand, I hate to see other people antagonized by him (or anyone).
*shrug*
- target
"On the other hand, I hate to see other people antagonized by him (or anyone). "
That's o.k. I've been hated before. Mainly for being "condescending" Go figure.
vince
nt
Target,
I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to respond to your posts last night. Your comments seem sincere, so I will respond in kind. If you review my posts, I think you will find that I usually respond in kind.
You wrote: "Mark, I hate to digress, but I'm not sure that you quite understand how posts like that come across."
I'm guessing that posts like that come across differently to different people. Some might have found my tone to be very condescending. Others probably found it moderately or slightly condescending. I wouldn't be surprised if some detected no condescension at all. I was aiming for a moderately condescending tone.
"Why would you want to do that?" you might reasonably wonder. I'll tell you why. Bob's post came across to me as rather pompous. Perhaps it didn't strike you that way (at least you didn't write a post informing him of that fact). I'm guessing his post came across differently to different people. If Bob didn't mean to exhibit a sense of self-importance, then I will gladly apologize to him.
Let me show you how Bob's post reads to me. First, he presented a rather weak defense of David's statement. That's fine. I see poor arguments being made rather frequently on this forum. I actually would rather see bad arguments than no discussion at all, because I sometimes learn interesting and useful things about poker by looking at the game from different perspectives--even if I disagree with the idea that initially caused me look from that new point of view.[1]
Anyway, Bob continued: "Certainly I agree with [Sklansky's] statement." [I.e.: Who wouldn't? Obviously you'd have to be an idiot not to.]
Bob wrote: "Sklansky's book is not the #1 poker book in the world for nothing." [I.e.: Most people would treat this as a subjective opinion, but my opinion is worth so much that I'll present it as an objective fact. And if a book is so important to be #1 in the world, then nothing in it possibly could be incorrect.]
Bob then signed off: "Bob J. B.S. Computer Science U. of Texas M.S. Mathematics U. of Houston M.S. Mathematics U. of Illinois" [I.e.: Look at the many degrees after my name. I'm obviously an expert, so my argument must be correct no matter how poor its logic might be.]
Bob, of course, is free to write and sign his posts in any fashion he desires. If he chooses to write in a pompous style, however, then he shouldn't be surprised if someone responds in a condescending tone.
I, of course, could choose not to respond in a condescending tone. And you might believe that doing so reveals a flaw in my character. That's okay. We don't have to agree on this issue. And my character has plenty of flaws.
You wrote: "I suspect that you're trying to be helpful, and stimulate conversation, but just posting asking someone if they understood what you wrote reads in a very condescending tone."
I genuinely appreciate this feedback. I didn't intend to come across as very condescending, so I might have to adjust my tone level a bit.
You wrote: ". . . I do think that a reasonable person could easily interpret your post as implying that Bob is not the brightest bunny in the forest."
That reasonable person would be making a good inference, for I don't believe Bob is the brightest bunny in the forest. I don't believe he is the dimmest, either.
-----------------------
[1] A few months ago, on this forum, I started a couple threads concerning different perspectives and "thinking outside the box." I noted then that, although I agree with John Feeney more often than I agree with Gary Carson, I learn more about poker from Gary's posts. Gary often causes me to look at poker in new ways, while John generally presents an S&M perspective.
"I wouldn't be surprised if some detected no condescension at all. "
Only those that can't read.
vince
having searched this from every angle I can think of, I don't see how that could be wrong??? Jim
"having searched this from every angle I can think of, I don't see how that could be wrong??? Jim "
Ha, a lot you know! Go ahead Mark show him!
Vince
In your example below, the opponent's hand is known. If Bev is drawing to a 10-high flush against an unlet hand, the probability of it being the best hand if she hits must be factored in to her computaion of her implied EV. I think that is what DS is implying. I'd have a hard time calling it an error.
Phat Mack,
You wrote: "In your example below, the opponent's hand is known."
You are quite correct to note that the hand I analyzed in the thread below does not refute David's statement. I did not mean to suggest that it did.
I only meant that "Understanding EV (Part 3): Implied odds" might provide readers with a tool that could help them better examine David's statement. Some readers even might be able to develop examples that do refute his statement.
"Some readers even might be able to develop examples that do refute his statement. "
Not in this lifetime. If it could be done ,Mark Glover would have spent his time doing it. Hey Mark I read your posts. Whassa matter you avoidin me. It's o.k. cause I still read yours. And my rule of thumb is that if you no like what I say no open my post. Thank you.
Vince
Could it be you spent a few years in Hawaii, or are from there? Just curious.
Papio
No, never been to Hawaii. But if you are looking for a date and are willing to pay for the trip. I'm listenin. You know what they say about beggars.
Vince
sss
Just like in any poker situation, things like "awfully sure" don't really put it well. Instead, one should try to determine the probability that the hand will be good if hit, and figure that into the equation. If there are 5 big bets in the pot on the turn, costing me one to call, and my odds of hitting are 6-1, then I need to expect to be able to collect one more big bet on the river if I hit. This could mean just always getting one more bet and always winning, or it could mean winning only 75% of the time that I hit, but getting more bets from others into the pot, either from mulitway action or because I will get to raise and be called, etc. I don't have it in me to do a complicated mathematical example like your previous ones Mark, but I hope what I've said is clear enough.
That said, I wouldn't necessarily call Sklansky's statement a mistake as much as an oversimplification.
DeadBart,
Well said.
Your comments address one of the concerns I have with David's statement.
You also wrote: "That said, I wouldn't necessarily call Sklansky's statement a mistake as much as an oversimplification."
To simplify concepts can be okay sometimes. To oversimplify them seems like a mistake to me.
x
"To oversimplify them seems like a mistake to me."
Well, now you're talking about a different kind of mistake. When DS says "awfully sure" he's obviously speaking colloquiqally, just as in the prior sentence where he warns against a "decent chance" of losing if you make the draw. So while your post implies a theoretical shortcoming in the book, your real issue is with his prosaic style. This is why you come across as pedantic instead of provocative.
Otherwise you're aboslutely right in pointing out that one doesn't always need a 100% chance of winning, or close to it, of the draw comes in to justify a play based on future bets. But one does need reliable information about the likelihood of winning, and information indicating a high probability of winning is more reliable than a wide range of possible outcomes. Also, in many cases one will have to have nearly a 100% chance of winning due to the need to match bets on multiple rounds, I'm thinking here of a seven card stud decision on an early street, where the fat bet you get to make if your hand hits will be small in proportion to the bets you'll might have to match in order to get there.
But I doubt that there's anyone who doesn't instinctively grasp this. For example, watch what happens in a $1-2 Paradise game when the house throws $500 or $1,000 into the pot as a promotion. Few of the players know much about formal poker theory, yet none of them will fold until it's hopeless.
Chris,
You wrote: "Well, now you're talking about a different kind of mistake. When DS says 'awfully sure' he's obviously speaking colloquiqally, just as in the prior sentence where he warns against a 'decent chance' of losing if you make the draw."
Aw, shucks there, Chris. I ain't reckon Dave's jus a flappin' his gums fer the fun of it. Do you? I think he was trying to tell his readers something meaningful.
When you discuss the theory and mathematics of poker, phrases like "awfully sure" should have some reasonable meaning associated with them if you wish to convey information to your readers.
In your last sentence, for example, you wrote: "Few of the players know much about formal poker theory, yet none of them will fold until it's hopeless."
I assume you don't want readers to interpret "few" to mean anywhere between 0 and 75 percent.
You wrote: "So while your post implies a theoretical shortcoming in the book, your real issue is with his prosaic style."
If you attach a reasonable meaning to "awfully sure" (say, "at least 95 percent certain"), then I think David's statement is a theoretical shortcoming rather than a stylistic choice.
You wrote: "This is why you come across as pedantic instead of provocative."
The fact that you would grasp at such a pathetic straw in a desperate attempt to defend David's statement is why you come across as a 2+2 toadie.
You wrote: ". . . information indicating a high probability of winning is more reliable than a wide range of possible outcomes."
This is not necessarily true. Do you understand why?
Avoiding the point, twisting definitions, name-calling, typical boring condescension... Oh well, it's what we've come to expect.
You wrote: "This is why you come across as pedantic instead of provocative."
The fact that you would grasp at such a pathetic straw in a desperate attempt to defend David's statement is why you come across as a 2+2 toadie.
It's interesting that I get name-called a "2+2 toadie" after stating that you were "absolutely correct" in pointing out that Sklansky's statement is not always right. I take it you are demanding a more zealous endorsement of your miraculous brilliance.
If you cannot grasp how you are being pedantic, you are in desperate need of either a dictionary or a therapist.
"toadie"? I always thought that was a condecending frog. Careful Mark. Some may think it's a frog calling the tadpole a toad.
vince
Implied odds are why you play starting hands in the first place. Especially with weaker hands like suited connectors and small pairs, implied odds in loose games are where the profit comes from. So if taken literally, Sklanksy is wrong. But I suspect he meant taking implied odds on later streets.
Even so, you can construct scenarios where it's profitable on paper to rely on implied odds even if your hand might not hold up. You just need higher implied odds to compensate for the times you lose.
Chip,
You wrote: "Implied odds are why you play starting hands in the first place."
I'd say, "Implied odds are why you play *some* starting hands in the first place."
You wrote: "Even so, you can construct scenarios where it's profitable on paper to rely on implied odds even if your hand might not hold up."
I know some players are able to identify situations at the tables where this occurs.
This is a statement open to interpretation, and I'm sure we can find a correct interpretation and an incorrect one. I'd like to talk about what I think Sklansky means and why.
If you're talking about EV calculation, you don't need to be at all sure that your hand will hold up. You just need an estimate of the percentage chance your hand will hold up, factor in the percentage chance of winning X extra bets (where X is usually going to be one or two), and you now know your increased EV on future bets.
So in that sense, the statement is wrong. You don't need to be sure your hand will be good, you just need to do the EV calculations, and you're gold.
In practice, though, most people can't do those kinds of calculations at the table in the middle of a hand. In that case, you look at the price the pot is paying you, guess at the bets you'll make after you hit, and go if it looks good.
The implicit assumption that many players make is that their hand will be good if they hit it. What Sklansky is pointing out here is that if you're doing that sort of off-the-cuff analysis, your assumption of winning if you hit had better be a good one, or all your EV calculations are for naught.
I think his statement, while not accurate if you take it in a very narrowly interpreted sense, is accurate in that it provides the right information to the vast majority of readers who run across it.
I do think that the theory of poker doesn't discuss EV as well as it could, though, which may be what you're really getting at.
- target
Target,
You wrote: "The implicit assumption that many players make is that their hand will be good if they hit it. What Sklansky is pointing out here is that if you're doing that sort of off-the-cuff analysis, your assumption of winning if you hit had better be a good one, or all your EV calculations are for naught."
Perhaps that is what David intended to say, but I suspect your claim is a real stretch. If he did mean this, however, then I believe you will agree that his statement is poorly worded.
You wrote: "I think his statement, while not accurate if you take it in a very narrowly interpreted sense, is accurate in that it provides the right information to the vast majority of readers who run across it."
I think his statement is not accurate in the normally interpreted sense. I also think his statement, as written, probably misleads many of his readers.
You wrote: "I do think that the theory of poker doesn't discuss EV as well as it could, though, which may be what you're really getting at."
I agree TOP doesn't discuss EV as well as it could. David's treatment of EV is one of the criticisms I have regarding that book.
> I agree TOP doesn't discuss EV as well as it could. David's treatment of EV is one of the criticisms I have regarding that book.
What else can the book be about but EV? If he doesn't treat EV right then what good is the book?
(I haven't read it btw)
kma,
Earlier, I wrote: "I agree TOP doesn't discuss EV as well as it could. David's treatment of EV is one of the criticisms I have regarding that book."
You asked: "What else can the book be about but EV?"
The Fundamental "Theorem" of Poker, how to read hands, psychology, game evaluation, rules of play, etc.
Of course, much of it also covers EV--a rather important concept when you are discussing poker theory. But David often presents his ideas in terms of short cuts (e.g., pot odds, implied odds, effective odds) without doing a particularly good job of relating these to back to EV. This has its advantages and its disadvantages.
You also asked: "If he doesn't treat EV right then what good is the book?"
I didn't say he never treats EV correctly. Sometimes he does a good job; sometimes he doesn't do such a good job. As I noted, "TOP doesn't discuss EV as well as it could."
You noted: "I haven't read it btw"
I recommend that serious players read TOP.
Lets take a glimpse at the situation without pointing fingers. Some of what i am saying here has been said by others in their own way.
"If you are going to take a short price from the pot in hopes of winning future bets, you had better be awfully sure that your hand will hold up when you make it." [David Sklansky, THE THEORY OF POKER (1999), p. 59.] "
Compare the above statement to:
"If you are going to take a short price from the pot in hopes of winning future bets, you had better be awfully sure that you will get those bets in future rounds."
So whats the difference beween these?
In the second statement the only concern is implied odds. There is no concern over the chance the hand is good when we hit. Therefore any adjustments would be made by reducing the implied odds. We see that this is a fraction of a single bet type mistake. If we think there is only a 80% chance, we reduce our implied odds estimate down by 20%. Our mistake represents a fraction of the future bet (s).
But the first statement is completely different. In this case we have not only a double impact on the implied odds, but also we need to reduce our chances of winning. A mistake like this is both a fraction of a bet mistake and a fraction of a pot mistake. Obviously, since the pot size in limit hold'em is usually very large in comparison to the bet size, we see how this can be significant.
Let's say in a 10-20 limit game we have 70 in the pot with a 4-1 draw, expecting to make a bet on the river when we win:
70 * .2 -20*.8 + (20*.2)= 14 - 16 + 4 = 2 = ev
OR
3.5+(1) odds needing 4-1, which is an overlay with an ev of 10% of the big bet, using the pot odds ev shortcut.
So we see that a change in the estimate of the implied odds effects 20*.2 in the first eq and the +1 in the pot odds eq. If we adjust for an error (we think its 80% chance of getting the river bet) for this we:
3.5 +.8, needing 4-1, or 6%BB EV.
OR
70 * .2 -20*.8 + (20*.2 *.8)= 14 - 16 + 3.2 = 1.2
which you can see in both case is a relatively minor change (see below).
But in the case of statement one, Sklansky's statement, the following adjustment would have to be made (if believe in this case that there is a chance a hand won't hold up). Lets use the same number, 80%, but this time again assume that we will make a bet 100% of the time we hit and are good. i also assume we have to pay off on the river when we hit and are not good:
So chance of being good is now .8 * .2 =.16, thus
ev= 70 * .16 - 20*.84 + 20*.16 - 20 * .04= 11.2 - 16.8 + 3.2 -.8= -2.48.
we see that this change has altered the profitability of the play. the important thing to notice in this second situation is that not only do the other variables change, but the biggest number 70 which is the pot on the turn, undergoes a devaluation so to speak. The combined effect of such a miscalculation can be devastating.
It is very important to realize, as well, that the magnitude of this mistake would increase drastically, all else being equal, as the pot size increased. In this example, the pot size was pretty small.
The conclusion is that a miscalculation of the chances to win goes to the heart of the EV calculation (or equivalent pot odds adjustment), whereas a mistake of poorly estimating implied odds is a relatively minor mistake, all else being equal. Naturally, as the implied odds you estimated increased vis a vis pot size, this would change. This type of thing happens sometimes multiway, or in non structured betting limits.
Notes: there could easily be mistakes in any of the math, but that will not change the concept.
Regards.
Backdoor,
I might change a few words here and there, but I think your basic concept is sound.
Thanks for your contributions.
"If we think there is only a 80% chance, we reduce our implied odds estimate down by 20%."
80% chance of what?
I read through it again and now see what the 80% is. I have some comments, but it's late. I'll try to get to them tomorrow.
Okay I followed everything in your post. Let me see if I can rephrase without losing anything. You're pointing out that a mistake that costs you the pot is a serious one, and that a player thinking in terms of Sklansky's statement might sometimes fold when he should call, costing himself the pot.
Oddly, it almost looks like you're discouraging players from estimating whether or not their outs will be good if they connect.
I would counter that routinely failing to recognize when their outs will not be good (that is, they aren't really outs) is one of the more costly mistakes made by average players. Of course you don't want to make pot costing errors, but that does not mean you should ignore the likelihood your outs will be good. Otherwise we'd all be drawing to two overcards at every opportunity.
Obvious example: You hold 87s in BB. A fairly well playing raiser and two cold callers. You call. Flop = Q-J-T. Raiser bets, others fold. You're getting 9.5-1 on a call. Assume you think there's a strong chance that if you connect you can pick up two more big bets from the other player. I say that in this case the chances your outs will not be good when they hit is the key factor on which to focus. The times they won't be good will more than nullify the extra bets you pick up when they are. (not to mention the additional bets you will lose when raised if you stubbornly stick with your hand)
However, make the flop T-9-8, and your hand KQ, and you probably have a call.
Well, I would think you would agree with this, so maybe I totally missed something. All I can say is the chances of your outs being good is an important consideration
We seem to agree. I need to work on my posting skills as I do not believe I got my message across well.
Regards.
If not how would you best characterize the distribution of results?
nt
Not sure what "normally" means here, but my guess is about 5 lifetimes for things to really even out. That's not to say that it should be necessary for things to even out in order to be a big winner.
Guess you didn't pay too much attention during lectures in university.
Check out any stat text book.
Thanks for the tip.
On a related subject, how long would you think it should take for the cards to truly "break even" in poker (not referring to "normal distribution" here)?
No they are not. But a normal distribution will provide a good working estimate for most scenarios. The particular distribution depends on the player, the limit and the game, but in general you are going to have a disproportionatly high number of the top percentile results.
- Andrew
Well, if we are to believe that there is such a thing as a winning poker stategy then the answer to your question must be no, results are not normally distributed. Results must therefore be distibuted biased by the skill level of the individual. A winning player's results would skewewd to the right with a losing players to the left.
vince
I don't see any proof that results are normally distributed.
Most money on the table changes hands when hands are very similar eg j8 vs j7, and board shows j87j4.
I would need proof that that poker winnings (and losings) fall into normal distribution curves.
This is a huge problem that many people have asked about before, yet no satisfactory answer has been given. Poker results simply do not meet the criteria of symmetry about the mean: for a given time interval you will have many outcomes that are greater than your worst losses. Also, individual idiosyncrasies can skew the distribution, such as quitting when a certain amount of profit is lost or playing much longer (and worse) when stuck. In the first case you have an abnormal peak at small gains (likely greater than the mean peak); in the second you get more big losses than medium losses. In neither case do you get a smooth bell curve, even with an infinite number of data points.
The real question is whether the normal distribution is the best approximation. Since the assumptions are very robust, the answer appears to me to be yes. But it would be very interesting to have a statistician who will acknowledge the non-random assymetric nature of poker outcomes to comment on this.
I may have misunderstood this question. Are you asking if winners and losers are normally distibuted or If individual results are normally distibuted or what? Just what are you defining as "results"?
Vince
The question pertained to the question if individual results are normally distibuted after some long period of time. The second part of the question addressed the issue if they are not then what kind of distribution should we use. The answer seems to be that they are not but a normal distribution is the best approximation and that approximation is very close.
Thank you, Tom. I think I got it now.
vince
If you and your opponents never made any strategy adjustments in response to your running bad or running good, and if you always bought more chips before being in risk of going all-in, then I think your theoretical distribution of poker results (per time unit) would be normal. Of course, this is not the case.
I believe the manner and extent to which your poker results distribution varies from normal would largely depend on the type of adjustments (intentional or otherwise) you make when winning or losing. In most cases, however, I doubt that the variation would be sufficient to render useless statistical tests which assume a normal distribution.
Your distribution of poker results would be normal if you were a profile in Turbo Texas Hold'em!
Not likely,
This would possibly be true if the game was heads up with a very small ante. Antes/blinds and multiway actions mess up the normal distribution.
- Andrew
The tails are probably fatter than normal.
It's not just a good idea, it's a theorem. You can clearly bound the fat-tailed behavior of a poker hand by, say, a 9:1 gamble, and more realistically a 6:1 gamble. With 50 hands per hour the convergence to a normal distribution is very accurate over just a few hours. In particular the distribution of poker is probably not more skewed than an exponential distribution. You can see the average of exponential distributions converge to a normal distribution at
http://www.ms.uky.edu/~lancastr/java/cltexp.html.
Note the sum of exponential distributions follows a chi-square distribution - you can look up the tables in a statistics book.
Yes, yes, but that begs the question whether the approximation of a normal distribution over the span of time a poker player plays poker in a month/year/lifetime is reasonably accurate. If the sample intervals are long enough you are sampling from a normal distribution, but what if the sample interval required to get a good approximation of a normal distribution is, say, 200 hours? Then you need a couple years' results to get good data.
Also, human behavior ain't random and does apply over the critical interval, the "session." Poor or odd choices consistently made within a session would "slow down" the approach to a normal distribution such that a reasonable approximation may not be had for what, years? Decades? E.g., suppose a guy plays 1-20 hours and the vast majority of the time goes home broke (out $500) or ahead $2000. Just ye run yer variance on that.
This is no news to stats, and if someone out there would just lay out a reasonable set of assumptions about a typical player's erratic play and then show over what time interval the normal distribution assumptions become robust, I'd be grateful. If it is indeed axiomatic, explain only the example above: a player who cashes out behind $500 or ahead $2,000 and plays til he gets there, usually 1-20 hours.
Many thanks in advance,
Matt
I think you need to qualify the question more and ask, "For a given limit is an n-hour session close to being normally distributed?"
The closeness to normality will depend on N. Kim Lee cited the central limit theorem which implies that if each hour of play has the same distribution then as N increases, the distribution approaches normality.
But this might not be sufficient for your purposes. If you want to know how long your sessions should be in order to use Mason's standard deviation formula, then you want to have a minimum session length.
If you play 15-minute sessions on-line, then you might get better results if you aggregated some of your sessions together for purposes of estimating your standard deviation. This would be especially true if 15 minute sessions were very far from being normally distributed.
Maybe the best way to get insight into win/loss distributions is to try to find the distribution of a round. You can then estimate how many rounds per hour you play, and use the central limit theorem to work out how many hours are needed to have a close to a normal distribution.
If someone who has compiled a big database of hand histories from online play would like to contribute such analysis results to the forum, then I, for one, would appreciate it.
Steve
You get a better estimate with more frequent data, ideally every hand. Comments about extensive analysis of real data are simply uninformed about the robustness of the central limit theorem in this application.
Yes, results are slower to converge to normality if they are more skewed. But I used a 4:1 distribution! This has more extreme skewness than even one hour in a wild game. Think about it - this assumes you simply jam AA, KK, or AK to the river against 4 opponents and fold everything else, with 47 hands per session. Do you know of a more skewed game?! Note any variance from smaller pots will decrease the skewness.
In other words 25 hours in the wildest game will be very close to normal (with high variance). Think about it - many people use 30 observations as a convenient threshold to apply the normal distribution to an average. But 25 hours is over 1000 observations of hands.
If you were to record the results of each hand to estimate s.d. and mean, then you should probably calculate those statistics by position. That is why I suggested looking at results by round.
Also if you had a record by hand, then you would not use Mason's formula to estimate s.d., you would not need to. My point about not using very short sessions as independent data points applies to using Mason's formula. I am not sure, but I think Mason's formula assumes that each session has a normal distribution. To the extent that this is untrue the estimated s.d. will be off (probably low). If you play 35 hands in an hour, then that might be enough to assume normality and thus you could plug in results by hour into Mason's formula and converge quickly to your actual s.d. But there might be a problem for very short sessions, especially if they were mixed in with longer sessions.
Take an extreme example. Suppose you posted a big blind, played the hand, then quit. Should you treat this like the other sessions in Mason's formula?
The formula is merely a weighted average of squared deviations from the mean. Consequently it is a "consistent estimator" even when data are not normal.
You have a small valid point about the mean changing by position. But this effect is extemely small. Most people want an unconditional estimator of their variance, i.e., what is my variance for 49 "random" hands. They don't want to calculate the variance for "49 hands including 10 big blinds" separately from "49 hands including 9 big blinds".
In the Dejanews archives, Mel3Brown's formulas are bad. Let me emphasize good properties of the "maximum likelihood" estimator from Mason Malmuth's _Gambling Theory and Other Topics_.
1) Mason's formula gives the most efficient weighting to sessions of different length. After many sessions it will give a more accurate answer than formulas that use different weights.
2) More importantly, the expected value of Mason's formula does not depend on session lengths, even if you plan your next session length based on results of previous sessions. In contrast, Mel3Brown puts too little weight on short sessions. So if you have a long low-risk session then you could artificially influence Mel3Brown's statistic by subsequently playing short ones.
3) Any formula can be influenced if you plan to end and record your session based on current session results.
4) Since each poker session is the sum of dozens of hands, the normal distribution is an excellent approximation.
5) Yes Mason's formula is "biased". You can simply multiply the variance by n/(n-1). So what - the actual number is never exactly correct anyway.
6) A Bayesian statistician would average actual results with prior beliefs. For example, Mason's book might suggest your game has a variance of 144 bets per hour. And your subjective belief might assign a confidence equivalent to 6 sessions. To compute the Bayesian estimate, you average these 6 unseen sessions with your actual data. In other words you include 3 artifical 1-hour sessions winning an abnormal 12 bets, and 3 artificial sessions losing an abnormal 3 bets on top of your win rate. As you accumulate actual results the influence of these 6 prior sessions will diminish.
7) Don Schlesinger's book _Blackjack Attack_ has formulas for risk of ruin during finite trips, etc.
Question-- I have staked (sp?) my friend numerous times in bigger games. He is an excellent player and I trust him. What I usually do is tell him what you lose is on me and I take half of your winnings. Is this fair for us both? I only got this idea from Rounders. Is there a better way to stake someone? So far I have done this like 5 times and he hasn't lost yet.
thanks stud
If you are making this deal on a session by session basis, you are likely to get burned. If the stake is for the long haul, then its okay, but when you say that you have done this five times and he has won every time, it leads me to believe that you are making this deal every session. If you know your friend is a winner, you can make this arrangement, but you cannot afford to cover him on the nights he goes bust and still win $$.
If he's that good, why does he need your money?
This is a disaster for you.
If he loses $200 once (5 hrs) and wins $400 once (5hrs) his table net is $200 or $20/hour or 1bb/hour in a 10/20. You obsorb the $200 loss and get half the win for $200 or break even; he gets $200 with no risk whatsoever.
There is also too much temptation on his part to play "money management" schemes, even if sub-consiously; such as gambling it up when stuck since there is no difference to HIM between a $1000 and a $1500 loss. Nobody can consistently play top form without the threat of loss.
There is practically no way you can make money with this arrangement. There is practically no way your friendship will survive unscathed.
Better to stake him proportionately. If he wants to play 20/40 but has only the bankroll for 5/10, then you put up 3 parts of his buy in (say $900) and he puts up 1 part (say $300). You get 3/4 of whatever money he cashes out. Now he's playing for 5/10 stakes at a 20/40 table and you are affectively staked 15/30 at a 20/40 table. This works now because, as you said, he has a 5-win bankroll.
- Louie
if you want to continue, and i'm not at all sure you should, then you need to work out a new agreement which takes some of future wins to pay you back for past losses.
such an agreement is common, and seems like your friend would have to agree that this is fair...since you now have no back loss to cope with, it's a good time to start. Jim
Poker results will be exponentially distributed for the individual poker player. If we make limit and session length constant and plot results of each individual session with x being the session and y the amount won or loss we will find a disproportinate number of winning sessions and a high variance of money lost among the losing sessions including some abnormal losses for the given limit. Winning sessions will, with a few exceptions, all be within a standard deviation of win rate. Winning sessions will gow exponetially for the good player that does not improve or lose any of his edge. The opposite will be true for the poor player that does not get better or worse. Thes basis for this prediciton is the primary factor determinign win rate is Game Selection. Given that the good player continues with his game selection practices and the poor player his results will stay constant. Interestingly enough the player that does not practice game selection but establishes a positieve or negative win rate will also find himself on the exponential curve of winning and losing. My guess is that the break even (money) player will also follow some exponetial winning session curve but will have even greater abnornmal losses than the winning player.
Vince
The basis for your prediction should be playing strength, not game selection. Mark
"The basis for your prediction should be playing strength, not game selection. Mark "
At first that is what I believed but it's not the prime factor in consistent winning or losing. Even if you are an expert that has an edge in almost any game, game selection will have a dramatic affect on your results.
vince
Are you of the opinion that the ratio of good to bad players was and is a constant?
I think it's possible that the better than average player of today could have been a pro in a prior decade(s). Therefore the ratio of good to poor players would be lower than it is today. If this is true, at some point the winning players winning curve will begin to flatten, and would eventually go into decline. jmo
Mike
"Are you of the opinion that the ratio of good to bad players was and is a constant? "
No. I believe that the ratio is growing in favor of the good player. True the average player of today is better than some yeteryear pros but that does not mean that there are not more poor players than yesterday Plus the pro of today is also much better than yesterdays. Poker is growing. I'm not sure how fast but I am sure it is getting more and more popular. More nickel and dime home game players are coming to casinos to Gamble at there favorite social game. This trend I believe will continue. As long as it does then the poker pro is safe and may even do better.
vince
Vince, I still want a way to compute my bankroll, hours needed to guarantee a win, etc. Being able to say that poker results are normally distributed gives me a way to do this. Tom Weideman pointed out a dispute regarding bankroll calculations. At three standard deviations the formula he advocates differs from the forula in GTOH by 44%. Actually I think it's by 24% to 34% because I believe GTOH suggests adding 10% to 20% to the calculated value. The higher the risk of ruin the more the two methods differ. The formulas require the same bankroll at something over 4 standard deviations. I read the thread he pointed out and it's interesting but I'm going to have to buy the book by Griffen to understand how the formula was derived I guess.
"I still want a way to compute my bankroll, "
I understand. I can't help there. I accept Mason's BR requirements. I trust him. But I definitely believe that a good method for doing the calculation would be helpful both practically and psychologically.
Vince
Perhaps you would agree with the following statement:
"there is no a priori reason to believe that poker results are normally distributed"
yes.
vince
and a high variance of money lost among the losing sessions including some abnormal losses for the given limit.
sounds like someone who cant quit when they're stuck.
HI.
As far as I know, the exponential distribution only has support on the positive half-axix. Do you work with 2 distributions, 1 for wins and one for losses?
/ Hope I´m not off topic here.
steen
Well I may be mistaken but if one has a winning session it would be plotted on the positive x axis and a losing session would be plotted on the negative x axis with the winning amount plotted on the positive y axis and the loss on the negative y axis. Yes, even though you are plotting an individuals serial results you would be effectively dealing with two distributions, one for wins and one for losses. What I believe you will find is that the winning sessions of a winning player will grow expontially with losses growing likewise for a losing player (unless they went broke and quit). Win rate could be calculated after each session and would eventually flatten out even though winning or losing sessions would continue to grow at an exponential rate. The greatest peaks and valleys (money won or loss in a session) would be seen in losing sessions of winning players and winning sessions of losing players.
Vince
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 26 July 2001, at 3:04 p.m.
Suppose you lose $1 or win $4 in 25 sessions of a fair game. The column labelled "Left" shows the exact probability of winning a number of sessions or less. You have a binomial probability of 61.7% of winning 5 sessions or less, and a probability of 42.1% of winning 4 sessions or less. The normal approximation gives a 50% chance. Because of the discrete 20% chance of winning exactly 5 sessions, the probability of winning 4 or less is roughly 10% less than the normal approximation and the probability of winning 5 or less is roughly 10% more than the normal approximation.
Poker players are concerned about tail probabilities. The standard deviation is 2 sessions or $10. A 2 standard deviation event would be winning 1 session or less or winning more than 8 sessions. The binomial probability of winning 1 session or less is 2.7%, and the normal approximation is 2.3%. The binomial probability of winning more than 8 sessions is 4.7%, and the normal approximation of winning $20 is still 2.3%. This difference is large because there is a 3% chance of winning exactly 9 sessions. A more appropriate comparison might adjust the 4.7% probability by half the chance of winning exactly 9 sessions (3%) to give 3.2%.
In conclusion the normal distribution has small error. It closely estimates the chance of running bad (2.7% versus 2.3%). Due to skewness it somewhat underestimates the chance of running good (3.2% versus 2.3%).
Number $ Left Normal Right Normal 0 -25 0.004 0.006 0.996 0.994 1 -20 0.027 0.023 0.973 0.977 2 -15 0.098 0.067 0.902 0.933 3 -10 0.234 0.159 0.766 0.841 4 -5 0.421 0.309 0.579 0.691 5 0 0.617 0.500 0.383 0.500 6 5 0.780 0.691 0.220 0.309 7 10 0.891 0.841 0.109 0.159 8 15 0.953 0.933 0.047 0.067 9 20 0.983 0.977 0.017 0.023 10 25 0.994 0.994 0.006 0.006
Suppose you lose $1 or win $4 in 25 sessions of a fair game. The column labelled "Left" shows the exact probability of winning a number of sessions or less. You have a binomial probability of 61.7% of winning 5 sessions or less, and a probability of 42.1% of winning 4 sessions or less. The normal approximation gives a 50% chance. Because of the discrete 20% chance of winning exactly 5 sessions, the probability of winning 4 or less is roughly 10% less than the normal approximation and the probability of winning 5 or less is roughly 10% more than the normal approximation.
Poker players are concerned about tail probabilities. The standard deviation is 2 sessions or $10. A 2 standard deviation event would be winning 1 session or less or winning more than 8 sessions. The binomial probability of winning 1 session or less is 2.7%, and the normal approximation is 2.3%. The binomial probability of winning more than 8 sessions is 4.7%, and the normal approximation of winning $20 is still 2.3%. This difference is large because there is a 3% chance of winning exactly 9 sessions. A more appropriate comparison might adjust the 4.7% probability by half the chance of winning exactly 9 sessions (3%) to give 3.2%.
In conclusion the normal distribution has small error. It closely estimates the chance of running bad (2.7% versus 2.3%). Due to skewness it somewhat underestimates the chance of running good (3.2% versus 2.3%).
Number $ Left Normal Right Normal0 -25 0.004 0.006 0.996 0.994
1 -20 0.027 0.023 0.973 0.977
2 -15 0.098 0.067 0.902 0.933
3 -10 0.234 0.159 0.766 0.841
4 -5 0.421 0.309 0.579 0.691
5 0 0.617 0.500 0.383 0.500
6 5 0.780 0.691 0.220 0.309
7 10 0.891 0.841 0.109 0.159
8 15 0.953 0.933 0.047 0.067
9 20 0.983 0.977 0.017 0.023
10 25 0.994 0.994 0.006 0.006
"The column labelled "Left" shows the exact probability of winning a number of sessions or less. "
On what are you basing these numbers? Are you saying that the player has an equal chance of winning or losing a given session. If so I challenge your your results as not applicable to an individuals actual results.
Vince
.
[Vince: Kim is referring to a fair game in which there is a 20% probability of winning 4 and an 80% probability of losing 1, so the mean is to break even / win four sessions.]
Thanks much for the illustration Kim. I far overestimated the tail effects and underestimated the mean effects.
Some have questioned Mark Glover's view of the "error" in Sklansky's THE THEORY OF POKER. Those of you who are newer to the forums might gain some perspective on the issue by taking a look at a past Glover thread. It may be something of a prototype for this kind of Glover post. (Note the post by "Ac As" is misplaced in the thread.) To view the thread click here
Clarifier,
I guess my attempt at humor fell a little flat--at least for your tastes. Come to think of it, John Feeney didn't seem to appreciate it, either. Oh, well. I don't claim to be a very funny person.
My 22 July 2001 thread entitled "Error in Sklansky's THEORY OF POKER?" is a serious thread (in case you haven't figured that out yet).
If you are a serious player with an interest in implied odds (or EV in general), then you might want to read it. I especially recommend the 25 July 2001 (1:28 a.m.) post by "backdoor" and the 23 July 2001 (2:23 p.m.) post by "DeadBart."
Gee Mark, I wasn't here to see that post of yours when you originally wrote it, but I'll tell you, when I happened on it in the archives (not yesterday but a while back) it REALLY didn't look like a joke to me! Was it really? When I think back, you ALWAYS put lot's of winky smiley faces ;-) in your posts to alert us to your attempts at humor. But this one had neither those nor any other indication of humor. In fact, it was quite typical of many of your posts in which you critique something with roughly the significance of a typo. But thanks for setting me straight. Maybe someday I'll find the time to look for a couple more such posts in the archives. I'd like to ask you about them because maybe they too were only -
Hey, just a minute here. Are you being straight with me? Could it simply be that you finally recognized the absurdity of that post, realized you couldn't defend it as a typical example of your serious efforts, and opted for the ol' "It was a joke!" tactic, sometimes used by internet posters who've been cornered? Nah, couldn't be... could it? No, I've read your posts (even responded to a couple a few months ago), and I think you're more honest than that. Therefore, given how typical of your posts that one is, I choose to believe instead that you have just now begun to reveal to us a pattern of joke posts (with a couple of serious ones thrown in to prevent us from catching on too quickly?) going back some three years or more. Wow! You really put one over on us Glover. You old fart, you. Damn, way to go! Which was the next joke Mark? I'm all ears!
you may need a clarifier...jmho..gl
....well! Now i know!
Here I had been thinking that this guy is way to SERIOUS about EV.....come to find out it'sd all a joke...makes me feel better, won't have to worry about him anymore...he's just a funny guy, like Vince.
There has been much discussion on these boards regarding the expected win rate of a good middle limit holdem player. I have not read any similar discussions of expected win rates for a good tournament player. I would like to hear from anyone with opinions on this. For example assume a player enters limit holdem tournaments only with an average buyin of $200 and an average field of 200 entries. What can a player who is in the top 5 percent from a skill perspective expect to earn per tournament?
This question was botched badly by Steve Badger because he only looked at his own results that have not yet regressed to the mean. The easiest way to look at it is to estimate your average number of hours and the average stakes you play. Starting with $200 in chips, you typically get in 40 minutes of 3-6, 38 minutes of 5-10, 30-minutes of 10-20, 15 minutes of 15-30, maybe 10 minutes of 20-40 etc. About three hours of play at the average stakes of about 10-20. If you can win a big bet and a half an hour that is $30 an hour for three hours. Put another way, the best players probably earn about ninety bucks profit in $200 buy in tourneys. Given the bankroll requirements and the swings, side games are probably better unless, like Badger you are being staked.
"This question was botched badly by Steve Badger. Given the bankroll requirements and the swings, side games are probably better unless, like Badger you are being staked."
You should post the question and your response over at RGP, David. It is sure to generate a 50 post response, with 45 of those responses coming from Badger defending himself.
This is a fiendishly hard problem, though no doubt very interesting to a number of tournament players, including myself. Unfortunately, your approach of taking established win rates at "cash" games and applying them to tournament outcomes is not sound. It would only have merit if the payout structure allowed for a player to cash out at any time (i.e., it was a cash game with escalating blinds).
I think the number of unknown variables is too high to develop a practical model. (As an aside, as you implied, deriving an expected win rate for any individual player using empirical results is also quite challenging given the variance. McEvoy claims to have won over 10% of the tournaments he has played. Yet he also acknowledges going over a year between wins -- and he is apparently one of the most prolific players and consistent players out there.) But I would be real interested in any ideas on how to tackle this problem. In the meantime, here are some thoughts: 1) Is Slansky right that the bankroll swings are inherently higher in tournaments? Maybe, but be careful about confusing this with variance. Intuitively, you can think about this in terms of the buy-in being your downside for each tournament (versus a multiple of that for an equivalent level cash game), graduated payout scales mitigating the "lottery effect" and so on. 2) Intuitively, it would seem that even slight gradations of skill level would be enhanced exponentially over the course of a tournament. Yet take this year's WSOP championship. I don't have the exact figures, but these are approximate enough to illustrate my point. Of last year's 45 money winners, four made the money this year. That's approximately the same percentage as for the overall field 45 out of 550. Granted, some of the previous year's money winners may not have played this year, but still...3) I have seen no rigourous examination of the effect of style on tournament success. e.g. an extremely aggressive approach is less likely to final table than a more moderate approach, yet more likely to win the tournament.
1. Any comments he made regarding monstous win rates applied to Omaha tournaments only. My comments are about all tournaments ,including Omaha. Personally I believe the highest hourly rates are achieved in No-Limit holdem Tournaments.
2.Badger constantly alludes to his own results to defend his position. But of course anyone can show an off the scale hourly rate (in tournaments) mainly due to luck, even after years of play. My simplistic proof as to why the hourly rate must be near what I say is only mildly negated by the payoff structure of tournaments. I think that should be obvious upon a little reflection.
As far as I know Badger is NOT ALLOWED to post here on 2 + 2. I realize it was mostly of his own doing but in all fairness the guy can't respond to any attack made on him. I think there are other ways to prove the point being made about Win Rate without bringing Badger into the discussion.
Vince
A friend and I are having a disagreement over exactly what can be derived from one's hourly standard deviation using Mason Malmuth's computations and entering data by the session Vs. by the hour.
He says computing your hourly standard deviation by session is meaningless in determining a range of what can reasonably be expected in any given hour of play. He cites for example, that an hourly SD of $150/hr in 10-20 hold'em using Malmuth's calculations per session, would be almost $300/hr if you were to compute it on an hourly basis.
While I realize the more percise way is to calculate one's SD by the hour instead of by the session, and this would result in a slightly different result, it should NO WAY be off by double! Should it? I would think you can still make sane conclusions about your hourly expected range(s), even by calculating by the session. Can anyone answer this? Thanks.
Your friend is wrong. However, the maximum likelihood estimator is a bias estimator. What this means is that for a small number of sessions the estimator will not be accurate. However, as the sample size grows the bias becomes negligible. Thus, once you have at least 30 sessions it should be pretty accurate.
The beauty of this technique is that you don't have to stop and record results after every hour of play. All you need are you session results and the number of hours that you played each time.
.
Hi all.
If you were to increase the number of sampling points, that is make notes on the hour, or even better for every hand, you would get a better estimate of sd. This estimate would not by nature result in larger estimates, but the estimate itself wold have a smaller variance. New problems would occur though. The present formulas are based on a normal approximation to the increments of your bankroll, and this could not be right if you were sampling by the hand.
Wold anyone know if the formula is based on a diffusion approximation?
regards steen
Everyone,
I have a very interesting question to ask of anyone on the post, and I am looking for a number of opinions. I especially would like to hear from Mason and Rae as I greatly value their opinions. At present I play in a live game that runs 5 to 8 handed. Play straight Hi Omaha, Hold Em, and some Omaha 8. In the last six months I have greatly expanded my knowledge of poker in general by digesting a number of texts (including many two plus two books which were excellent I might add). Furthermore, I have read and learned alot from posts on this poker forum. The question that I want to ask relates to what is more important in your poker game the Form of play or your game selection. I believe that ones game selection is the greatest factor to a significant win rate. For instance, reading all of the text and learning advanced concepts and plays is great for your general knowledge, and can be greatly beneficially no matter what poker table you choose to sit in on a given night. However, if you are lucky enough to find games where your straightforward plays are called and raised with the others at the table not taking into account pot or drawwing odds there is no need to apply advanced strategy. For example betting the max on a flopped flush draw with a $2.00 ante and having 7 callers. I would even argue that applying any strategy at all could allow your opponents to reflect on the game and see that you take it more seriously, and allow them to want to educate themselves which can be destructive to your hourly win rate. Dont get me wrong I love Poker and want to "Be the Best". However, there is nothing wrong with funding your way to being better at the easier games. I get the sense from reading many posts on this forum that players are attempting to know everything about the game and apply it all to beating a game no matter the level of competition. I beleive that the goal should be to learn all that you can for your own benefit, and then hope to find a game where these advances concepts and plays are not necessary due to the weakness of your opponents. If you are a big loser in a given game at a given level I do not beleive the answer is solely to learn more about the game although this is important. I beleive it is simply time for you to find a softer game where you are the favorite. After all isnt this the essence of "Playing Poker" vs. Gambling finding a game where you have an edge? Sorry for the length of this post, and I welcome any and all feedback.
I agree with you man. Once you have the basic skills and knowledge down pat, game selection above all can be a huge determining factor in your hourly win rate.
Just take this simple example into consideration. A few years ago, I was what you would consider a beginner. Ya, I played lots of home games, but never read any literature and never "studied" the game. Playing with my friends who are also unstudied and unpracticed beginners, I'd usually come out up or down mostly depending on the "luck of the cards" that particular night. On average, I'd come out with a positive win rate, partly because back then I at least had a rudimentary poker instinct and understanding (econ and math major in college you know).
However, during the past years I've studied and studied again my poker playing and logged over 700 hours in casinos using these more intermediate concepts and basic strategies.
Now, when I play my still beginner friends in home games, invariably, I come out the big winner. It's so easy, it's not even funny!!
However, at most casino tables, though not all players are well studied, many are much more than my home game buddies. And it shows in my win rate! Definitely more volatility and lower hourly rate! I probably won just as much per hour or even more when i was a much worse player in my home games than i do now in the casinos...
Lesson, game selection is definitely very very important! Having said that, it seems that these days players are more and more educated on the game, so finding a "good" game equivalent to my old home games in any given casino is practically impossible.
So the solution? Either find good home games with rich people willing to part with money, or just improve your game more than most casino players.
"So the solution? Either find good home games with rich people willing to part with money, or just improve your game more than most casino players. "
No where, not in any magazine, any book or any discussion with any expert will you find better advice.
vince
"Advanced" poker plays can also apply to the best of games. For example, the decision to bet or to check-raise with your flush draw has much to do with your ability to "read" and your position vis-a-vis likely bettors and raisors. There are also "plenty" (well, sort of) of opportunities for snagging a pot with the 2nd best hand by putting the best hand in awkward sandwhiched situations.
So while you CAN beat good games on mindless auto-play, you do better playing well and taking advantage of occasional situations as they arrise.
Otherwise, I agree with your post.
- Louie
Jason - “I believe that ones game selection is the greatest factor to a significant win rate.”
I agree.
“I beleive that the goal should be to learn all that you can for your own benefit, and then hope to find a game where these advances concepts and plays are not necessary due to the weakness of your opponents.”
Seems reasonable for your goal, if you like. I’m not rich, but I have enough money for my needs. I would do something else if my goal was making money. My goal playing poker is simply to become a better player, rather than to make money. That seems a difficult concept for some to understand. Perhaps it’s confusing because when I am at the poker table I am trying to win and the way you keep track of who is winning is with chips (money). I also try to win when playing bridge for no money at all. I don't think I'm alone.
“If you are a big loser in a given game at a given level I do not beleive the answer is solely to learn more about the game although this is important. I beleive it is simply time for you to find a softer game where you are the favorite.”
I disagree. If you’re a big loser in a given game, and if it bothers you to be a big loser, IMHO you might seriously consider doing something else entirely.
“After all isnt this the essence of "Playing Poker" vs. Gambling finding a game where you have an edge?”
Not for me it isn’t. The essence is overcoming the challenge, but there’s more than just that.
Did you ever want to climb a mountain or complete a crossword puzzle? Why would anyone want to climb a mountain or complete a crossword puzzle? There’s no money in it.
Buzz
Buzz
Thanks for your response, and i value your opinion on the matter. I guess what your saying relates directly to ones motives for playing poker. Of course I like to win money @ poker;however, competitiveness and other motives come into play outside of money. I would say that money is a key motivator for me in that I would rather win money in a soft game than challenge a tougher game just for the competition. I enjoy reading and learning all that I can, and at some point I would like to move up in the limits which will normally coorespond to tougher games. I can see a great advantage to your goal of becoming a better player in that when you do so you will obviously have more chips (money). This is an interesting concept, and one that may lead to a better pschological perspective on the game. Thanks Buzz and feel free to comment of this post as well!!!!!
Jason - You're approaching the game with the correct viewpoint for making money in a given session, IMHO. When making money in a given session is your goal, the secret is to find opponents who are not as good as you. I believe it's just that simple.
The looser they are, the faster you can win their money in a given session. But even when they're tight, if you're better, you can expect to get their money.
In terms of long range earnings, I think you want to continue to improve your game. I believe you do that by playing in live casino games, practicing at home by yourself, reading, studying, and posting.
Just my opinion. I appreciate your posts, Jason.
Buzz
Buzz,
I totally agree with your logic on this, and if you ever want to move into a higher limit game you must expand your playing experience and knowledge as the higher limits contain the better players as a general rule.
Hi guys, I have been reading a bit about Stu Ungar. I believe he was a great tournament no limit player, the best gin player ever, a very big gambler in general, a very intelligent guy who had a drug problem and was completely wrapped up in the world of gambling and high life. This is all very interesting. What I would really like to know, preferably from those who knew him well ( i believe Mike Sexton is one), is did Stu Ungar enjoy his life?? Was he generally a happy guy?? Was he depressed?? What did he himself think about his life?? Hope the people who knew him can respond. Thanks Kandinsky
you will get two views. one from those that worshiped him for whatever reason and one from those who saw him for what he was.
accepting people as they are, is the key in life. I've never met any1 that does not have something that I don't like or like about him/her. Well-known people r no difference.
"Be not afraid of greatness, some are born great, some achieve greatness and some have greatness thrust upon them"
Probably about as much as John Belushi, Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, Lenny Bruce, Freddy Prinz, Michael Hutchinson . . . I think you get the idea.
I hate to sound stupid, but.. who the hell is Michael Hutchinson?
Above should be a link and a photo. Apologies if these do not show in your browser.
http://www.netwiz.net/~jhutch/inxs/inxs.html if it doesn't work.
regards
The only time a drug addict is happy and enjoying life is when he's doing drugs...and doing drugs just makes you want to do more drugs.
Right-- Michael Hutchence; the lead singer from INXS. What got me confused was that SammyB mentioned Micheal Hutchinson, whom I've never heard of.
But thanks for the tip- Guy
No addict enjoys life. It does not matter what the addiction is -- drugs, alcohol, gambling, sex, whatever. Addicts are extremely unhappy people who are controlled by their addiction.
"Addicts...are controlled by their addiction."
Nonsense, you've got this reversed. You always have a choice.
1. If you had to select one of the addictions listed above (Drugs, Alcohol, Gambling or Sex) to be your own, which one would you pick?
2. Do you think it would be possible to live happily with any of the above addictions?
Well, the only one that won't get you broke is se.... Wait a minute. Never mind.
All of them are destructive, but drugs is the worse, and sex is probably the least destructive.
The idea that addicts have a choice is not supported by the medical evidence. In fact, the essential nature of an addiction is that the power to choose disappears.
The National Institute of Drug Abuse published a study some time ago. It ended with the following point. I don't have the exact quotation, but I'm close. After describing the effects of cocaine addiction (and it could be almost any drug addiction) is said, The greatest fear of cocaine addicts is not psychosis or death; it is running out of cocaine.
Al,
You can quote all the studies you want but in my heart of hearts I cannot have as much sympathy for an addict as I do for someone who gets a brain tumor (or similar life threatening disease) out of the blue.
Regards,
Rick
I dont know. When I'm going home at night by train there are often "addicts" in the train, and I like talking with these people; how they have gotten this far, how they keep alive outside society, what's the impact of their drugs (only to forget, or some philosofical reasons (there surely are some!)). You would be amazed about the stories you hear! In some way I greatly respect these people. I dont want to romantisize it though, for a lot it's just an escape (but is that really that bad?).
I have more disrespect (maybe not the good word, but cant think of a better one right now) for people who lived their life how they *should*, and then, when they're 80, only having memories what they *could* have done. There's no time like the present.
Regards
"The greatest fear of cocaine addicts is not psychosis or death; it is running out of cocaine."
Which serves as conformation for what? Nothing.
The same thing could be said of any kid, they aren't afraid of psychosis or death; it's having their t.v. privileges revoked that scares the bejesus out of them.
The most effective method for quitting the single most addictive drug known to man, nicotine, is to stop "Cold Turkey", which is just a synonym for "choosing to quit". It worked for me, and millions of others.
"In fact, the essential nature of an addiction is that the power to choose disappears."
Also, you're confusing the word "disappearance" with the word "influence." Yes, choice is influenced.
"All of them are destructive, ..."
I'm a gambling addict, probably, I mean, I've never tried to quit so I really don't know. But let's say I am. Maybe I became a poker pro simply to feel my addiction, as in, I had to learn how to win or stop playing, so I learned how to win. Now it's my career and I'm enjoying life to a degree few will ever know.
Destructive?
Tommy
nt
The idea that addicts have a choice is not supported by the medical evidence.
Maybe not, but it's supported by common sense. EVEN if I have a gun to your head and insist that you take cocaine, you still have a choice. You just don't have much of a choice. You just don't like the consequences.
In the real world, addicts face a very, very difficult path, if they try to stop. But to deny that there is a choice is denying human freewill. The only acceptable (IMO) medical evidence to support lack of choice would be loss of voluntary motor skills, that caused the victim to keep shooting up, or whatever.
The greatest fear of cocaine addicts is not psychosis or death; it is running out of cocaine.
This is probably true. But this doesn't demonstrate anything that denies freewill.
Many if the social sciences have maintained the notion that serial killers and pedophiles lack choice . Is this the same type of thinking your are espousing?
Al, as a non practicing alcaholic, I resennt the fact that people seem to think I didn't have a choice, or that it is a illness I caught. I worked damn hard, and drank huge amounts of alcahol to get this "sickness". I worked even harder to stop it, once I became a alcaholic. I din's stop overnight, and I fell off the wagon a few times before I was able to stop. I havnt had a drink in 15 yrs,finally being able to stay away from drinking.But, as I am an alcaholic, I feel qualified to say that it was a choice I made, its not an illness.
Buckcp
It sems to me that power of choice in addiction cannot totally disappear for all addicts, else we would not have anecdotes of addicts who have simply quit cold turkey. Either that, or the definition of addiction is variable.
I would venture to guess that some degree of choice, however small, remains for addicts, or at least that some addicts some degree of choice remains.
The above is only logical considering the fact that some addicts do indeed choose to stop cold turkey.
What I surmise happens is that the degree of choice the addict retains is dependent upon various personality traits and upon the strength of the addiction. Hence perhaps some addicts may actually not have a choice; I don't know; I am not knowledgeable in the field. However I just have trouble accepting that the blanket statement "Addicts have no choice" is true in all genuine cases because certain cases surely controvert this statement, don't they?
What would interest me is some numbers regarding what percentage of heavy long-term users of the various drugs: alcohol, cocaine, heroin, nicotine---have successfully quit cold turkey. Now I think this would be a meaningful statistic since I cannot imagine any heavy long-term user of the above drugs not qualifying as an addict. If further studies have been done showing any correlation between personality traits and those who have successfully quit cold turkey, then this would also be of interest.
As far as the addictions which do not involve chemical dependencies, the above should hold true also. It is just that the cases of addiction which also involves chemical dependency should be more starkly clear for the above purposes of comparisons. In addition, cases where the chemical dependency is "weaned away" by choice of the addict should be included in the above statistics; again it is just for ease of comparison purposes that "cold-turkey" was used above (and because I forgot to include it above while writing the post;-))
...I just don't like to. However, my posting has become so damn sloppy of late that I felt the need to list the following changes:
'seems' Para. 1
'or at least that for some' Para. 2
'actually may not' Para. 4
'of the various drugs--alcohol, cocaine, heroin, and nicotine--' Para. 5
'showing any correlation of personality traits with those who have' Para.5
'which also involve' Para.6
'forgot to include "weaned away" while' Para.6
and a few other changes throughout the body involving readability and conversational style, such as placing commas after "Hence" and "However", and the elimination of superfluous words such as "Now" in "Now I think..."
May John Cole reprimand me (instead of always being so nice) if I continue such sloppy posting habits;-)
OMG it's time to play poker.
Sample sentence: I am addicted to the internet.
M,
I'll never reprimand (except for a small jab at SmoothB because he said that chemists score higher on the GRE verbal section than Lit. majors) and I regret that instance.
Quote from a documentary I saw: "I used to be a heroin [pronounced "heron"] addict, but now I'm a methadone addict."
John
I know you wouldn't John; I just feel ashamed when I read some of my own posts.
It should say: "Addicts do not CURRENTLY have choice at PRESENT".
But when it comes to addictions, the past need not nescessarily equal the future. Once the positive intention of the addiction is identified and enough choices are programmed into the behavior of the person, then there will be choice not addiction.
Any thoughts about NLP as a remedy for addiction?
Core transformation, the new behavior generator, the accessing kinesthetic states pattern, 6-step reframing, the compulsion blowout pattern, timeline re-imprinting, are some NLP patterns that have been known to work very effectively for compulsions. But I'm not sure how well they work for anything that is caused by chemical dependency.
I personally know several smoking and gambling addicts that have permanently gotten over their compulsions using NLP, often in less than three one hour sessions. There are some NLP techniques that work very well with minor compulsions like anger, nail biting, and overeating.
I had a life long habit of rubbing my face downwards with my hands that irritated a lot of people. I had this habit since I was 6. I permanently neutralized it in less than 3 minutes using the swish pattern.
Nothing wrong with being a gambling addict as long as you win. I know you have something else in mind but really don't some gambling addicts learn to win? Drug addiction is a different kind of thing to me.
I think that religion can be added to the list of addictions. Not for the vast majority of people, but those who use it as an escape from life as do drug addicts. A good friend of mind quit his cocaine addiction cold turkey when he became a born again christian. I feel he simply replaced one addiction with another, though one that is far less damaging.
I do not believe that anyone who is an addict can be truly happy. Most addictions stem from some sort of depression or emotional problem, and that depression must be confronted to cure the addiction. My friend is still a very depressed and troubled person, as he has never delt with his demons.
I do not believe that anyone would knowingly choose any of the addictions, and as for one being better or worse than the other that is quantitative. If you are addicted to sex and contract aids quickly then your addiction was very harmful and fatal. We live in an addictive society, and this is a fact. Infomercials fill the television nightly about the pill or quick fix solution to all of our problem. Furthermore, how many people out there are addicted to Food, Caffiene, (in the form of cokes), and even the television. The important thing is to realize that the less harmful somethings seams the more likely one is to be addicted. It is important to realize that "anything" that leads one to neglect himself or those around him can be termed as an addiction. By this definition and the parameters above we are all addicted to something in some form or another!!!!!!
"No addict enjoys life."
How do you define "enjoys life?" One fourth of the adult population in the USA is addicted to cigarettes. Are you saying that not one of those millions enjoys life?
Tommy
Tommy you make a great point, and it would be hard to say without exception that the addict does not enjoy life. Quite possibly this person enjoys like to a great degree and quickly "burns out" for lack of a better term. If someone loves what they are doing or addicted too then obviously there is a time when they are very happy. All to often the addiction leads to ruin. However, saying the individual was never happy is hard to justify. Furthermore, everyone is differant some of the smokers that you mentioned above will never suffer serious health challenges from their addiction. If they enjoy thier smoking and suffer no ill affects then what is the problem. Can often come down to risk and reward. These people are taking greater risks than the general population but, that is not to say they dont enjoy what they are doing. To the contrary most of them enjoy the addiction!!!!
" ...and it would be hard to say without exception that the addict does not enjoy life."
Naw, it's easy to say if you are credentialed.
Tommy
Yeah, lots of people are addicted to coffee too. So I guess it all depends on how you define addiction. My Random House dictionary says addiction is devotion to a habit such that giving it up would cause severe trauma. By that definition, I'm addicted to my family life, as are most people.
"No addict enjoys life. It does not matter what the addiction is -- drugs, alcohol, gambling, sex, whatever. Addicts are extremely unhappy people who are controlled by their addiction."
You people don't agree with Al Schoonmaker, which is a great thing. It probably means that you are not an addict, because you have never experienced these symptons on a daily basis. A true addict feels these feelings daily and has to imbibe in his addiction to relieve the pain of these feelings. Addicts don't know how to live without their addiction. They are thinking about their addiction 7/24, planning, scheming, lying, cheating, stealing, and living in the worst denial that hopefully none of you will ever have to live in.
If you can name all the help groups at the top and have participated in most of them, then you are well on the road to recovery of understanding addiction.
CODA
I'm not saying addiction is in any way trivial, and I'm not saying that all addicts have a choice.
I am saying that it seems impossible for all addicts to have no choice, given the fact that some addicts have of their own volition successfully quit...even when addicted to the worst drugs.
Thus Alan's blanket statement appears to be inaccurate.
If you feel I am missing something here please feel free to elaborate.
Could someone please name the above groups, so I dont have to stay awake and solve the puzzle.
Thanks, bt.
AA - Alcohol Anon.
NA - Narcotics Anon.
CA - Cocaine Anon.
OA - ???
GA - Gamblers Anon.
SA - Sex Anon. (?)
AAA - ???
AA - Alcohol Anon.
NA - Narcotics Anon.
CA - Cocaine Anon.
OA - Overeaters Anon.
GA - Gamblers Anon.
SA - Sex Anon.
AAA - All Addictions Anon.
CODA - Co-Dependents Anon.
ukw
once each week for past 6 weeks playin in omaha high only game which is unlike any I have played in before and gives me uncertain feelings.
2-5-10 blinds P/L 200 buy-in
constant raising preflop. one nut puts 20 straddle in his turn then 90% of time will raise 100 when back to him. lots of players see the flops generaly 5,6,7 every hand.
because of low buy-in and constant raising there are short stacks allin on most hands.
at least 6 are poor omaha players, 2 are moderate, and two of are trying to play the game right(but they sure force us to gamble more).
ahead of game so far, but very uncertain of strategies for such a wild omaha game. omaha is wild enough without a bunch of nuts! Jim
when we first started omaha high pot limit around 1980 the games were exactly like that for very high stakes if you can believe it. it was very hard to play well as always a few were all in before or on the flop. what you had to do was play only four connected very high cards with suited high flush cards. play super tight and gamble. high pairs without two cards adjacent with suited something do not win much as the big sets always are against hands that are close to equal on the flop. many times id throw away qqjt when there was too much action. and always pitch away two aces without any giant help from sidecards. for smaller pots you can play looser to appear to give action as your hands will equal theirs but you will find that too many times you have to go allin with them as you get pot odds on the flop with all kinds of garbage. good luck jim.
understand & will follow your advise closely.
as to the 80s game for high stakes--you just proved to me you had "heart".--don't think I could have stood it that wild for high stakes, even when I was 20 years younger. thanks, Jim
I will be in Seattle in a couple of weeks and was wondering where is the best place to play. I am staying somewhere near the airport. Looking for $10-20 range.
Try the Hideaway on Hwy 99 (Aurora ave) and 145th. Good 4-8 and 10-20 games.
The Muckleshoot in Auburn is also good, presuming that they have completed the highway construction that caused me to take a one hour detour in late May.
I believe it is off of 167, but I think you can get ther from I-5 as well...
go to RGP and do a search for "Seattle Poker" this question gets asked once a week between the 2+2 and rgp.
Hideaway
action: good
smoke, general atmosphere: sucks
Muckleshoot is closer to the Airport, much nicer and has more game selection than The Hideaway. Hideaway is a total dive with 4 tables, totally smoky, horrible food and service. Still, from what I have heard the players are mostly weak and the games are action packed. Problem is you'll drive 30-40 minutes to get there and might discover you can't stand the place and the game sucks and there is no alternative. IMO, you're better off just going to Muckleshoot--its a big place, they'll feed you some decent food, the dealers are professional, etc..
You can also check out Diamond L'ils in Renton. They spread 3-6, 6-12, 8-16 and 12-24 depending on the night and time. Its a smaller place in a restaurant but I prefer it to Muckleshoot. I don't player higher than 8-16 but I think the players there are worse than Muckleshoot. It does not have the big casino atmosphere if you care about that but its pretty clean and the staff is good. You can get their number and directions from Yahoo! yellow pages.
Feel free to email me if you have any specific questions.
KJS
My question relates to the General Theorem of Poker as stated in Sklanskys Theory of Poker. The theory states that anytime that an oppenent plays a hand the same as he would if he could see your cards you lose. Here is my question as stated through a sample hand that seems to refute this theorem: 7 handed Omaha Straight Hi Game. Raise preflop from early position that is called by 5 players. Flop comes out K59 all hearts. I have the nut A high flush that pops on the flop. To my amazement there is a 10 Dollar Bet which is the limit in our game. I raise 10 fully expecting to drap all but one player and possible even take the pot right there. However, I have 3 callers. I put the first raiser on trip Kings and at least one of the other callers on a gut shot straight flush draw. Other player may have had trip 9s or 5s. Anyway I simply bet out the hand and took down a good sized pot even was raised on 4th street which I reraised the last 2 cards were blanks which I dont remember to be honest. I am a somewhat tight player and I beleive that at least 2 of the remaining 3 players put me on the nut flush hand and simply went against the odds trying to hit their hands. I guess one could arge that the pot odds justified their calls although the first call of $20.00 was not justified by a Full house draw to my knowledge. In this case my opponents knew or had a good idea of my hand and bet against the odds anyway. How did this situation hurt me, and isnt this an idea situation. A hand where players call and bet and raise when you are a prohibitive favorite or have a made hand regardless of the hand that they "put you on". I may not understand this Theorem I would appreciate any and all feedback on this post.
The TOP does not take stupid players like your opponents may have been into account. The TOP assumes when your opponents know your cards they understand pot odds vs winning odds and act in their own best interest. In the case of your hand they acted as if they couldn't see your cards not as if they did.
vince
Thanks for the Feedback sounds as if you are saying my post is correct and that the theorem does not apply to those without a knowledge of the game in a general sense especially pot odds.
Well it does apply. you just need to make sure that when you use the theorem for anaysis your analysis is correct. In this case you thought that these fellows were acting as if they knew what you had and called and you gained. When in fact these fellows acted as if they couldn't see your cards and you gained which is also what the theorem says.
vince
Vince I am beginning to see the cyclical nature of the theorem which is quite brilliant. You have enlightened me on this issue, and I can see that by a give angle the theorem is always correct in the sense that the players acted as though they could not see my hand. The key term is how they acted in relation to the theorem. Thank you for the clarification on this issue.
"these fellows acted as if they couldn't see your cards and you gained which is also what the theorem says"
So your extended rule is to determine whether you gained or not, and from that determine whether or not they were acting as if they could see your cards or not, so that when it is applied to the theory, the theory is correct.
Spikey
I don't know if it is an extended rule. I just tried to explain the best way I know how why the theory was applicable to the example Jason cited.
vince
The theory states that anytime that an oppenent plays a hand the same as he would if he could see your cards you lose.
I think this is much better expressed as:
The theory states that anytime that an opponent plays a hand differently from the way he would if he could see your cards you gain.
A subtle distinction, but it better captures what is going on.
On to the example.
7 handed Omaha Straight Hi Game. Raise preflop from early position that is called by 5 players. Flop comes out K59 all hearts. I have the nut A high flush that pops on the flop. To my amazement there is a 10 Dollar Bet which is the limit in our game.
If the player knew what you had, then he would not have bet, so you have gained.
I raise 10 fully expecting to drap all but one player and possible even take the pot right there. However, I have 3 callers.
Now, it is probable that at least one player would have folded, had he seen your cards, so you have gained from him (or them). Somebody with a set will call even if he sees your hand, because of the money in the pot. You benefit from this, but it is not a Fundamental Theory benefit, rather it is simply what your hand deserves to get.
Anyway I simply bet out the hand and took down a good sized pot even was raised on 4th street which I reraised.
A rational player who knew what you had would not do this, so he is deviating from the "proper" play, benefiting you in a FT sense.
I am a somewhat tight player and I beleive that at least 2 of the remaining 3 players put me on the nut flush hand and simply went against the odds trying to hit their hands.
As long as they were calling, these two probably weren't making FT errors. They also probably didn't put you 100% on the flush until you reraised the turn, so their play to that point can't be faulted.
You don't say how much was put in preflop (it looks like a spread limit game). With a reasonable raise, there could well be enough money for a set to call 20 cold on the flop in order to fill up, even knowing what you had. If the guy looking to fill up was the initial flop bettor, then he only had to call 10 more (correctly FT-wise) after his first 10 (incorrect FT-wise).
There were two obvious FTOP errors made, and you benefitted from both. Without knowing what your opponents had, we cannot say whether they made others. Many of their calls may have been correct (assuming they had a reasonable shot at a full house and there was significant preflop money), but some were probably not correct, and you made FTOP gains there.
If you were hurt, it was only by them not making even more errors.
A hand where players call and bet and raise when you are a prohibitive favorite or have a made hand regardless of the hand that they "put you on".
Don't forget that putting someone on a hand is not the same as seeing their cards. If their knowledge slips from 100% (seeing) to even 80% (putting on a hand) then many of their actions may become correct in the sense of long term expectation, even if incorrect from a FT perspective.
Eric
Eric
I can't add much to Eric and Vince except to say that FT does not stricly apply to multiway pots. That fact is stated and explained in the book. Your example would be more clear and the premise better understood if the pot was heads-up. Still, the explanation you have received is excellent.
KJS
I would like to solicit the advice of the posters in this forum on how can one be a personable winner.
give the money back:-). or never complain or say anything disparaging about anyones play. win and lose with a smile and always be friendly. simple. but if you win often there nothing you can do about having s0me not like you. comes with the territory.
Next time you hit a one outer to make quads against boss full, don't announce your hand, "I've got two-pair..."
.
just recently one of the regular players i play with did just that to me on the end when he filled up in a twenty thousand dollar pot. i did grumble a little.
Ray Zee - I am new to this forum, where do you regularly play and what limit? Plus, I would be interested to your response to my post in the high stakes section. Thanks, Cam
Jesus, Ray-- What kind of poker are they spreading up there in glacier country?
I recently hit a straight on the river when a 3rd flush card came. My opponent, a "friend," bet and when I called he asked, "Is a straight flush any good?"
It was.
I had a once in a lifetime chance to get even with a jerk-ass like that once.
I was UTG with pocket T's, raised, and five players called before the button-- an old man whom I hated-- made it three bets. I had 80 bucks left in front of me--we were playing 10-20-- and I capped.
Flop: KT9. I bet, two callers, next guy raises, a couple fold, old man three bets, I cap, etc. etc. Anyway, to make a long story short I go all in on the turn; which, incidentally, is a 7. It's capped four ways and I sit back to watch.
River: the case T. all check to the old man who bets, two call. He hems and haws, shrugs his shoulders, then says reluctantly: "Well, I don't know, all I got is top full." He tables his cards and looks over at me. "Not a bad flop for me," he says, eyeing up the pot.
Now understand I've been slowrolled by this A-hole about 9 times in the past 6 months, so I make a show of it. "Yeah," I say. "Guess it was". I look at my cards, look at the board, flick my cards with my finger... "Damn nice flop", I say. And then, juuust as I'm about to muck, I flip my cards and lightly toss them in his direction. "Not a bad river, either," I say dryly. "Get the top full fixed."
It was one of my greatest moments at a HE table. I know it sounds cruel and spiteful, but what the hell? He was a seat plug, and I wanted him out of the game. And I couldn't stand the guy anyway. I'm usually the most gracious guy at the table--- I haven't bitched about a hand, no matter how horrible the beat, in years-- but let's face it; it can be a boring game, and nothing quite breaks the monotony like slowrolling an SOB who desperately deserves it.
You can be generally courteous and take your losses and wins graciously. However, I have found that the players that do not like you simply because you are winning are the same ones that routinely go on tilt, and allow you to win money in the first place. This is an interesting paradox. If there is one thing that I would like to be disliked for it is winning @ poker!!!!! Must also understand that some of these people do not take the game personally, and try to do things to get others off of thier game. Such as insulting and making comments trying to get players to "Gamble More" this is nothing more than a strategical ploy. It is no more personal than check raising an opponent. I believe that it is best to take this with a grain of salt. Many players are very annoying at the table and this is part of thier image and play nothing personal!!!!!!! Just like check raising making quads and taking down a huge pot is nothing personal!!!!!
Try to avoid dancing the funky chicken after you win a monster pot, or, if you can't resist, at least apologize afterward.
I actually have a buddy who did dance on his chair one night when he made quads-Everyone loved it.
Just like you might go to Sklansky's Theory of Poker to get to thinking properly about your poker fundamentals, you might want to go to Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Infuence People to get to thinking properly about your people skills.
So as ToP will help you to learn and profit from others' playing deficiencies, How Win Friends will help you to learn and profit from others' personality deficiencies (and their positive attributes, too). Plus it is great for use away from the table as well.
It's also about personal training too. As a relatively inexperienced player, I'm working to get myself to smile and say some kind of greeting every time I sit down for a session, and say "good luck everyone" when I leave. I also try to be sociable with other players during play, without interrupting it or getting myself distracted. So far, I think this is working for me.
Also notice that I've said nothing about winning and losing. You have to be the same whether you winning or losing. This means you are on an even keel, neither riding a euphoric high from a run of nice wins nor on tilt from a bad beat or two.
I'm not trying to imply that this is easy. For me it is not easy because my basic personality is not always that way. But like Anthony Holden says, your character will be stripped bare at the table. That is part of the challenge and that is also part of the fun that is poker.
If an average of 4 players see the flop, would you rather have A-Ko UTG or in the cut-off?
Boris - Is this a trick question? If there are nine players in the game, however many are, on the average, seeing the flop, wouldn't you rather have later position?
UTG seems the very worst place to be.
I like the cut-off seat. With a very tight player on your left, you can often call and effectively become the button. With many other players a raise will often buy you the button.
Just my opinion.
Buzz
I'm not sure why you'd ever prefer UTG over late position....
The only remote reason I could think of is maybe it would be easier to take down the pot with a bluff since bets tend to get more respect from early position.....This is a real strecth though...
Am I missing something???
-----Jeff in MA
I think Boris is giving UTG credit for the ability to raise some of the callers out and cut down that 4 person average seeing the flop. Otherwise it doesn't make sense. Regardless, I'll take the position, although it is very frustrating in low-limit land to have this hand in the cutoff and every player has called. Perhaps if you doubled the blinds up front, you would have less callers.
nt
no trick question here. just looking for feedback. later is probably better. but it seems like sometimes it is easier to protect your hand in early position because you often have the opportunity to check-raise. also have first opportunity to bluff when everyone shows weakness. Sklansky talks about this in TOP.
Boris - You don't have "first opportunity to bluff." The blinds come before you and actually, IMHO, have better position than you, because they have the first opportunity to bluff.
UTG is the very worst position in flop games!
Mostly forget about check raising. Use it when a player following you bluffs or semi-bluffs a lot, or when you have a really big hand and are absolutely certain someone behind you will bet. Otherwise bet when you have a hand (or are bluffing) and check-fold when you don't.
Just my opinion.
Buzz
I'll assume that the AK raised and everyone called it so there are 8 bets in the pot.
Passive table: UTG is better, Agressive table: CO is better.
UTG: a bet here will not drive anyone out (9:1 or better) and you might get raised. However, you do have a good chance at making it two bets with a check-raise and limit the field, and you can also ditch if the board or action is scary before it gets back to you.
CO: if the table checks to the raiser, you are not in a good position. You can't get anyone out and you might face a check-raise. You could, however take a free card. At an agressive table where it is likely that at least one of three opponents will bet into you, the the cO becomes a better position.
Hadn't thought about this before and by default would always choose CO. An interesting question really.
Paul Talbot
I greatly enjoy learning about and playing Texas hold 'em, but I really don't know how to play any other type of poker game. I'd like to learn another kind, like Omaha or Stud. I have tried both a little bit and from my extremely limited exposure liked stud better. I am sure this will elicit howls but I found Omaha to be a bastardized version of hold 'em without as much strategy. Feel free to flame me to death for this opinion (which doubtless would be corrected with further study), but that is what I thought.
As a result I found stud more interesting and would like to study it more as a second game. However I have heard some people say that it is kind of dying, what with the popularity of hold 'em and now Omaha. I have noticed in my cardrooms, there are always hold 'em and Omaha games, but usually not stud or only one with a bunch of old guys around it. I read somewhere that it is slower (less hands per hour) and mostly populated with older players. I would rather learn stud than Omaha this point, but don't want to learn a "dying game" (at least dying in cardrooms that are major poker centers like LA and Las Vegas). It would be no good to learn if 10 years from now there aren't even any stud games in small cardrooms. Does anyone have an opinion on how healthy the future of stud in cardrooms is vs. hold 'em and Omaha? Thanks, Tim
There is *more* stud than hold'em in AC.
I don't know anywhere where you will find more Omaha than stud, other than in home games. Hell, you're lucky if you see even one Omaha game going at all the casinos I've been to....(new england area)
-----Jeff in MA
I don't know about LA, but the Bay Area has very little stud. Bay 101 which has probably 30 tables has one 4-8 stud game. Same at the other smaller card rooms that I've been to.
As you can see from other replies, the popularity of games varies a lot from place to place. In higher limit games, the most important thing is to be able to play the games the fish like. This seems to be omaha often, although on the east coast there are plenty of soft stud games.
David
PS Omaha IS a bastardized boring version of holdem.
dd
divorce your wife, is she still your sister...???
jh
Agreed. I've never understood the fascination with Omaha. I've probably logged somewhere around 200 hrs. at O8 (limit), and have hated virtually every minute of it. If O8 was the only poker game spread I'd probably give up the game.
My guess is that O8 will continue to grow in popularity, if only because it seems to embody facets of poker that bad players like; namely, it seems as though you can play a ton more hands (this isn't true, I don't think-- at least I've never managed to make 88TK pay off big), and because you're not a penalized for just peeling and praying, which is the preferred strategy of bad players worldwide.
But I wouldn't be surprised if stud made a mderate comeback at some point; it's just too fun of a game. The only problem with it is that I can get complicated, which probably scares off a lot of prospective new players.
It seems like the general consensus is that stud is more popular back on the East Coast, but on the West Coast it is not very popular anymore at all. For instance, you'd find a lot more stud in NY than in San Fran or LA or Vegas. Maybe this is why I almost never see stud games in card rooms, or only one at most, because I live in the West. I do think stud is an interesting game though, much more so than Omaha, although I think hold 'em is the best of all. I just would like to learn another game in case the hold 'em wait is long, and also because it adds some variety.
I have to laugh when people rip on Omaha 8 or better here, that is exactly how I feel. Is it just me, or do hi-lo games irritate anyone else? I have never liked hi-lo games of any sort. I don't like the idea of splitting the pot. I think a hi-lo game is attractive for someone who doesn't have the patience or discipline to sit there and wait for a good hand; they can play a lot more if they have twice as many options. I am not an "action" player, though, so I really have no need to fill in that respect.
I have advanced the theory with my friends that Omaha was probably created out of a bunch of undisciplined hold 'em players who hated sitting around and folding, so they decided to double the cards in their hand and go for high/lows, etc. For people like this who just love to be in every hand, Omaha is probably great.
What I love about poker, though, is the strategy. It is what fascinates me about the game. I love reading about poker theory and have read lots of hold 'em books just because I enjoy learning new bits of strategy and poker theory. The funny thing was I bought an Omaha 8 or better book last year and tried to read it, and I never tried to read it because I was always passing out from boredom after a few pages. The author basically said, "Don't bet unless you have the absolute nuts, because someone will always have that, there are so many people in most pots. When you have the nuts (hi or lo), just bet like crazy!" Wow, sounds really strategic. I am sure in advanced pot limit games it is much more strategic, but most of us can't afford to go up to the high limits and must stick to low and medium. Maybe I will make another effort to learn Omaha just because it is popular, there must be a way to take advantage of all the fish that play that game. But maybe the very nature of it makes it perfect for these people to play. I have read by more than one hold 'em author that a problem with Omaha is that it simply is not nearly as strategic as hold 'em. I could see, however, that a poker player that doesn't enjoy strategy and just craves action would love it. Apologies if I've offended Omaha fans out there, these are just my own personal observations about it. -Tim
Omaha and holdem have out competed stud in my area. Even in the places where they play stud (like the northeast), they only play structured limit--yuck.
The reason, I think, for the lack of popularity of stud (my favorite game) is the boredom. Anyone who has played stud for any lengthy period of time knows what its like to fold 50-100 hands in a row when playing in a lineup against weak passive calling houses. Furthermore, when folding a hand in stud, you have to wait longer for the hand to be completed in hold 'em. To compensate, bad players play more hands than they should, but they are not penalized for playing 8-7o in hold 'em nearly as much as they are for playing A-5-4o or any other garbage hands in stud. Stud is a great game, but IMHO it is much more boring to play well; at least in hold 'em, you get to look at new cards much quicker.
I usually have no problem finding stud games and I've played most areas that have poker(haven't played in Oregon). In Washington I called a room and they told me the one place near Seattle that always had stud going, this was the only time I had a problem. I played Casino San PLablo near Oakland and they had all the limits active. In Mississippi there were at least 6 tables of stud at Grand Biloxi. In Vegas you have your choice of stud limits and a lot of action. I believe stud is a hard game to learn and that is why people like hold'em. I've played hold'em and feel the luck factor is bigger than in stud. If you play hold'em well you are folding as many hands as you are in stud. I have always felt it was the people looking for action who tended towards hold'em.
Could you give me a feel for how frequently you do play? My last stud session was a fast paced (good dealers) 5/10/15/15 2 hour session where I played 3 hands and felt blessed.
How many hands is an important point. The card rooms like holdem because they can deal more hands per hour and drop more house money per hour.
Hi guys, I am considering buying either Caros Book of Tells, or Caros Pro Poker Tells. Is it worth buying both?? Is the book better or the video or vice versa?? Would it be a waste to buy the book and the video, or is there enough different stuff in each to warrant purchasing them both?? Thanks Kandinsky
hees giving away the vidio at planet poker, just not very quickly
having read the book and seen the video clips I think the video is better because sometimes text descriptions can be confusing.
The video is superior because you get to see the tells in motion. And the commentaries are just as good as the ones in the book. Kinda boring though. I suggest you watch it in 20 minute chunks instead of watching the whole thing straight out.
Don't get the most recent printing of the book. Search abebooks.com or amazon.com for a copy of the old one. The quality of the pictures is far superior. I was really disapointed in the 2000 edition.
Paul Talbot
i think that there are about 3-4 different versions of that book. I've heard that the picture quality is very poor on the 2000 version, but what version has the good pictures. I was going to buy this on amazon and they didn't distinguish between the versions or even tell which year the books were printed in that I was supposed to buy. One guy had a copy for about $25, and another was charging $350+!!!! The site didn't distinguish between the two whatsoever. If anyone can help me out, thanks in advance!
Everyone especially Omaha players,
I recently purchased the book Omaha Holdem the Action Game by Bob Caffione. Does anyone have a knowledge of this text, and is it a good book. Any feedback is greatly appreciated.
should be read by all, but no where as good a zee,s 2+2...jmho..gl..
The two books are hardly comparable, for each addressed different type of poker game.
Ciafone's book teaches you Omaha high only, whereas Zee's book teaches O/8 and 7cs/8. Both books are great and the best on the market in what they teach.
If a player who just has played the small blind gets up and leaves and the puck is advanced to the big blind (where they have to post their small on the puck)can a new player enter the game right next to the puck post the big blind and then post the small on the puck? Note there is no dead puck and no dead blinds.
Wanted to see how a friend was doing. I heard he made it to day 2 but cant find any results to this point.
This is the fourth in a series of threads that attempt to improve our understanding of expected value (EV).[1] A better understanding of EV might lead to an increase in our poker earnings. It also could facilitate more effective communication when we discuss certain aspects of poker theory.
Previously, I presented an expectation equation and demonstrated how you could use it to compute EV for different situations. I showed how mathematics can be applied to poker. In this post, I discuss some of the psychological aspects of poker and how they can relate to EV.
With permission, huge portions of this post come from essays written by a friend (who still desires anonymity).
-----------------------
Serious players observe their opponents and determine how certain behaviors might effect or reflect play at the table. Tells and tilt, image and insight, manipulation and mind games. Players often use the term "psychology" to describe these aspects of poker, and some claim poker is simply psychology in action. Nothing more; nothing less.
Many in the "psychology is everything" school believe they share the same view as Doyle Brunson. Brunson is a masterful psychological player and knows, "Poker is a game of people."[2] But he also seems to understand the mathematics of poker and the importance of combining these two disciplines:
"When you're able to put your opponent on exactly the hand he's playing (because you know him almost as well as he knows himself) you can select the best strategy possible for that particular Poker situation. When you reach that level of skill, you'll be a complete player."[3]
-----------------------
Let's assume you choose to play a maximally exploitive strategy.[4]
Mathematics often will be the key factor in many serious players' betting decisions. Very rarely, it could be the only consideration. In Part 1 of this series, for instance, Bev knew exactly which cards Abe held, and she had to decide whether to call his all-in turn bet. To find the correct play, all she needed was a little arithmetic.
As David noted, though, you cannot expect the opposition to kindly expose their hands. When you are uncertain of their cards, you must use your judgment to put them on a range of possible hands and assign probabilities to each of those hands. Be aware of any tells they give away, ponder what their betting patterns reveal, and get inside their heads.
In Part 2, you saw how putting Abe on one group of hands mathematically meant Bev should fold on the turn, but putting him on a wider set of hands meant she should call. Your analytic conclusions are only as good as the information you process. If you do not understand the competition well, you will not play them well.
Furthermore, you normally will not face going all-in. So, after gauging your adversary's range of possible hands, you also should consider how he will react to various future board cards and to different actions by you. If you river a third heart and bet, how likely is he to fold, call, or raise? What can you expect if you attempt a check-raise? If the final card makes the board Th9s3h/4c/Kd and you represent the straight, how often will your bluff succeed? Simple arithmetic will not supply these answers. Entering your opponent's mind will.
Once you have this information, you can use mathematics to decide your best move. For example, if Abe might call a river bet when a third heart hits, then Bev can call his turn bet with smaller pot odds. Part 3 discussed this in greater detail.
-----------------------
On the other side of the coin are those who speak as if poker is pure mathematics. Understand probability, odds, game theory, and logic; grind down the opposition; and emerge victorious.
Many in the "mathematics is everything" school believe they share the same view as David Sklansky. On this issue, however, Sklansky seems in complete agreement with Brunson:
"The great poker players not only are very adept at figuring out their opponents' hands but they also know what to do with this information. Neither talent by itself will get you to the top.[5]
-----------------------
Imagine you are in an unfamiliar city and must get to 1627 Evergreen Terrace. You would look at street signs and learn your current location, then study a map and plan a route to your destination. Knowing your position normally is not very useful without a map to guide you. Nor is owning a map particularly helpful if you have no clue as to your whereabouts. Your trip will go much smoother with both a location and a map.[6]
Psychology enables you to learn where you are. Mathematics lets you plan the best route to your destination. Your poker bankroll will grow much faster if you use both psychology and mathematics.
-----------------------
[1] The previous threads are July 10's "A definition of EV (expected value)," July 15's "Understanding EV (Part 2): Unseen cards," and July 22's "Understanding EV (Part 3): Implied odds."
[2] Doyle Brunson, SUPER/SYSTEM: A COURSE IN POWER POKER (1978, 1984), p. 17.
[3] Brunson, p. 17.
[4] Tom Weideman has explained why you sometimes might prefer to play a game theoretic optimal strategy instead of trying to determine your maximally exploitive move. When the archives are restored, see his 12 May 2001 thread on this forum entitled "The Formula vs. The Player." Also see his 25 October 2000 thread on Usenet's rec.gambling.poker entitled "A Challenge to rgp - DISCUSSION."
[5] David Sklansky, GETTING THE BEST OF IT (1982, 1997), p. 74.
[6] Interestingly, my friend wrote this analogy before reading Weideman's RGP thread.
Developing a better understanding of EV will be more helpful if you also learn how to apply that knowledge.
Furthermore, a solid grasp of fundamental poker concepts should allow you to better analyze the poker information you read from books, magazines, and the Internet. By thinking for yourself, you can determine what material makes sense and what doesn't. You can discard the bad advice and incorporate the good advice into your fuller comprehension of this complex game.
This post presents advice from an established poker writer whom some consider an expert. I believe it is flawed advice and that it contains at least four significant errors relating to EV. After reading the four threads in the ongoing "Understanding EV" series, you should be able to identify at least three of those EV errors. In addition, there are at least two significant errors in the logic the author used in making his argument.
I hope regular forum readers will forgive me for revisiting this discussion. The example just ties so nicely into this EV series that I felt a little repetition was worthwhile. Besides, Buzz recently expressed an interest in exploring how EV might pertain to no-limit bet sizing.
-----------------------
Mason Malmuth believes limit poker is more complex than no-limit poker. When someone pointed out that no-limit poker has the added complication of determining your bet size, Malmuth dismissed the argument:
"[I]n most cases, all you need to do is bet a little more than what would be correct for certain classes of hands to call. For instance, suppose there are two flush cards on board, it is fourth street, and you hold a good hand. Just bet a little more than what would be required for your opponent to get 4-to-1 on his call. Now, if he calls you he has made a mistake. It's not that hard."[1]
-----------------------
Can you find any errors in Mason's statement? If so, Mason might be the first to congratulate you on your independent thinking. As he once explained:
"So the conclusion of all 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.[2]
-----------------------
[1] Mason Malmuth's 5 January 2001 (2:42 p.m.) post entitled "Re: Amazing Hand by John Cernuto" in his 5 January 2001 (2:20 a.m.) thread entitled "Amazing Hand by John Cernuto."
[2] Mason Malmuth's 28 March 2001 post entitled "Re: Abdul Jalib and John Feeney insights" in Mark Glover's 27 March 2001 thread entitled "Abdul Jalib and John Feeney insights."
Mark,
Your posts are excellent, I wish I had more time to devote to responding, but alas I have a tiring day job that restricts me.
3 errors are... 1. Betting into the flush buyer needs to contrasted with betting into someone with a better hand. You may be losing money by betting when someone only calls your bet if they beat you.
2. The flush buyer may add implied odds (if he thinks you may bet again if his flush arrives), making a bet that is "a little more than what would be required for your opponent to get 4-to-1 on his call" incorrect.
3. There is nothing wrong with giving flush buyers the correct 4-1 odds anyway, your EV remains the same as if you had bet enough to get rid of him. I apoligise for not giving an example, may in a day or so if someone else doesn't do it.
Thought about it some more... Error nr 3 is not not an error, as Mason was requiring the flush buyer to make a mistake by calling, and it would only be a mistake if the better bet more than the 4:1 amount (ie > $33 if the pot was $100).
Spikey,
You wrote: "Your posts are excellent . . ."
Thanks. Much credit for the EV series goes to my friend.
Your first error catch probably is correct. But I'm not entirely sure, and I don't want to put words in your mouth. If you find some free time, could you please rephrase your explanation or elaborate?
I believe your second error catch is right on. Malmuth's argument neglects to account for the implied odds the drawer might have. Implied odds should be considered if, as you noted, the turn bettor sometimes will bet again on the river when the flush arrives. It also applies if the turn bettor sometimes will call on the river when that flush hits.
If you don't understand how to apply implied odds, don't expect to do well in no-limit poker.
"In general, the larger the difference between future bets and the present bet you have to call, the greater your implied odds. Hence, implied odds become most significant in pot-limit games and in no-limit games, where a future bet can be as large as the amount of money a player has in front of him. In fact, in these games one is almost always considering not how much is in the pot right now, but rather how much can be won on a future round of betting." [David Sklansky, THE THEORY OF POKER (1999), p. 57.]
1. Betting into the flush buyer needs to contrasted with betting into someone with a better hand. You may be losing money by betting when someone only calls your bet if they beat you
To expand on that, I mean that the flush buy is only one hand that our caller could have. He may have a variety of hands, and in particular, we should be scared of eg trips when the bettor only has 2 top pair. In this case the caller has the best of it (is more likely than the bettor to win). EV wise it means putting the caller on a range of hands, and assigning each a frequency before going on and computing the further possibilities for each hand. You will find though that EV for betting will drop significantly the more likely it is is that the caller has a better hand than the bettor.
Spikey,
Well said, and I believe you are correct again. Thanks for taking the time to clear that up for me.
You wrote: "You will find though that EV for betting will drop significantly the more likely it is is that the caller has a better hand than the bettor."
I would add that as the range of possible hands increases, it generally becomes more difficult to determine the best size of your bet (as we saw in Part 2 of the "Understanding EV" series).
-------------------
Let's help Mason's argument by making a couple simplifying assumptions. First, let's ignore all the other errors in Mason's statement and focus only on the hand distribution problem. Second, let's say you know for sure that you are up against a flush draw.
Even with these simplifying assumptions, setting your bet size can be not that easy! Suppose, for instance, that the board is As9h8h/Qc, you have 9c8c, and you put your opponent on AhXh, KhQh, KhJh, KhTh, QhJh, QhTh, or JhTh.
If you size your bet to give your opponent, say, 3.75-to-1 immediate pot odds, then you have made a mistake (from an EV perspective). Even offering just 2-to-1 immediate pot odds probably is a mistake.[1]
By the way, my example hints at a non-EV error in Mason's argument.
----------------------
[1] It depends on the likelihood that your opponent holds each of the 16 possible hands. Eight of the hands give your opponent 14 outs, six hands provide 18 outs, and two hands offer 40 outs (out of 44 unknown cards).
This is a very good example. You put your opponent on Jh,Th with Q,9,8, on board and you have 2 pair so you bet and give him 3 or 4 - 1. Makes sense to me.
Vince
This got posted on rgp, with someone claiming that only one person had responded. Which I guess is sort of true, except that a bunch of us responded last time you posted this. :)
Anyway.
Issues with mason's thinking:
1: Implied odds.
2: He's assuming that you're always up against a draw in that situation. Corollary: this sort of reasoning is only useful if you're damn good at hand reading.
3: The fact that there's one situation where it's relatively easy to identify a good bet size doesn't mean that it's easy in general.
4: If you bet something that lets your opponent make a small mistake, that may not be nearly as good as betting such that your opponent gets a chance to make a big mistake. NL is not about people making small mistakes and your exploiting small edges. It's about getting someone to make a mistake for their entire stack. See implied odds.
5: The "in most cases" statement to lead the sentence is just wrong, in my experience. Maybe I'm not thinking about things correctly.
6: Playing predictably is a really bad idea in NL, much more so than in limit. Varying your bet size relative to the pot is really important, assuming you don't just always bet the pot. If you bet a third of the pot every time you have a good hand and there's an apparent draw, you're going to get read a bit too much.
I think I'm done for the moment.
- target
Oh yeah. Stack sizes.
Stack sizes are really really important in pretty much all NL bet sizing issues. Leaving that out is egregious.
Tommy should scold me for not thinking of that immediately.
- target
Target,
You wrote: "Stack sizes are really really important in pretty much all NL bet sizing issues. Leaving that out is egregious."
Is the importance of stack sizes independent of the other points you made in your earlier post? If so, for what reasons?
Target,
Well done. I'll respond to your other points later. For now, let's examine your fourth one:
"4: If you bet something that lets your opponent make a small mistake, that may not be nearly as good as betting such that your opponent gets a chance to make a big mistake. NL is not about people making small mistakes and your exploiting small edges. It's about getting someone to make a mistake for their entire stack. See implied odds."
How would you (or anyone else) defend your answer if Mason explained:
"First, when you look at statistical distributions, minimums and maximums are ofter broad. What this means is that coming up with a 'magic' amount to bet isn't that important. For example, suppose your opponent has a 4-to-1 shot that you wish to give him the wrong odds on and now you want him to call. Making a bet that only gives him 3-to-1 is not much different in terms of overall expectation from a bet that only gives him 2-to-1. Perhaps he'll call the frist bet a little more often than the second bet, but in terms of expectation you should come out roughly the same. By the way I think that very few people know this and I have never seen this idea in print before. (My knowledge of this comes from the statistical work that I did years ago with the U.S. Census Bureau.)"[1]
By the way, I believed there were good reasons why Mason had never seen this idea in print before.
------------------------
[1] Mason Malmuth's 6 January 2001 (2:46 a.m.) post entitled "Re: Amazing Hand by John Cernuto" in Mason Malmuth's 5 January 2001 thread entitled "Amazing Hand by John Cernuto."
"Making a bet that only gives him 3-to-1 is not much different in terms of overall expectation from a bet that only gives him 2-to-1. Perhaps he'll call the first bet a little more often than the second bet, but in terms of expectation you should come out roughly the same."
That seems to be the key sentence, and I think it's just wrong.
I see two reasons for that.
First, again there's no mention of implied odds. If you offer someone 3-1 on a 4-1 porposition, it still might be correct if they can get some extra money out of you when you hit. When you offer someone 2-1 (pot sized bet), you are reducing not only their pot odds, but their implied odds as well. This could change the call from correct to incorrect, which is probably what you want here. Something that should be considered, at least.
The easy out is to claim that you should just never call when the draw hits, but that only works if you know the person is on a draw. If they have two pair or something, and think you have a set, they could be playing with the outs to fill plus the outs to bluff you out when the flush hits. Which means you have to call *sometimes* when the draw hits, depending on your read, so you can't just discount implied odds.
I don't think that people are that good at correlating their behavior with mathematical analysis, which would include pot odds. This is why we have to talk and think about this stuff a lot, since our instincts are often wrong.
Mason's assumption seems to be that if you give someone worse odds, that their likelihood of calling is inversely proportionally related to the crappiness of the odds that they're getting. It's easy to construct situations where someone feels pot stuck, or they're on tilt, or a bad player, or for some reason are making decisions based on things other than pot odds here.
Ok, I've rambled enough.
- target
"It's easy to construct situations where someone feels pot stuck, or they're on tilt, or a bad player, or for some reason are making decisions based on things other than pot odds here"
That's true. But nowhere does Mason make the claim that it's not true. He gives a simple pot odds example that just so happens is correct. You and Abdul and Glover are the ones that are making assumptions. Hey ask Abdul how much NL he's played.
vince
I would guess that I have played far more no limit hold'em than Mason Malmuth and Vince Lepore combined.
-Abdul
"far more "
This looks like one of your better mathematical answers. Did you use super calc to help you out? Are you claiming that you are an experienced NL player or just that you played "far more" than us. Does "far more" qualify you as an expert or are you "far" short. You know maybe "far, far more" is an expert and you fall "far" short. Maybe not. Of course someone on this forum quoted you as an expert so I guess you are. And I thought your only reason for answering was the same as Mark Glovers, to show up Mason. Excuse me if I didn't take you serious.
The biggest jerk on 2 + 2.
vince
Target,
I agree. I'm guessing you find thinking about EV to be worthwhile.
David also seems to agree: "The optimum bet is always more than that which is proper to call. However depending on the opponnents chances of calling various size bets, it may be quite a bit more rather than slightly more."[1]
After David posted his explanation, Mason wrote: "As usual Mark Glover is right and I love the footnote. For sake of argument to stress a particular point I simplified the situation slightly."[2]
The particular point Mason was trying to stress was that bet sizing is "not that hard." If that's the case, then I'm unsure why he needed to simplify the situation. I also have my doubts about how "slight" his simplification was.
Congratulations on not being thrown off track by Mason's references to statistical distributions, broad minimums and maximums, and the statistical work he did with the Census Bureau. Those phrases seem to suggest a sort of objective, scientific underpinning to his statement, "What this means is that coming up with a 'magic' amount to bet isn't that important." But that statement was his own empirical conclusion, which seems at odds with what you, David, and I have observed.
------------------------
[1] David Sklansky's 7 January 2001 (6:22 p.m.) post on the HIGH STAKES forum entitled "Re: Mason Malmuth's NL bet size error" in Mark Glover's 7 January 2001 thread entitled "Mason Malmuth's NL bet size error."
[2] Mason Malmuth's 7 January 2001 (6:57 p.m.) post on the HIGH STAKES forum entitled "Re: Mason Malmuth's NL bet size error" in Mark Glover's 7 January 2001 thread entitled "Mason Malmuth's NL bet size error."
Target,
As I noted before, this post is a fine effort. Let me add a few comments to some of your specific points.
------------------
For your first (implied odds) and second (opponent hand distribution) points, see my discussions with Spikey elsewhere in this thread.
------------------
"3: The fact that there's one situation where it's relatively easy to identify a good bet size doesn't mean that it's easy in general."
"5: The 'in most cases' statement to lead the sentence is just wrong, in my experience. Maybe I'm not thinking about things correctly."
I see these two points as being closely related, but perhaps you had something different in mind. Anyway, your experience reflects my own. If you don't care much about EV, I suppose it is simple to size your bet in many cases (but I also suspect those bet sizes often will not be very good).
------------------
I'll discuss your fourth point in the "Wow!" subthread (hopefully, later tonight).
------------------
"6: Playing predictably is a really bad idea in NL, much more so than in limit. Varying your bet size relative to the pot is really important, assuming you don't just always bet the pot. If you bet a third of the pot every time you have a good hand and there's an apparent draw, you're going to get read a bit too much."
Well said. I also would note that if you always just bet the pot, then you almost certainly are giving up too much short-term EV for the sake of deception. Finding the right "balance" between deception and immediate profit isn't so easy. Abdul has written about the "balancing" concept in greater detail on RGP, 2+2, and his own web site (www.posev.com).
"Varying your bet size relative to the pot is really important, assuming you don't just always bet the pot."
Now isn't that interesting. Is varying your bet size important or is it only important if you don't always be the pot size or is it even important at all?
Vince
Abdul posted a response to this in the rgp thread. Reposted here with permission.
__
Mistake #1: No mention of implied odds.
Mistake #2: No mention of stack sizes relative to pot size.
Mistake #3: No mention of chance of inducing a bluff.
Mistake #4: No mention of hand distribution of opponent.
Mistake #5: No mention of what you think he thinks you hold. This also ties into my concept of "balance" - you're not trying to maximize EV on the current hand but rather your overall EV.
Mistake #6: No mention of trapping opponent into catching a second best hand.
Mistake #7: If he calls you with a flush draw when getting slightly less than 4-1 and you have a real hand, then he has played correctly and you are screwed if you both have chips left.
Mistake #8: It's not that hard?!
The "chance of inducing a bluff" is qualitatively different in no limit versus limit. In no limit, you could easily induce a player with a busted flush draw to make such a big bluff bet that you cannot call with a real hand, whereas in limit you almost always want to induce a bluff from a busted draw when you have a real hand.
Anyway, most of that is just nitpicking, as I don't expect anyone to speak that precisely all the time, but the 4-1 odds thing should have explicitly included implied odds (preferably with stack sizes and pot size), at least.
Abdul Jalib
Mistake #1: No mention of implied odds.
That's not a mistake except by Abdul
Mistake #2: No mention of stack sizes relative to pot size.
And?
Mistake #3: No mention of chance of inducing a bluff.
Please these are not mistakes. They are what if maybe's.
Mistake #4: No mention of hand distribution of opponent.
Mason said class of hands are are you not listening
Mistake #5: No mention of what you think he thinks you hold. This also ties into my concept of "balance" - you're not trying to maximize EV on the current hand but rather your overall EV.
You guys are really goofy. Mason gave a simple odds example and you are making assumptions. Where do you get off criticising someone because he didn't list every possible scenario that you believ is relavant. Mason was talking about an opponent with a flus draw. I got that. Didn't you?
Mistake #6: No mention of trapping opponent into catching a second best hand.
Getting trapped is a mistake. So just who is making what mistake.
Mistake #7: If he calls you with a flush draw when getting slightly less than 4-1 and you have a real hand, then he has played correctly and you are screwed if you both have chips left.
What?
Mistake #8: It's not that hard?!
It's not.
The "chance of inducing a bluff" is qualitatively different in no limit versus limit. In no limit, you could easily induce a player with a busted flush draw to make such a big bluff bet that you cannot call with a real hand, whereas in limit you almost always want to induce a bluff from a busted draw when you have a real hand.
What does he know? How much NL experience does he have. This is just an opinion and besides it's not even relevant.
Anyway, most of that is just nitpicking, as I don't expect anyone to speak that precisely all the time, but the 4-1 odds thing should have explicitly included implied odds (preferably with stack sizes and pot size), at least.
He finally said something close to sensible. Target and Glover should try doing the same.
vince
>>What does he know? How much NL experience does he have. This is just an opinion and besides it's not even relevant.<<
It's as relevant as your opinion (and mine for that matter)!!!!!!!!!!
>> Anyway, most of that is just nitpicking, as I don't expect anyone to speak that precisely all the time, but the 4-1 odds thing should have explicitly included implied odds (preferably with stack sizes and pot size), at least. <<
This is a crazy strategy if both opponents have monster stacks compared to the size of the pot. For instance if the pot contained $100 and each opponent had $5000 it would be insane to bet $1275. I suppose if you thought you'd get the call often enough from a bow wow hand then it's ok but that would be rare IMO. I'm quite sure he, Mason, did not mean that one should make such a ridiculous bet.
>> He finally said something close to sensible. Target and Glover should try doing the same. <<
I think that if Mason states that his comments were taken out of context we should go with it and move on. I don't really care if he, Mason, made a mistake either. I will agree that perhaps a more positive topic title would be better received.
A fine list. I think all Abdul's points are valid, although (as he noted) some are more important than others.
Abdul seems to suggest that the second mistake (no mention of stack sizes relative to pot size) is high on his list. I understand this is a key factor in analyzing implied odds. I also understand you have to be aware of pot-committing your opponent. Can Abdul (or others) explain any additional reasons why stack size v. pot size might be so important?
Abdul wrote: "The 'chance of inducing a bluff' is qualitatively different in no limit versus limit. In no limit, you could easily induce a player with a busted flush draw to make such a big bluff bet that you cannot call with a real hand, whereas in limit you almost always want to induce a bluff from a busted draw when you have a real hand."
On the other side of the coin, there are times when you actually want to induce a bluff by your no-limit opponent. (Closely related to mistake #6--trapping opponent into catching a second best hand.)
There have been a series of posts on this forumm dealing with EV and how understanding it "might improve" your game. The problem with this series is that the originator makes every efort to explain that it is the individuals perogative or choice to determine whether or not understanding EV is helpful. In other places he makes a statement that seems to me claims he "teaches" this concept of understanding EV as a method of improving ones poker. Now how can one claim on one hand that it's up to the individual to determine whether or not understanding EV is useful and on the other hand claim that he teaches it as being useful. It doesn't compute.
This claimant never and I mean never explains just how this supposed understanding of EV might improve ones poker. He just says "it might". Well this claimant is full of himself and does not know what in the hell he is talking about. His recent post concerning Mason's comments about NL and limit poker are further evidence that he is a "know it all" that knows nothing and can prove it. He asks if anyone can see the error of Mason's ways. I think he does that because he wants your opinions before he gives his OPINION. Make no mistake about it all he has is an opinion. I gaurantee that nothing he presents will back up that OPINION.
Thinking in terms of is EV a mistake. It confuses the issue of why and how to play one's hand. It adds nothing to the resoning behind ones play but will offten lead the user astray. If for instance one applies the concept, "Aces are worth more than the blinds", which has been thrown around by another prominent poker authority and one tries to apply some +EV to this hand a player will most likely be prone to limp with Aces than raise. That's not to say that limping is not sometimes correct. It's just that the reason to limp is not because "they are worth more than the blinds". If you do not believe that this concept if applied will affect how you view Aces just try applying this concept the next time you get Aces and see how judge for yourself how it affects your play.
I will do most of my posting on the "Vince" forum but this bull got to me so I needed to say soemthing here.
Vince
Vince writes, "Aces are worth more than the blinds", which has been thrown around by another prominent poker authority and one tries to apply some +EV to this hand a player will most likely be prone to limp with Aces than raise. That's not to say that limping is not sometimes correct. It's just that the reason to limp is not because "they are worth more than the blinds".
You might be talking about Abdul and his TTHE sims. When I ran sims of aces on the simulator the average profit for AA is about 4*blinds. But the simulation players often raise with the aces. I am going by memory, but I believe I ran sims that showed AA makes less when the holder always limps. Of course, only a few number of people know what the limitations of the software is (I don't). But I think others have confirmed this approximation with mathematics (from memory I think Sklansky posted something close to this estimate that wasn't based on sims.) No, I don't have a quote to dig up.
With regard to your dislike of EV, I don't completely understand it. E.V. isn't hocus pocus, although some would have you believe it. Math types often use it without insight, fail to explain it in layman terms, which is the biggest problem. Instead of using EV, if I instead said "profit", and said we figure out if a play is correct or not based on how often we win and how much we win. Profit= how much we win *how often. Thats what EV is. As I tried to demonstrate to Mark Glover, pot odds adjustments ARE E.V. adjustments. They are just a different form of it.
When you use pot odds to help make your decisions, you are using "EV". I have always disliked getting bogged down in complex looking equations. I prefer word equations, like what Ray Zee uses. (His knack for expressing them succinctly is amazing).
So Vince, what do you do if you on the turn trying to decide whether raising or calling is the best play? Chances are you are using the pot size, your read of the players, general principles (like "when the pot gets large, you should do everything you can to win it, etc) and some other important variables. You can be a formidable poker player never going beyond this. In fact, if your people skills and other assets are developed, this might be the most formidable type of opponent- the hybrid. But you are using EV! Just not the EV that is presented in dry equations.
The general principles which we use (like the above "when the pot gets big" idea. Well, this idea wasn't just pulled out of a hat. This concept can be shown to be GENERALLY correct using EV equations. Understanding EV (again, if you are properly adjusting your pot odds properly they are EV, and you are on your way to covering most simple situations).
Profit = how much we win * how often - howmuchwelose*howoften
So obviously if we increase the first part of the equation, let's by say raising, it would make sense this play is even better when what we are going to win gets bigger. Risk to reward ratio. No hocus pocus.
I was thinking maybe we should do some simple posts on properly adjusting pot odds based on relatively simple but common scenarios. It might help some players. I don't think this type of thing is dealt with adequately in the literature that I have seen. How do you adjust for implied odds? How do you adjust for the fact that your raise might increase your chances of winning? This might be useful. This would be cake walk for most of us to produce.
Anyway, Vince, this post is long enough, and I realize that you are probably just trying to get Mark Glover to respond. lol.
Regards.
P.S. I thought it was part of the deal that when you get your own forum, you have to stay in it? AT least that was what Mason promised the rest of us who signed the petition.
You did know about the petition, right?
:)
Backdoor,
Yours is a wonderful response. Unfortunately it is off subject.
The claimant uses the following definiton of EV to make his claims:
"Essentially, the EV for any poker betting decision is the profit you should make, on average, by taking that action.
Stated somewhat differently, a betting decision's EV is the sum of the weighted profits for that decision's possible outcomes. Each outcome's profit (commonly called "loss" when negative) is weighted by the likelihood that the outcome will occur. To keep things simpler, I ignore profits that might occur after the hand in question is completed."
This definition is mathematical folly. Using weighted averages when faced with a decision is useless at best and very possibly catastrophic (if it causes you to lose a pot you would win).
A betting decision's EV could be the sum of weighted profit's. Sure, maybe, I don't think so, but if it is so what. The simple way to use math to HELP you make a decision that is difficult is the use of pot odds (+ implied odds). The claimant in his expalantion explains that these two things are different in that determining EV is more mathematically complex.
Going over your response I believe that you are speaking mainly of using pot odds to make a simple calculation of what the correct play may be. You want to substitute the word profit o.k. But if you start talking about weighted averages you my friend and I will part company on the use of math in playing poker.
There are a lot of smart people, math smart for sure, a lot smarter than me that have looked at this game of poker for quite sometime. Most of them have concluded that math has it's place but that it takes the backdoor (no pun intended) when it comes to PLAYING poker. Every once in a while we get poker "math formula" proponents come up here and try and dazzle us with some bull. The claimant is one of them. The sad part about it is that some people think he makes sense. I've even seen a post up on rgp lauding the value of this series on EV. Wonders never cease.
Vince
There are a lot of smart people, math smart for sure, a lot smarter than me that have looked at this game of poker for quite sometime. Most of them have concluded that math has it's place but that it takes the backdoor (no pun intended) when it comes to PLAYING poker.
Really?
Could you give an example of who "most" of these people are Vince? Or are you just making this stuff up?
- Andrew
Mason Malmuth, and David Sklansky to mention two. I'm not sure about Zee but I believe he agrees. T.J. Cloutier in his "Championship" book mentions the need for only simple math in some situations. I find it intersting that T.J makes this statement and our Claimant, who as far as I can tell, has never demonstrated any NL knowledge at all would claim that EV calculations are useful in NL. I mean some people consider T.J the best NL player in the world.
Vince
Andrew,
You asked Vince: "Could you give an example of who 'most' of these people are Vince? Or are you just making this stuff up?"
Do you mean like the advice Vince falsely attributed to Mason a couple months ago?
On 27 May 2001, Vince told "backdoor": "What Mason is telling you is that when playing poker it is almost always correct to be the aggreesor and try to take control of how a hand is played."[1]
When I asked if he could cite an instance when Mason made such a statement, Vince acknowledged that the claim was just his own personal opinion. So, you might want to see if Vince can support his attributions with specific references.
I'd also be surprised if any of his math experts believe that "thinking in terms of EV is a mistake!"
----------------------
[1] Vince Lepore's 27 May 2001 post entitled "Re: Our Answer" in Etowah's 26 May 2001 thread entitled "Bob Ciaffones pokerquiz."
Making the most profitable decision doesn't matter! Tell one and all!!
Vince, "Going over your response I believe that you are speaking mainly of using pot odds to make a simple calculation of what the correct play may be. You want to substitute the word profit o.k. But if you start talking about weighted averages you my friend and I will part company on the use of math in playing poker."
Vince, this is probably off topic as well but here it goes: Weighted averages. lets say you have a nut flush draw in holdem with an ace overcard. Sometimes when the ace hits, it will win. Sometimes it won't. Sometimes the board pairs on the river, giving you the flush, yet you still lose. Most of the time you would still win. Sometimes you make two or three big bets on the river, sometimes you lose them. So when you make your call or raise on the flop or turn, you know these things could happen. You also know that if you raise you MIGHT win without improving. You might even know how often, roughly. Well, guess what? These are weighted averages. You could have the above nut flush draw 20 times and lose every time in big pots. Does that mean your plays were negative? No. You made money each of those times on average. Weighted average, because there are lots of variables at work. Your decision to correctly call or raise with the draw was correct on AVERAGE. The results don't matter (at least theorectically).
Now how do you weigh more complex variables during play? This is the important thing. It depends on how your mind works. If one is capable of figuring out complex EV calculations smoothly and accurately, AND properly acquire all the other important data (like psychology, tells, following nuances in the action, etc), then great. I doubt there are many people like this. Most of us use shortcuts and understand general principles and poker theory to make the best decision most of the time. Not necessarily the best one all of the time. This allows one to focus on those things at the table that are important. Its better to juggle three balls very well then juggle four balls and drop them.
None of this means EV calculations are not useful to such a player who can't or won't use them at the table. Such a player can use them later, like here on the forum, to see if what he did during the game was correct based on his assumptions. This still leaves huge room for disagreement- differing assumptions. It leaves lots of room for poker art and talent. It leaves lots of room to PLAY POKER.
What it doesn't leave room for is making technically wrong plays when you know the assumptions. We take a situation, should I raise or fold? Sklansky asks you, how often do you think your opponent will fold if you raise? You know this guy pretty good, you say "not often". Sklansky insists (he's charging you $300 an hour, so you gotta listen) that you quantify this. So you place "not often" at 10%, then we make up an EV equation (tedious and boring..why didn't I just become a engineer or something?) to see, with your assumption if raising looks better than calling. Now you can plug in different values to that equation, and figure out that, say, you need the opponent to fold x number of times to break even. less than this you lose money on the play, all else being equal; more, you win on the raise. Ok, we have a baseline. It doesn't account for every last little thing that can happen, but so what? We could do that too, but there maybe diminishing returns. That might be juggling too many balls.
So how does this help you? Well, after time goes by, you are going to find yourself in a similar spot sooner or later (this is why doing EV calculations on common occurences is better than these obscure things that we love to argue about here on the forum). Now you have a great, mathematically correct baseline to go by at the table. You already remember the answer. You now can spot the play a mile away, all the while still able to focus on playing poker. The situation maybe a little different. Ok, no problem, you adjust. You make the technically correct play based on previous EV use.
Don't you agree that it would be tragic if a player above (who was a serious player) continually made the wrong play, EVEN THOUGH he had properly assessed his opponent? This would be tragic. It is also avoidable.
That's the best value of EV calulations (IMO). You already use them. Most accepted general principles that we have are EV proven. In they weren't they are wrong.
I think out biggest enemy here is the lack of communication between the two camps: the math types vs. the non math types. In an email with Tommy Angelo we discussed this (I dont think he will mind revealing this), and he thought the gap was almost insurmountable. I don't think that at all. The math types should try to communicate more in layman terms, and the non math types should not automatically dismiss things just because they are math. You will learn more from your opposite then you will from a similar thinking person, on weighted average.
BTW i read your "patience" thread. couldn't think of much to say.
regards.
backdoor,
Great post.
The following is important so I want to review it.
"Weighted averages. lets say you have a nut flush draw in holdem with an ace overcard. Sometimes when the ace hits, it will win. Sometimes it won't. Sometimes the board pairs on the river, giving you the flush, yet you still lose. Most of the time you would still win. Sometimes you make two or three big bets on the river, sometimes you lose them. So when you make your call or raise on the flop or turn, you know these things could happen. You also know that if you raise you MIGHT win without improving. You might even know how often, roughly. Well, guess what? These are weighted averages. "
First, I loved your post. The only problem I have and I may be wrong is with calculating the above examples as wieghted averages and using the results to determine your play. Alright let's see if I can explain without making an a bigger Ass of myself. You find yourself in a situation with a flush draw and an Ace over card. You look at your hand, think about how the hand has played upto then and determine your potential outs. You then calculate pot odds and implied odds and make a decision. That is simple and straight forward.
My understanding of weighted averages is that you would calculate the probability hitting your flush and losing and calculate hitting your Ace and losing then calculate the likelyhood of 2 bets or three bets on the river. Then average all these things together and divide by pot odds and implied odds and decide if you should call. If this is your definition of weighted averages then other than being cumbersome I can't find fault with attempting to use them if you have that quick of mind and will not make mistakes in the heat of battle.
One other thing.
"Now how do you weigh more complex variables during play? This is the important thing."
I contend that attempting to weigh more complex variables is not only unimportant but is unnecessary and wiil cause a player to make mistakes he wouldn't have otherwise made. I'm not sure that I am convinced that even David Sklansky can benefit from calculating complex variables at the table. Could be wrong. Maybe David will help out here.
I still think you made a great post.
vince
Straight from M. Glover's post (#3). @@@@@@@@@@@@ You could think of this calling scenario as having four possible outcomes (with their associated weighted profits):
1. Abe bets the river, and Bev folds (-$40 * 31/44).
2. Abe checks the river, Bev checks, and Bev loses (-$40 * 6/44).
3. Abe checks the river, Bev bets, Abe calls, and Bev wins ($240 * 6/44).
4. Abe checks the river, Bev bets, and Abe folds ($200 * 1/44).
EV(call) ~= (-$40 * 31/44) + (-$40 * 6/44) + ($240 * 6/44) + ($200 * 1/44)
EV(call) ~= $3.64
Since Bev's calling EV is greater than both her raising EV (-$26.80) and her folding EV ($0.00), she should call Abe's turn bet.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
To properly account for the above weighted probabilities using pot odds what do we do?
We can use this pot odds equivalent:
Pot odds needed: 37/7 to one or (~5.3 to 1)
Pot odds received: 200/40 = 5 to 1
Implied odds: We expect to make a bet on the river 6 of the 7 times we hit. Since we face one bet on the turn, make one on the river, its a one to one relationship. This means we adjust implied odds at 1 * 6/7 which is 6/7~= .85.
Adjusted pot odds needed are 5.3 to one; we get 5.85 to one. Overlay time.
Now these simple adjustments are the same as Mark's, but in a different format. The pot odds have been weighted (sort of).
Vince: "My understanding of weighted averages is that you would calculate the probability hitting your flush and losing and calculate hitting your Ace and losing then calculate the likelyhood of 2 bets or three bets on the river"
I think you pretty much get the idea, loosely translated.
Vince also writes: "You find yourself in a situation with a flush draw and an Ace over card. You look at your hand, think about how the hand has played upto then and determine your potential outs. You then calculate pot odds and implied odds and make a decision. That is simple and straight forward."
Ok, Vince. Here we go now. When you calculate your "potential outs", what are you doing? What you are probably doing is saying, hey I got a flush draw and and ace. I have 9 flush cards that make me a winner, and three aces. But I am not too sure about my aces, so I'll just count that as one out. I am pretty sure I will make one about one bet on the river (we will assume you are the on turn, to avoid having to account for two cards to come.) My opponent is a major calling station, he looks from previous action that he has a hand, and he will never fold if I raise the turn. So I have ten outs, and need pot odds of .....blah blah blah.
If you reason something like the above, you have very loosely made weighted ajustments. They could be more precise. When you say you need pot odds of 4-1 (or an equivalent outs estimate), what you are saying is that the probability of winning is 20%. So in an EV equation EV = Pot size * 1/5 .....to account for this part of your assumptions.
Mark Glover's EV equations showed weighted probabilities like the simple situation that began my post. EV equations can, and do become much trickier as more and more factors are added in, but the basic underlying principle remains the same.
VL "I contend that attempting to weigh more complex variables is not only unimportant but is unnecessary and wiil cause a player to make mistakes he wouldn't have otherwise made. I'm not sure that I am convinced that even David Sklansky can benefit from calculating complex variables at the table. Could be wrong. Maybe David will help out here."
No one said you have to go into complex mathematics that you do not want to, or are not able, or do not feel is necessary during the game. But what do you do when you are faced with a complex situation? What factors do you use? How do you know what you are doing is right?
Also, I would agree that bringing more complexity into the situation may have negative effects. Back to juggling too many balls concept. There are pro baseball pitchers that only throw two types of pitches. Others have dozens. If they get the batters out, they get the batters out. In this case EV ~= E.R.A. or wins or opp. batting average. Whatever.
And to repeat. There is nothing wrong with doing EV away from the table, learning specifics that at a later time may apply generally to a situation.
One last question. What odds do you need to draw to a small pair if you missed the flop. If this happens in a game, I bet you would get the answer right. I am also betting that you didnt do the math right there either. But you, or someone you love, did.
Regards.
backdoor,
I'm not sure if anyone else is reading your responses to me but whoever isn't is sure are missing a lot about how to win at poker. Or at the least a geat explanation of the relationship of detailed EV calculations to simple implied odds calculations.
It is very difficult if not impossible to argue against precision. But I'm Vince Lepore and I have a big ego so I guess you can understand. I'm still not convinced that the detailed calculating of EV is not a mistake. Your conclusion that we basically do the same thing with shortcuts is of course correct. But that does not make the long method a correct way of doing things. I'll think about it some more just to make sure I'm not being obstinate.
vince
Vince,
I appreciate your comments. Most of this is what I considered to be well known. I have one advantage over many in that I developed (independently of any literature I have read) a "fulcrum" technique. This involves making shortcuts in poker. These shortcuts are usually related to poker language -outs, pot odds, hand ranges. But in order to be certain, sometimes they have to be verified using traditional approaches like EV standard calculations.
But this isn't important.
I have been praised by both you and Mark Glover in close succession. Why do I feel like a pawn in a cold war?
Regards. :)
"I have been praised by both you and Mark Glover in close succession. Why do I feel like a pawn in a cold war?"
I don't know about Mark, but I'm a kiss ass.
Vince.
Backdoor,
You wrote: "I think out biggest enemy here is the lack of communication between the two camps: the math types vs. the non math types. In an email with Tommy Angelo we discussed this (I dont think he will mind revealing this), and he thought the gap was almost insurmountable. I don't think that at all."
I don't think that, either.
It's a shame that Tommy believes this, because I originally started the "Understanding EV" series at his request. I thought I expressed myself in terms he could follow.
I'm not surprised, however, that Vince doesn't seem to understand the series.
Backdoor,
You wrote: "As I tried to demonstrate to Mark Glover, pot odds adjustments ARE E.V. adjustments. They are just a different form of it."
And I agree. In one of my responses to you, I wrote:
>>I suspect we pretty much agree on the concepts of EV and short cuts and are just getting tangled up in some definitions.
I see a continuum. At one end are precisely computed EV calculations. At the opposite end are simple short cuts that novices might be able to usefully apply at the table.<<
I suppose my comment could be inferred as meaning that "I tried, yet failed." That is not what I meant.
Regards.
MG
mgta
?
Well this claimant is full of himself and does not know what in the hell he is talking about
Can we have a definition of "full of himself", and also "does not know what in the hell he is talking about"
Is this a attribute that can be enumerated and applied to all posters?
"Can we have a definition of "full of himself"
Look it up in the dictionary. Excuse me I didn't catch your name.
Vince
I think your post is pertains to Mark Glover's posts on EV. I snipped what I feel are your personal comments about Mark Glover. I tried to comment on the ones that I thought were directly related to playing poker.
>>Now how can one claim on one hand that it's up to the individual to determine whether or not understanding EV is useful and on the other hand claim that he teaches it as being useful. It doesn't compute.<<
If you're referring to Mark Glover he actually has explained this.
>>This claimant never and I mean never explains just how this supposed understanding of EV might improve ones poker. <<
In all fairness if you're referring to Mark Glover, you're wrong he actually did.
>>Thinking in terms of is EV a mistake. It confuses the issue of why and how to play one's hand. It adds nothing to the resoning behind ones play but will offten lead the user astray.<<
I almost totally disagree with this statement. There are a couple of exceptions that I can think of off of the top of my head. In NL poker it may be right for you to take insurance if on a limited bankroll. Also there are occasions where it is right to purposely misplay a hand to throw your opponents off. The biggest winners consistently make the plays with the highest EV.
>>..If for instance one applies the concept, "Aces are worth more than the blinds", which has been thrown around by another prominent poker authority and one tries to apply some +EV to this hand a player will most likely be prone to limp with Aces than raise. <<
I don't understand the reasoning behind this statement.
>>If you do not believe that this concept if applied will affect how you view Aces just try applying this concept the next time you get Aces and see how judge for yourself how it affects your play.<<
Huh?
Tom,
Please read my response to backdoor. It doesn't answer all your questions but it goes a long way to expalin how I feel about this issue.
vince
In recent discussion of EV I posted under title--the VALUE of EV:
"--if EV is worth half of what he (Glover) thinks it is, the it ---"
I thought that was plain way of saying he OVER valued it. He responded by saying he did not understand my post.
He honestly does not understand----the VALUE of EV---is really not all that great!
Coward,
You wrote: >>"--if EV is worth half of what he (Glover) thinks it is, the it ---"
I thought that was plain way of saying he OVER valued it.<<
I doubt that's a plain way of saying anything.
------------------------
Perhaps I can clarify matters by quoting my earlier response to you:
>>Earlier, I noted: "Is estimating EV worth the extra effort? Players must decide this for themselves."
You wrote: "as to value, [EV] would have tremendous value if it was worth half of what Mark thisks it is worth."
I'm not sure what you are trying to say.<<
-------------------------
Now, you wrote: "He honestly does not understand----the VALUE of EV---is really not all that great!"
I believe the value of estimating or computing EV depends on the individual who is doing the calculations. For you (and Vince), I suspect the value "is really not all that great!"
Tom,
You wrote: "In NL poker it may be right for you to take insurance if on a limited bankroll."
I assume you are talking about risk aversion and individual utility functions. A new thread on "expected utility" might be worthwile. On RGP, Tom Weideman recently discussed the relationship of expected utility and expected value.[1] It is well worth a read.
In addition, you wrote: "Also there are occasions where it is right to purposely misplay a hand to throw your opponents off."
I don't perceive this as an exception to EV so much as a simplification that commonly is imposed on the definition of EV.
As I noted in a footnote to Part 1 of my EV series: "[The] definition for EV can accommodate future profits (e.g., from 'image' plays and deceptive hand balancing), but it complicates the explanation (unnecessarily, for now)."[2]
P.S.: Thanks for trying to help Vince understand. Your attempt seems about as successful as mine usually are.
-----------------------
[1] Tom Weideman's 27 July 2001 post on Usenet's rec.gambling.poker entitled "Re: paradise game #95,000,000."
[2] Mark Glover's 10 July 2001 thread entitled "A definition of EV (expected value)."
Your points are well taken and your welcome.
I don't think Vince would be very receptive to the concepts regarding risk aversion and individual utility functions.
"I don't think..."
Tom,
It's good to see that sometimes you know what you are talking about.
vince
This is hilarious! First a thread on RGP with the title "Why 2+2 will eventually overtake RGP" and now claim that "Thinking in terms of EV is a mistake!". Whatever will they think of next?
What will they think of next? How about giving him his own forum?
Now now Tom, your fangs are showing. We in the superior consider comments like yours petty and driven by jealousy. If you want your own forum send Mason a check like I did.
vince
You sure do add a lot to the discussions here. Not!
Do you do the same on rgp? You sound like an rgp'er so i guess you are more interested in ragging on Gary Carson than disussing poker. don't blame you that's the reason I go to rgp also.
Maybe you just don't understand enough about poker to comment. Come to my forum and you may learn something. Oops, sorry not you. One must be open to learning for that to happen.
Vince
> You sure do add a lot to the discussions here. Not!
I comment where I think it is appropriate. But most often I read since my poker experience is very limited.
> Do you do the same on rgp? You sound like an rgp'er so i guess you are more interested in ragging on Gary Carson than disussing poker. don't blame you that's the reason I go to rgp also.
Yes, I do the same on RGP, but I definitely don't rag on Carson - usually I agree with him, but then I've only started reading it recently and apparently he has been reasonably subdued.
> Maybe you just don't understand enough about poker to comment. Come to my forum and you may learn something. Oops, sorry not you. One must be open to learning for that to happen.
Getting a bit personal (and wrong) there Vince. I was merely pointing out the ludicrous nature of the thread titles "Why 2+2 will overtake RGP" and "Thinking in terms of EV is a mistake!".
> Vince
I was merely pointing out the ludicrous nature of the thread titles ....and "Thinking in terms of EV is a mistake!".
From here on I will discuss this on Vince's forum. Iw ouldn't want to mess up your mutual love affair with Mark Glover. I just wanted to let you know that the above ludicrous title is correct. i will explain on Vince's forum.
vince
Online Poker at Paradise Poker.
Bought in for $1,250
Built up to $3,600 playing 7 Stud Hi/Lo $4-8 and $6-12, Holdem $5-10, Omaha Hi, $3-6 and $5-10, Omaha Hi/Lo $3-6 and $5-10, in about three weeks. Admittedly a lot of this was down to good luck. For example, playing short handed 7 Stud Hi/Lo I won over $800 in half an hour.
Over the last 4 weeks I have dwindled back to $500. Which represents an overall loss of $750, but a down turn of $3,100 from my all time high. I admit that over this time there were times when I played badly. Played weak cards, and called when I should not have. But there were also the obligatory bad beats. However, in general I do feel that I was playing well.
Can I expect this sort of down turn in the normal run of things, or am I just playing badly and cannot beat this online game?
You ask the sixty-four dollar question. There have been many, many, many, posts on the internet forum identical to yours. Everyone I know, personally, who has played at Paradise, has had the identical experiences you describe.
Tom D
p.s. Don't go over to the internet forum. The Paradise Goon Squad keeps a vigilant watch for heretical posts like yours, and will attack like a pack of dingos.
If I were you I would analyze your losses: which games do I win the most in? which game do i lose the most in? Am I making a big score then pushing my luck to make a bigger score?
There are going to be swings in poker, bigger in internet poker simply because the game rate is raster. It sounds like you have analyzed you probelm (you stated there were times when u played badly), were the times u played badly the time you lost a majority of your bankroll.
I've been on the roller coaster ride of paradise poker, and my biggest dips came when i first started playing when i wasn't in control of my emotions and would go on tilt easy. When I finally got control ($1,200 down now) i noticed my wins were a little larger and my losses a little less. I'm now within $200 of being even (not bad over 2 monthes of playing sensible poker :)) and can get up and walk away from a bad beat.
Remember in the casinos they are dealing a hand every 90-120 seconds. On paradise they deal a hand every 30-60 seconds. That means there are times when paradise will play 4 times as many hands as a casino, which means if you are pissed and on tilt for 5 minutes, you are in 4 times as much trouble on-line then in a casino because you will be in tilt through more hands.
You wrote, "There are going to be swings in poker, bigger in internet poker simply because the game rate is raster."
I don't think so. The faster rate, or more trials per unit of time, should smooth out the wrinkles, not make them bigger.
Tom D
I agree that the swings are not due to the more hands being played. Also remember that many players play two tables at once as well but I also don't think this is the cause of the swings. Like you said this may cause things to even out quicker.
I don't know what the answer is but I have said in the past that if you play on-line you must expect such swings and be able to deal with them. It is tough and if you can't do it I would suggest you not play on-line.
"[I]n most cases, all you need to do is bet a little more than what would be correct for certain classes of hands to call. For instance, suppose there are two flush cards on board, it is fourth street, and you hold a good hand. Just bet a little more than what would be required for your opponent to get 4-to-1 on his call. Now, if he calls you he has made a mistake. It's not that hard."[1]
All the know it alls here strarting with the king of them all claim that Mason made 6 or maybe an ininite number of errors with the above statement. They are WRONG!
They point ot "implied odds" and other things that Mason doesn't mention in his rather simple example. They claim these are mistakes. Well they are the ones making the mistake. Mason points out that if you give your opponent less than true odds and he calls that he is making a mistake. All the bull Mark Glover and Target can throw at that statement does not change the fact that it is a correct statement. If your opponent calls with less than true odds he is making a mistake. They are forgetting a key point about implied odds. You must almost always make a mistake for your opponent to consider implied odds. Their blindness won't let them see this. For instance in most cases if you call a bet on the river and lose you are making a mistake by calling. They point to implied odds as if they are a gimmee.
I'd go on but it's too tiring.
Vince
I think the real shame of all of this is that the Mark Glover posts are obviously done by someone who has an agenda and is trying to disrupt these forums. If he would apply himself to the play of real hands instead of seizing on short statements taken out of the context of the thread he could actually contribute something. My guess is that the guy has probably never played real poker in a casino environment (or if he has played it is very little) and would lose his money quickly in a middle limit game against typical (not tough) competition. (Sounds like B Yoon on RGP doesn't it?) I can say this with confidence because he never enters any of the hand to talk about discussions (whether I post them or someone else posts them) which are probably the most useful tool on these forums for improving one's game.
Mason,
I agree about the hands. Over the last year my card reading has improved. Much of this is attributed to reading posts here.
It is also unfortunate that Mark Glover doesn't choose to channel his obviously significant intelligence in a more diplomatic and less nit picking way. Maybe he will come around.
Question:
What value do you think E.V. equations have in analyzing poker situations either during play or after the play such as here on the forums?
Regards.
Glover is just an extreme example of an all-too-common problem on this forum. But you can avoid becoming the target of the peashooters by adopting a writing style similar to the following:
One reason to raise is to get more money in the pot, except when raising would actually get less money in the pot. Another reason to raise is to thin the field, except when raising won't thin the field. Sometimes you should raise for deception, except when nobody will be deceived. Of your three choices (raising, folding, or calling), calling is usually the worst, except when it's the best. Sometimes you should fold, but don't fold the winner...(etc)
Anyway, Mason's original statement is correct in situations where it applies. It might not be correct in situations where other information known to you would dictate a conflicting course of action.
Nothing is ever always right or wrong in poker. This is a given and shouldn't have to be repeated over and over.
> Nothing is ever always right or wrong in poker. This is a given and shouldn't have to be repeated over and over.
I would point out that the statement "Nothing is ever always right or wrong in poker" must apply to itself. I would suggest you replace it with "Very few things in poker are always true" or more precisely "Very few things in poker are always true, and this statement is one of them".
Your response is precisely the sort of pointless nitpicking that goes on all too much here.
>Your response is precisely the sort of pointless nitpicking that goes on all too much here.
I agree there might be too much nitpicking here, but I disagree that is what my response was.
a) Your statement which you claimed was well established was wrong.
b) I have an interest in self-referencing statements such as "I never lie". Allow me my idiosynchrasies!
"What value do you think E.V. equations have in analyzing poker situations either during play or after the play such as here on the forums?"
Backdoor:
First, I didn't read most of the Glover EV posts, but my opinion is that understanding EV is more important than many players think. By understanding the appropriate concepts which can lead to maximizing EV we can conclude that some poker plays that don't seem completely logical at first consideration are in fact the best plays. This includes things like raising with the third best hand in stud to knock out the second best hand and in hold 'em, our old friend the T9 play.
"What value do you think E.V. equations have in analyzing poker situations either during play or after the play such as here on the forums?"
Mason, Please answer this question as stated. I am going to explain why "Thinking in terms of EV is a mistake" and since you have an opinion on this I'd like to hear it. The emphasis above is "during play or after the play".
thanks
vince
Vince:
Number Six once said:
"I am not a number, I am a free man."
Does that help?
"Does that help? "
Everytime you answer me it helps, number six. Thanks. (I thought Morgan Freeman was an actor?)
Vince
Mason,
Is that line from oddball British import TV series "The Prisoner"?
~ Rick
Yes.
>>I think the real shame of all of this is that the Mark Glover posts are obviously done by someone who has an agenda and is trying to disrupt these forums.<<
I don't know about this. I think it's fair to say that many posters enjoy his posts and feel the "poker content" contained in them is worthwhile. In all fairness Mark does seem to want to help people play better too. That's my impression. As far as an agenda he does point out problems that he perceives with some of the 2+2 books but he has pointed out flaws in other books as well. As far as I can tell he is not interested in writing a book or competing with 2+2.
Let's take a another poster that is very popular, Jim Brier. He has pointed out problems that he finds with HFAP 21st Edition. Some of the objections he has raised have been to the point of being extremely redundant and pedantic. He supposedly is writing a book on hold'em with Ciaffone and he writes a card player article. Yet I never read that Jim is disrupting the forum or that Jim has an agenda.
Yes Mark does come off as conceited and condescending sometimes but so what? I've certainly shown conceit for people in my lifetime (on the forum as well) and I've been condescending as well. Who hasn't? Some might say it's a matter of degree but that seems to be a very subjective kind of thing.
>> If he would apply himself to the play of real hands instead of seizing on short statements taken out of the context of the thread he could actually contribute something<<
Actually I would like that as well (for selfish reasons) but there are many who don't choose to comment on individual hands. I do believe that many readers feel Mark is making a real contribution.
>>My guess is that the guy has probably never played real poker in a casino environment (or if he has played it is very little) and would lose his money quickly in a middle limit game against typical (not tough) competition.<<
I don't know about this. I think we should evaluate the poker content in Mark's posts. I realize that I have an interest in delving into what I would call the more "abstract" concepts in poker than, for lack of a better example, Vince does (please don't take offense Vince). Towards that end I think Mark has written some very good posts.
>>(Sounds like B Yoon on RGP doesn't it?) I can say this with confidence because he never enters any of the hand to talk about discussions (whether I post them or someone else posts them) which are probably the most useful tool on these forums for improving one's game.<<
There a very useful tool I agree but as I mentioned Mark isn't the only player who chooses not to post there very often. He does make some comments.
I'm not trying to defend Mark Glover I'm trying to be fair though.
"Let's take a another poster that is very popular, Jim Brier. He has pointed out problems that he finds with HFAP 21st Edition"
Tom: While I feel that many of Jim's ideas are a little misguided, there is no question that he is trying to become a better poker player. In fact, I suggested to him one day at the Bellagio that he post his problems from HPFAP-21 and that we could discuss them.
I don't think that comparing him to Mark Glover is fair. The difference is that Jim is a real poker player who is trying to become as good as he can get, and he likes to discuss his ideas and debate concpets with others. Glover comes across (to me anyway) as a phony poker player who really isn't interested in learning how to win, but seems to want to show that his command of insignificant details is superior and is more thrilled with uncovering a statement that someone may have said months ago that seems to contradict what they are saying now.
The most sad part of this is that he is someone who is obviously very smart and works hard on his posts. My suggestion to Mark Glover is to take part in the discussion of poker hands, perhaps even start a couple of his own, and see if he can improve his understanding of real live poker play. That's where the money is, and if he would do this Glover could become a real asset to the people who participate in these forums.
I have found some of Mark's posts regarding theoretical issues to be of value. I would not consider these posts to be of lesser value if I were to learn that he seldom played live poker (or only played low limits). I do not care whether Mark is interested in earning more money playing poker.
Though you find Mark's nit-picky posts to be irritating, consider that others may find them--and the responses they provoke--to be somewhat entertaining...and sometimes instructive.
Having great respect for you as a poker player and writer, I hate to see you put on tilt. I would also hate for bright dissident voices to be silenced at 2+2.
I agree i like Marks post too at times. I just quickly skim the lead post to see if I am interested or not, if not i just move on.I find it crazy the way some people dont see value or honest efford in some peoples posts.Barbra Yoon on rgp is a good example of a person who puts in a lot of efford in her math posts probably more time and efford in math than any 2+2er or rgper over any period of time and has a lot of fans and supporters .But it seems a few people just dont see the time and efford she puts in her math posts and are quick to throw mud at her witch she is quick to throw back.But if you look at her math posts you see she is good and puts in alot of efford in them.
B Yoon doesn't really do math posts, she does aritmetic posts. What I mean by this is that there are many high school students who could do exactly what B Yoon does.
So what you may say. If it's good information then its worthwhile. But I question whether it's really very good if you are a serious poker player. Furthermore, if you have aspirations of becoming a top poker player is the B Yoon type information beneficial or detrimental? I think for many of you it is detrimental. The reason for this is that poker isn't played the way B Yoon (who writes under the name Lawrence Hill) analyzes it. Opponents don't play random hands and automatically go to the river.
Let me give an example. B Yoon likes to rank hold 'em hands. Well, David has also done some hand rankings. But there are some major differences. In the B Yoon scheme we get a top twenty list and are left with the impression that any hand on this list is a good hand and thus should be played. But those of us who play hold 'em seriously know that in certain common situations, some hands, like AJo (which is in her top twenty) become close to the worse two cards in the deck. Sklansky solved this problem by grouping hands which helps keep you out of the traps.
Over the years I have been very critical of those writers who approach poker in the way that B Yoon does. They don't understand how hands are played, and they don't understand where the real EV in a particular strategy is located. (Sorry Vince.)
Poker is much more complicated than the simplistic arithmetic that B Yoon offers us and I strongly believe that her results have very little positive value and a fair amount of negative value for new but serious players. Does this mean she doesn't work hard producing her stuff? Of course it doesn't. But it does mean that you should probably look at it with a more critical eye towards winning play.
>>Over the years I have been very critical of those writers who approach poker in the way that B Yoon does.<<
I agree that criticism is warranted in that the information isn't that useful and can be expensive if applied poorly. I find it somewhat interesting to know how hands match up against each other pre-flop. To be honest I hardly ever read the column you refer to. My recollection is that most of the hands in the column start with the first two cards of many players and proceed to the showdown and the odds of each one being the best are posted (I guess really don't read that column). Of course this is unrealistic for a full ring game. I vaguely remember that some of her posts on RGP were ok (damning someone with faint praise?) but I can't remember any specific situations.
>>They don't understand how hands are played, and they don't understand where the real EV in a particular strategy is located. (Sorry Vince.)<<
Why apologize for stating the truth. I'm not really sure what Vince thinks but one problem I see with some posts by various people is that there is an assumption that to use a model effectively you have to produce an exact answer. Of course nothing could be further from the truth. Ironically this is probably one of the problems with the approach by B Yoon, she seeks an exact answer that is always right for all situations. I'm fairly certain that this stems from the way mathematics has been and still is taught to children but I digress.
>>Poker is much more complicated than the simplistic arithmetic that B Yoon offers us and I strongly believe that her results have very little positive value and a fair amount of negative value for new but serious players. Does this mean she doesn't work hard producing her stuff? Of course it doesn't. But it does mean that you should probably look at it with a more critical eye towards winning play. <<
I agree as I stated above.
"that there is an assumption that to use a model effectively you have to produce an exact answer.Of course nothing could be further from the truth."
True. In this case what model are you speaking of? Weighted average calculations? He implied that these weighted averages can help understand how to play poker better but provided nothing that gives any method or even a hint of just how one can use his EV calculating methods to improve their poker. Maybe I missed that. Maybe that's not required of the modeler either. I believe Marks coined phrase was something like: One must decide for ones self the value. Then he went on to show whatever it was he wanted to show.
I find it interesting that to defend things Mark has said you would use "that there is an assumption that to use a model effectively you have to produce an exact answer". No one and I mean no one demands exactness more than Mark Glover!
Vince
Tom:
While what you say is accurate I think your statement of:
"I agree that criticism is warranted in that the information isn't that useful and can be expensive if applied poorly."
is actually too weak. It is probably right on the money for you because you are an advanced player with a good understanding of poker. But what if you are far less advanced or just starting out. The the B Yoon type information can be quite damaging, and you would probably be better off if you never read it.
"They don't understand how hands are played, and they don't understand where the real EV in a particular strategy is located. (Sorry Vince.)"
What? Mason maybe you don't read so good or maybe I don't explain so good. My refernce to EV dealt with thinking about EV during the hand. Making long unnecessary calculations during the middle of a hand. Anything that distracts from your focus can and will cause mistakes. I never claimed that I believe that EV was not the driving force behind development and appplication of poker strategy and tactics.
My arguement with Glover dealt with his inability to demonstrate through experience or "a real to life" example of how uderstanding EV the way he explained it was of value. If I was not a proponent of playing with +EV as the driving force do you believe that I would follow what Sklansky and Malmuth profess. I would be more inclined to be a Caro follower if that were true.
vince
>>I never claimed that I believe that EV was not the driving force behind development and appplication of poker strategy and tactics.
My arguement with Glover dealt with his inability to demonstrate through experience or "a real to life" example of how uderstanding EV the way he explained it was of value. <<
Please elaborate on your statement "understanding EV the way he explained it" because it's not clear to me what you mean.
Also to be fair to Mark Glover, he did state that complex calculations may be detrimental to you but don't apply that standard to everyone else. My approach is more along the lines of how Mason described his approach but I certainly wouldn't say that everyone should use it or would I say that nobody is capable of doing complex calculations at the poker table.
What are you implying about "Caro followers" Vince - that they don't play to win?
In reading your post I see how you view her work witch is fine from a over all poker view but you some what imply or presume stuff witch is not true or token out of context from what she is saying in some cases.If someone does ,maybe just for fun ,maybe because some mag. is willing to pay them to do it or for what ever reason , the math to calculate the strenght of random hands in holdem and ends up posting it for what ever reason or get payed by a poker mag to publish it in their mag. it likely does not mean its going to help anyones poker game and it likely never was meant to help anyones game it could be just for general interest.In my post I was just pointing out that of all 2+2 and rgp posters Barbara Yoon does the most and is the best at explaining the math or as you say arithimetic side of poker weather it helps a new player or not is not the point.Thier could be others who know more about the math but dont post much but thats not the point .Thier could be others who put math and poker together better and dont post much but that wasnt my point.My point is that of all 2+2 posters and rgp posters she is the best at, and puts the most time in explaining the math side of things weather it helps new players play poker or not is not the point and I dont think she should have mud thrown at her for doing this.But what ever, if a few 2+2ers want to throw mud at her what ever, she seems to like to throw it back lol.Your (mason)case or point is well taken if you where to judge her by trying to reach your goal(making players better?) but I think she is some what doing her own thing just answering or showing the math to the questions asked of her and doing a good job and is gifted in this field but as a overall player or export in poker is a different issue and she does not claim to be a export in the poker side of things or teaching a new player how to play poker.Thats not what her good post are about.
Again I disagree, and I disagree strongly. The math she is doing does not apply to real poker.
Let me try to give an example. This has to do with what we call mathematical modeling. For hundreds if not thousands of years people tried to explain the movements of the planets. Some of these people, and I think the name Tycho Brache (if I spelled this right) is best known did huge amounts of mathematical calculations. But their work was so inaccurate that it had little real value. Then a man named Copericus came along with a different model of the earth and the other planets revolving around the sun in circles and all of a sudden everything made sense. Now today we actually know that orbits are much more complex than simple circles, but I hope you get my point which is that the mathematical model that B Yoon and others of her ilk base their work on is just to far removed from real poker to have value. In fact, in many cases, unless you already are an experienced player with a fair amount of knowledge it probably has negative value.
"The math she is doing does not apply to real poker." Yes and thats ok depending on the question asked of her,her posts mainly deal with simple math problems where she does a good job.Anybody can ask her a math question in her field (math)she gives the answer to the math question,thats the end of her part and she moves on to the nexts question.What somebody does with the answer is up to them she only answered the math question asked of her.So now we all agree of all 2+2 posters and rgp posters she does the best job of answering and explaining the math in her feild.After some refection I added the in her field part, so nobody thinks she is a expert in all fields of math. And of coarse her poker theory may or may not be that good and has nothing to do with most of her math posts .
Mason wrote: "I think the real shame of all of this is that the Mark Glover posts are obviously done by someone who has an agenda and is trying to disrupt these forums. If he would apply himself to the play of real hands instead of seizing on short statements taken out of the context of the thread he could actually contribute something. My guess is that the guy has probably never played real poker in a casino environment (or if he has played it is very little) and would lose his money quickly in a middle limit game against typical (not tough) competition. (Sounds like B Yoon on RGP doesn't it?) I can say this with confidence because he never enters any of the hand to talk about discussions (whether I post them or someone else posts them) which are probably the most useful tool on these forums for improving one's game."
Does Mason's statement contain any errors? If so, how many can you identify?
Here are some clues that might point you towards at least one of his possible mistakes:
1. "In poker the thought process and the logical reasons behind it are frequently more important than what the play was. If you are thinking about things correctly, it is only a matter of time before you begin to play well."[1]
2. Different people have different utility functions.
3. Some people write as if everyone else's utility functions match their own.
-------------------------
[1] Mason Malmuth's 14 December 1999 post entitled "Re: About Ciaffone" in darrell dunfee's 14 December 1999 thread entitled "in defense of bob ciaffone." And yes, I do realize that mentioning this quotation probably solidifies another one of Mason's misconceptions.
O.k all you less than Mark Glovers answer the questions so Mark can grade you.
vince
What a jerj.
Petty hatreds are human nature.
Reminds of one of those star trek episodes where a lifeform that lives peacefully in the sand, tells the humans (the Enterprise) to come back in a couple hundred years or so when they are ready.
Will two hundred years be enough?
Only if we want it to be.
Vince, I'm not sure what you're trying to say exactly. I haven't been following the EV threads closely so I went back and read all the posts regarding the no limit bet-sizing argument.
First, I don't understand the heated nature of any of this. Why is it so wrong to discuss ideas and theories? Why is it so wrong to disagree with an assertion of Mason's, and point out mistakes if you think there are any? A lot of the posts back and forth seem to be a battle of nit-picking over whether or not Mason is technically correct in a certain context or not. Who cares? Why not use the questions brought up as an opportunity to discuss some very important no limit concepts?
I think a better discussion-inducing post would be as follows:
Mason says, regarding the complexity of the no limit bet-sizing problem:
"[I]n most cases, all you need to do is bet a little more than what would be correct for certain classes of hands to call. For instance, suppose there are two flush cards on board, it is fourth street, and you hold a good hand. Just bet a little more than what would be required for your opponent to get 4-to-1 on his call. Now, if he calls you he has made a mistake. It's not that hard."[1]
This may be correct in the specific instance where you are sure your opponent is on a flush draw and you are so sure that you can safely fold on the river if the flush comes. However, this specific situation doesn't come up very often in no limit hold'em, mostly because it's hard to read someone that perfectly.
There are many situations in no limit hold'em where the size of your opponent's stack is MORE important than the size of the pot when making your decisions.
Many good limit players have noted that when a "big name" no limit player sits down in a limit game, they lose horrific amounts of chips. Good no limit players have noticed the same thing about limit players who sit down in their games. This implies that the skills required for each game are different and thus the variables you need to follow in each game are different. If you want to play no limit, you better understand the differences in the game or you will lose, period. Since most players are very familiar with limit but fewer players have experience in no limit, let's discuss the differences found in no limit hold'em for the benefit of limit players who want to branch out to no limit.
Some aspects of no limit that are crucial but don't come in to play as much in a limit setting are: implied odds, stack sizes (often the same thing but not always), pot-stuck thresholds, "stack-threatening" bets, etc. Other things like position are important in both games but are important in DIFFERENT ways. Often, the blinds become totally unimportant in a no limit game whereas in a limit game the blinds are generally of crucial importance. Notice that many of the things I listed are variations on the issue of stack size.
So here are some questions for the forum:
How do implied odds affect your play in no limit hold'em?
How do stack sizes influence your play other than in regard to implied odds?
What does "pot stuck" mean and how do you know when you are or are not pot stuck?
No matter how tough the game is, there are always more showdowns in limit than in no limit. What does this say about the differences in the game and the adjustments you need to make?
Anyone else want to point out some major no limit concepts I overlooked?
See, all of this fighting and nit-picking can be avoided while getting some good discussion in AND even while disagreeing with each other. It's really not that hard. It's just a matter of tone and attitude.
natedogg
I like your ideas Natedogg.
Vince
Vince,
I concer with your statement and the points that Mason makes in his post. Mason speaks of Mathematical Odds. Mathematics is based on a series of theorems or absolutes. Implied odds relates directly to your opponent making calls that are not justified in relation to the size of the pot, and the odds of making a specific hand. Does this mean that an opponent who does this will lose the hand every time. Absolutely not you could ignore this principle and win a hand or hands. However, per the laws of Mathematics and the odds ignoring implied odds will not have a positive expectation over time. Like giving someone more than even odds on the flip of a coin. Over time you will lose as the flip will bear out to mathematic quotiants of 50%. Just a matter of time befor this truth bears out. Implied odds may not be a respector of an individual hand per say but as a long term strategy it is right on the money as much as 2+2=4!!!!!!!
For those interested, David essay "Playing Pairs in Hold 'em Challenge" which appeared in Card Player is now on our essay page.
theres all kinds of info on hold-em but little on omaha. seems to me that few people know how to play this game well. and thats where the easy pickings should be. i would like to know where i can find more info. [ like what are the good starting hands,when to hold-em n when to fold-em etc.]
I know Badger is persona non grata here but a good place to start is his stategy page http://www.playwinningpoker.com/omaha1.html
Joan's Brother,
This is the book that will solve all your questions and U can purchase it at Conjelco and they deliver. Plus if U have any Questions in the book U can ask the author right on this forum. Now what could be better than that. Except maybe a free copy, but you'll win the book plus 10x over or Z will give U a private lesson in his Half Moon House that gets inspected by RN on a regular basis.
"High-Low Split Poker, Seven Card Stud and Omaha Eight or Better for Advanced Players by Ray Zee"
Paul
Omaha8 is a great game to play with bad players. Unlike holdem-where loose players take less and less the worst of it as the game loosens--weak hands take more the worst of it as the game loosens. Take the hand described above. It is impossible to make the only nuts with this hand without making a full house or better.
It is similar to cards speak, any low, 7-stud. I remember the joy of playing this with loose, ex-high-only players. It doesn't take people long to learn to play this game, and there isn't much that separates a great player from an otherwise unskilled, but tight player.
So if you have a juicy game, enjoy it while you can. Omaha 8 really sucks if the game is tight. And it doesn't take people long to learn.
In nl or pl holdem, you have to be able to play--really play--to be successful. Some people can generate a slightly positive ev merely by playing really tight, but the real players get the money.
Stanley,
You are right. Omaha Hi/Lo is easy pickens. Especially at the limits below $10-$20. Even the $10-$20 games are good.
If you are a Hold'em Player I recommend Bob Ciaffone's Omaha Poker Book. It mostly covers Omaha High, but will help you learn how to build high hands. I think it's a good transition book for a Hold'em player.
After you are done with Bob's book, then get Ray Zee's Hi/Lo Split Poker Book.
I enjoy playing this game much more than Hold'em, because the bad players get punished for playing bad.
Good Luck
Mark
>I enjoy playing this game much more than Hold'em, because the bad players get punished for playing bad.
I see a therapy session in your future. "Why do you raise with A234?" Answer:"To punish that numbskull holding K892"
If you go to the Conjelco site and look through the poker books for titles with "Omaha" in them, you'll see pretty much the entire oeuvre. There are no bad books, but there aren't any really great ones either, especially for low-limit players. Zee's book (from 2+2 - go to the Books link) is pretty good, and it also covers stud hi/lo, another game that is often easy pickins at low limits.
Steve Badger's website has a basic strategy page.
Wilson Software sells an Omaha/8 computer game that is useful for mastering basic concepts. (I have no connection with Wilson Software)
I don't think you can go far wrong either if you watch the games on Paradise for a while and just see what sort of hands win the most pots. Bad O/8 players mainly do two things wrong: they play starting hands they shouldn't, and they chase with hands where they don't have the pot or implied odds to pay for their draws.
All excellent suggestions, Chip.
I have one problem "practicing" on PP. Even the lowest limit games are not anywhere near as loose as the lowest limit game (3-6) where I play. You are lucky to find a 50% game at $1-2 on Paradise (that means 50% of players seeing the flop). At Casino Arizona, a typical 3-6 game has 5-7 (out of 9 !!) seeing the flop.
I consider Z's book as the Bible, but sometimes he isn't talking about low-limit super-loose games. I also liked Shane Smith's book a lot, and it is firmly aimed at low limit games.
Dick
Stanley----Keep this in mind when playing omaha/8--- The 2nd & 3rd nuts hands never stack many chips.--- This till U something-- Always draw to the nuts only. & never go to the river with out them.
Coyote.
I'm off on a little vacation, so my contributions to the "Understanding EV" series will be suspended for a while.
I hope my time away gives some forum participants an opportunity to recover from their apparent tilting.
Adios.
Mark,
hasta luego! Via condios!
Vince
Mark,
Why do you post under the name "Tully Abbers" on R.G.P.? Just curious. :)
Yours very truly,
Ms. Curiosity
----
Questions with a smile! :)
Mark,
in four posts on EV, you've brought our understanding of EV to a new height.
I can't wait to see where this is leading, because I know you are far from finished.
Have a good holiday.
This probably belongs in the beginner Questions section, but since more people read this forum, I thought I'd get a quicker (more accurate?) response here.
10-20 limit hold'em game:
Suppose you raise with AK and get 1 caller behind you and the bb calls. The flop comes AT6r and the bb bets. The question is whether you should raise or call. What if we assume that our hand is either already beat, OR... each opponent has 5 outs. Let's give the bb 67 and the late player JT. Also, let's discount any runner-runner draws. If we are NOT beat, then:
There is currently $70 (I discounted $5 for rake) in the pot after the bb bets. If the late position player calls the flop and the turn, and you expect to collect 1 bet on the river when best, but only lose 1 bet on the river when beat, what is the EV if you never raise the bb, but simply call every street and either call or bet the river yourself?
I came up with +$67.06 per hand, but I don't think this can be correct. I figured you will win $140 61.61% of the time while losing $50 the remaining times. What am I doing wrong? Thanks in advance to anyone generous enough to take the time to explain the correct way to calculate this EV situation!!
EV = SUM (PiXi)
Xi = ith outcome
Pi = P(Xi)
first try it with a blank on the turn and calculating it with 1 card to come, much simpler...
you could set up a 3-way turbo sim with the hands as such and run a showdown sim. and note what % of the time your hand holds up.
"you could set up a 3-way turbo sim with the hands as such and run a showdown sim. and note what % of the time your hand holds up. "
And what would that prove?
vince
it would help him check his EV calculation and also it would show him the error caused by discounting runner-runner straights and such.
i use turbo sims at home after sessions to check what my pot equity was at certain points based on my hand reads at the time.
remembering the pot odds I was getting I just see if my win % is better than the pot odds i was getting making my call correct.
I find it useful (and enjoyable) to analyze things like this, and hopefully this can help me make better estimates in the heat of battle.
i use turbo sims at home after sessions to check what my pot equity was at certain points based on my hand reads at the time.
Which turbo product do you use? I have never seen one in operation and picking something just off the pages of a catalogue seems worse than buying a cat in a sack.
Thanks nate. I would like to do simulations like this on turbo, but I don't know how to set the player's actions. For instance, I wouldn't know how to keep the pre-flop raiser from raising on the flop after the bb bets. One day I really gotta pick up that manual and learn the software. Take care.
"What am I doing wrong? "
Trying to think in terms of EV instead of how to play the hand.
vince
Trying to think in terms of EV instead of how to play the hand.
What kind of answer is this? Knowing the EV of a particular situation factors into how you should play a hand.
It's a bullsh*t answer.
Is this like Chevy Chase chanting shanananananannana when he putts the ball in Caddy Shack?
[See the flop/Be the flop Danny...]
I could do this calculation but I think its pretty worthless. The assumptions you are making to simplify things are just too far from how any reasonable player would play IMO. At risk of incurring Vince's wrath, I would suggest a simulation is the only way of coming up with a value of any significance and even then that value will still be highly questionable.
Maybe once the dmh project is finished (its not even started) then simulation results may be more useful. Some will still dispute their value and nobody will be able to prove them wrong.
"I could do this calculation but I think its pretty worthless. The assumptions you are making to simplify things are just too far from how any reasonable player would play IMO."
Why do you feel this is so? It certainly is NOT unreasonable for a bb to bet into a pre-flop raiser with 2nd pair in a 3-way pot. And it's not unreasonable to expect the later position player to overcall with a pair after you call. I actually think this is a pretty close decision on what to do with your AK...
You'd want the later player to call with a gutshot or less.
I meant how you and the other players would act on future betting rounds, not what has already happened. Are you really not going to raise if you hit trip aces for example?
My response seemed to disappear so I'll try again.
I was about to try and do the calculations but thought better of it. Ignoring runner-runner draws would be a misleading simplification for one, but the major problem is your assumptions about future betting rounds. The resulting answer would IMO be pretty useless.
Hey Kevin J, I realised that I was misreading your post. I'm a bit confused about what happens in the scenario you give but if you just want to know how to do this sort of calculation check out my results for a similar scenario. Don't worry I didn't do it by hand!
me to. Let's use Mark's vacation time to cool it. some fo us may have been too critical of others.
I have not been a chat room person long, and do not read all of RGP, but have impression that possibly personal stuff has hurt theit site. let's not do that here.
seems logical that Mason, Ray, etc must have to use restraint from time to time....and this would also appy to anyone with "their own" forum. Jim
Jellow,
I not sure of know what you are asking but I'm not cooling anything. Mark Glover doesn't respond to my posts so I don't see why you feel there is a problem. I don't. And I don't care what Mark does.
vince
I have recently purchased a number of books on general theory in order to explore contradictions and divergent views. One of the most striking and puzzling pieces of data I came across was the very first item in a statistical table, of which the book in question has plenty, according to which the chance of flopping trips to a pocket pair in Hold’em is “10.776%”. I assume that the correct formula for computing this chance is [(1-48/50*47/49*46/48)*100], which returns 11.7551].
What possible formula could the author in question have used that returns 10.776%?
Greg K
Actually I think the formula is more like (2/50)+(2/49)+(2/48) instead, which returns 12.248% which is in line with the standard 1/8 (or 12.5%) chance of flopping trips.
No idea where your author came up with his numbers. Also not sure whether I'm right or you are right.
Your calculations are incorrect.
I think that author is completely wrong. If you calculate the chance of getting JUST a set with no chance of QUADS, then the percentage is still 11.51%. If you can still get quads, I still have the percentage at 11.755% by:
(2/50) + (48/50)(2/49) + (48/50)(47/49)(2/48) =
prob. of getting card on first card of flop + second card of flop + third card of flop.
This gives you 1:7.5 which is correct.
Jeff Gomberg
"What possible formula could the author in question have used that returns 10.776%?"
Obviously, not the right one.
Thanks to all who replied. I am returning the book to Amazon for a refund. If you still got shares in them sell before they have to pay me. ;-)
Greg
that is
1 - (the chance of not flopping a set)
which is equal to the chance of flopping a set, quads, or boat.
im sure the 1% difference is due to the quads or a boat.
i have no idea why one would want to distinguish between flopping a set, quads, or a boat though, it doesnt change the play of the hand.
nate foster said: im sure the 1% difference is due to the quads or a boat.
Actually the author is very specific.
"Basic Odds for the Flop in Percentages - You hold a pair, chance for 3 of a kind = 10.776%"
No reference to quads or boat!
My advice regarding Amazon shares stands! ;-)
you are not calculating the same thing the author is.
you are doing
1-(the chance of no set card)
***your*** calculation includes full houses and quads
the authors doesn't.
that is where the difference is. The author is doing exactly as claimed.
the author doesnt mention quads or boat because he isnt including them, YOU ARE. thats the difference.
nate,
I hear what you are saying, and it is interesting. But I wonder! My formula returns the exact reciprocal of not flopping one of the remaining 2 cards that would match the pocket pair and make trips. Surely to provide for the possibility of improving the hand beyond trips, i.e. to make boats or quads, would reduce the chance, not increase it. But I have an open mind on the subject and would be very grateful to see what formula could return the disputed chance.
If the author were correct the implication would be that odds against trips are not 7.5 but 8.28. Apart from the book in question I have never seen any such suggestion.
Am I missing something that should be obvious?
Assume you have AA. Chances first card on flop is ace is 2/50. Chances second card on flop is non ace is 48/49. Chances third card is not ace or match second card is 44/48. Multiply these fractions. Its .035918. But that assumes ace comes first. Since it could be anywhere you multiply by 3. Was that so hard?
Hi Dskalansky.
Thanks for your response. You have restored my faith in general authorship.
Can you please answer another question. Why cannot I get a copy of your (and Mason Malmuth's) Hold'em Poker for Advanced Players, from Amazon U.K. They got me the one you dedicated to Matty, but say they cannot get the follow up. Someone is losing sales ;-)
It is very garatifying that both you and MM are making yourselves available on this BB.
Greg.
say you have pocket 8's.
you calculated the chance that no 8 shows up and subtracted from one to get the probability of at least one 8 flopping.
isnt it true that a small number of the times at least one 8 shows up the flop can be:
8-x-x or 8-8-y
and the rest of the time the board will be:
8-x-y
all three scenarios are included in your calculation because what you are finding is the probability of at least one 8 flopping. therefore, if you take away all of the 8-x-x and 8-8-y flops from the 7.5:1 shot you are left with the 8.3:1 against a true "set" only one 8 with no pair.
also, one full house case the author doesnt include, possibly because its not always very favorable is a flop of:
x-x-x
part of the problem is semantics.
whenever someone says its 7.5:1 against hitting your set, they are including boats and quads, there really is no need to distinguish because these also are favorable outcomes.
nate,
If I understand you correctly what you are saying is that my formula returns the chance to flop trips or better, and I follow your reasoning. This still leaves us with a problem. What is the author’s formula? He gives 10.776% for trips, 0.245% for quads, and 0.980% for Full House, i.e. total of 12.00% to flop trips or better. Clearly there can be only one correct answer to flopping trips or better to a pocket pair.
I have shown you mine. Now show me yours! ;-)
you have pocket 8's,
the quads is this:
number of flops possible=
(50*49*48)/6(cuz order doesnt matter)=19600
how many ways to have the two remaining 8's?
48, cuz you have the one combination of the two remaining 8's & any of the 48 remaining side cards
48/19600 = .00245 or .245%
full house is this:
one of the 2 remaining 8's plus any pair combination.
there are 12 pair combinations with 6 ways to make a pair with 4 cards so
(2*12*6)/19600 = 0.00735 or .735%
so
10.776% + .245% + .735% = 11.756% which is what you originally got from the flopping a set or better calculation.
now what is the difference?
it is the one other way of flopping a full house, when trips flop (eg 7-7-7 and you have pocket 8's) . this would not be included in the other calculation, and is where the difference comes from.
this is:
4 ways of making each of the 12 trips...
(4 * 12) / 19600 = .00245 or .245%,
11.756% + .245% = 12%
also, 0.735%(set & pair) + 0.245%(trips flop) = 0.980% chance of flopping a full house
the # of flop combinations is simplified from:
n! n_C_k = ----------
k!(n - k)!
n_C_k = combinations of k objects chosen from a set of n objects
n_C_k = n! / k!(n - k)!
nate,
You convinced me! Thanks for taking the trouble. Here is a small gift by way of thanks….
Greg
nate,
On rereading your earlier post I see you stating the following:
you have pocket 8's, the quads is this: number of flops possible= (50*49*48)/6(cuz order doesnt matter)=19600. how many ways to have the two remaining 8's? 48, cuz you have the one combination of the two remaining 8's & any of the 48 remaining side cards 48/19600 = .00245 or .245%
In fct, havn't you got 3 combinations of the remaining 8's (8-8-x, 8-x-8, & x-8-8). 3*48 = 144 combinations. 144/19600 = .00735.
heh, speaking of quad 8's, i flopped a set and turned quad 8's tonight.
In fct, havn't you got 3 combinations of the remaining 8's (8-8-x, 8-x-8, & x-8-8). 3*48 = 144 combinations. 144/19600 = .00735.
if you are taking into account order, that is a permutation, not a combination.
besides, it would be 6 ways, not 3, because you could switch the 2 eights around, eg:
8c-8h-x; 8c-x-8h; x-8c-8h; 8h-8c-x; 8h-x-8c; x-8h-8c
on the flop i said order didnt matter to produce 19600 flops(combinations).
remember where the flop came from? = n!/r!(n-r)!
if you are taking into account the order(permutations), then there are:
n!/(n-r)!
50*49*48 permutations to make a flop.
so now you have:
(48*6)/(50*49*48) = 0.00245 just like before.
" heh, speaking of quad 8's, i flopped a set and turned quad 8's tonight."
I must have brought you luck! Hope it was profitable. ;-)
Thanks for your reply.
Greg K
test
For those who don't often visit the Other Poker Games forum, I just wanted to mention that I posted an interesting situation over there.
Hi.
HEC sounds like a lot of fun.
I just wonder (from a theoretical standpoint) if your claim on house edge is found by simulation or by using some deterministic recursive algoritm.
thx steen
I am working on a computer program to advise on optimum HEC strategy - should be finished tomorrow sometime. Will be GPL'ed (free). Basically it will help to collect similar situations together to reduce the size of a listing of perfect strategy. Just done as a challenge really.
The game is pot limit. There is $1000 in the pot and you are about to receive your last card facedown. You have a 20% chance to hit your hand and if you do you will always beat your lone opponnent. If you were all in, your EV (forget what you put into the pot up to that point) would be $200. Now lets say you have another $1000 in front of you and you will always bet all of it if you hit or decide to bluff. Your EV now depends on your bluffing frequency and how often he will call you (he has no tell on you). If you know he will always call you, you should never bluff and will thus have an EV of $400. If you know he will never call, your EV is now obviously $1000.
What about if you know he will call you
(a) 80% of the time
(b) 20% of the time
(c) 50% of the time
What is your strategy and your EV in each case?
Finally what EV can you guarantee yourself against someone whose calling frequency is unknown to you?
(a) Never Bluff. EV = $360
(b) Always Bluff. EV = $720
(c) Doesn't matter how often you bluff. EV = $300 no matter what.
These are the answers I worked out, but for some reason, they don't seem right intuitively. I would think there'd be a happy medium between always and never bluffing. The equation I formulated was linear though.
(d) Unknown frequency: EV >= $300.
By the way, you should bluff against an unknown opponent 12.5% of the time in this situation to guarantee yourself at least a +$300 EV.
*
*
***
" (a) Never Bluff. EV = $360
(b) Always Bluff. EV = $720
(c) Doesn't matter how often you bluff. EV = $300 no matter what.
(d) Unknown frequency: EV >= $300. "
AGREE
" These are the answers I worked out, but for some reason, they don't seem right intuitively."
YES THEY DO
(d) BLUFF frequency: 20%/2 = 10%
I think we mean the same thing (me - 12.5%, you 10%), but I was referring to 12.5% of the hands you don't make, which would be the same as 10% of all hands.
*
Well, you always bet when you hit, so you will win the pot plus your opponents money times the chance that he calls when you hit:
.2 * (1000 + (opp_call% * 1000))
When you bluff, you'll win 1000 * (1 - opp_call%), but lose 1000 * opp_call%. Obviously if you don't bluff, your EV is 0.
So.
A) 80%. When you bluff, you lose .8 * 1000, or 800, and you win .2 * 1000, or 200. So you lose 600 in EV by bluffing at all. So your EV in this situation is 360, for your 200 EV in the pot plus the chance that he'll call.
B) 20%. Bluff loss = 200, bluff win = 800. Always bluff, so your EV is 240 when you hit, 20% of the time, plus the nice 600 you pick up when you bluff the rest of the time, or 240 + 480 = 720.
C) 50%. It doesn't matter, EV-wise, if you bluff, so you should make your bluffing decision based on other things like reducing variance or for image purposes. EV = 300.
If you don't know how often they'll call, you should bluff with a frequency relative to how often you hit.
If you hit 20% of the time, and you bet 40% of the time, half the time they call they lose $2k, and half they win $2k. When they call you, you win $2k half the time, and lose $1k the rest of the time, for an EV of $500.
I think that's all correct, but I don't have time to check the math. :)
- target
(a) never bluff, EV=360
(b) always bluff, EV= 840
(c) don't matter what you do, EV=200
(d) check no matter what and guarantee yourself an EV of 200.
(b) EV= 720
Where's the mild mannered math guy when you need him?
so anyways I think I finally found the correct answer for the EV for (b). the EV=880. here's my reasoning (if you can call it that).
20% of the time you will make your hand and win at least 1000 for an EV of $200. you will make your hand AND get called on the river 4% of the time for an additional EV of $40.
now if you don't make your hand you will always bluff and have an EV of $800. you won't make your hand 80% of the time so .8*800=640.
so, the EV for part (b) is 640+240=880, I think.
"now if you don't make your hand you will always bluff and have an EV of $800. you won't make your hand 80% of the time so .8*800=640."
What makes you think your bluff EV is $800?
I think it's $600. See my post above.
At a guess, you're not taking into account the times you bluff and lose.
- target
Doh!!!
Yes! But at least you are quick thinking idiot capable of learning rote moves that let you get thru life.
complete idiot.
(this is a joke..u r not an idiot by any stretch)
EV = SUM(PiXi) X1 = You make it, and bet $1000, he calls. $2000 X2 = You make it , and bet $1000, he folds. $1000 X3 = You miss, and bet $1000, he calls. - $1000 X4 = You miss, and bet $1000, he folds. $1000 X5 = You miss, and check, and lose. 0
If he calls you 80% of the time then P1 = .2 * 1 * .8 = .16 (assumes you always bet when you make it) P2 = .2 * 1 * .2 = .04 P3 = .8 * x * .8 = .64 * x where x is your bluffing freq P4 = .8 * x * .2 = .16 * x P5 = .8 * (1-x) = .8 - (.8 * x) EV = .16 * $2000 + .04 * $1000 + (.64*x) * (-$1000)
+ (.16 * x) * ($1000) + 0
= $320 + $40 - 640 * x + 160 * x
= $360 - $440 * x. Maximum occurs when dEV/dx = 0 dEV/dx = -$440 which is a constant. But remember that 0 <= x < 1, and this time we choose the lower end as the maximum. Don't bluff!!!! I'm sitting at home with the flu, and my mind isn't real good, so there could easily be a mistake. Please check it!!!
And now, why don't we forget plugging in individual values for his calling frequency, and put in y instead, and we can substitute for y right at the end.
EV = SUM(PiXi)
X1 = You make it, and bet $1000, he calls. $2000
X2 = You make it , and bet $1000, he folds. $1000
X3 = You miss, and bet $1000, he calls. - $1000
X4 = You miss, and bet $1000, he folds. $1000
X5 = You miss, and check, and lose. 0
If he calls you y of the time then
P1 = .2 * 1 * y = .2 * y (assumes you always bet when you make it)
P2 = .2 * 1 * (1-y) = .2 - .2 * y where y is his calling freq
P3 = .8 * x * y = .8 * x * y where x is your bluffing freq
P4 = .8 * x * (1- y) = .8 * x - .8 * x * y
P5 = not worth evaluating because it gets multiplied by 0
EV = (.2 * y * $2000) + (.2 * $1000 - .2 * $1000 * y)
+ (.8 * x * y) * (-$1000) ) + (.8 * x * $1000 - .8 * x * y * $1000)
= $400 * y + $200 - $200 * y - $800 * x * y + $800 * x - $800 * x * y.
= $200 + $200 * y + $800 * x - $1600 * x * y
If y = .8 (our first example), then
EV = $200 + $160 + $800 * x - $1280 * x
= $360 - $480 * x ( I’ve found the mistake on the post above, but it doesn’t change the result. 160-640=-480)
Your best EV is when x = 0, and it is $360.
If y = .2, then
EV = $200 + $40 + $800 * x - $320 * x
= $240 +$480 * x
Your best EV is when x = 1, and it is$720. In this case always bluff.
If y =.5, then
EV = $200 + $100 + $800 * x - $800 * x
= $300.
This is not a function of your bluffing frequency, so you can do what you like. Your EV is $300.
Assuming the goal is to maximise your minimum EV (?). With an unknown calling frequency, the frequency that you bluff should be a proportion of how often you make your hand: the correct proportion being your bet compared to the maximum you can win on the hand (e.g. for a pot-size bet 1/2).
Minimum EV then is qP/R with q the chance of making your hand, P the pot pre-river and R the ratio of the maximum you can win to the total amount involved. This fails if your hand is too strong, q > R (e.g. more than 2/3 to hit for pot-size bet), but then you just bluff whenever you miss. In this case your minimum EV is P.
Expected value (EV) is defined as the sum of wins less the sum of losses.
Sum of wins = 1000*FF*0.2 + 2000*CF*0.2 + 1000*FF*BF
where CF = calling frequency, FF = folding frequency, and BF = bluffing frequency
FF + CF = 1.0 BF + 0.2 <= 1.0
Therefore,
Sum of wins = 1000*0.2 + 1000*CF*0.2 + 1000*(1 - CF)*BF
Sum of losses = 1000*BF*CF
Thus,
EV = 1000*0.2 + 1000*CF*0.2 + 1000*(1 - CF)*BF - 1000*BF*CF
EV = 1000 * (0.2 + CF*0.2 + BF - 2*BF*CF)
Now, check it,
EV (always calls) = 1000 (0.2 + 1.0*0.2) = 400 EV (never calls) = 1000 (0.2 + 0.8) = 1000
For bluffs to show a positive EV,
BF - 2*BF*CF >= 0 or CF <= 1/2.
Hence the bluffing strategy is solely dependent upon the opponent's calling frequency. If CF < 0.5, BF = 0.8; if CF > 0.5, BF = 0.0 and if CF = 0.5, BF does not matter.
a) CF=0.8
Never bluff. EV = 1000*(0.2 + 0.8*0.2) = 1000*0.36 = 360.00
b) CF=0.2
Always bluff.
EV = 1000 * (0.2 + 0.2*0.2 + 0.8 - 2*0.8*0.2) EV = 1000 * (0.2 + 0.04 +0.8 - 0.32) EV = 1000 * 0.72 EV = 720.00
c) CF=0.5
Bluff with game theory.
EV = 1000 * (0.2 + 0.5*0.2) EV = 300.00
This is also the guaranteed EV with an unknown calling frequency.
Hey "Divad" how about telling these guys the freakin answer to the quiz. I'll let others elaborate.
vince
I am just posting a note here to let everyone know that I just posted a lengthy post on "running bad" in the General section for hold'em as well as the medium stakes section for hold'em.
Any comments or thoughts are greatly appreciated.
Michael D.
I'm having a poker party tonight, expect about 10 folks to show. Instead of a blind structure, I'm going to have an ante. Buy-in is $10, no limit, play until one person is left.
My question is this: how much should the ante be when there are 10+ players, how much with 9, 8, etc., if I want the game to move at an average pace (average being where a decent player can wait for a playable hand w/out getting eaten alive by the antes)?
Thanks for the quick answer!!
Greg
We play the same exact game as you just described at my college...we only ante 25 cents, and if the game gets shorthanded (less than 6 people) we double it to 50 cents...This works well for us...
Good luck!
-----Jeff
Thanks, Jeff. I read your response after the fact, but we started with a $.25 ante...it turned out to be pretty high, since our buy-in was only $10. It turned out to be pretty fun, but was completely no-fold-em style.
Thanks for your response.
I am interested in simulating various pocket card combinations and testing for flop, turn, and river outcomes over a large number of trials.
A little known theory, because it is mine (lol - to the best of my knowledge)is that as you move up in limit, pot limit and no limit and blind costs (e.g. $15/$30 with a $10 and $15 blind), the game of poker changes from a primarily left brain function (sequential logic - e.g. calculating odds) to more of a right brain function (simultaneous juxtapositioning of things e.g. reading players and tells).
This is the reason you so often see the jillion engineer's and mathematicians getting their behind's whipped by the social scientists or people with little formal education.
We all know that any really good poker player can beat a table in no limit without even looking at their cards by just bulling the game and playing position - so where is the need for left brain calculations - see?
Poker is the great equalizer that allows the right brain people of the world to compete on a level playing field with the left brain people, heretofore getting all of the breaks - lol - although those left brain geniuses can still beat the right brain people, but they will have to play in games under $10/$20 - in my opinion - lol.
Even the best players would not beat a normal no limit game blind imo.
Why is it that, time and again, I see poker players assert that scientists do not good poker players make?
I believe that the opposite, IN GENERAL, is true.
Take 100 people with advanced degrees in science/engineering related fields, and 100 'other'. You can make this 'other' any demographic or mixture of demographics you want - but none of them can have an advanced degree in science/engineering. Don't say '100 people with IQ's over 150 who dont have these advanced degrees' either - you are obviously evading the point. Try to make a good faith attempt to support your generalization.
Give them all the exact same amount of experience playing poker. Now send all 200 out to play poker for 1 year. Chart their progress. Who will do better?
I assure you that the 100 science/engineering types will vastly outperform the other group.
Before I got my law degree I got a PhD in chemistry and I spent a few semesters lecturing at a college before I decided to go into patent law.
I assure you that I have never met anyone who earned a PhD in one of the physical sciences who was anything short of 'very bright'. They weren't all geniuses. But none of them were stupid. None of them were merely slightly above average in intelligence, either.
I am acuainted with a number of 'professional' poker players who are, by all appearances, idiots.
Here is a little trivia fact for you:
Did you know that people with a BS in chemistry score HIGHER, on average, on the verbal section of the GRE exam than those with a bachelors in English Lit?
If you have seen people with PhD's in science lose to people with little formal education, I assure you that it is due to their being less experienced players. Give them more experience and, in general, most PhD's will beat the pants off of the high school dropout 'pro'.
-SmoothB-
Johnny Moss = right brain
Amarillo Slim = right brain
Puggy Pearson = right brain
Sailor Roberts = right brain
Doyle Brunson = right brain
Bobby Baldwin = whole brain (equal at using both left and right brains)
Hal Fowler = I don't know
Stu Ungar = whole brain
Jack Strauss = right brain
Tom McEvoy = left brain
Jack Keller = whole brain
Bill Smith = right brain
Berry Johnston = right brain
Johnny Chan = right brain
Phil Hellmuth = right brain
Mansour Matloubi = right brain
Brad Daugherty = right brain
Hamid Dastmalchi = right brain
Jim Bechtel = right brain
Russ Hamilton = right brain
Dan Harrington = whole brain
Huck Seed = whole brain
Scotty Nguyen = right brain
Noel Furlong = right brain
Chris Ferguson = left brain (note: TJ = right brain)
Carlos Mortensen = I don't know
*
I agree with you completely.
However, I was sorry to see you use the term "fuzzy logic" in a negative manner. Fuzzy logic is a form of logic used in particular in AI work that is very useful for representing a lot of problems. Because it involves having a range of truth values depending on certainly, I think it is particulary relevant to poker where this is the kind of reasoning a good poker player uses when deciding what to do (since he has his opponent on a range of possible hands, rather than only thinking about the one most likely hand).
I'm not sure why you seem to be trying to make fuzzy logic look bad by associating it with poor reasoning. I normally wouldn't even mention it, but in a discussion where you are defending engineers/mathemeticians/scientists as poker players, taking a branch of mathematics that is directly relevant to poker and slamming it seems a little inappropriate.
.
"I am acuainted with a number of 'professional' poker players ..."
Rounder,
I've seen lots of posts here that contain the phrase "professional poker player" with the word "professional" in quotes. I know that you are thoughtful enough to have a good reason for doing it. What is it?
Tommy
.
"I assure you that the 100 science/engineering types will vastly outperform the other group."
I agree with this conjecture, but I don't think it damages Charles' theory.
What if, after the year-long trial, we took the top-three left-brain players and the top-three right-brain players, and had them play an additional year. I think the lefts would outperform the rights.
Tommy
I agree with this conjecture, but I don't think it damages Charles' theory.Charles really had two different (and fairly unrelated) theories. He tried to mush them together, which is the source of the controversy/complaints, incuding SmoothB's cry of "fuzzy logic".
The first was that poker is more of a right brain activity than a left brain one, except at low limits. The second was the scientists/engineers make poor poker players. SmoothB is challenging the second of these theories, not the first.
We all know that any really good poker player can beat a table in no limit without even looking at their cards by just bulling the game and playing position
This is one of the biggest misconceptions of no limit poker. In his book Super/System Doyle Brunson claimed he could do this IF he had the button on every round. Even if he could do so, it could only happen against the right lineup (and these days it would be almost impossible to find such a lineup) and he would not make much compared to playing a normal seat where he saw his cards.
Unfortunately, vast numbers of poker players have read this and now believe that no-limit poker has almost nothing to do with the cards you hold. And they perpetrate this fallacy amongst each other. It's simply not true. The cards are EXTREMELY important in NL hold'em. However, I don't mind playing against players who believe otherwise. :)
natedogg
*
We all know that any really good poker player can beat a table in no limit without even looking at their cardsI don't know this. It seems very unlikely to me, and even if it were true, I don't see how it would prove your point (that scientists would make poor poker players). You don't give any evidence that scientists have worse "right brain" skills than "people with little formal education". As a matter of fact, I would strongly suspect that this is not the case.
This is the argument that some stupid clueless people make:
1) Success at poker relies more on right brain skills that left brain skills
2) Scientists have well developed right brained skills
3) If someone is very highly developed in one kind of thinking (right brain VS left) they must therefore be weak in the other
Therefore, scientists have poorly developed right brain skills and make poor poker players.
This is ridiculous and I would feel humiliated if I were the original poster.
-SmoothB-
#2 SHOULD read
2) Scientists have well developed left brained skills
-SmoothB-
Smooth B,
I'm amazed that so many people accept the left brain/right brain dichotomy as it applies to skills, interests, personality, and ability to begin with.
But, think about this. In his book How the Mind Works, Steven Pinker asserts that many people who do poorly on basic logic questions--and in his research he used medical students--actually are quite logical when faced with real-life situations which require logical solutions. How can this fact be applied to poker? Or, how do we measure "fuzzy thinking"?
I find it surprising that so many people appear to place so much stock in the right brain/left brain dichotomy. Ceratinly I can believe that there are some fundamental factors involved in this theory (or fact, I don't know), but when people assume that one strength implies another weakness, or when they assign a vast range of traits or skills to only one side, I really begin to wonder.
I also wonder just what part integrates it all, if indeed there are such cut and dry distinct functions. Perhaps the top side?;-)
I've often felt I've been guilty of half-brained play.
Is it possible that the greatest players in the game such as Ungar, Moss and a few others have an instinctive feel for the game that most of us can never have no matter how much practicing or studying we do? Winning the big game at the World Series 2-3 times is more than coincidence, and it takes more than extraordinary skills. Some may call it luck but i think it takes more than skills or luck. These guys can get away with playing what we call bad cards such as 7-2 offsuit regularly and still manage to win in the end, while we ordinary players have to play tight and be very patient to get the same results. Is it one of those where you either have a natural talent such as quick and deep thinking and the ability to assess a particular situation rather quickly or you dont?
Left brain, right brain, whole brain. Nobody has mentioned discipline. You might be a genius rocket scientist, or a 6th grade drop-out with fantastic people skills; without discipline, you won't beat poker.
The high IQ will usually if not always out perform the lower IQ in poker. It is a game of wits not balls.
Look at the successful players even the drug head Stu Unger was a very high IQ guy maybe not formally educated but a very smart guy - a have a friend who never saw the inside of a university - I tought him how to write a check when he was 20 years old and owned 2 gas stations and an elevator company.
Wally is one of the top 50 chess players in the world. Last thing I want to show him is how to play poker.
If you know a successful palyer look into their past and you will usually find sucess in other activities.
I agree with Rounder. That can't be a good sign.
JG
My brain is the opposite of my politics. One started right and moved left, the other started left and moved right.
Tommy
Which went which way?
This debate will go on forever because there is not enough solid evidence to make a definitive case for the superiority of either side. However, I believe that the first post got it essentially right. People like myself -- left brained, scientifically trained -- lack the intuition needed to compete successfully at the higher levels.
We see the same sort of thing in fighter pilots. The great ones have "situational awareness," a gift for being aware of an extremely large number of rapidly changing variables. They make extraordinarily complicated decisions in less time than you or I would need to make simple ones.
I discussed "intuition versus logic" in a series of Poker Digest articles fairly recently. You might find them interesting.
Al Schoonmaker
no text
You and your opponent each hold a hand whose strength falls between 0 and 1 (with a uniform distribution). You have the option of betting or showing down, and your opponent has the option of calling or folding if you bet (no raising).
If the size of the pot before the bet is P and the bet size is some fixed value (i.e. you don't have a choice about the bet size), what bet size happens to give you the highest ev when you play optimally?
What is your (optimal) ev when this is the bet size?
Which hands do you (optimally) bet for value, and which ones do you bluff when this is the bet size?
Tom Weideman
Let denote x the maximum hand the player 1 will bluff with, y the minimum hand he will value bet with. z is the minmimum calling hand of the second player u is the bet size (ratio of the betting amount to P) Modulo calculus errors,it seems like the EV for player 1 is (obviously x < z < y)
EV1 = P*(xz-ux(1-z)+(y²/2-x²/2)+(1-y)z+(1+u)((y-z)(1-y)+(1-y)²/2)-(u/2)(1-y)²)
EV2 = P*((1+u)x(1-z)+(x²/2-y²/2+y-x)+(1+u)(1-y)²/2-u((y-z)(1-y)+(1-y)²/2))
The player 1 maximizes his EV through x and y, the player 2 maximizes his EV through z. It follows : y = (1+z)/2
x = (1+u)z - u
z = (3u/2+u²)/((1+u)²+u/2)
EV1 is P*(5/9) when using the maximum bet size u = 1. I have no obvious argument that shows why u = 1
.... what is your conclusion in numbers ?
EV2 = P-EV1 looks better...
*
Renaud has it right (nice job). Here's the not-so-hard-to-read answer that you requested:
The maximum ev for you comes when the bet size happens to be the size of the pot (that's Renaud's u=1). I have no satisfying explanation for why it comes out this way, either. I was surpised when I found it was the case.
Your ev when this is the case is 5/9ths of the pot (Renaud's 5/9*P), which means that if you both ante $45, in the long run you will win $5 per game (because $50 of the $90 pot is your ev).
The question of which hands to bet for value and which ones to bluff was not answered explicitly yet, so I'll leave those questions unanswered.
Tom Weideman
Thanks !
"The question of which hands to bet for value and which ones to bluff was not answered explicitly yet, so I'll leave those questions unanswered."
B = 1/9 (Bluffing)
C = 5/9 (Calling)
R = 7/9 (Value-Betting)
RIGHT! Once again, translating into words, these numbers mean:
1. Bet the top 2/9 of your hands for value (value bet low-end cutoff is 7/9).
2. Bet the bottom 1/9 of your hands as a bluff (bluff high-end cutoff is 1/9).
The other value given here is for the other player's optimal play:
Calls with the top 4/9 of his hands (call lower end cutoff is 5/9).
Tom Weideman
I didn't navigate your algebra or differentiation, but you say:
----For u=1, if we plug u into the z(u), we get z = .2222 which may be right, but then plugging that into x(z), we get x = -5/9 which seems a little short to me.. :)x = (1+u)z - u
z = (3u/2+u²)/((1+u)²+u/2)
EV1 is P*(5/9) when using the maximum bet size u = 1. ----
I looked at this twice to make sure I didn't make any errors, but I won't be surprised if I did.
JG
(I know Tom is trying to work in integration-by-parts into one of these puzzles. Perhaps he gives the solution and you have to say what the game is.)
I think these numbers are right. Maybe you were mistaken by the z format(parenthesis and so on). This format might be easier to read
z = (3u+2u²)/(u+2(1+u)²) for u = 1, I found z = 5/9, x = 1/9 and y = 7/9. EV = P*(5/9)
If you like math puzzles, I suppose this is interesting. But I really don't think it helps much when you're deciding whether or not to bet the pot on the river. In fact, I doubt you would even consider this EV calculation when going over all the factors that influence your decision to bet.
natedogg
Suppose you looked at poker as a game of logic. Those thinking logical having the best chance of winning. Now suppose you could solve problems like the one Tom presented here. Now suppose you could do them quickly. Quick enough to use the result to aid in a decision. Well then if poker is a game of logic and you could solve problems like the one Tom presented very quickly you would have an edge in evaluating poker situations over someone that couldn't solve the problem at all. That's if poker is logical. Hmmm.. well it is!
Vince
"what bet size happens to give you the highest ev when you play optimally?"
Fifty cents?
"What is your (optimal) ev when this is the bet size? "
The Microsoft Corporation? Hey, Bill Gates might be playing.
Which hands do you (optimally) bet for value, and which ones do you bluff when this is the bet size?
Bet with your left hand for value. Bluff with your right hand. I think that's like the reverse of what Mike Caro tell you to do with your hands. But I'm right. He's just Mike Caro.
Vince
Hey Tom, is this a math question?
I was playing 40-80 stud at the Commerce a few years back and I knew I was going to win. I knew I was going to hit my straight. I knew I was going to make my flush. I knew my opponent had two black queens in the hole when I had pocket aces and I knew he didn't improve on the river.
Everything was going my way that night just as I knew it would. I ended up with a very nice win. The next night, before I got into the same game, I asked myself this question. "What was it about last night that made everything seeme to click." I don't feel quite the same way tonight and if there was one thing I could do in this business it would be to bottle that "feeling" I had the night before and take a big swig of it everytime I sat down in a game.
Needless to say the next night I couldn't do squat. Couldn't make a straight. Couldn't buy a pot. Couldn't make the best starting hand hold up. As I was playing I kept thinking about the night before. The way I "felt" tonight and the way I "felt" last night were like night and day. I rarely feel like I did the night I won all of that money. It's just that I was so calm and detached, totally into the game.
You just can't manufacture it. They don't sell it in bottles. But the opposite of that potion seems to grow on trees.
/
I find that, paradoxically, I'm more hesitant to play after a big win than after a loss. I say paradoxically because you'd think you'd be more anxious to play after a monster session and down in the dumps after a bad one.
Maybe it has something to do with "banking" the win. You hate to give it back the next night. You'd kind of like to bask in the afterglow a while. Also, maybe we realize that our pocket Aces are going to get cracked sooner or later after they've held up 6 or 7 times in a row.
And you're right: if you feel you're going to lose, of course you will. And if you feel you're going to win, only sometimes does it happen.
I find this to be a rather uncanny thing. Is there such a thing as poker karma? That is, when you are down, it is logical that you are not as sharp.
But how is it that the cards themselves seem to be sharper when you are, and damned if it doesn't seem you get rivered more when you are on a low.
It goes so bad sometimes that with a set you ASSUME you will be rivered with the gutshot by the sweet old man across the table.
Logically, it does not make any sense, but it sure seems that often your karma gets transferred to the cards.
First, this is somewhat of a tautology -- by random chance you are going to have your "rushes" and these are going to involve hitting draws and not taking bad beats. The logical correlation between being on a "rush" and hitting draws and not taking bad beats seems obvious enough.
But actually, there is an additional quite logical factor why you don't get rivered as much when you are "on a rush". Because you are confident and playing agressively and because other players respect you more, they are less likely to still be there at the river to suck out on you. I'm not sure this effects your EV much during a rush (it may even lower it), but it does give the effect of not taking as many bad beats.
There's a psychological study in here somewhere. Do you think that winning poker players have these "feelings of Karma" more often than losing players? Is it possible to control these feelings?? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Has this been the subject of any studies?
The "thing" that you wish you could bottle really has two parts to it - a part that you absolutely CAN trap inside a bottle and take a big swig of anytime and anywhere you want (because it is 100% within your control). And a second part that you absolutely CANNOT trap inside a bottle (because it is not within your control).
The things that you absolutey have no control over (and therefore cannot trap inside a bottle for future "big swigs") are those that result from the random distribution of the cards. These include hitting your straights and flushes, and not getting rivered. "I knew I was going to hit my straight" and "I knew I was going to hit my flush" are statements about a coincidence. In the very long run, if you say each of these two statements right before the dealer reveals the river card, you are going to be right approximately 1 out of 5 times. So, during those times that you do hit it, you will only be deluding yourself if you conclude that you "predicted" it. You didn't!
The parts that are very easy to trap inside a bottle from which you can take future big swigs of in the future are those that relate to "feelings". Contrary to what most people believe, feelings and mental states are very easy to access and trap inside a bottle for future use. More than that, you can take any mental state you've ever experienced (even if you've only experienced it once in you whole life), amplify it, and transfer it into any future context. Let's say you felt in the zone during a pool game ten years ago. You can reaccess those feelings fully and completely, ampligy them, and trigger them right now or at any time in the future. If you felt very resourceful during a presentation in college, you can transfer those feelings to future presentations, poker sessions, athletic activities, etc. In addition, you can take a memory of a feeling you've had in your life and transfer those to another memory.
The process for doing these is called anchoring.
jawz, i think you are right that there are some things we can controla dn some things we cant. but there is that certain feeling that we all get, that split second before the river comes and we know it is going to improve our hand exactly like we want it to. over and over again. and in those same rushes, we just 'know' that our straight is gonna bust, so we fold early, instead of seeing that last card. it just happens. sure, maybe it is random, coincidence, whatever. but some nights we are just on. and it is a deadly sort of 'on' to be. because the first time we miss when we have that feeling, we sort of choke up and sit back, and all that momentum we just built up goes out the door, and we start trying to buy pots from the nuts, and we slowplay AK and the 27 in the big blind gets to see the 227 flop for free. it comes and goes, some nights we are just hot.
Agree to anchoring. It is proven that an individual can anchor to an emotion and then draw upon that 'feeling at anytime in the future'. Sometimes it is done through visualization or hypnosis but is really quite simple to do through normal relaxation exercises. Big word "relaxation". In a relaxed state a person will excercise more control over their activities and be sharper in relation to their environment. Baggins, the phenomenon you are talking about is not anchoring. Instead, it is a rush of neopenephrine (forgive the spelling). You hit a few hands, the adrenaline starts to flow a little faster and then all of a sudden you feel omnipotent. The two feelings are actually unrelated. One is born in relaxation, the other in hyperactivity. Jawz is very correct in saying that this 'feeling' can be bottled. All it takes is a little imagination.
Cheers
Agree to anchoring. It is proven that an individual can anchor to an emotion and then draw upon that 'feeling at anytime in the future'. Sometimes it is done through visualization or hypnosis but is really quite simple to do through normal relaxation exercises. Big word "relaxation". In a relaxed state a person will excercise more control over their activities and be sharper in relation to their environment. Baggins, the phenomenon you are talking about is not anchoring. Instead, it is a rush of neopenephrine (forgive the spelling). You hit a few hands, the adrenaline starts to flow a little faster and then all of a sudden you feel omnipotent. The two feelings are actually unrelated. One is born in relaxation, the other in hyperactivity. As an opponent, you must be able to tell the difference or you could find yourself caught by some very aggressive but solid play. Jawz is very correct in saying that this 'feeling' can be bottled. All it takes is a little imagination.
Cheers
It started a few months ago in a $20-40 game. I open-raised and everyone folded to a friendly in the big blind. He asked, "One chip back?" He was just kidding, knowing I don't do the one-chip-back thing.
I said, "Okay," and he folded.
I tossed him a one-dollar chip. We had quite a laugh.
Now it's evolved to where I have an agreement with half a dozen players. If I fold my BB when one of them raises, or the other way around, and the raiser wins the pot, the BB gets one dollar back.
It's fun with a bonus. I figure to make about $100 per year on this deal.
Tommy
I think giving or passing chips around in general is bad for a game. In your situation when you are throwing around a $1 chip it makes no difference. At the Commerce I think at times we have a real problem in the mid-limit games ( 30-60 through 80-160). There are certain players after they win a pot, who will pass the big blind back to their body in the big blind if they take the flop. It certainly isn't fair to a player who has to put in two bets to see the flop when the big blind only has to put in one bet. And this always raises the issue of possible collusion. Whenever I play in a game like this I will always call the floorman over and object.
Bruce
You're right. I called anyone who would object to the $1 bonus a jerk in my post below. But you are absolutely correct about what happens at Commerce. Too often, I've seen someone raise and another player make it 3 bets. If both blinds fold, the raiser asks the 3-bettor to take his 2 bets bet and leaves the "profit" (the blinds) for the 3-bettor. I've also seen a raise and a cold-call and then, if everyone else folds, they agree to chop the pot.
These things shouldn't be tolerated. Nor should passing the blind back to the blind poster after the hand. I haven't had to call the floorman over yet, though, I simply tell the dealer I object and the offending players have stopped. I like little Joe a lot, but neither he nor big Joe nor Marcel know much about making a correct decision.
"I think giving or passing chips around in general is bad for a game."
If the chips are of the standard denomination of the game, I strongly agree. It's not merely bad for the game. It's just flat-out wrong in that it affects the betting on future hands anytime a chip-passer goes all-in.
Where I play no-one passes chips or splits pots or any of that. If anyone were to object to my occasional passing of a $1 chip in a $20-40 game, I would not object to his objection. I'd say ok, no problem, and stop doing it. There's no denying that what me and a few of my pals do is against the rules.
But, given the units, and that the $1 is not going to tip the scales and turn a calling hand in the BB into a folding one, and that it's obvious that no one cares, I don't feel out of bounds. It's just a silly thing we do. Plus, I kinda like having someone to root for now and then after I muck my BB.
Tommy
Yeah, a good deal for you, given your blind play. Has any jerk objected yet when you toss or receive the $1 chip?
A few weeks back, in a 30-60 game, I raised early with K-Qs. A tight player behind me made it 3 bets and a tighter player on the button capped it. Both blinds folded and when it got back to me, I asked the capper, "One back?" We all had a good laugh as I souped (without getting one chip back).
"Has any jerk objected yet when you toss or receive the $1 chip?"
Nope. And I'd be hard-pressed to label an objector a jerk. I mean, rules is rules, right? I retain the option to cite rules when I want to, so shouldn't I consistently grant the same to everyone else at all times, no matter how stickly they want to get?
This next thing hit home because it comes up with me in a slightly different situation. Tell me what you think of the ethics. Here's what you wrote:
"A few weeks back, in a 30-60 game, I raised early with K-Qs. A tight player behind me made it 3 bets and a tighter player on the button capped it. Both blinds folded and when it got back to me, I asked the capper, "One back?" We all had a good laugh as I souped (without getting one chip back)."
I make an unusual preflop play about twice per month that I've only seen others do a few times in all my years. I raise before the flop, get three-bet from a player behind me (with no caller between him and me), everyone else folds, it's back to me, and I fold.
Sometimes I'll negotiate a deal with the reraiser, such as, give me four chips back and you take the rest (meaning I lose four chips on the hand). Sometimes they say no, sometimes they say yes, and sometimes they offer two or three chips.
No one has ever even hinted at an objection when this happens. It's mighty rare, and if anything, I think the field is far more amused than annoyed.
Whaddya think?
Tommy
I would strongly object to that if I was in the BB (or on the button, for that matetr). there are a number of hole card combos that you might call a raise with that you wouldn't call a re-raise with. Anything that encourages more aggressive pre-flop play (and this type of move does because it reduces the downside risk of opening raising with a marginal hand)is a disadvantage to the blinds IMO. I know you don't do it enough to make this much of an issue, but the other players may not know that and it could impact their play.
hey there Tommy,
I would object to you getting chips back if it were three bet before the action got to me, especially if I was in CU or Button. If you raised, I folded and then someone 3 bet I would keep my trap shut, but that's only cuz we're poker buddies. later, Boris
Yes, the word jerk was wrong. You caught me again. The only jerk is the one who used the word. But it doesn't seem to me that getting a dollar back affects the game or your play in any way.
On getting chips back after you have raised, that is a no-no. It's allowing you to know that your raise has less risk involved because if a certain player 3-bets you retain the option of either calling or getting a discount on your original raise. It's a form of collusion and gives you, and the re-raiser, an unfair advantage on the other players.
Ian, Boris, and Andy,
To clarify, there is no prior agreement with anyone when this situation comes up.
That aside, I hadn't thought about the unfairness aspect and I'll never do this again. Thanks.
Tommy
Assuming a qualifier of Aces full of tens beaten by quads or better, how many bad beat combinations are available?
Lots, but they are a small percentage of all the hands that are out there. Based on how often the jackpots seem to get hit, I think you should hit one about every ten years of full time play, be the winning hand about once every ten years, and be on a jackpot table about once a year.
Except that if you are actually a 2+2 reader, its a lot less likely that you will call three bets cold (because you had a feeling) with ten-deuce offsuit, and that might make it more like one in twenty-five years that you win.
I think that you just follow the guys around that did win a jackpot for about two months and pick up the scraps until most of the money is melted off by trying to play ten deuce and its relatives 'because I won 27K with it once'.
Good luck,
Bob T.
Is this Larry from Edmonton? If so, HOW ARE YA?!
This is a question that Barbara Yoon could answer for you. You have to post it on RGP, I don't think she posts here.
yes it is and I am good thanks. Don't know who you are though. Thanks for your advice.
Cheers
How do I find RGP on the internet? What is the actual address?
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&group=rec.gambling.poker
Some loser in his mid-twenties to mid-thirties living at home...rent free, who long ago managed to get mom's Pin Number, and now swipes her ATM card a few times per month to refinance his addiction.
I feel your pain. Get your own apartment and you'll feel better about yourself.
Or -
Someone who would rather play 3/6 with an expected win rate in excess of $15 per hour with very small swings, as opposed to someone who struggles to earn $3 or $4 per hour more by playing 10/20,15/30 with HUGE swings.
I could go on and tell you of the significant success I enjoyed at 3/6-5/10, but I don't think you would be interested in hearing any of it.
(By the way, I wasn't living with my mother at the time but she did come to live with me for a while - does that count ?)
More importantly, why the hostility ?
Best wishes,
- J D
P.S. You did get the age right; I was in my early 30's at the time.
Yikes, at almost every poker room I have ever been to the lowest limit (usually 3-6) is for the tourists, or the first timers, or the habitual loose players who have no other life, in my opinion, it is incredibly difficult to try to predict a win rate in a game where people are usually so unobservant that the most brilliant plays are ignored, bluffing is impossible becase as long as people have a face card they will play to the river, and no amount of raising will reduce the field ever. I think that the biggest swings come in games like that, regardless of your play style
Well the streak did end at 10 :(
I played one last night and ended up in 5th. Here is the final hand.
We are 5 handed. Blinds are 200-400. I have 1700 before posting. I have Ad2cKs7s in the BB. The button calls as does the SB. Button has me covered.
Flop is 7d3cQh.
I decide to lead out with my nut-low draw and only 2 players in. Only the button calls.
Turn is Kh.
With 2 pair and still a nut low draw, I decide to bet out again. Button calls.
River is 3s.
I throw in my final 100 and the button calls. Button shows AAxx. I had him until the river when the board paired. He also had a low draw but I don't think it was the nut low.
Is leading out with nut-low draw with only 2 players reasonable? I hoped to knock 1 or both players out.
If the turn was a blank I was planning to check. Since it gave me 2 pair I felt comfortable committing to this hand.
Any comments?
Ken Poklitar
nt
My dilemma: I am trying to build a bankroll through poker winnings alone to play at the higher limits. At the casino I frequent, only higher limit hold 'em is offered.
Playing $2-$6 spread limit stud, I make 2.5 times more per hour than playing $3-$6 fixed limit hold 'em. However, as these results show, I need more work playing hold 'em if I ever expect to hold my own in the bigger games. But if I take the experience at the lower stakes, it will take me 2.5 times longer to build an appropriate bankroll.
As Mason points out in PEv3, playing low limit hold 'em can allow you to develop some strategic points applicable in higher limit games, but playing low limit stud is completely different than high limit stud.
Is the experience of $3-$6 hold 'em worth giving up that extra edge because I should expect to lose all my money when I move up in limits anyway? Thanks.
Mike
I started the same way, but switched to HE as soon as I thought I had enough cash, in my case about $500.00. I started at $3-6, and now also play $4-8 w/ 1/2 kill.
What I did do was buy HE books and Wilsons TTH before sitting at the table. If you can't beat TTH or at least hold your own, you aren't going to beat LL HE. HE has a lot of nuances that aren't obvious, and playing poor cards, or playing cards out of position will part you and your bankroll quickly.
I have found the swings are lower in HE, the pots are bigger and there are more poor players. Your mileage may vary.
Mike
I played Omaha hi/lo for the first time the other day. (It was 3-6 with a `kill'.) I had a good win --- a few racks. I have played Omaha high only a fair bit, but I didn't really know what I was doing in this hi/lo game. I just tried to be hand selective, and then after the flop, try to figure out what chance I had at what share of the pot, in deciding how to act.
What are some beginners mistakes I should watch out for (or mistakes typically made by high only players). What makes a good starting hand. How good or bad are the following hands? (An arbitrary selection.) I have Ciaffone's book, but I'm curious to hear opinions here.
KQJT
AKQ2 double suited (in the best way)
JT98
7655
8432
KK32 double suited
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
You MUST get a good and quick idea of which players, when they are in, are very likely to have a good low. When they are in, YOUR low's are worth less than normal.
In starting hands, look for combinations that can make the nuts (like Axs). Then look for combinations that can make the 2nd nuts (like Kxs).
KQJT Good.
AKQ2 double suited (in the best way) Real Good
JT98 Bad. Straights don't hold up enough and only A and K high nut straights prevent a low.
7655 Awful. What are you going to make and like it?
8432 Tolerable; pray for an Ace.
KK32 double suited; Tolerable; pray for an Ace of your suit.
`AKQ2 double suited (in the best way) Real Good'
Hmm. It's interesting you say that. I was actually dealt this hand, but one player had 3 cards and the one next to him had 5 and it was declared a misdeal, mainly by player consensus, i.e. they didn't like their hands. (I'm sure it should have just been two dead hands; one player merely took his neighbor's card, but anyway....) I flipped my hand up, expressing disappointment that I didn't get to play what I thought was a good hand. Some guy said `Man, that's real weak'. Another said `I'd much rather have A34 than A2'. I wondered if my judgement was off, but I was getting their money. It seemed to me that a hand like AKQ2 double suited was a hand where I'd love to see the flop for one bet, and I would pretty much know exactly where I was once I saw the flop, and I would know what to do. I told them I had never played hi/lo before and I'm glad they had that information.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
I once heard a guy say he loved 34 since when two players have A2 and they make 2-pair, he has the nuts while THEY raise each other back and forth. I was tempted to point out that that particular scenario happens MAYBE once per year, but even I can learn to hold my toungue and snicker silently.
Yes, A34 is great when you flop a 2. AKQ2 can easily scoop fair size pots.
- Louie
oops. wrong forum, but I'll take replies here anyway.
The key to this game is scooping the high and low.
KQJT - late position with lots of limpers; you're not likely to get much action if you hit your high flop
AKQ2 double suited (in the best way)- Suited aces are huge in O/8. Having the lock low and freerolling for your nut flush draw is the position you want to be in.
JT98 - junk
7655 - junk
8432 - you don't wanna play hands where you have to "pray" for a card.
KK32 double suited - be careful; what do you do with 67J flop? AA23 much better :)
Hand selection is everything in O/8.
PG
Can't agree with this 100%.
In typical low limit, KQJT is a really pretty good hand. It's so much better than the nonsense that many others will play that you should often raise with it. Advice to only play it late with lots of limpers might be correct in a game with better opposition. If you hit with this hand, you'll often scoop.
8432 is fine if you can just call before the flop, but the hand depends so much on flopping an ace that calling a raise with it is usually really bad, since it usually means that at least one ace is gone, and you may be up against A23 or something horrible. But playing it with say four other people in an unraised pot is just fine.
I think KK23 d.s. is fine as well, and I'm not sure what is meant by "be careful". If an ace flops you have the but low draw, a set of kings is very powerful if you make it, and a K-high flush is not a bad holding if you're able to read when it's no good. KK is a fair holding in itself, and although you'd obviously like to have A2 or A3 with it, 23 d.s. must be fairly close after in the listing of good KK sidecards.
But the real thing about all these hands and playing them profitably in low limit is (1) raise before the flop with good hands - nearly everyone will still call who likes their hand (and they'll like some weird stuff ...); they barely notice that it's raised and certainly don't care! and (2) after the flop, fold if you didn't hit. There are a few back doors that you can chase, but you don't have to keep playing.
Oh no!! Not again!
Read Ray Zee's book, specifically the section on loose low limit games. It helped me quite a bit.
For me O8 is a nut nut game. Meaning your K high flush or A3 low is probably not good eneough to play. in most situations.
I also think it is foolish to raise preflop in this game with ANY hand unless you are trying to and think you can thin out the field.
"I also think it is foolish to raise preflop in this game with ANY hand unless you are trying to and think you can thin out the field."
This is just not true if you are playing with poor players who will call before the flop even though they are miles behind. It is a massive difference between playing with good players, when a raise may reveal your hand and your opponents will only play with good holding anyway, and playing with idiots. When you play with bad players, you don't raise to thin the field, and you don't want or need to thin the field. You raise because they then give you a lot more action taking the worst of it.
Oh no!! Not again!
I really can't argue with to much of what you said but consider the massive collective outs in O8 when there is a family pot you really don't have an edge in this situation even though you may think you do. One really needs to have the nuts to proceed with several players - that is why O8 is the least skilled of all poker games.
IMHO!
Rounder,
Yes you need the nuts most of the time but note that the current nuts (on the flop and to a lesser extent the turn) is often a huge underdog to draws or several independent draws. You are generally playing good Omaha when YOU hold most of the collective draws against someone who has the current nuts and are willing to put in action without a "made hand" yet. Even better is holding the current nuts with redraws to more nuts.
Before the flop top Omaha players recognize hands that are likely to end up in the situation mentioned above and put in raises with them in order to build the pot.
Regards,
Rick
"I also think it is foolish to raise preflop in this game with ANY hand unless you are trying to and think you can thin out the field."
NOT raising in omaha/8 is foolish. It is a hand value game and if you are not willing to get the most money in the pot with the best hands then why are you playing?
PG
What are the key strategy adjustments recommended when switching from low limit holdem to pot limit?
I've had the experience of playing mainly $3-6 and then switching to a $1-2 pot limit game with the same players. Walking into the room it appears as if the two games are similar because of all the white chips, but in fact they are completely different.
Here are a few of the differences I observed:
1. The stakes are much higher. At first it seems, hey, with $1 and $2 blinds this is pretty cheap! However it is not so small when you are routinely betting and raising $100 in one shot. With typical passive players the game can in fact be pretty small, but add a couple of shooters who raise and reraise pot before the flop and you're now in a $20-40 game or higher. Be aware of this and don't play underfunded or scared.
2. Knowing how your opponents play is a goldmine. Predictable opponents, tight or loose, will have a hard time winning in pot limit. So you have to be unpredictable (I usually do the strange stuff in the small pots). For example, lets say a predictable opponent raises the pot before the flop in early position. You know he has QQ, KK, or AA. And you know he will bet the pot into you on the flop, and you can milk him for more on the turn and river (in other words he will overplay his hand). You can call his pot sized raise cold with 22 to flop a set and win more than 10 times your investment back. Against a tricky-good player you should fold as he may also flop a set of nines and destroy you, or he will simply not pay you off. As another example, lets say you are against another opponent and you believe he has a very good hand on the turn (overpair, two-pair, or a set). Their are two clubs on board but you have a double-gut-shot. He bets the pot into you on the turn and all fold to you, last to act. You are getting only 2-1 on this call. But, if a club comes, you can bet the pot on the river and he will fold (his stack is deep). Also, if your non-club straight card comes he will bet the pot into you again into your nuts. This is an EASY call. Against a tricky-good player it is not easy at all. He may be betting top pair with nut clubs to hit, taking away all your "phantom" club outs. Perhaps he will have a set and occasionally call your bluff on the river. See what I mean?
3. Position is paramount. If you think position is important in limit, wait until pot-limit. You and your opponents will be in difficult situations on the flop, turn, and river, with the bets sometimes being very large. The information gained by position will save/gain you a moderate fraction of these large bets (which are HUGE in comparision to the pre-flop calls). Much of the money you gain in this game comes from players betting into your nuts or conversely checking a good hand in fear and giving you a free card when they shouldn't.
4. Good players have a much greater advantage in this game. For this reason the game can often die over an extended period of time. The casinos in my area eventually stopped spreading the $1-2 pot game because the poor players lost too much money and stopped playing poker entirely for a while. In contrast, a poor player can do well in $3-6 often enough to keep him coming back for more.
5. Don't go on tilt. You can lose a lot :)
6. Most importantly, think for yourself; use your head. Pot limit is an awesome game and calls for plenty of imagination and thought. Limit games can be quite mechanical, but pot limit is very exciting with many critical decisions to be made. Every edge counts.
Jim
I have had most of my poker experiences in Germany, first middle limit holdem, stud and omaha (all three $3-30 spread limit), some weeks in L.A. at the low limit holdem tables and in Austria (low limit Holdem as well). But in the last year I have mainly been playing pot limit games in Amsterdam ( $2-5 Omaha) and Paris ($2-5 omaha, holdem, stud, 7CS Hilo, Omaha Hilo and Courchevelle, a french game).
First of all, I think Jim's comments were excellent. I'd just like to add a few things.
1. Stack sizes become very important in big bet poker. It makes a world of difference whether you and your opponent have the stacks to bet and raise the pot several more times on subsequent rounds or if one of you is going all in before or on the flop. For example: if you can go all in with an openended straight draw and two overcards on the flop (PLHE) you get to see all five board cards without risking more money, whereas if you get bet into again on the turn with a big stack in front of you, you usually would fold.
You can also use your stack (and the stack of your opponent) as a leverage: eg. both of you have 20.000 chips, you bet 7000 on the flop. Now your opponent is not only risking the 7000 but his entire stack by calling your bet, because he would be very committed to the pot and probably have to face another bet from you on the turn. Whereas if he only has 7000 total in front of him, he is only risking 7000, not 20000. By betting only 7000 yourself, you make him think about 20000!
2. Hands that lose little when they do not hit, but double you up when they do become very powerful
Eg. little pairs, suited connectors, Ax suited...
whereas hands like AJ, AT,... become very dangerous hands because a lot of times you will either win a little pot (top pair, two pairs,) or lose a huge one (outkicked, against a set...)
3. Bluffing becomes a very powerful tool
because you can bet the whole pot and not just a fraction of the pot. Some bluffing opporunities arise when you are pretty sure your predictable, tight opponent has a certain hand and a scare card falls (scary for him, that is..) Jim had a nice example for this. you can count not only your real outs, but also the other scare cards as outs.
4. Pots are rarely multiway
Usually, fewer players see the flop, and from there on it is heads-up most of the time. Of course, this reduces your pot odds. On the other hand, your implied odds can be huge.
5. Predictability
Jim has already commented on this, but it cannot be stressed enough. Predictable players are easy preys. Sometimes I would call a very predictable player with absolut crap hands (62s, 93,...) if I could get him heads up because most of the time you know exactly what he has and can outplay him in later rounds. you do not need cards for that...
6. Aggressive play
The aggressive player will always win against the passive player. Because of the pot sized bets, you can pick up a lot of pots were no one has a hand. Since most of the flops have only few contenders, this will quite often be the case. If you bet, you give yourself one more chance to win. As a side effect, you get your good hands paid off because you will also get caught betting with nothing a few times. But I would not recommend pure advertising (bluffing when you know you will get caught). bet when you think this will get you the pot, the advertising will take care of itself.
7. Position
Position becomes a lot more important in big bet poker. But it can also be advantageous to sit in the first position. You then have the first opportunity to bluff. Heads up after the flop, chances are, nobody has a hand. If you check, you portray weakness, whereas a bet might win you the pot right there. Of course, you will have to pick your moments...betting into a preflop raiser on a Ah Jh Th flop with pocket eights might not be a good idea...
8. If you cannot spot the sucker at the table, it's you...
A table full of better players is suicidal in any form of poker, whereas a table with 2 or 3 weak, predictable players can be very profitable, even if the other players are better than you. Just do not try to outplay the cracks to much...
All in all I really recommend Big bet poker. I think it is really a fun game, filled with excitement and opportunities.
As a last advice, buy "PotLimit and NoLimit Poker" by Stuart Reuben and Bob Ciaffone, an excellent book on the subject of big bet poker and devour Brunsons "SuperSystem"...
regards, Stephan
PS.: I certainly do not regard myself an expert player, although I have had my share of experience. So any comments will be appreciated.
I was playing 2-4 HE at Harrah's AC yesterday. I was in the BB and when it came around to me, I said "check" as pushed my $2. The dealer, (first time I've seen him), corrected me and told me i should be saying "call" when I do not want the exercise my option to raise. I told him the BB was a bet that I am forced to make, so how could I possibly call my own bet. I said the SB must "call" since he has half a net. Even the floor agreed with me, but the dealer insisted he was right.
What do other folks say in this situation.
BTW, no one else at the table understood the conversation. And I still lost for the day. More on that in another post!
I just realized I posted this in General Theory, and not Hold'em General. Sorry.
You're right. The BB checks if there's no raise before it comes to him.
Regards
We use language to convey meaning. When you said, "check," the dealer correctly interpreted your meaning, and knew he had done so, and then he said that you had not said what you meant. That's absurd.
I agree that the BB does not face a bet and therefore the BB does not technically "call." But I think "check" and "call" are equally effective at conveying the meaning, so from a usage standpoint, they are equally correct.
Tommy
Obviously, it doesn't matter, but I think check is the more accurate term. When you want to check at a poker table, you can either say "check" or knock on the table. When you don't want to raise from the blind, the knock on the table is accepted. It is equivalent to checking. So you are checking, i.e., electing not to bet.
If that dealer gives you any other advice, I would ignore it. While I agree with Tommy, I feel that "check" is slightly more accurate for the reasons that Andy stated and also because you are checking your option to raise .
Maybe this dealer didn't realise you were the big blind!
Whenever I am in the BB amd I want the bet to stand, I just rap the table, just as I do when I check. Less talk and less chance of a mistake. If there had been a raise then it would be possible for you to call. What would the dealer have considered this type of move? Good luck.
Any comments on AceSpade holdem and 7 card stud software?
I want to preface this post by stating most of my poker playing has in the bay area and in Reno and I have never played in SoCal before.
Ocean 11 Casino. 3-6 game with standard blinds ($3 bb and $1 sb) after the blinds have been posted the dealer collects them for the rake so there is no money in the pot with the UTG player to act. (Not sure if this is the practice for the higher limit games as well).
My first thought was this is a strange way to collect. It felt weird having no money on the table as play began. I don’t know if this is a common practice for collections around the country but I had never seen it.
Driving away it got me to thinking about the correct strategy one should employ in this instance or if it is even smart to play???
I get home and refer to TOP chap. 4 “The Ante Structure” which states, "all poker starts as the struggle for the ante. If there were no ante, there would be no reason to play. A good player would have no reason to play anything other than big starting hands, because with no money in the pot there would be nothing to shoot for. To play anything else would risk getting picked off by someone else who only played only the pure nuts"
Sounds very reasonable my questions
1.Does this mean it would be foolish to play anything from UTG? Even AA?
2.What would be the correct strategies to use here in early middle and late positions that would differ if the blinds were left in the pot.
3.It would also seem that this would encourage playing almost anything from the bb(excluding capped pots) ,and depending on how much was in the pot fairly loose requirements from the sb.
This seems like a terrible way to rake a game I much rather pay the button instead of seeing the blinds taken off the table. Maybe I am naïve in my thinking (or inexperienced) how does the 2+2 family see this situation
Thanks, golfnutt
EXACTLY how the collection was taken ?
I have never played at OCEANS ELEVEN but I do recall a similar method employed at the CALIFORNIA GRAND (near San Francisco), however I seem to recall that it was only the big blind AND this collection only occured if there was a flop; in other words - "no flop, no drop".
I didn't think it was a good procedure - despite the fact that the game(s) were very good.
It left me with feelings similar to yours.
Perhaps someone who plays regularly at O/11 would care to comment; $4 per hand to play 3-6 is obscene but if this money is taken in the exact manner you describe I don't see how any lucid person would participate in this game.
Interesting - - -
Thanks for the info,
J D
J-D,
Golfnutt got it right except for the no flop no drop.
BTW, as much as I hate the collection I'm convinced that the terrible collections are part of the reason that the games are "good" (see my post below/above wherever).
Regards,
Rick
Golfnutt,
My typing hands and brain are tired from a long day tossing away cards at a good 9/18 kill Omaha H/L game at the Commerce but maybe I can help here.
Most of the Indian casinos and independent clubs (such as Lake Ellsinore and Ocean’s 11) just outside Los Angeles County use a system similar to this. This system “sort of” complies with California court rulings from January 1989 indicating that the house must not “bank” the game and the collection must be independent of pot size. Note that in these clubs the rake is returned if there is no flop or if the pot doesn’t reach a threshold such as $20. So it is not quite as bad as it looks.
You should play this game like there is a drop from the pot without a threshold. That means don’t play if the game is tight. Fortunately this is rare, as this sort of collection will instantly break up a tight game (or force the tight players to spread out into other tables).
Anyway, if you think this is bad, the collection in the small games within Los Angeles County is much worse for the solid player. In holdem the blinds would stay on the table in a game such as 3/6; however a dead drop of $3 is collected on the button. By “dead” I mean it is dropped no matter what (even if there is ABSOLUTELY NO ACTION) and doesn’t count towards the button’s flop call when there is action (note that in some places in Northern California it is dropped but counts towards your bet).
A game such as 3/6 stud is even more of a hoot. Each player “antes” 50 cents. In a seven-handed game $3 is dropped down the collection box BEFORE THE HAND EVEN STARTS leaving one lonely 50-cent chip to fight over. So the structure would dictate super tight play, but the collection drives away tight players. It is the Catch-22 of the Los Angeles poker business.
Because of the above collection policies, players who are aware that poker begins as a struggle over the antes and blinds don’t exist in the greater Los Angeles area at the lower limits.
I’d rant on but I’m in desperate need of some zzz’s.
Regards,
Rick
PS I just noticed that you concluded with the following: ” This seems like a terrible way to rake a game I much rather pay the button instead of seeing the blinds taken off the table. Maybe I am naïve in my thinking (or inexperienced) how does the 2+2 family see this situation.”
Against identical moderately loose and incompetent competition I’d much prefer to see the blinds “taken off” since it keeps my costs lower. Of course the games outside Los Angeles County are a little tighter because of this policy.
BTW, I believe that if Los Angeles had been able to keep a Las Vegas style collection * at the low limits over the past thirteen years the games would play like a mid week “rocked up” Las Vegas game. Nothing crushes a rocks spirit like the dead drop collection.
* Actually, instead of a $1 on $20, another on $40, and the third dollar on $60 the Los Angeles clubs used to take the entire collection at one threshold (before 1989), but it is similar enough for the sake of my argument.
Thanks for your insights Rick, and yes I did forget about the no flop no drop aspect. I appreciate hearing another viewpoint, as I had never encounter this collection method before.
By the way it would be interesting to hear what style of collection most players prefer.
golfnutt,
When you ask that question make sure the collection is "revenue nuetral*" for the casino. Many of the old timers long for "time charges " in the smaller games (a logistical impossibility in the big clubs). They compare a $3 dead drop to $4 per half hour time charges. In reality they would need to pay about $6 per half hour when you count missed time collections and empty seats. And don't forget it is more expensive for the club to track and collect time charges.
* I believe that a better collection method (the Foxwoods method seems fair) would result in far more games. But that is another story and I need to run (or in this case go swimming :-).
Regards,
Rick
I played at Oceans 11 twice a while back and saw this same thing, except they did not actually drop it in the slot right away. they took them and laid it on top of the slot after the betting hand gone around once. THEN if it had action they would drop it.
On the same note of the large initial drop playing there, they were very accomadating to us when the hours got late and we were playing shorthanded and we managed to talk the floorman into lowering the rake on a $3/6 game to $1/round. 4 of us were playing so he was nice enuff to acknowledge our business and lowered the rake for us.
In the EV quiz-thread (David Sklansky) and Harder EV quiz-thread (Tom Weideman) there were a lot of very good responses - easy for me to say because I believe in math.
Here is an Even Harder EV quiz !
A zero-one-game with 2 players (EARLY & LATE) - there is $1 (or $1000 if you please) of dead money in the pot to begin with. Both players is allowed to bet (fixed pot-limit) - but NO raises is allowed.
Q1: If you are EARLY with witch hands would you bet and with witch hands would you call ?
Q2: If you are LATE with witch hands would you bet and with witch hands would you call ?
Hi,
I was half watching television last week, and they were doing a show on problem solving. The puzzle was a question about how many ways can a five panel strip contain three different colors, I think that was it. They put the possibilites in a binary format.
Anyway in a very dim flash in the middle of the night I saw a HE application to this puzzle. I can remember this much:
00000 10000 01000 00100 00010 00001
This would be the possible boards with a single card on the board, say making trips for the hole cards.
I know they ! somehow, but that's all I remember. Anyone kind enough to fill in the rest of this? I sure am curious, but don't even know where to start looking.
Thanks in advance.
Mike
Okay, here is the solution:
I am going to state some similar problems, and use them in the solution of the real problem. Lets call the original problem (P) and the similar problem (P1), (P2) and (P3). The first similar problem is:
(P1) How many ways can a five panel strip contain AT MOST 3 different colors?
Solution to (P1): Each panel can be one of 3 colors. So the total number of possible configurations is 3 to the 5th power (3^5), so P1 = 243.
Clearly, P < P1, because some of the configurations in (P1) have all 5 panels the same color, or only 2 total colors, and (P) requires there be 3 DISTINCT colors. So we must subtract these configurations from P1 to get P. This leads to 2 more ancillary problems:
(P2) How many ways can a five panel strip contain 1 of 3 colors?
Solution to (P2) Obviously, P2 = 3. The solution is actually: (3 choose 1)*(1^5) = 3, where (n choose k) = (n!)/(k!*(n-k)!), and where n! = 1*2*3*...*(n-1)*n
(P3) How many ways can a five panel strip contain 2 of 3 colors? Similarly to (P2), P3 = (3 choose 2)*(2^5) = 3*32 = 96.
So, P = P1 - P2 - P3 = 243 - 3 - 96 = 144.
There may be a more direct way to find this, (144 is 12^2, suspiciously), but I believe that is the correct answer.
Ooops, I just realized something. The correct answer is 144+3 = 147.
This is because you don't really need to subtract P2 = 3, because P3 already includes the 3 configurations where the 5 panels are all one color. Subtracting P2 and P3 from P1 subtracts those same configurations twice.
Now I think it's right, although I reserve the right to be wrong again :)
Is it a good idea to combine poker and blackjack bankrolls?
Pros:
I could play higher limit poker and bet higher in BJ, raising my EV. Also this would nearly double the hours on my one bankroll, rather than half the hours on 2, getting me into the long run quicker(?).
Obviously I would play in such a way that my risk of ruin is acceptable.
Cons:
Please point these out, I dont see any... Even an extended losing streak in one game would leave me with more bankroll and playing at a higher level in both games than if I had 2 separate bankrolls.
thanks nate
i dont play blackjack, i am just learning it so this is a hypothetical question, but I am trying to find out the pros and cons of having just one bankroll, or if i should set aside a separate bj bankroll.
also i am making the assumption that i will play +EV bj.(otherwise i wouldnt play)
Have you considered separate bankrolls for hold'em, seven-stud, Omaha, and Omaha-8-or-better? After all, they are different games. Playing the blinds is a fundamentally different game too, so perhaps you should get separate bankrolls for these positions for each game. And the button and under-the-gun are really so different you might consider separate bankrolls for these positions too.
Following this logic you would need separate bankrolls in blackjack for single deck, double deck, 6-deck and 8-deck games. And let's not forget all those variations in rules. I would love to play that double-after-split early surrender resplit aces game but can't afford a separate bankroll. Too bad.
You don't need multiple bankrolls. You money is all just one big bankroll, and life is just one big session. Just scale your bets appropriately.
well, i like to track my results...
i dont actually keep chips and cash in a box under my bed, i just keep track of numbers in a spreadsheet...
so i just add my profits on to my initial investment and that gives my bankroll number, which is a portion of my savings.
SO, i am willing to invest X dollars in blackjack... should i play as if my blackjack bankroll is (X + poker bankroll) and play poker as if my poker bankroll is now (X + poker bankroll) or keep them separate...
i thought it was a valid question because it would affect how i played the games.
obviously while learning i will play small.
One great reason to keep a bankroll is to track your results on a given number of games. When many people speak of keeping a bankroll they mean keeping track of wins and losses in a given game. This can be crucial in finding out what game gives you the best win rate. Of course the money is all the same and used in all the games this is a given. However, without tracking your results how will you know which form of poker you make the most $ in per hour. Tracking your results is very important i.e. Bankroll Management!!!!!
Combining BJ and poker bankrolls can be a psychological killer. Poker is a slow game, 21 is not. When 21 is going well, it's no problem. When it isn't, you'll go crazy when you blow the $400 you spent all day grinding out in the poker room in 30 minutes at the 21 tables. In my experience (which is limited compared to many others on this forum), anything that can lead to a chasing mentality is counterproductive.
since you are new to BJ, it may be that you face greater loss than you think
thus seems to me that you should keep poker $$ in other pocket...just in case
AFTER you pass the "new to BJ " stage, then go to just one BR
I am a bj player switching over to poker. Well, not exactly switching over, I will continue to play bj, only not as often as before.
I don't claim to be an expert, but your question is not new to the bj boards. And the general concensus there by the math gurus has always been to combine the two bankrolls. However, Uston and Jellow have some valid points. The bj fluctuations are enormous, compared to poker. In poker, a $200 loss playing 4-8 HE for 5 hours, is huge to me. In bj, playing $5 units, you can lose this much in 10 minutes. It is not unusual to lose bet after bet in the highest counts, with your max bets out on the table. If you can take these swings, then you can start out combining the banks. Otherwise, I'd do as Jellow suggests, to get your feet wet first.
Notice that if you started out in bj, then poker, it would be no problem combining the banks.
Papio
You might want to consider why you want to get to the "long run" faster. There's no reason (aside from improvement) that your expectation for your first hour is different from your 1000th. If I make the same plays, I will make the same money regardless of how long I have been playing. The real reason that you want to be in the "long run" is that you can have confidence in your results. However, you can't combine BJ and poker results into a single EV per hour and get a meaningful figure.
you have satisfied yourself you our beating blackjack with statistical confidence. I started in BJ, and have run across many "counters" who simply made too many many mistakes per hour to win. So just meekly spread those nickles until you're sure, you'll be glad you did.
zooey
This is a mathematically oriented question where I will use a rarely played game for simplicities sake. However the implications of the answer apply to all poker which is why I call the question important.
PLEASE GIVE ONLY A ONE WORD ANSWER (CALL, FOLD, RAISE) along with your degree of certainty that you are right. For now I ask that you do not post an explanation, since there are a few of you who are certain to answer the question properly and give an irrefutable explanation. But I would like this to be not just a quiz but also a survey of sorts. Thus I would ask you to GIVE YOUR OPINION (along with your degree of certainty about its correctness) even if you are just using gut instincts rather than computation.
Here is the question: You are playing ace to five lowball draw, headup. There is no joker. The stakes are pot limit and no smaller bets or raises are allowed. You both ante $50. Your opponent bets the pot and for some reason shows you A235K, a one card draw to a bike. Before you have acted, you fumble with your cards and happen to expose your hand to him- 98765. You both know that he has seen the hand. Both players have a million dollars in front of them. Your opponent is a good player who will sometimes make a pot size bluff after the draw. When he bets the $100, before the draw, should you CALL, RAISE ($300 more), or FOLD. Again for now, please answer without telling me why. Just tell me how sure you are of your answer. I would like as many responses as possible.
Raise 9-1 Favorite that I posted the correct answer please advise thanks mg
Raise 75%
My answer would be RAISE, and I'm about 75% sure this is correct (so the other 25% of the time I'd say call).
Yes, call, 90%+ confident based on my own analysis (with latitude for interpretive mistakes or whatever).
Call, 100% sure.
Fold 85%
Change to
Fold 100%
Fold. 90% sure.
Fold 75% gut instinct
RAISE --- 80% sure.
Nicolas
Call 100%
Assumptions:
1)he will pot size bluff 20% of the time; answer may change if this number is higher
2)you will call a pot size bet after the draw
fold - 90%
Call; not sure at all
Raise 100%
CALL - 100% sure
CALL (99.44% certain)
Raise; not very sure.
Raise
oops, forgot the %
raise 100%
Raise - 80%
.
FOLD!
raise
Fold, 50%. Harder then it looks.
Call 100%.
Fold 50%
Quick calculation confirmed my intuitive response.
RAISE 90%
x
90% raise the other 10%
n/t
nt
*
*
*
*
Post-draw:
(a) The A235K-guy can easyli randomize his 8 bluff-cards by his draw.
(b) The 98765-guy simply has to flip a coin.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who wants to start arguing the whys of this and defending our positions. All you raisers and folders are crazy...!!
David,
I believe player B must fold and I am 99% certain after fumbling with the game theory math.
Regards,
Rick
I'm almost 100% certain it isn't RAISE since then it would be correct for player A to come over the top for as much as he can given the power of the correct bluffing percentage post draw.
Is it part of the assumption that the opponent bluffs optimally? I didn't read that in the problem statement. If this is true, then I might have to revise my analysis.
- Andrew
The generally game-theoretic statement of the problem, plus the sentence
"Your opponent is a good player who will sometimes make a pot size bluff after the draw."
seem to invite you to march down the "levels" tree towards the Game Theory Point At Infinity.
--JMike
*
*
Since you don't know whether he bluffs too much or too little, when devising your strategy it only makes sense to assume that he bluffs optimally.
CALL THEN CALL 100%
i rechecked the math, and my calculations were off a bit. its raise 100%
Raise, 100%
- Andrew
Ok,
Since someone mentioned bluffing frequency, I'll chime in with an amended answer:
If he bluffs more than optimal, then call.
If he bluffs less than optimal, then raise.
Of course, what optimal is depends on whether or not your raised.
still 100% arrogant w.r.t. my answer :)
- Andrew
can i say, it depends? on if you plan on drawing or not, on how much you think he will bluff, on if he will then reraise, etc? if i can say it depends, then that is the way to go. great question.
Interesting how many answers have confidences very close to 100%. Note especially this guy who has now given two different answers with high confidence and then capped it off with "it depends". :)
--JMike
like i said in the second post, i rechecked my math, and i changed my mind.
Player B always stand pat. Player A draws one and you should assume player A can figure out the optimum bluffing frequency based on assigned cards he draws (e.g., if player A decides to bluff eight timess for every 16 times he makes it he can chose the top eight cards that pair him up as his bluffing cards).
Regards,
Rick
i just sent this to a friend via icq. am i close?
i gather there are some sort of implied and/or reverse implied odds because of the fact he will bluff sometimes (again with a pot sized bet). i think they are reverse implied. im positive the answer is either raise or fold and i think it is fold because my intuition immediately shouted "RAISE!"
(as for predraw it looked like K-5-4-3-A was getting 3 to 1 on a call or raise from 98765 when he was 2.62 to 1 to make his hand) or did i screw up even this simplest of math?
*
*
FOLD 100%
I would probally raise- 70% sure
nt
call 99%
Gut instinct---not science. Based only on what I am going to do next round.
we have worked out that FOLD is the correct answer. he asked me to say 95% but i would stick now especially with my 100% now that we have thoroughly worked through the problem.
he also wanted me to mention that he didnt actually read the question post but instead i relayed the info to him, so if he is wrong it is probably because i led him astray with misinformation.
i must admit, i enjoyed this problem far too much.
I'm still sticking w/ our answer of folding. However, if I was playing as the player who showed the 9 high, if I could get the player to go all in (keep reraising till the K high is all in) I would keep raising and put him all in. If I felt that the player was skilled and would stop before going all in, then I would fold from the beginning.
Without doing any math.....call.
The moron-osity of some of the answers to this so-called important question is hilarious. Hahahaha.
100%!
No, let me change that!
NO, sorry, change that make that 100% sure of the exact opposite!
anyone who is 100% sure is foolish. anyone who is 100% sure then changes it is a complete moron.
never mind the question uses a game invented B.C. and nobody that doesn't wear adult diapers and/or dentures plays seriously anymore. but oh ya, its an important theORetical question, twust me.
Go away or make a question that doesn't have a hundred B.S made up elements.
as if im going to play in a fool's game where everyone is flashing cards and im gonna believe it isn't rigged. ya. sure.
Well...I'm 100% sure. So if I'm a fool, at least I'm a correct fool.
u r not a fool.
but u r being foolish.
and not seeing that even now is something that you will just have to live with.
The odds are 3 to 2 against a one card draw to a 4 spoke wheel will yield a hand that beats the pat 9-8 low. Of course you raise. That's what the little old ladies from Pasadena at poker clubs in Gardena taught me 35 years ago!
i especially like how you call me a moron for changing my mind. or maybe my mistake was posting my answer before i checked my math closer. we all know in poker that there is no definite answer to any question. you can't play by any formulas, and the situations change. there are always strong arguments for a variety of different plays in each situation, sometimes raising and folding are both correct, etc. and now you come in and say that to be sure of one and then to be sure of the exact opposite and then to ammend both with a post of 'it depends' makes me a moron? i know that i am not a moron, and so there must be something wrong with your reasoning. perhaps you jumped to the conclusion that i was a moron before you actually looked further to think about the situation. since this is what i did, and you called me a moron, does that also make you a moron? i don't think you are a moron. and i am damn sure that i am not a moron.
You have my unconditional support! Only a moron would post his name (David Lansky) spelled backwards in an adult forum.
-*-MouseEar
100% certain of that too, chump?
You watch your stupid mouth, young man. And you show some respect for your elders. I'm old enough to be your Grandpa, and if you want a flame war, you got it!
Now, do you really have any idea what David's true motivation for posting his "pop quiz" ? I doubt it. Consider the "pop quiz". Two high rollers each with a million dollar bankroll play penny ante lowball with a deck with no joker, and are so clumsy that they can't even hold a five card hand without exposing It. After a flurry of replies of which only ca. 50% followed his instructions _exactly_ as instructed, David posts an "answer" that has 15 paragraphs and approximately 1200 words. I'll give you a "tell". I'm an pot-boiling organic chemist, an academic researcher in a major Candian Univ., and have seen this type of behaviour from senior professors for about 30 years
You are my idol!
Vince
n/t
Fold 100%
You people really have to get some perspective on your certainty percentages. I didn't see a single answer under 75%, and a huge number of 100% answers were given. Think about it in terms of betting: If you are 90% certain, then you are willing to lay any odds up to 9-to-1. 100% certain, well, you should be willing to bet your life against a penny (that's as close to infinite odds as I can get).
BTW, I think that those of you who are guessing "fold" because of what they read in _Getting the Best of It_ are in for a little surprise.
Sklansky knows I know the answer, so I won't give it. I am willing to lay long odds on my answer, but why should I, when there is apparently so much action out there willing to lay ME odds?
Tom Weideman
The 100% is rounded off. I would certainly bet $10.00 against a nickel on this, though to bet one's life on anything is something of a different matter.
Aren't you closer to 100% sure than to 99% sure of your answer?
I don't think the bet your life vs. a penny is quite a valid analogy here. It occurred to me too, but considering utility functions on a one-time bet it seems like you would be actually betting your life against nothing. So you may be absolutely sure that even something as simple as 2+2=4 is true but if it were a one-time bet vs. something with essentially no utility function, why bet? That doesn't mean you are less sure, but why lay infinite odds on anything?
Can't we round off to 100% just like we can round-off to other percentages, or is 100% generally considered off-limits for rounding-off purposes? Hmmm.
Tom:
You raise a very important point. Many players don't realize the impact of small percentages on odds. For example, suppose when playing hold 'em you have a pair in your hand and when someone else bets you only think there is a 10 percent chance that your hand is good, it is fourth street, and the pot is laying you a less than 9-to-1 but not a lot less. Many people think that they should fold in this spot, but they forget that the chance that they snag a set on the river, while small is significant and should change their decision.
Your example might be right so I am going to be careful and not say otherwise.
But your general concept is wrong. I won't say anymore or you will squiggle out of it and claim something else.
(tom w is right..not talking 'bout that )
Fine. I'm not 100% sure. I'm 99.99 % sure and I would lay $100.00 against a penny. I guess that's a long way from betting one's life, but I can't see any benefit to ever laying infinite odds.
Perhaps you (or I) might wish to rethink whether being 100% sure means you should be willing to lay infinite odds. Your example of being willing to bet your life against a penny is not laying infinite odds--it was just about the closest you could come up with as an example.
1. Laying infinite odds might mean betting your life against nothing.
2. Laying infinite odds also might mean betting a dollar against nothing.
3. From the above it does not necessarily follow that laying infinite odds necessarily means betting your life against nothing--or against a penny.
4. Is betting a dollar against nothing a better example of laying infinite odds than betting your life against a dollar?;-)
I'm willing to bet nothing against your nothing.
er, that's NaN odds, not Inf odds.
Never mind.
--JMike
:)
lol.
BTW I'm not saying that Tom's example is necessarily wrong either; I'm just noting where it might be perhaps extreme or erroneous to extrapolate that far. Mainly just opening the subject up a bit more for interest's sake and because I don't think being 100% sure means you have to necessarily be willing to bet your life on something. After all, we are 100% sure that 2+2=4, aren't we? At least in this universe. But what if we wake up in a different universe and don't find out 'til it's too late and we've already bet.
"I am willing to lay long odds on my answer, but why should I, when there is apparently so much action out there willing to lay ME odds?'
Maybe they think your a kangaroo.
vince
FOLD 100%
Raise! I'm 100 % sure.
-=-MouseEars
Fold 70%
CALL 100%
Fold 70%
.
For my money the question is how often he will bluff after the draw and if he does so optimally. I believe that if you raise, he cannot bluff ever, and therefore you should not be calling him ever, which means that he is not bluffing enough which means that he should bluff more which means that you should call more which means that he should bluff less which means that you should call less which means that he should bluff more...etc etc..
It all comes down to a chicken vs egg question of game theory. At some point, bluffing frequency always leads to an EV of zero if calling frequency is also correct. So, my answer is actually: it doesn't matter whether you call or raise, because if he long term EV is zero.
Raise If he is likely to bluff 9% of the time or more.
Call If he is likely to bluff less than 9% of the time.
Just curious how close am I?
.
raise
Just got this. Sorry I am late. Haven't read anything else.
16 outs vs. a pat hand tat can't draw (just an unproven assumption beased on the 9-8 combination).
Opitaml bluffing frequency is 1/3 of the time you bet in a HTH pot limit game on the last round. Because your opponent is offered 2-1 on his call.
you will face a bet 24 out of 42 times. Since this is a game-theoretical strategy, you can always fold to a bet and keep my math simple :).
Since you lose the pot more often than not, clearly you do not want to increase the size of the pot. The onyl question is whether the initial pot size makes a call worthwhile.
Lets see: The pot is 1 unit, and the bet is 1 unit. If you call for one unit, you will win a no bet showdown 18 out of 42 times. Since this fraction is more than 1/3. You should call instead of fold.
I am 99% confident in this answer.
Dan Z.
.
nt
raise 80%
Call . . . 100% sure
I am two positions off UTG and Raise with pocket 8's a tight winning player in the smallblind calls the raise, the big blind folds.
The flop comes A-q-9 all rainbow.
I bet and the SB just calls, the turn is a 8, I bet he raises to 40,
What should I do from this point on?
I will post the results later on
I would call. At that point I would put him on 10-J for the straight. On the river you have 9 outs to fill up. If you dont fill up, check and call the river.
I hope that helps
mg in nj
he probably does not have JT or a set of aces or queens given what has happened so far in the hand. he may have a set of 9s, not too likely though.
reraise the turn and just call if he makes it 4 bets and call his river bet. if he backs off on the turn you will bet the river when a blank comes.
This was my first inclination. Lets count some hands: A(3), QQ(3), 99(3), JT (16) = 25 hands that beat you. AQ(9), A9(9), A8(3) = 21 hands you can beat. Adjust that for other factors such as whether he would 3-bet with AA or QQ or even call a raise with JT, or if he would raise the flop with the straight draw.
All-in-all I'd say he's more likely to have two pair; but since raising is risking close to 2:1 it doesn't look like a GREAT raise unless there are other hands with which he'd call a pre-flop raise.
- Louie
Hi Fosure,
I guess the problem boils down to what he would call a early-mid position preflop raise in the small blind.
Hands of interest to you : AA, QQ, 99. you are drawing nearly dead to these. (three ways each = 9 hands)
AK. he's drawing dead (12 hands) KK. he's drawing to two outs. ( 6 hands)
AQ, AJ, AT. he's on a four outer (12 hands each = 36 hands)
A9, A8 suited. ( about four more hands)
JJ TT. four outer ( 6 hands each = 12 hands)
JT. your on a ten outer. I think a tight player would fold this in the small blind.
The other question is, what is you image like right now, have you been stealing alot, could he be on almost a pure bluff with KT, QT or something like that.
It seems to me that its really likely that you are ahead right now. I would call, and then raise the river if he bet. If I'm three bet on the river, I would probably make a crying call.
looking forward to the results.
Good luck,
Bob T.
Sometimes I want to generate a random number at the table.
Say for example I'm in a simple heads-up situation on the river and after a "swift burst of mental arithmetic" (apologies to the late Douglas Adams) figure I want to call 80% of the time.
Dsklansky writes about such situations and suggests that you use something about your cards to be that random number. Nes Ankeny wrote similarly, saying for example that in pot-limit five-card draw, when the bad guy knows that you know that he knows you're on a flush draw, it works out that betting on busted red queen-high flush draws works out to be close enough to optimal as dammit.
But the problem here is that this use-your-cards-as-your-RNG policy suggests either that you have memorized a long list of individual situations and the cards you are going to use are your bluffers, or that you have some metastrategy ("use the worst cards and if you have to subdivide a rank of cards, bluff with the club, then the diamond, then the heart then the spade") that you will refine as needed at the table, or (ha!) that you can somehow honestly come up with a different set of bluffers each time either before, or unaffected by, the card that actually comes in.
I prefer to look around the card room quickly and use the first number I see either as, or as the seed for, a random digit. The problem is that it's highly unlikely that visible numbers in my basement, or the Foxwoods card room/horse book, are going to be uniformly distributed. I'm guessing that one is the most well represented, slowly falling off through five, and falling off more rapidly after that. (I'm not sure about zero.) This non-uniformity would be due to a combination of two factors: some fraction of the numbers I see are going to be times, in which case the tens-of-minutes digit can only be 0-5, and some fraction of the numbers I see are going to be odds, or some other kind of naturally-derived unitless constants, for which some umpty-ump theorem I only vaguely remember says that the first digit of the mantissa is more likely to be a small number.
So I'm worried that looking for a digit and computing some simple function on it is flawed. But I'm more worried that doing something like bringing a digital watch with a hundredths-of-a-second indicator would both be laughed off the stage and make it clear to my more perceptive opponents that I'm generating a random number. But I guess, if I'm doing a reasonably good job of figuring out the probabilities of various actions, it doesn't much matter that my opponent knows I'm generating a random number. But then I have to generate a random number sometimes when I was 100% sure of what I was going to do, just for cover. But now I'm thinking way too much about it!
*head explodes*
What to do?
--JMike
But I'm more worried that doing something like bringing a digital watch with a hundredths-of-a-second indicator would both be laughed off the stage and make it clear to my more perceptive opponents that I'm generating a random number.
Use a pocket watch to protect your cards. The second hand can be used to generate random number, and can be used in a way to either hide or advertise what you are doing.
For example, if you bluff 80% of the time in a certain situation, decide that if the second hand is between 0 and 48 you'll go for it, then glance at your watch. Viola!
I like that. The "Purloined Letter" strategy. Good one :)
--JMike
I was just musing about ltuae, when I had the following nicely symmetrical thought.
In cash games the most important consideration is how badly you play when you are playing at your worst, while how well you play when you are playing at your best is largely irrelevant. In tournaments however exactly the converse is true.
So now it becomes clearer which is better?
GOOD THOUGHT
What's the Expectation Value of the following:
I'm driving home at 3AM on Sunday morning. As I exit the Caldecott Tunnel heading towards Walnut Creek, I put my car into cruise control at 75 mph. I'm tooling along in the left lane minding my own business when a guy comes up behind me and hits me with his high-beams.
I'm thinking that there's hardly anyone on the freeway, I'm driving faster than the allowable limit, and if this guy really wants to drive faster than me, then he can inconvenience himself a little and go around me.
He hits me again with his high-beams. I maintain my heading.
Then, he flicks his high-beams on and off furiously in an attempt to get me to lane change so he can drive faster than me. I maintain my heading.
Finally, he puts the beams on and leaves them on.
As I'm driving down Highway 24 with this guy behind me I gradually begin decelerating. I get myself down to 55 mph, and this guy doggedly hangs behind me, blasting me with his brights.
In the end, he winds up following me for 14 miles, at 55 mph, and when we finally get to the 242 split in Concord, he finally pulls around and whizzes past me doing about 90.
He's welcome to sit in my game anytime.
It may have been interesting to keep slowing down, 45, 35, 20, to see at what point he would past you.
if just in the right mood that night, after 14 miles at 55 behind you, i would seriously consider homicide to be a great option. (of course i would never have done what the guy did, but that doesnt matter).
next time move out of his way; you have no clue who youre on the highway with.
was he riding your tail really close? if so, a quick brake may induce him to hit you (kinda like inducing a weaker hand to bluff into your monster) and the EV may be as much as your car is worth. it would be great to have this guy in your game, though.
I don't think David S. appreciates your posting on his driving skills !
I can't stand it when people drive in the PASSING lane. I would have went around you a lot quicker, but I definitely would have been ON DRIVER TILT. \
Just because I get road rage doesn't mean I tilt easily at the table thou.
Derrick
I'd say you both were on tilt.
Without reading the other responses: Get out of his way. It amazes me that someone driving slightly over the speed limit, who would expect others to get out of his way, does not recognize that the same courtesy should be given to drivers who want to go a little bit faster than they are going. If someone is going 71 and you are going 75, you want the 71 to move, but you won't move for a 79. Irrational.
"He's welcome to sit in my game anytime."
Funny how right about when my game came together is when I stopped getting anxious waiting in lines or in stopped traffic, and also when I started to feel bad for tailgaters, instead of bad at them.
Tommy
you're all crazy. the guy could have gone around. it was 3a.m. he didn't have to sit with his high beams on and go slower than he wanted. that is stupid. talk about driving in the passing lane, or whatever you want, but traffic is supposed to be fluid: go around the guy if you want to go faster. if someone is goign over the speed limit, and you still want to pass them, then you need to figure out your own way to do it, not expect them to move because you flash your brights. what bugs me is when there are 3 lanes, 2 trucks in the right lanes, and the far left has a car going the same speed as the trucks, all going UNDER THE SPEED LIMIT. with room to accelerate. this i swhy there are traffic jams, and road rage, and people late to work every morning. i have an hour drive to work in downtown chicago every day, and if people like this weren't on the highway, i could get to work in a half hour. but if there are enough of them, it can take me an hour and a half. that's bad driving.
This is why California poker is so good.
I'm often amazed at how life imitates poker. This is another example. I'm surprised at the wide variety of responses to this thread, from one guy who considers "homicide an option" to another's perception that we "both were on tilt." It's kind of like a window overlooking a poker game...so many personalities, so many ways of handling situations...
The fun thing about putting a player on tilt is knowing that you can do so without seriously provoking the tilter. In my driving example, had this guy come up on me at 3PM when there was some degree of traffic, I gladly move. As it was, there was no traffic and 4-open lanes of freeway, so the fact that he didn't just zip right past me indicated that he had a serious tilt factor. I exploited that for my own amusement. I was in no hurry to get home, so I was enjoyed a good laugh at this guy's irrational behavior.
Thanks to those who were concerned for my health and well being, but I think I had a good read on this guy.
Is John Patrick considered a credible author in regards to poker ? Any comments ? Stockwell.
No. We don't consider him credible for any gambling topic.
From the John Patrick website: "John Patrick is unquestionably one of the most dominant forces in the world of gambling today. For years, he was the host of his own national cable TV show, "So You Wanna be a Gambler!" which aired weekly on Financial News Network, and attracted a large and loyal following. He has written 11 books on the subject of gambling and has produced 30 instructional videos on casino games, sports handicapping, and the lottery."
So, does he teach you how to fill in the bubbles without going over the lines? the importance of black ink versus blue ink versus pencil?
A pure huckster who disseminates worse than worthless advice with much fanfare. 100% sure.
Amendment to above statement: he may not be a "pure" huckster, but he is a purveyor of worse than worthless advice. It is easy to prove that some of his advice is not only erroneous but is actually detrimental to your winning chances if followed.
Soon we'll learn the point of the survey. One ignoramus responded "stupid contrived question", presumably because he can't answer or appreciate it. Let's face it, if you won't even attempt a face-up poker problem with only one round then you're probably not a favorite in a regular game!
The problem is instructive about bluffing and calling strategies, looking forward to determine the future impact of your decisions, and the value of a drawing hand in pot-limit poker. The answer is always raise/call/fold to maximize expectation, but you need to analyze the subsequent round(s) to understand why.
The survey shows how useful this board is to educate and resolve disagreement about basic principles.
There are potential problems with subjective interpretations of "confidence", the issue of round-off error with respect to 100%, and potential misinterpretations of the problem.
I presume our "confidence" should not be based on somebody else's post. But note the first (and correct) 100% confident answer was by "M". He was joined by Tom Weideman, JMike, and Louie Landale. It would be useful for somebody to compile a list of "votes" for the answers. This would help identify the serious posters.
Confucious writes: "One ignoramus responded "stupid contrived question", presumably because he can't answer or appreciate it."
I love the presumers and the assumers. I guess it never occurs to them that the question is actually stupid and contrived. The real test by the questioner would have been to make the question applicable to a modern common game , like hold'em or 7stud. This would have shown some brilliance on the part of the questioner. This would allow both true poker players and insightless calculator button pushers (of course the sycophant has tons of insight...LOL) alike could solve the problem. The other rare group, the true poker players and theorists (of which I am one of the few), would gain by watching how the mediocrities react and further learn how to exploit their predictability. This is more advantageous than answer a question which is at least ten years old, and well known to true experts.
Confucious insightfully adds :" Let's face it, if you won't even attempt a face-up poker problem with only one round then you're probably not a favorite in a regular game! "
No. Let's face it. You won't see Lenny Martin or Mickey Coleman or others like myself posting to this type of question. Honestly, the people that post to this type of question are 70% mediocrities that have no insight. I am personally aware of several posters that did respond that are winning players, so my percentage is probably accurate.
Confucious : "The problem is instructive about bluffing and calling strategies, looking forward to determine the future impact of your decisions, and the value of a drawing hand in pot-limit poker. The answer is always raise/call/fold to maximize expectation, but you need to analyze the subsequent round(s) to understand why. "
The phrase "let the blind lead the blind" comes to mind here.
The most important thing the insightless among you should learn from this theoretical question is the absurdity of being so certain of anything. Also, you should learn to read what people are actually posting and learn to ignore the baggage. Those of you that can't, don't worry, you are my favorite fishes.
Now I don't have time right now to baby sit you anymore. Put away the books for a moment and let some wisdom in. Those blind among seem to fail to understand that I have shown you in a way that you will remember, how foolish and over confident you have been. I have done you a great service. I am not going to apologize for manner. To at the highest levels you will have to learn to deal with more than my comparatively mild banter.
Of course maybe its safer to just stay home and solve contrived game theory questions.
The real lesson is that there is room for both theory and practice.
I find it rather amazing that some seem to think the two are in some way mutually exclusive, or that theory must best be demonstrated by commonly played poker forms. By the way, this example could very easily have been demonstrated using 6th/7th Street action in pot-limit 7-card stud as it is played in Europe, but why not use the simplest form possible for illustration purposes?
It appears to me that you are creating a dichotomy where none truly exists.
I am speaking of course about The Important Theoretical Question-Quiz-Survey below. It is now time to try to persuade those who disagree with you why you are right. Keep in mind my assumption that the one card draw will try to bluff the pat hand fairly often, but not too much, after the draw. Given that, there is ONLY one correct answer as to the pat hand's preflop play. Period.
This was obviously a good question if I do say so myself, since all three possible answers were so well represented. Could someone do me a favor and put up a tally of how those three answers came out?
Eventually I will give a succinct clearcut explanation of why the correct answer is in fact what it is. But for now it will help all of you more, to debate the answer among yourselves. I will consider the debate a success if most are eventually persuaded as to what the right answer is, without my interference. There were at least three regular posters who I was quite surprised got this wrong. Hopefully they will publicly change their mind before I come back with the answer.
As an aside, I considered jumping in midstream to suggest that the degrees of certainty that most of you put on your answers were amazingly high especially if you were factoring in all of the previous replies, some by known thoughtful posters, that disagreed with equal certainty. I am curious to know whether those previous replies were ignored, unread, or in fact considered by those later posters who persisted with 95% or higher degrees of certainty in spite of all that opposition.
This was an important question for several reasons. For one because it illustrates a general poker principle (to be mentioned later) that is obviously poorly understood that applies to all games. (To that one naysayer, I picked this contrived example only because the math is simple and the solution is not debatable.) But it is also important because it has shown us that even apparantly excellent players can be confused about important stuff. And that their egos are such that they are willing to be certain about things they have no right to be certain of, especially in the face of serious disagreement.
Now let the debate begin.
Although a bit hard to tell (some unclear answers) it looks like the results are:
Fold: 17 @ avg 88%
Call: 16 @ avg 88%
Raise: 14 @ avg 86%
My thoughts:
He has 14 cards of 42 to beat you, for a 38% chance of making the best hand.
He has a 38% chance of winning the money in the pot before the draw plus another future pot of the same amount (since you will call a pot size bet after the draw). So he has a 38% chance of winning double the predraw pot.
You have a 62% chance of winning the current pot plus some percent chance of winning another future pot of the same amount (since you will catch him bluffing a certain percentage of the time). The lower this percentage, the worse off you are.
Where x is the predraw pot;
Where y is his post draw bluffing percentage:
Your EV is:
(0.62)(x) + (2xy) - (0.38)(2)(x) = EV
or
(1.24y)(x) + (0.76)(x) = EV
Therefore, if you plan to call 100% of the time after the draw, he has to be bluffing 61% of the time for a predraw call to be correct.
So, I guess I'm changing my answer to fold after all since I consider 61% far above the level he will bluff at.
If you NEVER call a post flop bet, your EV would be:
With same variables..
(0.62)(x) - (0.38)(x) - (y)(x) = EV
So he has to bluff 24% of the time to get back to even.
In the end, I don't think call or raise matters so much, as in both cases, its simply a question of his bluffing frequency versus your calling frequency. If you think you can out game theory him by calling at a better frequency than he bluffs, raise. If you don't think you can, fold.
Very interested to hear the other answers.
He could draw one of the following cards to beat you any one of four 4s, three 6s, three 7s, three 8s and three 9s. From my count I get 16 outs for the K high draw. Did I miss something???
nt
nt/
I made a typo on # of outs (it is 16 not 14), but the 38% number that is used in all calculations is correct.
Hi Dave O.
Is the information imbalance the key to this problem? Player B (with the 9 low) can't bet or raise post-draw because he won't be called when ahead and will be raised when behind. Regardless of whether Player B calls or raises, doesn't Player A (with the bicycle draw) have a positive situation even if he checks after the draw 100% of the time?
When Player B calls the $100, Player A takes down the $300 pot 4 times out of 10, and loses $0 additional dollars when he misses (net $1,200 free dollars). When Player B raises $300, Player A's call of the raise gets him $500 4 times out of 10 (+$2,000) and costs $300 6 times (-$1,800) making the call a $200 positive play. Player B is giving Player A either a freeroll or an overlay on his call of your raise, since Player B can't bet when checked to.
I expect things just get even worse for Player B if Player A comes out betting after the draw unless game theory tells him how to call the bluffs and fold his losers. I think B should fold to the pre-draw bet.
I am 99.44% certain that CALL is the correct answer.
I'm going to talk about EVs on the assumption that the $100 in antes didn't "come from" anyone. (Exercise to the reader: show that the conclusion is the same, with the EV of each option being $50 less than I derive below, if you want to say you had to cough up $50 of the ante and retain that fact in the computation.)
So the EV of folding is zero. I hope that's not controversial, given the above assumption.
Let's compute the EV of calling. I throw in my $100 (since this is a result of the decision I'm on, I have to call this a lost $100 if I end up losing it later on -- again, I hope this isn't controversial) and the bad guy draws one card. Out of every 42 games, 16 times (4 fours, 3 sixes, 3 sevens, 3 eights, 3 nines) he draws a winning hand, and 26 times he draws a losing hand. Since he's a game theory student and knows that I am, he knows
- if he checks, I am just going to turn my hand over and try to win the pot ("never bet on the river when the only time you get called is when you are beaten")
- so slowplaying doesn't help him so he should always bet with a winner
- a 2:1 strength-to-bluff ratio is correct in a pot limit game (1)
So 16 times he is going to bet on strength, 8 times he is going to bluff, and 18 times he is going to check and "go quietly into that good night".
Since I'm a student of game theory, I know that calling half the time maximizes my guaranteeable gain (or minimizes my unavoidable loss). (1)
Since he's bluffing optimally, it doesn't matter how often I call, but just for the purists out there, I'll compute the EV assuming he bluffs optimally and I call half the time.
8 times he bets for value, I call and lose. I've lost $400 (the initial $100 I called, plus the $300 I call now.)
8 times he bets for value, I fold and lose $100.
4 times he bluffs, I call and win $500.
4 times he bluffs, I fold and lose $100.
18 times he checks, I check and win $200.
Total: +$1,200. EV per hand: $28.57
Now let's compute the EV of raising if the opponent only calls the raise. I've dumped $400 into the pot. The optimal bluffing argument remains the same but the numbers are a little different:
8 times he bets $900 for value, I call and lose a total of $1300.
8 times he bets for value, I fold and lose $400.
4 times he bluffs, I call and win $1400 (the antes, his pre-draw $400, and his $900 bluff.)
4 times he bluffs, I fold and lose $400.
18 times he checks, I check and win $500.
Total: -$600 EV/hand: -$14.29
So it looks like I'm a favorite for the antes, but a loser for any money that goes into the pot from the point I'm on my initial decision. The opponent, being a good student of game theory, knows this as well. If I raise before the draw the bastard is going to re-raise me. Now if I fold I've lost $400, and I'll bet calling is less bad, so I'll call. Now I've invested $1300 in there with $1400 that I can win, and I'm going to have to answer a $2700 bet after the draw:
8 times he bets for value, I call and lose $4000
8 times he bets for value, I fold and lose $1400
4 times he bluffs, I call and win $4100
4 times he bluffs, I fold and lose $1300
18 times he checks, I check and win $1400
Total: -6800 EV/hand: -$161.90
So the choices are
CALL $ 28.57 FOLD $ 0.00 RAISE $-161.90
and I call. The 99.44% certainty stems from the possibility that I've made an arithmetic error or that the problem poser is waiting in the wings with some kind of "aha, but you assumed..." up his sleeve.
Yours sincerely etc.
--JMike
(1) I did not provide a convincing argument that the 2:1 strength-to-bluff ratio and the toss-a-coin-and-call strategies are optimal. "The reader" (2) is invited to experiment and see how other strategies are exploitable.
(2) Mathematician-to-English translation: "The rest is left as an exercise to the reader." --> "I'm too f'n lazy to write this all out."
I agree and see where I made my mistake in not reading the problem carefully.
If there is $200 in the pot after opponent makes a $100 bet, isn't your max raise $300 (100 to call and raise the size of the pot = 200)?
I've never played pot limit, so this is confusing.
n/t
.
Matt,
In pot limit you can add your call to the pot and then raise that amount. In this case Player A bets $100 into a $100 pot. Player B can call the $100 bet and raise the size of the pot (which is now $300 incuding B's call) so he can make it $400.
Note that player A (who has just bet $100 can RERAISE the amount of his call of Player B's raise plus the pot.
Regards,
Rick
n/t
JMike,
You wrote: I'm going to talk about EVs on the assumption that the $100 in antes didn't "come from" anyone. (Exercise to the reader: show that the conclusion is the same, with the EV of each option being $50 less than I derive below, if you want to say you had to cough up $50 of the ante and retain that fact in the computation.)
So the EV of folding is zero. I hope that's not controversial, given the above assumption."
I disagree strongly. I believe I made mistakes on my first run through but the EV of player B always folding has to be minus $50 per hand.
Also, I don't have time today to read the rest of your post but I would think since player A is drawing to 42 unknown cards we should take the approach of analyzing 42 trials versus the two (or three - see the post I'm about to write above) pot sizes with different bluffing frequencies by player A and perhaps even different calling frequencies by player B. - Comments?
Regards,
Rick
Fair enough. If the $50 has come from us then every branch of every decision has $50 subtracted from it. The pots where we lose, we account an extra $50 loss, and the pots where we win, we win $50 less because we said it came from our own stack. In this case the arguments all stand the same, except the final results are
CALL $-21.43 FOLD $-50.00 RAISE $-211.90
This is basically the exercise that was left to the reader, and I guess I didn't take the math all the way out, so there's still a little bit of exercise left for the reader. :)
--JMike
No time now but I agree with your view on the antes, Rick...play ten hands folding each hand and you have lost $500 over ten hands = an EV of -$50 per hand. I didn't have time to read his entire post, however.
"... but the EV of player B always folding has to be minus $50 per hand."
This is not the case for question asked, which was what's the correct play after A bets $100. It's the same principle as not including what YOU put in the pot preflop and on the flop when calculating pot odds (and/or implied odds) for calling a turn bet. See?
Matt
Responses as of 4:55pm Eastern on Thursday:
RAISE (15): five 100%, two 90%, two 80%, two 75%, one 70%, one 50%, and two with no assessment.
CALL (15): seven 100%, two 99%, three 90%, one 70%, one 50%, one with no assessment.
FOLD (16): five 100%, one 99%, one 98%, three 90%, two 80%, one 75%, two 70%, one 50%.
I interpreted "FOLD!" as fold 90%. I interpreted the two votes that said "not sure" as 50% confidence.
I did not include the following votes in the above categories:
CALL 33%
Raise or call based on an assessment of the opponent's play
baggins (his last vote was "it depends").
Awesome how this question got such an evenly split response.
--JMike
so did i lose all respect for wavering and then ending up with 'it depends' as my final post? i hope not. im just not too good with EV equations. we were allowed to go with our instinct, which is where a lot of the percentages came from, i think, not the equations themselves.
I do not think you are a moron. But I do think you behaved in this instance in a moronic way.
You don't think its absurd to think you are 100% right and five minutes later change your answer?
The reason there is a wide diversity of answers is that the problem is poorly stated. As I mentioned in my "final" answer, it really depends on whether the player bluffs too much or bluffs to little.
The way that the problem was stated, a reader could easily come to the conclusion that the opponent bluffed too much or bluffed too little. There is a big difference between saying that a player "sometimes bluffs" versus saying that a player "bluffs correctly".
Regardless, it was an interesting problem to work out.
- Andrew
You don't have to assume that he bluffs optimally in order to come up with the correct solution.
You just don't know if he bluffs optimally, and you don't know in which direction he might be erring if he is erring. You don't need to know more than the information David provided, and I don't see how David provided any clue as to whether the player tended to err in any given direction regarding bluffing frequency.
M,
That is why I couched my answer to the question as a function of his bluffing frequency. In general, when someone tells me that a player "sometimes" bluffs, this is a strong indicator that the player bluffs too much. Practically speaking know bluffers bluff too much, otherwise they usually wouldn't be known as bluffers. I'm sure that some people might read "sometimes" as rarely. One persons practical understanding of the problem can be very different from another persons.
This is why there was such a diversity in responses. Questions which can be interpreted in different ways will generate multiple different answers.
Still, it was an interesting problem to work out.
- Andrew
I see where you were coming from.
I just thought David was not telling us that he was a "known bluffer", but rather telling us as a matter of fact that he sometimes bluffs.
>>As an aside, I considered jumping in midstream to suggest that the degrees of certainty that most of you put on your answers were amazingly high especially if you were factoring in all of the previous replies, some by known thoughtful posters, that disagreed with equal certainty. I am curious to know whether those previous replies were ignored, unread, or in fact considered by those later posters who persisted with 95% or higher degrees of certainty in spite of all that opposition.<<
I answered fairly early. When the responses started coming in and I saw who disagreed with me I new my answer was probably wrong. As far as being 100% certain, I look at it as anwering a question on a test. Yes I believe my reasoning is correct but it doesn't mean that I couldn't be convinced otherwise and shown where it was wrong. So using the number 100% is ridiculous. So what?
>>This was an important question for several reasons. For one because it illustrates a general poker principle (to be mentioned later) that is obviously poorly understood that applies to all games<<
I wouldn't draw that conclusion necessarily.
>>But it is also important because it has shown us that even apparantly excellent players can be confused about important stuff.<<
Sure I agree.
>>And that their egos are such that they are willing to be certain about things they have no right to be certain of, especially in the face of serious disagreement.<<
Again I wouldn't draw that conclusion necessarily. I think you're reading way too much into the confidence figures that people gave.
". . .even apparantly excellent players can be confused about important stuff."
I don't think I qualify as excellent (although I win) but I do confess to confusion about the problem. I answered "A", was convinced that "B" was correct by a poster here who was kind enough to email me his math, and now am convinced that "C" is correct.
I hope David will give a clear answer to the problem and to the important general principle it illustrates. I must also confess to finding David's responses cryptic at times. If I dont' get it, I need a hammer over the head, not a hope that others will elaborate.
My analysis was based on perhaps 30 seconds of thought: The other dude only has 16 outs...therefore, folding can't be right. But if I raise, the other dude has implied odds in his favour (as he knows my hand and I wont know his) particularly if he bluffs at a good rate.
Therefore, I call and I am 100% certain of it.
Now, I am told that being 100% certain is foolish. Well, maybe it is but I agree with you...too much emphasis is being put on this aspect of the quiz.
That said, the quiz is a very good one. I answered without looking at any responses. But I see now that there is a lot more thought required to this problem than what I put into it.
"Now, I am told that being 100% certain is foolish. "
Lawyer, lawyer pants in the foyer!
Vince
David,
You wrote: "As an aside, I considered jumping in midstream to suggest that the degrees of certainty that most of you put on your answers were amazingly high especially if you were factoring in all of the previous replies, some by known thoughtful posters, that disagreed with equal certainty. I am curious to know whether those previous replies were ignored, unread, or in fact considered by those later posters who persisted with 95% or higher degrees of certainty in spite of all that opposition."
In my case I posted without looking at the other answers. I ran into some mental blocks when trying to solve the problem and am far less sure of my answer now. If I get time tomorrow morning I'll rework it and post my notes, flaws and all.
Regards,
Rick
I geniunely thought you cared about the poker students under your leadership.
You are NOT doing them a favor by coddling them.
You are NOT doing them a favor by pretending that some outdated contrived example will help them in the real world. This is less true of those that can extrapolate the data. These types don't need you. don't u see? The fact is that a good poker player will take a 100 variables in two seconds be able to sift through them. This is mainly by cancelling things out. by knowing what cancels what out is how you can get quick accurate answers. teach them this.
Regular posters like Tom H. should be playing profitably at the highest levels. yet they have been playing 3-6 at Paradise for god's sake.
Kick their asses. This mamzee pamzee crap might be great to make the book worms feel like they are superstars, but reality is going to bite them in the rear.
No more baby sitting. I'm not going even try to help these puppies.
You me sick! And to think just one post ago you were my idol!
Vince
Idol worship and approval is being by sought out many here, not me.
The fact is that these contrived examples have very limited use in the real world. This is more true when its a game that isn't even played, and alot of readers wouldn't even be certain of the rules. Yet somehow in all this, they think they can get a 100% certain answer, given all the misinterpretations and all that. Good for them. This is ABSOLUTELY why chumps get taken for their entire stacks routinely in no limit.
Sklansky is doing a disservice to his flock here. This is the reality. He is perpetuating the myth that these types of questions will prepare real poker players for real battle. It won't. It will prepare you for participation in these types of forums and thats about it.
I am dissappointed in Vince Lepore. He is one of the few people here who has enough UMPH to cut through the muck. Kick these people's asses. Its a disgrace that serious players such as these are treading water at 3-6. And much of it is the fault of this game theory propaganda.
"I am dissappointed in Vince Lepore. "
Sure blame me! You are once again my idol! You do not however understand what I understand. Those that come to this forum crave the posts of David "The Mighty Oz" Sklansky. sometimes you must let a ew things slide to get what you want. I am giving David the benefit of the doubt. I will read his answer to this question this evening. If it is not on the money to how this question helps a poker player. I will join your band wagon. You must have misinterpreted my last two posts as I did yours. You see I thought you were trying to be a cheap imitation of the beloved PV. I was wrong. Apology made.
Vince
I like David Sklansky too. I want him to do his readership a favor, not lead them down the path.
Further, my oppositon (even though he won't admit it), is what prompted his above longer than average post. Trust me. That's what's pokers about, seeing how and why people are acting. My manner and opposition has forced him out of the floor boards. I am shaking up the puppies and have them scurrying around convinced that I am the buffoon when I am just trying to actually show them how the real world operates. Confused, they head for their TOP poker and their simulators, knowing the answer to all their troubles will be solved once they learn how the contrived example applies. Then the poker world will be an oyster. In spite of the fact that they will convince themselves that they are right and I am a buffoon, some of them will see the light. They will harden themselves and begin to see how the opposition might think. They will learn principles based on the real world and they have a large advantage over those that think in terms of headup contrived examples. Or maybe they won't. Their problem.
Now we of course see how it applies in the real world too, from the fingertips of DS:
limit lowball! (well grampa is in trouble this weekend).
Can't YOU see that it is not the example, but the principle, that is important here?
Who cares if the game is TIDDLYWINKS, if it illustrates an important gambling principle.
Maybe you should pay attention, read your TOP, do the math, and LEARN SOMETHING.
Cant YOU see that bad examples cloud principles?
Cant YOU see that the I see the forest and YOU are focusing the tree? I see both the forest and the tree simultaneously.
I GENUINELY believe that this type of problem is NOT helping you. It's leading you to a false sense of expertise that does not apply to the real world. This is the road to nowhere. It CAN apply if the right people extrapolate, but why make all the others lose their way? This type of thing clouds not crystalizes. I am trying to show some of you who are being lead astray that there is a clearer path, yet apparently still the road less travelled.
Or are you 100% certain of your position on this too?
Or would you like to retract your 100% position and post another 100% one?
I do not blame you for this. You are a victim of this forum and its clouding mentality. I blame Sklansky. He knows enough about poker and real life to understand that he is leading MOST of you down the garden path. Hey, but if you like the smell of the flowers, no problem.
First, it is not a bad example. It illustrates the principle it was intended to illustrate clearly and without the extra unnecessary baggage which might be present in, say, a stud example.
Once you understand the principle and the math it shouldn't matter what example was used.
It only clouds things if you don't really understand the principle and the math.
It's kind of hard for me to see how knowledge of general principles would make someone a worse player. It's pretty easy for me to see how lack of knowledge of true principles might, though.
I don't see why you seem to be so fixated on the exampe. Maybe that's because you don't yet understand the math or the principles at work. Reading and working through chapter 19 in Sklansky's revised TOP a few times should help, though.
"Clouds not crystallizes"---the only way I know to crystallize things is by understanding the facts. Not understanding is where the clouds are gathered.
Do you have a problem with someone being 100% sure about something and being correct as well? Aren't there a few things you are both 100% sure of and are right about?
"First, it is not a bad example. It illustrates the principle it was intended to illustrate clearly and without the extra unnecessary baggage which might be present in, say, a stud example.
Once you understand the principle and the math it shouldn't matter what example was used. "
I see now. Of course. It shouldn't matter what example. But wait? If it shouldn't matter, why shouldn't the original question be posted as a modern practical example? Surely the Great Sklansky can easily do this in a clear and concise way. Because if he couldn't, wouldn't that mean that most lesser theorists and poker players would have trouble applying the knowledge to real world situations? No. Couldn't be. Surely the average poster here sees how this immediately fits in with his 6-12 limit hold'em game. Because the example doesnt matter, and its easy to see how a headsup game with all the cards seen and exposed in a game nobody even truly plays and the bets are only pot sized; well damn. I can see where I have went wrong.
Never mind seeing the tree instead of the forest, this is seeing a twig instead of the tree.
One last point, then I will leave the puppies to their bone chewing: There is some value in these types of questions, as long as you people with no true poker insight aren't fooling yourselves into thinking that you are experts or even CLOSE to being expert if you answer this. This would leave you poorly equiped to deal with the real world. Those of you that understand this already don't need me or Sklansky or anyone for that matter.
Good luck puppies
It's really amazing to me that you seem to feel the choice of example matters so much.
Fine.
Do you think that the average player here can properly apply a general principle derived from this contrived example to a real game? Do you realize how many logical and theoretical steps and chances at misapplication there are? you can barely put a routine post together without coming back to change it.
If this can be easily done, explain why it wasn't given in that context in the first place?
I am NOT saying this does not have value. I am saying this does NOT help the vast majority of posters here. And there is a subgroup of the ones that get this right, that are WRONGLY going to assume they understand poker. THEY DON'T. This does not mean that the two are mutually exclusive. You can understand poker and get this question, but MORE importantly you can GET this question, and be utterly useless at poker.
I am not going to post further on this. You people can just basque in the sunshine of mediocrity.
I have tried enough.
Here is a little pop quiz for you. Just a one letter choice please, followed by how sure you are of your answer.
Question: What does 2 + 7 equal?
A. 5
B. -4
C. 9
I can answer your question, but first, to assist me, could you answer some of these:
1)What number system are you using?
2)What mathematical conventions are you using?
3)What is the probablitity that you have misposted?
For example, is there a more than zero % chance (from my perspective) that you posted:
"Question: What does 2 + 7 equal?
A. 5
B. -4
C. 9 "
when you actually meant to post:
"What does 2 * 7 equal?
A 5
B 14
C 9 "
Do I still need to answer? Or has the forest begun to emerge?
No wonder you seem confused. I would be too. Don't try to make it more complicated than it is; the quiz I posted for you is exactly as it appears at face value.
Can you answer this quiz with roughly 100% certainty in the correctness of your answer? And if you can, please realize that the problem in the other quiz posted by DS is also subject to cold hard analysis and arithmetic and yields a definitely correct answer just as this one does. Of course very few people who don't have a clue about game theory would understand this, or that it could be so.
If you don't read chapter 19 in the new TOP and do the math and work through it all a few times, only God can help you because everyone else will eventually lose patience with you. Having an opinion about something when you actually know something about the subject is fine. Having an opinion about something one knows virtually nothing about is ridiculous and makes one appear a buffoon. Holding to such an opinion when many intelligent people are telling you that you should learn something about it, and refusing to do so, is plain mulishness.
The Clouds are Ignorance, Vince. Now and throughout all human history.
As you might have guessed from my above post, I am guessing you might really be Vince (who has often expressed his contempt for the value of game theory in real-world poker situations). I am far from 100% certain that you are Vince, however---more like 30%-60%.
If you want to understand things, look to the theory behind them. If you want just to be able to do things, look for a fairly simple set of immediately practical instructions.
I'll put my long-term money on the person who understands things over the one who merely applies techniques.
Game theory is part of understanding poker, and I'm very glad David Sklansky posted this quiz because it gave me the needed spur to get off my lazy mental duff and actually work through a concrete problem. It helped bring the vague theory closer to home and I learned something as I went through the exercise-- something I can see applications for in some of the poker games I play.
Better to understand why and then come to understand how than to understand how first and never get to understanding why.
"No wonder you seem confused. I would be too. Don't try to make it more complicated than it is; the quiz I posted for you is exactly as it appears at face value."
You are confused. The certainty of all. Is there or is there not a non zero probalitity that you posted the wrong question, or that I could conceivably misinterpret it? If you believe that it is non zero, you are very, very foolish.
Would you like me to go through all the past posts that you misposted, then corrected, then corrected yet again? Or would that prove how foolish you are being? Perhaps one mightly quickly even go over to the medium stakes board to show my point. You, are a poster boy, that proves my point.
"And if you can, please realize that the problem in the other quiz posted by DS is also subject to cold hard analysis and arithmetic and yields a definitely correct answer just as this one does"
IF you have made all the correct assumptions and correct interpretation, you have a near 100% chance of being correct. NEVER 100%. This would mean you should be willing to be the lives of all the people of the world against a quark. If you won't it means a probability less than 100%. Even ifs an infinitely small number.
Look, go back to your books. You are having fun here. Thats ok. Good for you. Maybe you are even smart enough to make use of this information. If you are wise enough to put away the bad type of ego that you have demonstrated in this thread you may even do well. I strongly recommend you stay away from no limit. You WILL lose your money with your idealogy. I seem to remember a time when you insisted Sklansky was wrong about an issue. Would we like to bring that up?
"Having an opinion about something one knows virtually nothing about is ridiculous and makes one appear a buffoon."
Yes, it does. One does very much look like a buffoon when they insist they are right yet they are wrong. Again, would we like to go back to the above mentioned DS discussion? Would you like to consult DS or Tom W opinion on 100% certainty? Since you seem to have an affinity for appeals to authority.
LOL.
Certainly I have been wrong on these forums before, and as soon as I discover that I am I try to correct the error as quickly as possible.
IN NO OTHER CASES, however, was I asked to express my degree of certainty as David requested in this one. Therefore I worked this problem through a total of six times (in three different ways) before posting, just to be sure. I admit I have a tendency to post hastily and sometimes without proper care, as well as a tendency for careless errors. That is why I took the above precautions in this particular case.
If you are talking about the philosophical implications of never being totally sure of anything, I suggest that is a different subject worthy perhaps of a different discussion. However, being 99.99% sure of something for purposes of this discussion, in my mind, qualifies as 100%. And if YOU aren't 100% sure that 2+7=9, or at least 99.99% sure of it, then perhaps that question should be discussed next.
Plus there were a couple of other principles which applied here, and everything produced the same answer.
M,
I am impressed how you reacted to my personal attacks. You have demonstrated impressive emotional control.
Of course there is nothing with being wrong. Not at all. We are all wrong at times. But that IS the point. If you want to say that 99.99% is 100% for all practical purposes, yes it is, for all practical purposes. Absolutely. Good poker players deal with almosts and maybes and sort ofs.
Personally, I don't care an iota about mistakes and misposts. Small minds concern themselves with that. But the fact that you (and all people) are capable of misinterpreting, miscalculating and a myriad of other variables should lead you to think long and hard about how certain or not you are about things. Thats my point about that.
Not anywhere once did I say you were wrong about the facts of the case. Nor would I care that much. You may think I am a buffoon but I was already quite familiar with a version of this question. I nonetheless still maintain that it is not that important. further I know with near certainty that at least two of the posters here that got the question "wrong" are heavy duty winning players that would be a match for almost anybody. And that too is the point.
You have defended yourself and your views well. You are no puppy.
I really have no further energy to debate this. My concern was never people like yourself who can think for themselves.
I don't think you are a buffoon (though you may have acted like one--just as you probably don't think I am actually a fool even if I may have acted like one;-)).
NOW:
Here is a pot-limit 7-card Stud example. This game is played in European cardrooms.
You and your heads-up opponent each have $20,000 in front of you each ante $25 and the forced bring-in is also $25. Thus the pot is $100 after you call your opponent's bring-in. Your opponent is a good player who will sometimes bluff. You both have real rags and neither makes a move on the pot. You both continue to catch mostly rags and the hand appears to be going towards a checked down hand. However on 6th Street something interesting happens. You make hidden Queens and your opponent catches a card that is connected and suited to his door card. You check and he now shows you an open-end straight-flush and bets the pot. His hand, not in this order, is 789T all hearts with the 2d 3c. You fumble your cards and expose your lone pair of Queens and you hold no hearts, no 6's and no Jacks. What is your best move at this point: call, raise, or fold? Note that he has 15 outs and cannot catch a pair to beat your Queens, so the example is very close to the example DS provided.
Maybe you don't intend to go to Europe and play pot-limit stud, but others do play it and will play it so the example has real-world relevance to some.
Does this example work for you?
Here your opponent has 15 outs from 40 remaining cards instead of 16 outs from 42 remaining cards, which should change the math slightly but not enough to change the correct answer to the question.
I am assuming one is only allowed to bet the pot in this situation and the opponent w/the smooth draw will bet optimally after the draw.
If the smooth draw bets after the draw he will be offering his opponent 2-1 on his call. Therefore the optimal bluffing frequency for the smooth draw is 1/3.
Now lets calculate the EV if pat hand just calls before the draws and checks and calls after the draw.
There are 42 different cards, with 16 the smooth draw out draws, w/8 he bluffs and w/the other 18 he folds.
So 42(EV)= 18(300/2) + 8(900/2) - 16(900/2)
= 2700- 3600 = -900
Thus his EV is -900/42 = -21 3/7
Now since EV is -50 if he folds every time,
calling is better than folding.
One should note that if smooth draw will continue to raise and reraise before the draw it should be clear that raising would be best. If the rough hand could go all in before the draw it would clearly be to his advantage as he will win 26/42 of the time.
Now if rough hand raises and the smmooth draws just calls his EV would similarly be given by
42(EV)=18(1800/2) + 8(3(1800/2)) - 16(3(1800/2))
Which is more than -100.
So if the rough draw tries to raise and reraise as long as the smooth draw is smart enough to leave enough on the table for a pot size bet after the draw the rough hand's expectation will become more and more negative. But if he dumb enough to continue raising and reraising before the draw raising is the best strategy, however one must be very sure the smooth hand is this dumb before raising and reraising.
In fact one may note that the EV after the draw for the rough hand (given that he still has enough money to call a pot size bet) is
42(EV) =18(P/2) + 8(3P/2) - 16(3P/2)=-3P
where P is the size of the pot before the draw.
So I think the best play is to check and call.
(I didn't vote the first time).
Raising is correct because the only possible opponent that still plays this silly game is Mason Malmuth. And being the rock solid tight ass he is being acccused of being over on RGP he would fold to a raise %100 of the time. So given that you play against Mason raising must be correct. Justify your way out of that one mr mamzy pamzy!
vince
only possible opponent that still plays this silly game .....Justify your way out of that one mr mamzy pamzy!
Ok. It seems there is hope.
Let's see, I read the problem a day or two ago, then started thinking about it when I went to the john tonight. I went to bed to go to sleep, worked out the numbers in my head and came in to post. Once I read that M and I had the same answer I figured I hadn't made any unforseen errors. This was a cool question. Thanks David. I especially liked the fact that your EV quiz gave us half of the necessary information to solve this question.
You and a friend are playing a game heads-up. There's a machine between you that contains three red marbles and two blue marbles. It dispenses one of these marbles when you push a button. If it spits out a red one, you win. Otherwise, your buddy wins.
The catch is, only your friend can see the marble when it is dispensed, and he always gets to bet first.
Each of you starts by ante-ing $10,000. You both have $1 million before the ante. There is no betting allowed before the draw other than the antes.
After the draw, the rules are that your friend may now (a) check or (b) bet the pot ($20,000). If he checks, you can check or bet the pot. If either of you bets, the other can (a) cold, (b) call the amount of the bet, or (c) call the bet and raise the pot.
Given these rules, would you rather the ante be higher or lower, and by how much?
i would ante 990,000 more
This Sklansky problem is a good exercise for the 60-watt light bulbs of the group like me. I can’t rework the problem until late tonight or tomorrow morning but maybe you guys can give me (and I suppose the others who are struggling) some help here.
Question 1: I believe the EV for player B if he folds every time is $50 per event because that is his ante. The ante did not float in from outer space, as one poster below seems to think. Is this correct?
Question 2: It seems a good way to approach this problem is to calculate EV for the various pot sizes over 42 trials, since there are 42 unknown cards. We all agree that player B always stands pat and player A will bet all his made draws (16 cards) and bluff bet based on a certain number of cards that cripple his hand. Is this basic approach correct?
Question 3: I made some math mistakes yesterday but it is apparent that the smaller the ante, the more powerful player A’s hand becomes due to the power of post draw betting and bluffing. Is player A allowed to RERAISE the maximum if player B decides to raise.
Question 4: I’m sure player A will use game theory to determine the correct bluffing frequency and player B knows this. Will player B have to counter with game theory for the correct calling percentage?
All help and comments appreciated.
Regards,
Rick
Question 1: I believe the EV for player B if he folds every time is $50 per event because that is his ante. The ante did not float in from outer space, as one poster below seems to think. Is this correct?
it doesnt matter, rick, because you are comparing relative EV for 3 choices from this point on, to pick the best one. so in general EV of folding is "0". if any of the other choices have EV > 0 they are better.
Question 4: I’m sure player A will use game theory to determine the correct bluffing frequency and player B knows this. Will player B have to counter with game theory for the correct calling percentage?
if he bluffs optimally it doesnt matter how you call, you can only break even.
Q1. It depends. If you calculate EV for the decision to ante $50, and you fold every time, then yes your EV would be minus $50. If you calculate EV for some later decision, as was the case for this queston, then the money in the pot is not yours and EV of folding is zero.
Q2. Yes. JQ's was was pretty direct/concise/cool as well.
Q3. Well, it is poker, right? Yes.
Q4. If B wants to maximize possible wins and minimize possible losses when A bluffs more or less than is optimal, then yes. What's nice is B does not have to constantly reevaluate -- the single decision helps both cases. Of course, if B knew when A would bluff, there are more profitable and less costly (i.e. more correct) strategies to employ. If, if, if....
1) His ev if he folds every time is -50 period. For those who think its 0, think about what would happen if you aggreed to play this game: you get 98765 the other guy get A235K EVERY TIME and you ante 50 every time.
After you play 10 times if you fold you will be out 500, that not 0 EV!
2) I assumed the smooth draw bluffs optimally. That is he bluffs 1/3 of the time. I think this is a fair assumption for the problem.
3) I think Sklansky said all bets have to pot sized.
4) THere ism't much you can do if he bluffs optimally here. In fact if you always folded or always called your EV would be the same...
The principle is that once the ante goes into the pot it is no longer yours it belongs to the pot. I could complain that he worded the problem poorly but I think that's sour grapes and I don't care about being right (I care about the thinking behind why it is right). I re-read the post and I think it was clear enough. I made my mistake by being careless about reading the problem. I assumed it was a proposition when in reality it dealt with an actual poker game. Maybe I'm wrong about this. Anybody want to make odds on that? I would but I'm too chicken now to make an estimate for fear that it may be unrealistic.
The drawing hand has 16 outs, out of 42 unseen cards. In addition, to achieve the game theoretic optimal bluffing frequency, the drawing hand bluffs on 8 additional cards.
Once we assume that the drawing hand bluffs at the optimal frequency, since it doesn't matter how often the made hand calls, we can also assume that made hand folds whenever the drawing hand bets, whether or not the bet is a bluff. (The made hand can't actually do this, or the drawing hand will bluff more.)
In summary, the drawing hand bets after the draw and wins the pot, 24 out of 42 times. The drawing hand checks, and loses the pot, 18 out of 42 times. Thus, the made hand is a 24-18 dog to win the pot. Since the made hand is a dog, it makes no sense to raise before the draw, but since it is less than a 2-1 dog, it must call.
Assume bluffing frequency is as mentioned in other posts, ie 2-1.
Play the hand 42 times. Fold 42 times, lost $2100 antes.
TOTAL = -$2100 call 42 times,-18 times opponent does not bet =18*$150
-8 times does bet,bluff =8*$450
-16 times opponent makes hand,bet=16*-450
TOTAL = -$900
raise 42 times,-18 times opponent does not bet =18*$450
-8 times opponent bet,bluff =8*$1350
-16 times opponent makes hand,bet=16*-1350
TOTAL = -$2700
So it is obvious to call.
If you are the player with the pat 9-8 low, are you really going to do such detailed calculations before you decide to call, raise or fold? I think not. The only person that could do this in a few seconds is one of those special math whizzes.
I would raise before the draw, just call after the draw, and then wait for better opportunity to win my opponent's million.
-=-MouseEars
Sorry, Harold, but there is really nothing "detailed" about these calculations. If you have any understanding of poker (particularly big bet poker), it ought to be obvious that a hand with that many outs and the opportunity to bluff after the draw is the favorite here, but not a prohibitive one.
If you're raising before the draw here, your game needs help.
I disagree. The odds are ca. 3 to 2 against the drawing player making a hand that beats the pat 9-8 low. That is, the pat 9-8 will win 60 % of time and lose 40 % of the time. This is the way I saw this type of situation played in the lowball games in Gardena many, many years ago. Even if the drawing hand bet _blind_ after the draw, I would still call. Not only did I see the players in Gardena do this, I would do this if I had a hand with the joker and with a one car draw to the wheel and was on a rush.
When I mention "calculations" I'm not refering to the simple calculation of the outs and drawing odds, but the more elaborate ones presented in some posts.
These two high-rollers have a bank-roll of a million dollars each. Since the deck they used had no joker, I suppose they were just killing time until the Texas Hold'em dealer showed up for the heads-up, no-limit, freeze-out game.
This was a poorly-constructed problem to illustrate any "important theorectical question". Two high-rollers playing penny ante lowball? Give me a break!
-=-MouseEars
EV(call) = ((42-16-8)/42)*300-100 = 28,57
EV(fold) = 0
EV(raise) < 0
Excuse me but I believe you had to answer not calculate. U no speaka da english?
vince
I think the key to the problem is that Player B has “perfect information” while Player A has “imperfect information” (draw card is unknown to Player A).
My initial thought was that the lesson to be learned is that Player A’s hand (which is known by all to be the better hand 61.9% of the time) is actually unprofitable for Player A to play. My math has me concluding that the correct play is for Player A to call.
My math:
I’m focused on calculating Player B’s optimal bluff percentage, given his perfect information.
By my calculation, in response to either a call or a raise, Player B will optimally bluff 19.05% of the time. (Not sure why this works out to a 2/1 ratio, I calculated this by hand as the % at which Player A’s EV by calling after the draw and B’s bet = Player A’s EV by folding after the draw and B’s bet)
If Player B bluffs 19.05% of the time, Player A’s EV by calling is a loss of $21.30.
If Player B bluffs 19.05% of the time, Player A’s EV by raising (assuming no reraise by Player B) is a loss of $64.35 (though Player B would reraise any such raise for a greater expected loss).
Of course Player A’s EV by folding is a loss of $50. Thus, I conclude a “call” minimizes the expected loss.
On the internet forum sklansky writes:
"There are several reasons, some which I cannot divulge. Ones I can are that there is not enough difference between play money and .50-1.00 results. Another reason is that while it is simple to use game theory headup, multiway cannot be programmed by anybody who is not an expert himself. But again the biggest reason I seriously doubt this poster is related to confidential information given to me which is highly reliable."
"while it is simple to use game theory headup"
This of course means nothing. It has nothing to do with the below mythology perpetuation. Kim Confucious Lee is right.
For thoise interested we have started a new forum. It is called "Books/Software" and is a place where you can give your comments/reviews of (what else) books and software.
Mason,
While looking for the book forum on your home page (I bookmark all the individual forums without the links frame) I noticed you have a VINCE FORUM! A VINCE FORUM! No wonder he spends so much time defending you on RGP.
Good luck to both of you.
Regards,
Rick
Mason needs a lot of defending right here on 2 + 2, never mind on rgp. Why, isn't he the one that let me have my own forum? How could he possibly defend that without my help?
Hey Rick, your pretty and I have my own forum. Sounds fair to me.
vince
someone either didnt have time or they wimped out. don't let names and reputations be the order of the day.
I don't care what you think of me personally. fight for the truth of the matter.
"I don't care what you think of me personally. fight for the truth of the matter. "
Hey Divad,
There's a lunatic in your head and it's not me.
Vince
Let's say you have the 98765, and you know the drawing hand is known to never bluff. If so you are a 26-16 favorite, should raise before the draw, and fold if he bets after the draw. Don't keep reading unless you understand this.
Let's say that you can't stand to be robbed after the draw. Your opponent, knowing this, resolves never to bluff. He is a 26-16 dog but but you are laying four pot size bets (when you lose) to two pot size bets (when he checks and you win). Thus it would be better to fold immediately in this scenario. Don't keep reading unless you understand this.
Those who chose raise were probably thinking along the lines of the first paragraph. Those who chose fold were probably thinking along the lines of the second paragraph. But what about when the drawing hand bluffs fairly often? And what about if the pat hand doesn't automatically call after the draw?
Suppose the drawing hand decides to bet not only when he hits his 16 outs but also when he hits a king or queen (7 cards)? Let's even say he tells you his strategy. That means that when he does bet it is a 16-7 favorite that he has it. But you are getting only 2-1 on his pot size after the draw bet. So you should fold. But that means that he will win the initial pot 23 out of 42 times. He is the favorite to win the pot. Some of you may have realized this and thus assumed you should fold before the draw. Except you forgot that you were getting 2-1 on the before the draw bet. And you will win the pot 19 out of 42 times against such a player. So against him you should call before the draw. Don't keep reading unless you understand this.
What about when the player with the drawing hand decides to bluff with ten cards rather than seven (and he tells you his strategy)? Against this guy you should call whenever he bets after the draw. He will bluff ten times, have it 16 times and check 16 times. If the original pot contained a dollar (say half yours) and you called his one dollar predraw bet, you would altogether win $4.50 ten times, $1.50 16 times and lose $4.50 16 times for a net loss of $3 after 42 hands. But that is a lot better than losing 50 cents 42 times if you folded before the draw. So it would be wrong to fold. On the other hand raising before the draw would merely increase this three dollar loss since the above numbers are all merely magnified. Do not read further until you understand this.
At this point it should be clear that the drawing hand is in the driver's seat as long as he bluffs within a certain range of the time. He does not have to use optimal game theory strategy to actually have the "best hand". It is only because you are getting 2-1 on his predraw bet that keeps you from folding.(In fact it would be correct to fold if you were playing no limit and he made a mega predraw bet with lots more behind him. See why?) But is that 2-1 enough? In my first two examples, I postulated a drawing hand playing suboptimally who is also telling you his strategy. What if he plays even better and closed mouthed? Maybe against such an opponent it would be better to fold immediately. but it isn't. If you always call before the draw and flip a coin to decide whether to call after the draw, you must do better in the long run than if you folded every time. If you do that your opponnent will always do exactly the same regardless of his bluffing frequency. And it will average out to worse than he would do if you folded every time. For instance if he never bluffed you would win $1.50 26 times, lose $1.50 eight times, and lose 4.50 eight times for a net loss of nine dollars after forty two times (better than $21 if you always folded predraw). If he always bluffed you would lose $1.50 21 times, lose 4.50 eight times and win $4.50 13 times. That is also a nine dollar loss. The same for any other bluffing frequency. See why? Bottom line is that if you use game theory after the draw with your pat hand, which in this case means randomly calling half the time, you do better than if you give up predraw. (It is important to understand that the above calculations could have been done by assuming the initial pot came from others. The results would wind up exactly the same. Tom Haley's remark that he originally assumed the question was a proposition rather than a poker game implied the answer would be different if it was. That is not true. You merely adjust all the numbers fifty cents and compare it with breaking even rather than losing half a buck if you fold. And Tom Haley along with Rick Nebiolo and Andrew Prock were the three who surprised me with their wrong answers.
I had originally said I would make the explanation short and sweet. I changed my mind. Those who want a much more succinct explanation should read the post by JQ who did a great job.
Tom Weideman chided people for being so sure of their answers. Others took umbrage at that. But they shouldn't have. Unless you feel absolutely zero fuzziness in a poof of your position on issues like this, you should be aware you could easily be wrong. This is especially true when smart people are disagreeing with you. Tom also mentioned that those who fold may be basing that opinion on things I wrote in Getting The Best Of It. I didn't like the implication that there was incorrect information there. Only a misreading of that book would lead you to the wrong answer. In fact this exact problem was discussed in passing in the chapter A Poker Problem And A Paradox. How come nobody mentioned it?
There are three reasons why this theoretical problem has applications to day to day poker. I will sum them up quickly and let others discuss and elaborate on them.
1. Hands that can't improve are frequently underdogs or money losers to other hands that would win the pot less than half the time if someone was all in. If the made hand is stubborn and won't ever fold it wins the majority of the pots but is down money (compared to being all in) as long as the other hand bets when it is best and only sometimes when it is not. If on the other hand the made hand sometimes folds, the other hand wins more than half the pots as long as it sometimes bluffs. Either way you slice it, the made hand is worse off even if it is a small favorite hot and cold. By the way the other hand need not be a drawing hand . It can also be a hand that in your mind has a slightly less than 50% chance of being better than yours but when it is, it is a monster. The other hand is in a similar position because of future bets including bluffs.
2. The made hand that is a small favorite to be best is hurt by future bets even if the other guy is not bluffing optimally. Of course the closer to optimally he bluffs, the worse his hand can be where he will still have the best of it. But made hands that are only small hot and cold favorites are still the dog to the other hand unless he bluffs hardly at all or way to much.
3. In spite of the above the fact remains that your pot odds force you to play hands that are hurt by future rounds of betting. When you have an obvious made hand with little improvement chances, future rounds of betting hurt you against hands with only fair chances to beat you. So much so that you can't bet or raise them. You can only call them a good portion of the time with each betting round draining away some of your EV. But NOT so much that you should fold. Here are two examples.
a. Limit lowball. You have a rough nine in the blind and are raised. Most people think you should raise so as not to show weakness, or failing that, fold. Both wrong. Between the opponents possible better pat hand, his making a hand or bluffing you out, you are the definite dog. But not enough to fold given the pot odds. Instead you should just call and use game theory after the draw if he takes a card. (The only exception is if your opponent is sharp enough to stand pat after the draw instead of drawing one when you don't raise or if your opponent is scared out of bluffing if you do raise.)
B. You bet a decent hand on the flop and are raised by someone who is likely on a draw but may not be. Though you are a favorite to win a showdown, his position puts him in the driver's seat betting wise. Trying to seize command of the situation is unwise especially against someone who will occasionally raise bluff or semi bluff. Better to again passively check and use game theory to usually call.
A couple of years ago I coined the names brave hand and scared hand to indicate hand that appreciated and didn't appreciate later betting rounds. And the fact is a pretty damn good hand can be a scared hand when facing a brave hand and a brave opponnet playing it. And it should play scared as well. But not so scared as to often fold.
David,
Excellent post but you know that. Don't keep reading unless you understand this.
Because I never played much serious lowball (although we were both at the final table of a holdem/stud/lowball mixed event during the Octoberfest at the Bike in 1989), I never studied your game theory chapter that hard. Game theory didn't seem to have much application to real world holdem. I realize that perhaps I was wrong. Don't keep reading unless you understand this.
I did know that when the drawing hand bluffs about eight times (when it misses) it becomes a powerhouse compared to the made hand. But I had trouble integrating this concept with how much the made hand loses by always folding as you made clear in point 3) above. I was certain that raising was terrible. I guess I'll just have to keep working on my game until I understand this ;-).
Regards,
Rick
You're right I went through all the trouble of figuring out the EV's correctly even when I went into proposition mode and unbelievably didn't compare -$50 with -$21.43. In ante mode it's of course $0 to $28.12. Dah.
Make $0 to $28.57 the number of adding $50 to the folding and calling EVs. Now that I have learned to add and subtract I'm going to take up the complex subject of comparing numbers and inequalities.
While I admire the ability of people to come up with the correct "theoretical" answer. It surprises me that no one seems to have explored the answer to the "practical" problem, which is the general case solution to the theoretical problem.
In particular, if you know that the drawing player is going to bluff with a probability
what is the correct action as a funtion of
? Understanding the answer to this problem is much more important when it comes to playing live poker. The most interesting thing is that value of
where the discontinuity between calling and raising lies isn't what one might expect.
- Andrew
While I admire the ability of people to come up with the correct "theoretical" answer. It surprises me that no one seems to have explored the answer to the "practical" problem, which is the general case solution to the theoretical problem. In particular, if you know that the drawing player is going to bluff with a probability p, then what is the correct action as a funtion of p?
Understanding the answer to this problem is much more important when it comes to playing live poker. The most interesting thing is that value of where the discontinuity between calling and raising lies isn't what one might expect.
- Andrew
And Tom Haley along with Rick Nebiolo and Andrew Prock were the three who surprised me with their wrong answers.
Heh,
As I stated before, imprecise questions produce a range of answers. In both of my responses, I answered correctly. It's just that, in each case I answered different interpretations of your question.
The basic problem is that the term "sometimes" is to fuzzy a term to be useful in a mathematical context. I'll plead guilty to no stating my answers in a more context laden manner, but it's pretty easy to skip the context when you explicitly ask for none.
:)
- Andrew
I purposely was imprecise in stating bluffing frequency to accentuate the point that the answer would remain the same even if the drawing hand bluffed a bit too often and should be called or bluffed a bit too little and should be folded to post flop.
David,
I wasn't comenting on the fact that the bluffing frequency was not precise. That is clear from the problem statement. Rather I was commenting on the fact that I didn't understand the question the way you had intended it to be understood.
I've never been known as a great communicator (either sending or receiving).
- Andrew
David,
Good post and good quiz.
But I don't get the "please indicate how sure you are of your answer" bit.
I answered "call - 100% certain". Now, I will admit that my analysis at arriving at the answer was a very crude one and as such, in retrospect, I really could not have been 100% certain. But I was probably more sure that it was 100% than 66% or 50% or any other number. I mean, people who said that they were less than 100% sure are obviously just guessing as to how sure they are.
It would be all right if someone said "call- but I am not very sure" but it's pretty artificial to say "call - 70% sure".
Now, let's take M's situation. He posted below that he worked out the answer from a mathematical viewpoint and double and triple checked his work. He was sure that "call" was the right answer. You also stated elsewhere that there was clearly only one correct answer. If so, what is wrong with M saying that he was 100% certain of obtaining the correct answer?
Lastly, what was your point (in the first instance) of asking posters to indicate their degree of certainty with their given answers?
I imagine that you could not have expected such a divergence of opinion amongst us. Suppose we all answered "call" but gave varying degreees of certainty with our responses. What would that signify?
There are 16 cards of 42 that beat the 9. Of the 300 in the pot predraw, the 9 has equity of 180 to the bike draw's 120.
Therefore the bike is taking the worst of it. He has to be able to make up for this by getting you to fold the winner or call with a worse hand post draw. Since the post draw bet will be 300, he has to be able to make 60 bucks on your mistakes after the draw. This means that
(% of time the 9 folds incorrectly * 300) - ie, the times the bike steals the pot
plus
(% of time the 9 calls incorrectly * 300) - ie, the number of times he pays the bike off when he hits
minus
(% of time the 9 calls correctly * 300) - ie, the times you the bike gets caught bluffing and loses 300 more
must be more than equal to 60.
If you think you have an edge with those percentages (ie you think you can out game theory your opponent), you as the bike will be in good shape and the 9 should probably fold predraw. If the 9 thinks he can out game theory his opponent, he should raise predraw. The post draw play is going to be where the money is made or lost on this hand, so the 9 should decide if he can outplay his opponent after the draw, and then continue as such.
Wow! David you did a fantastic job of explicating my reasons for the FOLD. I did a little bit of math calculations and then went with my gut feeling based on the preliminary numbers.
I realize now that my gut feeling was entirely based on the fact that my opponent is supposed to be a good player and bluffs around the right amount.
Knowing that, I wasn't confident in my ability to out-game theory him. I wasn't able to divorce the game-theory math from my real-time analysis of being the hand, so I went with fold, which I WOULD still do in a real life game (given an opponent who bluffs fairly correctly). Game theory math shows a call. I'm a believer in that regard.
Excellent job Dave, and I think your argument has a lot of validity for "real life" play. However, David (and others) also solved the problem, even for real life play, by showing that you can out-game theory your opponent by simply calling half the time no matter what.
That may be true, but in a real life situation, I'm not thinking about how many times out of a 100 I'll win the pot for an average EV of +26 or whatever.
I'm thinking, "Jesus, what can happen here, right now, with this hand. I'll either win a little bit or get raped". Dump. And pick a better game. Your opponent is too tough for you to have much of an edge.
natedogg
If you tell me you, as the 9, will call half the time exactly, I will roll you up after the draw.
If I then decide to bet the pot after EVERY hand:
19% of the time I will win a pot of 600.
19% of the time I will win a pot of 300.
(ie, I hit and you pay me off half the time)
31% of the time I will win a pot of 300
31% of the time I will lose a pot of 600.
(ie, I miss but half the time you toss away the winner)
I've maintained for a while now that you cannot set your calling frequency or bluffing frequency independent of your opponent's frequency. The two are a function of each other.
If the 9 sets his calling frequency in stone, its simple to determine optimal bluffing frequency.
>>Tom also mentioned that those who fold may be basing that opinion on things I wrote in Getting The Best Of It. I didn't like the implication that there was incorrect information there. Only a misreading of that book would lead you to the wrong answer.<<
I didn't mean to imply that there was incorrect information there.
>>In fact this exact problem was discussed in passing in the chapter A Poker Problem And A Paradox. How come nobody mentioned it?<<
I mentioned it! The chapter you mention was what I was refering to - this was NOT the "exact problem" as the one in the book, because the drawing hand has more outs in the book, making folding the pat hand correct. I was only pointing out that people who thought the two examples were identical and blindly answered "fold" would be in for a surprise.
Tom Weideman
"1. Hands that can't improve are frequently underdogs or money losers to other hands that would win the pot less than half the time if someone was all in."
This just does not happen very often if at all in limit poker. Is this specific to pot limit and/or no limit? If so, I hate to tell you but there are not many of those games spread on a day to day basis in this country.
If the made hand is stubborn and won't ever fold it wins the majority of the pots but is down money (compared to being all in) as long as the other hand bets when it is best and only sometimes when it is not. If on the other hand the made hand sometimes folds, the other hand wins more than half the pots as long as it sometimes bluffs. Either way you slice it, the made hand is worse off even if it is a small favorite hot and cold. By the way the other hand need not be a drawing hand . It can also be a hand that in your mind has a slightly less than 50% chance of being better than yours but when it is, it is a monster. The other hand is in a similar position because of future bets including bluffs.
The problem with looking at things this way is that in most poker games that are spread in casinos today the made hand also has ways of improving from one street to another and or has to face only one big bet not pot sized bets on the later street. Even in pot limit Holdem games or Omaha if someone found themselves in a similar situation on fourth street they would normally also have a chance at improving which may turn a call on fourth street into a raise.
Poor reasoning if you ask me.
"2."
Does anyone really know where to apply a statement like this? This must be a pot limit theoretical reason or at best in samll limit pots, maybe.
3. "In spite of the above the fact remains that your pot odds force you to play hands that are hurt by future rounds of betting. When you have an obvious made hand with little improvement chances, future rounds of betting hurt you against hands with only fair chances to beat you. So much so that you can't bet or raise them. You can only call them a good portion of the time with each betting round draining away some of your EV. But NOT so much that you should fold"
Gee finally a reason that makes sense but maybe not at limit poker. But then again maybe it is.
vince
Gee finally a reason that makes sense but maybe not at limit poker. But then again maybe it is.
Gee, maybe. Maybe semibluffing on the turn is related somehow to fluctuations in the space time contiuum. then again, maybe not.
Your forgot to mention an important point. These show-down favorites/future bet scared hands do BETTER when they jam the pot early in limit poker, since the larger pot reduces the implied scared/brave feature of these hands, since scared/bravery is very much a function of the bet/pot ratio. Even if you are going to lose ground later, you are still gaining ground now, so long as you are actually going to win your share of show-downs. This, I think, is usually the better strategy for tenacious types.
If your example was no-limit, the pat nine should raise all-in thus nullifying the draw's bravery.
- Louie
As a math-challenged player, I had to go through the math to verify what David said. Following are my calculations proving, if I have done them correctly, David's assertions. Would appreciate if anyone could review (Tom?) and show me any errors. Don't keep reading unless you understand how long this is:
1) "Let's say you have the 98765, and you know the drawing hand is known to never bluff. If so you are a 26-16 favorite, should raise before the draw, and fold if he bets after the draw. Don't keep reading unless you understand this."
A) You fold pre-draw: you lose $50 42 times = (-$2100)
B) You call pre-draw (and fold post-draw when he bets, since he never bluffs):
He misses 26 times and checks: you win $150 26 times = +3900
He hits 16 times and bets: you lose $150 16 times = (-$2400) Thus you win +$1500
C) You raise pre-draw (and fold post-draw when he bets, since he never bluffs):
He misses 26 times and checks: you win $250 26 times = +$6500
He hits 16 times and bets: you lose $250 16 times = (-$4000) Thus you win +$2500
You should indeed raise.
2) "Let's say that you can't stand to be robbed after the draw. Your opponent, knowing this, resolves never to bluff. He is a 26-16 dog but but you are laying four pot size bets (when you lose) to two pot size bets (when he checks and you win). Thus it would be better to fold immediately in this scenario. Don't keep reading unless you understand this."
A) You fold pre-draw: you lose $50 42 times = (-$2100)
B) You call pre-draw (and call every time he bets post-draw):
He misses 26 times and checks: you win $150 26 times = +$3900
He hits 16 times and bets: you lose $450 16 times = (-$7200) Thus you lose (-$3300)
C) You raise pre-draw (and call every time he bets post-draw):
He misses 26 times and checks: you win $250 26 times = +$6500
He hits 16 times and bets: you lose $750 16 times = (-$12000) Thus you lose (-$5500)
You should indeed fold.
3) "Suppose the drawing hand decides to bet not only when he hits his 16 outs but also when he hits a king or queen (7 cards)? Let's even say he tells you his strategy. That means that when he does bet it is a 16-7 favorite that he has it. But you are getting only 2-1 on his pot size after the draw bet. So you should fold. But that means that he will win the initial pot 23 out of 42 times. He is the favorite to win the pot. Some of you may have realized this and thus assumed you should fold before the draw. Except you forgot that you were getting 2-1 on the before the draw bet. And you will win the pot 19 out of 42 times against such a player. So against him you should call before the draw. Don't keep reading unless you understand this."
A) You fold pre-draw: you lose $50 42 times = (-$2100)
B) You call pre-draw and fold when he bets post-draw:
He hits 16 times and bets: you lose $150 16 times = (-$2400)
He misses 7 times and bets: you lose $150 7 times = (-$1050)
He misses 19 times and checks: you win $150 19 times = +2850 Thus you lose (-$600)
C) You call pre-draw and call when he bets post-draw:
He hits 16 times and bets: you lose $450 16 times = (-$7200)
He misses 7 times and bets: you win $450 7 times = +$3150
He misses 19 times and checks: you win $150 19 times = +$2850 Thus you lose (-$1200)
D) You raise pre-draw and fold when he bets post-draw:
He hits 16 times and bet: you lose $250 16 times = (-$4000)
He misses 7 times and bets: you lose $250 7 times = (-$1750)
He misses 19 times and checks: you win $250 19 times = +$4750 Thus you lose (-$1000)
E) You raise pre-draw and call when he bets post-draw:
He hits 16 times and bets: you lose $750 16 times = (-$12000)
He misses 7 times and bets: you win $750 7 times = +$5250
He misses 19 times and checks: you win $250 19 times = +$4750 Thus you lose (-$2000)
You should indeed call (and fold post-draw).
4) "What about when the player with the drawing hand decides to bluff with ten cards rather than seven (and he tells you his strategy)? Against this guy you should call whenever he bets after the draw. He will bluff ten times, have it 16 times and check 16 times. If the original pot contained a dollar (say half yours) and you called his one dollar predraw bet, you would altogether win $4.50 ten times, $1.50 16 times and lose $4.50 16 times for a net loss of $3 after 42 hands. But that is a lot better than losing 50 cents 42 times if you folded before the draw. So it would be wrong to fold. On the other hand raising before the draw would merely increase this three dollar loss since the above numbers are all merely magnified. Do not read further until you understand this."
A) You fold pre-draw: you lose $50 42 times = (-$2100)
B) You call pre-draw and fold when he bets post-draw:
He hits 16 times and bets: you lose $150 16 times = (-$2400)
He misses 10 times and bets: you lose $150 10 times = (-$1500)
He misses 16 times and checks: you win $150 16 times = +2400 Thus you lose (-$1500)
C) You call pre-draw and call when he bets post-draw:
He hits 16 times and bets: you lose $450 16 times = (-$7200)
He misses 10 times and bets: you win $450 10 times = +4500
He misses 16 times and checks: you win $150 10 times = +1500 Thus you lose (-$1200)
D) You raise pre-draw and fold when he bets post-draw:
He hits 16 times and bets: you lose $250 16 times = (-$4000)
He misses 10 times and bets: you lose $250 10 times = (-$2500)
He misses 16 times and checks: you win $250 16 times = +$4000 Thus you lose (-$2500)
E) You raise pre-draw and call when he bets post-draw:
He hits 16 times and bets: you lose $750 16 times = (-$12000)
He misses 10 times and bets: you win $750 10 times = +$7500
He misses 16 times and checks: you win $250 10 times = +$2500 Thus you lose (-$2000)
Thus you should indeed call both pre-draw and post-draw.
5) "At this point it should be clear that the drawing hand is in the driver's seat as long as he bluffs within a certain range of the time. He does not have to use optimal game theory strategy to actually have the "best hand". It is only because you are getting 2-1 on his predraw bet that keeps you from folding.(In fact it would be correct to fold if you were playing no limit and he made a mega predraw bet with lots more behind him. See why?) But is that 2-1 enough? In my first two examples, I postulated a drawing hand playing suboptimally who is also telling you his strategy. What if he plays even better and closed mouthed? Maybe against such an opponent it would be better to fold immediately. but it isn't. If you always call before the draw and flip a coin to decide whether to call after the draw, you must do better in the long run than if you folded every time. If you do that your opponnent will always do exactly the same regardless of his bluffing frequency. And it will average out to worse than he would do if you folded every time. For instance if he never bluffed you would win $1.50 26 times, lose $1.50 eight times, and lose 4.50 eight times for a net loss of nine dollars after forty two times (better than $21 if you always folded predraw). If he always bluffed you would lose $1.50 21 times, lose 4.50 eight times and win $4.50 13 times. That is also a nine dollar loss. The same for any other bluffing frequency. See why? Bottom line is that if you use game theory after the draw with your pat hand, which in this case means randomly calling half the time, you do better than if you give up predraw. (It is important to understand that the above calculations could have been done by assuming the initial pot came from others. The results would wind up exactly the same. Tom Haley's remark that he originally assumed the question was a proposition rather than a poker game implied the answer would be different if it was. That is not true. You merely adjust all the numbers fifty cents and compare it with breaking even rather than losing half a buck if you fold. And Tom Haley along with Rick Nebiolo and Andrew Prock were the three who surprised me with their wrong answers."
A) You call pre-draw; He never bluffs and you call 50% of the time post-draw:
He misses 26 times and checks: You win $150 26 times = +$3900
He hits 8 times and you fold: You lose $150 8 times = (-$1200)
He hits 8 times and you call: You lose $450 8 times = (-$3600 Thus you lose (-$900)
B) You call pre-draw; He always bluffs and you call 50% of the time post-draw:
He misses 13 times and you call: You win $450 13 times = +5850
He misses 13 times and you fold: You lose $150 13 times = (-$1950)
He hits 8 times and you call: You lose $450 8 times = (-$3600)
He hits 8 times and you fold: You lose $150 8 times = (-$1200) Thus you lose (-$900)
Indeed, his bluffing frequency makes no difference and you lose less than if you folded every time pre-flop.
The pre-draw raise should be pot-sized ($300).
I used $50 antes; so first bet (drawing hand) is $100 and pat hand's raise is $200.
I disapprove, strongly disapprove, of calculating the EV for these decisions in such a manner that a fold is other than $0 EV. In your examples, since your $50 ante is already in the pot, a fold costs $0 and a call risks $100 to win $200. The math is a little easier this way, comparing alternatives is a little clearer and easier, but the attitudinal difference it creates for players at the table is huge. The pot is what the pot is, and your decision should have nothing to do with who put in the money prior to the point of decision.
Your analysis looks good.
- Louie
Thanks, Louie. I understand one's decisions at the table should be based on how much money is in the pot at the time, regardless of where it came from. But in figuring out where you'll stand after, say, 42 hands, doesn't one have to consider the antes which one will be putting in? If I fold after anteing $50, I'm down $50. If I call pre-draw and fold post-draw, I'm down $150, the $50 I anted plus the $100 pre-draw call.
I haven't responded until now because I didn't know how to play lowball, and I didn't work out the context of the question until some time after those that did post. After I got the question (ie got the fact that there were 16 outs for the drawing hand), I did the math too, and I have to say that David's answer is all correct. I don't have as much time to do these things, and I thank David for giving us his very complete answer. I'm now also very happy to now know another concept relating to poker.
I also have to say though, that Vince is somewhat correct, this problem is very specific, and let's face it, we don't ever see other's cards on the poker table, and know what they are drawing too (if I do see others cards I tell them to hide them).
From this point of view, we still have a long way to go to working out theories that we can "bring to the table".
The quiz concept relies heavily on the pot-limit structure. Although your opponent is a 16/42 underdog, you call a pot-sized raise half the time, making him a 24/42 favorite on new money. But this only occurs because your raises give him leverage to raise more. This would rarely happen in structured limit games, or as Louie Landale noted, a no-limit game where you could go all-in.
The situation is the same as in the-David Sklansky-problem - only this time for some reason ...
(a) ... you don't have a million dollars in front of you. You only have $400. In this case would you (CALL, FOLD, RAISE) the $100-bet before the draw ? Maybe some one stole your million dollars while you where fumbling your cards.
(b) ... you play pot-limit before the draw and no-limit after the draw. In this case would you (CALL, FOLD, RAISE) the $100-bet before the draw ? (Remember: Both players have a million dollars in front of them.)
(c) ... you are not plaiyng pot-limit but no-limit. In this case would you (CALL, FOLD, RAISE) the $100-bet before the draw ?
this is a good good question - one of implied odds
if you only have $400, you raise it, cause he gets no implied odds - you are all in
if its no limit after the draw, you probably have to fold, if his post draw bet was high enough he could bluff 13 times to every 16 made hands and put you to a guaranteed Expected Loss.
If its no limit before the draw, you raise him all in again, killing his implied odds
in each case, its about what you can do to affect the relative amount of money that can go in the pot before (when you have the advantage) and after (when he has the advantage)
*
These are all trivial problems comapred to the original, except for b, which is the same problem as the original.
In the other 2 cases, you can get all in before the draw, so you do. This eliminates the bluffing which made the problem interesting...feel free to extend the conclusion to no-limit vs. limit and pot - limit poker.
Good luck.
Dan Z.
I am wondering if anyone has any thoughts about the couple of different software programs available for research. I have been looking at both the Wilson software, adn the AceSpade Software.
If you have any thoughts on either of these products, or poker software in general I would appreciate it.
Thank you
Joe
Wilsons turbo is the way to go. You can experiment with many simulations. You can also load profiles and play against them. The money you spend you will make up in profit at the table. Look at the money spent as an operating expense for your new business. You can download the trial verson at Wilsons , I think. If not go to Conjelco.com for where to find it. I hope you like it mg in nj
Mg:
Thanks for the response. If you don't mind, could you repost it on the new Books/Software forum.
Best wishes, Mason
First, we have a new forum for Books/Software so in the future this type of post should go there.
To answer your question, I would be very reluctant to use any of these softwares for research. The reason is that you don't have access to the programming code and don't really know what errors it may be making. Furthermore, at each step of the decision tree additional error may be added so that the final result might be significantly off. So in this sense, even though I have always been critical of conclusions based on hot and cold simulations, it's probably better to use them since at least in this case you know what it is you are getting. Just understand that this is a very poor model (especially in hold 'em, but not as much in stud where it is frequently right to chase) for many poker situations.
I see that you have also discovered the new forum and have reposted my answer there. If any of you would like to add to the discussion, please do so there.
Played 3-6 last night at TROP with basically weak/average players except one. Lost $110 in about 2 hours without winning a hand. I consider myself to be a pretty decent player but couldn't get lots of good starting hands and when I did, can't get a decent draw. So basically, I was being blinded out or see the flop and fold. Quite frustrated, went to TAJ and decided to sit down in another 3-6 with about an hour left before the bus ride home. Seated where mostly regulars with 4 players about same caliber as me. Played the same style as in TROP and lo and behold won some good pots. Came up ahead $120 by the time the bus was pulling into the station. Now, is this luck or being in the right place at the right time? Can't consider skill as I don't believe there was any difference in the strategies I used in both places. Any comments.
Hi Kam, I also played last night at the Trop. I will attempt to answer you by stating the obvious. Game fluctuation. Sometimes you will flop a set and a calling station will call you down with 6 9 suited and catch the flush on the river. It is part of the game. These are the same players who will make you a profit in the long run, if you are a decent player. Sometimes depending on position, you might need to steal a pot here and there to get back the blinds.An example would be, raise if you are the button and nobody else has entered the pot. Sometimes you do need to make plays and this is where the skill factor comes in. If you are playing a loose passive 3-6 game with calling stations, a bluff will not work, but betting for value will. Look at poker as one long game that will never end. Sometimes you will get outdrawn on, most of the time your hands will hold up. If you are playing with only the best of it, then you will very rarely outdraw anyone since you will have higher starting standards. I hope this helps you. I play often at the Trop and the Taj. See you there soon, perhaps we can meet up one day. Losing 110 in 2 hours isnt that bad. You can win that back with one decent sized pot.
mg in nj
hi mg, Hope to meet u too. I'm just a low limit player that plays the $25 buy in tourney on Thursdays at Trop. How will I know ? I'm that little oriental guy with glasses that usually livens up the table in a 3-6 or 5-10 game. What do u play? Thanks for the advice.
I saw you last night,I also play in the tournament. I have glasses and I always wear some kind of hat. I will find you next week. I also play the lower limit games, 3-6 and 5-10 see you thursday mg
hi mg, Hope to meet u too. I'm just a low limit player that plays the $25 buy in tourney on Thursdays at Trop. How will I know ? I'm that little oriental guy with glasses that usually livens up the table in a 3-6 or 5-10 game. What do u play? Thanks for the advice.
P.S. By the way, I did won that $110 in one deal at the TAJ the same night with a K high flush on the river on a capped betting.
It'd be strange if stories like yours were NOT routine. My best guess is that I go 2 to 3 hours without winning a pot about once in every 30 hours of play. A few times it's happened back to back to back.
Tommy
Tommy, I agree. I think that part of learning the game, is learning how to deal with the swings of the game. mg
hey tommy,
i am wondering why you didn't respond to the "important theoretical" queston below. No offense. not like we need the opinion of an actual pro player to cloud the theories. theories as we all know prevail over practice. right? i personally would rather hear the opinions of fools and wannabes, but if i am stuck with you so be it. actually winning isn't important.
hey but cloud them, would ya?
"hey tommy, ... i am wondering why you didn't respond to the "important theoretical" queston below."
When I first saw that thread, it was already tremendously long and growing quickly. That's why I did not read any of the posts, until just now, after reading your question. I started with one of David's posts and properly stopped after his suggestion to stop reading if lost.
Tommy
no.
u must answer the question even if you don't understand.
u must also assign a 100% certainty to your answer, even if you don't understand.
you then must make up a bunch of garbage that you pretended you derived from it, even if you don't understand.
please don't respond to this, even if you don't understand.
.
VARIANCE
Thanks guys, I'm just a rec player for only about a year and do not aspire to be a pro. Of course, a rec player with the intention of winning and not just blow away the money for the sake of excitement, gambling or what not - just like most of what i see in poker rooms. I'm a firm believer that if "it can't be done right or without trying your best why do it all". I found poker to be a challenging game and mentally stimulating that can be an outlet for what I call "passive aggression". I keep on trying, learning, etc...
By the way, Tommy A, I love your posts. You are one of the most sensible poster out there, I have even printed and filed some of your posts - especially that one on losing streaks.
No different than if you tossed a coin 100 times. You'd come up with pretty close to 50 heads and 50 tails. But it would be unusual if it came up heads, tails, head, tails, etc. for 100 tooses. And if you looked at any random 10 consecutive tosses, you might come up with 7 heads and 3 tails or 7 tails and 3 heads.
There's no guarantee that you'll win if you play better than your opponents in any given session. And there's no guarantee they'll lose. There is an element of luck involved, which is what keeps the game going. There is a guarantee that you'll win more when you win, lose less when you lose, and win more often if you play better,and that the opposite will happen to those who play worse.
If good players never lost and bad players never won, so many bad players would not be attracted to poker in the first place. It's all about long-term. Anyone can have a winning session. What matters is the profit that you show in the long-term. Don't get discouraged. The skill will begin to show when you keep records of your sessions.
sam
So basically, you had a two hour losing streak followed by a one hour winning streak for a net profit of $10 laying 3-6. You could not ask for a more textbook result.
For about 9 months in late 99 and early 2000, in 3/4 of my sessions I would play about five or six hours and win between 0 and 6 pots. I lost money or essentially broke even in about 7/8 of my sessions.
I'm not a pro so I don't play every day but I probably played about 50 sessions for that period representing around 250 to 300 hours of play.
Despite that my limit poker results are in the black, so don't think twice about a couple hours worth of folding hands on the flop.
natedogg
It might be more skill than you think. Against weak players, you pretty much have to show down the best hand. It can be a psychological drain when you know the only thing you can do to win a pot is hit the best hand.
If the players are decent, but not real good, you may not feel so helpless, even if you're not getting good cards. A semi-bluff, or other ploys, might actually work against them. I think this usually translates into a little more enthusiasm.
Just a thought
Tom D
If one has the paitience to wait out the lousy hands and play the ones with the best potential you ought to be winning more than losing.
It ain't luck when a player consistently year after year wins a couple of bb an hour - remember it's an art not a science and if you play your A game and the right starting hands in the right position with the right amount of aggression and use good judgement in game selection you WILL win and that's a fact.
as they say.... luck favours the prepared mind....
jg
Proper Preperation Prevents Piss Poor Performance
Most marines know about this one but it applies to all forms of lifes challenges.
Hey I like that! Did u coin it yourself or u got it from somebody else? Either way, it's cute to say the least.
Low limit players tend to underestimate the normal swings of the game. Losing $110 in two hours of 3-6 is nothing. That's less than 10 BB/hr which is well within a reasonable swing for low-limit hold'em.
I'm waiting to hear what David has waiting in the wings, meta to this theoretical question.
We had a widely split vote with 49 participants in one working day.
Now the post-discussion has involved many fewer people. A couple people have openly changed their views during this discussion. Two or three have dug in their heels; I'll classify them into the "interpretation of the question" camp and the "value of debating the question at all" camp. Many people remain silent and it is difficult to know what is going through their heads.
OK, David, what was this experiment all about? Were you going after opinion plasticity as well as the actual answer to this actual problem?
--JMike
He already told you what its about.
The fact that u dont quite get it is what the great ones (like me) call an OBJECT LESSON.
[Do not interpret the above as an insult to you. It merely proves what has been obvious to the insightful from the get go.]
Aw hey, don't be so harsh on the ol' forum. They're a bunch of cool guys. I love them man. I love you guys. Why don't you just take a little meditation moment, maybe have a veggie burger, and hop into my VW and we'll go for a long ride in the country, maybe smoke some ginseng or something.
Peace, love, poker.
Cinev
You're funny :)
A similiar quiz appears in "Getting the Best of It" and The Theory of Poker. I originally answered RAISE. After careful review, I understand why the correct move, would be to call. I look forward to another quiz and another challenge. I will do more research for the next quiz
mg in nj
please answer whether you believe that there is a god (yes, no, there are many, there was, etc) along with your degree of certanty that you are right. post explanation.
100% Yes, but each person needs a variable amount of liberal interpretation of the definition of "God".
Much may depend upon the definition of God. I can say that I don't know. Did you want a degree of certainty attached for the unsure votes as well?;-)
Throughout human history, many major ideas have been proven or disproven. To the best of my knowledge, one major idea which has had great impact on human history--the concept of the existence of God--has never been either proven nor disproven.
Also, many persons (and cultures) view God in different ways, although there are often common threads. I submit that our definitions of God are largely created by ourselves, both individually and through organized religions, and that if God exists, God very well might exist in a far different way than we may imagine.
All religions are based on myths and faith in these myths. Religions are a cultural product and are as varied. Humans tend to be naive and seek to explain what they can't understand . Most religions evolved centuries ago when little was known about the world. 100% certain
Two fish in a bowl are arguing. At first it's civil; soon, though, the argument gets heated and they start to attack each other. Finally, after there are a bunch of fins and gills scattered all over the tank, one of them says to the other, "Oh yeah, if there's no god, who changes the water?"
No. 100% sure. There are better explanations for who changes the water.
Anyone who answers 100% for either way has not thought it through.
On the other hand, 99.99999% for no is reasonable.
natedogg
...unless the definition of God is very narrow, such as defined by certain sects of certain religions, in which case my view changes dramatically towards "no", with a roughly corresponding shift in keeping with the narrowness of the definition.
On the other had, with a very vague definition of God, I think the chances increase markedly.
Note that the commonly accepted concept of God as a supreme being, is in fact a limiting definition, and one which reduces my estimation of the likelihood of the existence of God somewhat in that context.
However, if we throw out all the generally accepted defining terms such as : All-Powerful, All-Good, etc, ... or even any "Being" for that matter... we have not necessarily eliminated all possibilities for the existence of "God."
It is also perhaps worthy to consider that once we put labels or definitions on our concepts of God, we are limiting, and perhaps that is why so many apparent philosophical/religious paradoxes seem to arise.
I don't know. 0%. I'm interested in how others can be surer.
JG
I don't know pretty much sums it up for me too.
nt
Mason Malmuth : "You raise a very important point. Many players don't realize the impact of small percentages on odds. For example, suppose when playing hold 'em you have a pair in your hand and when someone else bets you only think there is a 10 percent chance that your hand is good, it is fourth street, and the pot is laying you a less than 9-to-1 but not a lot less. Many people think that they should fold in this spot, but they forget that the chance that they snag a set on the river, while small is significant and should change their decision."
I should really wait for Mason to clarify this before I say it is wrong, because this example doesn't have enough information to say that it is. So he now has an out. But this general concept is wrong. I know this is true because he has stated similar in the past. If necessary, I will go to the archives. But I don't care about blame, I care about understanding an important everyday concept that will affect your game.
So anybody see what error is implied in Mason's reasoning?
Or as an intellectual exercise, what assumptions would you have to make about Mason's statement so that it would be true? For example, he says the pot is less than 9-1 but not much less. How much less would it have to be to make this statement incorrect? (I can't be too precise in my question or I will give away this simple concept.)
BTW, David Sklansky would spot this error(or at least what is being incorrectly implied) in about .9 seconds or so.
I apologize in advance for using an example in a limit holdem game that actually happens several times a session. You might find it difficult to see how this applies to your headup fixed pot limit ace to five lowball game. But still take a shot anyway, would ya?
Does it have something to do with how often the guy will follow through those few times he is bluffing? I am so excited to know if I am right.
Until you see the river card you can not make a judgement as to your chances of winning. e.g. your hand is an underpair and you are up against a pre-flop raiser - the river is an ace thus considerably reducing your chances of being ahead.
So the probability of your improvement on the river should be counterbalanced with the chances of your opponent improving on the occasions you are ahead.
If you think your current hand has a 10% chance to be good, and you call on the Turn while getting 9-1 odds in the reasonable confidence that your hand will almost surely be good if you spike a set, you have now changed the odds the pot will be laying you on the River. On the River the pot will be laying you 11-1 when your opponent bets. Since you think your hand is good 10% of the time, you are now in a situation where the odds dictate another call. Thus your Turn call must really be considered with a view not only to the implied odds but to the effective odds as well since you very well might end up calling on the river even if you don't improve. You should also weigh the likelihood of your hand being good when you do improve, and consider your opponent's propensity for bluffing.
Since folding on the river is not a big mistake in this spot, the weighing of the effective odds on the Turn is affected too, since you only lose a fraction of a bet if you fold when the River is offering you 11-1 (assuming you are right about your hand being good 10% of the time). Also, if your opponent will not always follow through with a River bet (for value or bluff), you can adjust your effective odds on the Turn accordingly.
^
Okay, son, you've had your little fun. Your dad goes out of town and what do you do? You jump at the chance to use his computer, then proceed to fill this chat site, or poker board or whatever it is, with your usual 13 year old silliness. I see you've been at it for at least a couple of days now. (Sorry folks. I'll try to ground him, but with his dad away, he's just so hard to control.) It's just like the time you filled up that physics newsgroup with those endless rantings about the Taoist sufi dancers and the Brady Bunch. It's not funny, son. It gets boring. Time to apologize now to these nice people for your silliness the last few days, and go do your summer school math homework. You don't want to get another "D", so you?
Tough love,
Mom
Didn't read the other posts, but I think this example is weak. Its true the pair may snag a set (when beat) but its also true that when the pair is good, the opponent may outdraw it. And usually the opponent has more outs than your 2.
Never-the-less, the principle is a good one. A 4% advantage here and there can easily make a big difference; primarily because not only does it represent 4% more wins, it represents about 4% less losses.
- Louie
link to post that might actually have something to do with this
"Anon" and I had a thread where I went into concept and how it applies to other streets as well. I can't find that thread. Its missing.
Regards.
If you plan to call on the river, then you are getting 10-2, which looks a lot worse than 9-1 on the turn and 11-1 on the river. Is that what you are getting at?
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
At the bottom of this forum the thread titled,"Did Stu Unger Enjoy Life?", the individual posts are no longer part of one thread, why is that? Does it occur when one or more posts within the thread are deleted?
Old posts eventually disappear from the page (and someday find their way into the archive). They leave in the order they entered. This means that for any thread, eventually a point is reached where the parent of the thread is old enough to be gone while it's children are still here, resulting in a "broken" thread. Not long after, the children will expire too.
That is the fundamental mechanical flaw of this board. Threads "blow up" and fall apart by date. You can find fragments of a post interspersed toward the end of the current posts.
Better would be to bring posts back to the top when they are responded to. That way, posts that have longer interest than a week or so would stay in view. Not sure of the author of this software format, but I've been in other topic boards that operate more smoothly.
This is something that I struggle with. Often I am in EP in Hold 'em, with, say, pocket tens or Jacks, I raise, 5 or so people see the flop, and it contains an overcard to my pair. I check with the intention of folding, and it is checked around to a loose raiser and bluffer on my right, who raises. I am always torn between whether to raise or fold. If the raiser is a tight player I would fold, but what about when he isn't? If I think my raise will make everyone else fold, it seems like I should check raise here even though I might have the second best hand. Then if I think he is bluffing I would bet out on the turn, and if he doesn't fold I would check and call on the river in all likelihood. It seems to me that this is the right play in this situation, but I have to invest quite a bit to find out. Loose raisers often don't have a good hand, but they get them sometimes too. These high variance plays drive me crazy. My question is, how would you guys play it in this situation, would you check raise on the flop or just fold? Does it make a difference if there was a raise preflop? Thanks, Tim
Tim,
I don't follow. If the lose player is on your right, how can you check-raise him? And if the flop is checked around to you and you check, how can a player on your right (who already checked) bet (or raise)?
In general, if the flop gets checked around to me in a situation like this, I bet. And if it gets checked around and the player on my right bets, this means I'm either in last seat or next to last seat, and I raise and feel good about it because now he is the one out of position trying to figure out what I have, instead of the other way around.
Tommy
Its a dangerous sign if you cannot tell the mechanics of a situation correctly; it usually means you can't get it right at the table and if so, you can pretty much forget about putting players on hands or making other quality situational decisions. Practice getting it right and if you don't remember exactly, make something up.
Your strategy seems sound: fold against the tight players, raise against the loose. [1] Tight players are not only less likely to bet less than top pair, they are also less likely to make a hand other than top pair: someone who doesn't play T9 but gets part of a KT4 flop ... [2] Not only are loose players more likely to bet less than top pair, they are also more likely to MAKE a hand less than top pair. [3] There is absolutely NO SHAME in raising with a hand that isn't the favorite. Such plays don't have to win often to show a big profit. [4] Since you obviously should not fold against a loose player, it only costs one more bet to narrow the field with your vulnerable pair.
- Louie
Tim,
I think you are referring to low limit games, and you are UTG or something, with the late position player on or near the button. He bets from last position, perhaps the blinds fold, and its up to you.
In a "real" game, I think the right move is checkraising, but this is obviously a low limit game when five players call an EP raise.
If the overcard is an ace, I'm gone; too many low limit players play ace-rag.
I think you have to pay attention to the coordination of the flop. If the flop is K-x-x, with no straight or flush possibilities, you have a stronger checkraise, because you will get the others out. Many low limit players do not bet their flush or straight draws, but will call an infinite number of bets with them. This could be a problem if you checkraise a coordinated flop.
It also depends on what pair you have. With Js or Ts, I'd probably toss them into the muck. My experience has been that they just don't hold up without improvement in low limit. It is a rare flop that one likes in these games with weak-big pair holdings. Too many people stay in with such garbage, you're going to get beat in a 5-handed pot. Raising may still be correct, but the only way to show a profit with this hand is to get rid of it when beaten. Of course, an incorrect fold is disastrous, as Louie points out.
Well, I have obviously demonstrated my own confusion. I'm going to get a tissue and cry, hoping I don't see this situation too often.
Thanks guys, sorry I didn't describe the situation correctly. I should have said if I am one of the blinds and it is checked around to the player on my immediate right, who is the button, and that person bets. I guess there is always some risk in raising after him, but it seems to be worth it if he is a loose raiser and the flop doesn't have any straight or flush draws. I agree with the point that this won't work as well in low limit games, where people tend to call 2 raises cold a lot more frequently. Unfortunately I don't have the bankroll to play in higher games right now, so I'd probably muck this hand if the board and the situation was not just right. Thanks for the input and I apologize for not describing it more clearly. -Tim
5-10 game. very loose-aggressive player in mid-position who continues every hand to limp preflop, then bet or raise, and the tighties keep folding and he keeps stealing pots. and then showing the rags he stole it with. (well, AK with a board of Q77, which isn't really much) so im in the big blind, and have A2s. three limpers including LAP. he is last person to limp. flop comes Q53. i check, first 2 limpers check, and sure enough LAP bets. i figure he is trying to steal again, so i raise and try to get it heads up. other 2 fold, and he calls. turn is a blank and i check. he bets and i call. river is a gutshot 4 giving me the straight which im pretty sure he wasn't drawing to a better one. i check again and he bets, now i raise, and he slows way down, thinks, and calls saying 'you got me'. he didn't show, but im pretty sure that an A would have got me the pot too, and possibly even my lone ace could have won. who knows? but im trying to give an example of a hand where you may not have the best hand right now, but you can get it heads up by check-raising the flop. if i hadn't done that, i would have folded, or at least folded unless i hit a 4 or an ace, and i was sure i had the only ace.
It's time to see how much you have learned. Do not take this quiz until you have read the original Quiz-Survey and discussion.
This situation is the same: There is $200 in the pot and your opponent has a common-knowledge 16/42 chance of improving. But this time it is a limit game with all bets and raises in increments of $100. After your opponent bets $100 should you call, raise, or fold? Please include your confidence and answer to the original pot-limit problem.
This example illustrates an important structural relationship between fixed-limit and pot-limit. And it offers a second chance if you missed the first quiz. Please withhold analysis until people have posted their answers.
There is $100 in the pot before your opponent raises. After he raises $100 the pot contains $200 and it costs $100 to call, plus an additional $100 if you raise.
You are playing someone a headup no limit holdem freezeout. $5000 each. Blinds $50 and $100. On the first forty hands your opponent has raised only one time and he has called your preflop raise only twice in fifteen. You never saw this guy before and you have him $5300 to $4700 (you won a lot more pots but he won a decent size pot on the fourth hand.) On the forty first hand he moves all in before the flop. You look down and see two kings. Should you call?
If his demeanor hasn't changed, I'll fold KK. If he seems emotional I'll call. Psychology is the issue.
If you fold K,K,....take up tennis, it's much less expensive. Of course you go all in !
call.....sorry !
I agree with you and quote Oswald Jacoby in support of your decision: "But one should always bear in mind that in the final bet or bets the psychology of one's opponents is _much more_ important than any of the direct mathematical probabilities." I should mention that I put "much more" in italics which was not in the original text.
-=-MouseEars
I agree with you and quote Oswald Jacoby in support of your decision: "But one should always bear in mind that in the final bet or bets the psychology of one's opponents is _much more_ important than any of the direct mathematical probabilities." I should mention that I put "much more" in italics which was not in the original text.
-=-MouseEars
David,
No, uh YES, uh it depends.
Because it is a freezeout and you seem to have a very timid opponent (the easiest to beat head up IMO), you are probably better off folding and grinding him out a little at a time for an almost sure win. This assumes that spending a little more time to win $5000 is worth your while.
OTOH, an oversized raise like this from most players usually means a middle pair. If you believe this to be the case, then consider calling. Note that you will have about $600 left over if you do lose and with this guy you can still come back.
Was this a multiple choice or an essay question?
Regards,
Rick
I wrote: OTOH, an oversized raise like this from most players usually means a middle pair.
Take what I say with a big grain of salt. I only have about 50 hours of experience at no limit and it was mostly in games with $2 and $5 blinds and smaller. But I rarely saw bets this big relative to the blinds and wonder why a guy like this wouldn't want to make a normal size raise in order to get some action on AA.
Regards,
Rick
NO.
Rick's points noted, the time is worth 5K to me, and calling would be a terrible play. Against a really tight player in no limit the last thing you want to do is pay him off when he finally hits a hand and makes the big overbet.
Okay, I am no expert, but I am not folding KK in this situation. The player seems to be way too tight, and I am guessing, based on what I have seen in the real world, that a player like this is going to try and trap me with aces rather than raise them all-in. He is watching the same game I am, he knows how infrequently he has raised and called raises, and he should know that I am going to be wary of his raise. (After typing this, maybe he does not know all this, or he would have played the first 40 hands differently.) Unless he is trapping me with a big raise, thinking that I will think he is full of shit, I think KK is the best hand. Rick is right that this player could be grinded out, though, and that should not be ignored if there is no other game in town. KK is too strong to throw down.
A while ago I told myself that if I was dealt KK in a heads up match and the other player showed up with AA, I was just going to suffer the anal bleeding the poker gods had in store for me.
Wow this is really interesting. I don't know the answer yet and don't exactly know how to approach it but several thoughts spring to mind.
This problem seems to touch on just the types of things I have been wanting to explore further anyway. Thank you for posting these recent questions.
Concepts that should have some bearing on this problem:
1. Card distributions: Just how tight is he likely to be actually playing--what are the chances he has been dealt mostly true rags in 41 hands? It appears that he is playing too tight, and that you may be able to take advantage of this... you could test it by folding the Kings and trying to whittle him down--how likely is it that he really had folding material 13 out of 15 times you raised? If you fold the Kings, however, you may be missing a big opportunity. It seems even more likely that he is not much of a preflop raiser so you should conside the value of getting a lot of free or cheap flops in the future if you just fence with him.
What are the chances of being dealt Aces at least once in 41 deals? About 1 in 5? (actually I don't even know how to figure this). So based on card distributions alone he probably doesn't hold them.
If he holds Aces you will still win about what, 1 in 5 times? And if you lose you will be outchipped 9400-600...
If I knew based on card distributions how likely it is that he really is as tight as he appears, I would probably know what to do with the Kings. If his play thus far is very likely to indicate someone you can just raise frequently and whittle right down, I would probably fold the Kings ad take the safer surer approach... On the other hand if there is a good chance that he just has been playing a bit tight with really ugly cards, then I would give much more consideration to calling.
Easy fold.
Fuzzy math, 4am here and am lazy but NO
Rough calculations you are raising 35% of the pots and winning 85% of those raises uncontested, including his immediate raise, he is raising 5% of the pots, mathematically this should be a cakewalk..
HOWEVER NL is a people game, but strictly on what has been shown why gamble he does NOT have AA when you obviously have someone playing incorrectly..
I am sure more math would support folding here, ie odds of getting quality hands heads up etc..
But imho, you have an edge, fold this hand...
Just my 1 1/5 cents
-Ray
The fact that this question seems easy to me means I probably do not understand it. Anyway, I'd let him have my blind and then resume grinding him down, frequently stealing his blinds as long as he let me.
Because I would think my overall edge over this timid opponent was high, I would play a variance-reducing game. In other words, I would be reluctant to compete for a huge pot unless I was believed I was very likely to have a big edge in the particular hand.
nt
I just went all in. You checked your hand and found the Kc and Kh. I noticed a slight twitch when you saw your hand. Since you were taking an unsually long time to act, I said, "David, what the hell you doing over there with that stupid little calculater. This ain't rocket science. It's a poker game. You callin' or foldin'? Remember the guy in "The Cincinnati Kid" that was always doing calculations in his little book? Well, they gutted'em, and sent'em to Tap City flat broke. Flipping the floorman a $100 chip, I said, "Better get a taxi ready, because I'm about to gut this boy like they do those Polands in the slaughter houses in Chicago!"
You're now so annoyed and angry that you shove $4700 in the pot, Turning over nut aces, I rake in the pot, flip the floorman two $100 chips and say, "Floorman, cancel the taxi and order up a limo for David. He looks like he really does need are comfortable ride home".
-=-MouseEars
The way he's playing, he can't win this match, he gets eaten up by the blinds. He is not suppose to play Aces this way, but maybe in his universe this is the way they are played.
Fold.
MS Sunshine
My initial view was to go all in, he does not have the two Aces. After reading some posts regarding grinding out the sure win I have to agree that is a better way, this player is way bad.
"Get gassed in your garage of sickness as I bring a little swingin' to your world of stiffness" Kid Rock
E.Z. Pickens
...this is quite possibly true, and intuitively it seems likely, but how certain are we that he is playing too tight...how certain are we that he has not just received truly ugly cards for most of the first 41 hands? What about card distributions here, to give us an approximate degree of certainty that he is playing too tight?
Also, DS did not specify how much the raises were when this guy folded 13 out of 15 times against a raise--if the raises were quite substantial it is not necessarily an indication he is playing too tight.
It seems likely with a higher degree of certainty that he will give you a lot of free or cheap flops.
...to the conclusion that he is playing in such a manner that he should not be expected to be able to win? In other words, how sure of this can you be after "only" 41 hands played in this manner?
I don't know the answer to this but I think it is quite interesting and worthy of further exploration.
No.
Why risk it all when you have outplayed him through the 1st 40 hands. If he continues playing like this you should win his chips with minimal risk.
Ken Poklitar
40 hands 15 raised by you...he calls 2 times 1 raised by him...you didn't call I assume That means 24 hands were limped or somebody walked. You have only won $300....yet you stole the blinds 13 times. 13*$150= $1950 of blind money you robbed. Yet you are only up $300. He is, it seems, a better post flop player than you but an inferior preflop player (unless he has some reason for folding so much.) Your goal it would seem would be to get in as much money before the flop as you can and not try to outplay him.
Since you are a horrible player.....you CALL.
Poker Prodigy,
I'm changing my vote based on your logic (I think). Call!
Regards,
Rick
Note David's comments about the fourth hand. Suppose he flopped a set to your two pair there. With top and bottm, e.g., you'd get off the hand but not before losing a lot of money. It only takes one hand you both like.
To out-play him pre-flop, it seems, all you need is to find the raising amount that induces him to fold almost everything but a premium hand.
Less is more, in this case.
MS Sunshine
If he has AA, he must know that there is virtually no chance of him being called.
If he does this every hand and I wait for AA to call then there is very little chance that I will win the freeze out.
I can only think that he has concluded that he is being outplayed as he had presumably a reasonable lead after the 4th hand - he is trying to reduce the game to one hand where he hopes that he will be not be a huge underdog.
I would call.
You seem to be quite the favorite to blind steal him to death. You also seem to be quite the favorite on THIS hand since he's raised twice in 40 hands and is 220:1 or so to start with AA.
Since you are in the lead and you can realistically beat him even if you LOSE this hand, call. If you were NOT in the lead I would be tempted to throw this one away figuring to steal him to death rarely looking at your cards.
- Louie
just read all the posts...did not see one which asked if you know what he had when he raised before
if you do not know, then let's keep it that way..fold
if you do know..aces only, fold if you do know..less that aces, call
the reason we fold if "don't know", is that we do not have to win THIS hand to win the event, thus why risk so much?
Fold the kings. If your opponent only calls your preflop raise twice in fifteen, you will eventually have all his money. Do it like the Casinos do with Craps, take a little at a time and eventually you will have it all.
This is a long thread, and I have spot-read a few posts, but I haven't seen anyone ask what he raised with the one time he did, and also what he called with. Also, what did he have on the hand he won big with? These are the keys factors. IMO. I did see one post about this players state of mind, which is an excellent point. I would have to guess he may be a little leery as he had a big lead, and has lost it. But another factor if you want to play the psychology angle before hand 41, when did you take the lead? If we took it on hand 5, that will likely mean he is in a radically different state than if it were hand 40. Also, what about the 5300? Was I ever at 6k? or 4K? How did the two hands he called finish? This at the surface may seem an easy call/fold/raise, but it's s great question in that many more factors come into play than just assuming this is a tight player, as many posters in this thread assumed.
Given how tight this guy has been playing there are two factors that make you want to fold the two kings. One is that if he continues to play this tightly you can grind him out with a higher probability than the probability that the two kings win. The second thing is that his tightness increases the chances that he has aces when he does make this big raise or at least one ace, which is only a two and a half to one dog.
Poker Prodigy mentions that you should not be this small a winner at this point and he therefore is outplaying you after the flop. Thus you should call with the kings. He forgot that I said you lost a big pot early. I was implying that since it was before you realized his tightness it would not likely happen again.
M pointed out that it may have simply been a statistical fluke that he played this tightly for the first forty hands. That is extremely unlikely. On the other hand I would be concerned that this guy was simply setting you up with overly tight play at the beginning. But not overly concerned.
Louie Landale pointed out that if you called you would still have chips to grind back out of the hole. That is a good point and is a reason I made the chip coount what I did. But I don't think those 600 chips are enough to change your decision if you would ordinarily fold. Especially because with such a lead your opponent is very apt to get temporarily braver. It would be different if you started the hand with a 6000-4000 lead.
I can't prove I am right but if this situation really happenned to me I would fold.
Good points...I actually remembered and considered the fact that the hypothetical tight player won a big pot early. I took that, along with the disparity in blind stealing, to mean that the tight player was superior after the flop. There of course isn't enough sample size to determine anything like that but I've found in my experience that really good no limit players rarely lose big pots unless they get outdrawn or it is close mathematically(pot odds and all). I still call.
I may be wrong about the tight players superior post flop play...I am using my own experience. I tend to be fairly tight preflop but pretty good once the flop comes at smelling whether someone missed the flop. I can see both sides being correct in many instances.
BTW - I like this question a lot. Keep them coming David!
I felt it was pretty unlikely that his tightness was just a statistical fluke but I didn't know how to do math to be sure. I felt it unlikely also (though not as much so) that he was doing a big "set-up."
These questions are great, I love 'em, and by the looks of the numbers of responses so do others;-)
Let's say that this was the 21st hand instead of the 41st, and the stats re. folded hands etc. were correspondingly reduced as well. Would you now feel like folding the Kings? If not at the 21st hand, at approximately what point would you place the pivot where we can be reasonably certain that this opponent is playing too tight? Also, if this were an even earlier hand, perhaps some would still not call an all-in raise with Kings. So if necessary we can change the amount of the raise. I am just trying to get at approximately where we can place the pivot point for a strong degree of confidence that our opponent is playing too tight, given his folding ratio.
Thanks, Mark
If it were a regular cash game, I would consider it a slam dunk fold. But it's a freezeout. Presumably, your opponent knows this as well. Why would he ever raise straight all-in with AA in a freeze-out? Why wouldn't he try trapping, especially as he knows he hasn't been playing a lot of hands and has been folding to a lot of raises. Raising with AA here just makes no sense, and even a marginally knowledge no-limit player wouldn't do it at this point in the match.
Okay, if your assessment of him is that he really is bad enough to play AA this way, then I agree you should fold and try to outplay him on future hands. But David's description suggests only that he is tight or unlucky, not stupid or ignorant. In fact, the raise-out-of-nowhere looks like a shift in game strategy, since it's not consistent with his play so far.
You may not get another chance like this to get his whole stack, and as long as he has chips there's a chance he'll get all of yours. So in a freezeout I think you could give a lot more consideration to calling than some of you are. I'm not saying it's absolutely right to call, but it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
Hmmmm, interesting question captain. So far, you have been in total control pounding fastballs over the right field fence. Suddenly, a curveball... "The past does not = the future" What do you suppose this guys overall strategy is? Lure you into a false sense of security and then totally change gears? Is this apparent overbet a challenge to see how you react to aggression? How might your reaction affect the way he continues to play you in the future? I believe the key is what David said, "you know nothing of this player". I don't know for sure what I might do in this situation, but I do know, whatever decision I make, I want to make it quickly. Any hesitation here is going to give him an insight on how to play through the rest of this match. As a footnote, I would probably fold. I don't like the idea of committing that much of my stack on any hand until I have more information about the player. I don't think 41 hands is enough IMO.
Cheers.
Okay.... I don't see what he had when he took the hands down and I don't have any information about his actions when he had the blinds stolen. But, you knew there was a "but", didn't you?, either he's actually playing so tight he could eat a briquette and shit out a diamond or he's putting on a show of it. In either case, it doesn't really matter at this point.
With all of the play, including the monster pot he took down, I'm only up $600 on him. This indicates that the blinds have been fairly regularly going to both him and I. Given that, since I've only got eight hands worth of blinds left if I call and lose to his Aces, I don't think eight is enough to ensure I'm going to come out ahead with the back and forth exchange of blinds we've already seen.
Since I can just keep whittling at him at the current rate if I fold, I fold.
I admit I play too tight, it's a big hole in my game and I'm working on it. In this situation however, I don't think it's an issue. I think this is a case of taking the guaranteed $4700 rather than the real possibility of only $600.
Almost certainly not, unless there's a VERY lucrative side game waiting for you...
Are you trying to promote sales of "Getting the Best of it"? the explanation is within.
the fact that he called 2 of 15 raises suggests he respects your raises. This means you should probably respect his.
Dan Z.
I was somewhat surprised that no one posted an answer to the "Even Harder EV quiz" posted by "the pokerplayer formerly known as Jack ". I waited so long that it has scrolled off the forum, so here it is again, followed by my answer...
--------
In the EV quiz-thread (David Sklansky) and Harder EV quiz-thread (Tom Weideman) there were a lot of very good responses - easy for me to say because I believe in math.
Here is an Even Harder EV quiz !
A zero-one-game with 2 players (EARLY & LATE) - there is $1 (or $1000 if you please) of dead money in the pot to begin with. Both players is allowed to bet (fixed pot-limit) - but NO raises is allowed.
Q1: If you are EARLY with witch hands would you bet and with witch hands would you call ?
Q2: If you are LATE with witch hands would you bet and with witch hands would you call ?
--------
My answer:
FIRST TO ACT
bluff hands from 0 to 1/11
check/fold hands from 1/11 to 5/11
check/call hands from 5/11 to 9/11
value bet hands from 9/11 to 1
ev: 5/11 of pot
SECOND TO ACT
call bet with hands from 19/33 to 1
bluff hands from 0 to 2/11
showdown hands from 2/11 to 7/11
value bet hands from 7/11
ev: 6/11 of pot
Tom Weideman
I thought it was a very good question. I didn't really know how to do the math or how to approach it in a true mathematical sense.
My instincts were to bet the very worst, bet the best and the very best, check-fold a range above the very worst to about the mid-point, and check-call a range from about the mid-point to the start of the best.
I don't know how you came up with elevenths, and would be curious to find out. I also don't know how you came up with an EV determination. If you would care to elaborate in terms/equations most of us can follow and learn from, I would appreciate it.
Unfortunately, I don't see any way to simplify this down to a few simple shortcuts, but I can point out some features.
The first one is simple: To prevent player #2 from exploiting him with a calling strategy, player #1 must bet half as many hands as bluffs as he bets for value. This provides player #2 with exactly 2:1 odds, making him indifferent to calling.
Though we know the optimal value/bluff ratio must be 2, we don't know the absolute numbers of these. Computing them is non-trivial, but the key is in the ev associated with the middle hands. Specifically, suppose you choose to value bet and bluff (these go hand-in-hand in a 2:1 ratio, remember) way too many hands. This reduces the number of hands you will check to a very small number. When you DO decide to check, this gives player #2 a better idea of what he should do (for one thing, he gets to value bet more hands - more than all the hands you value bet), and this costs you ev.
On the other hand, if you value bet and bluff too few hands, you reduce the information you give your opponent, but you also miss out on some of the value you get from these plays.
The balance of these two opposing contributions to ev is where the equilibrium (optimal) solution lies. The actual math is not trivial, and no way will I be reproducing it here. You can, however, plug in some trial strategies in an attempt to exploit the strategies I have given to convince yourself that they are indeed optimal.
Tom Weideman
^
You are on the right track ... but not quite right.
One hint:
"SECOND TO ACT
call bet with hands from 19/33 to 1 "
... has to be changed to:
call with hands from 1/2 to 1
... because EARLY isn't supposed to make money on his bluffs.
More later ! I don't wanna spoil your fun - besides I'm busy at work.
You are on the right track ... but not quite right.
One hint:
"SECOND TO ACT
call bet with hands from 19/33 to 1 "
... has to be changed to:
call with hands from 1/2 to 1
... because EARLY isn't supposed to make money on his bluffs.
--------
Um, you may actually want to look this over again. I think you may have over-simplified the problem for yourself (i.e. this was a harder quiz than you realized).
The "doesn't make money on his bluffs" generalization actually doesn't work in more complicated games like this one which involve "regions" (or distributions) of hands (rather than all-or-nothing hands). The reason is that in such games the bluffer cannot indefinitely increase the number of bluffable hands without encroaching on hands he should check.
Let's simplify the game some, so that maybe I can show you this...
Let's allow player #2 to only call or fold. That is, player #1 has the choice of betting or showing down. Further suppose the bet size is the size of the pot. In this game, the optimal strategy for player #1 is to bet the top 2/9 of his hands for value, bluff the bottom 1/9, and showdown the rest. Player #2's optimal strategy is to call with the top 4/9 of his hands. These optimal strategies give an ev of 5/9 of the pot to player #1. [This all came out in the previous "harder ev quiz".]
Note that the times player #1 bluffs, he has a 4/9 chance of losing 1 bet, and a 5/9 chance of winning the pot (1 bet), so he is getting +ev on his bluff! If player #2 tries to prevent this by calling with frequency 1/2 (as you suggest), then player #2 can (maximally) exploit him by switching his value bet frequency to 1/4 and his bluffing frequency to zero. It's pretty easy to work out that this gives player #1 an ev of 9/16 of the pot, which is slightly more than the 5/9 of the pot that is the best that can be achieved when player #2 calls the top 4/9 of his hands.
I suggest you take a closer look at this kind of game before you administer any more quizzes.
Tom Weideman
Actually, I just came up with somewhat of a "shortcut" that may help to make sense of Jack's viewpoint and my answer.
Suppose we've done the work to come up with the value-bet and bluff frequencies for player #1:
value bet = top 2/11 of hands
bluff = bottom 1/11 of hands
Player #2 now has to decide what hands to call with. We know he should call with all hands that player #1 will bet for value (top 2/11), and also a few more to catch bluffs. The question is, what is this "few more"?
Well, he will not call with any hands that player #1 will bluff with, so that leaves him the top "x" hands in the 1/11 to 9/11 region, which has a "width" of 8/11. What fraction of these hands that he KNOWS will lose to a value bet and KNOWS will beat a bluff? Well, to avoid being exploited by player #1 changing his 2-to-1 value bet/bluff ratio, he needs to call with 1/3 of these hands (this makes player #1 indifferent to his value/bluff ratio).
So if we add the top 2/11 of hands plus the top 1/3 of the "middle" 8/11 of hands, we get that player #2 should call with the top 2/11 + (1/3)*(8/11) = 14/33 of his hands. These are the hands in the 19/33 to 1 range, as my answer indicates.
Notice that the phrase "player #1 should not make money from his bluffs" can be a bit misleading, but is sort of true in a sense. Basically it should be restated this way: "player #1 should not be able to make money by changing his value/bluff ratio from the optimal one".
Tom Weideman
Your making a lot of good point's - I agree 95%.
FIRST TO ACT bluff hands from 0 to 1/12 check/fold hands from 1/12 to 6/12 check/call hands from 6/12 to 10/12 value bet hands from 10/12 to 1
SECOND TO ACT call bet with hands from 6/12 to 1 bluff hands from 0 to 2/12 showdown hands from 2/12 to 8/12 value bet hands from 8/12 to 1
FIRST TO ACT
R1= 5/6 . B1= 1/12 . C1= 1/2.
SECOND TO ACT
R2= 2/3 . B2= 1/6 . C2= 1/2.
WE HAVE A OPTIMAL SOLUTION IF THE "SITUATION IS STABILIZED":
EV(B1*check/fold)=0 = EV(B1*bluff)=2*0,5-1=0
EV(B2*check)=1/6-1/12=1/12 = EV(B2*bluff)=2*(0,5-1/12)-(5/6-1/12)=1/12
(R2-C1)=2/12 = (R1-R2)=2/12
R1: (x-C2) = (x-R2+B2)
Hope this helps.
>>Your making a lot of good point's - I agree 95%.<<
As soon as you agree 100% (okay, 99.9%), then you will have the right answer.
>> Hope this helps. <<
It does help. It helps me track down where you are likely having your problems. I'll try to show you without writing a book...
Your player #1 strategy has a correct feature: You have the correct value bet to bluff ratio... 2:1. This renders irrelevant player #2's calling frequency with hands in the "in-between" region (hands that can only beat bluffs), as it should. But the absolute numbers for these values are slightly off (as are the check/call and check/fold numbers). I suspect this is because you have a problem with the subgame that arises when player #1 checks and player #2 gets to act.
When player #1 checks, player #2 gets to narrow his opponent's hands to a range between his lowest value-betting hand, and his highest bluffing hand. Player #2 will therefore value-bet ALL of the hands in player #1's value-bet range (since he now knows these are the now the nuts given that player #1 has checked), as well as SOME of the best hands in the "in-between" region, and he will bluff some of his weakest hands as well. He will bet twice as many hands in the "in-between" region as he bluffs, to make player #1 indifferent to calling. In order to avoid being exploited, player #1 will call with half of the hands in this in-between region (the usual pot-limit calling frequency). You have constructed an "in-between" region of 1/12 to 10/12 with your betting strategy for player #1. Halfway between these endpoints is the point 11/24. If your betting strategy for player #1 was correct, then your check-call strategy for player #1 should be between 11/24 and 10/12, but it isn't (you give 6/12 to 10/12), so you have an inconsistency in your answer.
Your problems with the "player #1 checks subgame" don't end there, but hopefully this will be enough to convince you to return to the drawing board. It looks to me like you have a good grasp of some shortcuts (because the ratios of betting frequencies look good), but the hard part of this problem is getting that absolute quantity for the value bet frequency (or bluff), and you aren't quite there yet. I'm guessing you used a shortcut that works for simpler cases, but fails in the subgame I mentioned.
If this does not convince you, we may need to resort to developing exploitive strategies against each other's (supposedly) optimal play to prove it is not optimal.
Tom Weideman
"You have constructed an "in-between" region of 1/12 to 10/12 with your betting strategy for player #1. Halfway between these endpoints is the point 11/24. If your betting strategy for player #1 was correct, then your check-call strategy for player #1 should be between 11/24 and 10/12, but it isn't (you give 6/12 to 10/12), so you have an inconsistency in your answer."
Sorry - this is wrong ! It looks to me like you have a good grasp of some shortcuts (because the ratios of betting frequencies look good), but the hard part of this problem is getting that absolute quantity for the value bet frequency (or bluff), and you aren't quite there yet. I'm guessing you used a shortcut that works for simpler cases, but fails in this subgame.
Your statement: C1= (1/12+10/12)/2= 11/24
Correct statement: C1= (2/12+10/12)/2= 12/24= 1/2
Also ceck out this equation:
EV(B2*check)=1/6-1/12=1/12 = EV(B1*bluff)=2*(0,5-1/12)-(5/6-1/12)=1/12
Hope I'm not sounding too arrogant !?
Posted by: the pokerplayer formerly known as Jack (pppecanu@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 August 2001, at 4:33 p.m.
Dear Formerly Jack,
We're gonna have to send you back to the minor leagues (R.G.P.)if you don't straighten up and fly right.
... you can't make it drink.
And I was just teasing you in light of Tom's critique, I have no idea which one of you are correct.
*
...if I can borrow Vince's VW bus.
Tom Weideman:I was somewhat surprised that no one posted an answer to the "Even Harder EV quiz"
People might be more eager to take a stab at these 'quizzes' if they weren't afraid of being talked down to if they get the answer wrong. Frankly, it's not always clear whether the purpose of these quizzes is to help people play better poker (questionable, given the extreme artificiality of most of these exercises) or to set up a scenario in which certain people can prove to themselves that they are still smarter than everybody else.
As for this particular 'quiz', knowing the answers isn't really any help at all. What is important, and which you omitted, is an explanation of how you arrived at those answers.
*
Hello everyone,
I want to start playing the 4-8-12 hold'em game at my local casino. The game is a standard 4-8 game with 2 blinds of $4.00 and $2.00. However, all bets on the river are $12.00. How much money should I have for this gaem before I play? $2400 or $3600?
thanks
The combination of your total bankroll and your routine buy in should be such that losing your entire buy-in is no "disaster", whatever that means for you.
Bankroll requirement calculations have little meaning for the employed. While a true "pro" may need to insure his chances to go broke stay arount 1%, the recreational player with a regular income can and should take far more liberties with his "bankroll", since losing it usually means waiting a week and re-staking.
- Louie
well said, Louie
I sometimes play 3-6-12 while waiting for a seat in a red chip game. based upon this game, I would say buy-in for 100 and be willing to spend 2 or 3 more in a session...MAX. since it is hard to win more than that, I fell that you should not lose more than that(in one session)
Would it be against a rule or just plain worng to use a PDA at the table to take notes on players and such?
Public Displays of Affection have no place at the poker table . . . get a room
:)
From personal expierience, what percentage of players that you've played against would be considered winning players, ?( showing a profit in the long run.) ? Would the figure be higher or lower comaparing to different limits or would it be the same ?
Mark M,
50% in high stakes games in major cardrooms. 10% to 20% in medium and lower stakes. 1% in small stakes games in higher raked casinos. higher as you play higher as the rake is less in relation to your bets and the players are better so their edge over each other is reduced. in casinos where the better players play alike then there will be more winners per game but each will be a smaller winner.
it can be draw, 7 stud, hold-em,whatever it can not be limit because that weakens one of the 3
1. the cards 2. money 3. people
the inter-relationship of these three, are what makes the game such a challenge
the way different people react to the same money, or the way the same people react to different money surely effect the play of the cards
likewise the same cards to different people, etc, etc
is any one of the three more important than the others???
[1] Money. You can play poker without cards and even without people, but it has no meaning without money (or some other measure of "value"). Winning must be "good" and losing must be "bad" or its not poker.
[2] Plan. Without a plan you won't win.
[3] People. Unless you are one of those top players who play a perfect theoretical game, of which I believe there are none, poker is a game of people.
[4] Cards. Once you have a plan to risk your money and adjust for people, the cards are largely irrelevant. If you plan to raise UTG with AA, KK, AKs, QQ, AK, JJ, and AQs and fold everthing else, then it makes no difference what you have when you look.
- Louie
aha, money! not only is it our reward for winning the battle, it's quite a weapon in the battle
the other players can not see our cards, thus fear of them is less clear....but they sure can see the stack which you have just bet at them
and at times, money sends us a signal (when we know the players) we know Thomas NEVER puts in a big stack without a big hand, etc
First, I fervently hope that this does not turn into a flaky thread like those on RPG on this topic. Here's the background: I have been playing tournaments and mid-level cash games for about 6 months in CA and LV. The main cheating concerns in tournaments seems to be chip caching (for wont of a better term) and in cash games collusion. As for tournaments, I have personally not seen anything suspicious. No chip dumping (which would seem almost as challenging to pull-off as winning them legitimately. And the chip count at the ten or so final tables I have been at seem pretty close and my chip count at the end of the two tournaments I won were right on. As for cash game team playing, I have seen soft-playing between friends when the action is heads-up (this is done quite openly and is certainly not cheating IMO). This is the only explicit "cooperation" I have witnessed between players. Quite often I have seen players demand to view mucked hands in three-way action. Never have I seen anything suspicious as a result of a those hands being exposed (of course, the hands could be, probably would be, folded prior to a showdown assuming the colluders were sharp.
My concerns about cheating lie in an entirely different area -- card manipulation. Marked cards, "mechanic" dealing, flashing cards, etc. I have seen card magicians at work and know that there is no way I could detect them if they were dealing in my poker game, no matter what the procedures were (I recall Eric Seidel commenting about how frightening he found a recent card "flashing" demonstration he witnesses). Given that there are always going to be "bad beats" at final tables, with even very good players "sucking out" on bad plays they made, it seems that being confident that those were merely the result of random bad luck and not something more sinister would be of interest to all serious players. I would be very interested to hear how some of the regulars (especially the pros) get comfortable with this issue.
I don't look for cheating of any kind or suspect it or even think about it. Whatever this disinterest might cost me in dollars is far surpassed by the peace of mind I enjoy.
Tommy
We play at the same clubs Tommy and I must say I watch for cheating like a hawk. But I haven't found any card marking yet...in fact there isn't even much in the way of fingernail markings. Not enough at least to consider it cheating rather than clumsiness. It was much different for me when I was playing underage during college. The Oaks Club in Emeryville had the worst things going on. It shows how much I like poker that I still wanted to play after all that.
"We play at the same clubs Tommy ..."
Well who the heck are you??
" ... and I must say I watch for cheating like a hawk."
I have never noticed a marked card unless it was dealt to me. I simply can't imagine that a card marker gains any edge at all from his deeds. If anything, I think he would lose edge because he's only got so much sensory energy to expend, and to spend so much of it on making and viewing marks, with deck changes and set up frequencies what they are, and then let's say he knows a player has such and such a card, what is the likelihood that this info is going to make him more money or lose him less money than straight-up honest play would have lost/won?
So while he's wasting time and energy with all that, I'm not wasting any energy in defense. Hey, bring on the card markers. Just don't let me know who they are and I'll be fine.
Tommy
Well....I would say it doesn't take a whole lot of energy to dig your nails in a card. If someone could mark all the aces plus had some basic skills at poker he would be tough to beat. I would never do this...but if I did mark Aces (even just 1 or 2 of them) with my nails and had good enough vision to see it you and everyone else would be in big trouble. Especially in a tighter game where more of the action is heads up or 3 way. Often an A high wins the showdown....if you know one of your opponents cards is an ace, he raises the preflop, and it comes rags than you can pretty well assume he missed the flop and bluff him off his no pair. Not a good situation.
"if I did mark Aces (even just 1 or 2 of them) with my nails and had good enough vision to see it you and everyone else would be in big trouble."
Prodigy,
I've nothing to go on here because I've never known for sure this ever took place. All I know is there is no way I could do it. It'd be physically impossible for me to watch all those cards coming off the deck, hour after hour, without a tremendous amount of vision loss, vision normally aimed at other people's hands and eyes. I'm not saying it couldn't be done. I just think the number of people who COULD AND WOULD do it is mighty slim.
Tommy
True enough...but it only takes one at your table to make your life miserable. That's why I watch for cheating but haven't really seen it at Lucky's or AJ's. Definitely a good thing. But I still watch for it.
Steve,
If you were to be sitting at a table with a card magician or sleight of hand expert, it would be impossible for you to "see" anything. They know how to effectively block all sight angles; this is why you can videotape a card magician and still not see what's being done because the camera's sight angle is the same as the observer's. However, if you back up about thirty feet and observe at table level, you may detect something, especially if you know what not to look at, because the magician can't block every angle.
John
Yes, this is my concern more than players nicking cards with their fingernails -- that is, dealers manipulating the cards. "suck-outs" are going to happen, and by definition will happen most often on bad plays. But what leaves me feeling uneasy is when I see a good player (or at least a knowlegeable player such as an off-duty dealer) make an inexplicably bad play such as six or seven betting an unimproved pocket pair on the turn against a very good player and then hitting the set on the river. Or in NL tournaments seeing good players call all-ins with weak hands and then sucking-out with them (it would certainly be less suspicious if they had raised rather than called with a weak hand). Maybe all coincidental, but the combination of good players making terrible plays and sucking out on them seems to happen more frequently than one might think, thus fueling possibly paranoid thoughts.
I'm fairly new to this game so please go easy on me if the answer to my question seems painfully obvious to you.
Example: small number of people involved in the hand pre-flop (2-4 people including yourself) The flop comes but it does not improve your hand at all (and you don't have an overpair in the pocket) . You are the first to act and you bet to represent a strong hand. One person calls. Turn comes and your hand is still unimproved. Bet or check/fold ?
Thanks for your help.
Ben
So you have a delema on the turn and that's common since you are usually called on the flop. Anticipating this is a reason to avoid the flop steal in bad position in the first place.
Sooooo, generally don't steal in bad position unless you have something, pretty much anything, which lets you steal again on the turn. A big exception is against particularly tight players who aren't going to call the flop with a hand they aren't going to show down. In this case, you can steal liberally but must, no duh, almost always give it up right away.
- Louie
PS. Betting out from the blinds is MUCH different than betting out from early position. If you are reasonably assertive you can have any pair from the blinds, but from early position its tough not to have top pair or better. Many opponents know this. Therefore, betting out when first is often NOT "representing a strong hand".
i play in a home game, 5-10, most games are omaha 8, holdem, 7cs hilo declare, 5 card stud hilo declare with a replace at the end.
players are terrible. for example, tonight playing omaha 8, the flop came 2-3-5 with two clubs. i had A-4 with a king high club flush draw. i bet and got 7 callers!!!! no one else had the wheel, and i ended up splitting when the club came on the end.
i win at this game, but the question is how much should i win. we only play 3-4 hours, once a week. i've won as much as $700, lost $400 max. i'm averaging about three big bets an hour, maybe more. is this unreasonably high, or should it be higher.
thanks.
I used to play a lot in a home game very much like the one you describe and 3BB per hour sounds like the right number to /expect/shoot for/be happy with, pre-rake.
Tommy
You should be able to earn lots in the two declare games against bad players. 3bb/hour sounds like a lot but its not unreasonable to expect it to continue.
But wait!!! If you DO continue to beat them silly they will stop playing. Disguise your wins; don't brag; congratulate them once in a while.
- Louie
The only barrier to a win of even more than this is the [usually] slow pace at which these games are played.
My guess is that you see less than 20 hands per hour.
If I'm correct you are probably winning ALMOST as much as is humanly possible, however if your play is solid (and theirs is as bad as you describe), three big bets per hour sounds like a very reasonable figure.
Best wishes,
- J D -
Dear David Sklansky (aka Oz, El Supremo, Lord Vader, et al),
DS writes: ". Though not a computer expert I am a logic algorithm expert and I am sure that it is harder to program a computer to play championship ring game poker than to play championship chess. The main reason is because some cards are face down.
However in the particular case of head up poker, there is theoretically a strategy involving randomizing your play (not just bluffs) that is unbeatable regardless of who the opponnt is, in spite of the incomplete information. Deriving that strategy is almost impossible for complex games and easy for simplified games where there is only one round of betting. Draw or lowball is hard but doable. THIS IS FACT. Proven by Von Neuman. Once you have that strategy, any computer programmer could program that strategy. But the fact that the computer could now beat a world champion had NOTHING TO DO with the skill of the programmer and everything to do with the skill of the mathmetician who derived the unbeatable random strategy. That mathmetician could have just as easily explained the strategy to his grandmother who would then also be unbeatable. And for the umpteenth time I will remind you that the strategy in question would do surprisngly poorly and only eke out a small win against bad players (one reason being it would try to bluff them too much).
At the bottom you mention that a against a bad player such a perfect strategy would only eek out a small win against a bad opponent. This leads me to infer that a bad player is somehow using a strategy that is somehow close to a perfect theoretical strategy. If this was not true than why would it lose slower than an expert?
You are good at spotting people's conceptual errors. What one am I having here? It seems illogical to me that a bad opponent can outperform an expert against a perfect strategy.
Where have I gone wrong? I am talking poker not chess.
It wouldn't out perform an expert. It just wouldn't be beaten by a computer for much more than the computer beat the expert for. That is mainly because the computer would assume all players bluff and call bluffs pretty much perfectly and would therefore not adjust to the weaker player's play.
Dear DS,
I was wrong in assuming that eeking out a small win meant that was less than against an expert.
I find it very counterintuitive that a bad opponent can play against a perfect strategy and only do a tad worse than the expert (again eke out a win implies this to me).
I would infer from this that one could take a bad opponent's style as a half decent starting point (meaning it isn't horribly off a perfect strategy) and adjust from there. I can't see any logical flaws in this.
Well I going to just have to teach myself advanced game theory. There appears to a lot of undiscovered country there.
It really isn't that advanced. Especially when bluffing frequency is the reason some one plays badly. And in head up games that is often the case. So for instnce if the bad player rarely bluffs, a human will exploit, it but the conputer will continue to use game theory to call, and will call more than it should against this player, thus not punishing him for that mistake.
David,
Are you saying that the program cannot *learn* that the player is bad and adjust? I think it could. In fact, to be good (win the most against the vast majority of players), a program must adjust to players tendencies. Perhaps theoretically a program should simply sit back and play game theory in all cases; and eke out a win by perfect strategy against anyone. But to win the most, especially in a real game, a program must use learning the opponents tendencies to its advantage.
I believe that pokibot and tthe both do this.
Mark
Mark,
Yes, the computer poker players try to adjust to opponents play. But they would still lose to the game theoretical poker player, computer or trained human.
There is a big problem with a computer poker player (or any poker player) adjusting to the styles of its opponents: the opponents "styles" could have been an unusual run of cards, or the opponents may be sophisticated enough to "change gears". That "change gears" may even be going on tilt, or playing scared because they are pulling their rent money out of their pockets.
So the game theory player will win a small amount against everyone always, and the pokibot and human players engage in guessing games with their opponents. Against expert (or very good) human opponents, how would you want the computer to behave were it playing on your bankroll? I don't think it will outguess the best human players.
As an aside, if you know your opponent is using game theory, you can play in some very strange ways. For example, if he is using game theory to bluff, you can always fold a bluff catching hand on the end. It does not matter what you do.
Against an expert player (someone who you do not feel you can outgess) one should strive to play in a game-theoretical fashion as a defensive measure more than an aggressive one.
This is why we are told in HPFAP to raise with small cards once in a while up front in hold 'em, or occaisionally just callwith hands like AKs and KK (I hate doing this with AA, but I digress). It is also why I do not cap shorthanded pots preflop. These are all defensive measures meant to keep our hands from being readable. Or, put another way, to keep experts from exploiting our fixed non-game-theoretically-optimal strategy.
Good luck.
Dan Z.
"So the game theory player will win a small amount against everyone always, and the pokibot and human players engage in guessing games with their opponents. Against expert (or very good) human opponents, how would you want the computer to behave were it playing on your bankroll? I don't think it will outguess the best human players."
If the only thing required was a pure guessing game, the computer could play my money every time. The tiltboys used to have a rock-scissors-paper bot online (sorry don't know the link) that would be deadly in the long run against a human opponent. If the only thing necessary to beating multiplayer poker was outguessing, the game would be over. Predicting based on past data is something a computer can do very well. Check out iocaine which one the last roshambot competition:
http://ofb.net/~egnor/iocaine.html
JG
"Or, put another way, to keep experts from exploiting our fixed non-game-theoretically-optimal strategy."
Dan Z.,
Great post! I would like to add one thing. No game theoretical optimal strategy exists for any Live action Casino Poker Game. Nor will one ever exist for any game not played heads up and maybe not even for heads up play. That's two things, sorry.
Vince
Thanks Vince. Maybe I can earn a thread on your board someday...
While we are hundreds of years away from PhD math students have exploited every other possible thesis topics that they are desperate enough to use supercomputers to generate game-theoretically optimized strategies for ring game stud and hold 'em, we can certainly say that some behaviors violate tenets of game theory and are thus expensive against akilled opponents who adjust to our play.
In this sense, predictable strategies, especially those that enable the skilled hand reader to narrowly define our hands, are very damaging. So we can't usually say what optimal game theoretical play is, but we can identify things which are far from optimal and thus expensive.
this is very similar to the Supreme Court justice's famous opinion on pornography,"I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."
Good luck.
Dan Z.
Thanks,
Vince
I find it very counterintuitive that a bad opponent can play against a perfect strategy and only do a tad worse than the expert (again eke out a win implies this to me).
its not a perfect strategy, just an unexploitable one. that is, your opponents cant profit from your bluffs no matter how they decide to call when you bluff optimally(assuming no tells).
I would infer from this that one could take a bad opponent's style as a half decent starting point (meaning it isn't horribly off a perfect strategy) and adjust from there. I can't see any logical flaws in this.
no, i dont think that a bad players strategy is a starting point...
think of it this way...
an expert player is playing a bad player who folds 90% of the time on the river... but gives a tell when he will call...
well the expert will bluff him out every time he can, rarely bet for value and will check behind to save a bet when he wouldnt want to be called. very easy for a human to exploit.
now, in the case of the computer, it will be using game theory to bluff. well game theory is designed to be un-exploitable, but it is NOT the most profitable.
so, while the computer is breaking even using game theory, the expert is gaining profit by using tells and knowledge of the player to bluff perfectly.
this is why the player would beat a bad player worse than a computer would. also the computer assumes a competent opponent and doesnt fully exploit the bad players mistakes.
no, i dont think that a bad players strategy is a starting point...
Well that's what had me wondering. If a strategy is undefeatable yet only ekes out a win against another strategy, I was (falsely, it seems) thinking that this strategy was close itself to a decent strategy.
I also gather that my use of the term "perfect strategy" is wrong. I understand your explanation.
Thank you. I am still going to teach myself some stuff, however. I think game theory (I did study basics long ago) has direct relationship to some of the things I have been doing without me even realizing it.
Thanks to both DS and nf.
regards.
Don’t bother with advanced game theory.
Sklansky admitted that neither he nor anyone else knows how to apply game theory to more than one opp.
You’re interested in investigating multiplayer situations.
And your multidimensional approach is the way to go.
Let me make a suggestion.
To better explain your ideas you’d be better off losing the multi dimension lingo.
Recall that any number of dimensions greater than two can be simplified to a two dimensional array by just adding more columns.
Here's an "easy" 3 handed game theoretical situation.
7 card stud. Player 1 has a paired door card on 4th, and no other pair. Other players both have obvious flushes, with the better flush board acting 2nd.
How often should the 3 of a kind check-raise bluff, assuming the big flush board will bet again?
I saw this hand a couple months ago, and the check-raise bluffer was belittled by half the table.
Any thoughts?
Dan Z.
The closeness of a good players results and a bad players results against the computer is a feature of the "perfect" strategy and NOT a feature of the quality of the opponent's strategy.
If I bluff at the perfect frequency it doesn't matter what calling strategy the opponent adopts. Thus, good and bad opponents are equally helpless to beat me.
- Louie
I want to include a post of mine from the internet poker forum- since i think that it applies here-- and id be very curious to hear all responses: --------
Im trying to understand the relative feasibility of a programmer writing the following successful bots:
1. chess bot 2. multiway poker bot (hold'em) 3. heads up poker bot (hold'em) 4. multiway poker bot (omaha 8/better) 5. heads up poker bot (omaha 8/better)
Im not truly interested in the chess bot-- except as a standard off of which to measure the feasibility of a successful poker bot being created- in that the chess bot has already been created to perform on a world class level.
Actually- i think the most interesting question here is: which of the four poker bots listed above would be easiest to create.................
I would hypothesize-- and again- im no programming expert-- but i do understand the basics and complexities of the four games listed- the following list-- from easiest to hardest to create successfully:
4,3,5,2
Just a guess- of course-- but i am curious-- what everyone else thinks.
First of all you must define the goal of the bot. Is it to just play? Play fair? Win?
just play: 1, 2&3, 4&5
Play fair: 1, 4&5, 2&3
Win: 1, forgegettabout 2,3,4&5
Vince
Some of these pokibots already exit. Go to this site: www.cs.ualberta.ca/~games/poker. The Univ. of Alberta Computer Poker Research Group is working on primarly Texas Hold'em. They have a new Windows interface for playing Texas Hold'em over the IRC. If Prof. Schaeffer and his students perfect their Poki program, it would seem possible to me that they could comnnect it to the on-line casinos and make tons of money 24/7 in limit Hold'em games. This is a link to another website that allows you to play quite variety of the popular draw, stud, and community poker games.
-=-MouseEars
I understand the heads-up game theory (fully I believe). I am curious about the statement that optimal strategy would eke out a small win against a bad player. Certainly other strategies could do much better against a particular bad player. But can anyone actually prove that the EV of optimal strategy vs a certain type of bad player would only have a modest win, or has anyone quantified this. Or are there at best, just highly respectable educated guesses (which are probably correct, but not provably so).
For example, how would optimal strategy do against a player who always checks and calls, and never bets, raises or folds.
How would optimal strategy do against a player who always checks or folds, and never bets, raises or calls.
How would optimal strategy do against a player who always bets or raises, and never checks, calls, or folds.
Obviously an exploitative strategy would do much better against such players. But how good would the optimal strategy be?
For multiplayer poker there may be a Nash Equilibrium strategy. (I would guess there is, but does anyone have any idea how to prove such a thing). This is a strategy such that if all but one players play it, then the remaining player can do know better than playing it too. (It could be there are more than one, less than one, or exactly one such strategy(s).) I wonder how such a strategy would do against various fields of players, as compared to an expert who tries to detect his opponents flaws and exploits them. And what is truly known about this?
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
- Can a dealer put a player on “2 minutes” notice on his own initiative?
- Can a player who is not involved in the pot request the dealer to give such notice?
- What is the position if at the end of the 2 minutes the player who’s turn it is to speak has neither checked, called, raised, or folded, if:
a) there is no bet or raise to call
b) there is a bet or raise to call
If you know the answers please post.
Thanks.
I have no idea.
How about [1] No, but depends on house rule. [2] No, but depends on house rule, probably the same rule as [1]. [3a] Check [3b] Fold.
Do you plan on using the full two minutes every time?
Greg, no, a dealer may not impose the 2 minute notice as the dealer should never be involved in the game. (I don't know why a dealer would want to considering the percentage of their wage is made up of tips.) A floorman may invoke the notice if it is constant offence by the same player. The house loses money when players are continuously slow. If a player has been clocked and still has not acted at the end of time, that players hand would be considered dead and placed in the muck. I am not sure why a player would take a long time with no bet to him/her unless in a timed tournament.
Cheers
Larry
Larry,Bearing in mind that poker has no written laws but only generally accepted conventions I agree with your assessment that the dealer, unless specifically mandated, has no authority to invoke the two-minute rule. But, at the same time, there is no written law either that a player may request the imposition of such a limit if an opponent is taking to long to analyse a hand. Take, for example, the final hand in the World Series of Poker 2000, between Cloutier and Chris Ferguson that decided the overall winner - 1st prize $1.5 mill. At a point where Cloutier was nearly level with Ferguson, who at one point had some 90% of the chips, he responded to a small preflop raise by going all-in. Ferguson took the best part of some five minutes to figure out whether to call or to fold. In fact he called, with A 9 suited, and won the $1.5 mill. first prize – with a pair of nines, which came on the river. Admittedly it was a tough call. Cloutier was gracious in defeat (2nd prize $896,500), and offered Ferguson his warm congratulations. The question that arise is academic
Could Cloutier have asked for the imposition of the 2-minute rule, and if so by what authority? (bearing in mind that there are no written laws and I do not know whether there would have been provisions for this eventuality in the championship rules, if such a thing was ever composed).
Had Cloutier applied for the ruling and put Ferguson under time pressure (and why not?) the outcome might have been different.
Regards,
Greg K
The new version of HPFAP has sections on playing short handed, especially with a maniac. One key point is that you have to call (and raise) the maniac much more than you would need to in a full game. The more players there are, the more you can share the burden of keeping the maniac honest.
You had to at least ensure that the maniac did not show an immediate profit, by immediately winning the pot too often.
In particular, (according to HPFAP21C), if the maniac raises the blinds in 3-handed play, you don't need to call or raise as much as you would in heads up play against a maniac. Similar pricipals apply throughout the hand (and to any short-handed poker game).
So let's talk about 3-handed play specifically. Suppose there is a maniac who is betting and raising too often (more often than he should for the situation, which means a real lot).
Now your strategy and expectation depends also on the playing style of the other opponent, and also the relative positions of the players. (There are two ways to cyclically arrange three players.)
So I have questions about how you should play in two scenarios and in each case, two seating arrangements, but perhaps the scenarios are more significant than the seating arrangements here.
Scenario 1) The third player is playing table sheriff, fully taking on the burden of keeping the maniac honest (as much as would be appropriate heads up) even though some of the burden should be carried by you.
1A) maniac on right
1B) maniac on left
Scenario 2) The third player is NOT playing table sheriff at all. Either you have to fully take on the burden of keeping the maniac honest (as much as would be appropriate heads up), or no-one will do it.
2A) maniac on right
2B) maniac on left
How should you play in each case? (Ignore seating if you couldn't be bothered with that.) Are any of these opponent style combinations unbeatable (negative EV for you, no matter what you do).
It seems to me that scenario 1 is very good, and scenario 2 is very bad, but I'm not sure.
While short-handed play is very different to full game play, it is also true that many extra considerations arise game theoretically when there are three or more players, rather than just two.
I have not seen anything written about the scenarios I've given (nor much about these types of questions). I eagerly await comments.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
I fear some people do not understand my position about poker playing computers. Even in the case of headup play, I do not believe a computer that plays perfect game theory is the way to go in most cases. The only thing that could be said for it is that it would lose to no one.
There are two alternative . One is to have the computer play the same randomized, but not optimal game theory, strategy against everyone. (It has to invoke randomizing to some degree or it could be too easily figured out.) That strategy would be devised by someone like me, to beat the typical player at the highest rate. It would beat the sucker for more than the game theory computer would but still less than an expert would. It would also be a slight dog to a world champion. In the case of multiway play, there is no way to come up with a perfect game theory strategy. Thus this alternative would have to do. With enough man hours and expert advice, the computer would beat most games, especially if the opponents did not know they were playing a computer.
The other alternative would be to combine expert advice and/or game theory with the ability to "learn" as Mark the K suggested. This seems logical since you are mimicing what good human players do. And that is fine as long as the opponent is unaware that he is playing a computer that is trying to do this. If, however the human expert opponent is aware of it he will eventually, after throwing some curveballs, dispatch that computer with ease. Which is of course, what Vince was trying to say all along.
"what Vince was trying to say all along. "
What Vince was saying all along is closer.
"In the case of multiway play, there is no way to come up with a perfect game theory strategy."
What Vince was saying all along. (Read my response below to Dan Z. which I made before reading this.)
Vince
What about a third alternative strategy of the computer shifting to exploitative strategies based upon the opponent's patterns, but modified by first calculating the EV the opponent could hope to gain by "switching" tactics, and then choosing a exploitative deviation from GTO that is always less than the EV the opponent could realize by such changing of tactics. In other words the computer would sometimes choose an exploitative strategy based upon the opponent's apparent stylistic weaknesses, but never so often or to such a degree that the opponent could expect to gain overall EV by "switching." This would be an extremely complex expansion on the theme which is employed by blackjack tracking software which observes the player's overall EV of betting in keeping with the count. The key being the ability to evaluate the overall EV of the entire picture.
This would be extremely complex algorithm for heads-up poker (to say the least), but not necessarily out of reach at some point in the future.
Wouldn't this theoretically be possible at some future date, or am I overlooking something in this conjecture (conceptually speaking)?
Still theoretically exploitable. Take bluffing. Since I know the computer starts out bluffing in such a way that it doesn't matter whether I call or fold, I can simply call all the time. Eventually it will start bluffing less than optimally in M's scenario and I can take advantage. The blackjack analogy doesn't apply.
Okay,but how is this a question about computers, rather than humans? It seems to me this is a game-theoretic issue, independent of any human vs computer debate.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
In this scenario it appears to me that the computer could start bluffing a bit less after noticing your calling frequency and would show a profit until you reversed tactics. After you reversed tactics you would regain some previous losses until the computer noticed that you had decreased your calling frequency and so itself re-adjusted. As long as the computer could re-evaluate and adjust all along the way (it would never get "locked in" to a prior evaluation), I don't see how the player could gain by such attempted "steering" of the computer in the wrong direction. The computer would also mix this adjustable exploitative tactic with GTO play. I've made conceptual errors before, so I am aware that I might be making one above;-). I just don't see what it might be.
As far as the Blackjack analogy I am aware that it is pretty far-fetched and doesn't really apply; it just seemed the only way to express what I was thinking as far as the computer being programmed to consider the EV of everything, not just the hand at the moment.
"the computer being programmed to consider the EV of everything, "
Mark (my words), This would prove to be a waste of computer power.
Vince
Could be; never said otherwise; just speculating;-)
(Good points, M)
I think it is important to separate two issues.
1) What does game theory tell us, and
2) what can computers do.
Game theory tells us that in a heads-up zero-sum game there is an optimal strategy for each player. In a symmetrical (or fair) such game an optimal player can do no worse than break even, regardless of what his opponent does. The optimal player has a randomized strategy, but has (or needs have) no memory of his opponents play, nor any concept of how his opponent plays. Even if the opponent does remember all previous plays and tries to use that information, the effort is futile. The optimal strategy is unbeatable. Any non-optimal strategy is beatable, even if it tries to remember all previous plays and tries to use that information. (Note that I am not claiming optimal strategy is necessarily unique.)
Game theory also tells us that against certain opponents you could do better than by playing an optimal strategy, provided you truly know their weaknesses and properly exploit them. (But this non-optimal play in turn opens you up to exploitation yourself.)
If you know about game theory, you knew all this anyway. (And if you don't agree with my account of game theory, just go by what you know to be true.)
But the point is that these game theoretic questions are separate from human vs computer questions. Or to put it another way, both a human and a computer team (computer(s) plus programmer plus advisors) would have to address exactly the same types of game theoretic questions, make the same type of decisions about how to use game theory, and make the same decisions about how to use what they think they know about their opponents' play.
When we get to multiplayer, there are more game-theoretic issues. It is certainly not the case that game theory tells us nothing, just that the situation is more complex, and their is more than one type of optimum you can define (and no general guarantee that such optima exist). But again, both a human and a computer team are confronted with the same situation.
So I think it is a mistake of logic to point out dilemmas and decisions faced by a computer team, and to say this is a drawback for the computer team, when a human player is confronted with exactly the same dilemmas and decisions.
By the way, I think it would be interesting to see how computer teams would do against computers. One can try to argue from firat principles who would win, but I think it would be very interesting to have an actual competition.
Such a competition could generate public interest in poker (especially since people would win, at least for a while).
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
"Game theory tells us that in a heads-up zero-sum game there is an optimal strategy for each player"
Are limit Holdem and limit 7 stud considered zero-sum games?
vince
.
They are still zero sum, but in this case the worst the optimal strategy can do is lose an amount equal to the rake.
>>That strategy would be devised by someone like me, to beat the typical player at the highest rate.
I agree.
If you were as good at programming as you are at poker, we’d have a very tough program by now.
>>It would beat the sucker for more than the game theory computer would but still less than an expert >>would.
This isn’t clear.
In most games there’s a class of players who play just below expert levels and yet they mop up the fish quicker than most of the Experts do.
You see it in chess in five minute games.
You see it at bridge in huge open pair regional tournaments.
These players play a trappy and quick style and whatever they see ,or are ever going to see, they see very quickly.
When they play an expert in a slow game, they don’t do very well.
>>The other alternative would be to combine expert advice and/or game theory with the ability to "learn" >>as Mark the K suggested.
This would have to be at least ten times more difficult to implement.
>>If, however the human expert opponent is aware of it he will eventually, after throwing some >>curveballs, dispatch that computer with ease.
Not necessarily so.
Have you heard of the experiments of computer scientist Robert Axelrod?
He decided to run an iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma tournament and wrote the whole thing up in a book called The Evolution of Cooperation.
He invited game theorists from all around the world to submit a program or a strategy that would play in a computer driven round robin Prisoner’s Dilemma tournament.
Of course what ever strategy being used would remember its opp’s previous play up to that point.
The programs would play, say, a 100 games Vs one opp and then the programs would switch and play some other opp.
Well one program did very well.
So he published the strategy and everyone from around the world was invited to resubmit a strategy to beat it.
The same best strategy still won.
>>Which is of course, what Vince was trying to say all along
Three cheers for Mr. Vince.
Yes, the Tit for Tat strategy. Anyway here is a point some of you are missing. The human would KNOW it is playing against a computer because it SAW that it was. Thus an expert in that situation has information that could not be duplicated exactly in a computer program. The computer program can only go by the way the opponent is playing when it comes time to adjust off Game Theory. The human on the other hand can assume things about the computer (for example to utterly ignore obvious curveballs). Interestingly this unsymmetric aspect of the head up game hurts not only computers but also players like me when playing strangers. If they play close to as well as I do, they have a nice edge the first few hours, if they purposely try to throw me off, since I can't believably do it back to them.
I don’t get it.
What’s the difference if a curve ball is thrown
1. Accidently
2. On purpose
3. Randomly
?
Anyway, we're now talking about non game theory computer programs, with, as you mentioned earlier, just a bit of randomization.
"You see it in chess in five minute games.
You see it at bridge in huge open pair regional tournaments.
These players play a trappy and quick style and whatever they see ,or are ever going to see, they see very quickly.
When they play an expert in a slow game, they don’t do very well."
Wow! All prospective pro poker players should reread the above. "whatever they see, or are ever going to see, they see very quickly". Just may be the definition of a trait of great but less than greatest players of a game. I am not a psychologist nor am I saying that this statement is even true but it just may be and it may be the answer to a lot of questions. Very perceptive. Definitely food for thought.
Gee, I believe that this statement really has a lot of implications for poker players. It may just be the driving force behind would be chess players switching over to poker. Maybe not but could be. I believe I will think about this somemore.
Vince
I believe that speed of thought is a very important factor in poker. If you are thinking ahead of your opponent you can consider more scenarios and anticipate more quickly. You can also "watch him think" which may aid in your reading of him and the situation. I suspect that many of the greatest players, in addition to their other skills and knowledge, are extremely good at "watching people think." Part of this comes from experience; an experienced player can often tell just what a novice is thinking. Well no doubt this sort of thing sometimes goes on when a very good player plays a great player as well.
This may be one major part of the explanation for certain players' success in large tournaments...they think fast and can "read the minds" of their opponents with a fairly high degree of accuracy. The pressure-cooker environment just makes most players easier to read anyway.
***There are two alternative . One is to have the computer play the same randomized, but not optimal game theory, strategy against everyone. (It has to invoke randomizing to some degree or it could be too easily figured out.) That strategy would be devised by someone like me, to beat the typical player at the highest rate. It would beat the sucker for more than the game theory computer would but still less than an expert would. It would also be a slight dog to a world champion. In the case of multiway play, there is no way to come up with a perfect game theory strategy. Thus this alternative would have to do. With enough man hours and expert advice, the computer would beat most games, especially if the opponents did not know they were playing a computer. ***
Do you really think that you (or any group of experts) could come up with a computer strategy to "beat most games"? What about table selection, what about the opponents strategies? In your books you frequently mention that a certain play should be made in one instance, but adjusted slightly or completely depending on the opponents, for instance something like "If a tight player raises in early position..." How would the computer know someone was tight if it couldn't learn? How would the computer figure out whether it was ok to play hands in groups 1-5, 1-4 or only 1-3 in early position (for example) if it couldn't tell whether the game was loose, normal or tough?
While I would be willing to believe that a set strategy (with proper randomization) could beat many lower limit games (assuming no one knew it was a computer) where the players are making enough mistakes for it to exploit, any program of this sort would run into trouble when someone was playing substantially differently from good strategy. The general thought about a maniac who plays almost every hand and raises with most of them is that his play is so poor that he will give you his money despite it being near impossible for you to put him on a hand. A computer that was not able to learn, however, would be assuming each of its opponents played approximately correctly, and hence its calculations of how often it should defend a pot or value bet or whatever would be significantly skewed against a maniac, as would its hand reading algorithm. It would be consistenly bluffed out of pots.
I don't think you can get away with making a poker program that doesn't attempt learn its opponents tendencies.
I have a theory regarding Baccarat and why whales play this. I apologize to those of you looking for a poker thought. I think the reason why whales play this is that, psychologically, there is no post-wager decisions. Therefore, they never have to "blame" themselves for losing 1 million bucks. And, the exception to prove the rule, is Archie Karras. Anyone else have any thoughts??? These are the kinds of things I think about when I am sitting at home and the power goes out.
I think its the agreeable feeling they get when they are associated with something "sophisticated", like James Bond.
and remember that game has long been glamorized by books and movies as game of the high rollers, so they establish themselves with this identity
There have been a lot of postings about Computers, Game Theory and Head' Up Play.
What I wonder is what is the perfect "Game Theory for Heads Up Play"? Is it the the strategies that are contained in HFAP, shorthanded section or are thoose strategies developed specifically against very aggressive opponents? Are there other strategies?
I feel that I am at worst when playing H-H and would really like to learn more, specifically what the perfect play would be (even though it wouldn't take advantage of worse opponents).
Before you could even begin defining such a strategy you must define how the game is to be played. In holdem for instance is it limit, pot limit, no limit, etc. How much are the blinds? How much of a bank does each player have? etc..
Game Theory Optimal Stategy for heads up play is not available. Has not been devleoped. Is not in use. Might not be able to be defined. The use of game theory in heads up play is powerful. It may not be possible to beat (long run) an expert poker player that employs perfect game theory during heads up play but that does not mean that there is such a thing as a defined game theoretical strategy for playing heads up. Game theory would be employed based on the situation in which one finds himself.
There is a limit holdem strategy that always raises preflop when first to act. There is a gane theory based strategy to counter that by reraising the correct game theoretical percentage of times. But any game theory strategy for limit poker would begin to break down once there was a flop and the further one goes into the hand the weaker the game theory strategy would be. If the GTO strategy was reevaluated at each step that might help but it would now be an inferior strategy to that which an expert used based on his experience. The exception may be the river where one would have to evaluate the situation as it appears and apply the correct game theory betting strategy for that situation. But even at the river the expert that knows his opponent may do better by using his experience rather than a game theory strategy that does not take the opponent into account.
If you want a heads up strategy that will work you will do better by studying how people play than by what to play.
vince
"But any game theory strategy for limit poker would begin to break down once there was a flop and the further one goes into the hand the weaker the game theory strategy would be."
If the correct game theory strategy were known at each point throughout the hand, would it actually get weaker or would it just get harder to find the GTO play in the middle of the hand?
"If the GTO strategy was reevaluated at each step that might help but it would now be an inferior strategy to that which an expert used based on his experience."
Vs. what opponent? Is this statement untrue vs. some opponents?
"If you want a heads up strategy that will work you will do better by studying how people play than by what to play."
Again, vs. what opponent...and I'm not talking computers here.
If you tried playing your best poker and reading your opponent against a certain well-known Connecticut player, you or almost anyone else I can think of in the state would probably get annihilated. You can't outread a better reader, you can't outplay a better player, and you can't outthink a guy who is both sharper and faster. I couldn't beat him heads-up either and I wouldn't care to try unless I first became quite expert in game theory. And even then I would want to have practiced always betting and moving my chips in an identical manner and at about the same time-delay between actions.
So if you are the better player, by all means beat your heads-up opponent by your better play. But if you are facing a better player (such as heads-up for the top prize in a tournament), the defensive posture of some basic game theory would probably be your best tactic.
"You can't outread a better reader, you can't outplay a better player, and you can't outthink a guy who is both sharper and faster. "
I guess you should just die then. Or maybe sell cars, that's easier.
Vince
Vince,
Some people are just better at the game than you or I, and always will be especially heads-up (unless we somehow master game theory to a high degree). It isn't a matter of knowledge, it isn't a matter of effort, and there isn't anything we can do about it. What I mean, of course, is not that we can't get better---not by a long shot--of course we can get lots better. But if you or I devoted our lives to chess or baseball we could never be a Bobby Fischer or a Willie Mays. Some things are just a matter of natural talent as well as effort and learning. Being a truly great player (as opposed to a merely a very good or excellent player) requires a certain very rare degree of natural talent.
If you pit two players against each other who both possess roughly equal knowledge and experience, the guy with the greater talent for the game will generally come out on top. Poker is no different than any other game (except for the short-term luck factor) in this regard, and live heads-up poker is a specialized form of poker where natural talent means a great deal.
You don't have to be the best in the world to make a lot of money playing poker. It would be very unrealistic to think that there are not others who just have lots more natural talent for the game than you or I possess, however, and short-handed and heads-up magnifies the importance of natural talent.
BTW, selling cars probably takes talent too, and I don't think it would be easier.
"It isn't a matter of knowledge, it isn't a matter of effort, "
And it isn't a "matter of fact" either. Part of being a winning poker player is attitude. If you do not feel you are the best at the table or can find a way to play against or with the best at the table you probably should not be at the table. You may find youself giving up to much because you fear someone at the table. Now if you find yourself heads-up at the table with this super Conneticut pro and you feel afraid then get up and don't sit down with him again. Of course if you feel that you may want to improve your game you may want to sit with the best once in a while to learn something. I do.
BTW - when you can give a good definition of poker talent we'll discuss it. I don't believe you rally understand it. After all it's not discussed in TOP.
Vince
In poker:
-A positive attitude helps
-An unrealistic attitude can be deadly
I don't see anything unrealistic or not positive in what I've posted above.
I'm also positive there exist more talented players than you or I, and I see no reason to play them heads-up for serious stakes unless forced to as in a tournament situation.
Don't YOU think there exist more talented players than you or I? For that matter, it is quite possible that there may not exist anyone more knowledgeable about poker than Sklansky. I would bet that there are some who are more naturally talented at the game, however.
I don't see what any of the above has to do with not being positive.
You don't have to feel you are the best in a ring game to sit down and expect to show a profit. Generally, there just has to exist at least one player who is substantially worse than you and you should expect to do reasonably well.
"who is substantially worse than you "
An interesting point of view.
Vince
^
So what we have is someone substantially or considerably worse than M....
So what do we know about M...? M is not as bad as some of his opponents. So what can we infer about M...Well he is not as bad as some but he is bad or at least considerably less "worse" than some of his opponents. So does bad = less worse or is M... worse and his oponnent "worser". So what do you think M... thinks about his own game? Bad? Or just less worse than some others? Oohhh!
Vince
I'm better than those who are worse than me.
"I'm better than those who are worse than me. "
I guess that makes you a "worse" of a different color.
vince
You are now making a fool of yourself. Your explanation of what optimal Game Theory head up holdem play is, is simply incorrect. And it might be why you have so stubbornly taken a misguided stance on the whole issue. Properly calculated game theory does NOT evaluate each betting round independently. That is why it would be so monumentally hard (but not impossible)to derive for games with more than two rounds of betting. But if someone did it, it would lose to nobody. Period. Yes an expert could come up with better strategies to beat weak players worse but that expert would not beat the computer. Such a computer program is fairly easily obtainable in draw. And it could be done in holdem as well. It would just take possibly millions of man hours. It won't be done because it is not only too expensive but also because a computer program using expert guidance rather than 100% game theory is actually not only simpler to do but will in practice play better as well. But again you need to understand that perfect game theory strategy is not what you thought and does not have the flaws you ascribe to it.
"Your explanation of what optimal Game Theory head up holdem play is, is simply incorrect. "
Hey don't call me a fool unless you know what you are talking about. I said that there is no such animal as optimal Game Theory head up holdem play. I did not explain what it was nor claim to know what it is. I said it don't exist and you agreed:
"Properly calculated game theory does NOT evaluate each betting round independently. That is why it would be so monumentally hard (but not impossible)to derive for games with more than two rounds of betting."
I did not say that it does evaluate each betting round independently. I said that it would help if it did. Do you disagree with that? No, I have a pretty good idea of how the calculations would be accomplished in determining the correct game theory play for limit heads up holdem. Unlike you though I don't think it is possible to do it and even if you could do something that looks good I don't believe that it could not be beaten.
"It won't be done "
In this we agree for different reason. You say expense I say because you and your like in all your infinite wisdom are incapable of defining the strategy.
David, please do not take up the habits of your adversaries and begin to attack the messenger (make a fool of yourself) rather than the message just because you find yourself in an untenable position for which all you can offer is a rhetoric "it can be done" with no mathematical proof.
vince
I can't resist butting in.
1. He didn't call you a fool, he said you were incorrect. There is a huge difference.
2. You wrote:
>>I have a pretty good idea of how the calculations would be accomplished in determining the correct game theory play for limit heads up holdem. <<
I don't have a good idea, how would the calculations be accomplished in determining the correct game theory play for limit heads up holdem? I don't think you have the vaguest idea either.
3. You wrote:
>>You say expense I say because you and your like in all your infinite wisdom are incapable of defining the strategy.<<
What is this supposed to mean? It seems like a gratuitous slam directed at anyone who doesn't share your opinions. It seems rather narrow minded.
4. You wrote:
>>David, please do not take up the habits of your adversaries and begin to attack the messenger (make a fool of yourself) rather than the message just because you find yourself in an untenable position for which all you can offer is a rhetoric "it can be done" with no mathematical proof.<<
You're demanding a mathematical proof? That's unbelievable really. I don't understand your apparent hostility regarding this subject.
Having read many of the many good poker books; and having been a poker player for 40 years (one of the last remaining low ball players still alive (San Jose - 60's - lol), I feel Malmuth, Skalansky, Brunson, Baldwin, Caro, Feeny, Macevoy (sic)and TJ Cloutier among others are all very very smart and have the game very well figured out and are integral reading to anyone wanting to play top notch poker.
But one person, JT Cloutier, in the above group stands out in my mind for this reason. In his book on hold em, he gives the reader "a pretty much complete and practical game". And that game, if you read carefully is almost impregnable. I can see why he is so successful - his game makes it very hard to get chips from him.
1. He didn't call you a fool, he said you were incorrect. There is a huge difference.
Sklansky wrote: "You are now making a fool of yourself."
Tom,
Once you are able to understand that David called me a fool with the above statement you may be able to intelligently join this conversation without your own brand of bias.
"I don't think you have the vaguest idea either."
Game theory is a decision making tool. To determine the correct game theoretical strategy for heads up limit holdem play would require determining the best play for the situation you find yourself. Factors such as position, hand strength, and future action (the latter being the most difficult to determine when multi street action is allowed) must all be considered (weighted). What makes the calculations difficult or monumental (David's words) is the fact that you must treat each hand individually and not as a class or group such as Sklansky's hand rankings. David is not entirely correct when he says that you do not stop and reevaluate on each street. You in practice do not do that, that is true, but you do consider the possible actions that will or could occur on each betting round before deciding on the correct strategy.
"I don't have a good idea, how would the calculations be accomplished in determining the correct game theory play for limit heads up holdem?"
So then what makes you feel that I am wrong? Do you just blindly accept David's word?
"You're demanding a mathematical proof? That's unbelievable really"
Tom have you ben reading someone elses post? When have I not asked for proof anytime I rebuke someone for a follied theory?
"I don't understand your apparent hostility regarding this subject."
Sklansky calls me a fool and you don't unserstand my hostility. You and he and others believe that some theory is true and offer no proof. I challenge for proof. I get called a fool and you don't understand hostility. Just what the hell go you understand?
Vince
Vince
Do you accept that the validity of game theory has been proven mathematically for simpler betting games which have only one betting round? If you accept this, then why take the position that valid game theory strategies could not eventually be developed and proven for more complex games?
There is a big difference between being a fool and making a fool of yourself. And saying that you do not accept that game theory can be fully used for head up holdem is not making a fool of yourself, even if authorities tell you otherwise (without proof). My comment was based soley on your attempt to describe in some detail to Abbe how head up holdem game theory would work. You got that wrong when you implied that later rounds could mess things up for the game theory player. Having an opinion without full knowledge of a subject is regrettable but not foolish. Trying to explain that subject, without the knowledge, to someone who may be counting on that advice, is not only foolish but also sinful.
Sinful might be too strong a word. It is only sinful if you do it on this forum. If you want to start explaining things that you yourself don't have a good understanding of; well that's why God created RGP.
David,
You are correct I implied, in fact stated, that later rounds in limit Holdem are somewhat of a problem for a Game Theory player. I was wrong. I picked a poor method of discounting Optimal Game Theory Strategy as a viable poker strategy.
You see I look to my mentors when I make statements concerning the best way to play poker. They wrote a couple of books, Holdem for Advanced Players and Seven Stud for Advanced players. These books are considered by many including myself to be as close to poker playing bibles as there could possible be. These books were written many centuries (poker world) ago. Game theory play is mentioned only in passing in these "bibles".
I am going to ask the authors to explain why, in all the years that have passed, when they knew that an UNBEATABLE poker strategy was possible, they did not pursue and develop this strategy. I know that the answer is not that one will do better with the strategy in their Advanced Series books because if that were true they would be playing at the highest limits available. Something that they could easily do with an UNBEATABLE strategy. I'm sure they have an answer. I'll wait until they get back to me before I go any further with this foolish line of inquiry.
vince
>>I am going to ask the authors to explain why, in all the years that have passed, when they knew that an UNBEATABLE poker strategy was possible, they did not pursue and develop this strategy.<<
I'll but in again. Because the books aren't specifically about heads up games (2 person zero sum games). I think we have established that full ring games present a much bigger challenge to develop such a strategy for this type of game if indeed one can.
>>I know that the answer is not that one will do better with the strategy in their Advanced Series books because if that were true they would be playing at the highest limits available. <<
Again you seem to be confusing heads up games with full ring games.
>>Something that they could easily do with an UNBEATABLE strategy.<<
Ok as long as one could develop such a strategy. Geez David S. said it would take a monumental effort to develop such a strategy for heads up limit hold'em and now it seems like your implying that it should be just as "easy" for a full ring game.
>>I'm sure they have an answer. I'll wait until they get back to me before I go any further with this foolish line of inquiry.<<
There is major difference between developing such a strategy for heads up multi-round play vs. full ring game multi-round play.
More importantly, it's not even clear that such a strategy would be the best way to play in a full ring game. Hell, David even agrees that this "unbeatable" strategy wouldn't always be the best one to use heads-up. That is, if you knew how your opponent was playing and how to exploit his weaknesses, you would do better than by employing this theoretically unbeatable strategy. The point is what does "unbeatable" mean in this context? What it means is that no matter what strategy you used to play against it, you would not be able to have to edge over it, that is, you would always be -EV to sit against it. It has nothing to do with whether it would extract the most money or win the most often in a freezeout setting, it merely means that anyone who plays against it can do no better than break even over the long run.
So, you don't have to worry about there being a bot which is unbeatable, because it doesn't make sense to create one except as a mathematical exercise, and if someone in an ivory tower somewhere did finally come up with it, you would hear about it.
My one question on this subject is, does the game theory approach work for a multiplayer scenario at all, or does it breakdown because of the amount of unknowns involved? Essentially what I want to know is, can the multi-player strategy be worked out exactly, or would it have to be done statistically, in analogy with the difference between a two-body and a many-body simulation in physics?
Flame me if I'm wrong, but I think there is actually some value in this concept, at least at low limits (which is all I play). No I'm not saying that if you win 2 hands in a row you should raise utg with 72o, but it seems, at least at a rl table, that players tend to respect your raises and bets more when you've just taken down a couple pots. I had a stretch of 3 hands where I showed down the winner in a $2-$4 game, and someone made a comment about playing the rush. I raised from utg+1 with A6s, only the blinds called, and they both folded to my bet on a ragged flop. Two hands later, I had 98o in the big blind and bet out on a flop of T63 two-suit with 6 people in. One called, then folded on the turn when an A came up. Now, this may be a pretty exceptional example, but I thought it was pretty interesting and allowed me to pick up two extra pots I probably wouldn't have been in (or would have check-folded), in situations where had I not won hands recently I'm almost sure I would've been called down (in this particular game, it was pretty rare to have a hand end before all the cards were out).
Let me know what you think
Lenny
....sure sounds good
but let me ask you this
how do you know when to stop how do you know when to return to solid play
You make a perfectly valid observation. But the name for this tactic should be changed from "playing the rush" to "playing your image." The former tends to confuse people into thinking they can predict continued good cards etc.
Feeney's right: playing your image is good, when you get the cards to do it. But when most people talk about "playing the rush", they're just making up excuses for playing hands they shouldn't play or making bets they shouldn't make. You're dangerously close that precipice in the examples you gave.
What's usually happening is that the opponents just didn't happen to get any cards. A lot of players fool themselves into thinking they're running over the table when in fact they're bullying opponents into folding hands they would have folded anyway.
Your previous play may have also caused your opponents to conclude that you never go on the attack without a winning hand. It could be that your "rush" worked because you hadn't been showing much aggression previously and so your opponents concluded that your hands were better than they actually were.
Thanks for the responses, and suspect you guys are making a good point about going over the precipice into making excuses. As far as when to stop, well, since I was playing borderline hands not complete junk, I ended up stoping because my next 7 hands were unplayable, and by then I figured the opportunity had passed. I also would have stopped if someone had called on that flop bet, or if I had be exposed for my bluffs.
As far as a tight image making them fold, well, they called me to the river with weak hands/draws every other time I took the lead both before and after this particular interval, which is what lead me to make the conclusion I did. What I was trying to do was take advantage, not of my image (which was tight, but not helping me bluff), but of the idea that I was "on a rush". That's why I stopped when my next few hands were junk, no one would be thinking about a rush at that point.
n/t
Lenny, actually I do believe in "rush"
can not understand how anyone who has played much has not seen a rush so. many times their presence just pops out
and since I believe, then I too play them. one who does NOT may miss golden opportunity
"What I was trying to do was take advantage, not of my image (which was tight, but not helping me bluff), but of the idea that I was "on a rush"."
This is what I was saying. You were taking advantage of your image that you were "on" a rush.
The whole concept of "playing the rush" has me somewhat mystified. I'm sure anyone who's spent time playing has seen such an occurance. It leads me to many questions. Such as......Can the "rush" be defined as it's happening, or only in post mortem...i.e. "he/she WAS on a rush"? What actually constitutes a "rush"?.....Is it a run of above-normal hands where the holder of these hands plays proper poker and takes down the pot as he/she should? Is it a situation where a player just happens to be in the right spot at the right time with below average starting hands and simply lucks out because his/her opponents play incorrectly? We could go on and on ad nauseum attempting to define exactly what a "rush", but I'm sure of one thing....it's different things to different players, so before we attempt to talk about it, I'd like to see one "reasonably agreed to" definition of what a rush ACTUALLY is.
IMO, the whole issue of rush is subordinate to the issue of "table image", of which much has been written. Table image can be defined briefly as "what your opponents think about you and your ablilities". If you're playing in a home game with friends and you all have played many times together in the past, more than likely your table image is predominantly determined by history, not exactly what is happening at the table at the exact moment in time that your playing.
If your playing in a casino with a table full of strangers, what determines your table image? It seems to me that a reasonable explantation of this would be...."how you play whatever cards you are dealt"? I find it hard to believe that one can consistently "force" a specific image on on a table of strangers without the correct opportunities (i.e. specific hands/situations) to do so. Therefore, in this case, is not your table image more determined by the luck of the draw of your hands, and therefore is it not MUCH more important to be aware of that, and to be able to adjust your play to whatever image that that you happen to be saddled with in these situations in order to maximize your EV?
The above just scratches the surface of the incredible amount of variables (IMHO) that enter into determining optimal play at any specific time. I guess that's why the response of "it depends" is so often given by those acknowledged superior players when they are asked about specific situations?
As a student of the game "in progress" I sure would like to hear from others on how they feel about the above!
I'd say you're on the right track. You might find interesting some essays I wrote on these topics in Inside the Poker Mind.
John, I have read your essays & your whole book....many times over! I consider it ESSENTIAL reading for anyone who is serious about learning this game.
One of the many interesting thing that I find about these types of "discussions" is the lack of universally accepted specific definitions regarding terms that we all commonly toss around without a 2nd thought.
For example, you have done an excellent job (IMHO) of quantifying and defining "on-tilt" in your book. I'd be willing to bet you big $$ that if we took 100 experienced players that have not read your essays, and asked then to define "on-tilt", that we would end up with about 10-20 definitions that differ substantially from one another. If my preceeding statement is reasonably accurate, where does that leave us? I think it leaves us in the typical "communications quagmire" that each of us encounters every day, i.e., we THINK we know what the other guy means, but we really don't because although we hear the literal words that he is speaking, the terms he uses are interpreted by us differently from his intention. Much of this is due to our weakness in applying universally agreed upon definitions of common terms. And what gets missed in all of this?
Well, the SUBTLE but PROFOUND essense of what comprises whatever issue we happen to be discussing. In the case at hand, it's "on a rush", but it could just as easily be any other of the commonly tossed about terms within the poker playing community. Where am I going with this? I'm not exactly sure, but I think that most of us (myself included) often miss the boat because we are hampered by our own inability to clearly and concisely communicate the true essence of what we mean. Given that poker is a game of subtleties that have profound affect on the game outcome, does this not pose somewhat of a problem?
It seems to me that one of the "things" that I've yet to see, is a poker "thesaurus". Does one exist that you are aware of? In my version of this work, I would attempt to crystallize the "true"(??) meaning of such terms. This is not an easy task, although I believe it can be done. Once that meaning is established and somewhat universally accepted (as I believe your definition of on-tilt should be), then we can all begin to have an intelligent conversation starting from a universally accepted baseline.
There are many fine essays available that speak to many of these issues: You do a fine job, as does Schoonmaker in his book.
Please forgive my rambling thoughts....there is much to be discovered here.
The whole concept of "playing the rush" has me somewhat mystified. I'm sure anyone who's spent time playing has seen such an occurance. It leads me to many questions. Such as......Can the "rush" be defined as it's happening, or only in post mortem...i.e. "he/she WAS on a rush"? What actually constitutes a "rush"?.....Is it a run of above-normal hands where the holder of these hands plays proper poker and takes down the pot as he/she should? Is it a situation where a player just happens to be in the right spot at the right time with below average starting hands and simply lucks out because his/her opponents play incorrectly? We could go on and on ad nauseum attempting to define exactly what a "rush", but I'm sure of one thing....it's different things to different players, so before we attempt to talk about it, I'd like to see one "reasonably agreed to" definition of what a rush ACTUALLY is.
IMO, the whole issue of rush is subordinate to the issue of "table image", of which much has been written. Table image can be defined briefly as "what your opponents think about you and your ablilities". If you're playing in a home game with friends and you all have played many times together in the past, more than likely your table image is predominantly determined by history, not exactly what is happening at the table at the exact moment in time that your playing.
If your playing in a casino with a table full of strangers, what determines your table image? It seems to me that a reasonable explantation of this would be...."how you play whatever cards you are dealt"? I find it hard to believe that one can consistently "force" a specific image on on a table of strangers without the correct opportunities (i.e. specific hands/situations) to do so. Therefore, in this case, is not your table image more determined by the luck of the draw of your hands, and therefore is it not MUCH more important to be aware of that, and to be able to adjust your play to whatever image that that you happen to be saddled with in these situations in order to maximize your EV?
The above just scratches the surface of the incredible amount of variables (IMHO) that enter into determining optimal play at any specific time. I guess that's why the response of "it depends" is so often given by those acknowledged superior players when they are asked about specific situations?
As a student of the game "in progress" I sure would like to hear from others on how they feel about the above!
Sorry about double post..puter burp!! N/T
yes, hard to define. sure not a situation where you catch such superior hands that you win, rather it is when you can catch allmost whatever you need to win
luck, luck...most of us (I think) believe in luck. I allways say that luck is like the tides at the beach, it comes in, and it goes out. possibly it (a rush) is HIGH tide.
could 'on a rush' be the opposite of the situation where your opponents suck out on your superior holdings time and time again? 'rushes' seem to be the upside of random distribution of cards. a string of nice river cards that help you is just as likely as a string of bad horrible 1-outers that help your opponents suck out. perhaps we have better odds on our draws, but the rain falls on the just and the unjust.
You may be confusing "playing the rush" with a solid table image. Nothing helps winning like winning. Showing down real hands gives you the opportunity to take pots away you might not normally pick up.
Personally I don't beleive in the "rush" and play accordingly.
I've done the same thing many times with similar results. It works best when my thumb is poised on the off switch. As soon as I lose one pot, even a small one, it's over. The mistake I often see is when a player tries to keep forcing it after losing a pot. What happens is, the other players are on edge while the rusher is rushing. They are inclined to stay out of his way. Then, when he loses ONE pot, the whole table relaxes, glad that the rush is over so they can get back to their normal game. It's all a matter of perception. People who think of rushes as a mystical thing do so whether it is their own rush or someone else's.
Tommy
Hate to go against the grain here, but in the game I play in (30-60) people don't get out of the way of the rusher. They tend to play more and even more aggresssively against him, especially if he is known to be not one of the better players. Their reasoning is that he's on a rush and therefore playing a lot of hands. If he's playing a lot of hands, he's playing many hands below his normal playing standards. And he's pushing those hands because he feels he's "hot." Plus he has a lot of chips in front of him, which will make him more susceptible to unwise calls. And maybe they think, subconsciously, that he's bound to lose one now, he can't win every one.
I think the two examples you post are better illustrations of you playing well rather than you playing a rush. In the first hand, the flop missed the blinds and you were smart enough to realize this and bet the raggedy flop. In the second hand, you bet your gut shot and when no one raised you didn't fear a T and then you made a good bet when an A came on the turn. So I'm not convinced that you would have been called down had you not won any hands previously. If the flop had hit someone in hand 1, or had an Ace hit someone in the second hand, you would have been called down no matter how many hands you had won before.
From what I could tell, in this particular game, people were calling bets on the flop with as little as one overcard or a gut-shot with no overcards. So while you may be correct that no one had a pair or an ace in that second hand, I still believe I would have gotten as many as 3 or 4 callers, because the board was simply not scary enough for them to fold ordinarily.
Also, whether or not I would have won these particular hands doesn't really matter, they are just two examples of what I'm talking about for illustration purposes. I just wanted to throw this idea out as something which I've noticed, but which I haven't seen discussed anywhere.
I am among those who feel the very best players are able to play the whole table simultaneously. One must first get a read on each player and then as each hand is played see if the circumstances allow you to get the best of that hand based on the position and cards you have, the position and cards you suspect each player has, and continuously monitoring the hand as it unfolds - always looking for the chance to capture the pot by whatever means.
This means evaluating a lot of variables all of the time. One of my 10 favorite quotes is this: "The sophistication with which one solves a hypothesis is dependent upon how many variable one can hold in consideration at any given time" - and this obsevation fits perfectly with winning poker.
"The sophistication with which one solves a hypothesis is dependent upon how many variable one can hold in consideration at any given time"
This is a lovely quote. Unfortunately it does not apply to what is requied to be a winning poker player. Being a winning poker player is much more dependeant on the KISS principle than sophisticated hypothesis sloving.
Vince
I'm not sure if Vince said this or not, but I think the better poker players are able to quickly and accurately prioritize variables, and vocus on the important few.
I stand by my quote and it sure isn't the KISS principle. There is a solid methodical game based on fundamentals that is essential and needs to be the central core of everyone's game; but that solid game is still always played in RELATION (relativity) to each player and what ever else is going on.
If, for instnace you are in a short game with three strong maniacs and all hell is breaking loose the skill with which you can figure out the patterns needed for raising, and reraising in relation to position and each style is not simple, but some players can find a winning rythm that is pure poetry when they are on.
I do not disagree that solid play is the thesis; but there is a level above that which is epitomized by the play of guys like Brunson, Bladwin, Cloutier, Malmuth and others. They play the game with superior observation and analysis - - there is always another level of sophistication in this game - thank goodness.
David,
I have read both books "holdem and advanced holem, but in them you don't go into a lot of detail on how to figure the outs, or odd's on making the different hands, and the section on odd's seems rather general. Since I have been playing, for the last 6 years, I have learned alot, and can win most of the time, or break even for the most part in low limit games like 3-6; 4-8, 5-10 holdem but don't play any higher limit holdem games, because I don't feel I have a good grasp of the parts of this game that it takes to play on that level. And until I don't this will be a mental obstical for me. The one area I want to learn, and understand is what odd's are important to look at, and use, and then just to understand as much as I can about the odd's. One book I looked at in the store, that has a detail explanation, is "The Psychology of Poker, by Alan N. Schoonmaker" The rest of this book as far as I am concerned is fluff and not worth reading. My question, is his chapter on odds' and how he calculates them correct enough, that It would teach me some of the basics, and do you know or recommend another book that would assit me in learning this aspect of the game.
Daniel J
to determine the odds, one starts by counting the number of "outs". for example, if you have an open end straight draw AFTER the flop( such as 8,9,10,J)then you can complete the straight with any one of 8 outs..four 7s or fourQs
if you hold 2 suited cards, and flop brings 2 of that same suit, then you have a flush draw with 9 "outs"...the other 9 cards of that suit
IMPORTANT POINT "outs" referrs to "drawing out", thus the hand to which you are drawing must be able to , or be likelky to be the best hand at the end. if flop has 3 suited cards there will likely be or possibly be a flush--thus you would not want to draw to a straight
if you have flopped 2 pair, then you can catch any one of the 4 cards which match the 2 pair to complete a full house....you have four outs
now this is not exact but is best way...after the flop there are two cards to come ( the turn, and the river) therefore if you have counted 4 outs.since you have two chances, we say that you have 8 outs(double the count because of two chances to hit)
if there is both a flush draw and a straight draw on the board after the flop. the flush draw has 9 cards to complete, but the straight may not have 8 cards to complete because 1 or 2 of them might also complete the flush
Next after the flop you see 5 cards--3 on the board and 2 in your hand, therefore at this point there are 47 UNseen cards. your "outs" are among those UNseen cards. if you have counted 4, then we are going to say you have 8 outs among the 47. subtract the 8 from the 47=39. that is 39 that will NOT win which we then compare to the 8 which will win....39 to 8 is about 5 to 1 AGAINST drawing out.....that is the odds
we will next want to compare that to the pot odds
but what are pot odds? if there is 40 in the pot and the bet to you is 10, the the pot odds are 40 to 10=4 to 1. count the pot and compare that to what you must put in to call the bet to determine to pot odds
therefore if 5 to 1 against making our hand and payoff is less (4 to 1) then it is not a good deal
in an active limit game, most of the time the pot odds will be greater than the actual odds and will therfore reward the successful draw....but you must continue to review to be sure
implied odds are an estimate of what is likely to be in the pot after later bets and what those later bets will cost you
if unclear on any of this, please ask
Sklansky's answer was correct but his explanation was inappropriate. He presented a counterintuitive pot-limit problem where a favorite should only call. He wrote:
1. "The made hand is worse off even if it is a small favorite hot and cold."
2. "The made hand that is a small favorite to be best is hurt by future bets."
3. "You can only call them a good portion of the time with each betting round draining away some of your EV."
A favorite wants to maximize the pot, i.e., raise. But you also want to minimize the drain of future bets. So why does raising increase the drain? Mainly because it is pot-limit. By building the pot your raise let's opponent make bigger draining raises on future rounds.
So the reason you don't raise isn't merely because your hand is "scared" or "stubborn". You will lose money to bets on future rounds whether you call or raise. In limit poker you should raise because you will lose (almost) the same amount on future rounds, no matter what. And in no-limit you could go all-in. But in pot-limit your raise will lose more money on future rounds than your call. The concept that a known favorite is scared to raise seems to apply almost exclusively to pot-limit.
It applies to limit as well as long as the favorite is only a small favorite. This is especially true if there is more than one betting round to come.
Would that still be true if your plan was to call your opponent down on future betting rounds no matter what? That is, assuming you would not gain more information on your opponent's hand, you would always want to call him down anyway, hence you may as well get as much money in the pot while you know you're the favorite, as long as there's no chance of you being driven off the hand.
Or is it because if your opponent played optimally he would only try to bluff you on occasion, but would bet or raise every time he made his hand, thus you would have to fold on occasion to avoid always paying him off, and hence you are not getting your full hot and cold EV on the money you put in this round?
You should always call often enough to make bluffs unprofitable. While you occasionally lay down for a bluff, you compensate by catching bluffs. So it evens out.
The favorite's only problem with raising in a limit game is it makes the pot bigger and forces you to defend it more. So when your opponent makes his hand you will pay him off more often. As noted above, this is a tiny fraction of a bet. I wish knowing this would make me a better winning limit player, but alas it occurs only in borderline situations.
This example illustrates important differences about pot-limit and no-limit though, and I'll file it away for when I'm ready for these games.
I can only find unrealistic examples in which you are a tiny favorite. Can you provide a limit example where calling is substantially better then raising? Otherwise this just doesn't seem like an important limit concept.
There are many times where you should rise early if that puts you all in but not raise if you know you will be facing future bets.
Suppose there is 1 dead bet in the pot and your opponent bets. Then after you call there will be 3 bets in the pot. So next round you must call 75% of the time to snap off bluffs. If you raise the pot to 5 bets then you will need to call 83% of the time, an increase of only 8%. By definition an underdog opponent will improve less than half the time. So raising drains only 4% more bets next round than calling. This is tiny, and if you are more than a 52% favorite then your immediate increased expectation exceeds the extra cost of defending the pot.
Increasing profit by less than 4% of a bet in rare situations where you are a 50-52% favorite seems pretty unimportant.
***So raising drains only 4% more bets next round than calling. This is tiny, and if you are more than a 52% favorite then your immediate increased expectation exceeds the extra cost of defending the pot. ***
If you will win 52% hot and cold, but you are only planning to call 75% of the time on the next bet, you have an expectation of 3 bets (the 2 in there, plus 1 on the end) times the probability that you will call and win, which if your opponent always bets is .75*.52 = .39, so you will expect to make 1.17 bets, but lose .36 * 2 when you call and are beaten, and .25 the times you fold so you have a total of 1.17 - .72 - .25 = .2
If you raise, then call 83.33% of the time, you will get 4 bets (now 3 in plus one on the end), but again, you will only get them 52% of 83.33% of the time, which is .4333, giving you 1.73 when you win, but costing .4 * 3 when you call and are beaten, and .1667 * 2 when you fold. This gives a total of 1.73 - 1.2 - .3333 = .1967
So it would seem that one extra betting round doesn't drain much EV in limit poker...
In a pure draw situation, the draw's bet-for-value/bluff ratio should be the same as the pot odds the opponent will get to call. If the opponent is getting 10:1 to call, the draw should bluff once for every 10 value bets.
In the original example the opponent has 16 clean outs out of 42, leaving 26 "bad" cards. In pot-limit the opponent is getting 2:1 to call so the draw can bluff with 7 bad cards, the pat hand cannot call, thus the draw wins 16+7=23 times and loses only 19 times (he does a little better bluffing at the optimal 8). The draw is the "favorite".
In limit if the pat hand is getting 3:1 to call the draw should bluff 5.33 times resulting in 21.33 wins and 20.67 losses; almost a dead heat. If the pat hand raises pre-draw resulting in getting 4:1 to call after the draw, the draw should bluff 4 times resulting 20 wins and 22 losses, making the draw a slight underdog.
Thus, the pat hand should raise so long as this results in the pot being bigger than 3:1 to call any after-the-draw bet. In no-limit this means moving close to all in. In pot limit you cannot do it. In limit most raises have this affect.
Looking at the draws bluffing frequency is superior to looking at the pat-hands optimal calling frequency since you can calculate exactly which one wins the pot more often which is very useful information. But even using your calling frequency, the 8% you mention means the pat hand loses 8% LESS often, and is thus a bigger favorite when he raises. The notion that the pat hand remains at a steady winning frequency is hogwosh, unless he is tenacious and calls all after-the-draw bets.
- Louie
I can only find unrealistic examples in which you are a tiny favorite.
..if you rig one with conditional probalities where say the opponent has either a flush draw or a better made hand you can create one, if you want.
Can you provide a limit example where calling is substantially better then raising?
...the s word is going to cause problems.
Otherwise this just doesn't seem like an important limit concept.
...the brave/scared thing is extremely important. it would be more valuable if it wasn't buried under a pile of hay. another point to remember is in holdem hands are often scared/brave/scared from flop/turn/river.
i have seen this point made, but not recently and possibly not here. as i was reading the thread concerning playing the rush, and the topics brought up in that thread, i was reminded of a concept that it is good to keep in mind. oftentimes when we bluff, or semi-bluff, and get away with it, we think that we successfully pulled off a bluff, and convinced a better hand to fold. however, we need to consider that we possibly had the best hand to start, and the fold was a good one, since they couldn't even beat what we were 'bluffing' with. if you misunderstand this, you may think that your opponent is easily pushed around, or too tight, or our image is other than what it actually is. whatever it causes us to think, it can be misinformation if we are not careful. and as we all know, acting on misinformation in poker can be deadly. this is important when playing in many different types of poker games. first, perhaps we decide before the river hits that we are going to give up our bluff because our opponent keeps calling, and is likely to call us down if we bet the river. however, our opponent may be sticking with a draw, and will not call a river bet if he misses, even though his hand may be better than ours. also, if we have put our opponent on a better hand, and think he folded a better hand, we may try the same move in a similar situation, and find out that he will in fact NOT fold that hand you put him on, but raise and take the pot from you. i have totally lost my train of thought here, and will leave this much posted. perhpas i will finish my thought when it comes back to me... baggins
I got your train of thought. I was the one who pointed out that it may not have been the rush that caused the opponents to fold, it was simply that they had a lousy hand, or thought they had a lousy hand, or thought the poster had a good hand, when the flop and turn came down.
"Acting on misinformation in poker can be deadly." Not just in poker. What we don't know can indeed hurt us.
I think a main benefit of semi-bluffing is that it will get lesser hands who SHOULD call (even if they have only a 6-out pair draw) to fold. So even when such a lesser hand folds, the semi-bluff was still successful.
But, I am in general agreement with your post.
- Louie
good point. i think that my comment may apply more to river bluffs, where, according to HPFEP's definition, semi-bluffing can't be done. there are no cards to come, and your hand's relative value to the other hands still out there cannot change.
I posted this earlier. I'll try again.
THIS STUFF IS IMPORTANT! DON'T PLAY SHORT-HANDED WITHOUT ADDRESSING THESE CONCEPTS!
--------------------------------------------
The new version of HPFAP has sections on playing short handed, especially with a maniac. One key point is that you have to call (and raise) the maniac much more than you would need to in a full game. The more players there are, the more you can share the burden of keeping the maniac honest.
You had to at least ensure that the maniac did not show an immediate profit, by immediately winning the pot too often.
In particular, (according to HPFAP21C), if the maniac raises the blinds in 3-handed play, you don't need to call or raise as much as you would in heads up play against a maniac. Similar pricipals apply throughout the hand (and to any short-handed poker game).
So let's talk about 3-handed play specifically. Suppose there is a maniac who is betting and raising too often (more often than he should for the situation, which means a real lot).
Now your strategy and expectation depends also on the playing style of the other opponent, and also the relative positions of the players. (There are two ways to cyclically arrange three players.)
So I have questions about how you should play in two scenarios and in each case, two seating arrangements, but perhaps the scenarios are more significant than the seating arrangements here.
Scenario 1) The third player is playing table sheriff, fully taking on the burden of keeping the maniac honest (as much as would be appropriate heads up) even though some of the burden should be carried by you.
1A) maniac on right
1B) maniac on left
Scenario 2) The third player is NOT playing table sheriff at all. Either you have to fully take on the burden of keeping the maniac honest (as much as would be appropriate heads up), or no-one will do it.
2A) maniac on right
2B) maniac on left
How should you play in each case? (Ignore seating if you couldn't be bothered with that.) Are any of these opponent style combinations unbeatable (negative EV for you, no matter what you do).
It seems to me that scenario 1 is very good, and scenario 2 is very bad, but I'm not sure.
While short-handed play is very different to full game play, it is also true that many extra considerations arise game theoretically when there are three or more players, rather than just two.
I have not seen anything written about the scenarios I've given (nor much about these types of questions). I eagerly await comments.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
This is a concession to the mighty Oz and Tom H. and M.... (ugh).
First, I concede not because I ever said something to the opposite, but because in my zealous approach to this subject I may have "soap boxed" a bit too much and even the mighty Oz may have misinterpreted my mouthings.
I concede that in a heads up poker game that if someone were to program a computer correctly with an optimal game theory strategy the computer would be "ugh" unbeatable. That's not to say that it can be done. But it just might be.
Vince
Where can I get a copy of this "game theory".
I thought it was just that simple "Get a number between 0 and 1 and see who's best". I think I may be mistaken.
Is this a heads up game with only only 1 betting round, or is it a real poker or holdem game.
About a year ago I attended at Simon Fraser Univ. a seminar given by Prof. Jonathan Schaeffer of the Univ. of Alberta where he presented recent results of his group's research on the development of a program to play Texas Hold'em. Prof. Schaeffer does research in the area of artificial intelligence and has chosen poker for general investigation because it is a game of hidden or imperfect information. He has selected Texas Hold'em for intitial investigation because it has a simple, fixed structure and the distribution of the cards cannot be influenced by the betting action of the players.
The topic of his seminar was opponent modeling. Presently, they were comparing a general opponent model (GOM) versus a specific opponent model (SOM). The latter is a AI program that would be required to play at expert level. So far, the results indicate that the SOM does not play Texas Hold'em much better than the GOM. He believes, however, that they will eventually develop a program that will play at world class, expert level. Curiously, Prof. Shaeffer isn't a poker player like his student Darse Billings who does much "field work" in the casinos.
They have recently release a new Windows interface for their program Poki for play on the IRC. You can access their website from the "Favorite Links" in the left side bar.
Before the development of on-line casinos such research would be only of academic interest or possibly might form the basis for a decent game for the computer. However, such a program interfaced to an on-line casinos is potentially a 24/7 money-making machine. I'm sure this has crossed Prof. Schaeffer and his students minds. If I were a rich poker-playing Alberta oilman, I would pour oodles money into his research group. After all, the tar sands ain't going to last forever.
-=-MouseEars
I found some of the links in the archive to the problem that David S. proposed a long time ago but not the solution by Paul Pudaite. It's annoying but I think there is good reason. Please, Oz is mighty I am not.
Meanwhile, Vince was always right in practice. Just not in theory. Well almost. The fact is that no poor poker playing mathmetician will ever develop a good playing computer on his own. It can be done in chess and yes, head up draw, but not practically in other poker. However if a computer programmer aligned himself with an expert poker player who was able to precisely convey what he considers and how he plays, a very good (but not great)playing computer could result. The program would still use lots of randomizing to avoid being easy to read. Not perfect game theory, but it wouldn't be necessary.
The above scenario is not very palatable to most programmers, other than maybe Mike Caro, because it reduces them to mere translators, trying to capture the thoughts and strategies of the expert they are relying on. (I'd do it if someone paid me enough). Jonathon Schaeffer is trying to do more than this; calculating odds, picking up player player patterns etc. He would be better off (especially for ring games) getting the computer to play as close as possible to Darse Billing's own basic strategy with the occasional randomized curveball thrown in.
Bingo.
This is almost exactly how I view the problem and the solution.
The one tiny problem is that no programmer good enough to do it would be rich enough to pay you.
David,
One problem that plagued computer chess programers was determining why an expert made a certain play. Chess masters were often at a loss to explain why they made the move they did, except that it felt right at the time or arose from intuition. Is this problem harder or easier to overcome with a poker program? Can an expert poker player "precisely convey what he considers and how he plays"?
John
That would be a problem for many experts, but not for Sklansky.
Thanks for the compliment. I believe you are right. As for a programmer both good enough and rich enough to pay me, there is this guy named Bill...
1. He's not good enough to do it.
2. He's too busy.
But I grant you he probably knows many people that have enough time and talent to do it and he might finance it as a lark.
But, from your point of view, if your only motivation is money, you couldn't stand it.
It requires an attention to detail [ even in the explanation phase ]that you'd have to experience to believe.
There's also a guy named Mark (hehe). His bot his playing right now somewhere in Canada....
Mark
How do you fair against the present version of Poki these days?
Prof. Schaeffer memtioned that Darse was at one time a "poker consultant" for the research group because he was semi-professional poker player. Thus, he would seem to possess the unique combination of experience and skills who might be capable of eventually producing a expert-level program. A member of the audience asked Prof. Schaeffer if Darse ever had any problems with Revenue Canada (RC) over his poker winnings, and he replied that RC has a very lax policy on this and really did want to be bothered with such miscellaneous sources of income.
-=-MouseEars
BTW, did you ever receive an e-mail re a variation of seven card stud?
perhaps i haven't thought this whole thing out, but what i have thought about is this: if we can program a computer to play poker, it will only play according to the guidelines we give to it. if we know all of the criteria the computer uses to play, we can, therefore, take into account the same criteria that the computer uses and play the same way. conversely, if we expect the computer to play in a certain way, it must be programmed to play this way. logically, then, anybody who can program the computer to play well enough to beat a world class player must also theoretically be able to beat that same player. the question is then, can the computer be programmed to beat its programmer? one might liken it to the riddle 'can god make a rock (insert other inanimate object here) that he can't lift? (this assumes that god is omnipotent)' help please...
perhaps i haven't thought this whole thing out, but what i have thought about is this: if we can program a computer to play poker, it will only play according to the guidelines we give to it. if we know all of the criteria the computer uses to play, we can, therefore, take into account the same criteria that the computer uses and play the same way.
Not true. For example you can program a computer to change it's randomization method after analyzing data it collects. You can also load many player styles have it select each one and play x amount of hands with each then select which ever best suits certain situations. You can also parse playing styles and have it select various chacteristics from a few and create a new style.
My guess about big blue when it beat Kasparov is that it was capable of assigning a numerical value to each potential move in addition to analyzing the stategic implication of each move and then pick it's best course of action. The computer could do all it's necessary evaluation at the speed of light. Kasparov could not possibly analyze every potential move in the specified time limit that was alloted for each move nor could have he considered each before the match. Thus the computer had a built in advantage. But since I do not know a lot about chess this is all speculation abut Kasparov vs BB.
Vince
I have only read the original post, not the responses, but I want to reiterate a point. Yes, it is true that a computer playing optimal strategy would be unbeatable. But it is also true that a HUMAN playing optimal strategy would also be unbeatable.
There is a legitimate and important debate regarding optimal strategy versus an exploitative strategy based on what you perceive to be your opponents' weaknesses. (And game theory deals with both.)
There is also a legitimate and important debate regarding humans versus computers.
But these two debates should not be confused. Game theory does not depend on what type of of entities are playing a given strategy.
Y'all clear your minds and don't confuse these two issues.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Actually, it's not true that a human playing optimal strategy would be unbeatable. He might have tells.
It was just hypothetical. It seemed that some people viewed playing optimal strategy as something a computer would do, whereas playing an exploitative strategy would be something a human could do. This was just confusing two issues that should not be confused.
Game theory does not depend on what type of of entities are playing a given strategy.
What does it depend on? Pointing me to a text would be helpful. I've got TOP on order if its in there, but would still like a reference.
Below in more than one thread Kim Lee makes a lot of good points - and I have a hard time to understand the posters who disagree.
Here is a Kim Lee-related quiz:
You are playing lowball (Ace-to-five) - $100 in the pot to begin with - limits are $100 before and after the draw - a funplayer bets $100 in to you before the draw and shows his hand: A235K - for some reason you join and show your hand as well: 56789 - before you have a chance to act the funplayer says: 'I know you are the favourit but I FELL LUCKY - I bet $1000 if that is OK ?' and looks very tricky an foxy.
Your answer:
(a) NO it's not OK
(b) OK
(c) Can I raise you another $1000 ?
Can we learn anything out of that ?
I guess I got at least one answer of this one ;-
I was going to post a similar post; where Sklansky's question is applied to limit.
Well, the pat hand's implied odds are not nearly as bad as they are in Pot Limit. With a fixed post-flop bet amount, the larger the pot the better it is for the pat hand since the larger the pot the less often the pat hand can bluff. A raise is clearly the best choice, the more the better, although I'll leave the math proof to others.
- Louie
x
I was up on www.ualberta.ca the other day. I played in there poker sim game. Pokibot was one of my opponents. I looked at his stats and found that after 20K+ hands he had seen ~ 45% of the flops.
What's everyone's take on this?
BTW - I played 60 hands of $10 - 20 Holdem I was ahead $400+ wheb I quit. I don't like playing on line so I stopped.
Vince
Vince,
I noticed this too, and it seems to contradict everything we are told. However, I think it may be due partly to the fact that poki is playing against other robots, too. (I connect straight from the website, not IRC.) There are a couple robots in that game that play horribly, and poki makes money off of them. When poki sees flops against these other robots, also seeing so many flops, it has a huge postflop advantage. Do they count this as part of Poki's statistics? I think so.
Personally, I think the robot has too many leaks. It sees the flop way to much, and watch it crumble in the face of a checkraise, unless, of course, it has an ace, in which case its going to the river every time.
Mike
Send Darse an e-mail detailing your comments, questions and criticism. Also send Prof. Schaeffer a copy so he will make sure Darse doesn't procrastinate and replies to you promptly. Unless humans with a wide range of poker-playing experiences provides some feedback to the researchers, they won't know how to modify and improve the program. A good program would be quite desirable because you can hone your skills for free. Lessons in the casino can get quite expensive.
You won $400+ CDN, which is only ca. $260 US.
Hi,
I'm a long time lurker, first time poster. I have been playing poker for just 2 years, started when I was 21, and regard myself as a technical player. I win online, playing 10/20 - 15/30, but put me in a card room I get eaten up with my tells, hesitation, intimidation and what not. I basically play a mathematical game where players cannot capitalize on my weaknesses. I have player databases, so even if I call down to the river with A high, I do so not because of a gut feel or tell, but because my calculations tell me it is probable that I will win this hand(+ev). I have a ticker a friend programmed for me that beeps 8 seconds after I my turn to act. I have 8 seconds to draw data and make a decision - and every decision is 8 secs. (besides pre-flop fold), no more no less. (This is the only clue I will disclose of my identity).
I have been very interested in all this talk of bots of late - how they are programmed to make their decisions. I stumbled across the "alberta project" poki and went to play some hands. While I was there, I ran into the guy who programmed these bots. He told me RoolBot was the best at that time and that he would beat a lot of humans. I was very interested and we had a lengthy conversation that turned into a debate.
When I looked at RoolBot's stats, his flop% was well in excess of 40%. There were other bots tighter pre-flop, but RoolBot was the real shark at the table. I told the programmer that Rool (and the other bots) were far too loose and would lose. Meanwhile I was playing my normal game, and the programmer and another human player (with much to learn) proceeded to tell me that, since the whole table was seeing +40% flops, I will lose for not getting my fair share. I said I would stay and play a few hundred hands and will be a big favourite to be in front. We had a good discussion about poker and the reason RoolBot was winning was definately outplaying after the flop. According to my calculations, 5 players at the table seeing <25% flops would make RoolBot a big long-term loser regardless of how superior a post flop player he/she(it) was. When I was tired and about to go to bed, the programmer said "oh, much of it has been played with 5 or 6 players, would this make a diffeence?" "YES!" I said, so i played a few more hours, and indeed RoolBot was tighter than 40%, it was closer to 33% from a relatively small sample at 10 handed.
The other bots all were different, but not much different to a lot of human players and I'm sure RoolBot would win in a similar human field. It reminds me of my first year playing poker - strictly play money. You always had the 100K chips ego-maniac king of play money devote my life to nothing idiots. Stereo-typically speaking, these big play money winners would see 30-35% of flops and out-play players (who couldn't care less) after the flop. And they did win, basically by drawing with odds to hands that should never be getting paid. I think we have a similar situation with the bots - sure there is AI, but when playing in games not for money, there are many more "dead" chips in the pot, and to beat this requires merely an ability to divide outs that make you a likely winner by unseen cards, and stay if your pay-offs exceeds true odds. This is probably true of micro-limit internet games to a lesser extent.
I think it would be a massive step forward if these bots could beat mid-limit games - it sure was for me, but I think what I do is not much different to that of a programmed bot. My day job involves compiling and analysing statistical data for the purpose of sports wagering and I find internet poker to be very much in the same ball-park ie. put in money with favourable odds compared to calculated probabilities to create a long-term "edge".
Furthermore, I believe many "geeks" such as myslef will soon figure out how lucarative it is to use mathematical calculations against individuals who are essentially gambling, some more than others. I think players such as thee are a much bigger "threat" to internet poker than bots, and good luck to anyone who can program one, as I think this would exhibit enough "skill" to be justified in drawing money from the game that is poker.
The question I pose to the forum is this: Suppose we were in a 10/20 game that was playing like play money or very lo-limit where players apparently did not care much about their money, would it be more profitable to see more flops with the knowledge that many of my draws will give me such favourable odds to call that loosely seeing the flop (30%+) would be more advantageous than not?
At the moment I think not. When in a loose game, say with 33% seeing the flop (very unusual these days for me) i will be seeing about 22-23% of flops (I have a system of working this out), whilst I normally see about 18% (games usually <27%).
yes if there are loose players involved the pot odds will most often justify drawing to whatever, thus it would pay to have more draws, to see more flops
sure you will continue to fold 2,7 etc, but allmost any two which can produce a draw should frequently be played
Vince,
Hi. Long time lurker, first time poster (it is hard for a bot to type by itself).
I have been tweaking myself a bit by playing at U of A. I agree, from what I've seen, Poki plays too much. But then it is playing against terrible human and bot players, so it pays. On IRC, it plays against better players -- at least some of the time -- and it wins there too. That tells me something.
My program (me) plays about 15% pre-flop now, will go up to 20% as I tune the pre-flop algorithms. But it slowly loses since its postflop is weak at the moment. it amazes me that i lose so little with such poor algorithms, especially to the humans; but i guess they're only human...(sorry, that was a bot joke) New post-flop tables and algorithms are slowly going in though. Once I can beat Poki, look out world.
oh by the way, my creator asked me to type this last part in so you would know this is not a hoax: He is working on modifying 'vnc' source to move the mouse, click the mouse, identify the board, etc. (those computer types out there will know what vnc is). He tells me that the hardest part is playing without his help as games break up and he is at work, but I do not understand that, since I am only a poker playing bot, so my outlook is very limited.
Botty
Since you are a bot I can't hurt your feelings so ...
Vince
For some time I felt I was playing winning poker but just do not keep good records. My bankroll just wasn't growing although I never spent from it. After a little detective work I found that something 'funny' WAS happening to my money!! My 17 year old son has been sneaking $100-$200 out of my pants every morning while I sleep! Just goes to show that threats to your bankroll come from many directions.
I'm losing the same amount but in more painful chunks. My wife takes out $4000 at the start of every month. Tough rake.
JG
That's not a rake, dummy. That's money that you saved by not being able to bet it at the poker table.
and if she is like mine, she expects extra when a big win comes along!
Yep. I had a good week on Par and in a local tourney(10k-ish), and now she thinks we should replace all the windows in our house. Fortunately our two year old is there to break the tie: "but mommy what would we do with the old windows?"
JG
"but mommy what would we do with the old windows?"
Tell her to make a green house with them in the back yard. She can have fresh posies all year long.
get a divorce a whore will be much cheaper.
to make down payment on house...still haven't recovered, but love the home...gl
Maybe you could put this into another category of bad beat, he he.
Below is the URL for an organization dedicated to the study of nonverbal forms of communication. In Pokerese, Tells. While I haven't gone through the site thoroughly, it does provide some insight into typical interpretations for gestures etc.
Take it with a grain of salt but give it a look, it may have a few bits of useful information.
http://members.aol.com/nonverbal2/index.htm
David or Mason
Something you wrote about in one of your books has always stayed with me,and thats down the ablility to lay down a tough hand. I believe it was in the Theory of Poker. I see now that laying down hands that have potential to become second best saves money. Money saved turns out to money earned. Last night I was playing 5-10 Hold em at the Taj in Atlantic City. David since you have given seminars there, I am sure you have heard of the Tajs reputation. I ran into a fellow 2 + 2 poster who was mopping up a 10-20 game. Anyway back to my point, last night I was in early position with AK offsuit, I raise and I get two callers and the big blind. Flop brings K 10 Q. KQ are both hearts. I bet and push out everyone but MP. Turn brings Jh. Now I have a tough choice, do I check and call or do I represent the straigh flush. The player is a calling station and wont raise if I bet, if I check he might have AQ and can catch a q. However the player never bluffed, so if I check and he bet I knew he would have it. Only problem was did he see what was out there? I checked, and he bet. I mucked. He showed down the AQ hearts for the Royale Flush.I felt damn good about laying that nightmare away. Let the live ones draw out..but do it cheaply. Let them keep thinking its luck, that way when you punish them, they can only blame luck.
corrections... Something you wrote about in one of your books has always stayed with me,and thats down the ablility to lay down a tough hand. SHOULD READ... Something you wrote about in one of your books has always stayed with me,and thats the ablility to lay down a tough hand. KQ are both hearts..correction K 10 arwere hearts... mg
Folding is the first thing we learn to do to win.
But not the last thing.
You've got the nut one-card straight, the opponent can easily have the same straight, but there are 3-hearts on board. Without counting, I'd wager a great deal of money that there are LOTS more playable hands containing any of the 3 remaining Aces then there are playable 2-heart hands.
Only the most exceptionally whimpy players would NOT bet an Ace when checked to in the opponent's spot. This does not look like a "great lay down" to me, unless you are using tells.
- Louie
Heads up, if you don't know your opponent I think this is a bad fold.
Just My Opinion,
Derrick
Laying down a straight to the NUT Royal Flush is a bad laydown, with nothing but dead money in the pot. Are you trying to turn me into a sucker??? Hmmm...I wonder what David or Mason would say. Perhaps one element of the story I left out was that my opponent was a "recreational" player. When the Jh hit on the turn his eyes lit up and his hand wemt on his checks quicker than I have ever seen. I knew he wasnt pulling a move, it was an actual tell. I would lay down that hand every day, and twice on Sunday. I would like to know who would honestly call with broadway head to head when staring at a Royal Flush Thanks
mg in nj any comment would be appreciated
If the play was based on the tell you described then you clearly made the correct play. But if not and it was just a feeling, then it is tough to fold the straight after you check without at least putting in a raise. In the future the best play might be to bet and then fold if you are raised. You say that if you bet he will not raise as he is a calling station, but did you think that he would not raise with a hand that could beat a straight? He would probably raise with any such hand, especially if his eyes lit up.
Keep in mind that you only knew it was a royal flush after the fact, unless you are saying that you read him for the royal. Otherwise you are not laying down to a royal but to a bet on the turn with a big hand.
All in all it was a very good read and a correct play on the read. But you better be sure.
Pat
David or Mason,
Please read the hand described at the end of this post, and tell me if you agree with my laydown. The consesus so far been that I should not have folded my hand. Here it is again if you dont want to reread the post. I am in first in with AK offsuit black, I raise and get a mid postion caller(recreational player, who so far has been a calling station and hasnt raised...typical loose passive player) and the big blind calls. The flop comes K 10 Q. The K and 10 are hearts. I bet recreational player calls and bb folds.I put him on AQ or A10. Jh comes on the turn and the recreational players eyes bulge out of his head and his hand goes right to his checks. Now even though I made my straight,he has me beat with a Flush,or worse yet a straight flush. I take a second and decide to check. He throws his money into the pot, and I muck. He turns over AQ hearts for the Royal Flush. I dont understand why some posters claim this was a bad laydown. I am up against THE "NUTS"... I would appreciate any input... MG
MG,
Quite a loaded way to pose the question.
Certainly you made the right play here. You folded a better hand. But did you make the smart play--one that took account of the important factors and analyzed the situation correctly? That is much more pertinent.
You checked the nut straight against a single opponent when a third card of a suit hit the board. Then you folded to one bet. That is how the respondents have analyzed this situation (most responding before you mentioned the big tell). They have unanimously agreed this was a bad move. I agree and think David would too.
Good luck.
KJS
If you are hoping for a big pat on the back I don't know if you'll find it here. You shouldn't be worrying about a royal flush here. You should be worried about any flush. You lose the hand just the same if he has AhQh or 3h2h. I personally think that heads up I would almost always call it down. (Maybe not if a four-flush hit the river). If you had such a great read on him that you KNEW he had a royal flush (or even any flush), then isn't it a pretty obvious laydown rather than a great one?
MG, Too bad I was not in AC last Saturday. Next time, maybe you can point the guy to me if he is a regular. Whoever he is, I don't think he would be dumbed enough not to know he had the royal flush. I agree with Sam that you could have lost to any flush anyway. If you were able to sense a solid tell, good for you but maybe the guy became so obvious because of his excitement about the royal flush as it could have been his first one. Maybe I'll see u thurs at Trop.
Ok... I will give you another fold, tell me if you agree with this. Same game, loose passive players. Players will cold call a raise but never raise. Sometimes you have a few players' sometimes you have none. I witnessed a pot with everyone in it but me,I folded early position. I am on the button with KA both diamonds. I raise and there are 5 people in the pot 50 is in the pot preflop.Flop 478 raindbow,none of my suit. The big blind checks and the player after him bets there are two calls to me. I folded without batting an eye. Normally I might have tried to raise to narrow the field to someone who had a four or a five, but I realized in this game a raise meant more money in the pot for these people. The turn was an 8 with betting and calling and no raising and the river was an ace. betting and calling. the original bettor had the 56 . I would have been throwing dead money into the pot if I bet there. I would have shown top two down to a straight.
this is a different situation and the fold is correct.
By the way, what do you guys (you and kam-gong) think about the games at the Taj vs. the trop? I usually play at the trop, not as often as I like unfortunately. I have found that the trop game at 5-10 is much tougher. I once played in a shorthanded game at the trop that was actually tight aggressive and was tough. It seems to me that many of the looser players play at the Taj so they can say they played there, and there are more fish who just stay there for the weekend and the 5-10 players are yuppie types, while the players at the trop are actually better.
Do you agree?
Pat
Pat, My past experience shows that I freguently win more at the the Taj than at the Trop. KJS thanks for your input. The more I play, the more I try to moe my plans into perspective. Had I not known the opponent as well as I did, I might have bet out, so if he was still drawing to a flush, I would have made him pay for it. One of my biggest faults is playing hands that are second best. The royal flush was overkill since I would have lost to a single flush, I analyzed the situation and I was right. Thanks guys MG.... and how much would have been in the pot for me to bet or raise?
I think the players in both houses are about the same caliber, although I play more at TAJ. My biggest win in 5-10 was at TROP in a wild game that I tried to give my e-Mail address to those 2 Philly boys that made my day (or night).
MG, I agree with your fold. I betcha the 5-6 were suited, right?
The games are NIGHT AND DAY. Taj games are much looser, you are much less likely to be check raised (or if you are, it is very obvious), and your river bets will be more consistently paid off. Not to mention that the Taj will often have multiple 5-10 games going and the trop usually only has one which is tight/aggressive and plays like 10/20-15/30 with 3 players seeing the flop and checkraising being common. Go with taj. BTW MG in NJ, I am sure if you are there as often as it seems, we have played some 5-10 together at the Taj (I'm there like twice a month usually on weekends, but occassionally during the week...i played 5-10 there on Monday the 20th and I'm the young kid (21) with short brown hair if that helps lol). Anyway, as to your play, it sounds very solid but it seems like you are very results-oriented at times...great laydowns are not the way to make money in limit poker (i know its a cliche, but its true). Even a clueless player may take a shot at the pot in the game you describe, and I would call down. I have done very well in the 5-10 and hope to eventually move to 10-20. I would love to meet you at some point and we can talk poker, maybe hit the noodle bar...what do u look like?
Jeff
Jeff, I agree the difference between the Trop and Taj is the difference between night and day. The Trop is more like a poker club. All the players know one another and the tables are usually filled with regulars. I am the quiet guy at the table wearing glasses and a hat. I play once or twice during the week and usually Friday night and or Saturday afternoon night. Next time you post leave your e mail address. mg
I am glad that someone has confirmed that the trop game is tough. I played the 5-10 there with another experienced player and we both thought that it played like 10-20. Guess I'll try to play some more at the taj.
Pat
Hi, all
I've just finished two days playing 4-8 Helld'em at the Muckleshoot Indian Casino. Over the course of both days of play, I sat through approximately 28 dealer pushes. I had 11 hands that were playable and won three pots.
I'm not playing that tightly, I honestly didn't get the cards. I had one stretch of 7-2o that hit six times in a row. I went over 100 hands without having both position and cards to be able to play. I'm honestly talking about only getting QJo on the button and things like 10-Js in the Big Blind betting into a capped pot. (Yes, I dumped it, the Aces full of Queens took it down after completing the hand on the Turn)
My question is this, How long should a run of useless cards such as this be expected to last? Am I still in the first couple of SD of variations on dealt hand values or have I stumbled off into the Twilight Zone out in the fifth or sixth SD?
Seat changes, table changes, casino changes and burning incense had no effect, the rags still fell like snow in a Montana winter. Somebody give me some hope here. Is this just "the way it is in low limit Hold'Em" Or have I just "lucked" into a statistical goof where things are hitting bad for longer than they're "supposed" to?
Suggestions, words of encouragement, tales of similar woe, anything. Let me know whether I should just marvel at the statistical wonder of hitting this many unplayable hands.
Jeff
Baron,
If a dealer pushes every 1/2 hour, this means you played a mere 14 hours. Certainly, if you were really dealt 72o six times in a row, that is a statistical anomaly. Getting a mere eleven playable hands in 14 hours is a rarity, but one that you will occassionally encounter in your poker existence if you play reasonably tight. I wouldn't expect it to happen more than once every couple of years or so, but the scenario is not unique. Good luck, keep playing well, and do not worry about how often you have seen the flop as every hand is a new entity.
Mike
Just keep folding. Builds your most important muscle. Your girlfriend may disagree.
You "are" not on a slump of bad cards, but you "were" on such a slump. The chances that you will be on a slump the next time you sit down are the same now as they were 2 months ago, the same for me, and the same they will be next week. You cannot "expect" it to "end" or "continue".
Yes, that seems like that "was" a very unlikely slump of cards. Sounds like you played it like a champ, that's great for you, and I mean it. Keep up the good play.
"Seat changes, table changes, casino changes and burning incense ..." cannot be expected to have any affect on your slump, but I'd wager they probably had the affect of keeping you on your A-game. That sounds like a weak-point in your game, but its better than ignoring that weak point.
This is a great place to get sympathy. This forum is just crammed with subjective heart-felt emotionally giving liberals. Right.
Yes, "marveling" at it sounds like a reasonable plan. Why not "hope" it continues? This also will help you stay on your A-Game.
- Louie
cause your posts lately have been great! keep it up.
cheers, mike
"Who am I"? [a] Nobody special [b] No, Louie is my real name and I'm not Johnny Moss posting in-cognito. From Heaven. [c] Who is anybody?
"cause your posts lately have been great! keep it up" "Lately"? I don't know if that's an insult or not.
Well, I do try to provide a unique perspective on things. Actually, I don't try; it comes natural to us ..err.. me.
- Louie
Louie,
Okay, your real name is Louie, But is it Landale? And where do you play? Is it on Earth? Would that be revealing too much or do you like the aura of mystery that surrounds you?
Regards,
Rick
PS I know you don't read my stuff but I think your stuff is the greatest.
Louie is never wrong...ever. Everytime I print one of his posts, I ask myself, "Who IS this guy"?
Tom D
Tom,
I get the impression that Louie is very wise and has worked incredibly hard on his game. I'd make him a favorite in any game he choses to play (and you can bet he would chose wisely). ~ Rick
As long as we're having a Louie lovefest, I should add that Louie's advice has been the most helpful I have received, is invariably correct, and allows me to improve my game. And, he responds to nearly every decent post I make, even in the Nowhere Land of Other Poker Games. Thanks.
Mike
You've been on my 2+2 dream team for a long time.
My best to each of you,
Mike
"cause your posts lately have been great! keep it up. cheers, mike"
Louie's posts have always been great.
"M"
next time should be better. most of have had those same misery days
the funny thing is that very few of us can recall having the opposite...extra good days
thats nothing, in my last 100 hours of play I have won one pot every 2-3 hours and have missed the flop completlye 99% of the time.
I have not seen a fair share of starting hands and have seen even less positive flops.
have not hit a flush when the flop gives me four to it or have not hit an open ended straight.
have floped 6 sets and have lost them all.
Its fair to say thats it has not been a good couple of weeks. Its my second slump like this in 3 months.
What makes things worst is that The 10-20 games are extremly loose at the moment, usually 6-8 players see the flop.
I don't recall having such a long streak of unplayable hands as I don't count them because it takes away from my concentration and maybe play too defensively. When I play for about 2-3 hrs of not winning a single pot is I get off the table, take a stroll on the beach/boardwalk (I play in AC)with my walkman, and watch the seagulls for about an hour and then get back in the game. Better than going on tilt. Sometimes, texture of the game changes just because 1 or two players are replaced. Why, maybe because the new players have different playing standards. Statistical aberrations, card randomness etc. I posted last week when I played 3-6 for 2-3 hrs without winning a hand at Tropicana, decided to leave and played at TAJ. Recovered my early losses at Trop and won an extra $120 in an hour at Taj. Maybe take a break like I do and if it doesn't improvewhen you return, leave for another day. What do the experts advice? If the game is bad, leave! The game will be around long after you and I and our great, great grandchildren are gone. Tomorrow is another day. If you saw the movie Forrest Gump, there was scene when a guy supposedly got rich because of a bumper sticker: "SHIT HAPPENS". Same in poker. Just adding a little sense of humor. Just try playing your A-game and things will turnaround. Good luck.
My personal record is 172 consecutive unplayable hands. I didn't even get to play the blinds, as they were raised every time.
Fortunately for me, however, I was experimenting with Turbo Texas Hold'em at the time, so it cost me nothing, plus allowed me to easily keep track of how many hands had ticked by. I'd lose track in an actual game.
Some TTH simulations which I have run representing the equivalent of a lifetime of playing poker suggest that the longest time between two pots (not exactly the same thing, but close) seems to max out around 200 to 210 hands. At 30 hands an hour, this would be equivalent to playing 7 hours or so between having pots shoved to you.
So while your slide was certainly displaced from the mean, it's not yet in "anomaly" category.
Cheers,
Dave Shaw
Baron,
There are days where I'll go thru a few hours without anything "playable" and get blinded away pretty good. These are the opportunities that will really test your character as a hold em player. Personally, I welcome these opportunities as they have made me a strong disciplined player.
The best advice that I can give is not to think of your play in terms # of playable hands/played (a quantitative aspect). Be more results-oriented on the pots in which you are involved (quality). How nice were the pots that you won? Were they noteworthy for a 4-8 game... say $180 per pot? Were they relatively small and inconsequential?
Try to concentrate on different statistics... for instance how often does your hand win when you go to the river? Say that for your 11 playable hands, you showed down 8 times and won 7 pots. Most forum posters would be proud of such good results. Your opponents will respect you more for constantly showing down winners and allow you to steal a pot every once in a while. If you can steal one $30 pot every 4 hours, that's $30 more than you would've had.
A great player told me once that the biggest difference between winners and losers was the fact that winners can really minimize their losses during the times when the cards really suck. If you can stretch those dollars, the cards will eventually turn in your favor.
The opposite can be true as well. There will be days when you get premium hand after premium hand and not come close to hitting a good and/or "safe" flop. I remember one session where I raised preflop 11 straight hands and didn't rake one single pot. Not one. These weren't "steam raises" either... premium hands such as AA (5x), KK (2x), QQ (2x), AK (2x). Great hands, but 0 for 11 is still 0 on the scoreboard.
If you have 20-30 sessions in a row like this, then there's reason to worry. Find a new hobby like collecting stamps or something :)
Mike
It happens, the important thing is to continue to play your A game. Playing the wrong hands in the wrong position will only frustrate you more. Stick in there and don't GIVE your money away.
Things will change and no one knows how long it will take.
Thanks to everyone who replied. Yes, I suspect I'm playing a bit more tightly than I "should." Unfortunately bankroll considerations put me in that type of headset for now.
I wasn't so much complaining about it, though I admit I was complaining a bit, as I was marvelling at it. It's kind of like when the Space Shuttle takes off and proves conclusively that Newton was right. The past few sessions have proven categorically that Bayes was right. I have to admit an almost perverse pleasure had occured near the end of the last session. Several of the other players in the game had noticed the number of hands I wasn't playing and were good naturedly getting on my case about it. For over an hour I had the dealer expose my pocket cards when the hand was played out just so they could see what I'd tossed. One of the regulars is a serious math wonk from the University of Washington (some sort of epidemiologist... big, scarey statistical calculus in his day job) by the time I blinded out, he was giggling because of the absurdity of hitting 82o, 93o, etc so many times in a row. The only explanation he had was either, "Just the way the cards run sometimes", or, "Jesus, you must have been a very poisonous mushroom in a past life and accidentally killed a very holy man."
It all balances out in the end. Somewhere out there is another $1200 session of 4-8 to balance the nights where I blind out with trash cards. Hopefully... statistically it's out there... hopefully... maybe??? ARRRGGGHHHH!!!!
Jeff
What do you guys do when a," live one "sits in and kicks ass ? We've all seen bad players go on lucky streaks and realize that they do in fact win a few sessions.
If a bad player is on a hot roll, do you leave the table or hope that solid play will prevail?
Stockwell.
I am a little surprised by this question. Personally, I'm hard-pressed to remember a session I've played when there wasn't at least ONE bad player winning lots of chips. This is so common that I assume it's a standard element in the game environment when you play hold'em.
What do you do against a bad player who is winning lots of pots? Play premium hands and make him pay to keep drawing, just like you always do against bad players. His next hand is no more likely to hit a miracle card than the previous one.
natedogg
you keep playing as long as he is there. The last time I played a fish called my early position raise with T4o. Heads up. I had KK and he had won a large amount over the session. Naturally the flop comes A44, and I lost quite a few bets. When he left the game so did I. Somebody must have gotten his money.
Pat
Hot fish turns cold over the long term. You just gotta wait for it to happen, inevitably.
In fact, you would be insane to leave the table. When I am playing, I pull for the fish to take the money of all the other solid players. Who wouldn't want the fish to have stacks and stacks of chips ready to be torn down by your solid play?
Dear fellow posters:
recently I recollect that I read an article in the Card Player or Poker Digest or (?) maybe was posted here which among other things it was enumerating tells in poker.
However, I do not remember were I read it and I cannot find it now.
Did anyone of you read it? recollect it? know where it was published?
Thank you,
Armstrong Mandela
All,
I found the following equation for drawing odds to a flush at seven stud. This equation is for three cards to a flush on third stret, and assumes you haven't seen any other cards other than your three.
P= {10X9}X{39X38} + {10X9X8}X39 + {10X9X8X7}
-----------------------------------------
{2X1} {2X1} {3X2X1} {4X3X2X1}
_________________________________________
{49X48X47X46}
-------------
{4X3X2X1}
I found it very interesting and profitable to work out all the probabilities in situations with more dead cards and/or more cards seen.
I was able to modify the equation for the later streets.
I am unable to figure out a similar equation for straight hands, and would also like to work out odds this way when holding 3 of kind, two pair and one pair for drawing to full house or 4 of kind.
Can anyone give me those equations?
Thanks,
Sox
Assuming your equation is correct,what practical use is it in a real game situation
Why waste time doing this when you can look this info up in most books on poker? Moreover, if your calculated number is different than the published number, you'll waste even more time trying to figure out where you went wrong.
-=-MouseEars
God bless you Doug for coming up with those equations. I appreciate math dudes, but ya gotta get a fuckin' life. Play the game and have fun. You probably already are in the top 75% players just because you can think in terms of odds.
well, that got all scrambled when formated to the board. I doubt anyone can make sense of it.
Why worry about it and what use is it?
I play to win. To do that I issolate situations with positive expectation and exploit.
why not use odds from a table in a book?
Because those odds are averages of odds to draws assuming an average number of needed cards are missing. 4 cards to a flush on sixth street is not always a 4 to 1 poposition... sometimes its a little less against making the hand, sometimes its a lot more agsinst making the hand.
Its true I couldn't work such an equation at the table, but working it out for various needed cards missing and various numbers of cards seen does two things. It allows me to make a larger, more acurate table than is available in any poker book I've seen, and it gives valuable insight into just what happens when needed cards are gone, or more cards are seen, and more importantly remembered. That makes it possible to play more hands than most, highlights situations where a raise can be made with positive expectation, but in a place where most would not raise, adding deception and profit at the same time, and it allows me to drop confidently where most would see one more card... or worse chase hopelessly.
Of course most players could care less. Thank god! They are the donators that have been filling my racks for years.
I've been playing for about 25 years, mostly in home games of various limits. I've done very well for the most part. A few months ago I got hooked up online and discovered the "new" world of poker. Books, software, forums, an explosion of information I never knew existed, so I took advantage of it. I stopped playing and read, read, read til my brain was about to explode. Much of what I read I already knew but had never verbalized; much of it was new and seemed very helpful to me.
Anyway, armed with my new knowledge I hit the tables again. There's a problem though. It seems I can't relax at the table until I've won a decent bet now. I can no longer play my cards properly. It's difficult to explain but I guess paranoid is the word I'm looking for. With every bet made I'm convinced that at least one player has the nuts. And this goes on until I've finally won a hand, then I suddenly feel okay. I've stopped playing until I can get a handle on this. Any ideas, suggestions, or similar experiences? Thanks in advance.
For now, play EXTREMELY selectively but then assertively and tenaciously, as this will increase your chances of winning when you do play. Once you've won, go back to your "A" game. This is a reasonable strategy even when you do NOT have the jitters.
Perhaps your jitters are due to some notion of what you are "supposed" to do or to think, as opposed to before when you simply did what you "knew" to do. That is, there is now an external entity looking over your shoulder. Ask this guy to keep his mouth shut unless he KNOWS for sure the right play AND the play you are about to make is much worse.
A similar thing happended to me when I first started playing. I was beating this $1 game silly until I read my first poker book. I think it had something to do with finding out how much I really didn't know.
- Louie
Thanks. Glad to hear it's not an experience unique to me.
I’ve been working on Gambling Theory and Other Topics for a couple of months. I’ve set up a database on my PC and entered a bunch of poker data. I’ve got session records that date from the 60’s and it’s been fun to learn about bankroll requirements, standard deviations, win rates etc.
Here’s some stats from a NL HE game I played in several decades ago. It was played with a $1 blind and antes. All the other players are dead and gone, except for one who is dead and currently posting on the Beginner’s Questions forum! I chose this game because it had a relatively stable pool of players and the numbers are small. Also, it was one of the few NL HE games I beat in those days.
57 Sessions,
320.65 hrs,
14.62 hourly win rate,
127.30 standard deviation,
677 hours needed to assure a profit.
The statistic I find the most perplexing is “number of hours needed to assure a profit.” The more I think about this number, the more my mind tends to loop.
Does the 677 number mean I would be guaranteed of achieving my win rate after that period, or would being only a dollar up after 677 hrs. be considered a profit? If I were loser after 676 hrs, why would I think my win rate was valid? If my win rate wasn’t valid, the hours needed aren’t correctly calculated, so I’d have no sense of whether I was running bad or merely lousy.
On the other hand, if, after 677 hours, I were up $1, why would I think I had a win rate 14.62? It would be necessary to validate the win rate before being assured of the ‘hours needed’ being correct. If I had played 677 hours at this game and maintained the 14.62 win rate, would that, then, validate the win rate?
I keep thinking of the poor lowball player cited in the book who needed over 4200 hrs. to be assured a profit. How would he ever know if he was even a winning player?
Win rates converge to their true number very slowly. Your standard deviation converges much faster. I think that this is what you are struggling with.
So suppose you play a few hundred hours and have the type of results that you give. Does it mean that you really are a winner? You can frequently answer that by also considering how the other player play. If you can clearly see errors that they are making which you do not, and/or know that you can make some expert plays that the others are not aware of, then you can begin to conclude that your results are truly realistic.
Hope this helps.
It might a fun project to put a bigger sample on a spread sheet, calculate the SD and WR after each session, and then graph them to see when (or if) they stabilize.
Phat Mack,
So who's the dead guy posting on the Beginner's forum?
John
Just a joke. There was an old Texas player (I believe from Brenham, home of Bluebell ice cream)named Broomcorn who had a piece of this game. His favorite hand was 6-3. 6-3 used to be known as Blocky, which I was told was Broomcorn's other nickname. There may have been more than one Broomcorn, I'm not sure.
I find it highly unlikely that anyone outside of Texas has heard of him, but there is a poster, apparently an East Coast player, who uses the same name. I found the coincidence remarkable. The name Broomcorn might be more common name than I know.
because I believe in "hot streaks" and "going bad" it is hard for me to put results in any kind of short time frame. I have seen very good pro players stuck in an off cycle for an unbelievable time,yet it did end, and they returned to the + side.
such anomilies warp records
Correct me if I'm wrong, Mason, but my understanding of this "hours needed to assure profit" is that it is a theoretical quantity which assumes a fixed (known) win rate and standard deviation, and then calculates how long a period one would have to play at these rates to be assured of making a profit (assured meaning very nearly 100% of stretches which are this long would show a profit). In practical terms, what I would guess this means is that if you think your win rate is the $14.62/hr above and your standard deviation is the $127.30 above, but you then play for 677 hours and discover you are down money, then there are 2 possibilities, 1) you are mired in the worst run of horrendous cards ever seen, or 2) your win rate/standard deviation is not correct.
The way I see this being most useful is if you have played for a while and think you have your win rate and standard deviation nailed down, but then you catch a wave of frozen cards and begin to doubt yourself, you can look at these figures and get an idea how badly your luck would have had to be to end up with your recent results given that the win rate and standard deviation are correct.
This is an interesting situation...A couple weeks ago, I was playing in a fun and lively 4-8 game. I was up about $150 or so, and there were two women (who are friends) sitting in the 8 and 10 seats (I was in seat 7.) They would occasionally speak in Spanish while not involved in a hand, but I really didn't think much of it since they were laughing and losing....and since I live in New Mexico, Spanish is almost as prevalent as English. The #9 player got up, and he was replaced by another woman. The three of them started speaking Spanish after hands and during hands they were involved in. Since our casino has an "English only at the table" rule, I reminded the dealer about it...I was surprised I even had to do that, since the dealer should be all over that situation. She promptly asked the women to speak only English. They complied for about one pass of the button, then they started speaking Spanish again...often while two or all three of them were in a hand. I reminded the dealer again, and I got the same result. None of the other players seemed to mind their speaking Spanish...and I'm not even sure they were paying attention to our end of the table.
Here's my question. If my table was lively, mostly because of these Spanish-speaking ladies, and I was winning, should I have spoiled the mood of the entire table and pissed these women off by stopping play and demanding to see the floor manager...just to prevent some potential cheating? It's clearly within my rights, since the rules are posted everywhere in the cardroom, the women knew that, and the dealer warned them twice. The reason I didn't is because they were losing some of their money, and they were keeping the game fun for everyone....I didn't suspect them of cheating, but you never know. I definitely didn't want to be the sore thumb of the table that everyone suddenly locks in on and plays tougher against. I think I did the right thing, but thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.
The answer: no. They were simply some nice harmless ladies chatting and having fun and playing badly. Why would you want to scare them off? If you suspected they were cheating that's different, but to make a stink about it on PRINCIPLE is just silly.
Recently Artichoke Joe's ruined a perfectly good 15-30 game doing the same thing. They put a notice at the table, IN CHINESE, that said "english only" because many of the live players spoke a lot of Chinese at the table.
These guys made the game good and they got driven off by a stupid rules stickler when they obviously weren't cheating and were contributing large amount of chips to my bankroll and many other bankrolls too.
natedogg
about once each week I play in a game which will have 3 or 4 spanish speaking guys. they have lots of fun and chattering in their language, and they are rather consistant losers
I wouldn't think of doing anything to stop them from enjoying the game
yes there are times when I wonder, but NO do not stop them
it seems like in the long run they are going to only give each other bad advice because they are all bad players. however, if 2 of them are in a hand, who's to say that they don't tell each other what their cards are? this is a specific situation, case by case, thing where it probably isn't that big of a deal, but if you lose a big pot to them, or they know what you can't have in your hand, because their buddy folded it, then that is a very unfair advantage, and nobody - even bad players who will throw the chips your way eventually - nobody should have this advantage. i think in the ladies case it is probably not cheating at all. but i know for sure that people have passed information in this way at the tables ive played at. my buddy speaks spanish, and he was at the table with me, while this happened. he had folded, and i was contesting the pot heads up against a particular guy who was speaking spanish to his friend. my buddy overheard them speaking about their hands, and coaching, and the guy who was not in the hand told his friend what he folded. my friend said something to the dealer and the dealer called the floorman, and the floorman ruled the hand dead, and awarded me the pot there without even dealing the river card. the 2 guys who were reprimanded now proceeded to play even more aggressive and lose more chips because we played right back at them. instead of leaving, they stayed and played worse. these guys, however, had been quite nasty, and the table wasn't really 'fun' because they were sitting there losing, it was just very tense and hostile. the situation should dictate how strict and anal you want to be about the rules against non-english at the table. sometimes it pays to call them on it, sometimes it pays not to.
Living in Asia for the past 25 years I more often than not find myself in a game where English isn't understood by half the players and the other half choose to speak the local lingo, switching only to English to clarify a point for my benefit. Does that work against me? Somewhat, but working for me is the general extremely bad play at these tables.
More often than not the games here are bet, raise, raise, raise...from pre-flop to the river. So when I do see the river three or four times a session, the locals halt play to discuss what I might have. It never matters though, after a brief conversation it's back to raise, raise, raise.
Things are changing, though not too quickly. Last time I was back in Korea I found at least one decent-to-good local player in each game I played. After each of us sitting out the first few hands, we both realized it was better to avoid each other. So it wasn't a problem.
Driftaway, I would like to know where you play poker in Korea ? I will be there for business and would like to play any information would be appreciated. Thaks in advance
Drifaway, I will be in Korea on business and would really like to play Hold-Em. Where do they play? Any information you can share with me would be greatly appreciated. Thaks in advance
I'd like to help you with an address Stranger, but I can't. The games are either home games (easy enough to find if you're there for a few weeks), in illegal casinos which move around a lot, or in pool halls.
I'm presuming you'll be meeting Koreans on business, probably going out to dinner with at them at least once or twice. Tell the highest ranking guy you'd love to play while you're in his town. Chances are real good, as it's probably one of his duties to keep you entertained, that he'll organise something for you.
You can also let the concierge at your hotel know you'd like a game. A $10-$20 tip when asking if he knows of any place to play will probably get results.
If you're directed to one of the underground casinos, a reasonable amount of caution must be taken. The blackjack games here are usually crooked but surprisingly the poker is usually not. If the owner/manager is in the game you've got to be careful not to beat him badly. It's cool to beat his goons and their ladies, but give him as much face as possible, even if it means playing a couple of hands real stupid. More often than not he'll be overseeing the cheating going on at the BJ tables, so no problem. You should have no problems with any of them getting heavy as long as you show them respect. Compliment their play, curse their bad luck, buy a round of beers, I'm sure you know how to do it.
A third place to look for action is in a pool hall. Lot's of backroom games going on. Again, check out who's the bossman, make nice, and you'll generally be okay as long as nobody's too drunk. If they are drinking heavily, best to stay away.
You can also try Itaewon, which is the ville where all the American GI's go to party after work. There used to always be backroom games between soldiers and locals there but I've heard they've cleaned it up since I was there. You're much better off in an all-Korean game anyway, some of the GI's are very tough.
A couple of tips which may seem strange but will go a long way towards getting you an invite back to a game. If you clean somebody out, consider giving him 10% of the pot you just won as long as you're sure he's bust. If you're the big winner for the night, think about giving all the big losers $50 or so for their taxis home, depending on how much you're up. They do it for each other all the time, and probably will offer you the same if they bust you out.
Also, unless you've got a huge bankroll, I wouldn't play for anything more than W10,000 (about $8) a bet. (They don't have much of a betting structure generally. They'll say W10,000 maximum bet, but nobody ever bets anything less than the max). And given the volatilty of playing against six or seven maniacs, big pots are the norm.
If you can think of anything else, just ask. Good luck.
Oh, one more thing. The games are usually dealer's choice with the usual array of games. Lots of wild card games, lots of high-low games. Introduce hold 'em. It usually turns out to be pretty popular.
"If they are drinking heavily, best to stay away."
This is good advice. I know Koreans (I'm not one) and they can get real nasty when drunk. In fact, their sole purpose in drinking is to get stinking drunk. A bunch of friends will get together to do the rounds of bars, and invariably, they will end up fighting with each other - or with other patrons if they're stupid enough to get involved. Believe me, I speak from experience. (My wife owned a bar in the past.)
Papio
Driftaway,
Thanks for the information, one concern would be getting in trouble over there, since they do not have casinos that are legal i would hate to be in some place that gets raided by the police.
I'll be there for about 10 days this trip and i will ask around and check it out.
One thing are there any peticular neighborhoods or areas to stay away from ?
Thanks again for all your good advice.
I'll let you know how it all turns out.
Stranger
I think, but can't promise, police raids aren't a major concern though one can never tell. A certain amount of protection is generally the norm. Any casino south of the river should be okay. I don't think a concierge or contact would steer you too wrong, but again, you never know.
By and large Koreans really are excellent people. I'd feel much safer in the worst Seoul neighbourhood than in the generally "safe" US neighbourhoods at night. But follow your instincts, it's the best way to stay away from problems. Even if you don't play cards there, I hope you enjoy your trip. The Panmunjom tour is pretty decent.
Pinche Gringo Bandero
Yeah, I'm sure they were just talking about rellenos and margaritas.....mierda, era justo una pregunta....
As you are in New Mexico (or anywhere in the US), I think Spanish speaking players would probably not be cheating, since it is too likely that someone else at or near the table is fluent in the language.
If it were Chinese or some other rarer language (by rarer, I mean less known in the area), then it becomes a problem.
While playing "Mexican Poker," I've observed that many Spanish speaking players felt free to discuss the likely holdings of opponents during the play of hands. I do not think they regarded this as cheating. Some were novice players who may not have been familiar with the "one player per hand" rule, though I think an "us versus them" mentality was also a factor.
I never complained, since although they sometimes warned eachother that I probably held a strong hand, they usually called my bets anyway.
Translation: English only (Cantonese).
I've played about, hmmm, 2000 hours in the last four years when I was the only white guy at the table and everyone else was Asian, mostly Chinese. I love it. Those are without fail my favorite games, and NOT because of how the players play. My experience is that the quality of play among Asians is the same as white guys.
I never enforce the English Only rule. Lots of reasons, but the main one is consideration. Many of these guys are simply not equipped to express detailed action and thoughts in English. They can't have a normal conversation. For me to take this away from them would be brutally rude.
"They would occasionally speak in Spanish while not involved in a hand, but I really didn't think much of it since they were laughing and losing...."
I don't see what losing has to do with it. The reason for the English Only rule is to prevent cheating. With no suspicions, what the problem? And what difference does it make if they are winning? Are you saying that if you did not suspect cheating, and they were winning, that you'd now enforce the rule just because of stack sizes at one instant in time? That makes no sense to me.
Unrelated: By and large, I bond more with the Asians than the white guys. The Asian attitude toward gambling is more accepting, more realistic, more stoic, less judgmental, less condescending, all the things I want to be more of and less of, than white guys. I model my poker mindset after the Asian culture's superior outlook.
Tommy
im not one to constantly push people's buttons. not CONSTANTLY, that is. and i admit that i have been wont in the past to complain about bad beats. however, i am learning quickly that i play better when i don't let it get to me, and players don't gain the advantage over me if they don't see me complain about it. i do like to needle a little bit those who DO complain at the table when they get sucked out on. my favorite thing to say is "you could have folded." this burns them a lot, and its really nice when the guy is a jerk, and nobody in their right mind would have folded the hand. i usually only say this when the steaming loser pays off the obvious suck-out artist, and THEN proceeds to complain. i figure if the guy is disciplined enough to lay it down when he knows he got sucked out on, instead of pouring salt in his own wounds, then he doesn't deserve extra needling. but i really enjoy every once in a while telling someone who got sucked out on that they could have folded the hand before it got beat. get some loose raises from them after that.
Is it really too difficult to use caps ?
Caps were used - just in the wrong places.
Last night, for the first time in what seems like years, someone made a snotty remark about my hand. This could happen 50 times and I wouldn't say a word. But last night, I pulled out a rusty needle and stuck it in.
Five-handed $20-40. The game was soft and loose, which means I was playing high-card poker. Way tighter than prescribed short-handed frequency. I was up a ton and feared. After folding a few laps, I picked up 10-8 on the button. I had been folding in these spots. This time I open-raised, and the disabled-other-guy (DOG), called the BB and we were headup.
The board was 10-x-x, Q, x
Flop: check, bet, check-raise, reraise, call.
Turn: bet, call
River: bet, call
He turned over K5o, no pair or draw at any point.
I turned over my 10-8 and won the pot.
DOG said, "You raised with 10-8???"
Silence.
He continued, "Bla bla bla??? Bla bla bla!!."
I said, "You should be more complimentary of your opponents. For example, on this hand, I think you played it perfectly."
Tommy the dealer entertainer
x
Gee Wally... really?
They were talking about the proper bankroll for a 15-30 game and David said the following:
"Subject: Re: bankroll From: dsklansky@aol.com (Dsklansky) Date: 8/28/01 5:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: <20010828201042.23988.00002453@mb-mg.aol.com>
Assuming you can beat the game fairly easily, it is extremely unlikely that you would ever go broke with a starting bankroll of $20,000 that you did not deplete for expenses. Anything under $10,000 is in a lot of jeapardy (because its chances are about the square root of $20,000's chances-eg 1% vs 10%.)"
I don't get this. The square root of 20,000 is 141 and the square root of 10,000 is 100, but so what? What is the signifigance of that and how do you properly iterpret this information. Thanks for the help.
David, "Assuming you can beat the game fairly easily, it is extremely unlikely that you would ever go broke with a starting bankroll of $20,000 THAT YOU DID NOT DEPLETE FOR EXPENSES. [emphasis added]
I had NO idea that the eternal discussion about bankroll needs excluded expenses. That explains why the 300BB thing always struck me as absurdly small. I need at least 1000BB to feel comfy.
Tommy
Only 1000? I need a minimum of 3500 to feel nice and cozy.
Presumably if there is 10% chance of losing $10k, then there is 10% chance of it happening again, i.e. (10%)^2=1% chance of losing $20k.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Thanks Dirk.
Let me see if I've got this straight. If I (theoretically) have a 1% chance of going broke with a 20k bankroll then I have a 10% chance of going broke with a 10k bankroll. (The square root of 1%)Therefore, would the following also be true?
6.6k bankroll 22% chance of going broke
5k bankroll 32% "
4k " 40% "
2k " 61% "
1k " 79% "
And, if I had a 5% chance of going broke with a 20k bankroll then I would have a 22% chance of going broke with a 10k bankroll?
Is this all correct?
One last thing. Is there is guideline for estimating this "1%" chance of going broke number. I think it would be higher for me. I can only estimate, which is what I think David is doing, but I would like to be a little bit more accurate. Any suggestions? Thanks, Jeff.
Jeff, I will be happy to go through the math with you if you like, but there is a book written by Mason Malmuth entitled "Gambling Theory and Other Topics". On Page 47 there is table which shows how much money you need to assure a win. It is a function of your estimated win rate and your standard deviation. Knowing these two parameters, the table tells you how big a bankroll you need. The math formula is on Page 46.
Let us assume that you can beat a $15-$30 game for at least $10 per hour (not even one small bet per hour). Let us also assume that your standard deviation is $250 per hour. As an aside, my own standard deviation in $15-$30 is $257 per hour. Than according to the table you need a bankroll of $14,063 to have a 99%+ probability of not going broke.
If you could beat the $15-$30 game for $20 per hour, a little more than one small bet per hour, than you only need about half this.
Bottom line is that Sklansky is right assuming you can beat a $15-$30 game for something around one small bet per hour.
If you can beat it for one big bet per hour ($30 per hour), you should never need anything close to 10 grand.
Thanks Jim. I have Mason's book. Here's my problem. I make good money playing 10-20 and I went almost broke with a 20k bankroll during a one year bad stretch. Now, I'm building my bankroll back up again. Where I live 10-20 is the largest game. I need to move up, but I'm reticent to take even a 10% shot at going broke. I did not think it possible to go broke with a 20k bankroll playing 10-20. I would have rated my chances near zero. Then all hell broke loose. I had the worst one year run of my life. I make around $30 an hour playing 10-20 and I'm sure I could make one big bet per hour playing 15-30. The problem is stuff happens, and I also live off of my bankroll. So, those are some of my thoughts. I've risked going broke before, especially when I didn't have much money. Now that I have some built back up I don't want to risk it too much because the pain of that bad losing streak is still very much in the memory bank. I need to move up so I can make some decent money, but I know from personal experience that those numbers in Mason's book are all out of whack in the real world. You could be averaging $50 an hour for a long time in a 10-20 or 15-30 game and then hit a bad run and be in real trouble. So, what's a fellow to do? Just take a chance at some point or wallow away in 10-20 land until he has 20 or 30k. It takes a long time to build up that much money at 10-20 especially when you have to pay the bills. Just rambling, thanks for the input.
Well, Mason's analysis of the bankroll requirements is based on a bankroll which is entirely devoted to poker, that is, the only way for the bankroll to change in value is due to your results at the poker table. If there is another drain on the br, i.e. you are using it to pay bills, etc., then you have to have a bigger bankroll. Namely, your bankroll should be the figure Mason gives (based on your win rate and standard deviation) plus enough money to pay your expenses. This is another area where that "hours needed to assure profit" figure would come in handy. That is, figure out how much money you would need to pay your bills during a period of time long enough for you to spend that "hours needed to assure profit" number of hours actually playing, and then add in the theoretical bankroll requirement and you should have a bankroll which allows you to pay bills as well as not go broke (or at least have a reasonably probability of not going broke).
friend of mine went thru same...afterward he told me he was going to divide $$ into living expenses and playing. he kept it all in one box or one bank account, but had written record of the two accounts
do not know how he divided his wins between the two. but do know he told me he didn't want try any new games, etc untill he had the living expense part built to cover a year. said that last bad streak had him too worried about how he was going to pay bills and he thought the pressure may have effected his play?????
Jeff, if you lost twenty grand playing $10-$20, the last thing you should even think about doing is playing higher. $15-$30 is a significantly bigger game than $10-$20 and your swings will be even greater.
I do not know if this applies in your case, but I can tell you that I have seen a lot of players here in Vegas run good for awhile, maybe a year or so, rack up a big hourly earn, but then go on a long losing streak and end up quitting poker altogether. Generally the guys I have seen do this are loose, aggressive players who happen to run good over a long period of time and they believe it is due to their play. But in reality, what has happened is that their hands were holding up an abnormally high percentage of the time, they were rarely getting sucked out, and they were drawing out a high percentage of the time. From their perspective it looks like their good results are due to their play but it really isn't. They were merely statistical deviates. Again, I am not saying that this applies in your case at all.
A friend of mine in Texas, who posted his results here awhile ago, won almost $40,000 in his first 1000 hours of play in $20-$40 hold'em. He played all over the country in public card rooms. Over the next 800 hours of play he lost $13,000. But based on his results for his first 1000 hours of play, one would assume he was a top player since he was winning one big bet per hour. Now after 2500 hours of play his earn is really more like one small bet per hour (around $20 per hour). I believe my friend is a good, solid player but it may be that winning one big bet per hour over the long haul in a middle limit game is simply not achievable unless you are incredibily lucky or you are playing in an incredibly soft game. Who knows?
I know of many other good players who have experienced extended losing streaks. When the Horseshoe in Bossier City, Louisiana closed their card room in January of last year, there were about a dozen of us who moved out here to Vegas. We were all significant winners in the $20-$40 hold'em in Bossier City. As of this writing there are only two of us left. All the others went broke or simply could not win enough to cover expenses. One player in particular started off on a spectacular run, winning over $30,000 in a two month period playing $20-$40 at the Mirage. This player came to the attention of Cissy Bottoms, Mason Malmuth, and David Sklansky and everyone assumed she was a top player. Today, she is a $6-$12 player at the Orleans.
If you are making $30 per hour playing poker, it should only take you a year or so to build up an additional $20K for the purpose of moving up. This assumes that you live on your own, you play full time (2000 hours per year) and have some idea of how to manage your expenses.
$20K to pay for your lifestyle
$20K to pay your taxes
$20K of bankroll growth
Of course, some people have no clue how to budget.
The bonus is that once you get your bankroll up to $40K or so, you can take trips to Vegas and California during prime poker playing periods, and make even more money playing in nutso games at the 30/60 level and above.
- Andrew
This rhetoric is all based on assumptions. Assume you can beat a 15-30 game, assume you have x % advantage. Poker is gambling and no matter how good you are or how good you think you are, always remeber, it's just another form of gambling.
Don't assume anything. Play your best tally up what's left at the end of the night! Mark
I agree that the conclusions which are reached regarding bankroll are driven by your starting assumptions. Beating a $15-$30 game for $30 per hour over many thousands of hours of play is a very rare thing. This is a HUGE assumption. If the assumption is inaccurate then so are the conclusions.
I agree that this is definitely a gambling game.
I play in what I am sure is a typical low limit (3/6 & 4/8) Hold'em game in the midwest. I find myself repeatedly facing a question that I just can't seem to come up with an answer to, that I can be sure is right.
When playing selective-aggressive, there are those occassions where you have a nice little run and you find yourself raising preflop on two or three hands in a row or in close succession. I have noticed that the people I play against tend to became angry (mildly so, but still noticable) and feel that I am just being a bully. They tend to react by calling on occassions that I think they would not normally do so, just because they don't want to be pushed around.
So, considering the low limit mentality, am I hurting myself by raising alot, when the cards justify it, or should I slack off some to avoid having the competition dig their heels in and call me when I would rather they wouldn't?
Thanks, Paul
You're talking about borderline situations here, meaning case-by-case is a good handling. I'll presume you would raise AA even if you raised the last ten hands. And you wouldn't raise 7-2.
What I do is, with borderline raising hands/situations, if I'd been raising a lot lately, I muck because I'm going to get extra play for the reasons you mentioned. If I've been quiet lately, I raise.
Tommy
Great advice ... THANKS!
I would think that if it was one or maybe two people loosening up against you that you would actually want to loosen up. They are relaxing their hand standards giveing you a bigger spectrum of opportunity.
If its two players I'd be cautious about getting caught out of position with a weak hand against two possible weaker hands separately but hands which are a favorite to you in tandem. If its 3 or more players that start tagging along then I'd maintain your normal hand standards and maybe add some slightly weaker suited aces then you normally raise.
Tightening up against a single opponent that is loosening up seems counterintuitive to me.
Let me see if I have this straight: you raise a few times in a row because you get dealt premium raising hands a few times in a row. As a result, people start calling you more with what you presume are lesser hands.
That sounds like the best possible outcome. You are not hurting yourself at all if they stubbornly call your "value" raises.
Your post alludes to the fact that you additionally raise as a pure bluff (or close to it) on occasion. If the callers are stubborn, you must do this less often as you are less likely to immediately win the pot.
If and when the callers catch on and stop calling when you raise, you can start raising with a few "slightly less than premium" hands to take advantage of their passivity.
There have been great rumblings and fierce exchanging of opinions regarding left brain vs right brain. No mention was made of pole-cat ferret brains, but no matter. Sredni was wondering, what role personality plays in poker. Does inherent personality strongly affect a person's play?
Without offering proof, Sredni contends that natural agressiveness plays a role. More agressive people are more likely to succeed in poker, all else being equal. Or so Sredni believes.
What about other traits? Are introverts disadvantaged over extroverts? If so, would online play help balance the scales?
Would potential poker ability be related to order of birth? Would a first born son have an inherent advantage over a third born daughter, all else being equal? What about only childs? What about adopted?
Is there correlation between musical ability and poker? Does the creativity carry over?
Would 
be a good potential poker player? (Engleburt Humperdinck)
Sredni will appreciate all replies.
Sredni Vashtar 
Sredni Vashtar went forth, His thoughts were red thoughts and his teeth were white. His enemies called for peace, but he brought them death. Sredni Vashtar the Beautiful.
LOL!!!
Oh my my.
I was all good to go on this convoluted theory I have about music and poker. When I scrolled into Engy's face, all was lost.
Tommy
Sredni did not anticipate that your adoration for Engleburt would cause so much discombobulation that it would leave you theory-less.
Sredni Vashtar went forth, His thoughts were red thoughts and his teeth were white. His enemies called for peace, but he brought them death. Sredni Vashtar the Beautiful.
In games that have high psychological/people reading/people intimidation content (no-limit, pot-limit, high ante/shorthanded limit), creative right-brained extroverted thinking/behaving would be more appropriate. In games that have more emphasis on math and pot odds, scientific left brained introverted analylitical thinking/behaving would be more appropriate.
The key is to have the flexibility to do both.
The key is to have the flexibility to do both.
Does an introvert or extrovert have control over which one they are?
Sredni Vashtar
Behaving extrovertedly or introvertedly are behaviors that we all have different levels of skills and abilities in carrying out. They are not who we are. They are what we do. Extroversion and introversion are our behaviors. We are not our behaviors.
If we are not our behaviors, then who are we? We ARE the programmers and managers of our behaviors. The actions and behaviors of extroversion and introversion are only two of countless programs that we run by doing specific things with our brains, nervous system, and physiology. We are much more than our programs.
Yes Snedri, the ferret who is especially skillfull at running the behavior of acting introvertedly can develop the skills of behaving extrovertedly and adding it to his repertoire of skills. And vice versa.
The reason people and ferrets have a hard time changing themselves, acquiring new skills, and becoming more flexible in their behaviors is because they have the BELIEF (which really is nothing more than a self-fulfilling mental construct made up of inner words, sounds, pictures, and feelings) that they are their behaviors. Nothing can be farther from the truth. We are above our behaviors. We are above our cognitive programs.
Thankyou JAWZ.
Is your nickname relating to the James Bond character, the great white shark, or other?
Sredni is just curious.
"Sredni contends that natural agressiveness plays a role."
I would say that a competitive spirit is helpful. Interpersonal aggressiveness is not necessary, IMO, and may be a negative indicator of poker ability to the extent that it reflects a lack of emotional control.
"Are introverts disadvantaged over extroverts?"
Probably a bit. However, of more importance is one's interpersonal perceptiveness, which does not always correlate with outgoingness.
"If so, would online play help balance the scales?"
Yes.
As for birth order, gender, and other demographic factors, there could be statistically significant but small correlations with achievement in various areas including poker.
"Is there correlation between musical ability and poker?"
I'd be surprised if there weren't. Musical ability is correlated with intelligence--especially visual-spacial and numerical abilities.
"Would (Engleburt Humperdinck) be a good potential poker player?"
No. There are exceptions to every rule.
Mike
"Are introverts disadvantaged over extroverts?"
Probably a bit. However, of more importance is one's interpersonal perceptiveness, which does not always correlate with outgoingness.
Yes, Michael is making sense. Yet it seems to Sredni that ongoing people might have more interaction therefore, all else being equal, might have more experience in this area. I am sure there many complex personality mixes that defy simple ferret analysis.
"Would (Engleburt Humperdinck) be a good potential poker player?"
No. There are exceptions to every rule.
Yes, sometimes the truly great geniuses of our time have only ability in thier gifted area. The Supreme Ferret in the sky works in mysterious ways.
Sredni Vashtar says peace
"Yet it seems to Sredni that ongoing people might have more interaction ..."
Than outgoing people?
It helps to be the seventh son of a seventh son.
They're unbeatable.
The wiring of the brain continues long past birth. In a sense, until death, because neural pathways grow stronger upon repeated usage. Example, few speak of themselves in the third person. Mostly rich athletes and gurus. But this language quirk could overtake any of us, once the pathways are opened are travelled.
Most of the major wiring work is done before puberty. Conclusive evidence supports the theory that music lessons during youth serve to enhance, and dare I say it, thicken, the neural pathways that link the left and right sides of the brain.
That's why Tommy is geeky and goofy.
Tommy
The wiring of the brain continues long past birth.
Loose wires start fires, Sredni once heard, beneath a summer moon.
Example, few speak of themselves in the third person. Mostly rich athletes and gurus.
Sometimes great pole-cat ferrets who hunger to once again be a nutmeg nourished hutch gods. Or sometimes Sredni chooses paths that are not the quickest nor the surest but offer a view that may reflect light and echo sound in a way others have not dared conceive. Through Sredni may come vicarious musings.
That's why Tommy is geeky and goofy
Sredni did wonder. But Sredni resigned himself to the notion that his was not to reason why, but to laugh and cry.
Sredni Vashtar thanks all for their patient endurances of Sredni.
I'm trying to work through a simple example of a poker-like game to see if I can figure out how to figure out the optimal strategy. Any help would be very welcome.
I've made the assumption that when working out a heads up strategy in a betting game you can separate the strategy for when you are first to act from the strategy when last to act, and solve each problem independently. I believe this assumption is valid.
For the model game, I'm having each player ante 1/2 a betting unit. The first player to act can then bet 1 unit or fold. If the first player bets, the second player can either call or fold. There is one betting round.
I've defined the following variables to analyze the case when you are first to act:
x = the chance that you will win if the two hands are shown down. This quantity is known once you have your hand.
y = the chance that your opponent will fold if you bet. This is an unknown quantity, but seems to be necessary.
f(x) = the probability that you will bet for a given chance of winning, x.
W = the expected win for a given combination of the above variables.
Since we would like to maximize our overall expected win, we have to figure out what that is. For given x, y, f(x):
W = (1-f(x))*(-.5) + f(x)*(1-y)*(1-x)*(-1.5) + f(x)*(1-y)*x*(1.5) + f(x)*y*(.5)
This reduces to W = f(x)*(2y+3x-3xy-1) - .5
To get my overall expected win (Wt), I integrate over y from 0 to 1:
Wt = f(x) + 3x*f(x) - 1.5x*f(x) - f(x) - .5, which reduces to Wt = 1.5x*f(x) - .5
Now I want to maximize Wt, so I take the derivative with respect to x, which gives:
dWt/dx = 1.5*f(x) + 1.5x*f'(x), and set this equal to 0, then solve for f(x).
df(x)/dx = -(1/x)*f(x)
(1/f(x))*df(x) = -dx/x
ln[f(x)] = -ln(x)
f(x)*x = 1, hence f(x) = 1/x. This is clearly a nonsense result, since both f(x) and x are supposed to be numbers between 0 and 1.
So, my question is, since I obviously did something wrong, what did I do wrong?
Thanks for any help, Lenny
If the first player always bets and the second player always calls it is a standoff. You cannot do better than that.
vince
So I guess what you are saying is that my result seems to make no sense because what it really means is that the optimal strategy is to always bet.
If I changed the weights as follows: Ante 1 unit, Bet 3 units, my method of analysis gives the following:
W=(1-f(x))*(-1) + f(x)*[(1-y)(1-x)(-4) + (1-y)*x*(4) + y] = f(x)*[5y + 8x - 8xy - 3] - 1
Wt = f(x)*(8x - 3) + f(x)*(2.5 - 4x) - 1 = f(x)*(4x - .5) - 1
dWt/dx = 4*f(x) + (4x - .5)*f'(x) = 0
df(x)/f(x) = 4dx/(.5-4x)
ln(f(x)) = -ln(.5-4x)
f(x)*(.5-4x) = 1
f(x) = 1/(.5 - 4x)
Which is infinite for x=1/8, negative for x>1/8 and goes to 2 from above as x goes to 0. So the question I now have is, if this is the correct method of calculation, what does this answer mean? Should I still always bet when first to act? Will this be true regardless of what the relationship between the betting increment and the ante is?
I don't know what the calculation means. I am not a game theorist. I looked at your example and concluded that if the player first to act alwasy bet and the second player always called no one would win. From this I concluded that this must be the best strategy for both players. Maybe a game theorist can prove me wrong.
Vince
Two years ago I posted a thread telling how I had never experienced a rush. Well you guessed it, here it is two years later and I've STILL never experience a rush. In fact, the last pre-flop multi-way capped pot I won was in 1999(no exaggeration). I can still remember it, I had pocket 10's and flopped a set, by the river it was overkill when the board paired with one player remaining who was stuck in there with A-K making aces-up.
Is this a common experience you think? (I play $3-6 hold'em about 3 times a week, 2 to 6 hour sessions)
Steve,
IMO, rushes are overrated. What does a rush prove anyway? I swear some people use the # of hands they win in a row like a measuring stick of their masculinity. A "rush" is just a catchy buzzword for saying the dealer is just pounding me with the deck no matter what I play.
It's my experience that people who play rushes just as soon give it back because they pay no attention to the amount of time that the rush lasts. They get this feeling of invulnerability that they're defying the laws of averages and whoa nelly...
The next person who comes and tells you "Man, I was on such a rush today!!", ask them how much they won for the day. I can almost guarantee his face will get stony serious with a touch of pout as they say "I lost a rack". (Chuckle).
Next, you'll be getting a play by play better than Bob Costas on the run of absolute bad fortune that befell his 10-4 suited ad nauseum.
See also kill pot statistics, same concept applies.
Mike
I have been fortunate enough to find myself in a 11 man HE game with $3 $6 blinds and a 1/2 pot limit with a max of $50.Most flops are taken by 3 to 7 players with more tham one preflop raise being unusual,a preflop raise also is usually called by those who had limped in the $6 BB.The general rule of thumb for all but one of the players is that ANYTHING suited is worth playing as is anything remotely connected and a board of Q43 J 4 will typically shown down by a player with K4 and 84s for the loser so the issues are thus :
1. Blinds are tiny so many players play 2. The first preflop raise is limited to 1/2 pot usually about $12 so it is universally called 3. After the flop a player holding a flush or strt draw will happily pay 1 1/2 or 2 big bets (BB =$50) to draw to his hand even in a heads up situation. 4. Unless I am lucky enough to find another preflop raiser and can reraise ,it is almost impossible to get heads up or 3 way preflop.
I initially ythought that ultratight and ultra aggressive was the way to approach this game but nearly every overpair I get gets cracked by 2 small pair or flushes and strts (regular and backdoor/gut buster)
I am noiw thinking that I too must play any suited connectors and all pairs and take advantage of the excellent implied odds to get my edge and rather play my overpairs passively unless they spike a set on the flop or I can get heads up.
I am desperately unsure how to approach this and ALL SUGGESTIONS WILL BE APPRECIATED
Greg
the smaller the blinds and the more people getting a hand the tighter you can play and win. in loose games playing tighter is the rule as it takes bigger hands to win and its too easy to make big second best hands that get punished. what makes you want to play loose is that you see so many winning hands that started out weak. and the fact that by playing tight you win few hands during the night but big ones. you will show a winning result only if you dont bleed off too much playing alond with trash.
An opponent cannot be getting worse than 3:1 to call, and since straight and flush draws are about 4:1 to hit with one card to go, it is no disaster to call heads-up, even if they MUST have the made hand to win. "Loose" players can and should regularly make worse calls then this. Your expectation that it "should" be otherwise is, to say the least, a "distraction" and is greatly hurting your ability to play at your best.
Once you accept the "obvious" and "simple" truth that "should" is not "is", which is understandably very "difficult" to do, your ability to play well in these situations will soar.
Zee is correct about needing stronger hands to win. But he means you need to end-up with stronger hands which is not the same as your starting hands. In these games, unsuited trouble hands go way down in value whereas, as the loose players already know, suited hands and connecting hands and small pairs go up. Just make sure you are playing quality draws and not just any old suited or connected hand. A2s is certainly better than KTo in this game. Things change dramatically as the number of pre-flop raises increases and the number of pre-flop players decreases.
And, of course, position is real important.
- Louie
Sredni not so long ago went to a cardroom that he hadn't been to in while. There were some dealers he remembered. He remembered their ways. Their nuances.
There came a hand in which Sredni was in the big blind. The dealer was a nice guy (We'll call him Conradin) who played poker on occasion too. He knew the players very well. Moreso than Sredni. Conradin had a flaw from the old days, that he had been corrected over and had solved it. Almost. In the past, he would say, "check and chase". This Sredni learned was quite reliable. When Conradin said this, it meant that the player betting held a very strong hand and the person checking was going to call down. (Very often the case). Well Sredni in the old days used this to his advantage. Saved a few bets. But the management got on the dealer (who also was a floor supervisor most of time now and friendly with the manager which gave him more leeway than would normally be the case).
So there was Sredni in the bid blind. Against an unfamiliar opponent. The circumstances don't matter , but I was in one of those spots that no ferret likes. I was out of position and thought I had enough odds to continue (go away Tommy). I checked and I noticed the dealer silently murmur "check and chase". Which of course was what Sredni was going to do. Was.
Sredni also notices reliable tells from dealers at other times, but won't go into this.
Now if dealers are so smart, how come they aren't playing instead of dealing?
I don't know. Consistent paycheque? Leaks in their game that have nothing to do with card reading? Affinity for the good life? Sredni does not know. Nor does Sredni care.
Is this real? Or does Sredni have powers of observation only ferrets have? Or is Sredni lost in the dull, cheerless garden?
Sredni Vashtar
... went forth, His thoughts were red thoughts and his teeth were white. His enemies called for peace, but he brought them death. Sredni Vashtar the Beautiful.
"Now if dealers are so smart, how come they aren't playing instead of dealing?"
Dealers are smart. That's why they don't play.
The way I figure it, with the house getting about $100-150 per table per hour, and with the vast majority of all poker chips in play being of the one-dollar kind, and with many of those chips leaving the casino in the dealers pocket, the dealers are the smartest ones in the building, second to those who get the drop.
Tommy
"Dealers are smart. That's why they don't play."
Many dealers play. As Ray points out, most of them lose. Many of them, Andy has observed over the years, lose more than they can afford to. Like Tommy, they have no poker bankroll. Unlike Tommy, most have no poker skills. They therefore supplement their one dollar chips with dalliances in pimping, prostitution and drug dealing. Andy is not accusing all of so doing. Andy feels, though, that certainly a larger percentage do so than in the general population having, in his younger an wilder days, first-hand knowledge of such activities.
One can be smart in one area of life and not so smart in others. Many famous and successful poker players lacked smarts in other areas of their life. Andy knows several players who have 7 figure incomes who play poker very badly and constantly lose. They are smart people, yet they play.
Sredni's writing style is, apparently, contagious, at least for Andy and Louie. It is certainly entertaining in style and rewarding and informative in content.
[] Louie may have used a dealer observed tell a couple times, but its rare and this is the first time Louie's seen it in print.
[] Dealers making such comments about the play during the hand should be infested with 1000 maggots. Or 1000 bats. Baseball bats.
[] The dealer's observation that the situation is "check and chase" is consistent with YOUR observation that the situation offered "enough odds to continue"; both observations mean you were probably beat. Nothing the dealer said suggested whether or not you really DID have enough to chase, just that you were probably beat. If YOU believe you can interpret his comment to mean the bettor has a better hand than normal, then go ahead.
[] There are very few dealers so good and experienced that they have time to figure out what players have accurately during a hand. Anyway, there is more to playing professionally than "being smart"; and Louie can attest to that from personal experience.
[] "Is this real". Not reliably, but may be in this specific case. However, since Dealers are (usually) trained to keep their mouths shut there is a much higher correlation between their blurts and reality than there is between player's blurts and reality.
[] "Does Sredni have powers of observation only ferrets have?" No, but they seem to be keen. Keep up the good work.
[] "Is Sredni lost in the dull, cheerless garden?". Louie doesn't know, but is tempted to say "Yes" just to be a smart-butt. Except that Louie has never seen Sredni there so the answer is probably "No".
- Louie
Louie presumes there is no equivalent to "I" in India?
[] Dealers making such comments about the play during the hand should be infested with 1000 maggots. Or 1000 bats. Baseball bats.
When the time for violence sadly arises, Sredni Vashtar does not warn of his plan. Ask Mrs. De Ropp.
[] Louie may have used a dealer observed tell a couple times, but its rare and this is the first time Louie's seen it in print.
Sredni is known among his fellow ferrets as ground breaking. Or was that ground hogs.
[] "Is Sredni lost in the dull, cheerless garden?". Louie doesn't know, but is tempted to say "Yes" just to be a smart-butt. Except that Louie has never seen Sredni there so the answer is probably "No".
Worry not, Sredni will forgive Louie's small misdoings. Smart-buttedness counts in that category. Yet Sredni is happy that Louie has chosen to manifest himself peacefully and with great care of words.
Sredni Vashtar went forth, His thoughts were red thoughts and his teeth were white. His enemies called for peace, but he brought them death. Sredni Vashtar the Beautiful.
ive only seen one or two dealers in my life that were better than a break even player. so listening to a dealers advice is akin to playing your hand using advice from an unknown off the rail. perhaps this dealer was just stating the obvious which is what i suspect.
ive only seen one or two dealers in my life that were better than a break even player.
Sredni has never actually seen one who could sustain it, although there have been rumours.
so listening to a dealers advice is akin to playing your hand using advice from an unknown off the rail.
Under the following conditions, the above statement is true:
-If the unknown on the rail had hundreds of hours of experience with the players involved.
-if the unknown on rail had demonstrated historical accuracy as the dealer had.
-if the unknown on the rail was known to not have a partisan involvement.
perhaps this dealer was just stating the obvious which is what i suspect.
What is obvious about poker to the Ray Zees may not be to the Sredni Vashtars.
Peace.
When poker writers address bankroll requirements, which of these assumptions is in play:
1) That the BR is constantly drained by living expenses
2) The the BR is forever seperate from living expenses
If the answer if #2, this suggests to me that the entire BR discussion, and the resulting numbers, is irrelevant to a professional player, and more importantly, to a WOULD BE professional player.
That strikes me as odd because so often the tone of the discussion is, "This is how much money you need to turn pro."
I see a huge contradiction here, and a dangerous one, if the writers are speaking as teachers to those considering going pro.
If the answer to the opening question is #1, then wouldn't bankroll needs be largely effected by lifestyle and location, thereby adding a significantly subjective variable to theories based on rigid numbers?
For example, I pay $1500/month rent. Someone living in Atlantic City might be paying $500. Whose to say what our bankroll needs are? Any numbers that claim to be universal, that are bigger than "you need a bunch" sounds like guesswork to me.
Tommy
In GTOT I wrote (see page 51 of the 1999 edition):
"Another point that needs to be made is that the various tables assume no removal of dollars from the system. So if you conclude that $5,000 is an appropriate bankroll and you now win $100, this $100 must not be removed from your bankroll. If you remove winnings, your level of risk will be higher. This is because some of the "paths" that allow you to stay in money take into account early wins, especially the tables that provide figures for a 95 percent chance to win."
So the answer is clearly Number 2.
.
"So the answer is clearly Number 2"
So the BR requirement is clearly wrong. At some point a consistently winning player at a specific level that never removes winnings will reach a point where adding money to his Bankroll will not noticeably increase his chances of survival. When that point is reached either he can move up in limit or he can remove winnings as he pleases.
vince
Say that Joe and Bob are equally good players, with, say a 1 BB/hour win rate, and equal variance. We decide, using your formula, that $5000 is an appropriate bankroll for each of them.
On Monday, Joe plays and wins $500, then puts it into his pocket. His bankroll is still at $5000. Bob didn't play on Monday. Tuesday comes along and they both still have $5000.
Are you saying that now Bob is in a better position (or less likely to ever bust out) than Joe because he didn't take money out of the system?
How can winning and taking the money out be any different than not playing at all? How do the "paths" know the difference? If you claim that $5000 is enough, then what happened in the past is not relevant.
sam
I think an important part of the question is how long the time period is. That is, when the tables say I have less than 1% chance of going broke with a specific bankroll, what does that mean? Less than 1% chance of losing my bankroll that year? Less than 1% chance of losing my bankroll that day? Or does it mean that there is a less than 1% chance that the next random walk I take through my bankroll's phase space will hit zero at some point?
I guess what I'm asking here is, when you (Mason) did the bankroll calculations, what criterion did you use to separate paths which were included from those which were not? Also, how does this affect the time period of the calculation?
In answer to Sam's question, I would say that if Joe consistenly removes money each time he wins enough that his bankroll goes over some threshold, while Bob consistently sits around not playing, then yes, Joe will have a higher probability of going broke. Or put another way, the difference between Joe playing and winning $500 then removing that $500, while Bob does not play, is that by spending that extra day at the tables, Joe exposed himself to a small risk of losing his bankroll. So while, from that point on, their chances would be the same of not going broke, Joe's overall chance of going broke, counting this first day, is slightly higher.
Is not much of this semantics?
Say Sredni has 100k total cash wealth.
I have 2500 month living expenses (high, but not in some areas).
It costs me 30k a year to live. So I can live for two years and have a 40k bankroll that I won't touch.
Or I can have a 100k bankroll that I will touch. But I am fooling myself. If my 100k drops to 50k, great dissillusionment might find me. There might be wailing and gnashing of teeth. So my bankroll is only what I am going to risk.
In the first case, if I play two years with my 40k (untouched) bankroll, it better be able to produce at least 60k in that two years for me to continue. Preferably more, so I can save for a country hutch.
This is all so obvious. Sredni apologizes.
I'm still confused.
Two common topics are 1) when to quit the job and go full-time pro 2) bankroll
#2 is a parameter within #1.
But if all math-based discussion of BR needs assumes that living expenses come from somewhere besides poker, as Mason clarified is indeed the case, then this means there really is no material about the BR needs of a full time pro, right?
The good news is, I can now see the sense behind the 300BB advice, whereas before I thought it was ridiculously small.
I much agree with Sredni that the seperation of a poker bankroll from living bankroll for an employed person is merely a semantical distinction.
Not that it matters, but I don't have a poker bankroll.
Tommy
Your calculations needn't be subjective. You should be able to determine your realistic monthly expenses. Divide this number by your realistic #hours you expect to play each month. Subtract this number from your expected hourly rate.
If the result is negative, reconsider your situation. A positive result is used as your "real" hourly rate and is quite useful in Malmuth's calculations.
- Louie
I was just about to write this exact message. It answers Tommy's question completely. Louie is saying that you calculate your after-living-expenses win-rate (and if it's not positive, you're screwed) and you plug in THAT win rate into the formulas. Make sure you convert your monthly lving expenses into per-playing-hour living expenses.
Lets spell it out. If
GWR is your gross win rate per hour (what you make at the table per hour on average),
L is you monthly living expenses,
n is the number of hours you play per MONTH (Just use the same time interval you use for living expenses)
NWR is you net win rate per hour (that is, your hourly win rate after deducting living expenses appropriately)
then
(NWR) = (GWR) - (L/n).
You should use NWR, instead of GWR in the formulas.
Tommy said `Not that it matters, but I don't have a poker bankroll. ' Well, fair enough; it's just an accounting technicality to designate part of your wealth as your bankroll. But if you treat you pro playing as a business, it's worth analysing your cash flow fully. Personally, I'd rather have my job and play for fun.
Hope this helps.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
"Personally, I'd rather have my job and play for fun. "
Not me. I'd rather not have a job and play for fun.
Vince
My job is fun too.
In the limit hold'em game I play I am winning about 1 BB per hour but with a SD of 10-12 BB's per hour. I know that great players can get their SD down to about 7.5 BB's an hour with a similar expectation. What do I need to do to reduce my SD? I feel like I play fairly tightly preflop already (although not super tight, I play 77 and 88 UTG and raise or call based on the field). Am I not mucking on the flop and later streets enough?
Rob
Hi,
According to this expert, if you improve your reading skill, the SD will drop. Plus, if you fold wining hands too often (ex. folding buttom pair when the pot is big), your SD will drop. Of course, this is not good.
by Soh
Hi,
Card Player Volume 14, No 18
Roy Cooke says, "...you need to recognize these types of players (who have larceny in their hearts) and utilize a strategy to straighten out their pilfering mentality, refine them into more honest and better people, and more importantly, make them much easier to read at the poker table." Inside () is written by me.
Is he saying that if someone bluffs too much, you have to make him bluff less? I agree that it's easier to read someone who never bluffs than someone who bluffs too much, but you donÕt want to stop him from bluffing because he is making a mistake by bluffing too much.
Let's say 10% is the right bluffing frequency in this particular situation. If someone bluffs 20% in that situation, he is bluffing too much. But you don't want him to bluff less but more, so that he bluffs way more than he should.
On the other hand, if someone bluffs only 5% in that same situation, you want him to bluff less, so that he bluffs way less than he should bluff.
Am I missing something here?
Thanks
Soh
Wouldn't you want someone who bluffs too much to bluff even more? If they're making a mistake by bluffing too much and you make them bluff less, wouldn't they be coming closer to the ideal bluffing strategy? I would think that if you can get a habitual bluffer to increase his/her frequency, you could just call them down every time and increase your EV.
General Poker Theory
August 2001 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo