![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Tommy,
You wrote: "That's where David and I agree, on the major things."
Mason once wrote: "Sometimes, we can learn more from our adversaries than we can learn from our friends who don't necessarily questions our ideas as much as they should."[1]
I, too, would be interested in reading about your disagreements with David--even your disagreements over the no-so-major things. I might learn something new and improve my poker game. And isn't that one of the purposes of this forum?
Or are your disagreements with David so minor that a discussion of them would not help improve anyone's poker game?
-------------------------
[1] Mason Malmuth, "Re: Posted on r.g.p. - HPFAP no longer works?" 22 February 2000 in J10Suited's 22 February 2000 post entitled "Posted on r.g.p. - HPFAP no longer works?"
Mark,
I don't have a laundry list of disagreements that I can simply rattle off. I've read every word he ever published in Poker Digest, and occasionally he would make statements of fact that I felt were opinion.
I do not share your zeal for research and citing. (I'm lazy.) Otherwise, I would grab a few back issues from the pile in the corner, reread some of David's articles, and find an example for you.
I can think of one off hand. David wrote about dealers and "intelligence." His presumptions about the goals and motives and abilities of individuals are, in my opinion, absurd. Further, I was disappointed and embarrassed that one of our premier ambassadors had such thoughts and felt compelled to share them.
I presume you folks already hashed over that topic when it happened. I was not at 2+2 back then. My point to you is NOT that David was "wrong." He simply stated his opinion. Or that he shouldn't write about things other than aces and kings. He's a professional poker writer, just like me, and he can weild the pen as he pleases.
One thing I like about David's poker-theory writing is that he is forceful and clear. He avoids words like "maybe" and "probably" that muddle the works of many. That's no small achievement. But when he applies his "matter of fact" style to the hazier areas of poker and life, he loses credibility.
Tommy
Tommy,
You wrote: "I presume you folks already hashed over that topic when it happened. I was not at 2+2 back then."
I don't remember seeing such a discussion, but I also don't read every post in every thread on every 2+2 forum.
You wrote: "My point to you is NOT that David was 'wrong.' He simply stated his opinion."
I think you will find that most of the debates on this forum are disagreements over opinion rather than disagreements over facts.
You wrote: "One thing I like about David's poker-theory writing is that he is forceful and clear. He avoids words like 'maybe' and 'probably' that muddle the works of many."
MAYBE I can understand how SOME people PROBABLY find that style of writing SOMEWHAT appealing. It MIGHT make for smoother and easier reading, SOMETIMES. ;-)
You wrote: "But when he applies his 'matter of fact' style to the hazier areas of poker and life, he loses credibility."
I, too, believe certain areas of poker are hazy, as are many areas of life. I, too, believe David sometimes is overly certain (or at least overstates his certainty) of his opinions. The above thread, "GFAL: Big winners at low limits?", cites a statement by David and Mason that probably is one such example.
I, too, believe a "matter of fact" style probably damages an author's credibility at times. I expressed similar thoughts in an earlier thread entitled "POKER FOR DUMMIES: Exaggerations?" I also believe "hype" has the potential to erode credibility as well, which was one of the initial points of this current thread.
To my way of thinking playing not to lose is like playing in a tournament. You do everything you can to hold onto those chips. I've played not to lose many times in a poker game. That doesn't mean I'm afraid to make a move if that is what's called for.
As for limiting your losses to an x amount. Hell man, the people I have admired the most over the years are the ones that can do exactly that, because I sure as hell can't. I have my uncle points and I don't usually go through them (ok I lied) but my uncle point is way, way, way past fifteen big bets.
If you can stick to that fifteen big bet rule check back here in six months and let me know how the hell you are doing. Be honest, tell us the pros and cons. If it works out ok for you I may give the damn thing a shot. God knows I've taken my share of those $1000 plus losses. You're right about one thing, they do get kind of old.
Oh yeah, there is also this to think about: how often do you win $1000 in a 10-20 game? Not very damn often even when the game is great. I can't tell ya how many times I've taken that long drive home asking myself, SELF! You never win $1000 playing 10-20 why in the hell would you be stupid enough to lose that much!
Old Pro -
Neither you nor any of your responders have mentioned a very important point: How good is this game in which you are currently losing?
In very good games (I usually play 4-8, and they are loose as hell), I often get down $100 - happens all the time. Since I play very tight in these games, it often happens simply because I don't get a single hand to take past the flop (playing Hold'em) for 2 hours. And this year especially, I have usually come back before the end of my session to post a win. This $100 is the equivalent of you being down $250 in a 10-20 game.
What you should do is carefully evaluate how good or bad your game currently is, and stay or leave based upon that. If you do have a "threshold of misery" (Mike Caro's term) beyond which you do not play correctly, then by all means, quit if you hit it. Otherwise, just keep playing each hand correctly, and keep re-evaluating how good is the game you are in.
Dick
Ok, thanks to the insight you all gave I found the error in how I played that hand...
First, I made an error with my origional comment. On the turn, I didn't "call the bet". It was two checks to me, and I followed that with a check. Here was the (faulted) logic.
There are two players in front of me, one behind. The guys ahead are solid, semi-solid (respectively), and the guy behind is overaggresive and has been pushing people out of hands all night.
The reason I mentioned "slowplaying" was from the following checks/bets/calls, I was sure no one else had a queen...
Pre-Flop 1)Bet 2)call ME)call 4)call
Flop(JQJ) 1)check 2)check ME)bet 4)call 1)call 2)call
Turn(Q) 1)check 2)check ME/4)(read on)
The only guy who might have had the queen was the guy behind me, and I didn't read him for it. It was possible he had it from his action, but I never saw him play so passively before, so I figured, he didn't have it (table read...whatever). Anyway, here comes the error...
So I'm looking on this game, truly believeing that this is the best hand, and I'm thinking that the guy behind me can't resist betting after 3 checks to try and push out the other players. So, I 'slowplayed', trying to trap him into a bet that I could re-raise.
Problem was, as I determined by reading the posts, if he didn't have the Queen, and he's a good player (which he was), he's on a straight draw, and he's not going to bet becuase he's fishing in the river for that last card he needs. So he checksed it through, pulling a queen on the river, with the board winning the pot (i.e. split 4 ways).
In addition, I think the call WAS to bet here (as I believed he didn't ave the queen). If he comes back over me, than I can pretty much believe he's got it. Otherwise he folds out.
Any comments on my own self analysis here would be appreciative. Also, this never would have happened if people weren't folding to my good hands all night, reading into my bets. What happened was an attempt to mess with what they thought about me, and get me more action on my bets. In a tight game like that (or any game for that matter), what can you do when you figure out that your bets are getting too much respect?
I thought I read that you had RAISED the flop and the player behind called the double bet, and the other two called. Even as it is with a bettor and two other callers, USUALLY someone will have a Q or J.
Yes, making a deep turn check-raise against the aggressive player can be a very powerful tool especially if the potential callers are more likely to call him (percieved aggressive) than you (perceived granite).
In your 2nd to last paragraph you seem to suggest, unless I read it wrong, that you should bet figuring him to raise if you are beat or fold if not. If so, the bet earns nothing, costs when you are beat, and denies him the opportunity to steal it.
- Louie
Vince,
Has John Feeney been giving you backpedaling lessons? ;-)
Earlier, you wrote: "They certainly are not mutually exclusive. . . . 1.2 to 1.6 and 105.6 to 109.5 are variations of the same thing."
Now, you wrote: "Perhaps in the logical world of Mark Glover a diameter between 1.2 and 1.6 is mutually exclusive with a diameter of 105.6 and 109.5. But in the world of 'god', the supernatural being of religions, all things are possible, including the ability of 'god' to be all things including diameters of a differing length."
So, you are making a theological argument instead of a logical argument. Isn't it interesting that David's assertion fails on both logical and theological grounds. Thanks for pointing that out.
David, as you might recall, wrote: "With 100 different religions believing 100 different things the number of religions that believe something that is incorrect may be all 100 but is at least 99."[1]
You added: "Kind of like the infinite number of points on lines of different lengths."
Not really, but that's another topic for another time.
Earlier, you wrote: "This sample is invalid because in this case both religions believe the same 'thing' that god is a red sphere with a diameter between two different parameters."
Now, you wrote: "My statement above concerning the sample being invalid is indeed logical."
Your above statement might be theologically valid, but it is logically invalid. Perhaps "logical" should be your next "word of the day." Or have you given that up?
You asked: "Gee, Mark have I ever given another example of what a religion is or are you blind to the facts?"
Yes, Vince, you have: "re*li*gion (noun) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural."
You also asked: "Don't you find conversation with me about the same as conversing with a 6 year old?"
Now that you mention it, yes, at times I do. I'll leave it to you to determine whether I have in mind a bright 6 year old or a not-so-bright 6 year old. ;-)
You also asked: "Why do you do it?"
As I mentioned in my previous post, I view this thead as a potential win-win situation. Just call me Mr. Altruistic. ;-)
You wrote: "Awaiting Mark's response so that I may learn."
I hope you have learned.
As Mason once noted: "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."[2]
-----------------------
[1] David Sklansky, FIGHTING FUZZY THINKING IN POKER, GAMING & LIFE, 1997, p. 185.
[2] Mason Malmuth, "Re: About Ciaffone," 14 December 1999 in darrell dunfee's 14 December 1999 thread entitled "in defence of bob ciaffone."
"Perhaps in the logical world of Mark Glover a diameter between 1.2 and 1.6 is mutually exclusive with a diameter of 105.6 and 109.5. "
O.K. Mark, maybe you have a problem with "perhaps". In the above sentence it means maybe. Hey, does a diameter between 105.6" and 109.5" include within it's boundaries a diameter of 1.2" and 1.6". I believe it does. Doesn't that make them non mutually exclusive even in the logical world of MG. Oh, maybe we need to get an agreed upon definition of "mutually exclusive" as it relates to your example before we proceed.
How about a definition of terms, please?
Vince
Vince,
You asked: "Hey, does a diameter between 105.6" and 109.5" include within it's boundaries a diameter of 1.2" and 1.6". I believe it does."
If line A is between 105.6" and 109.5" in length and line B is between 1.2" and 1.6" in length, then line A can include line B.
But line A mathematically cannot be the same line as a line B. Theologically, perhaps they can be the same line.
And a sphere with a diameter between 105.6" and 109.5" mathematically cannot be the same sphere as a sphere with a diameter between 1.2" and 1.6". Theologically, perhaps they can be the same sphere.
If you have additional questions about this concept, I suggest you find a good geometry book. It might be worth your time.
As a 2+2 author once noted: "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."
Vince,
You asked: "Hey, does a diameter between 105.6" and 109.5" include within it's boundaries a diameter of 1.2" and 1.6". I believe it does."
If line A is between 105.6" and 109.5" in length and line B is between 1.2" and 1.6" in length, then line A can include line B.
But line A mathematically cannot be the same line as a line B. Theologically, perhaps they can be the same line.
And a sphere with a diameter between 105.6" and 109.5" mathematically cannot be the same sphere as a sphere with a diameter between 1.2" and 1.6". Theologically, perhaps they can be the same sphere.
If you have additional questions about this concept, I suggest you find a good geometry book. It might be worth your time.
As a 2+2 author once noted: "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."
Tommy,
You wrote: "Let's review."
Okay, but let us review the facts.
You wrote: "Mark cited two quotes from me that seemed contradictory. I pointed out that I can agree and disagree with David at the same time."
I noticed you didn't show us those two quotations. Let me do so now.
First, you wrote: "That's not to say I agree with everything [David's] ever written."
Then, you wrote: "I don't 'disagree' with anything David has ever written."
Only after I pointed out your apparent contradiction did you write: "So they DO agree and disagree at the same time."
The first two quotations still seem contradictory. At that time, you certainly didn't appear to be saying that you can both agree and disagree with David at the same time.
I wrote: "Sometimes I agree with [Mason]. Sometimes I don't."
You wrote: "Mark? You just paraphrased my initial point. But when I said it, you called me out as if I had posted a contradiction."
Perhaps you can quote your initial point for us. From what I saw at the time (and quoted, above), you appeared to be making contradictory points.
Later, you also wrote: "That's where David and I agree, on the major things."
I'm still curious whether you would care to share with the members of this forum some of the not-so-major things where you disagree with David. Some of us are interested in looking at poker from multiple points of view.
The reason I rarely quote text is because when I copy and paste, it doesn't show up.
As to where I "disagree" with David, I wrote a long post explaining that David and I are hardwired differently, to an extreme. Me the subjectivist, he the objectivist.
So in my mind, our occasional differing views are differences of opinion. In his (I presume) they are differences in fact.
If someone says to me, "In my opinion the world is flat," an exchange of ideas is possible. If they say, "It is a fact that the world is flat," I do not engage.
And now I must say (again) that I have the fullest respect for David's work, and for David the man for being a steady, lasting producer.
Tommy
"Are the authors still certain that no one is averaging at least $20 per hour at the $6-$12 limits? Or do they plan to modify this claim in the next edition of this book?"
Yes.
O.K. Yes to 1) and Yes to 2). O.K. yes, unless the questions are "mutually exclusive". O.K. then Yes unless "maybe" is a better answer. Of course I think that yes would suffice unless you prefer "perhaps" or "could be". I guess. Yeah, "I guess" is pretty good but not quite the answer "yes" is. Of course I could just as easily say no. I think.
vince
Vince,
I see Wednesday was a particularly lucid day for you. ;-)
Mark,
My answer was answered as such because I had no answer nor should I answer a question intended for Mason and David. To answer.
Vince
I never read post's that Mark makes in response to mine because I am certain they will be derogatory and insulting. I hope he responds to this one as it will be another big waste of his time. I've read many of Mark's "flame wars" and have noted that some have not bothered to post here again. Also I can remember only two posts where Mark has even commented about how a hand was played.
Tom,
You wrote: "I never read post's that Mark makes in response to mine because I am certain they will be derogatory and insulting."
As you might recall, my pappy would say, "That's sort of like the toad calling the frog ugly."
Actually, I found your post to my "GAMBLING FOR A LIVING: Hype?" thread (23 January 2001) to be quite helpful. Thank you for sharing it with us.
You wrote: "Also I can remember only two posts where Mark has even commented about how a hand was played."
I assume you don't read very many of my posts. Over on RGP, Sklansky said he believed I was one of the top hand analysts on the Two Plus Two forum.
Most of my posts, however, deal more with the theory and strategy of poker. I guess we all have our own preferences and interests. Nothing wrong with that.
One might find that learning about poker theory even is helpful in improving one's hand analysis skills.
"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." (Mason Malmuth, 14 December 1999)
"I assume you don't read very many of my posts. Over on RGP, Sklansky said he believed I was one of the top hand analysts on the Two Plus Two forum."
I always tell David that sarcasm is no good unless a small percentage of the readers believe what it is you state.
Mason,
I noticed Ray Zee also made David's list of 2+2's top "50" hand analysts. I don't remember seeing your name, however. :-)
Gee Mark, I guess the reason that I was not on the list is because I'm just not very knowledgeable in this area. However, I do like to partake in the discussion of hands and I'm sure that when I make one of my many mistakes you'll now step in and show your true poker expertise. By the way, have you ever played poker in a real cardroom?
Mason,
You asked: "By the way, have you ever played poker in a real cardroom?"
Yes.
Since I answered your question, perhaps you will return the favor and answer this question of mine:
If you were to set fair odds against there being at least two long-term (2000 hours or more) $6-$12 (or lower) players who earn more than $20 an hour in cardrooms that usually offer higher limits, then what would those fair odds be?
...you didn't answer my question. :-(
We are working on getting these errors fixed, and whenever we do a new printing we do make an attempt to correct all errors. We have just done this with both Feeney's and Schoonmaker's books. The book producing process is much more complicated than what many of you realize and these errors do creep in. We go to a great deal of effort to make our books top notch in every aspect -- I believe more than any other publisher in this field -- and I think that all of you will agree that this is the case.
It is extremely unlikely that there are long term (2000 hour) 6-12 players who are earning more than $20 an hour, except possibly in cardrooms that usually offer nothing higher. Shorter term winners of this magnitude, either eventually regress to a smaller mean or move up in stakes.
David,
If you were to set fair odds against there being at least two long term $6-$12 (or lower) players who earn more than $20 an hour in cardrooms that usually offer higher limits, then what would these fair odds be? 10-to-1? 100-to-1? 1000-to-1?
Mason,
You wrote: "We go to a great deal of effort to make our books top notch in every aspect -- I believe more than any other publisher in this field -- and I think that all of you will agree that this is the case."
Are you as sure of this as you are that "there is no one winning [$20 per hour] in a $6-$12 game?" ;-)
Well, Mason didn't say he was sure that all of you would agree that this is the case. -:)
By the way, there was a fairly recent post of Tommy Angelo's which you observed contained two statements (which may or may not have been contradictory). This post, which I am too lazy to dig up, involved Tommy's statements regarding agreeing or disagreeing with certain writings. With regards to this, did Tommy's post necessarily contain an inherent contradiction? Tommy later mentioned something about wriggling off the hook, but what sort of hook was it?
M writes: "What sort of hook was it?"
Baited, but easily dislodged. :-)
I just read Jim's advice to avoid Mark. Dang. I was thinking that since the bible mentions "drawing lots," and since Nixon played poker, we'd dive into religion and politics next.
Tommy
I don't recall exactly what Mark quoted you as stating, but at first glance, it appeared to me that your statements might have appeared to be contradictory but were not necessarily so. Thus the hook may actually have been imaginary. Again, I am simply too lazy to go searching for it.
Interestingly enough, Mark did not make the statement that your statements were necessarily contradictory--he merely quoted them.
I don't intend to avoid Mark Glover's posts. I think they are a riot, and can at times be quite interesting.
Tommy,
You wrote: "I was thinking that since the bible mentions 'drawing lots,' and since Nixon played poker, we'd dive into religion and politics next."
For a discussion of theology, I refer you to Vince. ;-)
" For a discussion of theology, I refer you to Vince. ;-)"
Tommy,
You are hereby blessed! This is the first time or second that Mark has seen the light. I am the light and he knows it!
Vince (The Religious)
M,
You wrote: "Well, Mason didn't say he was sure that all of you would agree that this is the case. -:)"
I guess I'm not sure what your point is, since I didn't claim Mason was sure that all of us would agree that this is the case.
I didn't think you claimed that.
You posed a question: whether Mason was as sure of one thing as of another. I was merely observing that in one instance, in the passage quoted from GFAL, the word "sure" was used, whereas in the other Mason merely wrote "think."
Whether this actually indicates a stronger view in one arena is open to question.
Perhaps Mason would care to provide the rough odds on each statement, and then on their combined likelihoods (or then again, perhaps he wouldn't-:)
I am actually curious to know what you would estimate the odds to be regarding the accuracy of the first statement.
I have spent a lot of time in cardrooms over the last dozen or so years, and I cannot think of anyone who would appear to fit that criteria (long-term $20+/hr. winner in $6-12 limit). Of course, I have incomplete information. My own feeling is that the statement in GFAL is likely true, but not necessarily true.
M,
You wrote: "Whether this actually indicates a stronger view in one arena is open to question."
Which is why I asked the question.
You wrote: "Perhaps Mason would care to provide the rough odds on each statement, and then on their combined likelihoods (or then again, perhaps he wouldn't-:)"
Apparently, Mason isn't going to return the favor that I extended to him and provide fair odds on his $20 per hour statement. So, I don't think he will care to provide odds on both statements.
This should come as no surprise. It's just the kind of guy he is.
Mason once wrote: "What has happened here is something that I have seen many times on both our forums and RGP. Someone with an ax to grind misquotes or misrepresents the way a writer played a hand and then takes him apart. (For examples just look at some of the Mark Glover, Gary Carson, and Barbara Yoon posts.)"
To the best of my knowledge, Mason has never cited even one instance when I misquoted or misrepresented the way a writer played a hand, has not displayed enough honor to apologize for this lie, and has not even shown enough decency to even admit he made a mistake.
You wrote: "Of course, I have incomplete information."
And you are honest enough to admit that you have incomplete information. Do you believe David and Mason have enough information to claim "we are sure there is no one winning at this rate?"
You wrote: "My own feeling is that the statement in GFAL is likely true, but not necessarily true."
If the authors had said "we believe it is likely true that there is no one winning at this rate," then I probably would never have started this thread. I would have disagreed with their opinion, but I doubt I would have mentioned it.
It would be very hard for me to produce even ballpark odds on something like this.
The question may be how sure is sure. This is something which is sometimes easily quantifiable, and sometimes not.
I wonder what degree of near certainty would qualify for the word sure, other than pure 100%, and in what circumstances.
Interestingly, on a related note, it may be much more likely or possible for someone to win at a comparable rate on the Internet due to the fact that so many more hands per hour can be played.
There is also a slight difference in the meaning of their statement and my statement.
I am not merely saying I think it is likely that there are no long-term cardroom $6-12 winners at the rate of $20+/hr; I am saying that I think it is likely that they are correct that there are none. So in essence, my statement is stronger than it might at first appear at first glance.
.
I have not followed all the threads lately so I will assume you are referring to some post where Rick claims personal knowledge.
It is possible that :
1) Rick does have such knowledge
2) He has misinformation to some degree, even a small degree
3) The length of time IMO may not qualify for truly long-term. I will state that even though others may consider 1 yr. to be long-term, I do not necessarily consider 2000 hrs. to be truly long-term for an evaluation of this kind. People can and do occasionally run good or bad for six months or so. The variables in poker are many including such things as not only which hands you get, but how they stack up against other hands, whether you win big pots or small with your best hands, etc...because we are trying to evaluate the veracity of a statement that appears to be absolute, we must consider the very farthest reaches of the bell curve. I would tend to doubt if 2000 hrs. is sufficient play time to consider the most truly extreme cases, simply because I know of players who have run extremely good or bad for many months on end. In fact Mike Caro wrote a column which made mention of a woman from California who ran like God (my words) for over a year.
M,
You wrote: "I have not followed all the threads lately so I will assume you are referring to some post where Rick claims personal knowledge."
Yes, I was referring to his only post in this thread (31 January 2001 at 2:22 p.m.) where he wrote: "In Los Angeles there are at least a couple who live near South Bay in Los Angeles (i.e., near Hollywood Park) and have done this well over the last couple of years."
You wrote: "The length of time IMO may not qualify for truly long-term. I will state that even though others may consider 1 yr. to be long-term, I do not necessarily consider 2000 hrs. to be truly long-term for an evaluation of this kind."
Yes, there are always loopholes one can point at to preserve one's opinion. Even 100,000 hours would be insufficient if "we must consider the very farthest reaches of the bell curve."
And how would players ever absolutely confirm they earn at least $20 per hour in low-limit games? Some egotist could falsify a log book and file exaggerated gambling earnings on income tax returns.
I don't think it's a loophole; it's just what we define as long-term.
If we are talking about absolute statements here (if indeed S&M meant it in an absolute sense), why wouldn't it then make sense to have to consider also the very tails of the bell?
I have no interest in preserving any opinion regarding this.
I am simply stating that I have not personally seen what would appear to be this sort of long-term success at these limits, and further observing that it may be possible that Rick's information might be incomplete. I am also questioning just what does constitute the long-term when we take into account that there should be a rare few who run far above or below expectation for quite some time.
M,
You wrote: "If we are talking about absolute statements here (if indeed S&M meant it in an absolute sense), why wouldn't it then make sense to have to consider also the very tails of the bell?"
If you don't want to change your opinion unless you have absolute proof that someone has a true EV of at least $20 per hour at low-limit games, then you never will have to change your opinion. That's all I meant. David Sklansky can't say with absolute certainty that his true EV is positive, much less say it is greater than $20 per hour.
But if someone presented you with well-documented (but not absolute) evidence that 27 players have earned over $20 per hour during their last 2000 hours of play at $6-$12 or lower games, then your certainty that nobody has a true EV of at least $20 per hour at low-limit games should be reduced.
Your certainty will not be 0.000000000 percent, but it should be closer to 0 percent than it is to 100 percent.
You wrote: "I am simply stating that I have not personally seen what would appear to be this sort of long-term success at these limits, and further observing that it may be possible that Rick's information might be incomplete."
You also said you have incomplete information. Sure, it is possible that Rick's information might be wrong. But if you assign his opinion some credibility, then is it not also possible that some low-limit player out there might have a true EV that is greater than $20 per hour? Doesn't Rick's statement lessen how "sure" you are that your opinion is correct?
Mark,
You wrote: "You also said you have incomplete information. Sure, it is possible that Rick's information might be wrong. But if you assign his opinion some credibility, then is it not also possible that some low-limit player out there might have a true EV that is greater than $20 per hour?"
Indeed I have already allowed that the possibility exists, even without Rick's statement.
You further wrote:
"Doesn't Rick's statement lessen how "sure" you are that your opinion is correct?"
Of course it does. However, please do bear in mind that my opinion is not identical with what S&M wrote, but rather it is that I think it more likely than not that they are correct, given a sufficiently long-term in a live cardroom setting.
M,
You wrote: "However, please do bear in mind that my opinion is not identical with what S&M wrote, but rather it is that I think it more likely than not that they are correct, given a sufficiently long-term in a live cardroom setting."
I think we've been over this ground before, but I'll try to explain one more time.
Your "given a sufficiently long-term" seems to require that "we must consider the very farthest reaches of the bell curve." But the human lifespan is not long enough to achieve this level of certainty, so your condition prevents you from considering any evidence that might be contrary to your opinion.
I would agree with David and Mason if they had written: "We are sure there are no $6-12 players who can claim with absolute certainty that their true EV is at least $20 per hour."
For that matter, I also would agree if they had written: "We are sure there are no poker players at any limit who can claim with absolute certainty that their true EV is positive."
A one or two year run of which diverges substantially from approximate true EV is not at all unheard of in poker.
By "the farthest reaches of the bell curve", I am not intending to speak in a theoretical mathematical sense of what may hypothetically be possible. Rather I am talking about the few players in the pool who have diverged the most from their true EV.
If your greatest problem with S&M's statement hinges on their use of the word "sure", then it only makes sense to consider whether the examples Rick provided might be of those lucky few who are far outperforming their true EVs.
If Rick knew of those who had performed at this level for, say, 3 to 5 years then I would be far more apt to be convinced that they were not simply outperforming their true EVs.
If you combine the above with the fact that most top winners at $6-12 will be strongly tempted to move up, you have the basis for my belief that S&M are probably correct in their statement in GFAL.
^
Mason,
just reading your excellent book 'Poker Essays'. One small addition to the quality of your books would be to correct a grammatical mistake that you also make in this post. "more complicated than WHAT many of you realise" - you should remove the word THAT. Its a small grammar error but it really jars in the book the fourth and fifth time.
Let me start this off by stating that I've been playing poker for 2 1/2 years and I've kept track of all my sessions in one form or another. But, up until 4 months ago (October 13 to be exact, I figured Friday the 13th was as good a day as any) my keeping track basically consisted of keeping a running total of wins and losses, and an estimated one at that. But since then I've committed myself to keeping very precise records of everything. Why? Well, I'm not really sure yet. But after looking over them extensively for the first time last night, I made some interesting revelations about my habits and patterns concerning poker.
1) I've played 468 hours in 4 months. Damn, that's a lot. I never really realized how much I do play.
2) Limits range from 15-30 to 75-150.
3) I have come out ahead for each of the last 4 months, but one trend really caught my eye. In each of the 4 months, I have 1 session that accounts for anywhere between 70% and 200% of my win for that month (these sessions tend to be wins of around 60-100 BB). This seems all fine and dandy as long as I keep getting a session like this every so often, but it seems scary to have to rely on having 1 big session to make up for all the other session of playing basically break-even (or losing) poker. Has anyone else noticed a pattern like this? Maybe I'm just nit-picking. I don't know.
4) My average winning session is just over 9 hours long, and my average losing session is about 6 1/2 hours long. Not sure if this means anything, but it seems good.
5) My standard deviation in stud games is 13 BB/hr, and for other games (mostly hold'em) my SD is 9.5 BB/hr. This seems awfully high for stud.
6) On the other hand, I've played 93 hours in games besides stud, and am losing at a rate of 0.3 BB/hr in those games (again, mostly hold'em, and some omaha). Maybe this isn't a long enough period statistically, or maybe I need either reevaluate my hold'em and omaha play or quit playing them for now.
7) I've played 375 hours of stud and won at a rate of 1.9 BB/hr. A large portion of this win is due to the 4 huge sessions I mentioned above. I've also been lucky to have only one session of stud so far of losing more than 40 BB. I'm guessing this rate should fall back to earth given time (but, hell, I hope it doesn't).
I hope others are willing to share similar experiences and/or comment on my own. I'm still not really sure what to make of alot of this as I've never kept this detailed of records before, but it was interesting to look at, at least for me.
George,
I also have seen myself coming out ahead just because of 1 or 2 huge sessions when I kept accurate records. I am not sure if this is of any help but this happened to me 7 out of 12 months. Unfotunately I have not kept good records for the past year and my work has kept me from playing much poker. I played approximately 60 hours a month when I had the above results and averaged just under 1BB an hour.
Roy Cooke has written that most of your time in poker is spent pushing inconsequential pots back and forth but a large part of your yearly hourly rate will come from your results in the occasional large pot.Your records seem to back this up.
Yes, I agree with Roy's assessment, and I found this to be quite surprising, and scary in some ways, especially if these occasional big wins stop coming.
For what it's worth, when I was in AZ, I had the lose, lose, lose, win big, pattern going. But out here in LA, I seem to win smaller amounts in proportion to the games size, and lose very infrequently. It could be that the loose-aggressive poker in AZ lends itself to your stats.
What immediately comes to mind when thinking about this is how important game selection is. You really are fishing. Finding those few big ones that can give you an incredible night is pretty important. No wonder Roy has written about following a player from game to game.
As an aside, I think Cooke's book is exceptional. I think I owuld be far worse a player had I not read (and reread) it.
If only he would come over to 2+2...
Paul Talbot
Could Roy's idea be the primary cause behind the difficulty in beating low limit HE? Pots (usually)never get large enough to offset the many small losses. Comments?
Whenever I take joy in your pain, you tell me it hurts your feelings.
offline a while.
but of course. im trying to stilt your growth.
brad
You should consider making a spreadsheet in excel or something similar that will compute your hourly rate, hourly standard deviation, and time. This isn't hard to do and you only have to enter net won/loss and time of session. You would have one spreadsheet for each type and limit of game.
I was able to put one together in excel using the formula Mason provides in the essay section of this web site (also contained in Gambling Theory and Other Topics). A regular poster on this forum was also kind enough to email me his spreadsheet program which was a lot cleaner than mine.
Excel also has graphing features which I like. It's nice to see a graph of cumulative winnings after a bad session. After you have enough data those bad sessions look like statistical noise on an otherwise upward trend. I also graph average $/hr and standard deviation per hour. Trends are always more clear graphically.
There are also a couple commercial programs that are specifically made to do this sort of thing and can do a lot more (like tell you if you win more on weekdays or weekends). I think one is sold by Card Player, and one can be ordered through Conjelco or GBC.
Paul Talbot
Thanks for the suggestions Paul.
Buzz
As I mentioned, most of my record keeping began just a few months back. What I currently record for each session:
- Date
- Casino (which in all but one session so far is Casino AZ)
- A list of all games I played in the session
- The time started and ended for each game
- The amount won or lost for each game
- A running total of hours for the year
- A running total of wins (or losses) for the year
These last 2 would be much easier if I simply put them into a spreadsheet on Excel or something, but I've yet to do that.
I have another little notebook I've used for about a year now that I use to keep track of other player's playing styles (mostly the regulars I play with). For stud players, I keep track of some or all of the following things for each player:
- What they do when they pair their doorcard on 4th street after limping on 3rd street (bet the full amount, bet the small bet, or check) and how this correlates to what hand they have. Many players tend to fall into patterns here.
- What they do with a 2-flush board on 4th street.
- What they do with a 3-flush board on 5th street.
- How they play big hidden pairs (and roll-ups) with small door cards on 3rd street and beyond. Most players are very unimaginative here, either playing very aggressive from the start, or slowplaying until at least 5th street. Very few player mix this play up properly.
- What they tend to do with an ace doorcard (and to some extent, a king) on 3rd street. I try to estimate what percentage of the time do they raise when they have an ace showing. This helps me know how good a chance there is that I have a good hand against them, and whether I should play that hand. People who raise less often generally have the goods when they do raise, obviously. Another note is that when someone has an ace doorcard and is in early to middle position in relation to the bring-in, watch to see if they look up before raising. If they look at their cards and then raise immediately they generally have aces. If they look at their cards, then look up at the board before raising, they generally do not have aces, although this is somewhat player-dependant as well.
- What people do when they pair a card other than their doorcard. Do they bet the river with 2 small pair with one pair showing? Will they bluff with just the pair showing? Or do they have to have at least trips to bet into an obvious overpair on the river?
These are just some of the things I try to observe during a session. I do this less now than I used to because I have at least some data on most of my opponents, and their tendencies don't really tend to change over time anyway. But I will update my analysis if I do notice changes in someone's actions.
I also have similar books for hold'em, although not nearly as extensive. This includes what people raise with preflop in certain positions, how people play AK-type hands post-flop when they miss, how people play paired boards when they have trips, and when they don't, and how people play sets, among other things.
Lastly, I've never really told anyone that I do all this stuff and I do feel kind of strange revealing all this (as I did about the original post as well). But I do think that if there is a place to reveal it that this is it. Being this extensive about keeping records of players is quite tedious I must admit, but I can't begin to explain how often it helps me at the table to know just a few of the tendencies of an opponent.
George - Thanks for sharing. I like Paul's idea of using EXCEL. Maybe I'll try that approach.
But first I'm going to start writing down what I remember about the session as soon as I get home, while it is still fresh in my mind. I plan to include all of your suggestions.
Thanks again for the ideas.
Buzz
So what would it cost me to have a look at my tendencies in your log?
Heheh. I don't think I have anything written about you actually.
what about me? unimaginative stud, hopelessly optimistic holdem?
brad
There have been a number of posts concerning how significant luck is in poker.
My question is if it takes thousands of hours just to figure out if you are playing winning poker and that your luck is within 1 SD of even.
How do professional gamblers confidently take profit out of their bankrolls to pay their cost of living?
For example: player plays 15/30 about 1600hrs a year and has a Roll of ~$20K and an hourly rate of 1BB and an SD of $400. How much could this player take out of his bankroll each week to cover his cost of living and still have less than a .5% chance of going broke?
My calculation...He needs 300BB @ 1BB/hr @ SD $400, to have a .5% chance of going broke. He plays 1600/50 = 32hrs/week. Amount he can take out per week = ((Current Roll - 300BB)/52 weeks) + 32BB he theoretically earned this week.
So if he broke even for the week he could take out (667-300/52) + 32BB = 39BB or $1170 per week to live on.
I realize that I am now cutting into my bankroll so he really should be taking out less than the 32BB he's earning.
How much less than the 32BB/week to overcome the variance of 15/30 should he be taking out so that he never goes broke?
I am going to Scottsdale next week and wanted to find out how the 20-40 he games are. Can anyone please give me some insight are the games loose, tight etc... I am going to be there for a month, I plan on spending alote of time at the casino. All info is appreciated and thank you in advance.
P.S. Can anyone tell me how the 20-40 he compares to the 15-30 he at bellagio as I am familiar with bellagios game well.
If you're used to the 15-30 at the Bellagio, the 20-40 at Casino AZ will be like having an orgasm.
I'm looking for some exercises I can do besides playing poker simulations to bone up on my poker skills. For example, there's a cool solitaire version of Cribbage that helps you get better at calculating cribs and a number of common pool shoots you can practice to get ready for real games. I'm not a big fan of simulations as a way of practicing for poker because the feedback takes too long and you don't get perfect information (i.e. did you win that last hand 'cuz you were lucky or because you did the "right" thing?). Does anyone have any ideas for math or cards or calculation or any other kinds of poker exercises? Please cc my email address as I don't get back to this forum as much as I'd like to. Thanks.
Chris
Muck 500 hands in a row this gives you all the "practice" you need - new, bad and losing players make a common mistakes - playing to many hands, playing marginal hands out of position and not knowing when to release the 2nd best hand.
So the mucking practice will pay a lot of dividends.
Rounder,
Very good. Funny, sarcastic and TRUE!
.
The other day I was tring to figure out how much money the rake costs me in a year. I keep poker records but I don't keep track of how many pots I have won per session. Where I play the rake is 10% up to $5.00. Is there a way of computing what the rake is costing you?
Obviously in a game like this it all depends on how tight you are and how big the pots get.
The loosest players pay the most in rake because they win the most pots.
If the game has pots that are routinely over 50 dollars, and they play 30 hands per hour, thats 150 bucks an hour. That's 15 dollars per hour each at a 10 handed table.
If you play very tight, you are winning far fewer pots and are paying a much lower rake.
IE if you win 1 pot an hour, and the pots are over 50 dollars, you pay 5 dollars an hour rake.
If it is just a 2-4 or 3-6 game most of the pots probably don't hit 50 dollars, so it is consequently lower.
-SmoothB-
Ray,
Conventional wisdom is that the rake costs you only from the pots you win (ergo, play tighter meaning fewer pots), The reality is that the rake devastates the buy-ins of your oppenents, and prevents you from winning money from players who leave the game, busted out prematuely.
I have played extensively on Southeast Florida cruise ships where the rake is as you describe: 10% to a $5 maximum. Add to that the $1 per pot charge for Jackpots (which are only partly paid back to the players, perhaps half confiscated by the house). Add to that the $1 toke players pay the dealer. Add to that the bonus tokes given to the dealer by lucky morons (Red Bird!) who take big pots with unlikely suckouts before they go broke. With proficient dealing, perhaps $250 per hour is siphoned from the game. For four hours play (a typical cruise game), this is HALF the minimum buy-ins for the $10,$20 game.
Often, you'll be short handed after two hours. There aren't a bunch of poker players wandering around to fill empty seats: you only have the players who left the dock with you. The typical result is one healthy winner, one or two slight winners, and everyone else has taken a beating.
I played in a $3,$6 game once that folded in seventy-five minutes. I won $80, and every other player lost their buy-in. They lost because of the self-same $5 rake. It broke 9 of the 10 players.
Bob Ciaffone described big rake games as unbeatable.
The cure (short of quitting poker):
1. Play in private games with smaller (MUCH smaller) rakes, or (better) time charges. Where I live these games are illegal. You are a target for robbery. And the police may be the robbers.
2. Move to a poker friendly environment. Play legal land-based games at reduced rake against a constant resupply of opponents (fresh money).
3. Play on the internet ($3 max rake, no tokes, no travel).
If there are better alternatives, I'm all ears.
Jake
I agree with Jake. As a lifelong devotee, I hate to see the small players robbed like this.
It's bad for the industry because players almost always lose in these games no matter how they play. The lack of reinforcement drives them away from poker.
The best games are ones where the person(s) getting the rake play and play bad. We have a lot of games like that in my area. We won't let anyone dry cut us (not play) and games where the house player plays tough never last long.
I lived in Louisianna during the oil boom and we played like h*ll. Big games, little games whatever you wanted, seven days a week. For the two months after the NBA finals, there were huge games. After they legalized gambling, 1-5 games were all you find.
I'm as rake-sensative as any player on earth. But I don't think it's rational to gripe about the rake, even if it's high. Poker is a product. The price is known. Just as with a car or a radio or an apple or anything else, our choice as consumers is to purchase or not.
Tommy
Tommy,
Very high rake games kill the opportunity to earn from your play. If you can tolerate an expensive hobby, your philosophic attitude is understandable. The rest of us have to be more practical.
Jake
Jake writes: "If you can tolerate an expensive hobby, your philisophical attitude is understandable."
I don't see how it matters if it's a hobby or a career, expensive or cheap. Do you agree that poker players buy a product?
"The rest of us have to be more practical."
Did I imply that I am not "one of us?" If so, I certainly didn't mean to. It costs me *about* $30,000 per year to play (40 hours x 40 weeks x $18). The accuracy of that estimate is not relevant to this fact: If the rake were a mere 10% less than it is, my likelihood of making it to the grave without an employer would be drastically increased.
Still, it's my choice to buy the product or not, as it is yours. Do we have a disagreement?
Tommy
Tommy,
There's no disagreement. But I live in Florida where all the legal games are three miles offshore, and everything is as I've described. Even many of the private games are just as expensive. I envy people who can play at Sam's Town with a two dollar rake. But I don't have that choice of "product".
I stopped going to the race track many years ago because I didn't like being gouged. I still don't like it, and I absolutely cannot afford an expensive hobby.
Many players don't realize how much a big rake affects them: it not takes money out of your pots directly, it robs you of calls and callers when you have those good hands that makes your session into a winner. The overhead of rake + jackpot + toke is what's making me pay more attention to the internet games.
Where do you play and what does it cost you?
Jake,
Sorry to hear about your gouging rake and limited access to games.
I play right next to San Francisco. The rake is nearly double what it is in Nevada. The house gets $3 per hand no matter what, even if there is no flop. And the cost of living is through the roof. Thankfully I still have one.
But hey, you get what you pay for. I love the area and the people, so I gladly pay the price.
Tommy
I tolerate the rake, as Tommy said, because I choose to play. I know what the rake is I don't complain. I will never play in a house game for all the reasons given in a prior post. The casino provides plenty of action, more than you can get in most home games, a level of security you can't get in a home game (no it is not perfect but what is?). I realize the folks in Florida are teased by having the boats and the Indian casinos. I could not believe the restrictions on the Indian games wher eit is impossible to walk away a winner. So those of us near AC, Vegas and CA should be glad we have the rake that keeps the rooms open and the action going.
You're in your regular game with many players who know each other and are equally skilled. Your pair in the hole becomes quads on the flop. You are first to act. There are 5 players in.
Do you check or bet?
Check, Silly....
nt
It depends a lot on your opponents and what the other card is. If the flop comes J44 you are likely to get some action with your 44, but if it is AA4 you probably wont with your AA. I would be inclined to check almost every time though since it is a disaster if everyone folds.
I once flop quad kings in a 5-way capped-preflop pot in the 15-30 at Bellagio. I checked, someone bet and one other called. On the turn it checked around. On the river I bet out and got raised! She only called my reraise though. To this day I've wondered if I could have gotten more money out of that hand.
Paul talbot
Depends on your players. But 2 months ago I flopped quad 10's and Aces in the same nite. I had raised preflop on them and bet out in early position on both instances. I got action all the way to the river including the river. Ya never know when another player may flop a house and slowplay you while your slowplaying them! Just think of all those bets you loose. whereas if the action were-you bet, they raise, you call, turn check, they bet you call, or you bet they raise you call, river you bet they raise you re-raise...or any variation
New 5-10 HE. In the 3rd hand I played I get AcAs, I raise and flop AdAh2h. I "check", and have two callers. The turn is a blank, I CK, player 2 CK and last player bets, I call, the other folds. The river is the Qh. I bet and get raised, I reraised and he calls. He shows KTh, for the nut flush. Another time I was playing 5-10 stud. I have a pair of 88 in the hole and the 2c for low as up card, I open for $2.00 and only one person calls. 4th street brings and 8 to me and a K to this only lady playing against me. She shows QsKh and bets $5.00, I called. 5th street gives her a 7h and I get and another 8 for quads. I bet, she folds. I made $ 5.00 plus the antes in this hand. This is just a trivia comment since I don't think this a hand to be concern about. How many times in you life time are you getting to get these hands?
Mt friend and I play heads up No-limit hold'em for chips on a weekly basis and recently a couple of interesting hands came up. pre flop I had 99 which I considered to be a very strong hand so I bet about 20 times the BB. My friend called. The flop comes Q7Q. He checks I check. the turn is a 10. we both check again. river is a 9 he bets double the pot, I raise and go all in. He has a 77 in the hole and I win with 99. The next week I have A4s(hearts) and call the the BB. The flop comes 5d 3d 10s. We both check turn is 2s I've got the wheel and we both check. river is 2d. He bets half his stack and I rasie to go all in. He calls and beats me with A10(diamonds). Where we right to give the free cards?
I also occasionally play NL headsup. In my case it is only for bragging rights. We only wager $1 per game.
On the first hand I would probably bet the 99 on the flop or the turn. I can understand checking but you are most likely ahead. If you get raised all-in then you can fold. With 77, I would check the flop trying to trap you. I probably bet the turn. Of course you got the perfect card on the river.
On the second hand with 2 diamonds and 2 spades, I would bet the wheel. It is unlikely he would fold anyways since he has the nut diamond draw.
How many chips do you both start with and what are the blinds? Do the blinds stay constant or do they increase?
Ken Poklitar
We start with 100times the BB, and the blinds do not increase. We play with chips, mainly for pride.
How do you work on not playing scared? Where do I begin?
-Steve
Get an adequate bankroll.
The fact is that if you play scared you will lose.
If you are poor and can't afford to lose don't start playing poker.
If you have trouble with playing scared, avoid playing in wild games. While these can be the most profitable, if you play scared you will get creamed unless you get really lucky, and that isn't likely to happen.
Play in low limit games until you get some confidence about playing poker. Play tight. Don't try to bluff - it doesn't work. Work on developing solid poker skills. Be aware of what happens around you.
Don't chase. Try to flop the best hand and be aggressive with it. Don't try to play catchup in loose games.
Don't be too stubborn. If you have JJ and an ace flops and there is action muck it. Lots of players bleed chips by being stubborn and hanging around with pairs like this,
-SmoothB-
s
if you can't "get an adequate bankroll" then play lower limits. it does wonders for playing scared.
1. Play limits you can afford. 2. Learn to think in terms of "bets" not dollars. It is a lot easier to think in terms of the generic unit of a "bet" and play well than it is to think in terms of how much money you are putting in. 3. try to understand that the game is about decisions not outcomes. if you can't be rattled by what happens, only pleased or displeased with the uality of your decisions you will make the right ones regardless of your stack size or what the moeny means to you. 4. Get psyched up! believe you can beat your opponents. 5. Try an identify weak tendencies in your opponents. If you do you might not be so scared anymore. 6. Beat the hell out of them...
Good luck,
Paul Talbot
"Try and identify weak tendencies in your opponents."
Could you give me a few examples of weak tendencies I should try to look for in my opponents (other than them playing scared)?
Thanks
I play in a table stakes game twice weekly and the average buy in is between 100 and 500. One individual shows up and buys in at 2000. I realize he has to pay the 10% to the house for the chips but he also has the ability to bag small pots and bully others at the table who can't call with 65 or 64 lows or second best hands. Can I dull his horns or what approach should I take to handling his big "dumb" bets????? I usually muck but I believe there has to be a way to figure out his inability. Thanks...
x
He actually pays $150 more for the privilege of having more chips?
I assume this is Omaha/8. What are the limits? Pot?
Table stakes simply means you can't lose or bet more than what you have on the table.
If it's limit then you simply follow good O/8 play and crush him when he tries to run you over.
If it's pot limit then I better not offer any advice since that's not my game.
(Try to have the game at your house and get the $200 commission!)
Since this adresses low limit, here are some common ones at those tables:
The most obvious one is, which of your opponents freeze up when a scare card hits? Will they cower into check and call mode or even check and fold mode if the board pairs or a third flush card hits? Are they afraid to bet or value on the end? Will they limp in in late position when they are first in (and they are not setting a trap)? Will they just call with top pair when it is bet into them? Will they never, ever raise on a draw? Will they never steal the blinds? Do they never reraise without the nuts?
If you watch what players do and categorize them as agressive or passive you will find that a great many are passive, they are in fact playing scared. you may also find that the ones playing agressively don't have to have big hands to do so and they should seem less scary.
Also, some people at the low limit tables very obviously want a friendly game with little or no raising where you can put in a few bets and see if you win. Sometimes you can find a table where everyone is this weak. Then you go and run over them.
Once you notice these things, your competitive edge should want you to take advantage of them. I have a friend who was playing passively in one of the first casino games he had played in. After talking to him for awhile about the weaknesses of some of the players and how you had to punish them, it was as if a light went on. He wrote "Punish Inferior Players!" in big letters on the piece of paper he was writing notes on and went on to establish an agressive table image and did very well after that. As a funny side note. At one point the guy next to him looked over to see what he was writing, saw the "Punish" motto in big letters, gulped and left the table.
Paul Talbot
Thank You Paul, that's incredibly helpful.
-Larson
Here is how I would approach it.
1. Do not show up to play with any money you can not afford to lose.
2. Watch what the average winning hands are and where hands you play fit in. Make adjustments if you need to.
3. If you are playing HE, HE rewards aggression. If you are playing Stud, Stud is a game of trappping. Play according to the game you are in.
4. If you aren't losing some of the hands you play, you aren't playing enough hands.
Mike
I am keeping track of my poker wins and loses on Excel. I have both ring games and Tournaments. How should I figure hours played in Tournments since I can only loose the entry fee and that can happen in 5 minutes or several hours. I could also win and that would mess up my hourly win rate.
Any thoughts.
Compute your records for tournaments seperately. Also, compile different types of records such as, dollars won per tournament played, winning percentage of tournament wins, seconds, thirds, final tables, etc.
You'll find your win rate for tournaments coming down very quickly even if you have won a few of them.
Of course if you want to go ahead and lump them all together, a win is a win.
As Smith commented, you should keep track of tournaments seperately.
You may already do this, but I wasn't sure from your post so I will add that you should keep track of each game and limit seperately. That is you should have seperate files for 10-20 Hold 'em and 15-30 hold 'em and 30-60 stud for example. If you lump them together it is hard to do any analysis. Don't you wnat to know which game is most profitable, which game you have longer down streaks, which games you have a lower standard deviation, etc, etc...
You can always keep a running total of amount won and hours played all together to see what kind income you make form poker period, but if you want to learn more than that you need to keep seperate things seperate.
Paul Talbot
You can keep everything in one file and use the sort function to separate by game, limits, casino etc. I keep tract of the casinos I play and found I make most of my win in one casino. I still play in the others but the bulk of my time is in the one where I win.
How hard is it to get a job as a prop in one of the big cardrooms in L.A., i.e., Commerce, Bicycle Club, Hollywood Park, Hustler? How much do they pay? Do you have to play all games and all limits?
Thanks, Sonny
Of those casinos Im pretty sure that only Hustler has props. They are looking for props right now so Im sure it wont be too difficult to get hired there. I know that Hawaiwan Gardens is also hiring props. They pay $25/hr if you can play any game, any limit up to 20-40. If you play smaller, like up 6-12 or 8-16, then I think you get paid something like $16/hr and also then you can specialize in HE. Im sure about the last part though. There is an ad in Card Player for the Hustler casino. You can probably call them for more information.
nt
An employee whose job is to play at tables that are less than full. He risks his own money and enters and leaves games as assigned. Obviously no one can consider this unless they are talented in all games spread and can afford the limits.
... That is strange , every typical player would like to be a "prop" , well you know what I mean , receive money while playing , and I would be playing anyway .If I would hold a card club , maybe I would give money money back to a maniac , who make bigger pot (bigger rake) , encourage other players to come back at my club with the hopness to play with that maniac .
It's not all cream cheese. You don't choose your own games. Your not paid to sit in on your best game; you may (will) have to get up from good games to play in bad ones. Often you'll be stuck in big stakes and have to leave for a small stakes game where getting unstuck is impossible. But, if you think that's what you want, go for it.
Hi every One !
So what do you thing is the best..
I am 17 years old and whant to now what you should do in my situation I like Tennis and Poker and if I going to choich one ??
Spending maybe 10 years to trying to bee a profesinol poker player ??
Ore spending 10 years to try out beeing a proffesinol tennis player ??
So my question is what do you thing I have the bigest chance to be profesinol ??
And why ?
Comments please ??
If your the best tennis player in your HS and are in line for a free ride at a major university, then you can maybe think about turning pro, otherwise look to poker.
Easy question to answer. Try tennis. You will know by the time you are 18 or 19 if you can make it. If you find you can't make it try poker.
what do you guys think
Would you have machines, or would you have to do all the milking by hand?
dairy farmer, worst comes to worst you can eat the dry cows
If you are seventeen you would already know if you have what it takes to be a touring professional tennis player. You would have already competed in, and likely won, tournaments at the national amateur level. Becker had already won Wimbleton at your age.
Furthermore, the number of players who make a living playing tennis on the tournament circuit is miniscule. You would be chasing a million to one shot.
If on the other hand you mean becoming a teaching club professional, I would say this is an infinitely more productive, healthy and rewarding occupation than a professional poker player. Again though, I think by the age of 17 you would already have skills approaching the professional level. If you have the skills to parlay your tennis ability into a college scholarship, I think this is the way to go. You need to get an education of some sort so you have some backup.
I'd spend a few years more in school if I was you and learn how to spell.
Tennis is like this:
Even if you're the best player at your H.S. and you get a free ride to a D-1 college and you become the best player at your college, you still might not be good enough to make it on the professional tennis tour.
Poker on the other hand is like this:
Someone once said, to make a living playing poker you dont have to be an expert, you just have to play better than all the bad and average players. (limits 20-40 and above excluded of course.)
What im saying is, to play poker you dont have to be a world class player to earn a living, so it is a lot more reasonable goal. But dont get me wrong it still takes a lot of work.
is $1700 enough money to turn pro?
ps i am really good
swedish boy
pss been playing for 7 years
You're really good and have been playing for 7 years, but you only have $1700? Something doesn't quite fit here. Either you're not as good as you think you are or you spending habits are awful.
The simple answer to your question, "no".
The guy bosting about being as good as any pro at WSOP was his first his 1st name Bud or Dave.
If so let me in on some of the LL money OK. :-)
Mike
His first name was Richie. I would hope you could figure out his last name.
sure...got some swampland that's a sure thing too...gl
1700 dollars is not much of a bankroll! Let's see, if you are supposed to have 300-500 BB bankroll to play at a given limit, that means you could play 2-4. 3-6 would be out of your league and you could go broke. :)
Seriously, how could you be a good player and only have 1700 dollars after 7 years? +/- 1700 is a usual day at a 20-40 game.
-SmoothB-
If no one relies on you for income, $1700 is more than enough. All you have to do is quit your job and go for it.
Let's say you jump right into 20-40 and blow it all in one day. Are you really that much worse off than you were? No. But did you give yourself a shot at total freedom? Yes. Can you still try again if you fail? Yes.
So it's really just a matter of how bad you want it, and what you are willing to risk to get it. Those things vary with each person. Some people are better off starting with $1,700 than with $17,000.
Tommy
If you had $17,000, why would you continue to play poker?
Brett? Are you yanking my chain? lol
I need to make $100 per day to pay for life. That means if I win or lose, say, $1000, what I won or lost is not money, it's time, namely, ten days.
$17,000 = 170 days. I hope to live longer than that!
Tommy
Swede:
Ignore the smartass responses. They lack the logic to realize that you could have been playing winning poker for decades and still have only $1700 to your name at this point in time.
The truth is you can play poker for a living starting with $1700, but you'll need some short term luck to get going. You do risk going broke with such a small bankroll, so you need some kind of backup (such as a part-time job) so you don't end up living in your car.
$1700 is basically a smallish 3-6 bankroll, and it's pretty hard to make a living playing 3-6. If you far outclass your opponents, you will probably end up making about $8 to $10 per hour. Hardly the lap of luxury, but a start, and doable if you have a modest lifestyle and perhaps a second family income.
The problem with trying to survive playing 3-6 on such a short bankroll is that your winnings will be spent on living expenses, and you will eventually encounter a losing streak that will decimate your bankroll. If you are serious about this I would suggest taking a risk and starting with a 6-12 game. Keep your living expenses to a bare minimum and try to build your bankroll up to about the $5000 level. From there move up to 8-16 or 10-20. You will need to play tons of hours to make a go of it (40-60 per week).
I have to add that playing poker for a living (especially LL) is definitely not all it is cracked up to be. It can be a lonely, dirty, gritty, and isolating experience... and that's if you're winning. It's much more satisfying to be a winning recreational player that has a challenging job to go to on Monday.
Good luck!
What kind of response were you looking to get Swede.
Yes you are good. Yes I've watched you build that bankroll up from nothing over the last few months playing at Paradise, but... You still won't sit in a game with me ;)
Those who were knocking your 7 year bankroll, probably have much stricter standards as far as NEVER dipping into thier Bankroll.
Were you going to try playing online for a living? Or were you going to move to Vegas?
I'm sure that you have had negative swings playing online. So you should be familiar with the need to have 300-500BB.
Do you know what your hourly earn is? Your Standard Deviation? Can you profitably play 40hrs per week? I know I can't. Some of those hours I'm tired, Some I'm tilting etc.
You should be able to answer your own question with some statistical analysis.
hey,hey how good are you? I know for a fact that if you have non existing or no outstanding bills or dependents you can start with $500. It only takes few strong and positive elements. For the few months until you have a comfortable nest you have to build a game plan with discipline and understand that poker is one contineous game. there's always tomorrow!
Your "fact" about starting with $500 is absurb if you want to garuntee not going broke, unless you are playing 0.5/1.00 games. I suggest taking a look at Gambling Theory and Other Topics by Mason Malmuth to get an idea about bankroll requirements and losing streaks.
But Tommy made a good point about how much risk one is willing to assume.
Mark,
If you look carefully at Supercharm's wording, his fact is likely to be true. All it takes is ONE person to start with a $500 bankroll and "make it."
As to "guarenteeing not going broke," that's where I think standard bankroll requirement teachings are silly and pointless.
I think we'd all agree that 30K is a reasonable bankroll to take a shot at playing 20-40 full time. Let's say a guy works hard at his game for years, playing 6-12 for 20 hours per week while he works his regular job that pays just enough to cover his life expenses. Will this guy EVER have a 30K bankroll? No. Is his situation typical of the players who dream of turning pro? Yes. Will he ever be "good enough" to be a 20-40 pro before he gets day-in-and-day-out practice without time constraints? No. Will he ever know if he is "good enough" while he has a job? No.
It's very easy for a player in these circumstances to become a professional poker player. All he has to do is quit his job. Whether or not he survives for a week or a decade is unforeseeable and irrelevant. Each day that he wakes up with a buy-in, he's a pro.
Tommy
I have always agreed with your logic as far as bankroll requirements for becoming a pro. I think it's a matter of choice: "How much risk am I willing to assume?" Personally I haven't decided if I want to go pro or not. I am young and am just finishing my electrical engineering degree so I have toyed with the idea of going pro, but likely I won't.
Also, I don't know if I'm good enough. I'm kind of trapped in the paradox you present in your second paragraph. Oh well, time will tell. I'll decide what I want at a later date, currently I don't even have a lot of time to put in at the tables.
I think I'd take a "leave of absence". Yes, I know I not committing fully to the program BUT do I look stupid?
I like your answer. About 2000 is perfect. Nothing to risk really whereas if you lose 30K it kind of smarts a little.
I might treat it as a 2 month vacation giving myself $50 a day to live on (big incentive to start winning). I'd live as cheaply as possible without risking being murdered in my sleep.
I'd also start at 5-10 or 6-12 limits. I wouldn't want my grand plan to go up in smoke the first night.
How do you people handle obnoxious players at the table? I always as a rule get up and leave the game and go to play at another table. Sometimes I feel that certain regular players at this casino I play, do show me a dislike for my presence there, if is not only personal, it is for sure poker related. What I mean is: They want me out of there for easy playing for themself. If I stay under this conditions I don't feel like I can play my best, because I have this situation with this guy that I don't even know what it is. Is this normal, for a good player to find this kind of opposition at the tables? Some of these guys I know, would like to play a body-body kind of game, like if I raise, don't reraise me, just fold and let me take the money from the other guys. I have never played this kind of poker. Should I? Some of them have attacked me on a personal way, indirectly, of course, and I don't know how to handle it best; and some times it hurts my poker playing, but only a little bit. It is a little upsetting but maybe this is a life problem and not a poker problem. So far, leaving the table and changing games is my only solution. I will not look for a fight, I don't want to get barred from the casino. Is this smart? Comments and advise welcome.
Why not confront each situation as they occur. If you're acting in a cordial manner and feel that someone is being rude ask them what the problem is, the dealer will see what's going on and if it gets heated and the floorman gets involved then that's good because you're in the right.
I take it that you are new at this particular casino ?
Sometimes you have to establish yourself and if you got the hand re-raise the hell out of the guy until he understands that his tactics aren't going to work.
By getting up you're probably doing exactly what they want you to and you're gonna keep getting shit until you stand up for yourself, that's just the way it is.
Have you had this problem before in other establishments?
I think your talking about a cabal(maybe that word is too strong)clique or fraternity of 3 or 4 players that take it easy on each other by implied agreement. This was a line/scene in the movie "Rounders" when they showed the TAJ in Atl city. Don't be so insecure. just keep playing your best poker. It doesn't sound like they are doing anything wrong, there just jerks.
Don't take it easy on them, don't bet with emotion,don't fight, don't even answer them. It's nice if poker can be a social event but it's not the main reason your there.
..or...you could always push them a midol tablet...this works for me..heh
I played with a real A-hole who not only complains a lot about the game but also stiffs the dealers and the waitresses. Players despised him so much that there was a time when 2 or 3 players including myself tried to isolate him in pots just to get to him and have been quite successful as he is a weak-tight players. Haven't seen him in weeks! IMHO, just try to control your discipline and emotions to ignore him as it could affect your game. I call poker as a peaceful aggressive game that should not affect your life outside the poker room!
I was wondering if you could recommend the best poker software for running simulations. Thanks.
Xavier
Turbo Texas Holdem by Wilson Software.
-SmoothB-
Can anyone help with any tricks to memorizing the hand rankings in the Hold 'em for Advanced Players?
I am new and want to memorize them so that the book will make more sense and wanted to see if anyone had any sage advice prior to me just tyring to memorize them by wrote.
Thanks in advance. Z
This is what I did............
Get some index cards.
Break everything down (for easier learning) into three groups. Pairs,suited hands,and offsuit hands.
All the pairs can be put on one index card/ they will be easy enough to memorize.
Start with your offsuit starting hands. You'll need 7 index cards for these hands. There are no offsuit hands in group one.
There is one offsuit hand (AK) in group Two.On one side of the card write AK.on the other side of the card write Group 2.
Do this for every group.Then get 8 more cards and do the same thing all over again(for your suited hands).
When you have your cards set up, you can look them over while doing all sorts of things. Before you know it,you'll have them memorized.
Just an idea. It worked for me.
Good Luck
Howard
The best advice is don't bother. There is no point to memorizing these hand rankings.
Let me tell you why. These hand rankings tell you the % of the time each hand wins the pot if 9 other hands all go to showdown without folding. In the real world this will never happen (unless you are playing at the Excalibur 2-6 game or in Los Angeles.)
Seriously, it is more important to develop an INTUITIVE understanding of the value of the hands in different situations - number of people in the hand, raising preflop, etc.
For example, JT suited is ranked as a group 3 or 4 hand. Not bad, right? But this hand plays terribly heads up. You would be better off having A8 offsuit or KT offsuit heads up.
On the other hand, at a full table with all 10 players seeing the flop, JTs is a great hand to get in cheaply with, but A8o and KTo are not playable.
Another point. AQo is, I believe, a group 3 (maybe 4) hand. And, if you knew FOR A FACT that no one else in that hand had been dealt AA, KK, QQ, or AK, it would be a very powerful hand indeed. But what happens when there is a raise to you and you have this hand? The odds that someone else has AA, KK, QQ, or AK are much much higher now and the hand is unplayable.
If you could do another hand ranking, but this time evaluate and rank all the hands when you KNOW they are up against AA, KK, QQ, or AK, AQo would shoot way down to a group 8 hand, whereas 98S would become a group 1 hand.
I am sure that there are very few people who read this forum who will read this post and whholeheartedly agree with me and understand my point. Those are the good players. Most people, even many players who are quite good, cannot grasp this concept. But I assure you it is fact.
Remember the following rules -
AA, KK, and QQ are quality hands in every situation. They play well and drag a lot of pots both short handed and multiway. If you could be dealt one of these 3 hands every hand of your life, you would become very rich indeed even if you never folded before the river.
Big suited cards (AKs, AQs, AJs, KQs, etc) are also premium hands that play well heads up or multiway. You do have to be VERY cautious about playing AJ AQ or KQ type hands if there has been a raise tho. If you flop top pair and get raised you are probably in trouble and drawing slim.
AKo also plays well multiway but you should NEVER chase multiway - if you don't flop fold it.
Other big offsuit cards are great short handed but begin to lose much of their value multiway. Most of them are unplayable if 7 or more people are seeing every flop. AQ is great if you flop to it but you can get in trouble with this hand (see earlier posts.) KQo is sometimes playable on the button if no one has raised.
Anything much worse than this is unplayable in a family pot. AJ is maybe playable - KJo, QJo, etc are not.
Medium - small pairs (TT - 66) are best if played shorthanded or with many customers in.
Shorthanded usually means 1 or 2 opponents AT MOST. The worst is 3 opponents. TT is far stronger than 99 because TT is right around the point where it is still likely to get a low flop with all lower cards.
When all the cards flop below 9 it seems like someone always has a straight.
If a LOT of players are in, you nearly always need to flop a set. You need all the other players to be in there to pay you off because flopping a set is not likely (8.5:1).
Hope this helps.
-SmoothB-
"These hand rankings tell you the % of the time each hand wins the pot if 9 other hands all go to showdown without folding."
Incorrect. David S. has expained before that he looked at showdown percentages, and then adjusted for betting, using his own judgment and (I think) a little math to come up with groups aimed at reflecting the value of hands in actual play. They assume a kind of average game, as described in the book.
To the original poster: As for the question of whether or not you should memorize them, I think you could go either way. Of course the important thing is to come to an understanding of the relative strengths and natures of different types of hands. But memorizing them may be useful in getting you into some initial approximation of competent starting hand play a little faster. It won't hurt as long as you're thinking/learning about the game. Just remain aware that the key is the "why" rather than the "what".
>> Just remain aware that the key is the "why" rather than the "what".
I don’t think you have to know < “why” >.
( two < “whats” > ) = ( one < “why” > )
If you know “what” to do in “what” situation, you really don’t have to know “why”.
All you need is a bigger chart.
Well, you know, actually I agree with that. (I really worded my point too strongly.) Simply having a large arsenal of tactics, and knowing when to apply them will do the job pretty well. Certainly there are some real benefits to knowing the "whys". It helps you develop further "what's" on your own, helps you remember the "whats", helps in analyzing the play of others, etc. But for a player starting out, for example, there's really nothing wrong with applying a bunch of "whats" from a credible source. G. Ed Conly mentions his experience with this in his post below.
"If you know “what” to do in “what” situation, you really don’t have to know “why”. "
Man, I believe we could have a fine time with this one. For instance, is it possible to recognize a "situation" without understanding the "why" of it? I don't beilieve so. If I'm correct then even though the above may be correct on it's face value it may still be indirectly incorrect because of the requirement to understand the "why" before being able to recognize the "situation" so one will know the "what" to do in the recognozed "situation".
Vince
John made a good point about the groupings. They don't correlate with a cold simulation ran on TTH so they have been adjusted. And you last sentence about the odds of getting a set being 8.5:1 is wrong, it's 7.5:1, but this is splitting hairs.
It's a great post for teaching new players what they should be THINKING about with regards to starting hands.
Mark,
You wrote: "And you last sentence about the odds of getting a set being 8.5:1 is wrong, it's 7.5:1, but this is splitting hairs."
Actually, you both are wrong.
Your odds of flopping a set are 17488-to-2112 (or about 8.3-to-1).
Your odds of flopping a full house are 19456-to-144 (or about 135.1-to-1).
Your odds of flopping quads are 19552-to-48 (or about 407.3-to-1).
Your odds of flopping a set or better are 17296-to-2304 (or about 7.5-to-1).
If you want to count trips flopping on the board as making a full house for you, then the odds against your flopping a boat are 19408-to-192 (or about 101.1-to-1).
And the odds against your flopping a set or better become 17248-to-2352 (or about 7.3-to-1).
"These hand rankings tell you the % of the time each hand wins the pot if 9 other hands all go to showdown without folding. In the real world this will never happen (unless you are playing at the Excalibur 2-6 game or in Los Angeles"
This isn't at all accurate.
"For example, JT suited is ranked as a group 3 or 4 hand. Not bad, right? But this hand plays terribly heads up. You would be better off having A8 offsuit or KT offsuit heads up."
Really, what if you limp in and are raised?
"Another point. AQo is, I believe, a group 3 (maybe 4) hand. And, if you knew FOR A FACT that no one else in that hand had been dealt AA, KK, QQ, or AK, it would be a very powerful hand indeed. But what happens when there is a raise to you and you have this hand? The odds that someone else has AA, KK, QQ, or AK are much much higher now and the hand is unplayable."
This is actually fairly good advice for a beginner. But there are some spots where you should reraise with AQo.
"If you could do another hand ranking, but this time evaluate and rank all the hands when you KNOW they are up against AA, KK, QQ, or AK, AQo would shoot way down to a group 8 hand, whereas 98S would become a group 1 hand."
AQo may shoot down to even lower than that, but 98s is certainly not a Group 1 hand. Are you saying that you would now reraise with it?
"Big suited cards (AKs, AQs, AJs, KQs, etc) are also premium hands that play well heads up or multiway. You do have to be VERY cautious about playing AJ AQ or KQ type hands if there has been a raise tho. If you flop top pair and get raised you are probably in trouble and drawing slim."
This is actually pretty good advice. If someone raises (legitimately as opposed to a possible steal)and you are not yet in, you should usually throw hands like AJo and KQo away.
That's all I'll comment on for now.
A few comments.
There are definitely some times when it is correct to reraise with AQo. If, for example, the raiser is a very loose preflop raiser or maniac. But this also requuires that you have a good shot at getting the hand heads up, and also requires that you play well post flop. This play will cost beginners a fortune.
As for 98s becoming a group 1 hand if you KNEW AA KK QQ or AK was out there. What I mean by this is that 98s has the best shot of beating an overpair of any other 2 cards. It is still a big underdog. But it is not NEARLY as big of an underdog as AQo, TT, KJo, Axs, etc. So, if you were to rank hands by their % chance of winning vs. an overpair, 98s would have the best shot and would be a group 1 hand.
As for the hand ranking correlating with % of the times they win VS 9 opponents who never fold. If you tell me that you have fiddled with the rakings to reflect betting etc, you haven't adjusted them by much.
If you did a ranking based on how much MONEY these hands win or lose, then you should send 98o down from a group 7 hand to a group 500 hand. This hand, and other connecting offsuit cards, are THE BIGGEST MONEY LOSING hands that can be played. If you need reasons why then I will be happy to provide you with a detailed analysis.
How can JTs possibly be a group 3 hand unless the game is very loose? If you were dealt this hand every single hand for your entire life, but you could only play in a tight, tough game, you would lose your bankroll very fast indeed. This hand is unplayable in a tight, tough game. I can explain why if need be.
-SmoothB-
Mason,
Thanks for the clearification! Wow, never though that I would see your name on the post.
BTW, the only Casino I can play in (I am in Idaho) plays 3-6 spread limit as well as 7-stud. I have heard (on RPG) that this book is really intended for the mid to high limit games. Is this your feeling as well?
Thanks, Chris
Chris
I know your question was for Mason but ............
"In spite of this, many ideas in the book will help you in smaller games while you work your way up to the bigger ones". Page 2 HPFAP21c
"Most of what has been covered already also applies to spread limit games".
Page 219 HPFAP21c
Good Luck
Howard
QQ is not a quality hand against a tight re-raiser when it comes 2 or 3 bets to you. If I were going to call, I think I'd rather have TJs.
It's not the cards, it's the players and that's why having just a good idea of the hand rankings is OK. What I mean is, you don't need to have them memorized. So I agree with you on this point but maybe not for the same reason exactly.
I doubt very much the 2+2 authors discounted the fact that not all hands are 9 way to the river!
In reference to the JTs issue, you must consider, in the tougher games, what kind of action you get when you only play group 1 and 2 hands
The part on intuition is funny. You cannot gain an INTUITIVE idea of what a hand is worth without playing many hands of poker in a number of different types of games. These INTUITIVE ideas can be learned. What if you never develope this INTUITION! What you call intuition, I would call learned response.
You follow with a number of what seem to be obvious hand values like AJ being dominated in a raised hand and small pairs etc. I hope that "Medium - small pairs (TT - 66) are best if played shorthanded or with many customers in." is not one of the INTUITIVE ideas.
The 98s thing is just wrong. Both hands should be discarded when you know you are (or likely) up against the premium starting hands. I understand that I would rather have 98s if I were forced at gunpoint to play.
"I am sure that there are very few people who read this forum who will read this post and whholeheartedly agree with me and understand my point. Those are the good players. Most people, even many players who are quite good, cannot grasp this concept. But I assure you it is fact. "
Nice of you to qualify your statement that anyone not agreeing (most by implication) is not as good a player as you. Oh, and thanks for letting the reader know that yor post is FACT only.
So good players understand this post but "quite good" do not. Hmmmm.
Wow, what great posts all of them...
I have read a couple of books now (Hold 'em Excellence, and HEPFAP) and both stress starting standards. I seem to be able to get the feel for the premium hands but just wanted to get some help on the group 3/4 rankings. Actually the starting chart in Hold 'em Excellence is quite good and very close to Slansky's rankings and easier to memorize for my visual learning style.
Anyway, thanks all for the advice. I tend to see Howard's point and thank him for his extended message, I printed it out.
Z
Aside from all the other advice you've received, what I did was take 10 decks of cards and glue together the top 69 hands. I then practiced putting them into their respective groups.
I found this was very helpful. I did just what the book said, (not because I exactly understood why) and booked a winning month the first month I played. The theory in that book is so strong that you don't even need to understand why you do what you do to win against opponents who aren't too strong.
People that have been playing awhile forget how much comes automatically that can be a real struggle for a beginner. If you play like the book says, you should win. You can figure out exactly why you're doing what to do when you gain experience. At least that's what's worked for me.
New piano students learns scales. They know the "how" without knowing the "why."
With time and persistence, the "whys" become known, and the fingerings become unthinking and routine, allowing for growth and improvisation.
Tommy
Here's a quick tip that cuts down on the memorization somewhat. You attribute a two-digit number to each starting hand rather than just one. The first digit is the suited ranking and the second digit the unsuited ranking. As such, for KQ remember "24", not KQs is "2" and KQo is "4". It helped me remember them more easily. There are really only about 20 to remember since many of the low card hands are all ranked 5 or 6 and barely ranked at all if unsuited.
BTW, I agree what many have said in this thread. While I memorized the hand rankings when I first started playing, I had to consult my book to determine that KQ was, in fact, a "24". I've long since forgotten what's a group 2,3 etc. I don't think it's important that I've forgotten the rankings. When you first start playing, however, it gives you pre-flop discipline which is very important. If you set guidelines based on the SM chart, you won't go too far wrong. It worked for me and I would recommend memorization of these rankings as an excellent starting point for any new player.
What I found effective was making a graphical representation in form of a grid just like in Lou Krieger's "HOLD'EM EXCELLENCE FROM BEGINNER TO WINNER". To further categorize the groupings, I left G1 with a blank background, with G2 I made right diagonals on the background, G3 with left diagonals, G4 with horizontal lines, G5 with vertical lines, G6 with left and write diagonal grids, G7 with horizontal/vertical grids and G8 as blank again. Or, you can use colored background for each grouping. I'm sure you know that these rankings are really guidelines and are not being used mechanically as S&M explained in detail in the book. Hope this helps Good Luck.
I have recently been playing on Paradise quite a bit, and before you say this is in the wrong forum, let me say my problem happens when I play live at the Taj as well.
I Play $3-$6 exclusively and buy-in for $200. I have played many