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 8+ hour sessions at the Taj and many hours on Paradise as well and this has happened every single time.
Without exception, my initial $200 buy-in never EVER gets below $120 and never gets above $300. In the long run I am breaking even constantly. I can't figure out why my swings are so small. I hear people on here talk about how you need a $1000 bankroll to be successful at $3-$6 because of the swings, but I must be doing something wrong. Does anyone have any idea what is going on? I have a theory but would like to hear any other ideas. My theory is I am an extremely weak-tight player. Please post comments. Thanks
CB
My guess is that you're playing very tight and very weak. This will reduce your fluctuations, but not put very much money in your pocket.
At $3-6 I have negative swing of between $80.00 - $100.00, and have been making about 1.5 - 3 BBH. Your swing could be the type of table you play at. If you play at a table where people know how to play, your swing will be small and your win will be small.
Agressiveness also plays a big part as noted in the first post. Even at LL there are pots that can be leveraged if you are aggressive at the right time.
Mike
Why do you play $3-$6 EXCLUSIVELY at the Taj? They take $4 for the rake. Why not play $5-$10 for the same rake?
Also, the $5-$10 Taj game will give you experience in many different situations. Sometimes the game plays really loose like the lower games. Other times it's tougher than the medium limits ie. tight and aggressive play.
I now play 10-20 at the Taj. I started at 3-6. First, with respect to CB's original question, the fact of the matter is that those results are good. The game is so loose that "weak-tight" is probably correct playing strategy. Be happy you haven't been suffered more "suck outs."
With respect to the advise to move up to 5-10, be careful. My first three sessions at 5-10 resulted in a net $1000 loss. I found that my Lee Jones "tight" strategy worked great when there was no raising before the flop, but it was way too loose when pots were getting raised preflop. I tightened up, studied S&M, and, after about nine months at 5-10, have moved up to 10-20.
You might want to check out the 10/20 at the Trop. The Trop 10/20 tends to be easier than the 10/20 at the Taj.
Now we're moving way off topic, but the problem with the Trop is there aren't enough players. The poker room is hidden, and even last December during the big Taj tournament, there were only 2 10-20 games running.
Thanks everyone for the responses.
Take The Points: I meant I play $3-$6 exclusively. Didn't mean to say I only play at the Taj, but I am restriced to Atlantic City so that narrows it down to the Taj and the Trop, and like another poster pointed out, there aren't many players at the Trop, at least the few times I've strolled through the poker room. Actually the next time I go the Taj, I will give the $5-$10 hold em game a shot, just for something different, and a little bit of a challenge. My bankroll can sustain a "learning session" at the $5-$10, but I don't have the bankroll to jump all the way up to the $10-$20 as AFish suggested, no matter how easy the game is. I would love to give $10-$20 and higher limits a shot, but as a college kid I just don't have the bankroll to go much higher than the low limits.
I would like to hear from anyone who has had the same experience as me, having very little swings negative and positive, and how you changed your style of play to get your win rate in the positive and keep it that way. Thanks
CB
I did NOT suggest moving directly from 3-6 to 10-20. In fact, I think that would be suicide. I warned that the transition from 3-6 to 5-10 might be tougher than you expect. There is nothing wrong with your results. Move up to 5-10 and see if you can been the game.
Every weekend I go with a friend of mine to a cardroom to play poker and have a bite to eat. I play in the higher limits while my friend plays in the lower limits. My friend has been having problems with another player there for the past month it started when he beat him out of a big pot when he made his flush on the river. Since then this player has been targeting my friend and insulting him only to leave my friend not wanting to play poker anymore. I spoke to the room manager, he told me he will look into it but the situation has not stopped and he never talked to the player about this situation. My friend is the type who is passive not only in poker but in life he is a average person who doesnt look for trouble and can be categorized as a wimp.
I am thinking about confronting this person or better yet playing at the same table and diverting the attention to myself. I am not scared to take him on in the casino or in the parking lot.
Can any of the more experienced players tell me their opinions on this matter and how to handle this idiot. Also a few of the other playes have told me that this player in question is a good friend of the card room manager.
I was playing at Hollywood Park a while back and beat a player making my open ended straight on the river. He got very upset and make some smart remark but I let it go. The following day I played with him again and he started the same thing with me and called me an asshole and mother f***er. I got up and told him lets go outside right now. I will take you on he was just all talk and did not get up and stayed quiet for the rest of the session. I was ready to take him on and would not hesitate, I have a second degree black belt and I know I would place him in the hospital for a week or so. I think this player is picking on your friend because he is an easy target divert the attention to yourself and tell him lets take it outside.
Your approach is a good way for you to get into trouble not only at Hollywood Park but with the law as well. Don't turn a card game into a life threatening situation. It isn't worth it.
Chill....I know these types get on your nerves but it's not good to get into a fight. If you do your going to get barred or go to jail. Let the floorperson take care of it, I can't imagine a Card Room in the country that would not warn or take action against players acting this way. Sometimes you want to put a few knots on their head but beleive me it's not worth it.
Tobar
I also have taken Martial Arts but have never approached BBelt. A belt cannot beat a knife or a gun or an asshole with a grudge. I also believe that a street fighter has a big advantage over someone with training but little experience so to speak.
Your friend should play solid poker. Complain immediately every time to the dealer and ask to talk to the poker manager and event to the shift manager.
Checkraise this guy every single chance you get.
john, the best approach is to have your friend simply ignore this person altogether. Don't speak to him, look at him, or react to him in any way. This will be hard at first but eventually it will become second nature. Over time the guy will get tired of trying to needle your friend since he will not get a reaction and the other players will start to get on the idiot's case about being obnoxious at the table.
Help your friend get better at the game and outplay the guy. That will shut him up. Once your friend is better than the asshole, have your friend talk giant shit to the guy. Your friend should never let it resort to physical action, but talking a good amount of shit and outplaying him will put the guy on tilt so fast it won't be pretty.
I used to consider myself a very good player, but not anymore. Why? I’ve lost the ability to accept a bad day and quit. I still win or show a nice profit for 6 out of 7 days, or 8 out of 10, but on my bad losing days I give it all back and then some.
The person who taught me hold’em used to say “the cards will talk to you”. He was correct, but I no longer listen and this is how I lose. But it stops today with this admission/correction of my weakness.
Last night was a perfect example. Ah2h in the BB. No pre-flop raise. Flop comes AdKh5h. Turn/river is 8c and Kd. Winner turns over Ks3s. I’d bet all the way. Another BB - Q2offsuit in BB, flop comes 229, turn card is 9, game over.
It’s the chasers’ day to win, and/or the day the cards don’t cooperate. Like the above examples or flop a pair but the flop always comes with an overcard to the pair, or nail high card but two of same suit flops that hits on turn. Miss almost every flush/straight draw. This is a lethal combination and I recognize what’s happening, but I am too stupid/stubborn to leave — after all, I’m the good player, not these bozos I’m playing with. Happens continuously throughout game but I don’t leave ‘til I’ve been beaten up badly.
My recorded experience is that bad days will sometimes turn around but the days they do never make up for the days they don’t (and get worse). When you sit down to play, three things are possible - a good day, an indifferent one, or a bad day. Maybe finally I’ve again learned to quit on the bad days and I can be a good player again. If I don’t, I will not only continue to lose but I am playing like I need my opponents (the poor players) to play. In short, I’ve become one of them, and I know better than to do that. So from now on when it’s their day - I’m gone!
Sorry for the length of this post but it’s been therapeutic for me. Love to hear from anyone with words of wisdom.
I think it would be better to judge your "good and bad" days not by the amount of money won or lost, but by the way you played and the decisions you made at the table. Also, on days you feel you are taking a beating, it might be that you underestimated your competition at the table. So maybe changing tables or games could help. Im not saying you should change tables or games to try to change your luck, because that don't work. But you should change if you feel the competition at your table is better than usual.
There are many ways to stop the bleeding, whenever im stuck a little I just get up and take a break, get something to eat and reevaluate my strategy. This seems to help. There is one other thing, if you've had an overall crappy day i wouldn't even consider playing at all. It seems I have takin my worst losses when I play on a day that has seemed to been bad.
Mr. Mac unfortunately you are playing in a game that is dominated by luck. Improving your skills gives you the best chance to win but there is no guarantee over any finite period of time that you will win. Suckouts, holdovers, missed draws, and payoffs are simply not the same between any two individuals or with the same individual on different days. The only advice I can give you is to quit when you start getting unhappy. You should also drop down to a lower limit if you suffer losses over an extended period of time and stay at the lower limit until they are recouped. I hope you are not making any "life altering" decisions based on doing well in this game because then you will be really gambling.
For a good player like yourself, keeping your sanity is the number ONE prerequisite towards realizing the goal of ACTUALLY making money at poker.
I suggest that you take these few steps to insure that you consistently are able to keep this critical mental state while losing:
Step 1. Ask yourself, How do I define a "bad day" dollar loss-wise? What specific amount would I have to be losing in order for me to be absolutely convinced that a day is a "bad day"?
Step 2. Once you've determined what specific dollar loss absolutely fits your definition of a "bad day", calculate what is 80% and 90% of this amount. These two amounts will make up your "stop-loss range". The reason I recommend that you use a stop-loss RANGE, instead of the more popular stop-loss POINT, is to help you to prevent yourself from going into "tournament mode" - an artificially defensive way of playing that can cost you big time in the long run in the live games.
Step 3. Quit immediately after your loss enters any point of your stop-loss range. The game will still be there tomorrow. It is, afterall, one big neverending poker session.
How about an analogy.
When you get up for work on Monday morning [whatever day and time your monday is] and traffic is terrible, the drivers crazy, and work really sucks that day, what do you do? Do you quit that job never to work again?
I suggest you review the "Playing in Loose Games" section in S&M's HEPFAP.
Mr. Mac, in paragraph four you wrote:
"This is a lethal combination and I recognize what is happening,.."
What is it that's happening? Do you mean that the cards are "talking" to you? That regardless of what you do the cards have made up their collective minds that you're going to lose?
Please tell me I've misunderstood what you were trying to say in the sentence I quoted from your post.
-Ted
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 rankings 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.
That's all I'll comment on for now.
-SmoothB-
How come every time you make a post, it is full of the blatently obvious?
-CONFUSED
"How come when you make a post, it is full of the blatently obvious?
I disagree with the above statement. I may not always agree with SmoothB but I find that his posts are well thought out and often times on the money.(More often that not)
I don't know if there's a problem between he and the Authors and that this is somewhat personal but whatever the reason he makes some valid points.
The only reason I am saying this is that I have enjoyed his contributions to this BB and find that challenging the Authors can make for some stimulating thinking, Mason agreed with his analysis and stated so in given situations.
I didnt say he was wrong, dufus. I said he always stated the obvious.
-CONFUSED
SmoothB has high regard for the authors here. He once was overwhelmed that DS would respond to him.
I believe his posts to be in general, quite correct. They are, however, full of information that is not new to many readers of this forum.
I am, however, no expert and if I disagree with anyone here it is simply my opinion.
Regards
Hi everyone,
I recently spent a month in Vegas. I played 15-30 Holdem almost every day I was there. I played almost exclusively at Bellagio's. There was always a game. In fact I do not recall one time that there was not a full game going and I believe there was almost always 2 games going. Most of tthe time there were more than three or more games going with a waiting list. Contrast that with Seven card stud where they struggle to keep one 15-30 game going. I do recall that most of the time a 30-60 game was going but if memory serves me a lot of times it was short handed. The quantity of games at my limit makes Holdem the game of choice for me when in Vegas.
I played at Foxwoods this past weekend. There was a 20-40 S(tud),H(oldem),E(ight or better stud) game that I played in. After 6 hours I was stuck $800. The game broke. I played in a 10-20 Holdem game the next day. They do not spread 15 Holdem at Foxwoods. There were 2 games going when I sat down. One broke while I was there. When I got up to leave. I checked out at the sign up board. I noticed that there were four 15 - 30 Stud games going with a list of 23 on the board. this is why I normally play Stud when back east.
I recommend a poker player learn at least these two games for the above reason.
vince
*
Last night I was playing and gabbing with a Chinese buddy. He teaches me some Chinese words and culture, and I answer his many questions about America. He asked if Texas Hold'em is really from Texas and if Ohama is really from Ohama. I said of course they are, just as stud was invented by horses.
:-)
Tommy
&
Actually, I think that stud was invented by horses. As the Union armies moves south, especially along the Mississippi they were exposed to the Southern game of poker. Each additional card represented the additional horses that were required to pull the cannons, supply wagons, etc. over some of the muddy terrain around the Mississippi River. So the horses may have had a bigger role than you think.
Hey, ya never know!
Somewhat related and definitely true is that the width of railroad tracks is what it is because axle lengths became standardized to fit the ruts caused by horse-drawn carriages.
Tommy <-- watched too many editions of "Connections"
Vince,
I think learning all the games is good. Stud, Hold'em, Omaha, and the HiLo versions.
It seems like Women like Stud, I wonder why?
"It seems like Women like Stud, I wonder why? "
It must be a girl thing.
vince
Vince, judging by your response, I think you may have missed "mah'" joke.
I agree with you, to be limited in one game is foolish as you sometimes realize, at least I do that I may be outclassed in a hold'em game and that there's a nice soft game of stud being played right behind me. Makes it a lot easier to get up, for whatever reason.
I also find that mixing up my games a little keeps me sharper. If I play alot of hold'em, after awhile I may not be on my "A" game as often as I would if I mix it up a little.
CJC,
I agree. Sometimes, if you're running bad playing one game, you may do better just switching games. At least the change will take my mind off of a bad Hold'em game. Frequently, I play either Omaha 8B or Hold'em. I've just started playing 7 Card Stud for the last 6 months, but not that much because I'm finding it a harder game to play for real money. But, I'm working on it and plan to learn the 7CS 8B version too.
Vince,
I usually look for the table with the most women sitting in the game. Especially pretty women because they usually like studs. Or is that 7 Card Stud?
"In limit poker, if you are not aggressive most of the time when you have something of value, you are letting people play cheaply or even giving them what is known as a 'free card.' This gives them a chance to draw out on you for free, or for a small price, which might cost you the pot. You cannot worry about the possibility of losing a bet if the reward for betting might be to get somebody who might have otherwise outdrawn you to throw his hand away."[1]
Of course you should worry about the possibility of losing a bet, even when not betting might cost you the pot. If you ignore the risks and only consider the rewards, you are going to cost yourself money at poker.
"Calling stations" generally focus too much on the possibility of a big reward (i.e., winning a whole pot) and not enough on the risks (i.e., losing an additional bet or two). Calling stations also generally lose money rather quickly.
A similar problem confronts "betting stations." If you constantly bet or raise in hopes of improving your possibilities of gaining a big reward (i.e., winning a whole pot) and ignore the risks (i.e., spending an additional bet or two to perhaps improve those possibilities), you generally will lose money against decent opponents. These opponents quickly will realize what you are doing, will call you down more often, and will raise and re-raise you more frequently.
You need to consider the size of the reward and how your betting actions can affect your chances of achieving that reward. But you also need to consider what those betting actions are going to cost you. Then, you need to weigh that risk against that reward and determine whether the risk is worth taking. Sometimes it will be. Sometimes it won't. Blindly pursuing the reward, however, is not the way to go.
Unfortunately, this incorrect way of approaching the problem seems to run through many of David and Mason's writings. Another example:
"This means a lot when the pot is big. The point is that when a lot of bets are in the center of the table you don't worry about saving bets. You do everything possible to maximize your chance of winning."[2]
As I've explained before, serious poker players maximize their expectation--not their chance of winning--even when pots are big.
It's understandable how people can fall into this kind of thinking. Sometimes the highest expectation betting action ends up costing us the pot. It was the right thing to do, but it sure feels like a mistake because it hurts so much. These pot-sized "catastrophes" tend to stick in our minds, while many of the one-bet gains are much less memorable and are quickly forgotten.
If we tend to be results oriented in our thinking, what results will we tend to remember? That's right. The big, pot-sized losses. This kind of thinking might cause some of us to lean toward calling when, mathematically, we really should be folding. It also might cause some of us to lean towards being overly aggressive when, mathematically, we really should be more passive.
------------------
[1] David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth, HOW TO MAKE $100,000 A YEAR GAMBLING FOR A LIVING, 1997, p. 227.
[2] David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth, HOLD 'EM POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS, 1999, p. 169.
Though all bets and calls should theoretically be evaluated in terms of risk versus rewards, as a practical matter, bets with decent hands are much less likely to be major mistakes than calls in almost hopeless situations. Thus the generalizations quoted by Mark Glover are not contradictory and perfectly fine given the intermediate audience the book was targeted to.
"Thus the generalizations quoted by Mark Glover are not contradictory and perfectly fine given the intermediate audience the book was targeted to."
The fact of the matter is that most of what Mark claims in his post prove, at least to me, that Mark doesn't know how to play poker. Of course, he thinks he does. He makes the same mistakes a lot of smart people make. They believe that just because they are "smart" that their intelligence is a substitute for common sense and experience. It's not.
Marks wrote:
"You need to consider the size of the reward and how your betting actions can affect your chances of achieving that reward. But you also need to consider what those betting actions are going to cost you. Then, you need to weigh that risk against that reward and determine whether the risk is worth taking. Sometimes it will be. Sometimes it won't. Blindly pursuing the reward, however, is not the way to go."
This is an intelligent non experienced person's way of looking at how to play poker. The point Mark makes here is such an obvious "Duh" that I'm sure knowledgeable poker players will find it laughable. My advice is that Mark should continue to do what he does best. That is, find minor inconsequential misques in otherwise excellent material that David and Mason produce and maybe play a little more poker so he can get a better "feel" for the game.
Vince
BTW-
"This means a lot when the pot is big. The point is that when a lot of bets are in the center of the table you don't worry about saving bets. You do everything possible to maximize your chance of winning."[2]
Those of you that believe this is an incorrect way to play poker may find that Mark shoud be the author/advisor of your choice. The rest of you would be advised to to do as I do, listen to the authors of the statement.
[2] David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth, HOLD 'EM POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS, 1999, p. 169.
I'll even take it a little further. I think that there is a good chance that Mark has never played real poker in a public cardroom. If he has, he would be more interested in McEvoy's limit hold 'em book than in our stuff.
LOL!
Ok Mark, your opponent has moved all-in and has you by the short stacks. Do you even have a reply?
Great post Mason!
Mason,
You wrote: "I think that there is a good chance that Mark has never played real poker in a public cardroom."
As I've explained to you multiple times before, I do play real poker in public cardrooms.
But let's assume, for the moment, that I never have set foot inside a public cardroom. Would that change the validity of my argument?
I see you would prefer to "poison the well" rather than defend your published statements. I wonder why that is?
Mason, your sleezy and fallacious debate tactics only serve to diminish my opinion of you. It might have that effect on other readers of this forum as well.
>I do play real poker in public cardrooms
Where?
"But let's assume, for the moment, that I never have set foot inside a public cardroom. Would that change the validity of my argument? "
Mark,
Your arguement is not the issue. It's your advice. Certainly your arguements are valid and as David and Mason, I believe acknowledged, "theoretically" correct. Who can argue with "evaluate the risk vs the reward" when considering how to play and why would anyone argue against it. If you play poker as you claim you would know that this type of thinking at the table is fine when the situation allows but there are situations in which you must do things that appear counterintuitive even though they may have less of a +EV in the long run. You don't seem to understand this or your "perfectionist" attitude just won't allow you to accept it. Either way your attitude about this is the main reason I question your poker playing experience.
Vince
Vince,
You wrote: "If you play poker as you claim you would know that this type of thinking at the table is fine when the situation allows but there are situations in which you must do things that appear counterintuitive even though they may have less of a +EV in the long run. You don't seem to understand this or your 'perfectionist' attitude just won't allow you to accept it."
You're right, I don't understand this. Perhaps you could give us an illustrative example. Or perhaps you meant "less of a +EV in the ***short*** run."
I said what I meant. Well maybe not. Please explain the differnce between the long run and the asterisk asterisk asterisk short run asterisk asterisk asterisk before we continue. All those *'s have me confused. Is that a different short run. Maybe one you have made up? Kinda like your poker advice, off the top of your head.
There are 18 big bets in the pot. It's the turn. You have the current nuts. You're hand can be beat. You may be a small favorite against three players. You are not sure. You are bet into. There are players left to act behind you. If you call you believe you will pick up at 2 extra bets from callers yet to act on the turn. There is not much chance that those yet to act will fold to just one bet. If you raise there is a good chance you will get it heads up with the bettor and only pick up one more bet or you may even win the pot right there not picking up any more bets. You may or may not get called on the river depending on what comes. What is your play? Wait a minute I already know your play.
Mark wrote:
"Of course you should worry about the possibility of losing a bet, even when not betting might cost you the pot."
I know my example is not very illustrative but it is the best I can do on such a short notice. Now I'm sure we are going to hear people argue on your side which from your statement is to just "call" but they are wrong. Also if you find yourself in situations like this and are not prepared to act but go through some mental gyrations like you suggest to consider whether or not you should play one way or another you will soon find "frustration" as your best friend. I gurauntee that second guessing will become second nature.
Vince
Vince,
Let me begin by noting that different people play poker for different reasons.
Some attempt to earn lots of money at the tables and aim at increasing their long-term EV. Others enjoy the intellectual challenge of the game and again aim at increasing their long-term EV.
Others look at poker as a pleasant recreational activity and don't care so much about long-term EV. They might take a more relaxed, less studious approach to the game. Most lose money, but some are winners (but probably don't win as much as they could).
There is nothing wrong with being a recreational poker player, but most of the posts on this forum tend to emphasis high long-term EV. It's a "show me the money" type of approach.
I believe GAMBLING FOR A LIVING also emphasises a more business-like approach to playing poker. It was on that basis that I found fault with the authors' statement.
---------------------
You wrote: "There are 18 big bets in the pot. It's the turn. You have the current nuts. You're hand can be beat. You may be a small favorite against three players. You are not sure. You are bet into. There are players left to act behind you. If you call you believe you will pick up at 2 extra bets from callers yet to act on the turn. There is not much chance that those yet to act will fold to just one bet. If you raise there is a good chance you will get it heads up with the bettor and only pick up one more bet or you may even win the pot right there not picking up any more bets. You may or may not get called on the river depending on what comes. What is your play?"
In my approach to poker, I generally prefer to make the play that has the highest expectation. In your example, that might mean raising. It might mean calling. It might mean folding. It depends on many factors that you don't specify in your example.
-------------------------
You wrote: "Also if you find yourself in situations like this and are not prepared to act but go through some mental gyrations like you suggest to consider whether or not you should play one way or another you will soon find 'frustration' as your best friend. I gurauntee that second guessing will become second nature."
I like the intellectual challenge that poker offers, so I generally enjoy giving some thought to estimating the best EV play in situations like this. I don't find it very frustrating, but your mileage might vary.
You might rely on guidelines and rules of thumb more often than I do. There's nothing wrong with that if it suits your poker goals better. It's worth keeping in mind, however, that some guidelines are more harmful to your bankroll than others. I don't recommend some of David and Mason's guidelines even to my beginner students.
Mark,
I am so lost in this thread that I won't find my home for days. One question and one only: Are you of the belief that as a general rule that: When the pot gets large maximize your chances of winning the pot and don't worry about extra bets": is a bad rule to follow. Do you honsestly believe that when in the middle of a big hand where you have a lot of bets on the line that one should calculate the EV of potential bets that are out there and then try and determine what is the best tactic to apply to pick up those bets knowing that you are going to jeopordize winning the bets that are out there.
Now do not start with this risk vs reward stuff. All of us in this thread have agreed with you in theory. But let's be a little practical here. You honestly advise your students to make these types of difficult and sometimes impossible one or two bet EV evaluations while and then decide how best to pick them up while they are trying to win a big pot. The more I listen to you the more I believe I was correct when I called you HAL of 2001 A Space Odyssey. One last thing. The developers of Turbo Texas Holdem have tried there damndest to make a program that will teach someone how to win at poker. I only tried the early version. It sucked. My guess is that they made you and your students will make similar mistakes to those of this program. One of their problems is I'm sure that they are trying to model human behavior with perfection in mind. Good Luck,
Vince
Vince,
You asked: "Are you of the belief that as a general rule that: When the pot gets large maximize your chances of winning the pot and don't worry about extra bets: is a bad rule to follow."
I think it is a terrible rule to follow. If you follow this rule, you would never fold when the pot is large (except, sometimes, when you have the absolute anti-nuts and the river has been capped).
Furthermore, you would almost always be betting, raising, or attempting to check-raise to achieve your goal of maximizing your chances of winning the pot. Oftentimes, when the pot is large, your highest EV move is to check-and-call.
If you do follow this rule, Vince, could you please tell us how you determine when the pot has become "large" enough to apply it? Could you possibly be weighing your risk versus your potential reward?
----------------------------
You asked: "Do you honsestly believe that when in the middle of a big hand where you have a lot of bets on the line that one should calculate the EV of potential bets that are out there and then try and determine what is the best tactic to apply to pick up those bets knowing that you are going to jeopordize winning the bets that are out there."
Yes. I try to estimate the best EV move when the pot is small, so why wouldn't I try to do so when the pot is large and the cost of a mistake usually is bigger?
As David and Mason noted: "Poker is a game where you are constantly balancing your risk versus reward. This is true whether you are considering checking, betting, raising, bluffing, calling, or folding."
------------------------
You wrote: "Now do not start with this risk vs reward stuff. All of us in this thread have agreed with you in theory. But let's be a little practical here."
What do you find so practically difficult about estimating the best EV move when the pot is big? You estimate the best EV move when the pot is small, don't you?
Even if you do find it difficult, remember what Mason once wrote: "I believe that it is very important not to over simplify the complex aspects of poker."
Your general rule oversimplifies your decision at the table. So does their general rule.
--------------------------
You asked: "You honestly advise your students to make these types of difficult and sometimes impossible one or two bet EV evaluations while and then decide how best to pick them up while they are trying to win a big pot."
I don't advise my students to compute the exact expectation of their various options. I usually cannot compute exact expectations. Nor can David. I do advise my students to *estimate* the expectations of their various moves. What exactly do you find wrong with that?
Mark,
Good luck! I'm done with this thread. thanks.
vince
"As I've explained to you multiple times before, I do play real poker in public cardrooms."
Well you certainly had me fooled. But there is one thing I can virtually guarantee. It is that you don't win. Why do I say this? It is because poker is a game of flexibility and balancing concepts -- this is especially true of limit hold 'em. You seem to be completely lacking in this area.
"Mason, your sleezy and fallacious debate tactics only serve to diminish my opinion of you. It might have that effect on other readers of this forum as well."
Mark, let me explain something to you. We have gone to great effort to make sure that our books are filled with a great deal of information and that they are extremely accurate. This means that for most people if they want to have a chance of becoming highly competent poker players they need to study our stuff. While I try to be reasonable, I don't care very much if I'm loved or not. It is the first thing that gets us read, not the second.
You need to remember that these are public forums and that David, Ray, Chuck, and myself have put a great deal of effort in them, and we did this with very little return for several years. If you want to become the B Yoon of these forums you are welcome to do this, but if I ever get the chance to meet you in person I'm sure my first words will be something like: "Oh, so you're the idiot."
Mason,
David and you wrote: "Furthermore, if you follow the guidelines in this book and have a little bit of talent, drive, and initiative, there is no reason why you cannot 'earn' in excess of $100,000 a year by gambling."[1]
David and you wrote: "It would be nice if you can become a truly great player, but to be realistic, most of you won't. However, you almost certainly can become a very good player, and very good players are capable of winning between $30 and $50 an hour in medium-sized games. Thus, $100,000 a year is an obtainable figure."[2]
David and you wrote: "We believe, for instance, that a top player could average $20 an hour in a typical $6-$12 game. However, we are sure there is no one winning at this rate in a $6-$12 game."[3]
You wrote: "I think that there is a good chance that Mark has never played real poker in a public cardroom."
It pains me to say this, Mason, but your credibility is heading south.
This time, you wrote: "But there is one thing I can virtually guarantee. It is that you don't win."
Gee, why am I not surprised that you were wrong yet again?
But let's assume, for the moment, that I don't win. Would that change the validity of my argument?
I see you still would prefer to "poison the well" rather than defend your published statements. I wonder why that is?
--------------------------------
You also wrote: "Why do I say this? It is because poker is a game of flexibility and balancing concepts -- this is especially true of limit hold 'em. You seem to be completely lacking in this area."
Let's consider this statement, perhaps a little more carefully than you did.
David and you wrote: "You cannot worry about the possibility of losing a bet if the reward for betting might be to get somebody who might have otherwise outdrawn you to throw his hand away."[4]
Interesting. You recommend that your readers ignore the risks and focus on the reward, yet you believe I am the one lacking flexibility.
David and you wrote: "This means a lot when the pot is big. The point is that when a lot of bets are in the center of the table you don't worry about saving bets. You do everything possible to maximize your chance of winning."[5]
Interesting. You recommend that your readers ignore the risks and focus on the reward, yet you believe I am the one lacking balance.
I wrote: "You need to consider the size of the reward and how your betting actions can affect your chances of achieving that reward. But you also need to consider what those betting actions are going to cost you. Then, you need to weigh that risk against that reward and determine whether the risk is worth taking. Sometimes it will be. Sometimes it won't."
Interesting. I recommend weighing both the risk and the reward, sometimes acting one way, and sometimes acting another way, yet you believe I am the one lacking flexibility and balance.
Using your line of reasoning, I'm curious if you now can virtually guarantee us that you don't win?
--------------------------------
You also wrote: "While I try to be reasonable, I don't care very much if I'm loved or not. It is the first thing that gets us read, not the second."
In this thread, you seem to be putting your reasonableness in doubt. And I, too, don't care very much if you are loved or not. ;-)
--------------------------------
[1] David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth, HOW TO MAKE $100,000 A YEAR GAMBLING FOR A LIVING, 1997, p. 1.
[2] GFAL, 1997, p. 218.
[3] GFAL, 1997, p. 217.
[4] GFAL, 1997, p. 227.
[5] David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth, HOLD 'EM POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS, 1999, p. 169.
Mark:
That was a wonderful post. It made my day.
Mark wrote:
"David and you wrote: "You cannot worry about the possibility of losing a bet if the reward for betting might be to get somebody who might have otherwise outdrawn you to throw his hand away."[4]
Interesting. You recommend that your readers ignore the risks and focus on the reward, yet you believe I am the one lacking flexibility."
I usually don't look up Marks references, but since I happened to have GFAL on my desk I checked this one out. It appears to me to be a classic example of taking something out of context. I would urge readers to look at the whole brief section that sentence is in, including what is said two sentences later.
Mark, the vast majority of reasonably intelligent readers are going to know what the authors mean, and see the validity of it in context. I think you are losing the forest in your intense focus on the trees!
John,
You wrote: "It appears to me to be a classic example of taking something out of context."
You are fond of accusing me of taking David and Mason's statements out of context. It's easy to make such assertions.
The last time you made this charge, I was explaining why David and Mason overestimated the effects of aggressively betting. After your accusation, I spent a fair amount of time explaining why the quotation I cited was indeed taken in proper context and how I had, in fact, taken a relatively charitable view of their statement.
I then asked you how you would interpret what they meant to say, given the full context of their statement. You didn't answer that question. I then asked you again how you would interpret their statement. Again, you had no explanation.
Eventually, David admitted that what they had written was obviously wrong. Apparently it was obvious to David and me but not to you.
Let me ask you now, how do you interpret David and Mason's statement, given the fuller context that you believe changes the validity of the statement?
"Eventually, David admitted that what they had written was obviously wrong. Apparently it was obvious to David and me but not to you."
I suspect David just conceded with regard to your extreme literal interpretation of something, in order to be done with you on that occasion. I believe their comments as published were likely correct if taken with an eye toward their basic message, and not the most literal meaning of each sentence in isolation.
"Let me ask you now, how do you interpret David and Mason's statement, given the fuller context that you believe changes the validity of the statement?"
They could have said something like, "You should tend toward this way of thinking..." But in context this was clearly their message. Note, for example, the sentence you left out:
"So even if your aggression costs you a bet more than half the time it doesn't mean it's not the right play"
John,
Earlier, I wrote: >>The last time you made this charge, I was explaining why David and Mason overestimated the effects of aggressively betting. After your accusation, I spent a fair amount of time explaining why the quotation I cited was indeed taken in proper context and how I had, in fact, taken a relatively charitable view of their statement.
I then asked you how you would interpret what they meant to say, given the full context of their statement. You didn't answer that question. I then asked you again how you would interpret their statement. Again, you had no explanation.
"Eventually, David admitted that what they had written was obviously wrong. Apparently it was obvious to David and me but not to you.<<
After taking my statement out of context ;-), you wrote: "I suspect David just conceded with regard to your extreme literal interpretation of something, in order to be done with you on that occasion. I believe their comments as published were likely correct if taken with an eye toward their basic message, and not the most literal meaning of each sentence in isolation."
Your suspicion is incorrect. My exchange with David occurred several months after the thread I started about his error. In this later exchange, I made a short post, and David made a short reply where he acknowledged that what he had written was obviously wrong.
Furthermore, I don't ever remember David conceding a point just to be done with someone. If he gets tired of a thread, he usually just quits posting. Perhaps you could supply us with a counterexample?
By the way, instead of venting your speculation, why didn't you simply ask David about his change of mind?
Why don't you remind me what statement David acknowledged as wrong? Was it that one about betting with a hand that's probably best in second position on the end? Sure, subjected to hyperliteralism it was wrong. Most of your criticisms involve such hyperliteralism. Given that the same book that quote appears in most likely (I don't recall which book it's from.) contains a thorough explanation of correct betting on the end, it makes the error involved in an overly literal reading of that quote something only worth pointing out if you're looking for errors of the most trivial importance.
It's similar to that thing you pointed out in the "Dummies" book. The authors said something like, 'If you play as we recommend you will rarely if ever play that hand'. You pointed out that since you would play it, for example, when you get a free play in the blind, they erred terribly in using the words, "if ever".
Your posts have become an exercise in extreme literalism and logical triviality. You can pick apart quotations for tiny, meaningless errors in poker books, biochemistry books, books on woodworking, ski technique, what have you. The readers of this forum would benefit as much from such complusive scrutiny of any of those (or other) topics. But none of it helps anyone learn better poker. That (IMO) is why you get such negative reactions from so many here. I'm tired right now, and so more blunt than usual. But that's the way I see it.
John
I think we all agree that Mark is a very intelligent individual.I think we also agree that not all of his posts are nit-picking 101 (but god knows most of them are). In your post above. you were able to put into words, far better then I ever could,how a great intellect has gone astay.
Taking nit-picking to a new level, may be how Mark chooses to spend his time on the forums. I for one, would like to see Mark use his talents, posting on more worthy candiates for scrutiny.Case in point: Championship Hold'Em. Now here is a book that could use some Gloveristic scrutiny. It would greatly benefit the forum readers to see what Mark Glover has to say about many of the passages in this book. I'll even send him a copy, if he likes.
Mark's criticism about playing out of the blnds,from DUMMIES, is silly in my opinion. McEvoy's limit hold'em book however would give Mark a chance to redeem himself in the eyes of those who feel that he is just another nit-picker looking for attention. It would give him a chance to show everyone out there, that he can step up to the plate and hit one out of the park, instead of always striking out and blaming it on the bat.
***********************************
Mark
I should add that I have already stated most of my opinions on the McEvoy book in past posts. I am convinced that a Mark Glover review and debate on the forum, would be a great benefit to the poker community as a whole.
PS
Don't even think about useing your two favorite quotes in a rebuttal :-) You know the ones. The Mason one about the thought process,and the Sklansky one about learning from our adversaries.
If you choose to ignore my warning, I will be forced to break out the heavy artillery. For every Mason/Sklansky quote you administer, I will retaliate with the last two paragraphs from John F's great post above. :-)
Thank You
Howard
John,
You asked: "Why don't you remind me what statement David acknowledged as wrong?"
I think you should find what you need in my subthread entitled "A Third Chance," below. I realize you were tired when you wrote your post, so it is understandable how you might have overlooked it.
After you get some rest, perhaps you can give us an example of David conceding a point just to be done with someone. You did have some basis for your suspicion, right?
And, when you get a chance, perhaps you can ask David about his change of mind. It might save you from looking more foolish than you already do.
-------------------------
You seem to find my posts trivial. That's okay; I don't write my posts for your benefit. Each of us has our own interests and level of expertise. Some of the open-minded readers actually might learn something from my posts; your mileage might vary.
"I think you should find what you need in my subthread entitled "A Third Chance," below."
Nothing wrong with the sentence you quote, in context, read by anyone able to think just a tiny bit.
"After you get some rest, perhaps you can give us an example of David conceding a point just to be done with someone."
Any point he's ever conceded to you?
No? Oh, okay, I'm sure you're right. He's never done that. You win.
On the other hand, you say: "perhaps you can ask David about his change of mind."
Would you like me to ask him, Mark?
John,
I wrote: "I think you should find what you need in my subthread entitled "A Third Chance," below. I realize you were tired when you wrote your post, so it is understandable how you might have overlooked it."
You replied: "Nothing wrong with the sentence you quote, in context, read by anyone able to think just a tiny bit."
You say there is nothing wrong with it. I say it is obviously wrong. David (one of the authors who wrote it) said it is obviously wrong.
I wrote: "After you get some rest, perhaps you can give us an example of David conceding a point just to be done with someone. You did have some basis for your suspicion, right?"
You replied: >>Any point he's ever conceded to you?
No? Oh, okay, I'm sure you're right. He's never done that. You win.<<
So why do you post baseless suspicions, John? It doesn't make you look like a very reasonable person, and it doesn't do much to promote non-fallacious discussion on these forums.
I wrote: "And, when you get a chance, perhaps you can ask David about his change of mind. It might save you from looking more foolish than you already do."
You replied: "Would you like me to ask him, Mark?"
Perhaps you should ask him why he now thinks his statement on page 169 of HPFAP is obviously wrong. As I noted, it might save you from looking more foolish than you already do.
You took a line from HPFAP:
"You have 6 chances twice which is about 25 percent, and if you bet out as we recommend you will win a decent proportion of those times when you make a pair, whereas before it wouldn't have won."
You said:
"You say there is nothing wrong with it. I say it is obviously wrong. David (one of the authors who wrote it) said it is obviously wrong."
If you want to give me the date and forum of the thread in which he said it was wrong, great. If not, I have to conclude that it is because you know it will be obvious he was just humoring you or conceding in the context of your characteristically hyperliteral interpretation. If he truly does feel it's wrong, then maybe he's got a bit of the same hyperliteral bug that you do. But if you want to email him to inquire about it, feel free.
Anyway, let's look at the line: ""You have 6 chances twice..."
Well, I hope that's not the part that's wrong. But, I guess in a Gloveresque way it could be! I mean a "chance" isn't really a chance if it's not going to be good, thereby making it no chance, is it? But, I want to cut the authors some slack there and figure they just meant it the way it sounds.
"...which is about 25 percent..."
Was it the use of "about" that got you? Granted, you may use a different definition of "about" than most of us. But I think we need to assume they were using the standard definition.
"...and if you bet out as we recommend you will win a decent proportion of those times when you make a pair..."
Now, you might not agree with this. It may be because you have little experience betting out as described in the passage. But hear me now and believe me later, son, you really will win a decent proportion of the time! And often that will mean that you'll win with a pair that wouldn't have won had you hit it but let others with overcards to that pair stay in as a result of your checking.
"...whereas before it wouldn't have won."
Hmmm, this could be the part that pushes your button. I imagine that simple, unqualified, "wouldn't" might really bug the hell out of you. I'll bet you hear it as 'Before it simply wouldn't have won, ever. Period.', don't you? But I'll tell you what. That's just your hyperliteral ear hearing it. The authors simply meant that you'll win with a pair that often wouldn't have won has you let others in by checking - as I mentioned above. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess the authors know the pair will win sometimes even when you check.
Finally, you wrote:
"...it might save you from looking more foolish than you already do."
I freely admit to being foolish. How about you?
John,
I wrote: "You say there is nothing wrong with it. I say it is obviously wrong. David (one of the authors who wrote it) said it is obviously wrong."
You wrote: "If you want to give me the date and forum of the thread in which he said it was wrong, great."
It was on the "General Theory" forum. I'd love to give you the date, but it was several months ago, and the archives have poor search capabilities for old posts. It's just one of the flaws we have to live with on these forums. Perhaps David can help you.
You wrote: "If not, I have to conclude that it is because you know it will be obvious he was just humoring you or conceding in the context of your characteristically hyperliteral interpretation."
There you go again with your baseless speculation. You never did offer an example, did you?
You wrote: "If he truly does feel it's wrong, then maybe he's got a bit of the same hyperliteral bug that you do."
More baseless speculation? You're not looking very reasonable, John. Perhaps David isn't as blind to Two Plus Two errors as you are. There are instances where David has admitted errors.
You wrote: "But if you want to email him to inquire about it, feel free."
Are the two of you no longer on speaking terms? I'll post an inquiry for David, but he hasn't had a history of responding to my questions.
You looked at the conclusion of the erroneous sentence: "...whereas before it wouldn't have won."
And you wrote: "The authors simply meant that you'll win with a pair that often wouldn't have won has you let others in by checking - as I mentioned above."
And what would you estimate your chances to be of winning with a pair if you didn't bet out?
"You never did offer an example, did you?"
Yes, I did. You might want to read it again.
"There are instances where David has admitted errors."
Yes, I've seen these admissions. I'm not sure I can remember one that didn't strike me as just conceding that in the light of hyperliteral interpretation a comment could have been worded a little better. There may have been one, but I don't remember it.
"I'd love to give you the date, but it was several months ago, and the archives have poor search capabilities for old posts."
You're telling me that you, the poster who uses footnotes for old quotes with dates, thread titles, and so on, the most carefully organized poster on the forums, who appears to have saved all his old posts, as well as those of many others, does not have a ready reference for this post? What's happening to you??
"Are the two of you no longer on speaking terms?"
I guess you didn't hear about the coup.
"what would you estimate your chances to be of winning with a pair if you didn't bet out?"
That would only be a rough guess, but one I couldn't make without information about a number of factors in the game. And it's far too unimportant to me to put any energy into coming up with it. (The general idea is old stuff, well known as valid among good players, and I'm not going to waste my time reinventing the wheel.) But the question is, will betting improve your chances enough to make it worth it. I think that when the pot is big enough, in many games, it will - enough to make mentioning it as a general point of play reasonable. (Sometimes, IMO, a check-raise could be even better... an elaboration on the same theme.)
Now, why are we even discussing this example? Haven't we gotten away from what I first responded to you about in this thread - a *general rule* offered in GFAL?
John,
I was wondering if you gave us an example of David conceding a point just to be done with someone.
You replied: "Yes, I did. You might want to read it again."
I'd like to. Could you please cite the mysterious instance you provided?
------------------------
Earlier, I wrote: "More baseless speculation? You're not looking very reasonable, John. Perhaps David isn't as blind to Two Plus Two errors as you are. There are instances where David has admitted errors."
You replied: "Yes, I've seen these admissions. I'm not sure I can remember one that didn't strike me as just conceding that in the light of hyperliteral interpretation a comment could have been worded a little better. There may have been one, but I don't remember it."
Well, let me jog your memory a little. On pages 227-228 of HPFAP-1999, David and Mason gave an example of reading your opponents' hands where they conclude, "It turns out that there is only one hand that makes sense to be played this way. It is JTs."
I explained why that conclusion was incorrect. After taking a while to "get it," David acknowledged that the example indeed was erroneous. Do you understand why that example was wrong, John? Or are you such a "true believer" in the church of Two Plus Two that you cannot see any mistakes in their sacred texts?
---------------------
Earlier, I wrote:
>>I wrote: "You say there is nothing wrong with it. I say it is obviously wrong. David (one of the authors who wrote it) said it is obviously wrong."
You wrote: "If you want to give me the date and forum of the thread in which he said it was wrong, great."
It was on the "General Theory" forum. I'd love to give you the date, but it was several months ago, and the archives have poor search capabilities for old posts. It's just one of the flaws we have to live with on these forums. Perhaps David can help you.<<
You replied: "You're telling me that you, the poster who uses footnotes for old quotes with dates, thread titles, and so on, the most carefully organized poster on the forums, who appears to have saved all his old posts, as well as those of many others, does not have a ready reference for this post? What's happening to you??"
I'm sorry to disappoint you, John, but I don't save all my old posts. I have a pretty good memory, but it isn't perfect. And I have a news flash for you. Prepare yourself. David and Mason aren't perfect either! They are humans and are capable of making mistakes.
---------------------------
Earlier, I wrote:
>>You looked at the conclusion of the erroneous sentence: "...whereas before it wouldn't have won."
And you wrote: "The authors simply meant that you'll win with a pair that often wouldn't have won has you let others in by checking - as I mentioned above."
And what would you estimate your chances to be of winning with a pair if you didn't bet out?<<
You replied: "That would only be a rough guess, but one I couldn't make without information about a number of factors in the game."
Yet you earlier were able to proclaim: "But hear me now and believe me later, son, you really will win a decent proportion of the time! And often that will mean that you'll win with a pair that wouldn't have won had you hit it but let others with overcards to that pair stay in as a result of your checking."
Apparently you had enough information to make this proclamation but you now have insufficient information to make a rough guess at your chances of winning with a pair if you didn't bet out. Interesting.
You also replied: "But the question is, will betting improve your chances enough to make it worth it."
That indeed is the question. And how do you answer it without being able to estimate your chances of winning with a pair if you didn't bet out?
You also replied: "I think that when the pot is big enough, in many games, it will - enough to make mentioning it as a general point of play reasonable."
I agree that betting out sometimes will be the move with the highest expectation. I also agree that the size of the pot is an important factor to consider when you estimate the expectations of your various betting options.
What I don't agree with is that when "the pot is pretty big, it is almost mandatory to bet." (HPFAP-1999, p. 168.) I believe you need to weigh your risks against your potential reward and select the option that you think offers you the highest expectation. Selective aggression--not blind agression--is the path to success at the poker tables.
I notice you qualified your statement with "when the pot is big enough." So you apparently are coming down on my side of this discussion. "When the pot is big enough" is one factor to be considered when you weigh your potential reward. Right?
-------------------------
You asked: "Now, why are we even discussing this example? Haven't we gotten away from what I first responded to you about in this thread - a *general rule* offered in GFAL?"
You didn't seem to want to discuss the GFAL statement. I answered your response in the "Let's take a look" subthread, below. The ball is in your court, John.
You've covered more points than I have the time to bother with, but I'll try to hit the main ones.
"please cite the mysterious instance you provided?"
I said something like, "any point he's eve conceded to you?" i.e., I was suggesting that maybe any, or almost any of David's concessions to you were just acknowledging that you had a point on some hyperliteral, trivial level - and not much more.
"pages 227-228 of HPFAP-1999... Do you understand why that example was wrong, John?"
I vaguely remember that it was because the authors had accidentally made the pot too big in the example, such that gutshot draws would be correct in calling. I think David mentioned that it may have been copied inaccurately from an article he wrote years earlier. At any rate, any reader should be able to see that the *intended* idea was that a call with a gutshot was correct on the flop, but not on the turn. Conceptually, there was nothing wrong with the explanation. Your nitpicking to find a little counting error accomplished nothing. But as useless and trivial as it was, I will admit that that was one of your more valid criticisms.
"Or are you such a "true believer" in the church of Two Plus Two that you cannot see any mistakes in their sacred texts?"
Mark, they are not sacred. And the authors are human. (I should know, after all.) Though I can understand why you would worship books such as mine, as well as David's and Mason's. You really must take down this alter you've erected to us in your home and come to see us as fallible - not as fallible as you, no, but fallible nonetheless. Why, I would even invite you to play a little poker sometime, not as a challenge, but in the spirit of Two Plus Two poster comeraderie. Let me know if you're ever in SoCal, and I'll shake you sill...err, uhm...shake your hand and welcome you into my game. ;-)
Later you wrote: "I have a news flash for you. Prepare yourself. David and Mason aren't perfect either! They are humans and are capable of making mistakes."
There! Yes!. Keep saying that Mark, and you'll grow out of this hero worship nonsense in no time. Well, I know it will be tough to stop worshipping me. That's understandable, but the other guys... you're making progress.!
At some point you asked, "And what would you estimate your chances to be of winning with a pair if you didn't bet out?" I explained that I wasn't going to make the effort to come up with a specific estimate, but that I could assure you that often, with a big enough pot, betting would increase the chance enough to make it worth betting. I can assure you of this because in the past I did work out some estimates for things like this, and have since played enough to have developed a good enough feel for the game that it is just quite clear to me that the bet will often be right. It's similar to how one might not know off the top of one's head the showdown or simulation percentage of wins for AQs, versus three limpers, yet it is obvious to one that it's worth a preflop raise.
"What I don't agree with is that when "the pot is pretty big, it is almost mandatory to bet." (HPFAP-1999, p. 168.) I believe you need to weigh your risks against your potential reward and select the option that you think offers you the highest expectation. Selective aggression--not blind agression--is the path to success at the poker tables."
Mark, as I and others have said before, I really don' t think the authors are advocating blind aggression. That interpretation is, again, the result of reading their stuff too literally, looking too hard at one sentence at at a time. They know full well that there are plenty of times when your chance of wining the pot, even when it's very big, will be so small that betting would be idiotic. It *is* important for serious readers of their books to make sure they understand individual sentences, but it is also quite necessary to understand the *whole message* in a given chapter. In this one it simply has to do with the need to tend generally toward maximizing your chance of winning the pot when it gets quite big and you have some realistic shot at winning it.
I don't think there's much more to be said here, and I have other things to do. So I suspect I'll be finished with this thread now.
John,
Earlier I asked:
>>I was wondering if you gave us an example of David conceding a point just to be done with someone.
You replied: "Yes, I did. You might want to read it again."
I'd like to. Could you please cite the mysterious instance you provided?<<
You wrote: "I said something like, 'any point he's eve conceded to you?' i.e., I was suggesting that maybe any, or almost any of David's concessions to you were just acknowledging that you had a point on some hyperliteral, trivial level - and not much more."
Apparently you don't want to provide a specific example. If you did, I might be able to refute it. It is much better for you if you offer more baseless speculation ("suggesting that maybe") instead of facts.
A nice attempt at sidestepping the issue, John, but you still aren't looking very reasonable.
----------------------
When I earlier mentioned that there are instances where David has admitted errors, you said, "There may have been one, but I don't remember it."
So I provided you with a specific example. As I noted:
>>Well, let me jog your memory a little. On pages 227-228 of HPFAP-1999, David and Mason gave an example of reading your opponents' hands where they conclude, "It turns out that there is only one hand that makes sense to be played this way. It is JTs."
I explained why that conclusion was incorrect. After taking a while to "get it," David acknowledged that the example indeed was erroneous. Do you understand why that example was wrong, John?<<
You replied: "I think David mentioned that it may have been copied inaccurately from an article he wrote years earlier. At any rate, any reader should be able to see that the *intended* idea was that a call with a gutshot was correct on the flop, but not on the turn."
If a person read the example in HPFAP-1999 and decided that a call with a gutshot was correct on the flop but not on the turn, then that reader doesn't understand poker very well. If they had read and remembered David's article years earlier, I suppose they might have had understood the example as David intended. I'm guessing most readers of HPFAP-1999 probably don't fall in that category.
I wonder how many of these leaps of understanding you expect the readers of your book to make. Caveat emptor.
---------------------------
Earlier, I asked: "Or are you such a 'true believer' in the church of Two Plus Two that you cannot see any mistakes in their sacred texts?"
You replied: "Mark, they are not sacred. And the authors are human."
I'm glad you can acknowledge this. I was starting to worry about you.
You also replied: "Though I can understand why you would worship books such as mine, as well as David's and Mason's."
I assume you are speaking with tongue in cheek, but since you seem to blindly fall in love with your own beliefs, there also is a possibility that you might be serious.
Let me assure you, therefore, that I do not worship any books. I haven't even read your book. And, from what I hear, I'm unlikely to begin worshiping it when I do get around to reading it.
I notice you never did answer my question: Have you ever found an error in a book written by David and/or Mason?
A nice job of sidestepping there, John. Are you giving backpedaling and sidestepping lessons to Vince?
-----------------------
You wrote: "Well, I know it will be tough to stop worshipping me."
I suspect it is easier than you might think, John. I also suspect that more and more readers of this forum are wondering about how reasonable you are.
------------------------
You wrote: "At some point you asked, 'And what would you estimate your chances to be of winning with a pair if you didn't bet out?' I explained that I wasn't going to make the effort to come up with a specific estimate, but that I could assure you that often, with a big enough pot, betting would increase the chance enough to make it worth betting.
No, John. You explained that you weren't going to make a rough guess because you couldn't make it "without information about a number of factors in the game."
But you somehow had sufficient information to proclaim that if you bet out on the flop rather than check you often will win with a pair that otherwise would have lost. How much more often, John? And how often is it enough to make your expectation for betting out higher than your expectation for checking? You claim you have worked out some estimates for things like this in the past. But you appear to be reluctant to do so now, when your calculations might be publicly examined.
Another nice sidestep, John.
---------------------
You wrote: "You've covered more points than I have the time to bother with, but I'll try to hit the main ones."
It's interesting to note which points you didn't "bother with."
Earlier, for example, you noted: "But the question is, will betting improve your chances enough to make it worth it."
I replied: "That indeed is the question. And how do you answer it without being able to estimate your chances of winning with a pair if you didn't bet out?"
You ignored this question. I guess you didn't consider it to be one of the main points after all.
Nice sidestep, though, John.
---------------------
I also wrote: "I notice you qualified your statement with 'when the pot is big enough.' So you apparently are coming down on my side of this discussion. 'When the pot is big enough' is one factor to be considered when you weigh your potential reward. Right?"
Despite your attempt to sidestep this issue as well, the question did manage to rear it head once again.
You wrote: "In this one it simply has to do with the need to tend generally toward maximizing your chance of winning the pot when it gets quite big and you have some realistic shot at winning it."
How do you determine when the pot "gets quite big?" And how do you determine how realistic your shot of winning might be? If you also throw in some consideration of how much it might cost you, then I think you probably would agree that a player should estimate the long-term expectation of their various betting options.
And if players do that, shouldn't they then simply select the betting option with the highest long-term expection? This method seems more reasonable than using your expectation estimates to determined whether some threshold has been reached where you "need to tend generally toward maximizing your chance of winning the pot."
-----------------------
Earlier, you asked: "Now, why are we even discussing this example? Haven't we gotten away from what I first responded to you about in this thread - a *general rule* offered in GFAL?"
I replied: "You didn't seem to want to discuss the GFAL statement. I answered your response in the 'Let's take a look' subthread, below. The ball is in your court, John."
You wrote: "I don't think there's much more to be said here, and I have other things to do."
I guess you dropped the ball, John. That will happen sometimes when you take those sidesteps.
David,
Can you explain to John why you now acknowledge that the following sentence is obviously wrong?
"You have 6 chances twice which is about 25 percent, and if you bet out as we recommend you will win a decent proportion of those times when you make a pair, whereas before it wouldn't have won."[1]
-----------------------
[1] David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth, HOLD 'EM POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS, 1999, p. 169.
John,
I wrote: "Let me ask you now, how do you interpret David and Mason's statement, given the fuller context that you believe changes the validity of the statement?"
You replied: >>They could have said something like, "You should *tend toward* this way of thinking..." But in context this was clearly their message. Note, for example, the sentence you left out:
"So even if your aggression costs you a bet more than half the time it doesn't mean it's not the right play" << (Emphasis in original.)
Don't let Mason see that you misquoted him. ;-)
---------------------------
Let's begin by noting that neither author accused me of taking their statement out of context. If I had, don't you think they might have brought it to the attention of this forum's readers?
I'm guessing one of the authors probably is pleased that you are throwing some dirt to muddy the waters. He wasn't foolish enough to make the accusation himself, but he likely is glad you are.
The other author seems to prefer that non-fallacious reasoning go into the discussions on this forum.
--------------------------
Next, let's examine what David and Mason could have written.
What they actually wrote was: "You cannot worry about the possibility of losing a bet if the reward for betting might be to get somebody who might have otherwise outdrawn you to throw his hand away."
You suggested they could have said something like: "You should *tend toward* this way of thinking..."
Yes, they certainly could have said something like that. So why didn't they? They aren't idiots. If that is what they meant, they were perfectly capable of having written something that was more flexible and balanced.
--------------------------
Now let's look at the sentence you cited.
David and Mason wrote: "So even if your aggression costs you a bet more than half the time it doesn't mean that it's not the right play."
Why do you think this quotation changes the meaning of what the authors wrote before it?
I suppose one possibility is that you feel the above statement logically is equivalent to: "If your aggression costs you a bet less than half the time, it means you made the right play."
If the authors had made this later statement, they would have been usually correct, and I wouldn't have taken issue with it. Of course, it would have looked rather odd following their statement, "You cannot worry about the possibility of losing a bet . . ."
More importantly, the "less than half" statement is not the logical equivalent of the "more than half" statement.
Most readers probably understand why they are not equivalent, but you have stated that you don't always hold yourself to airtight logic. Or did I take that out of context? ;-)
-----------------------------
So what did David and Mason mean when they wrote: "So even if your aggression costs you a bet more than half the time it doesn't mean that it's not the right play."
At first glace, it appears to be a fairly meaningless statement. If your aggression costs you a bet more than half the time, you might have made the right play (if the likelihood that it will cost you a bet isn't too much more than half). On the other hand, if your aggression costs you a bet more than half the time, you might have made the wrong play (if the likelihood that it will cost you a bet is too much more than half).
But notice that they sentence didn't start out, "If your aggression costs you a bet . . ." No, it started out, "So even if your aggression costs you a bet . . ."
The way they worded their statement seems to suggest that they mean that "even if your aggression is risky, it's not a mistake to come out betting." Maybe it's just me, but that interpretation seems more consistent with the rest of the authors' comments.
------------------------
I'll tell you what. Let's combine the authors' statements and see what they look like in a fuller context.
David and Mason wrote: "In limit poker, if you are not aggressive most of the time when you have something of value, you are letting people play cheaply or even giving them what is known as a 'free card.' This gives them a chance to draw out on you for free, or for a small price, which might cost you the pot. You cannot worry about the possibility of losing a bet if the reward for betting might be to get somebody who might have otherwise outdrawn you to throw his hand away. You are risking a bet in order to save a pot. So even if your aggression costs you a bet more than half the time it doesn't mean that it's not the right play."[1]
It seems to me that the last two sentences are consistent with the portion I originally quoted and only reinforce the point I made in my original post. But it might have looked different to me if I was a "true believer" in the church of Two Plus Two. ;-)
I dropped the last two sentences because the original quotation already was plenty long. To you, this appears "to be a classic example of taking something out of context." To me, it's just being considerate to this forum's readers.
------------------
[1] David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth, HOW TO MAKE $100,000 A YEAR GAMBLING FOR A LIVING, 1997, p. 227.
You noted my quote: 'So even if your aggression costs you a bet more than half the time it doesn't mean it's not the right play', and said:
"Don't let Mason see that you misquoted him. ;-)"
Well, you passed the test. I left out the word, "that", to see if you would be that one person in ten thousand who would be so nit picky as to be unable to resist pointing it out, no doubt followed by a smiley to try to mask the compulsion. Passing that test tells me that respnding to the rest of your comments is pointless. ;-)
Ever notice how Mark always has to have the "last word" in these "debates."
"I then asked you how you would interpret what they meant to say, given the full context of their statement. You didn't answer that question. I then asked you again how you would interpret their statement. Again, you had no explanation."
Usually when I cease responding to you, Mark, it's because I just don't want to invest any further energy in a point that, as best I can tell, you're just not going to budge on, or are just not (IMO) "getting".
IMO, it is often a tendency toward extreme literalism that leads you to see a piece of writing one way, while most (IMO) see it another.
You may recall the one time I stuck with you through a long back-and-forth. Eventually you came to understand what David and Mason meant in the passage we were debating. (It was not, however, an instance of the literalism tendency I mentioned above.) But that was more effort than I am usually willing to bother with. That will probably include the present thread, in which I doubt I'll have anything more to say.
John,
I wrote: >>The last time you made this charge, I was explaining why David and Mason overestimated the effects of aggressively betting. After your accusation, I spent a fair amount of time explaining why the quotation I cited was indeed taken in proper context and how I had, in fact, taken a relatively charitable view of their statement.
I then asked you how you would interpret what they meant to say, given the full context of their statement. You didn't answer that question. I then asked you again how you would interpret their statement. Again, you had no explanation.<<
You replied: "Usually when I cease responding to you, Mark, it's because I just don't want to invest any further energy in a point that, as best I can tell, you're just not going to budge on, or are just not (IMO) 'getting'."
But you didn't cease responding to me, John. After I asked you the first time how you would interpret what they wrote, you responded to other portions of my post but did not offer your interpretation. After I asked you a second time how you would interpret their statement, you responded to another of my posts on that thread but still didn't offer an interpretation.
I'll offer you a third opportunity to provide your interpretation.
David and Mason wrote: "You have 6 chances twice which is about 25 percent, and if you bet out as we recommend you will win a decent proportion of those times when you make a pair, whereas before it wouldn't have won."[1]
If the authors allowed you to rewrite this sentence for the next edition of their book (or for an errata), how would you rephrase it?
-----------------------
David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth, HOLD 'EM POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS, 1999, p. 169.
John,
You quoted me as saying: "Interesting. You recommend that your readers ignore the risks and focus on the reward, yet you believe I am the one lacking flexibility."
You took my statement out of context. Please refrain from doing so in the future. If you had read my complete post, you would realize that this is merely one instance of how Mason's assertion was unreasonable. By itself, it is a mere tree in the forest. But if you look at it in conjunction with the other examples I cited, the evidence becomes more and more compelling that Mason's accusation actually can be turned against him and indicates that he can "virtually guarantee" us that he does not win at the poker tables.
Do you see how easy it is to accuse someone of taking statements out of context? Do you see how hard it is to defend yourself against such charges?
No, Mark, the way I quoted is easy to defend because a look at the rest of your post shows clearly that isolating the quote does not compromise its meaning. The only additional context associated with your footnote #4 was one previous sentence:
"You also wrote: "Why do I say this? It is because poker is a game of flexibility and balancing concepts -- this is especially true of limit hold 'em. You seem to be completely lacking in this area."
This adds nothing to the meaning of what I quoted.
In your case, you took a statement out of context in a way that did cost it some of its meaning. I think this will be clear to any reader of page 127 in GFAL.
Oh, I left out one other sentence which also adds nothing to the meaning of the quote:
"Let's consider this statement, perhaps a little more carefully than you did."
John,
You wrote: "No, Mark, the way I quoted is easy to defend because a look at the rest of your post shows clearly that isolating the quote does not compromise its meaning. The only additional context associated with your footnote #4 was one previous sentence: . . ."
Well, you managed to find an additional sentence in your 11:45 p.m. post.
But you seem to completely ignore the other statements that I have made during this thread that add a much richer context to the statement that you took in isolation. By doing so, you saw only the tree and not the forest.
nt
I can't understand the venom directed at Mark Glover: his criticism seems correct, if a bit picky.
I don't know what it means to be "The Barbara Yoon" of a forum, but it appears a lot of people are arguing ad hominem instead of trying to Avoid Fuzzy Thinking.
Doug:
I'm sorry you walked into the middle of this. Mark Glover is someone who attempts to be very destructive and negative on these forums, and most people including myself have grown weary of him. The shame is that if he was to put himself in a positive role he could probably become a valued contributor here.
Anyway, we are glad to have you aboard and hope you enjoy your stay, participate in the debates, learn a few things, and have a little fun.
Mason M
Doug,
I encourage forum readers to keep their minds open. You might have read my response to Vince, where I wrote:
"My advice is to read the authors of that statement . . . and many other authors and posters as well. Don't blindly listen to one or two of them. Evaluate for yourself the quality of the various recommendations, try to figure out why they sometimes disagree with one another, and integrate what you learn into your own understanding of the game."
I recommend you decide for yourself who are the more destructive and negative participants on this forum.
"I recommend you decide for yourself who are the more destructive and negative participants on this forum. "
Good advice.
Vince
Vince,
Easy, there, fella. Relax. Take a couple deep breaths. There you go.
You wrote: "The point Mark makes here is such an obvious 'Duh' that I'm sure knowledgeable poker players will find it laughable."
I'm glad my point is so obvious to you. I wish it was as obvious to David and Mason and was reflected in their writings.
David and Mason wrote: "This means a lot when the pot is big. The point is that when a lot of bets are in the center of the table you don't worry about saving bets. You do everything possible to maximize your chance of winning."[1]
And Vince noted: "Those of you that believe this is an incorrect way to play poker may find that Mark shoud be the author/advisor of your choice. The rest of you would be advised to to do as I do, listen to the authors of the statement."
My advice is to read the authors of that statement . . . and many other authors and posters as well. Don't blindly listen to one or two of them. Evaluate for yourself the quality of the various recommendations, try to figure out why they sometimes disagree with one another, and integrate what you learn into your own understanding of the game.
---------------------
[1] David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth, HOLD 'EM POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS, 1999, p. 169.
"Don't blindly listen to one or two of them. Evaluate for yourself the quality of the various recommendations, try to figure out why they sometimes disagree with one another, and integrate what you learn into your own understanding of the game. "
Mark,
Cut out that "easy there fella" bull. Makes you sound like that "condescending", "post here no more" author named Gary Carson. The above statement is another "duh" statement that is better placed on the Beginner's Forum where your other major point of this thread also belongs.
You don't get it do you. I made a remark in my last post about your remarks being those of "smart person" without much experience at playing poker. David answered you correctly and you wouldn't accept his answer and had to ramble on about whatever it is you rambled on about to try and defend yourself. I beleive your ego is getting the best of you "fella".
Winning at Poker is accomplished through mistakes. Mistakes that your opponent's make and mistakes that you do not make. The more complexity "one" introduces into a situation the more likely "one" will make a mistake. In some situation "blindly" following a set strategy, something you seem to hold in contempt, is the best winning poker strategy. That is almost always the case when the pot is big. David mentioned that the 2 + 2 advice is good advice for the target audience. I don't believe that you understand that audience and why it's good advice for them and not another group of players. Mid limit poker plays differently than low limit and high limit, although David could just as well have included low limit in the target audience for the advice. Well "fella" perhaps I gave you more credit with regards to your understanding of how to play poker than you deserve. I will say though that I bet you can write a damn good research paper. Well at least you are a "footnote" (is that one word?) star.
Vince
Vince,
Easy, there, guy. Relax. Calm down. Take a couple deep breaths and a chill pill. Isn't that better?
I didn't realize "fella" would put you on tilt. ;-)
You wrote: "The more complexity 'one' introduces into a situation the more likely 'one' will make a mistake. In some situation 'blindly' following a set strategy, something you seem to hold in contempt, is the best winning poker strategy."
On 29 October 1999, Mason wrote: "I believe that it is very important not to over simplify the complex aspects of poker."
Listen Gary, err.. I mean Mark silly little relaxation exercises never could settle me down. Of course I'm sure they do wonders for you mental giants. I wish I was a lot smarter then I would understand how Mason's quote: "I believe that it is very important not to over simplify the complex aspects of poker." has anything even remotely in common with my saying : "The more complexity 'one' introduces into a situation the more likely 'one' will make a mistake". Perhaps your genius will allow you to explain to one not so gifted. If not I will just have to continue to believe that what we have here is "failure to communicate".
Oh, Mark wrote:
"I didn't realize "fella" would put you on tilt. ;-)
Careful Mark, this is a very untrue statement. I know this is untrue because I know that you are very good at "realizing" things. Why most of your criticism of Sklansky and Malmuth's work is the result of you realizing something as you read their material. Boy, I can just see them "realization juices" warming the cockles of your heart when you find something you feel is not quite up to your standards in one of the 2 + 2 books. Don't feel alone. Many smart people that get into poker are very good "realizers". So next time you can drop the facade and show us all that you are a top notch "realizer".
Vince
David,
You began: "Though all bets and calls should theoretically be evaluated in terms of risk versus rewards . . ."
In practice, as well, serious players frequently should be doing these evaluations. As you know: "Poker is a game where you are constantly balancing your risk versus reward. This is true whether you are considering checking, betting, raising, bluffing, calling, or folding."[1]
You continued: ". . . as a practical matter, bets with decent hands are much less likely to be major mistakes than calls in almost hopeless situations."
I agree. I never suggested otherwise. What I did suggest was that both "calling stations" and "betting stations" usually are not playing very good poker.
I also suggested that "you need to weigh that risk against that reward and determine whether the risk is worth taking. Sometimes it will be. Sometimes it won't. Blindly pursuing the reward, however, is not the way to go." This was the main point of my post, but you seem to have overlooked it--both in your response and in the two quotations I mentioned.
You also wrote: "Thus the generalizations quoted by Mark Glover are not contradictory . . ."
I agree. I never suggested otherwise. Rather than contradict each other, the two quotations I cited demonstrate the same conceptual error. Both appear to advocate blind aggression rather than maximizing expectation.
You then proclaimed that the generalizations are "perfectly fine given the intermediate audience the book was targeted to."
I disagree. You are entitled to your own opinion, of course. But in most of the middle-limit games I play in, players generally would lose a lot of money very quickly if they followed these generalizations.
Even in many low-limit games, they would get killed if they believed: "You cannot worry about the possibility of losing a bet if the reward for betting might be to get somebody who might have otherwise outdrawn you to throw his hand away."[2]
Why should players stop weighing risk versus reward simply because a pot might be at stake?
I'm not sure why this appears to be such a blind spot for you, but it seems to have persisted for many years.
In 1976, you wrote: "If you check and allow someone who would have folded a bet to outdraw you, that is a mathematical castastrophe. You have cost yourself the pot."[3]
The result is that you have lost the pot. But if a bet by you had a negative expection, then you played soundly even if the result is a lost pot. Mathematically, it is NOT a catastrophe. Mathematically, it costs you the full pot only if you fold a hand that you are 100 percent certain is the winner--and serious players rarely make that mistake.
--------------------
[1] David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth, HOW TO MAKE $100,000 A YEAR GAMBLING FOR A LIVING, 1997, p. 226.
[2] David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth, HOW TO MAKE $100,000 A YEAR GAMBLING FOR A LIVING, 1997, p. 227.
[3] David Sklansky, HOLD'EM POKER, 1976, p. 33.
Mark wrote: >>In 1976, you wrote: "If you check and allow someone who would have folded a bet to outdraw you, that is a mathematical castastrophe. You have cost yourself the pot."[3]
The result is that you have lost the pot. But if a bet by you had a negative expection, then you played soundly even if the result is a lost pot. <<
Mark may be trying to make a worthwhile point but he is stating it poorly. It would seem hard to believe that a bet that would cause a heads up opponent to fold 100% of the time would have negative expectation.
>>Mathematically, it is NOT a catastrophe. Mathematically, it costs you the full pot only if you fold a hand that you are 100 percent certain is the winner--and serious players rarely make that mistake. <<
Notice that David isn't writing about folding he is writing about checking. Where did this statement by Mark come from? I mean it is accurate but so what? I'll let others carry on the debate if they so desire as I will not be reading Mark's response.
Tom,
David wrote: "If you check and allow someone who would have folded a bet to outdraw you, that is a mathematical castastrophe. You have cost yourself the pot."[1]
I noted: "The result is that you have lost the pot. But if a bet by you had a negative expection, then you played soundly even if the result is a lost pot. Mathematically, it is NOT a catastrophe. Mathematically, it costs you the full pot only if you fold a hand that you are 100 percent certain is the winner--and serious players rarely make that mistake."
You wrote: "Mark may be trying to make a worthwhile point but he is stating it poorly."
You're right. I did state my point poorly. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. You probably understand what I was trying to say, but please allow me to rephrase my statement so Vince can understand it better. ;-)
The result is that you have lost the pot. But if a bet by you had a negative expection, then you played soundly even if the result is a lost pot. In this case, it is NOT a mathematical catastrophe; it's not even a mathematical mistake. In David's example, mathematically, it costs you the full pot only if you are 100 percent certain your opponent would fold to your bet and 100 percent certain your opponent would outdraw you--and this is rare indeed.
--------------------
[1] David Sklansky, HOLD'EM POKER, 1976, p. 33.
Flame magnet!!!
You are right that one should weight the risk-reward ratio and maximize expectation. The authors are right that when the pot is big the risk-reward ratio will almost always favor risking an extra bet or two, either betting or raising or making a "crying" call; rather than checking or folding.
I believe there are a LOT of aspiring young players who fail to heed this advice in big pots, turning them from reasonable winners into marginal winners or losers.
- Louie
Louie,
You wrote: "You are right that one should weight the risk-reward ratio and maximize expectation."
I agree.
You wrote: "The authors are right that when the pot is big the risk-reward ratio will almost always favor risking an extra bet or two, either betting or raising or making a 'crying' call; rather than checking or folding."
I disagree.
First, in one of their statements, the authors never even mentioned the size of the pot.
David and Mason wrote: "This gives them a chance to draw out on you for free, or for a small price, which might cost you the pot. You cannot worry about the possibility of losing a bet if the reward for betting might be to get somebody who might have otherwise outdrawn you to throw his hand away."[1]
Second, even when the pot is big, betting out (or raising) to perhaps increase your chances of winning that pot does not "almost always" have a higher expectation than simply calling or folding.
As an extreme example, suppose you are in the big blind with 5h4h and see the flop come JsTs8c. Seven players are involved, and the pot contains 14 small bets. Betting out might increase your chances of winning slightly, but it's unlikely to have a positive expectation. There are many, many less extreme examples.
The same applies to "calling stations" who often would be well advised to fold their poor-equity hands, even when the pot is big.
Third, even if we momentarily assume that being a "betting station" or "calling station" often is correct when the pot is big, why should we stop weighing the risk versus reward? If the pot is big, then that becomes part of the balancing process.
You wrote: "I believe there are a LOT of aspiring young players who fail to heed this advice in big pots, turning them from reasonable winners into marginal winners or losers."
You certainly are entitled to your opinion. I believe young players should consider the size of the pot when they weigh their risk versus reward.
------------------
[1] David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth, HOW TO MAKE $100,000 A YEAR GAMBLING FOR A LIVING, 1997, p. 227.
"You certainly are entitled to your opinion"
How big of you MArk. And you certainly are entitled to your ego. No matter how big it be.
Vince.
Mark
Aside from any personal issues you may have with the authors, I think the principles you have issue with are very sound. Obviously all poker decisions should be made with calculating expectation. I myself do not do EV calculations at the table outside of figuring out how many outs I have for my draws, how many of my drawing cards might be in the hands of my opponents, etc.
Your example of becoming a betting station being almost as bad as a calling station is simply not the case. Why? Because in big pots if you have a decent hand you should do all you can to force the price up on marginal hands that may beat you. That means betting or raising with a strong hand in a big pot.
If good players start raising the "betting stations" who bet out with all their decent hands in big pots, you are usually talking about a very tough game. Certainly not something you are going to see below 20-40. And that good player raising you in the big pot might not be hurting your expectation as much as he is hurting any calling stations' (who are in the pot) expectation.
Yes, yes, yes, we know that betting into pots with made hands that have almost no chance of winning is not good. But it would be impossible for Mason and David to go through EVERY possible scenario where you APPEAR to have a decent holding but it is in fact not worth betting (and probably worth folding). So instead they provide us with a simple axiom: if a hand is good and the pot is large, bet it.
PS I have also noticed that Mason at times seems to attack certain posters either personally or based on what he perceives their playing ability to be, rather than on the merit of their arguments. I think it doesn't lend much to any sort of debate. I don't think you have to be a great poker player to have some original thoughts pertaining to poker theory (though it certainly helps). And there are certainly people who play positive EV games who don't understand all the nuances of poker theory (though they might have a slightly better EV if they did).
hetron,
You wrote: "Obviously all poker decisions should be made with calculating expectation."
I, too, think this is fairly obvious. It is too bad that some others do not.
You wrote: "I myself do not do EV calculations at the table outside of figuring out how many outs I have for my draws, how many of my drawing cards might be in the hands of my opponents, etc."
I suspect you do EV calculations more frequently than you believe. Just not careful, explicit calculations.
You wrote: "Your example of becoming a betting station being almost as bad as a calling station is simply not the case."
I think you misunderstood what I said. I never claimed betting stations are almost as bad as calling stations. I wrote, "A similar problem confronts 'betting stations.'" The underlying conceptual error is the same; the degree of the problem differs. If you understand why calling stations are making mistakes, then you should be able to figure out why betting stations also are making mistakes.
You wrote: "Because in big pots if you have a decent hand you should do all you can to force the price up on marginal hands that may beat you."
And how do you determine whether the pot is big enough? Or whether the hand is decent enough? Perhaps by weighing your risk against the reward. That's what I suggest anyway.
You wrote: "If good players start raising the 'betting stations' who bet out with all their decent hands in big pots, you are usually talking about a very tough game. Certainly not something you are going to see below 20-40."
Perhaps that has been your experience. If so, imagine how much more those "betting stations" could earn if they were more selective with their aggression and only bet and raised when that was the highest expection move.
You wrote: "But it would be impossible for Mason and David to go through EVERY possible scenario where you APPEAR to have a decent holding but it is in fact not worth betting (and probably worth folding)."
I don't expect the authors to go through EVERY possible scenario. But why not explain the concept of expectation and let your readers decide for themselves what is the best action in each of the many possible scenarios? Why not teach them *how* to think instead of *what* to think?
You wrote: "So instead they provide us with a simple axiom: if a hand is good and the pot is large, bet it."
It really isn't so simple. How good? How large?
Mark
I really can't debate any of the points you have made. There is nothing wrong with what you have said poker theory wise. I believe they are trying to get at a general point. You are right, there are very fewa absolutes in poker. But let us say the authors wrote a book detailing play of 200 or so hold'em hands, played start to finish. They describe the players they are up against, the works. Just like we post hands over on the Texas Hold'em boards. I think a point they would be making very frequently is as the pot gets bigger it becomes correct to become more aggressive because more is at stake. So more often than not a poker player would arrive at the conclusion that when holding 77 with a board of 4c7s8s the pot needs winning now, and not to go for the slow play. How large your hand has to be and how large the pot has to be is very difficult to discuss in essay form.
Teaching people how to think is hard to do without concrete examples. Do you have any suggestions about how they should go about this? My own suggestion would be to publish a book with 200 or 300 hands with detailed analysis.
hetron,
You wrote: "How large your hand has to be and how large the pot has to be is very difficult to discuss in essay form."
It is difficult to account for if you only offer guidelines. But, as Mason once noted, "I believe that it is very important not to over simplify the complex aspects of poker."
You wrote: "Teaching people how to think is hard to do without concrete examples. Do you have any suggestions about how they should go about this?"
I think a good way to start is by reading THEORY OF POKER. It isn't perfect, but it should give a serious reader a reasonable chance of understanding the basic theory that underlies expectation. Once a poker player understands the theory, they might be able to learn how to actually apply that theory to the game in front of them.
I believe there are a LOT of aspiring young players who fail to heed this advice in big pots, turning them from reasonable winners into marginal winners or losers.
In my experience, the young, aspiring players error on the other side of the coin--they pay off too much. Very few people error the other way. The ones that do, are usually...otherwise excellent players.
I play in a eleven handed hold'em 15/30 or 20/40 game. Frequently I get pocket kings and four or more will call a raise. I always raise and guess what? It seems like an Ace will be in the flop. I may lead and get at least on caller. It seems like one of the callers have the ace in almost every situation. I sometime wonder how pocket kings is a Group one hand with more then two callers. In our game we seem to think pocket kings are magnets for an Ace on the flop. I realize that the flops can contain flush draws etc however pocket kings rarely win in are eleven handed game. Does anyone have any thoughts? or comments about pocket kings?
One of the things I see posted often is the win rate of pocket A's. I think it's something like 38%. Going from there the win rate of pocket Kings is a little less, say 33 - 36%?
If you have pocket kings, four cards in the deck are Aces, I think an Ace should show up about 23% of the time. Your Pocket Kings should win at a higher rate than that though if you make it expensive to hang around.
With high pairs you need to be extra aggressive and you also have to know when to call it for the hand. If I had pocket Kings I would make it expensive for Ax to hang around hoping for another ace. Sometimes players are slow learners and you have to keep doing it before they understand it isn't cost effective to play with you when you have pocket Kings.
The rest is group think. The table talks themselves into ideas like raising doesn't get anyone out, even "In our game we seem to think pocket kings are magnets for an Ace on the flop."
I had three high sets busted last week in a five hour session. I realized afterwards that I let two of them get dominated by the way I played the hands, so the losses were my fault.
Just my opinion, and no claim to math skills or memory....
Thaks for responding to my pocket kings question
Just don't take for Gospel, I am still learning myself. Hopefully the folks who know what they are doing will give you some solid advice.
Mike
If you have pocket kings then there is a 23% chance of an ace on the flop. But if nobody has an ace then it just gets checked around and you don't lose. If one opponent has Ax then the probability drops to 18%. And if all four opponents hold aces then the probability drops considerably
Give me pocket kings every hand and I'll be very happy. Even if it seems an Ace flops all the time. As others have said an Ace will flop about 1 in 5 times so there is nothing you can do about that. What you have to do is raise evry time you have KK and get people with A-x to fold. Many players will call one bet with a hand like A-7o, however, they will fold to a raise.
When you have 4 or 5 callers and an Ace hits on the flop you have to be leary of your chances. I would still bet out and see what happens. If I have 2 or 3 callers after the flop I would probably check the turn and consider folding. If it is heads up on the turn I would still bet and hope the opponent does not have the ace.
I think you are probably having a period where KK is just not holding up as much as it usually does. I wouldn't worry about these short term results. KK is a great hand, you should ALWAYS raise before the flop. I occassionally limp with AA but I NEVER limp with KK. Maybe if I'm on the button and everyone has folded to me but even then I may still raise.
I had pocket Kings UTG the other day, and didn't raise, just to play different this time, because I always raise with KK from any position. The guy next to me raises, another late pos. calls and I "call", (not reraised). The flop comes 7h 8c Js I check, next bets, last raises, then call, call. Turn comes 5h, now we have two hearts, and strong straight possibility. I check the turn, next to my left checks, last guy bets; call and call. River card is the 9h! I check, the guy to my left bets!! to my surprise, I put him on AA. last guy calls, I fold. (?? I am not sure this was a good fold) Original raiser shows a pair of TT for the straight, the other guy shows J7d. He had two pair all alone, I was second to him, and I finished 3rd. This time I lost with KK, but I have won my bigest pots with them. I love big pairs. AA KK QQ (not too crazy about JJ, they are spooky to me). Every time I play someone will tell me: I hate Aces, I hate Kings, I can't win with them. I always answer: me too. This is just a comment about one play of mine, I am just chatting with you. I am not and expert, I am a biginner and very, very insecure. Bye.
When I started HE, I thought one raise would be enough. When that didn't chase anyone out, I thought there wasn't much sense in raising because no one would get out of the pot. Then I discovered the power of the check raise. Even players who play almost every hand realise that when you are in the pot and raising, that is is going to cost them a lot of chips to play. They then re-evaluate the strength of the junk they are playing, and usually drop out.
Think of it training children, you have to be consistant. You have to make ignoring the raise(s) painfull, and you have to be consistant.
My humble untrained opinion....
Mike: I agree 100 %
I tought this might be of interest to some of you...
02/05/2001 Business Wire (Copyright (c) 2001, Business Wire)
NEW YORK--(ENTERTAINMENT WIRE)--Feb. 5, 2001--
Fifth installment of the Internet-only series, "Chris Wallace's
Internet Expose: Poker Kings - Life at the High-Stakes Table,"
live on ABCNEWS.com, Thursday, February 8
Learn from experts how to win at one of the riskiest and most exciting card games played - poker . Much more than a card game, poker is a life-style, and the fifth installment of ABCNEWS.com's Internet -only series, "Chris Wallace's Internet Expose," delves into the world of high-stakes poker , introducing users to the legends and prodigies of this dicey diversion. "Chris Wallace's Internet Expose: Poker Kings - Life at the High Stakes Table" premieres Thursday, February 8. The Webcast will be archived so users can view it on demand.
As part of the expose, Wallace spoke with poker experts, including 72 year-old legend Amarillo Slim, and Phil Helmuth, the youngest winner ever of the World Series of Poker . During the Webcast, these two kings of poker offer tricks of the trade, tips on spotting bluffs and ways to know what cards someone is holding. Slim talks about past wagers, like the time he bet $50,000 that a fly would land on a particular sugar cube or the time he claims that Pablo Escobar kidnapped him. Helmuth discusses how he got stuck with the nickname "the poker brat" since winning the World Series of Poker at age 24.
This interactive Webcast on ABCNEWS.com is the fifth installment of a regularly scheduled series and is accompanied by an interactive poker game, culture quiz, timeline, poker terminology, ballots, tips on the game of poker , and links to related sites. ABCNEWS.com users can chat with the Webcast's guests on the following dates: Thursday, February 8 at 2:00 PM ET with Phil Helmuth
Abdul has recently posted on RGP his thoughts on poker improvement. He stated that he doesn't really have a bunch of small incremental advances, but has a series (maybe with years in between) of huge leaps forward. He discovers something new that entirely changes how he thinks about the game. He says he has recently had such an epiphany.
I don't want to reprint his essay here without permission so I ask 1) Abdul to please repost it here, and 2) for others to read it on RGP and post their thoughts on it here.
I'm interested to hear what others think about this.
Regards,
Paul Talbot
Most of the new ideas in the area of poker strategy and theory during the past 10 years have been nothing but rehashings of old ideas from the 1970s and 80s. I believe poker science reached a saturation point by 1989 and any further quantum leaps in this area from then onward has become all but impossible.
All changes and improvements from then on have been and will continue to be incremental and evolutionary. I could be wrong. Maybe, Abdul has indeed made such a quantum leap but as long as he keeps protecting it from public srutiny and judgement, we will never know.
Having said these, I believe the next quantum leaps in poker are going to be in the area of emotion mastery and control of psychology. Without these, poker theory will remain theory - never money. Poker, like sports and art and business, is mental state dependent. Only excellent mental states can mobilize knowledge of poker theory to the level of excellent results in the real world of money and competition. Feeney and Schoonmaker deserve credit for trying. But they haven't even begun to scratch the surface yet.
Only an upstart outsider, free from dogma and tradition, will be able to bring about the next quantum leap in poker. The "new order" that brought about the great quantum leaps of 1976-1989 have become the "old order", comfortable in the old ways and stuck in the momentum of their past accomplishments.
I agree that plenty more can be done in the area of emotion in poker. But I'll mention that one of the tools for dealing with emotion in poker that I mention in IPM goes way beneath the surface, and is profoundly powerful. I'll be surprised if anyone comes up with anything very soon to top it in the effects achieved, though there may be tools capable of producing similar effects more quickly. I doubt, though, that more than 1 in 10,000 readers will make use of it or even take the idea seriously. I saw one uninformed, all too quick dismissal of it already in an internet review of the book. And now I've given more hints about what I'm talking about than Abdul has about his leap. :)
Hey John, I already have your book. could you please just tell what page this powerful is on? I'm too damn lazy to re-read the entire thing. Thanks
The Professional Attitude (along with the knowledges and competencies that serve as its foundational components) is an excellent attractor around which psychological and intellectual tools can be made to be organized around. It is indeed a very well thought out and especially well-formed target towards which the poker player can focus his energies, attention, and intents.
But it can only be effective to the degree by which the player is able to implement and make it a real part of his behaviors/beliefs/values/attitudes/actions in actual play.
"I doubt, though, that more than 1 in 10,000 readers will make use of it...."
John, the quantum leaps that I am predicting are going to be in the empowering of people to actually be able to consistently manifest in their day in day out poker playing such well-formed goals as the Professional Attitude. Your having made people conscious of its existence is an important step that is a beginning of many more steps in the area of poker psychology, which is where the next great quantum leaps in poker will take place.
As I have mentioned earlier, the field of poker strategy and theory had reached it's saturation point a decade ago. Thanks to mainly to S and M, and to a lesser extent, C.
I basically agree with your comments re the Professional Attitude. I presented it as I did in the book knowing that it was really an end, and that some means was required to achieve it. I knew, though, that simple awareness of and thought about that end helps somewhat in getting there. So at least some players are probably able to take the idea and run with it on their own.
But the tool I was really referring to in the post was psychotherapy. (which was why I said there may be some tools that can create similar results more quickly) That's why I used the 1 in 10,000 figure. I suspect most players laughingly dismiss the idea of therapy in dealing with tilt or similar problems with their play. That is probably largely the result of the stigma therapy has to this day. But since tilt is an emotional reaction, it's really quite amenable to therapeutic examination.
Ed I. asks above about NLP versus psychotherapy. I can't offer much here because I have no training in and have not studied NLP. If it works as some suggest it does, then it could be impressively efficient and cost effective at achieving results. Among the more mainstream therapies it's possible that similar efficiency might in some cases be seen with some behavioral-cognitive approaches. I know there is at least one poster here who is training in NLP, so maybe he can provide more information in that area.
My own interest and much of my study was in psychoanalytic therapy - typically a longer term undertaking, quite idealistic in its goals. Often, it essentially aims to heal the whole personality from the ground up. (Or I should say from subterranean levels up.) However, it can also be applied to specific, defined problems/symptoms, like tilt, as well. In those cases the desired result may come relatively quickly. (months instead of years) I liked it because of all the mainstream therapies it has the most comprehensive theoretical underpinnings, and aims, more than the others, to address underlying causes. Like most therapies it's rack record is a bit ambiguous, due to innumerable difficulties designing and implementing psychotherapy research. (You hear of individual studies that demonstrate clear cut results for a form of therapy treating a certain problem. But over time subsequent studies may find contradictory results, and eventually when meta-analyses of large numbers of studies are undertaken, the results are often less than impressive. Even when they're not, they tend to be vulnerable to criticisms concerning which studies were included, which were excluded, and so on. The result it that to this day there is heated debate among the experts concerning which forms of therapy are effective for one malady or another.)
IMO, though, a psychodynamic (slightly broader term than psychoanalytic) therapy can be quite effective in helping with a tilt problem. One way to look at such therapies is that they try to nudge the client toward greater emotional maturity. And I would contend that the most emotionally mature people (= VERY few people indeed) have little problem with tilt, which often stems from difficulties in areas such as self-esteem, impulsivity, frustration tolerance, etc. Unfortunately this is a time when managed care and the insurance industry have made anything other than short term therapies too costly for many people. Still, even if you paid $10,000 over a year, out of pocket (say, $100 twice a week), that could be well worth it for someone tilting off a lot of money in middle limit games.
A) I am convinced that anyone who "really" turned around their lives in therapy and was "truly" self actualized would never return to a poker table again. Of course I also don't beleive that such a person exists, maybe Fritz Perls came close, so anyway my point is that I'm teasing a little here.
If you consider the amount of professional atheletes that subscribe to some type of therapy as a tool for improvement and then realize that poker is to a sport then it can become much easier to understand how some form of therapy can help someone improve their poker game.
Golfers are particularly prown to utilize different forms of therapy to assist them with their game. I beleive that positive suggestion and focus can really assist someone that has been having trouble with say their short game and seek "help" in getting past what is turning into a major problem.
I see so much emotional garbage being spewed on poker tables that I sometimes think I'm in a group therapy session more so than a friggin hold'em game. I know that recognizing that and understanding the dynamics involved are very valuable in taking advantage of a players current mental state just as you might recognize other flaws in ones game.
It is very difficult to do the above without training which depending on how far you take it may require you to "hit the couch" yourself.
NLP is a terrific tool in identifying many things. In therapy by "calibrating" a patient it becomes much easier to help someone when you know that they are say creating a scenerio as oppossed to telling you what really happenned. In this case total honesty, if there's any such thing is going to hasten the healing process so the quicker you can identify that in a patient the quicker you can help them with there problem.
Well by the same token if you are able to get a fix through similiar tactics on your opponents and I guess what I'm saying is just maybe a more advanced way of reconizing tells, then you must see the beauty and advantage you gain.
I don't want to get anymore long winded than I already have but if you would like to read a book that will open some new doors in this sense allow me to suggest "Frogs into Princes" a very early writing by John Bandler on NLP but to say the least, facinating. I was hooked years ago with this and you will find many more books on this subject that do not require that you have a PHD to understand and benefit by.
Hope some may benefit by this post both personally and professionally, Im not gonna bother editing but Im sure you'll get my gist.
My experience is just the opposite. Once you reach a certain level of competence it is slow hard work from there. This is mainly because most of your improvement will come from a gradual improvement in card reading skills which is something that I have never seen Abdul emphasize.
When I talk to intermediate players they are usually amazed as to how quickly and accurately an expert can put someone on a hand and then make an appropriate decision. This can be seen in my "Hands to Talk About" that I occasionally post. However, in my case I have been at it for over twenty years and it took a lot of hard work.
I have written on many occasions that there is no "magic bullet" in poker. (See my book POKER ESSAYS.) There are many skills you have to master and many concepts that you have to balance. With hard work these attributes can and will come together to produce an expert, and by bringing them all together is what produces top card reading skills.
There are probably a very small number of players out there who are so talented that poker "came together" for them fairly quickly, but this is the exception to the rule. The idea of quantum leaps where all of a sudden one day you say "Eureka, I think I got it" is just more of the "Let's play poker how we wished we could play it than let's play poker the way it needs to be played to be successful."
abdul said there was a magic bullet.what I got out of his essy was poker knowledge goes in flashes and should look like the bell curve if charted over a life time.But i have only been playing for 6 months not 20 years.
forgot to proof read.the first sentence sould read "Abdul said there was no magic bullet"
Could someone tell me what is the title of the thread over on RGP that has Abdullahs post?
Flipper
"Philosophy:The quantum leap"
Good Luck
The impression I got from Abdul's piece (and his response to some postings) was not that it was a "Eureka!" situation where you all of a sudden play better but rather was a conceptual realization that caused one to start thinking about the game on a whole new level, that is thinking about a whole new set of problems and sollutions that you had previously not realized were there. I think he was saying that he now has to spend time thinking very hard about poker in a new way. In fact he thought that these leaps may temporarily reduce, rather than increase earn rate until you fully understand how to utilize what has been grasped.
I think my experience has been more like what Mason describes, a series of steps where I grasp something new and then slowly begin to be able to more and more effectively use it.
Paul Talbot
Actually, I think (and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong) Abdul is relatively new to serious poker. If he's been playing for less than ten years and reached a high level, it's quite possible he's advanced through what seems like a series of quantum leaps.
With regard to full tabled limit hold'em, a real "quantum leap" could be made if they would just allow the flop bet to be the big bet rather than waiting until the turn before the betting limit doubles. In stud, when 5 cards are made available, the betting limits double. In hold'em, when 5 cards are made available, the betting limit is still the lower limit. This creates a bad situation since players with any piece of the flop like bottom pair, middle pair, gutshots, and other horrid stuff are never making much of a mistake by hanging around and taking off a card especially in a raised pot. I believe by making this correction it would more properly align the skill element and the luck element allowing the better player to experience a higher hourly earn AND a lower variance. The guy who likes to gamble can still have his fun and when he wins he gets to win a bigger pot. By getting rid of the "cheap street" everybody is happy. I know I would be since it would make hold'em less of a suckout game.
but the fish would lose at a faster rate.The variance is what keeps the fish .I think that would hurt game preservation.
I think the fish would simply get replaced by other fish. The oceans are bountiful.
Getting rid of the cheap street, what a great idea! I've never heard that discussed, I'm actually kind of giddy just thinking about the things you said would result by eliminating the cheap street.
-Dan
Hmmm... ever thought about switching to no-limit or pot-limit Jim? Wouldn't that solve most of the problems?
Regards,
Paul Talbot
Hard to find a big bet game around here in Vegas. The other problem is that the swings can be enormous and there are other factors beyond the technical that come into play in big bet poker.
JB - "Hard to find a big bet game around here in Vegas"
As I stated in another thread. I have been in Las Vegas for six years now. In that six years, I have never once had any trouble finding a no-limit/pot-limit poker game. Not once. There is life beyond the Bellagio/Mirage, you know.
Good Luck
Howard
Jim and any others:
Please don't take this personally, but I have read this argument over and over for years and the fact is that it is always promoted by people who don't do very well in limit hold 'em and who don't understand how to play limit very well. The best players, and you have named some of them in your posts, do beat this game at a very good rate.
If you changed the structure that is so highly successful, I believe that you would damage the games in the long run, and now the better players would make less than they do now. Just because pot limit players who don't know how to protect their hands and always want an easy way to do this don't preform well at limit is not a reason to change the game.
To be specific, you should be beating the games at the limit that you play for one big bet an hour. If you are not doing this, then your game can use improvement. If you think that you are playing as best as possible, and your win rate is below this threshold, then you have more work to do.
In my book POKER ESSAYS, VOLUME II there is an essay titled "Three Tears for Hold 'em." It addresses this issue and explains in more detail than I have here why this change would be bad for poker.
"...I have read this argument over and over for years and the fact is that it is always promoted by people who don't do very well in limit hold 'em and who don't understand how to play limit very well."
I don't know much about the arguments either side but, from what I read on this forum, Jim Brier clearly seems to know what he's talking about when it comes to limit HE. ...Well, I hope so, since I pay a lot of attention to his posts in particular.
There's no question that Jim is one of our best posters, and even though we don't always agree, the discussion is almost always worth while. It's just that on this one point I believe that Jim has more faith in the opinions of a few others than he should. Just my opinion and I don't have to be right.
This remains me of an argument that the late Barclay Cooke heard back in New York in the 1920s or 1930s when the doubling cube was introduced into backgammon. The contention was that the cube changed the game so much that the better players would always win and that backgammon would not be a very good gambling game. It turned out that nothing could be further from the truth. The cube added a whole new dimension to the game fascinating amateurs and experts alike. The game skyrocketed in popularity in the 1960s through the mid 1980s. Now days no one would ever play backgammon without the doubling cube. Yet there is no question that the doubling cube increased the skill factor and reduced the luck factor dramatically.
Jim:
You should know that I have an ace up my sleeve or I wouldn't get in this argument. Do you know how limit hold 'em use to be played? It's the way the game was originally described in David's Hold 'em Poker and is still described in Super/System.
In $10-$20 hold 'em there use to be just one $5 blind. The first player could either call the $5 or raise to a total of $10. Once the $10 level had been reached, any future raises had to be $10. This often produced a game where the bets before the flop were $5, the bets on the flop were $10, and the bets on the turn and river were $20. This is almost what you want and it died out a long time ago.
I have played in the structure Jim wants. It was a 15-30 holdem game with 10 and 15 blinds. If you want to see the flop its 15 bucks to go (at least) with 3 raises of 15 dollars each available. (It could cost 60 to go).
Now after the flop you can bet 30. You don't have to wait til the turn to bet 30. But you don't have to bet 30, if you just want you can just bet 15. But the next player in can call your 15 and RAISE it 30, and the next person to go can call the 45 and raise another 30, but not 15, as he must raise at least the size of the last raise. I would say in the games I played there were VERY few 15 dollars bets after the flop.
On the turn and river all bets and raises are in 30 dollars increments.
Now this game was very good and I don't feel it's in any danger of dying out. But if Jim wants this structure because he thinks it will stop the suckouts that occur in holdem, well I guess I feel he is mistaken.
"With regard to full tabled limit hold'em, a real "quantum leap" could be made if they would just allow the flop bet to be the big bet rather than waiting until the turn before the betting limit doubles"
Jim,
Limit Holdem is fine the way it is played. Please do not try and fix something that ain't broke. If you want the betting levels to change please find another name for your game. Maybe Wyoming Hodem or Alabama Holdem.But please let's keep Texas Holdem the way it is and has been for some time now. The only people that should want the game to change are those that can't beat it and we know that's not true of you. So good buddy. Shhhh!
Vince
Move to Holiday Inn, Excelsior Casino in Aruba! It's beautiful there and I'm sure you can beat the game. (15-30) But trust me on this, that structure will NOT stop the suckouts from occurring any less than where you play now. Wish I could agree it is true for you, but it is not IMO.
Very late response, but I do pick and choose in really long threads like this
Better to leave the structure as is with 2 rounds of Small bets. Its the 3rd bet in stud on 5th street.
Now if you added an ante structure to such a game then it might have possibilities. The pot would be large enough to make chasing attractive yet players can attempt to protect their hands early.
Regards
Abdul's rgp Quantum Leap post can be found here.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Is he planning on posting this quantum leap at his site anytime soon?
Siddhi Jalib is fasting right now. He must not be disturbed. I am very concerned about him. The last email I got from him was as follows:
"Poker is an illusion. It is not the game you think it is. If you see the illusion rather than the reality, you are playing the game blindfolded. Do you think that's the air you're breathing? Really?"
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
I am worried about Abdul as well Izmet. Is this what happens when you run bad in $80-$160?
It happens when you run good.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
what is the sound of one hand clapping?
So you are saying that the big secret discovery is patience?
"I can think. I can wait. I can fast."
H.H. (aka Tom Weideman)
.
Izmet, thanks for the link.
My experience is EGGZACTLY like Abdul's. I just had another poker leap two months ago and I'm still high from it.
I experienced the same sensation a dozen times as a full-time musician for ten years in the 80's, and a few times over the last year while writing. Abdul's description had me nodding away, impressed by the telling, and thrilled by the sharing.
Tommy
Tommy,
The sharing of *what*, exactly? You be a pretty good writer yourself, so meebe you could give away what Abdul share?
Thanks,
John
I don't know the specifics of Abdul's leaps because he didn't tell us.
My latest leap, which isn't really a new leap, but more like a light-bulb-over-the-head reminder of an old one, is that hold'em is a game. If I go to the card room to make money, I'm in the worst mindset. If I go to play a game, I'm fine.
Tommy
Izmet-Thanks for the link. Here is my miserable two cents on the topic.
Abdul describes very profoundly what a few of us in the mathematics community have come to call the "Ah-ha" exsperience. I've experienced it myself, and seen it happen to innumerable numbers of colleagues and students, who after putting in oceans of intense effort on a problem, suddenly "get it". My colleagues in Physics and Chemistry report the same experience happening to them and their students and I know of several folks who have had life changing "moments of clarity". While I enjoyed John F's posts above, I am curious of what our distinquished poker psychologists make of this type of experience in general.
I'm also sure that Abdul (who posts I value highly) has indeed improved through this experience. Whether or not his particular insight here would produce the same sort of reaction from the rest of us will have to wait until he shares his specific insight with us. It might not, but I for one can't wait.
I don't have much to offer concerning the "ah-ha" experience with regard to the kinds of understanding involved in poker. However, I do remember reading about it in the context of aquiring "insight" in psycotherapy. Such insight (into the dynamics of one's own functioning) is seen as sometimes coming in an "ah-ha" flash of understanding. More often it is seen to result from a slow accumulation of self-knowledge. Perhaps the same may apply to gains in understadnig of poker?
x
Yeah well I've met Abdul and I've never seen him jump out of the Magic Lantern. Besides if he were a genie he would play poker at The Aladdin now wouldn't he? Of course he does wear a turbin sometimes. Hmmmm....
vince
mom
Vinny? Was that really your mom? lol
Just wondering, how come Abdul doesn't post on 2+2? If this involves a bitter history, feel free to ignore my question or take it to email. I'm just curious.
Tommy
Abdul does post on 2+2 occasionally. He and Mason have had some big dissagreements. See Mason's essay on A-8s (in the links on the left).
I certainly wish he would post here more. I think much of what he has to say is lost on RGP both because most people there are not all that serious and because the huge volume can make things impossible to follow. I admit though that one of the few reasons I browse through RGP a few time a week is to see if Abdul (along with a few others) has posted anything.
Let's hope part of his revelation was that he needs to post his thoughts here more often.
Paul Talbot
Does anybody know where I can get some Viagra medication over the internet, without having to go to a doctor’s office?
My sheep seem not to like it.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
LOL, we'll maybe it'll get up your game so you can poke-her
I'm curious, as a trained clinical psychologist, what are your thoughts about the effectivness of NLP verses psychotherapy in the treatment of tilt maladies?
.
I beleive that NLP would be a more useful tool for reading behavior as oppossed to correcting it. In other words great for reading tells but not getting in there and figuring out and repairing why you may personalize a bad beat.
BTW, for those of you that may be interested in familiarizing yourselves with NLP find a book written buy John Bandler titled "Frogs to Princes".
See my post above that reads N/T
They are the co-founders of NLP and wrote several books together starting with Frogs into Princes. I should have known better than to go by memory, it's been almost 20 years since I read the aforementioned text, SCARY !
Actually, NLP is an even more useful tool for "correcting" behavior as opposed to just merely "reading" it.
Is it "Frogs Into Princes" by Richard Bandler?
Tom D
.
One of the major presuppositions of NLP is, "Every behavior has a positive intention and is appropriate in some context."
Thus, tilt (or more, specifically, the emotions that make up tilt like frustration, anger, desperation, etc.) is a RESOURCE not a "malady".
"Thus, tilt (or more, specifically, the emotions that make up tilt like frustration, anger, desperation, etc.) is a RESOURCE not a "malady"."
How could it possibly be any other way!
Vince
Good point, Vince. And witty as usual. And tilt can also be a resource even if it's in our own behavior - not just in our opponents'.
The key to the quick, effective, and permanent "treatment" of our own tilt tendencies starts with the presupposition that it is a resource, not a malady. It's just a matter of re-programming and re-contextualizing.
I'm not a psychologist but it seems to me that all emotions are in one way or another "defensive mechanisms" that were develpoed to protect not harm the individual. Just a guess.
Vince
And "offensive mechanisms" too. To help us to have more clarity of what we truly do want and to propel us towards those.
You find yourself playing your normal tight aggressive game against mostly reasonable players and are up a rack or two. 3 or 4 people see each flop with an occasional pre-flop raise and you rarely see more than two people at the river. This game is really tight and you are far and away the most aggressive player at the table. All of a sudden, you notice that a couple of the rocks have left and two new players set down. One is a weak calling station but the other is a happy talkative maniac.
Soon, almost every pot is raised and there are four players or more at every showdown. It is like the maniac has infected the rest of the players. I have named this phenomenon The Mirror Effect because most of the players now mirror the play of the maniac. Your good starting hands don't hold up, there is so much money in the pot that the guy that hit his gut shot was getting proper odds to call. Protecting your hand is not possible. Your two rack gain has shrunk to your buy in and you are no longer feared or respected by anyone at the table.
If you are hitting you will make three bags full but if not, watch out. I have seen this happen often and have yet been able to figure out how to handle the situation. You don't want to leave and obviously must avoid becoming the mirror image of the maniac. Knowing what not to do is a start but can anyone tell me what I should be doing to best take advantage of this situation?
Well the very last time I ran into a maniac" and he was a good one. he would say "...I can't win this hand" or I can't beat you over and over and he would keep on betting and then on the showdown or before, he would fold, hoping to sucker you in when YOU COULDN"T BEAT HIM! he had a couple other things he did too. When this happened to me I noticed that the other players started to lose control like you said. SO ...i painted a Bullseye on his back. I started talking to the other players to make him feel that no matter what he did..it was going to be me and him at the showdown and they weren't going to waste their money. When doing this, I in essence, ignored him. He left. I think because he couldn't get anybody but me to put their chips in the pot. I call that the Jesus Christ syndrome" or I'm going to save everyone from the big bad bully (maniac). After he left my table image increased from zero to hero unannounced. That in and of itself was worth $$$. So Just bear right into him. Bruce Lee always mirrored his opponents.
thanks
slim
Bruce Lee may have mirrored his opponents, but he NEVER had a weak kicker!
Caro gives good advice on tricky players at the back of his "Fundamentals" book. If he bets, you call. If he checks, you check. Don't raise. Try this out one on one at Paradise Poker. It works honestly.
Although you certainly don't want to 'mirror' the way the maniac is playing, you certainly should adapt to it.
There are more people seing each flop, and all the pots are raised, so I would suggest playing tighter. Also remember that top pair good kicker is not going to hold up nearly as often in a loose game.
Position is more important now. You want to play big suited cards on or near the button and you want to push draws hard if raising won't lose anyone.
Just a few thoughts.
-SmoothB-
SmoothB, why would position be more important than in the much tighter game?
Well, in a game like this I am, of course, going to be playing big pocket pairs as always, but I am also going to be playing more draws. Personally, when I play big draws in loose games I like to be in late position for the following reasons:
1) You can't buy a free card in early position.
2) You often get a good idea of how many people are going to be in the pot on the flop - so you can raise big draws for value. (And possibly get that free card I mentioned.)
3) If you DO make your hand, you often get 2 bets from everyone if you are in late position, whereas you may have only gotten 1 bet if you bet from early position.
-SmoothB-
"1) You can't buy a free card in early position. "
True for non-loose games as well.
"2) You often get a good idea of how many people are going to be in the pot on the flop - so you can raise big draws for value. (And possibly get that free card I mentioned.) "
In loose games you can assume you will have many players. You just don't know how much it will cost. Loose passive is nice. In tighter games you need position to tell when those rarer multiway hands might develope.
"3) If you DO make your hand, you often get 2 bets from everyone if you are in late position, whereas you may have only gotten 1 bet if you bet from early position. "
You're assuming someone bets way ahead of you and most players call and then later call your raise. I think position here allows you more often to not miss a bet when it comes checked to you OR to allow you too simply call if the betting is just ahead of you and you want the others to call.
Early position allows you the benefit of trying to checkraise.
Regards Mike N
For those of you interested a new essay by David Sklansky has been posted on our essay page. (See the links on the left.) It is called "Why (Some) Morons Do Better Than You."
What a crappy essay. I like his work but that was some pretty shitty stuff there. I hear a bit of a bitter tone in that title. It must be very disconcerting to know that some people can play poker so well merely from instinct when others spend a good portion of their life trying to learn how to play. I find the title pretty offensive (considering some of the people you're technically insulting) and I think you have some issues to work out Mr. Sklansky.
Halis I believe you are mistaken in thinking that David is being bitter or offensive. If you think David is offensive you had better stay away from most of the good players in Vegas because you would not like what they have to say, privately, about the poker playing abilities of most of the tourists that come here or even some of the locals. Furthermore, I think you should set aside your objections to his writing style and focus on the substance of what he is trying to tell us. Do you feel that there are other aspects that he has missed? Do you disagree with those aspects he is discussing?
I think I sometimes learn more from the demeanor of some folks here than the actual technical writings. The way Jim and Tommy responded to Halis' thread was so calm, you evaluated what he said, did not go for the jugular and at the end asked him to voice some specific points that he may disagree with.
I think that is the way one reads poker hands, players and are the ultimate winners.
Why use an offensive word in the title and then backpeddle away from it in the very first sentence? To attract interest? It worked on me! lol
Jim knows the Vegas scene. From what I've heard from three non-2+2 pros I know who live there, he's right about the way the regulars talk about the tourists. Well, David lives and plays in Vegas, so perhaps his tone has been environmentally acquired in the same way that a well-meaning life-guard gets melanoma.
Tommy
Why would a pro not read 2+2? Would they not read any books either? Do they think they are at the point advice or coaching will not be of any value? Just wondering.
I was curious about this statement as well. What exactly do you mean by a "non-2+2 pro?"
A full-time poker pro that does not read or write at 2+2.
what % of vegas pros (up to 100-200) would not look at 2 + 2 ? (rough estimate? ) wouldn"t those players at least want to know what others are saying about the game to get even better +ev?
I suspect that a pro's choice to come to 2+2 would be based only partly on the forum itself and largely on their degree of computer involvement. Two of the three guys I mentioned don't have a computer. The other one came here one time and didn't get turned on by the format like some of us do.
Tommy
I would expect LV pro's (and some 2+2 pro's) to take a them and us attitude. It's only natural.
That's good for the non LV player. What more could you want than to sit in a game where players are going to likely overplay their hands against you based on a wrong preconception.
Of course, the LV pros are probably correct in their thinking about most tourists. The tough playing tourist has the the best of both worlds. He plays the weak tourists, he knows how to play against typical LV pros, typical LV pros play incorrectly against him AND he/she usually enjoys their time playing (even if they lose) because they're on VACATION.
Fantastic!
That all makes sense except I think you underestimate the ability of the LV pro to correctly size-up the tough-playing tourist. I mean, that's there job, right?
Tommy
Yes thats their job and some probably do it well. Others, I suspect, fall victim to their own preconceptions and take longer to catch on.
I suppose the TPT can fall into a pro's trap as well. We play along thinking we have have the pro figured out and suddenly realize he's pushing us around based on our pre-conceptions.
Regards Mike N
What term might you use for players who "seemingly" make completely stupid moves over and over?
What Mr. Sklansky has described is the valid reasons, poker non-strategists can win and why they might be able to beat even Dr D. himself (occasionally).
I enjoyed the essay. It brings to mind, 1 player here in Vancouver who I know (and most others) know plays a solid game of poker. Often a new player will butt heads with this player somehow stimulating him to change his playing characteristics.
He changes from a solid player into a talkative, humourously abrasive guy who begins playing much less orthodox yet maintaining his grasp on postflop play. He becomes a fearsome player who can bleed you dry. He somehow elevates his card-reading and bet-timing to a high level. It's much better to let this player continue in his solid play than to come up against his Mr Hyde counterpart.
Regards
Options: live ones, soft spots, weak players, wreckless players.
Next level of offensiveness, but still below "moron" and "idiot": Dolt, bozo, clown
One could argue that "moron" is more descriptive and accurate. I'd say it's less so. How many poker players are, "an adult with intelligence equal to that of an average child of eight to twelve years?"
Tommy
I thought it was an excellent essay. Once a person acquires a solid technical foundation, which is all that is needed to beat games up to around $20-$40, this essay intelligently discusses the next set of skills needed to get a good result in bigger games like $30-$60 and above. He seems to have touched all the bases except I would think that "Hand Reading Ability" and "Game Selection" would be the most important. In fact if you think of all these skills as adding up to 100% then I would put "Hand Reading Ability" at 50% and game selection at 30% with all the other stuff worth about 20% collectively.
What I don't understand is why Mr. Sklansky is not writing these essays for CardPlayer or Poker Digest. They would get a much wider dissemination and become a more permament part of the total body of poker knowledge. In fact all of the essays that you guys write should be published in one of these magazines.
Interesting - I think game selection and hand/player reading are so underestimated as reasons some players are winning players and some are losers.
I am finding a lot of players are looking for a "poker silver bullet" you know the Sulk Vaccine for bad players. It doesn't exist. There are many facets to this game and David hit a few of them nicely in his essay.
I pray that the dedicated, studious, intelligent poker players' never get around to acquiring the very teachable/learnable mental skills (not talent - skills!) that the seat of the pants morons possess.
That was a great essay.
I find it interesting that Sklansky has provided an excellent discussion regarding the very topics that his most vehement critics accuse him of ignoring.
The reason (some) morons do better than you is very simple. Luck. Some morons have all the luck. I've seen it time and again.
natedogg
There is no such thing as luck. You might as well quit poker today if you believe that.
-Halis
If given a bell curve showing "good card" distribution to poker players what you call the people at either end of the curve.
I'm assuming here that there is such a distribution that would be best described as a bell curve.
Don't dismiss this idea too quickly, guys. In Mason's essay "How Much Do You Need" and a couple of other related essays in Gambling Theory and Other Topics, Mason takes the example of a friend of his who plays a 30-60 lowball game in LA with an expectation of +30 per hour. He then calculates that, with a 5% chance, this player could go on a two-year losing streak! Quoting Mason: "This is without a doubt one of the most disturbing statistics I have ever seen."
There are certainly players out there who, due to favorable statistical fluctuations ("luck"), have run up 2-year fabulous winning streaks. I recall that Jim Brier has written some posts saying this as well.
A while back, I ran some random numbers and graphed them as if they were poker results. They showed long runs, both good and bad. Take a look on my poker page at Fluctuations Article.
Dick
Ok, a two year losing streak is more likely due to bad play. It's entirely possible that it's just extreme probability, however over a period of two years I think that's enough sample space to say that you would be even (dealt equal good and bad hands.) Let's be realistic here.
A couple points. 1) Mason's article dealt with 30-60 lowball so the pro in question was a) only winning 1 SB per hour on average (not the 1BB/hr we tend to associate with a succesfull pro) and 2) was playing a game with higher variance than hold 'em.
That said, we must allow for one to play well and still run bad. Mason's 300BB bankroll requirement only gives a winning player a 95% chance of not going broke. This means that if we take 100 players who can all win 1 BB/hr, give them 300BB, 5 of them will probably go broke! Some of course will be fabulous winners. What accounts for the difference? It is the luck of the cards. We might not get to the "long run." If those 5 players got another stake chances are they would eventually even out their losses, but in reality, how many people who go broke decide, "hey it's just luck, I'll get back in it again!" Most would seriously question whether or not poker is something they want to keep pursuing.
Say you have a 5% chance of depleting your bankroll each year (assuming money above 300BB goes towards living expenses). How many years on average will it take for you to have a year when you lose your bankroll? By my quick calculations, after 13 years the chances of you losing your bankroll are greater than 50%. This is well within the average pro's working life (and maybe this is why few make it past ten years?). Keep in mind that Mason's 300BB figure assumes that you replenish it when it is down. Thsi means that you can't take money out for livign expenses. How many people can afford to go through extended replenishing periods without using winnngs for food and housing? Furthermore, there is nothing that "playing well" can do about it!
This could be very real indeed!
Paul Talbot
To quote the movie "Rounders": you can't lose what you don't put in the middle. I'm a NL player so my perspective might be a little different. But not getting cards is no damn excuse to lose all your money. Hell you don't even need to look at your cards to make money sometimes! Sometimes position alone can make you money (just ask Doyle.) In some games, playing like a "moron" can win a lot of money, and playing according to theory can break you. Each strategy has it's merits and each has it's time to be played. Like I've said before, I'm into theory too, but it doesn't give you the right to call people morons. You're not smarter just because you read and you don't necessarily play better by following all the rules. That's my opinion and I hope people will respect that.
-Halis
I do think that no-limit is different. The skilled player has a much higher edge.
My observations were based only on limit play.
Regards,
Paul Talbot
Halis, when you get thousands of people engaging in an activity that is so heavily influenced by short term luck, you will find some statistical deviates who are at the extremes. If you were to sample all losers over any interval of time you would indeed find that many of them played poorly but there would be some who played well but were simply unlucky.
In our game of limit poker, our advantage is statistical not absolute. In your game of no limit, I believe your advantage is almost absolute but I am not sure. Because your edge is so much greater than ours, you find that no limit games and even pot limit games are harder to find than limit games because the weaker players get cleaned out too quickly.
It just seems like we're going in circles here. People (respected people) on this forum, will talk about how you don't want to be in too tough of a game because it's so hard to win against better players. They talk about finding an easier game because bad players are so much easier to win against. One thing that sticks out in my mind is someone who said something to the effect that it's easier for a good player to beat a bad player, than it is for a great player to beat a good player. That's probably true. So there we established that the "morons" which would indicate most of the poker community in this country (as far as numbers go) cannot win. Then this essay tries to explain how the "morons" could possibly win once in a while. So from this essay we conclude that some morons do win (and big too.) But either way they can't get credit for their wins because they are "morons". Sigh. You could know little to nothing about poker theory, but if you had your head on straight and knew a few things about psychology you could probably rattle a guy even like Mr. Sklansky in a game. There's a different type of strategy to winning money at poker. It's not a grind, it's not winning 1-2 bets an hour, it's playing people. This mostly works in no limit. If you can get inside just one guys head enough, you can win all his money. You walk away with a player's buy-in, and that's how you consistently make your money. It doesn't take a whole lot of pot odds and implied odds to pull that off let me tell you. I have read a decent amount on theory and I find some of it quite useful. But it seems like people rely on it too much, and it seems like this essay is totally knocking a different aspect of the game. Maybe some of these people aren't morons at all.
Halis, If you read the last paragraph of the essay I think you will see why David labels some winning "seat of the pants" type players morons. They are not morons because they excell at skills that are hard or impossible to learn. It is because these players probably have to ability to become truly excellent poker players yet they still choose to ignore the S&M type poker information. This information combined with street smarts and other non-quantitative skills would surely make you a very outstanding poker player. it is therefore moronic for a good seat of the pants type player to ignore information that is(almost) freely available to them.
Your ending assumption, and David's, teeters on a false premise.
Example: I golf. But I don't take lessons or even practice. Does this make me a moronic golfer in the eyes of my opponents who work on their game? No, it just means I have different priorities than they do.
Just because we share a motivation to improve at poker does not mean others are obligated to do the same. Believing otherwise is a mild form of fundamentalism, the same social cancer that results in racial and religious bigotry when taken to an extreme.
Tommy
Tommy, while my conclusion may be a "mild form of fundamentalism", I still don't think it is overstating the case to label these people morons. first of all, even if you did take golf lessons you would probably still be a terrible golfer. lol. secondly, not taking golf lessons does not cost you thousands of dollars and in fact it probably saves you money unless you have the talent to hustle. The same is not true for someone who has the ability to be a good/great poker player and is not strictly there for the gamble. What would you think of a player who consistently posted an early position blind? Furthermore, unless you are filthy rich, money is precious and, if dealt with correctly, can relieve you of some heavy burdens. With that in mind I still think it is moronic, and at the very least bizarre, not to seize a relatively simple and cheap opportunity that would earn you more money. --Boris the Greedy
I've never really taken poker completly seriously and it has probably cost me thousands over the years. Does that make me a moron? Maybe. I wouldnt take a job in LA for a million dollars a year. Does that make me a moron? While I have been inconvenienced by money over the years it has not been much of a motivating force in my life and my net worth proves it. Does that make me a moron? I agree with Tommy's point. By the way, I don't mind be thought of as a moron.
I think a lot of people are taking David's word "moron" a little too seriously. One of the points of his essay is that players who don't study may not be as moronic as some of us might think.
I define a poker moron as someone who constantly makes bad plays. We're all morons sometimes. I, for one, had a particularly moronic week last week. And I live in LA.
Ed,
"I've never really taken poker completly seriously and it has probably cost me thousands over the years. Does that make me a moron? " Don't ask me.
"I wouldnt take a job in LA for a million dollars a year. Does that make me a moron? " No.
some poker knowledge is relatively cheap and easy to obtain. getting a million $ job is LA is pretty hard and for many people (such as yourself) not even worth a million $. I live in the bay area and my job doesn't even pay 100k. Does that make me a moron? maybe.
Boris wrote: "I still think it is moronic, and at least the very least bizarre, not to seize a relatively cheap and simple opportunity that would earn you more money."
I think it's "bizarre" too. It's also strange, bewildering, perplexing, odd, and weird. That is, from our vantage.
And even saying it is "moronic" doesn't bother me. That's a word that describes behavior. But MORON is a word that describes the PERSON. And I still object to it's sloppy, condescending, inaccurate usage.
Tommy
I see your point Tommy. We should all try not to use these pejorative terms unless we are really pissed off at a person.
Halis,
You are correct amundo! Circles and circles and circles are where we are going and will always go as long as the game of poker doesn't change. Haven't you ever sat in a game and wondered to yourself and maybe even out loud: "How do they do it!" maybe followed by "How come it doesn't happen to me". In part that is what David's essay is all about. That is, if in fact you are a "student" of the game.
I have done a lot of reading, thinking and discussing of poker strategy and tactics. I believe I understand how these unschooled players win but quite frankly I am still "amazed" at things that happen at a poker table. Especailly to those that I believe do not know as much about the game as I do. I also know that no matter how much more I learn and practice I will continue to be amazed at some of the winning sessions I see some players have. I am not referring only to your occaisional tourist but regular players also. Some of them I would say are very close to "clueless" when it comes to understanding the what and why of a good poker strategy. Yet they win regurarly and appear to win gobbles of chips. I know that appearances are decieving but still it makes you wonder.
I believe David has put into words an answer to a question that all of us that study poker to some degree have had at one time or another. That is: "How do they do it". Kind of the same feeling the Joker, played by Nicholson, must have felt when he uttered that great line: "Where does he get all those wonderful toys" when talking about Batman's gadgets.
Halis wrote:
"I have read a decent amount on theory and I find some of it quite useful. But it seems like people rely on it too much, and it seems like this essay is totally knocking a different aspect of the game. Maybe some of these people aren't morons at all."
Once you have committed yourself to the world of the theoretical, there is no turning back. You either proceed to play accordingly or quit. There is no way to learn to play like an uninformed player.
David, If you read this, I hope I haven't misconstrued the meaning of your essay. Of course if I'm wrong I'm sure you'll let me know.
Vince
In reality I think people are making this stuff all too complex. I began winning at poker when I realized that if you adhere to the most important of S&M's (and Abdul's)limit hold'em axioms you will win. You might not win as much as others who have mastered more of the fine points of hold'em or who have great hand reading ability, but you will win more than you lose.
The principles are this:
1. Play tight before the flop. Acknowledge the importance of position. You can use Abdul's starting hands or S&M's starting hands, it doesn't make too much of a difference. The one difference I found to be of consequence is that Abdul's starting hands make note of the fact that when opening from on the button or the cutoff you should come in with a hand that plays well heads up, not "any hand groups 1-8" like S&M reccomend. (I will dump, instead of open-raising with 2-3s on the button.) A minor point.
2. Play aggressive once you have decided to put money in on the flop. Once you have decided to take action don't dump unless you are pretty sure you are beat (and even then frequently don't dump if the pot is huge). Rarely slowplay.
3. Stick to 1 and 2 and rarely deviate.
These principles (and a lot of experience) basically have allowed me to play better poker. Do I make mistakes that players with better ideas of how to advanced poker concepts don't make? Probably. Do I sometimes get too aggressive post flop and get trapped by better players? Sure, occasionally. Are these principles absolute? No. But the point is, as David will tell you, these mistakes are not important compared to the major mistakes losing players make, namely a. coming in with too many hands before the flop b. not being aggressive enough on the flop or beyond c. putting in too many bets post flop with inferior hands and d. giving too many free cards, allowing drawing hands to beat you when you are ahead.
Now, what does this have to do with "morons" winning? The things I have mentioned as responsible for turning me into a winning player are things that I think most players who play for a long time will come to realize on their own. They may not be able to pick up on some of the sophisticated plays described in poker books, but by sticking to the basics they have deduced, they are able to win.
.
Moron.
:)
But it doesn't appear in any available dictionary as a standard word with the meaning you assume, so I used the noun form the dictionaries showed. Concision as a standard word has two etymological roots: one is Latin [concisio] leading to Old French [concision], meaning faction or schism. The other is Greek [katatome], meaning mutilation. I would prefer to use the word "concision", and some dictionaries will indicate that it is a word meaning "a state or quality of being concise" without an etymology. In other words, it is a contrived word, like normalcy.
There are some good contrived words that I think should be incorporated into recognized English: concision is one, nefarity is another. What is nefarity? The noun form of nefarious. The dictionary says it is (or should be) nefariousness. Well, if seriousness is sincerity, why isn't nefariousness nefarity. I actually submitted nefarity for consideration as standard English to the Cambridge Dictionary of the English Language.
There is no need to inform me that this fits better in other topics. I know that. I just wanted to demonstrate that my word choice is not frivolous.
"1. Play tight before the flop. "
This is relative and requires a good understanding of position and hand values. I don't know what Abdul's advice is. I know Skalnsk and Malmuth's. In fact I meorized their hand groups and recommended play from each position. I do not follow thier recommendations religiously.
"2. Play aggressive once you have decided to put money in on the flop."
This is relative and requires a good understanding off pot odds, reading hand skills, opponent styles and a bunch of other stuff. Do not play any street by rote. Consider all factors before proceeding.
3. Stick to 1 and 2 and rarely deviate.
This is the poorest advice of the three.
Vince
"1. Play tight before the flop. "
This is relative and requires a good understanding of position and hand values. I don't know what Abdul's advice is. I know Skalnsk and Malmuth's. In fact I meorized their hand groups and recommended play from each position. I do not follow thier recommendations religiously. "
Playing in almost any full 10 handed game, I follow their preflop advice pretty closely. In looser games there are a FEW hands you can get away with playing. In tighter games there are a FEW hands you should muck more. Mostly, if you come across a game so tight that you have to play tighter than S&M standards, the best advice is to change games.
""2. Play aggressive once you have decided to put money in on the flop."
This is relative and requires a good understanding off pot odds, reading hand skills, opponent styles and a bunch of other stuff. Do not play any street by rote. Consider all factors before proceeding. "
This is only relative when playing heads up postflop. But most poker books do not really address playing against only a single opponent after the flop. This is where experience comes in. Multiway pots and large pots require aggressive play, especially when playing made hands.
"3. Stick to 1 and 2 and rarely deviate.
This is the poorest advice of the three. "
Vince, no way. You can play different styles in no limit poker or tournament poker and be successful. You play any way but tight-aggressive in limit poker and you will probably not win. You can tweak things here and there to adjust to certain tables or players, but these are only tweaks. Overall the tight aggressive style is the only way to go in limit poker.
Halis,I think David has put you on tilt here. You are missing something. You said:
"I have read a decent amount on theory and I find some of it quite useful. But it seems like people rely on it too much, and it seems like this essay is totally knocking a different aspect of the game"
I don't see him as knocking the aspect of the game he attributes to the non-bookreading players. Quite the contrary. If he says these are the reasons they win, he is giving it high praise. I am inspired to work harder at those things or open up to the possibility that they dwell inside me if I am open to it.
As to the choice of David's discriptive words, such as morons, that is just David being David. Get beyond it and get the essence of what he is saying. It is very good.
I thought the essay was excellent. It's point was to show how players who seemingly don't know much about the game do better than they seemingly should. There were tips galore about what those of us who are above the "moron" level can do to win more as well. And, as usual in David's essays, there were other things to stimulate thinking about one's game.
For example, David said, almost as an aside, that a good player can dominate a bad player more easily than a great player over a good player. I have found this the key to winning at hold 'em. I don't fear one or two great players in my game, even though I am not a great player. I do search for one or two bad players. This was not as easily accomplished when I played draw becuase you could sandbag so you never really knew when a good player was out of your way.
He also pointed out that errors can cancel each other out. This is a very interesting concept, not just for bad players, but also, I believe, as the opposite principle for good players. For example, if two players go up so many levels so that they put in many raises with two weak hands, the result is that the hand is played out as if two morons played the hand.
In addition, David's writing style, IMHO, has improved tremendously. Actually, I should say I like his writing style much better now. He laid out his proposition, listed his reasons for why he felt the proposition is true, and explained all of those reasons. I find this much better than simply saying someone else's writing is a waste of time, not giving any reasons or logic behind saying this, and saying all you have to do is to get into a person's head to put them on tilt and get all their money.
Everyone in this thread is, at best, a moron. Maybe worse, a sub-moron. Me not included. Have a nice day.
Include me out!
Well, you know you're a moron Poker Veteran. You're more judgemental than Sklansky. By the way Mason Malmuth posted twice in this thread. So sorry Mason but Veteran seems to think you're a moron too. But thanks for the constructive remarks Veteran. Now maybe you can tell us about your nuts and how you flop them on the table blah blah blah. If everyone posted stupid shit as much as you I think I wouldn't even come back to this site. Ok moron? If you want to get childish then you can't even compete with me.
What do you mean "sub" moron?
I don't live underwater!
Ohhh! I don't know much about subs. Well, you're right there. .... Unless you mean sandwiches.
Uh, my head hirts. better lay down now ....
Mason's "Ace-8 Suited Under the Gun" essay discusses why a hold'em simulation might erroneously conclude you should raise (instead of fold) A8s in early position. Of course the simulation was probably just wrong and there is no need rationalize it. But I would like to clarify Mason's "poker logic" by contrasting it with game theory.
Mason discusses playing when your decisions affect your opponents' strategy. For example, he suggests not always stealing the blinds if this will alert a weak player and cause him to start defending. Similarly he suggests if you start raising with A8s then opponents might change their strategy to beat you. If this were true in the original simulation then the simulated opponents were simply not playing well. In a true equilibrium you can't increase your profits with strategy deviations even if your opponents don't change their strategies in response.
Another example involves bluffing. People often say weak-tight players should bluff more because they will subsequently make more money on their real hands. This may be true if other players react by calling more. But this explanation presumes unprofitable bluffs will recoup money on subsequent hands. There is a simpler game theoretic reason why weak-tight players should bluff more - because they can profitably get away with it. In other words weak-tight players fail to make bluffs that would make an immediate expected profit. In this case there is no need to make assumptions about future hands.
There is another difference in these "poker logic" examples. Mason's examples avoid profitable loose plays because bad tight players will profitably respond by becoming looser. But the bluffing example suggests unprofitably loose bluffs to encourage opponents to become too loose. Perhaps there are other examples where you make deliberate mistakes to encourage opponents to play too loose or too tight in order to accentuate their mistakes.
It is the cyclic nature of things that has determined that an this forum is experiencing an increase in flame. I am asking that you do NOT initiate these unpleasantries, and that when someone flings these unpleasantries at you, do not respond likewise.
Lets practice: "You are a right-wing whacko politically 'correct' gun-toot'n feals-right-is-right femi-moron baffoon who can't put two neurons together and who would last about as long as 2-year old crossing the freeway if you were to meet me at the poker table." See? go ahead and snicker at me but there is no reason to respond.
Lets practice some more: "So, you're the idiot?"
- Louie
PS. Flame says more about the source than the target.
Flamers are IMO the people who can't get to the other side of the MIRROR!!!!! They keep bouncing back to the same spot, never progressing, just standing still. They say basically the same thing to every situation that they flame. Redundancy is their specialty!!!!
I agree FLAME OFF or _____!!!
paul
Note that these attacks are often done anonymously, and, increasingly, under the identity of another poster.
I agree that the best response is no response.
n/a
A big pet peeve of mine is when a solid player get mad at a fish and starts to give the fish a lesson in poker.This makes the fish tighten up or worse leave.this not only hurts the solid player but also lowers my E.V .comments?
matza....be nice to the fish
ps. this is a problem everywhere but I see it alot in vegas.
Suppose I am on the button in a low limit HE game and there is just one limper which is the worse calling station of that world ; who play any suited cards , any connector , any ace-anything , anyface-anything and even worse while he's winning .He will call all the way with any pair . A bet or a raise from him usually mean the nuts (when he recognize it ) . SB and BB and typical player . What to do with : 44...I would fold , 88...I would raise , A3suited...I would raise , A3off...I would raise , JTsuited...I would call , JToff...I would raise . I would play those hand the same way if the calling station wasn't there except I would raise JTsuited . Any comments ?
Always been intrigued by hold'em, read Lee Jones' Winning Low-Limit Holdem'em recently, been applying the principles at Pokerroom.com.
But there's a problem, I think. I've never played at a 'table', just watched ($3-$6). When playing or 'practicing' at Pokerroom.com I'm wondering if I'm doing myself more harm than good because there isn't any real money involved. In essence, 'players' have an unlimited amout to 'wager' with thus can theoretically raise, raise....with pre-flop cards they have no business playing. I've been holding my own folding when I should, playing when I should, but I'm concerned with my negative attitude when I'm 'beaten' by someone that really shouldn't be 'playing.' Should I just take this site for what it's worth or abandon it and sit down at a table and learn by experience, playing time?
Play money may be beneficial for the novice playe simply as a means to get used to the game and practice some basic things. Furthermore the ability to beat play money games is a neccesary but not sufficient condition for playing ral money games. Anyone who can't rack up the chips in play money through a very basic simple strategy will never win at real money. If you win at play money you might not win at real money, but if you can't then don't bother putting real money out there. (Notice I said "ability" to beat the play money games. Of course you don't have to go through a play money stage to win at real money games.)
Once you get comfortable with the game and can play based on what you think are correct decisions (can you explain why you make every play you make?), then go ahead and play some real money games. You can start off very cheaply on-line in games such as Paradise's $0.50-$1.00 games. Here, even though the money is chump change, people to play as they would at any low limit table.
You should get beyond play money as soon as possible, but one word of caution. If you get upset when you get sucked out on at play money tables, you probably shouldn't be playing for real. The suckouts still happen only they cost you real money. You have to be able to deal with them.
As an aside. I think that Lee Jones is a great intro book, but there are a few errors and (like Jones says in the book) don't try his gameplan at the mid-limits.
Good luck, send $50-$100 into Planet or Paradise and give the mini-stakes tables a try.
Paul Talbot
You are right that you may learn sloppy strategy in these practice games. However, you also get to learn basic mechanics about the game, such as understanding that a flush requires 3-suited cards on board, a full requires a pair on board, a stiff Jack isn't worth much when there is a 4-flush on board, and what it appears to mean when someone who has been calling suddenly bets.
Once you know you've got these mechanics down then consider moving to real games for reasons you suggest.
- Louie
I've been thinking about a few things I have discussed with Tommy, and I think a point he made in the Sklansky essay thread really brings it home.
It is true that poker, except when played in a 'zen' mode (which, as in most things in life, is not easily obtained) incorporates ego. Also, to some extent, it is a zero-sum game, discounting the rake. You make a terrific play, I lose, you win. You catch a case card, I lose, you win. On the surface level, there is an equal and opposite reaction to any action.
I was thinking about Tommy's point about how it is a person's prerogative (sic?) to not study, and we cannot fault them for that. For instance, if I am playing a pro-am with David Duval, and I knock one stiff and birdie, I'm going to get a smile, a wink, and a 'nice shot,' even though I played my round at 22 over par.
Ideally, I would approach the game as Tommy does. My game is improving, though I still have holes you could drive a nuclear arsenal through if I'm playing with the wrong mindset.
I don't know what the hell my point is. I think that I want to not view poker as "me vs. them" or "sharks vs. fish," I just see poker as being a war, if not of egos, of information, stamina, etc. where there are indeed casualties, and while I envy it and would like to obtain it, the notion espoused by Tommy, which is that everyone gains something at the table, escapes me.
Comments??
Dan
Hey Dan,
It's a great subject. Say hello next time you're at LC or AJ's....
Matt
I think one has to understand why he plays the game, the you can proceed - personally I like to play in the best game available - meaning the game where I have the best chance of winning the highest percent of the time - not the biggest game available or the loosest game available but the best game for me. I play for the money really nothing else, not ego, not practice, not warfare just the money. I grind it out - at the best table available.
Ego is tricky word. It's a balancing act. Ego is essential as a motivator to improve, but it can also hamper improvement, and devastate performance.
Tommy
Your in a game of HE and you have AA , you raise preflop and bet all the way , your headzup on the river and you are check raise by an average player , you fold , you suppose that he has hit a 2nd pair or a str8 . Which one of those options will have the best psychologic effect ?
#1 : Throw your hand without to show it . #2 : Show everybody your AA . #3 : "I got air with my AK , you might beat me" and throw your hand without to show it .
Your best psycological response is to CALL.
#2 is almost always a disaster unless the game is perfect AND you plan to CALL the rest of the night. #3 is probably the best; but it would be even better to SHOW one of the Aces and toss your hand without a word. Let THEM conclude you have no-pair.
- Louie
Thow up on the table! Bet he'll think twice about playing against you again.
Vince
There's a lot more to showing a hand than showing the cards. Hours after hour I accumulate more info on other people's hands than I could ever remember or use, without even trying. They talk, they shrugg, they lay down unworried about having been bluffed, on and on it goes. And I haven't seen a card.
I think the best and only way to insure winning the information war is to not only never show a card, but never indicate anything at all when mucking.
Say I've got AA and flop an ace and lose to a 3-2 that had no pair on the turn and made a staight on the river. I pay off, he turns over his hand, and I muck face down without a peep or a gesture. Now, obviously everyone at the table knows I had his 3-high beat before the river, right? Does it matter what I had? Well, yes, it does.
If I show the AA, they know all sorts of things. They know I stopped raising after such and such number of bets. They know I didn't call-down with a shakey hand, this time. But the MAIN thing is, they know I got rivered, but they see no pain and no fear. Next hand.
Now let's say I've got a monster draw on the turn and I'm calling along. I make a pair on the river, a guy bets, everyone else is out, and I'm last to act. I call. The guy turns over a higher pair and I lose. Showing or indicating these types of hands is a HUGE mistake, IMO. It isn't so much the short-range info that matters. It's the sum, over time, of info revealed vs info acquired. It's so easy to win this war. All it takes is NON-action.
Tommy
x
"I think the best and only way to insure winning the information war is to not only never show a card, but never indicate anything at all when mucking."
Tommy, Tommy, Tommy, come on son. You are a poker player! What's the operative term for "poker players". Why of course that term is: "It depends". Are you now trying to tll us that you have found an absolute in poker strategy. Never show! Never, never never? Well I beg to differ my good buddy. In fact there are many situations that I will show and announce my hand. But I am just a lowly nobody a bore ans Randy E. has so succinctly stated. What do I know.
You and Sklansky and Malmuth and Glover are the supremo el supremos of poker lore. Oh let's not forget John (see you on my couch) Feeney and Abdul the magic lantern holder and , I could go on and on about the poker AUTHORities here but I'm hjust jealous and don't know anything so Hasta la Vista baby!
Vince
Vince,
Are you being silly or mean? Lumping me with S&M and Abdul and Feeney is one or the other.
As to never showing, I meant that literally. I show maybe two or three hands per year, only under the most unusual circumstances where ethics calls for it.
Tommy
I'll show the Royal Flush (none last year) and the occasional quads/str8 flush. Just can't help it.
"Are you being silly or mean? "
I'm never mean.
Vince
First of all, you should be calling with this hand. But if you insist:
#1 will keep 'em guessing,
#2 will encourage them to bluff into you more in the future (or even encourage them to run over you)because now they may be thinking that you're weak,
#3 will probably convince them that you have AK or AQ and that you're the type who is willing to bet all the way with nothing but overcards. This move will probably generate the most action in the future once you have the nuts.
You should show your hand everytime when...you have Aces full of jack and you lose and there is a bad beat jackpot . " Don't forget !"But I hope you allready knew that ...
[By the way, "quanta" refers in physics to the smallest measurable phenomena; strange how the word has come to mean large or even gigantic advances]
One thing that doesn't seem to get mentioned much and bears repeating. The online poker sites have a tremendous source of fantastic data on just exactly what sorts of hands people actually do play. Every book, article, etc. to date must rely, to some extent, on approximations of what players call with, raise with, etc. This data, on the other hand, is the absolute nuts and amounts, or at least should amount to, a revolutionary advance in understanding the poker environment.
So if the poker public at large can't see this stuff (and it almost seems unfair that this sort of info can remain cloistered away), it can at least ask who does have it, and how does it affect their game.
"[By the way, "quanta" refers in physics to the smallest measurable phenomena; strange how the word has come to mean large or even gigantic advances]"
It is not the size, it's the method of change. "Leap" is the opeartive term.
Vince
In common metaphorical usage, even Max Planck's discovery of "discrete energy packets" in 1900 was itself a quantum leap. In the context of human epiphany, the leaps don't have to be big. The idea is that the space in between is not traversed.
I like that usage, and also "evolutionary" in referrence to those changes that come by small steps, building cummulatively on what was before.
Tommy
$3-$6 Paradise hold 'em game and I am dealt KK UTG. I raise, and the two players to the left of me call, while everyone else including SB and BB fold. Flop comes 6 6 4. I bet out believing that players calling a raise in early position won't be holding a 6, unless it's pocket 6s, which I believe is still unlikely, but not out of the question in low-limit, let alone low-limit on Paradise.
Anyway, I bet out for 2 reasons: I believe I have the best hand still, and I REALLY want to know if I'm up against a set. Is betting out the right move here when I'm first to act? Both players call.
4th street is a 10, so the board is 6 6 4 10. I bet out again for the same reasons. (Again, am I right here?). I get one caller. River is J so the final board is 6 6 4 10 J, and I bet out again. He calls, I show KK and he mucks.
I felt I was ahead the whole hand so I bet aggressively. I think this the correct way to play the hand but would like some comments/critiques on situations such as betting to see where you stand and not giving free cards when you hold a crackable hand such as a pair. Thanks
CB
I think you played it just fine.
I will always bet out with big overpairs until someone gives me a reason not to. Sure, I get trapped every so often, but the bets I collect by leading out more than make up for it. No reason to give free cards.
When you bet out on the flop and both players just called, they are most likely on a straight draw or possibly a small overpair.
Of course there is a chance they are slowplaying 6, but you can't put them on it. The T on the turn doesn't change much and the right thing to do is bet out. The J on the river doesn't change anything either and a player holding T, J or smaller pocket pair will call so a bet on the river is good also. Many times, they assume (hope) you have AK or AQ and make a bad call.
You can never assume someone didn't call your raise with trash, but you can't always play as if they did.
Your KK worked out better than one of mine on Paradise last night. I 3-Bet KK when UTG raised. A player to my immediate right cold called 3, the BB called 2 and UTG called 1.
The play of the hand was not important, but the player on my right turned over Qs3s for the winner on a runner runner wheel. 3 Bets on Q3s?? Needless to say, I was very happy to stay at that table!
I ended up winning $300 at 3/6 in around 4 hours.
Can some of the experts out there tell me of any book that shows the odds or how to compute the odds in drawing in HE? I have DB's Super System, Krieger's and SM's HEFAP. But the odds listed or calculated in these books are quite limited. As you can see, I'm really interested improving my game. Thanks in advance!
Mike Petriv's "Holdem odds Book" or something like that is pretty good. I gave mine away but it explains alot. Mostly highschool math, but it works.
Regards.
Let's say you're one of the "moron's" that David Sklansky describes in his new essay. Though uneducated, you are a winning high-stakes player who has been responsible for hammering back down to the middle limits many an educated, studious, and intelligent player in your lifetime.
Secure about yourself, your abilities, and your track record, you can't even remember the last time you let ego get in the way of making good game selection decisions.
With a high threshold for pain, you play your best game always because you almost never go on tilt.
A master of down to earth streetsmart psychology and berating table chatter, you're very adept at getting others on tilt, and making them play very badly despite the fact that they are experts.
With high levels of concentration and presence of mind, you are great at reading a person's state of mind, perceiving tells, and deducing his hands from his previous actions.
Finally, like an uneducated but quick witted grocer, your quick accurate instincts allow you to have a good feel for numbers and to consistently come up with the correct tactic in the heat of battle.
You are successful and you know you are successful. Your track record and your hefty bankroll prove it! So much so that you don't care about reading poker books. Why should you? You already are successful. Besides, you "DON'T WANT TO FIX WHAT AIN'T BROKE!". I mean, why mess with success, right? To hell if you only made it to Grade 3! It's the money that counts!
My question: Let's say you're the above described "moron" - you're in his shoes, sitting in his chair, and living his life. How would you respond if told, "You don't read poker books. That makes you a moron" or "You are a moron because you don't know logic and poker theory" or "You don't avail yourself of relatively low cost information (like books and the internet) that could make you a winning player. Because of this, you are a moron."???
Tell him, "Nice hand, well played" as he shows his 27s that cracked your pocket aces on the river when he hit the deuce to give him two pair and goes on to explain that he had pot odds or implied odds or super-duper reverse implied pot odds or some other babble that he got out of a book.
Your "moron" in this instance is not a moron at all. Why you made him a winner and intelligent one at that. How can you argue with ""DON'T WANT TO FIX WHAT AIN'T BROKE!". If he follows that philosophy then he will never need to adavance in theory. Of course I wonder if this "moron" of yours exists? Id oubt it. Also, if he does exist and doesn't read poker books why and or how would he read Davdi's essay?
Vince
The thing is Vince, this kind of player, taken to the extreme, is Doyle Brunson. Doyle didn't have theory that people like Sklansky put out now days. But he is a revered poker player even still. To respond to George Lind, do you really think a person that plays like this and wins regularly relies on 72o??? You don't have to read Theory of Poker to know to fold 72o preflop (I didn't.) The best player is the kind that takes his innate talent and street smarts, reads a few books and takes some of the better suggestions, but then sticks to his style. That is the most dangerous type of player. It's a style of play I try to base my own on.
The 72 in my example was suited. So there. Heh.
The book reader in his example seemed like the kind of person who would feel the need to explain his intelligence to everyone instead of just playing well. That's all I was implying.
In the essay, David Sklansky says that they, in fact, exist but that they are a "fluke". And he is obviously fascinated (frustrated?) with them in some way or else he wouldn't be writing about them.
Very well said JAWZ.
I just started playing a year ago, so I have been reading the books. They help me a lot and have accelerated my improvement as has this forum. I am also finding out that there is nothing like experience.
I wish I had the smarts that those "morons" do. I am getting there, but it will take a while.
These people do exist, but generally they are only good at one game (and sometimes at one limit/structure).
What specific steps can the "moron" take in order to become good at all games instead of just one? How can he transfer his well developed intuition from this one game into other games? How should he deal with his resistence to deliberate academic learning of poker theory?
And now to the other side of the fence. Do you know any players of the studious type who have been able to effectively acquire the skills/talents of the "morons"? How were they able to add these largely intuitive skills to their current arsenal of poker theory mastery? Did the mixture of the two skill types produce conflicts in their games (for example, science says fold but intuition says raise)?
Good game selection will handle that :-)
Good post. Of those players I fear, THE common trait among them is that they have no pain and no fear.
Tommy
Have you ever had the chance to talk in depth with some of these players that you fear? Are there any beliefs about life, money, the game, bad beats/losing streaks and themselves that they have in common that somehow makes them fearless and have high pain thresholds?
I can speak as a 'Moron'. Do I have fear? Not a whole lot. High pain threshold? Off the scale on that one, pain is relative, dicipline is *everything*. It doesn't much matter the limit/no limit - the cards don't change. People do but the cards don't and you can always count on that. "Counting": everyone does it, they just don't realize they are. If you are aware you have been 'counting' the cards at a black jack table you will be rewarded with chips, and chips don't always mean money - I suspect that falls under gambling theory somewhere. Knowing how the cycle of cards hit in HE, Omaha, Stud, even crazy pineapple is something you realize you can call out at any given moment. High hand cracked with Q3o? You should have seen it coming two ways: the player and rotation of the cards. I had zero knowledge, read no books, watched no video's et al prior to 'gambling' which runs the gammut from the stock market, horses, dice, anything played on the felt. Yet I made good money. I had no idea what a bankroll was, mine started at $30. I rolled it up to the tens of thousands and kept enough to keep playing - never knew it was called a bankroll or that I should have X amount for particular structures of limit games. Got called a 'natural' at first then others starting calling me a pro. Excuse me? I'm just doing something I have fun at, test my knowledge of a Masters degree in life & common sense. Common sense tells me what the other player is holding, and how to play my hand. Common sense tells me when the house is taking too much of my money in a particular type of game. Common sense wins me mini-bets all the time with friends etc. "Bet ya $5 that guy is gonna jaywalk in front of that cop". Look at him - his body language, dress, manner of walk all tell you he could give a drip if there is a cop there or not just looking for jaywalkers. Then you bet if the guy is gonna give the cop some lip service. Bet again if he is going to get a ticket or not. You win everytime because you are, and I can't stress this enough, FOCUSED. You can be laughing and still be zeroed in, you can be watching the cars as they go by and still be dead on with the jaywalking scenario. I suppose thats the same with us Morons. Why did I say "Yet I made good money"? Past tense. I did what other players told me to do - started reading books figuring it would improve my play. I couldn't have been more wrong. Skim the parts that plug the holes in your game, yeah, then its worth it but 'play by the book' just screws up what kept you in the stack. Anyone that doesn't know me scoffs at the fact I've never lost any money in any gambling. Heres the deal: Dicipline. I have a limit I will lose at a table then walk away, go home. Take some time for mental replay then go back a few days later, scrap for hours to get back my loss limit plus the house rake, then off the table no matter how good that AA looks. Sorry, I'm racking my chips and muck the hand. I *know* that hand is going to get cracked so why play it? I had one hellufa 'losing' streak yet never lost a dime and got free meals to boot, oh, I always took a bit more for that nights gas money too. Call me a Moron all you want, fear me if you have to (your choice) but know I'm doing what I want to be doing at that time.
Yes, I talk constantly with them. The commonality they share is that they are all Asian. I've learned enormous amounts about asian cultures in that last few years. By and large they have a more detached, rational outlook on gambling than white guys. I've come a long way in making their view my own, and I think that's why I am more feared than fearful around here -- the no-pain-no-fear thing that I'm learning from the far east.
Tommy
Thanks, Tommy. I'll start a new thread.
About 3 weeks ago, I asked RGP and 2+2 to complete an online survey about playing poker on the internet. (There was actually quite a lot of discussion about my methodology here.) The following are the results. Thanks to the over 200 respondents.
~~~~~
61% of respondents play poker online for real money.
Comments: A higher number than I expected, actually. This by no means indicates that 61% of poker players in general play online, of course. Still, with the amount of noise made about how unsafe online poker is, 61% of poker players on the internet forums still do it anyway. A silent majority?
~~~~~
Reasons cited for not playing poker online: (Those who play online poker were asked to ignore this question.)
Comments: The clatter of chips and the feel of the cards is still the #1 reason people head to the casino instead of playing at home. A very interesting result is that more people abstain from internet poker due to distrust of the casino than of the other players. We will see that while collusion is the #1 concern to players, the combined concerns of the casino having its house in order is actually greater than fearing the actions of other players.
~~~~~
Only 17% of players engage in non-poker gambling on the internet.
Comments: And I would venture to guess that a lot of that 17% is sports betting. This probably wasn't the most informative question to ask, since many strong poker players have the discipline not to play in -EV games. The next finding sheds a little more light.
~~~~~
91% of respondents have purchased an item over the internet.
Comments: The cries that transmitting your credit card number over the internet into the hands of an unknown business operator was foolish are mostly gone. People now seem to trust the reputable online retailers. The online poker industry certainly has to be happy about this, but there exists a huge discrepancy between people buying things over the internet and poker players willing to gamble money with it. It's something they clearly need to work on.
~~~~~
Respondents were asked to name their primary concern about online poker. The results:
Comments: No doubt about it, collusion is the runaway #1 concern. Even with the recent maelstrom about cashout problems, cash flow is not as big a perceived problem to players as collusion.
~~~~~
Respondents were asked how safe they felt online poker was compared to casino poker.
Comments: Probably not a good sign for the industry. Only 31% of players feel as safe or safer online as in a casino. We will see a result later which contextualizes this 31% somewhat.
~~~~~
Collusion is a:
Comments: Interesting, because everyone who has anything to say on this issue seems to be in either the "big problem" or "not much of a problem" camp. "Silent majority" definitely applies here.
~~~~~
Hacking/electronic cheating is a:
Comments: The most evenly-split result in this survey. More people are concerned about this than I had originally thought. Note that while we discovered earlier that only 8% of players felt hacking was the *biggest* concern, 63% of people are still concerned about it. It's just not their biggest concern.
~~~~~
How well is the industry addressing safety concerns?
Comments: A positive sign for the industry. Normally a 74% customer satisfaction level for a business would be quite bad, but in an industry where a lot of people have an automatic distrust going in, IMO it's not too bad at all. The most positive thing for the industry is that while only 61% feel safe enough to play online, 74% feel the industry is at least doing an acceptable job addressing concerns. This indicates potential for growth.
~~~~~
How can the online poker industry best gain or maintain your trust?
Comments: Again, collusion is the #1 focus. The fear of security breach is still omnipresent, however. "Associating with trusted poker experts" scored higher than I thought it would. Remember that while 13% is not a big number, it indicates over 1 in 8 players think that this is the *best* way to gain/maintain that player's trust.
~~~~~
13% of players said they would never trust online poker.
Comments: Well, is this a good or bad sign? To lose 13% of the market due to an inherent bias is unfortunate, when this market obviously plays live poker. But still, assuming this 13% is a completely lost cause to the online poker industry, there still exists a discrepancy between this and the 39% of respondents that do not play online poker. This means 2 out of 3 players who do not currently play online could probably be convinced one day to play online.
Comments welcome.
Comments? Fagettaboutit! Great Job Terrence. Now if you could only cook!
Seriously, Terrance, I din't take your survey and can't add much to the results. I find the results not surprising by the way. The nature of the internet does not allow for safety in this area. The very method of accessing the internet, the telephone, is the colluders unbreakable tool. Couple the privacy of the home or access place and anything could happen. I suppose that heads up matches may be the only way of being sure their is no player collusion going on. Unless of course the players were Malmuth and Sklansky. They never can get anything right. Hey, could you see that. Mason would be on the phone with David while each sat in front of the video screen. Mason would ask David: "David I have a K,2o with a flop of A,K,6r what's my best play? David with his pocket Queens, replies: "Fold". Mason: Thanks Dave, let's play another hand".
Vince
I suppose that heads up matches may be the only way of being sure their is no player collusion going on.
Yes, that's the only way to be 100% sure. It's unfortunate the rake is so prohibitive in heads-up play. Actually, that's not so bad for me, because I get to say that I don't play heads-up online due to the rake, conveniently overlooking the fact that I'm a horrid heads-up player. (Ask Izmet.)
Welcome back Terrence. I took that survey, despite the methodology. What about the comments portion? Anybody have any interesting comments? Did Neal Ross respond?
You should post more here by the way.
Regards.
Did Neal Ross respond?
Actually, he and 300 U.S. Navy Seals invaded the vantagenet server in an attempt to shut down my illegal Mafia survey.
You should post more here by the way.Will do my best. I try to have a life though. :)
I have always enjoyed the content on this board. I much prefer the readability of Usenet though. Also there was the time someone posted a lot of crap using my name, and the administrators chose to look the other way. I was less than impressed by that.
"Actually, he and 300 U.S. Navy Seals invaded the vantagenet server in an attempt to shut down my illegal Mafia survey. "
I think I saw a clip of that on CNN.
"Will do my best. I try to have a life though. :)"
Oh the life of a fugitive....
"I have always enjoyed the content on this board. I much prefer the readability of Usenet though. Also there was the time someone posted a lot of crap using my name, and the administrators chose to look the other way. I was less than impressed by that."
Yes I guess that would wear you out.
Regards.
"I have always enjoyed the content on this board. I much prefer the readability of Usenet though"
The thing I really enjoy with 2+2 is the poker content. The 3 hold'em boards and tournament boards are almost all discussing of hands and strategy. I find RGP full of so much fluff and not as much real poker discussion. Way too much flaming goes on in RGP.
Oh well, keep on posting on both boards!
Ken Poklitar
Terrence, thanks for doing all that work. The results were interesting, but maybe I wasn’t too surprised by anything.
I do not think it is correct to infer that since 61% of the respondents say they play internet poker for money that 61% of the players on the forums do. Maybe the playing group was more inclined to answer the questionnaire. Maybe vice versa (I doubt that). Even if it is not a random sample, after seeing the result of your poll, the percentage playing is still probably higher than I thought it might be.
I enjoyed your trip reports. It was almost like being there. Kind of an Internet vacation.
Maybe the playing group was more inclined to answer the questionnaire. Maybe vice versa (I doubt that).
When I posted this survey the first time, there was some discussion which way the results were skewed. There seems to be little consensus on this. Maybe a stats professor could shed some light.
Even if it is not a random sample, after seeing the result of your poll, the percentage playing is still probably higher than I thought it might be.
I enjoyed your trip reports. It was almost like being there. Kind of an Internet vacation.
Thanks! I liked writing it, too.
They would just say that the answer to your question is contained in thier book "Theory of Poker"
;)
Thanks for an excellent survey.
The "primary concern" numbers are interesting: 47% for collusion and only 14% for insolvency, the same percentage that cite "house fraud." I doubt that anything could prevent a new site from blowing the players' deposits on an advertising campaign about how their site is "collusion free" and more aggressively policed, etc., in the hopes of recouping the money from new players, and if it doesn't work, oh well.
I care a lot more about adequate capitalization and cash reserves than I do about software in this business.
I need some help. Assume you hold two suited cards (let's say 2s3s) and on the river you make a flush (you were magically wisked away to the river somehow neglecting the action on the flop and the turn). How do you calculate the probability that ONE of your opponents has a flush? How do you calculate the probability that AT LEAST ONE opponent also has a flush.
For clarity: you hold two suited cards, and on the river the board contains exactly three cards of your suit. You have 9 opponents on the river. I don't want the probability of this, I want to know how to calculate the probability of these two situations (events). Thanks in advance.
You have two hearts, there are 3 on the board and there are 2 other cards. This means there are 8 hearts left in a deck of 45 unknown cards. Lets assume no opponent ever folds any suited hand.
The chances that any one opponent started with two hearts is 8choose2 divided by 45choose2 which is [(8*7)/2]/[(45*44)/2] 56/1980 = .0283 (2.83%); or the chances that this opponent did NOT is .9717. The chances that all 8 opponents did NOT start with 2 hearts is very close to .9717**8 = .7948, or 79%. So the chances that at least one DOES have a flush is a little better than 21%.
Exactly one opponent would be 8*.0282*.9717**7, where any one of 8 has it and the other 7 do not.
[Yes, these caculation ignore the fact that if one opponent doesn't have 2 hearts it ever-so-slightely increases the chances that the next will. My wild guess is that this would increase 21% to about 25%.].
Live considerations: There are about as many Ax and Kx flushes as there are Jx or smaller flushes, meaning a Qx flush (or the 3rd nut flush) is an AVERAGE flush. While loose players will play every suited hand, selective players tend to toss most of the small ones.
More interesting would be if you had a straight and the 3rd suit hits the river. Then there would be 10 hearts left in a 45 card deck.
- Louie
I understand your method and I like the last point you made. Understand that I wasn't going to use these numbers to change my postflop play, but to increase my knowledge of probability theory. My problem was the one you pointed out about if one opponent does not have two hearts then it increases the chance that the next opponent will have two hearts. The only qualm I have with your method is that it is an educated ballpark, as you pointed out. I guess I should have clarified that this was strictly an excercise in probabilities, not a consideration on playing baby flush cards.
I think the problem with this question is that the probability question is never a "straight" one at the table, but a conditional one.
http://www.math.ohiou.edu/~just/WINTER250/cond1p.htm
The slightest bit of information about the action completely changes the probabililies so drastically that the "cold" numbers are almost just a piece of mathematical curiosity.
My point is is that the probabilites we will calculate here will be fairly low, but if you keep them in your head, they will probably just be used to justify calls and raises that were better left unmade.
Zooey
I understand this, I just wanted to know how to do it. I would never play my hand based on some cold probabilities, but this problem will give me a better understanding of probabilities, not poker.
I just happened to run into a poker quiz which cover this question. Here it is:
"In a nine handed game, how often will another player be suited in your suit.
Answer--about a third of the time
"The probability of a given player being suited in your suit is (11*10)/(50*49)=.0449 (4.5%),so the probability that a given player is not suited in your suit is about 95.5%. Which means the probability that none of your eight opponents is suited the same is .955*.955*.955*.955*.955*.955*.955*.955=.692. A 69% probability that nobody is suited in your suit means that a 31% probability that someone is"
Hope this helps
Actually, that's what I thought but I wasn't positive. 1-(1-p)^n, where p is the probability of your oponnent being suited. That answers the question of the probabilty of any player being suited given that you are suited, but what about the probability that exactly one player is suited? Is it as simple as making n=1?
I've never had to consider this. I know without doubt, that if I have a King high flush, one of the three remaining players in the hand has Ax suited...
I don't know if this would apply, but I read in one of the poker mags a while back, that if you are on the ignorant end of a straight, you will lose two out of three times. It should be about the same for a flush at least for most purposes.
Just a couple of quick questions (assume your opponents are typical):
1) What is the smallest ace and smallest pair you will open-raise with from late-middle postion and late position (before the cut off)?
2) What is the smallest ace you will defend your BB with against an open raise from middle position and late position? (assuming that no one else has called)
-Thanks
All of this varies according to what the raiser can have and what he thinks you'll call with, but assuming "typical" means "unknown,"
1. AT/77
2. Probably A8 for both, lower for the cutoff and button
"It doesn't matter what limit you play at. The correct play is always the correct play." - Doyle Brunson (RGP Post)
Played in a home game last night. Loose, wild and wooly. Game is 7 stud, hi-lo no declare. I'm last to act with rolled up 10's. I'm up against a pair of J's showing under the gun and several obvious low hands including a 3rd J. On the last card the dealer accidentally rolls it up giving UTG the case J. He claims "no mis-deals in poker" and decides to roll all last cards up. I get no help and muck not being able to beat the board.
When I play at my local cardroom and a card is exposed, they burn it and deal the next card. What should be done in this case?
I've seen this in Atlantic City. If there are two players then both receive the river up and they can bet normal. If it is multi-way then the player whose card is up has the option of betting or playing "as if" he or she was all in.
I raised utg w/ pocket aces, mid position re-raises, 3 PLAYER COLD CALL! Flop comes 2s 2c 3s. I bet, 1 call, one fold, late position raises, I reraise. This player loves to raise on draws. I put him on something like AsKs. All other players fold. Heads up on the turn: 2h I bet(?) he raises. I take a few moments to think and he says "Don't call me". I have found that in most low limit games when players say this they have a hand. I was still considering calling when HE SHOWS ME HIS HAND! .....10-2 OFFSUIT! Should I have played this hand differently?
Sorry, I just realized I posted this on the wrong forum. Meant to put it on small stakes.
Sorry, I should never post first thing in the morning. I capped the betting pre-flop, everyone called. Assuming he didn't show me his hand, should I have called? I was worried about 33. I was planning on check calling him all the way, and betting if an ace fell.
The only way you lose that hand on the river is if he has the case deuce. If he had not shown you his 10-2 offsuit, you have to make the call---too much money in the pot not to call. Here's the good news! This opponent not only plays a bad hand, but he saves you one big bet by showing you the nuts. What a nice guy and a terrible player all rolled into one. These are just the type of players that make poker so profitable. Play at this guy's table whenever possible. You will get the money!
Hi- I am trying to create an excell spreadsheet to keep track of my poker records. I have several questions. First off does anyone have a sample excell sheet that they use that can be posted for download or sent via email?
I mostly play various limits of HE as well as 7CS
What stats are important?
I was planning on using: date, hrs played, win/loss, total hours, total win/loss, hourly wage and either std dev. or variance.
my questions....
what is more important and which is in terms of dollars the variance or the stdev?
do I need to include anything else in the above stats such as which game or limit I play?
Since I play a several different limits should I keep track of win's and losses in terms of bigbets or dollars?
Lastly can my results from HE and stud be mixed together? What about when I play 3-6 HE and average 2 BB/hr then play 10-20 and only average 1BB/hr do I mix those together as well.
sorry for such a long post. Thanks
I keep on Excel the date I played the time, the casino, type game 7CS, HE etc., Limits 3-6, 5-10 etc, Hours played, win/loss for sessions, total cumulative hours and total cumulative win/loss, Average win per hour per session and cumulative. If you keep the data you wna tin separate columns then you can use the sort function to sort by whatever you want to look at. I usually copy the "raw" data to a separate workbook and sort there. Hope this helps.
We all know that as a race, the Asians are probably the most dominant segment of the poker population. They are obviously very dominant in the tournaments as shown by the fact that 4 of the top 5 players in Nolan Dalla's Tournament Player of the Year list is Asian. And 2 of the past three players that made it to the top of that that list are also Asian.
Spencer Sun, Scotty Nguyen, David Pham, Men Nguyen, An Tran, Hieu Ma, Kevin Song, are just some of the many Asians who have made a name for themselves in tournaments.
And live games too! Yosh Nakano, Marlon Santos, David Chiu, and Johnny Chan are just a few of many who've made it there. It seems like everywhere you look at the top of the poker pyramid, there is an Asian who is excelling.
What is the secret to their success? Is it cultural? If yes, what specifically is it in their culture that makes them good gamblers and poker players? Why do they learn very quickly (even though on the outside at least, they don't seem to read the books much - or at least this is what they say in public)?
What beliefs - about life, the game, bad beats/losing streaks, themselves, learning, risk, money - do they share that has empowered them to become very dominant in today's poker environment?
In short, what SPECIFICALLY can we learn from the top Asian players at the environment level (the when and where)? behavior level (what they do)? capability level (how they do it)? beliefs and values level (why they do what they do)? identity level (how they perceive themselves)? community/spirituality level (how they perceive, family, community, God, and life as a whole)?
There are clearly things that our Asian brothers and sisters can teach us about how to win in our favorite game. For this, I believe that these are questions worth asking.
"We all know that as a race, the Asians are probably the most dominant segment of the poker population."
According to my almanac, in 1998 the popluation of Asia was 3.529 billion out of a world population oof 5.927 billion, about 59%. And these are just the asians in Asia. I expect that "asians" dominate a lot of populations.
"What is the secret to their success?"
Something to do with being 59% of the world.
If you think this is anything more than useless overgeneralizing, substitute the term "white players" for "Asian players" in the following sentence, and pretend it's 30 years ago:
"In short, what SPECIFICALLY can we learn from the top Asian players at the environment level (the when and where)? behavior level (what they do)? capability level (how they do it)? beliefs and values level (why they do what they do)? identity level (how they perceive themselves)? community/spirituality level (how they perceive, family, community, God, and life as a whole)?"
"According to my almanac, in 1998 the popluation of Asia was 3.529 billion out of a world population oof 5.927 billion, about 59%. And these are just the asians in Asia. I expect that "asians" dominate a lot of populations."
Asians make up some 4% (perhaps even less??) of the U.S. population. Thus they are no where near the majority (they rank lower than Blacks and Hispanics, by a big margin), not in this country. I contend that even if they were far fewer Asians in the world than some 3.5 billion, Asians would still dominate the realms of academia and poker, among other disciplines. Read my other posts to see why I feel this way.
Furthermore, I don't know the real numbers, but the total amount of Asian poker players (in this country) is probably far less than the total amount of white poker players (in this country). If this is the case, then I believe your conjecture fails to explain the disproportionate number of highly successful Asian poker players, in addition to the disproportionate amount of Asians in Ivy League Schools, among other things.
"If you think this is anything more than useless overgeneralizing, substitute the term "white players" for "Asian players" in the following sentence, and pretend it's 30 years ago: "
As some once said (he is a regular poster here, and a top notch poker player), this is not quoted verbatim, but the gist remains intact, I believe: "There is nothing wrong with stereotyping. It is only when a person adamantly sticks to his original hypothesis in light of new, contradicting evidence, that stereotyping becomes detrimental." Think about what's he's alluding to. Food for thought, if nothing else.
"It is only when a person adamantly sticks to his original hypothesis in light of new, contradicting evidence, that stereotyping becomes detrimental."
I agree. The problem is that too many people still stick with a hypothesis that "Asians" are a culturally unique and unified group, which is silly, and that their culturally uniqueness and unity so influences the actions of all asians that it can be tied to the success a handful experience at poker, which is sillier. A lot of poker players also come from Texas, so I guess we could have an equally productive discussion debate about things unique to Texas and try to tie them to poker strategy. It's dumb.
Several east asian cultures have an affinity for gambling that is stronger than mainstream American culture. Hence more gamblers per capita, and more expert poker players (and more bad ones too). That's as far as you're going to get with this discussion.
That Asians succeed at tournaments has no bearing on my thoughts about them pertaining to poker. That's because they are statistically prevelant in the poker world, so there are bound to be some "two percenters" who do exceptionally well.
In the thread that sparked this one, JAWZ asked me if the handful of players that I fear have a common trait. My revised reply:
The commonality they share is that they are ALL Asian. I've learned enormous amounts about asian cultures in that last few years because asians comprise 70% of the player pool where I play and I now have many asian friends and we talk about everything, including our differences.
By and large they have a more detached, rational outlook on gambling than white guys. They don't suffer from entitlement. They win or lose, and go home. I've come a long way in making their view my own, and I think that's why I am more feared than fearful around here -- it's the no-pain-no-fear thing that I'm learning from the far east.
Tommy
The absence of fear is one characteristic that I have noticed about many Asian players. They can be getting absolutely crushed in a limit game and yet they remain calm,cool, and collected. They enjoy winning as much as anyone but losing does not seem to bother them much. I believe this is the main reason why so many of them are such good poker players. The arguments about their percetage of the world population are interesting ones but I don't think they really explain why as a group they are so successful. Speaking from ignorance, I believe that successful tournament players and big bet poker players have this same strong mental attitude.
Maybe what you say for asians who play tournaments and big-bet poker might be generally accurate, but at the low limits in california(where there is a very big concentetion of asian players),asian players get just as pissed as everybody else when they lose. Maybe even more so since they are often so hyper-focused on luck, often cussing out dealers in english but more often in their original language. "This bad dealer for me, no lucky. Kill me every time! I no likey this guy."
""Maybe what you say for asians who play tournaments and big-bet poker might be generally accurate, but at the low limits in california(where there is a very big concentetion of asian players),asian players get just as pissed as everybody else when they lose. Maybe even more so since they are often so hyper-focused on luck, often cussing out dealers in english but more often in their original language. "This bad dealer for me, no lucky. Kill me every time! I no likey this guy.""
Yes, I agree with this. No matter what race or nationality you are from, chances are that he/she is a bad poker player, period (given no other info, such as if they have read poker books, 2+2, etc...). And like I've stated before, I've seen plenty of Asians who loose their cool at the table. It's not something I'm proud of, but it is something I openly admit/ acknowledge, unlike some people, :-)
In general, they are terrible poker players, they are gamblers, they are very emotional, and they are good to have at the table. In general , they are like every one else, and you must judge them by their playing skil, not but their race. As far as how do they win big tournaments some times, well, they just get lucky, that is all. Do they win all the time? No. IMHO.
80% of the top 5 tournament players in Dalla's list are Asians (I'm certain that the number of Asians buying in to all tournaments can't possibly approach 80% - meaning, they win much much much more than their share).
2/3 of the people who have made it to the top of that same list for the past three years have also been Asians. I think that there is more to this than luck.
More importantly, there are things that we can learn from these role models. What distinctions do they know that we don't? What beliefs do they share? What's the key to their fast learning and emotional resiliency?
For the record, I agree that all races are born equal, genetics-wise. But the fact that Asians win more than their fair share shows that there is something in their childhood environment and culture that makes them more able to master the intellectual and emotional skills that make great poker players. What are those factors and how can we make them our own?
I don't think these numbers hold actuarial water on their own. First, we'd need to know the percentage of entrants that are asian. Second, if the same asian names keep showing up at the top (I don't know if that's the case), that doesn't mean that asians as a whole are more successful at tournaments than non-asians. It means certainly that some of them are.
"What are those factors and how can we make them our own?"
I think they have a culturally developed sense of finality. When a card comes that beats you, well, it comes, it came, get over it. They do that well. That allows them to be like a pro golfer after hitting one in the lake, bearing down and looking forward, not back.
Tommy
Sounds like what the Zen people call "mindfulness" - a mental state characterized by a total absolute focus on what's going on in the here and now(right here, this second!). It's an attitude that literally screams out and says, "As soon this 'now' has become 'a split second ago', it's gone and done with forever(though still subject for re-examination - for the sake of 'learning from experience' - at a later time once one has extricated oneself from 'the heat of battle')".
"More importantly, there are things that we can learn from these role models. What distinctions do they know that we don't? What beliefs do they share? What's the key to their fast learning and emotional resiliency?"
Here's one among many (distinctions): It has to do with Asian culture mentality, namely, they believe that "success" is accomplished, rather than being some "intrinsic" property. Thus, Asians believe that a 40% intelligient person who works 100% hard will be "smarter" and "more successful" than a person who ranks 100% on the intelligience scale, but only works 40% hard. The end result of this philosophy is that Asians in general work harder than their American counterparts. To Asians, hard work = success. Of course this is oversimplified, but I'm sure you guys get the gist of what I'm saying.
In general.
"For the record, I agree that all races are born equal, genetics-wise. But the fact that Asians win more than their fair share shows that there is something in their childhood environment and culture that makes them more able to master the intellectual and emotional skills that make great poker players. What are those factors and how can we make them our own?"
I know I'm probably going to be shunned for say this, but it ought to be said. I don't believe that all races are born equal, genetics-wise, at least not in some physical attributes categories. This is why in one of my posts I said "(in any non-physical discipline)". I find it amusing that people rarely have a problem admitting the, in this case, genetic / physical differences between males and females, but hide under the media stressed Political Correctness shield (a la Mike Caro) when it comes to acknowledging differences between races.
Is it true that males are (generally) taller than females? Yes.
Is it true that males are (generally) heavier than females? Yes.
hundreds of other examples exist.
Now, consider this one. Are Japanese males shorter (in general) than Swedish males? Yes. I am going to make the (as some would call it audacious) claim that even if dietary difference were normalized, Japanese males would STILL continue to be shorter than Swedish males, albeit the difference would probably be less than what is observed today. And this difference will still exist so long as cross-breeding does not exist / continue, else the gene pool of the Japanese people would be injected with Swedish genes.
Here's another one: Blacks, specifically, those of Western African descent, tend to have higher amounts of fast twitch muscles fibers than their American counterparts (or any other culture in the world). This is the reason why they dominate so strongly track events (all the sprint events). On the "absolute" scale, this difference is indeed "small", in the magnitude of some 5-10%, but this 5-10% is all they need to dominate the sport indefinitely (again, so long as bi-racial marriages remain a minority). Notice I said "those of Western African descent," rather than "Blacks" in general. This is because the latter statement simply is not true. For Blacks of Eastern African Descent do NOT dominate the sprint events, but rather they dominate the endurance events (a la long distance running). Blacks of Eastern African descent have a higher count of slow-twitch fibers, which is what is used primarly for those endurance events (5k's, 10k's, marathons, etc...)
Genetic born differences specifically regarding intelligience was recently "hyped-up" (a la The Bell Curve). IMO, it is certainly PLAUSIBLE that there exist differences in IQ (albeit SMALL). Again, this could be simply caused by the gene pool of differences races. It is my strong belief that differences in physical attributes among races is far stronger than ones of intellect. Thus, although we may never see a white world record holder in the 100 meter sprint, a white guy with the right work ethic will crush an Asian guy (in terms of success, etc...) who chooses to be lazy.
And no, I am NOT a racist. I am far from it.
"80% of the top 5 tournament players in Dalla's list are Asians "
Does that mean 4 of 5? Maybe their partners.
vince
Whenever I'm in a game with all asians and one other white guy (often), and all the asians are cool and the white guy is whining away (too often), and the white guy busts out and leaves (very often), and I know all the asians by name and they all know me (very very often), I get some giggles when I remark on the departed white guy with, "He makes us white guys look bad."
Tommy
"and one other white guy"
Is that like a really "white" guy or one like me? I'm not sure if I'm white or what. I'm of Italian decent but was born and raised in the U.S. I wonder if I'm now all white or what? Do you think it affects my poker playing. Being white, I think, I mean.
Vince
I like "white guy" as the standard reference. No one uses any other adjectives at the poker rooms. Funny story . . .
A couple years ago this young guy played with us for a couple weeks. He was a white guy all the way. The phrase got used a couple times, and he asked if he was a white guy, and added, "I'm Jewish."
On either side of him were two Palestinians. Everyone but him knew it. They rolled their eyes toward him without moving their heads and everyone was snickering.
Eventually we talked it out, and determined that yes, he was a white guy, because white guy means a guy without a heavy accent and olive skin that has European descent, or something like that.
The cool thing was, where else but at a poker table near San Francisco can Jews and Arabs be a foot apart and laugh at their differences? Gotta love it.
Tommy
But aren't most novice players down at the low limits hyper-focused on luck regardless of what race they belong to? What I've noticed, though, is that the Asians get over this habit more quickly and move on to become disciplined players once the excitement of being new to the game has subsided. IMHO.
"The absence of fear is one characteristic that I have noticed about many Asian players. They can be getting absolutely crushed in a limit game and yet they remain calm,cool, and collected. They enjoy winning as much as anyone but losing does not seem to bother them much. "
This might be true, but I'm not sure of it. I've seen plenty of Asians go on-tilt, at least emotionally. Whether or not they choose to let that affect their play is another story altogether. I personally belong in the first group, and not the latter. Namely, I sometime express my frustration emotionally at the table, but I never start loosening up preflop or whatnot because of my current emotional state.
"Do as how I play, not as how I act" (that's my version, anyway). :-)
"The absence of fear is one characteristic that I have noticed about many Asian players. "
Ah, thoughts that myths are made of. What we have here is a race of the "fearless". Is that "super human" or "sub human". Depends on you own feelings of superiority I guess.
vince
"The commonality they share is that they are ALL Asian. I've learned enormous amounts about asian cultures in that last few years because asians comprise 70% of the player pool where I play and I now have many asian friends and we talk about everything, including our differences."
One thing I would like to add here. I feel it is critical to be consciously aware of the fauls and shortcomings of one's own culture/race, as well as those of other backgrounds. For example, being Chinese, I am well aware of the notorious tendency that Chinese people are some of the world's biggest gamblers, if not THE biggest gamblers in the world. Most of it stems from the area of Hong Kong specifically, but the trait still remains very strong in the likes of China, Taiwan, et al...
I believe there was a recent(?) article written Michael Konik (maybe not him?) on how the Chinese gamble huge amounts of money (relative to their yearly income) in casinos in Hong Kong and the like. I recall reading it online somewhere...
This trait ("huge gamblers") is not something I am proud of. In fact, I am DOWNRIGHT ASHAMED my fellow Asian (Chinese) acts this way. It is illogical, and embarassing. Furthermore, Asians (perhaps Chinese mostly, but I'm not sure of this one) are also well known for their believe of superstition. Again, this is another attribute that I would like see disappear. But is it something I hide (this ackowledgement)? No. I have a close friend who is white. He, on the other hand, fails to acknowledge many (most?) of the shortcomings of white people. That is one (among many) differences between he and I, but that's another story altogether...
Tommy, have they (the Chinese ones, at least) admitted to my above mentioned things (of being very superstitious and of being huge (i.e. "retarded" gamblers))?
"By and large they have a more detached, rational outlook on gambling than white guys. They don't suffer from entitlement. They win or lose, and go home. I've come a long way in making their view my own, and I think that's why I am more feared than fearful around here -- it's the no-pain-no-fear thing that I'm learning from the far east."
This I don't agree in. See above. Another thing I would like to add. When I see an Asian player sit down at my table, I don't immediately label him/her as good, simply because their Asian. The correlation is simply not strong enough (read: greater than 50%). In my (limited) experience playing poker, "all" players are bad, including the Asian ones that sit at my table. Thus I use that as my starting point in gauging their playing skills. It is only after I get some time to view how they play do I adjust my original hypothesis in light of new evidence. I see just about as many Asians who can't play Hold'em worth a lick as I see white guys do the same. So just because one of my opponents is Asian, doesn't mean I go running for the hills! :-)
" . . . have they (the Chinese ones, at least) admitted to my above mentioned things (of being very superstitious and of being huge (i.e. "retarded" gamblers))?"
Absolutely! One of the top players said it was like a ball and chain that he had to cut off in order to win at poker.
I also learned that it's unlucky to get touched while gambling, especially on the shoulder, and if you wear a green hat it means your wife/girlfriend is cheating on you.
How'm I doing? lol
Tommy
Asian poker player,
So glad you are in on this thread!
I did not mean to suggest that I thought asians play better than white guys. That's a frivolous conjecture. And I don't fear calm players simply because they are calm.
There are plenty of white guys around here who play a good game and are pretty much unflusterable most of the time. But they are not as unflusterable as the stoic asians, especially when losing. Many asians are WAY cool, off the charts. That doesn't mean they win. Almost all of them lose. A small percentage play well enough to win over the long haul, and these few gain an edge on me that no equally talented white guy has attained, not because of their game, but because of their extreme unflappableness.
I might be the most unflappable white guy in these parts these days, and it's purely because of the intensive, three-year asian exposure.
Signed,
Nigh Han
APP writes:
This trait ("huge gamblers") is not something I am proud of. In fact, I am DOWNRIGHT ASHAMED my fellow Asian (Chinese) acts this way. It is illogical, and embarassing.
Illogical, certainly. Embarrassing? Why?
Furthermore, Asians (perhaps Chinese mostly, but I'm not sure of this one) are also well known for their believe of superstition. Again, this is another attribute that I would like see disappear.
Again, why? Any superstitious, irrational player regardless of race is welcome at my table.
On another note, with some players, you can't buy advertising like having yellow skin. If people want to think Asians are crazy gamble-it-up psychos, they can be my guest. As you've pointed out, this is often an accurate assessment. But it's not an accurate assessment of me. Any time a player makes an inaccurate assessment of you, you profit.
Terrence,
The reason why I feel it is embarassing is because it does not help our case/cause. By "our" I mean you and I, and the rest of us Chinese people. To each his own, but I choose to accept a little "social responsibility" here and there. If you feel or think nothing of your fellow Chinese brother or sister doing something that can cause others to view us (Chinese people in general) in a less than optimal light, so be it. That is your choice.
I totally agree that one should view oneself as a person first and foremost. But in my book, race comes as a close second. It is because of that which I do not take these matters lightly.
Case in point: do you think it's a "good thing" that the south (in this country) is littered with the likes of ignorant rednecks, hicks, and KKK folk? Do you think it's a good thing that Blacks are more often than not portrayed in movies as the antagonist? Do you feel the fact that the even to this day, the Japanese government has not ackowledge the existence of the so-called "comfort camps" during World War II? Do you think Chinese people think as highly of the Japanese government (and of its people, to a lesser extent), had this not occurred (their lack of acknowledgement or restitution)?
Do the above mentioned examples help the cases of the races in question? I could go on but I'm sure you get my point.
I urge everyone to think of the infinitely larger, social implications of such actions when expressed by even the minority of the people of a particular ethnic group. It reaches far beyond the confines of the specific incident itself.
Do I think the Japanese are bad? Of course not, but I'm sure you get my point...
You ask "why?" To which I would reply, why not? Or rather, why ask why? To think that one is only responsible for the actions of oneself is narrow-minded, no disrespect to you or anyone else who might feel otherwise. It is the repurcussions of such actions by my fellow Asians that I am worried about, not so much the incident itself. Food for thought.
Because remember, in the social context, everything depends on everything else. Or rather, if you follow/believe the teachings of a top notch poker player who you can find post here often, this belief extents even into the realms of poker...
The reason why I feel it is embarassing is because it does not help our case/cause. By "our" I mean you and I, and the rest of us Chinese people. To each his own, but I choose to accept a little "social responsibility" here and there. If you feel or think nothing of your fellow Chinese brother or sister doing something that can cause others to view us (Chinese people in general) in a less than optimal light, so be it. That is your choice.
Firstly, I still fail to see how being perceived as a bad gambler could possibly hurt me, when in fact, I am a good gambler.
Secondly, someone is not my brother or sister because we may have shared ancestors 4000 years ago. China's a really big country with 1.1 billion people. That's an awful lot of brothers and sisters.
What people -- Asian or otherwise -- choose to do with their own money is none of my business. I recognize people as individuals, and individuals make choices. Who are you to tell some Chinese gambler not to toss $1500 a hand on a blackjack square because it makes the rest of us Chinese look bad? If you saw a caucasian doing the exact same thing, does that make a difference to you? If not, why? Because they are not like you? This sir, is the root of all real racism, not some stereotypes that Asians and Chinese like to throw money around.
Case in point: do you think it's a "good thing" that the south (in this country) is littered with the likes of ignorant rednecks, hicks, and KKK folk? Do you think it's a good thing that Blacks are more often than not portrayed in movies as the antagonist? Do you feel the fact that the even to this day, the Japanese government has not ackowledge the existence of the so-called "comfort camps" during World War II? Do you think Chinese people think as highly of the Japanese government (and of its people, to a lesser extent), had this not occurred (their lack of acknowledgement or restitution)?
Of course it's not a good thing that racists exist, either in the American south or anywhere. I haven't seen that blacks are portrayed are evil in film, but then I don't watch a lot of film. The rape of Nanking was one of, (if not the) greatest atrocities in human history. But what is your point? I hold no person of Japanese descent responsible for this tragedy, unless they were a party to it.
You ask "why?" To which I would reply, why not? Or rather, why ask why? To think that one is only responsible for the actions of oneself is narrow-minded, no disrespect to you or anyone else who might feel otherwise. It is the repurcussions of such actions by my fellow Asians that I am worried about, not so much the incident itself. Food for thought.
Fine, then I'm narrow-minded. I don't see how I'm responsible for someone else because they have the same colour skin as me. Identification by race is racism, whether it's you or the KKK doing it.
A final thought: If you feel a compelling need to take pride in your "Chinese brothers and sisters", I would feel pride in the fact that these hard-gambling Chinese are successful enough in other worldly activities to be able to support this gambling. Any time I see someone blow off three racks and is still able to smile and laugh and gamble it up, I know this must be a person who is a success in this world.
"Firstly, I still fail to see how being perceived as a bad gambler could possibly hurt me, when in fact, I am a good gambler."
I apologize for being unclear. What I meant to say was that although it might not hurt you per se (because you're a good gambler), it hurts the image of Chinese people in general. That is a bad thing, IMO. That's my main point. Thus it ought to be eliminated, optimally speaking.
"Secondly, someone is not my brother or sister because we may have shared ancestors 4000 years ago."
This mentality is suboptimal in terms of bringing Chinese people closer together (i.e. unified).
"China's a really big country with 1.1 billion people. That's an awful lot of brothers and sisters."
Yes it is. Don't you just love a big family? :-) And don't forget the likes of Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong, among other places that have a good number of Chinese living there.
"What people -- Asian or otherwise -- choose to do with their own money is none of my business."
You'll get no argument here from me. However, I can make the claim that certain actions are detrimental to the betterment of Asians (or Chinese), in the eyes of other races. That's what I'm getting at.
"I recognize people as individuals, and individuals make choices. Who are you to tell some Chinese gambler not to toss $1500 a hand on a blackjack square because it makes the rest of us Chinese look bad?"
As do I. Your BJ example isn't the best one, for we all know that one could be counting cards, and thus making a +EV bet, right? Of course I believe in freedom of choice, but bad choices are bad choices. Sure you could argue one way or the other, but I feel that I can defend my statements with stronger convictions than someone who was trying to defend the gambling actions of a addict, for example.
"If you saw a caucasian doing the exact same thing, does that make a difference to you? If not, why?"
It does not. The reason stems from the fact that I feel a closer bond with Asians (Chinese in particular) than a white guy. Surely one feels closer with their family members vs. a stranger on the street, right? I am expanding that idea into the category of "my fellow Chinese brothers and sisters.
"Because they are not like you? This sir, is the root of all real racism, not some stereotypes that Asians and Chinese like to throw money around."
It's a preference issue. I don't feel it demonstrates that I am a racist. My definiton of racism is the belief that a certain race has intrinsic properties that make it overall superior to all other races. I don't feel this way. Ok, I see what you might be thinking, that I demonstrate discrimination and/or prejudice against white people. Well, perhaps that is the case, but I caution this interpretation on it's face value.
Case in point: suppose you were to ask someone what their favorite color was. Or better yet, you asked them, "what color do you like better, purple or orange?" To which the person replies orange. You ask them why, they say at first, "I dunno, I just do."
This taken at face value could be viewed as discrimination or prejudice (i.e. bias) towards the color orange, over the color purple, for the person gave no convincing argument why they prefer the one color over the other.
Now suppose the person probes deeper for answers, and "interrogates" the other person a bit more aggressively. Finally the person replies, "I think the reason why I prefer orange over purple is that I like brighter colors more than darker colors."
So now we have a reason. But we could go further yet and ask why this person prefers lighter colors over darker ones. This line of questioning could go on indefinitely, but eventually the reply simply would reduce to a simple, "That's just my preference."
PREFERENCE. that is the answer.
I differentiate between the words "preference" and "discrimination/prejudice." If others do not, I understand. Not that I agree with them, but I understand. I have made my argument, and have defended it with a clear example.
"I hold no person of Japanese descent responsible for this tragedy, unless they were a party to it."
But what about "persons?" Do you not hold the Japanese government responsible for not even admitting such an event ever occurred?
"I don't see how I'm responsible for someone else because they have the same colour skin as me."
I encourage others try and do their part to help their people, with their cause. I don't think that is too much to ask.
"Identification by race is racism, whether it's you or the KKK doing it."
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Stereotyping is not intrinsicly detrimental. See my previous post on this for clarification. This idea was not my own, so I have another poker player to thank for enlightening me on this matter.
"A final thought: If you feel a compelling need to take pride in your "Chinese brothers and sisters", I would feel pride in the fact that these hard-gambling Chinese are successful enough in other worldly activities to be able to support this gambling. Any time I see someone blow off three racks and is still able to smile and laugh and gamble it up, I know this must be a person who is a success in this world."
It's not that I take pride in my people, but rather I take pride in doing my part in helping them become better people. That is all, nothing more, nothing lesss. As for supporting their gambling activities, this is simply not the case in Hong Kong. See Michael Konik's? article regarding this. I recall reading it online, so it should be found using google.com or the like.
A very interesting post. But I still don't get it. I understand the value of "repuatation" or "good name" and the desire to protect same. But these things have nothing to do with ethnic background, it's determined by individual behavior.
As for "respect" from ignorant people who make judgements based on ethnicity (or something equally inconsequential), that doesn't matter to me. The views of an idiot aren't going to challenge my sense of self-esteem.
So Terrance, just where in Asia do you play?
Vince
Vancouver.
Some interesting observations and food for thought there, Tommy.
Here are two general observations of my own: If you want to be raised more, play more with Greeks.
If you want to be check-raised more, play more with Asians.
"Here are two general observations of my own: If you want to be raised more, play more with Greeks.
If you want to be check-raised more, play more with Asians."
And if you want to eat spaghetti and meatballs play with Italians.
Vince
.
"What is the secret to their success? Is it cultural? If yes, what specifically is it in their culture that makes them good gamblers and poker players? Why do they learn very quickly (even though on the outside at least, they don't seem to read the books much - or at least this is what they say in public)?"
Being an Asian myself (specifically, Chinese), IMO, the secret to our success is culturally based. Namely, it matters very little what race you are biologically speaking (for lack of a better term), but rather what influencing your beliefs and your thought processes, as well as your mentality. Thus I believe a "white baby" born and raised into Asian culture will have the same chances of success as any other Asian baby.
Given the above mentioned conjecture, then yes, it is true I am a believer of cultural superiority, NOT racial superiority. IOW, I do not believe that an Asian baby is born into this world posessesing an intrinsic advantage/superior set of skills over a white baby (or another other subset of human races). What I do believe is, any race CAN be superior to any other races (in any non-physical discipline), if they try. For example, Asians are well known to be quite successful in the business world. Are they born with this "business keen?" Of course not. Asian cultures merely possess a greater number/degree of characteristics that maximizes the chances that their people CAN succeed in the business world (along with the likes of academia and company).
"In short, what SPECIFICALLY can we learn from the top Asian players at the environment level (the when and where)? behavior level (what they do)? capability level (how they do it)? beliefs and values level (why they do what they do)? identity level (how they perceive themselves)? community/spirituality level (how they perceive, family, community, God, and life as a whole)? "
I'm sorry, but there are too many questions that are asked here, and which are beyond the scope of my intended post (i.e. I'm too lazy to type a 10 page essay here, :-) ). I suggest you look at the following website, among others like it to provide insight into your query.
http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/hu1st.htm
This might not be the exact starting point, so look around this guy's entire website, if you have to.
"What I do believe is, any race CAN be superior to any other races (in any non-physical discipline), if they try."
Perhaps the root of all racism.
vince
"What I do believe is, any race CAN be superior to any other races (in any non-physical discipline), if they try."
Perhaps the root of all racism. ---------------------------------------------------
Vince,
This is simply not true. My posts reveal what I'm truly trying to say. Taking that sentence out of context will often times lead to the conclusion that I am a racist (or have racism-like beliefs). That is false.
JMO, of course. But I feel I can defend my conjectures.
Two points, gleaned from living in Korea and Japan for several years, and being Asian-American:
1. Another possible reason that Asians sometimes appear very cool at the table is that many Asian cultures teach their children not to show their true feelings, to mask their inner self. In Japan, this concept is referred to as "tatemae," or outer self, and "honne," or your real, inner self. This stems partly from being obediently quiet and following authority without question, among many other factors. So not being seemingly affected by losses or bad beats may come easier for some Asians as they have been conditioned to restrain their feelings. But don't kid yourself; they are very emotional inside, they just handle differently.
2. One skill that I've seen in many Asian players is their card/player reading abilities. This may come from cultures which place a strong emphasis on being highly sensitive to other people's feelings. It means, for example, not being offensive or disrespectful, which can translate into careful observation of non-verbal clues to understand what another person is thinking or feeling. In conversation, it means being finely attuned to how someone is responding to what you're saying, not just the words but the meaning behind the words, and adjusting to those responses. Asians are raised to distrust what people say; words mean little, and they believe, as Fitzgerald said, that character is action- watch what people do if you want to see what they're made of.
This is not meant to be definitive or all-encompassing. Spend a week in Seoul and a week in Tokyo to get a glimpse of how different Asian cultures are. But I think these cultural generalizations can give a player certain advantages.
So far, we have learned four distinctions in this thread, thanks to Tommy and AAP:
1)a Zen-like perception of time (what's happened has happened - next hand!)
2)decoupling of tatamae from honne
3)a habit of focusing on non-verbal clues while "listening" to the other person
4)hard work=success
I hope there are more distinctions coming. Even more important is HOW. In other words, what do we have to believe, know, do, in order to make these behaviors ours. You and Tommy have already given hints as to what these beliefs and cognitive causes are. I'll study them more closely and try to come up with an action plan for how to acquire these skills.
Do the top asian players have a certain level of discipline than others? Yes. But some of the top white players have the same characteristics.
Why are there so many successful asian poker players? Because we endeavor to be the best at what we do. Of course some of us are unsuccessful and don't make it in poker...but the others do.
Our upbringing and environment? Most asians are brought up to be calm, respectful, dilligent, and hard working. but if you tried to change your lifestyle to that or try to mimic it wouldn't you think it would be unsuccessful since you were brought up with whatever mindset and discipline that you are used to now?
Anyone can make a good poker player with experience and disclipline. Some of you say asians are less likely to go on tilt. Which may or may not be true. I never tilt. But its not like any other race cannot do the same thing. It is possible for people to not get so emotional. Just take it in stride. A bad beat happens. But if you're a good player in the end you're on top so its ok. Deal with it.
Also I'm Chinese. And I just have to add that gambling has been a big part of my life even as a child. It's a Chinese tradition to gamble. We love it. Growing up I watched all my relatives gamble whether it be mah-jong, pai-gow, poker, or whatever. I watched intently and knew I loved gambling as well.
Yes most of us are studious so its not hard to imagine that we can understand how to play poker. It's a game of rules and anyone aspiring to be a top player should know all the rules and all the aspects of the game.
Yes most asians are superstitious. Heh one of our drawbacks. We like to depend on luck or blame it on luck when we lose. But again thats just our upbringing and is infused into our tradition. It's not a good trait but hey I never said we were perfect...=)
-chet
Hi Chet,
In the fourth paragraph of your post you state that it is possible to not get so emotional in regards to tilt. To "just take it in stride." And to "deal with it."
But that's my problem, I often don't know how to just take it in stride, or how to "deal" with those emotions. I'm clueless. I've tried taking walks like people advise, when I feel myself going on tilt, but that doesn't help 1%. I think the answer somehow lies with what you mention, learning how to look at things differently than i do. If I knew why I get so pissed, rather than only learning how to suppress the anger, maybe things would get better.
the solution is not how to suppress the anger but to not get angered
-chet
Avoiding tilt in it's many degrees is part of the game, just like bets and cards. I think some personalities have little chance of improving in this area. In that sense, it takes a lucky combination of nature-and-nurture to even have the aptitude to become tiltless.
Have you ever played stoned? That helps induce zenlike-indifference for lots of players.
Tommy
Do I play stoned? Can't say that I do, I'm 39 and haven't had a toke off a joint since I was 15. Maybe you can hook me up with your pusher. Does a lid still cost ten bucks?
"...but if you tried to change your lifestyle to that or try to mimic it wouldn't you think it would be unsuccessful since you were brought up with whatever mindset and discipline that you are used to now?"
My outcome is to achieve the positive poker table behaviors and capabilities that the Asian upbringing achieves. I'm pretty sure that I can find cognitive and emotional resources within my current internal mapping to achieve the same results thru a different path - a path that honors and leverages my own upbringing and the beliefs and traditions that go with it.
If I can't achieve it this way, I'll have to take on some Asian belief systems - but I'll localize and compartmentalize them within the context of poker. And not let them affect the rest of my life, assuming of course that they conflict with the beliefs and thinking patterns that I have established there. If no conflicts exist, then it would be easy wouldn't it.
nt
I will tell you why asian players are "better". THEY'RE NOT, but they do have a style which lends itself to big bet/tournament poker. I have been a professional player for many years, most as a prop. During my time as a prop in limit games I salivated for asian players because they were awful. They gambled too much and blew off money faster than any other type of player. In a limit game they're hyper aggressive style did not pay off. Once I had won a few tournaments and got a bankroll i started playing exclusivley PL/NL tourney's and the PL/NL side games that accompanied them. These asian players that used to be my bread and butter were now my worst enemy for two reasons. 1. The hyper aggressive style. 2. a general lack of tells.
Most big winners at big bet are big gamblers. This is their edge when the money gets deep, they have an utter lack of respect for it at the table. They create stressful situations and thrive in this environment. if you have ever played limit with phil hellmuth you would see how their mind works in slow motion. it is almost sad to watch as he blows money helplessly trying to create hyperstressful situations in a game where they dont exist. trying to find reads where there are none, trying to intimidate in a toothless game.
Gambling is also the demise of many big bet players. It always amuses me to hear people say, "can you beleive so and so world class player blew 20k sportsbetting or at the track?" or "can you beleive so and so is broke again after that big tourney win?" They assume that because someone is a great poker player they should know better, but many great poker players are just big gamblers who stumbled into the right game and have a special gift (see also stu ungar).
In the NL holdem game i frequent I love it when a big winner at the limit tables wants to come over and try his luck. in general his weakness will be calling to much, that is how he got the big win in limit. because at times, because of the size of the pots in relation to bets, he is not making that big of mistake. he blows his money off in my game so fast it should be a crime.
The player i am more leery to see come over after a big win is often times the horse better or asian games player. It's not that they wont lose their money, they usually will. but they lose it making big aggressive bets into the nuts. and what that does is get you sitting waiting for the nuts while thay bulldoze the game. this is not fun. and if that person has a penchant for reading tells they are one win streak away from being world class. You dont beleive me? see doyle brunsons post on the big bet page in regard to archie karras. If the money was deep enough he could hold his own with the best in the world. because he turned a beautiful game into a chinese pissing contest.
I think the ultimate key may be the ability to compartmentalize and contextualize emotions.
That is having the emotional flexibility to have a Brunson/Asian-like frivolously ferocious attitude while in a big bet/shorthanded/high ante context.
And then turning around to have a more detached Sklansky/scientist-like attitude while in a full-game/limit/medium-low ante context.
In short, what is needed is the ability to deliberately have multiple personality disorder.
nmsg
vince
Im reading through Mike Caros book of tells for the Nth time ,and I got thinking about a few things. (Hope you dont mind the quote Mike. Its a great book to anyone that hasn't got it.)
"Its important to note that most opponents will also remain still when bluffing and be more animated and friendly when holding a big hand. Even though you can use that knowledge against them, dont worry about providing the same tells yourself. Its very unlikely that your opponents are alert enough to read you correctly."
Very true, but at some point you must start to consider which ones are. I got to thinking about what proportion of the players that I know I would credit with this much skill / knowledge etc. Not just using tells, but also other poker skills, and understanding them enough to use them accurately.
I'd be very interested to hear what other players thought of the following.
What proportion of players are this astute?
Does this vary between levels?
Same proportion for tournament as for side action?
What proportion of players read poker books?
Use computer software/Internet to hone their skills?
Is the proportion of 'educated' players increasing, decreasing or staying about the same?
Feel free to post your opinions here, or e-mail me directly.
muffin :)
l
I'd say you can be pretty sure the younger players are the more astute ones and the ones reading books about poker. In both ring games and tournaments - I would also think you are looking at more book learned players at low and middle limits - I can't prove this just going on my observations - one thing I do know is I can spot a book learned player in a short time at the table and that is the important thing.
Anyone giving you %'s is just pulling them out of their butt - but here is a % I got the same way 10-20% of the players at a given table are astute - I don't think you can hone skills anywhere but on the felt but that is just MHO.
Speaking of reverse tells and if they would work on your opponents (if they are educated about poker), I was once playing late morning at Monte Carlo in Las Vegas. Everyone at the table was good, (at least that's the conclusion I came up with!).
I had some crappy hand like 46o in the big blind.
Flop comes low-medium coordinated rags, but nothing to get excited about. I had at most a pair with no draw. Checked to me by small blind, two late position players limped in preflop, so I make a bet, look to my left at the TV screen, and appear disinterested. They all fold!!! :)
David Sklansky,
Can you explain to John Feeney why you now acknowledge that the following sentence is obviously wrong?
"You have 6 chances twice which is about 25 percent, and if you bet out as we recommend you will win a decent proportion of those times when you make a pair, whereas before it wouldn't have won."[1]
-----------------------
[1] David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth, HOLD 'EM POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS, 1999, p. 169.
It would seem that if you're denying the validity of that sentence, you may be denying the validity of the general rule (applying to when the pot is big) it is used to support:
"The general concept is that if an ace comes and you have the upper end of a gutshot you should usually bet to prevent over cards to your two cards from coming, even though they are under cards to the top card" [1]
Are you saying the general rule is wrong?
-------------------
[1]That place in the book...
John,
You wrote: "It would seem that if you're denying the validity of that sentence, you may be denying the validity of the general rule (applying to when the pot is big) it is used to support"
No. The statements can stand or fall on their own merits.
Yes, I know. That's why I used the word, "may". However, my review of the old thread on the topic suggested that you do largely disagree with the rule of thumb that you should more often bet (or raise) when the pot is big, and you have some reasonable chance of winning it. Am I mistaken in that impression? I could find the post that suggested it if you like.
John,
You may be wrong but if you are so am I. Cause I read Mark the same way. osh I thought I was done with htis.
Vince
John,
I refer you to my 12 February 2001, 12:34 a.m., post below.
...Okay Mark, I found in the archives what appears to be the major thread on this which you initiated in 11/99. It's in the Texas Hold'em (General) forum. I see little need to rekindle the same old debate, but interested readers can find it beginning with this post:
Contest: HPFAP "Loose Games" errors, Posted by: Mark Glover, Posted on: Sunday, 14 November 1999, at 10:43 a.m.
From that thread as well as a post some months later titled:
LOL. But seriously, Vince..., Posted by: Mark Glover, Posted on: Saturday, 6 May 2000, at 1:55 p.m.,
it appears that indeed, as I suspected, a major objection, perhaps your primary objection to the passage,
"You have 6 chances twice which is about 25 percent, and if you bet out as we recommend you will win a decent proportion of those times when you make a pair, whereas before it wouldn't have won.",
involves the phrase, "whereas before it wouldn't have won."
As I thought, you hear that as "before it would not EVER have won, not ever at all."
But Mark, as I suggested, and as many others in that thread suggested in varying ways, that is just your overly literal ear listening. Look, here's another way they could have worded it:
"...and if you bet out as we recommend, then of the times when you make a pair that would not have won had you checked, you will now win a decent proportion of the time."
Do you see what they're saying?
Trust me on this Mark. It is much like the interchange we had in a thread titled:
HPFAP "Heads-Up Versus Multiway" Error, Posted by: Mark Glover, Posted on: Sunday, 21 November 1999, at 10:28 a.m.,
in which you simply misunderstood the authors' meaning in something they wrote. After much back and forth debate I was able to clarify it for you in a way which helped you "see the light".
Unless the authors really meant that a pair would *never* win after checking -- and obviously they didn't -- this is nothing but the same kind of misunderstanding of what they're saying. I didn't find David's acknowledgement, but if I were a betting man I'd bet it was just an agreement that the passage could have been worded a bit more clearly, since a too literal interpretation could suggest the extreme, incorrect conclusion mentioned above.
doesn't every one read it the same way vince stated it? is my reading comprehension rate a little higher than the people that take it literally or lower? I had to read this post to find Mark's flaw with the statement :).
Mark,
You wrote: "is my reading comprehension rate a little higher than the people that take it literally or lower?"
I don't know. In either case, it doesn't appear that your reading comprehension skills are particularly good.
You recently responded to another poster with: "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."
You probably once read that, with a pocket pair, your odds against flopping a set or better are about 7.5-to-1. You apparently comprehended that to mean your odds against flopping a set are 7.5-to-1.
The original poster was pretty close. The odds against flopping a set are about 8.3-to-1. The odds against flopping a set or better are about 7.5-to-1 (unless you count three-of-a-kind on the board as making you a full house, in which case the odds against flopping a set or better are about 7.3-to-1).
You also wrote: "I had to read this post to find Mark's flaw with the statement :)."
Why am I not surprised?
When playing poker it is not much of a mistake, if a mistake at all, to inerpret a "set" as a "set or better". In fact when determining whether to continue, the question becomes what are my chances (odds) of "improving". You are just being a butt here Mark.
Vince
Vince,
You wrote: "When playing poker it is not much of a mistake, if a mistake at all, to inerpret a 'set' as a 'set or better'."
That's correct, Vince. Usually, it is only a minor mistake to say "set" instead of "set or better." And I normally wouldn't correct someone who made this slight error.
What Mark Dodd wrote to another poster, however, was: "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."
Do you see how he was criticizing the numbers of someone who was using the word "set" in the correct way with numbers you get by using the word "set" in the slightly incorrect way? That is a much more objectionable use of the slightly wrong meaning of "set." So, I objected.
Just so you understand, the 8.5:1 figure is fairly close to the correct odds against your flopping a "set" and only a "set." The 7.5:1 figure is fairly close to the correct odds against your flopping a "set or better." Okay?
You also wrote: "You are just being a butt here Mark."
As you might have guessed, my pappy would say: "That's like the toad calling the frog ugly--butt ugly, in this case."
I believe that most of these posts by Mark are his way of trolling and to that end he has been successful. This will be my last response to any thread initiated by Mark.
Tom,
You wrote: "This will be my last response to any thread initiated by Mark."
That's a shame. You occasionally contribute something of value to these threads.
John,
You wrote: "Okay Mark, I found in the archives what appears to be the major thread on this which you initiated in 11/99. It's in the Texas Hold'em (General) forum. I see little need to rekindle the same old debate, but interested readers can find it beginning with this post: . . ."
I'm proud of you, John. If this was the thread you were interested in, I could have saved you some time and given you a citation.
-------------------
I'm glad you "see little need to rekindle the same old debate," but since you go dwell on it, I think we should look at the statement in its fuller context.
On pages 168-169 of HPFAP-1999, the authors give an example where you hold Ts9s in early position, the flop is Ad7c6h, and the pot is "pretty big." The authors suggest betting out the flop, in part, to drive out hands like KdJh.
"Getting back to the above example, what's the chance that a ten or a nine will come in that spot? You have 6 chances twice which is about 25 percent, and if you bet out as we recommend you will win a decent proportion of those times when you make a pair, whereas before it wouldn't have won.
"You also have about a 15 percent chance to make your gut shot. So you go from as little as 15 percent to probably over 20 percent because you bet that T9 and knocked out the over cards to your cards."
-----------------
You wrote:
>>it appears that indeed, as I suspected, a major objection, perhaps your primary objection to the passage,
"You have 6 chances twice which is about 25 percent, and if you bet out as we recommend you will win a decent proportion of those times when you make a pair, whereas before it wouldn't have won.",
involves the phrase, "whereas before it wouldn't have won."<<
Did you just figure this out? You didn't realize it Saturday when I noted it and you replied?
----------------------
You wrote: >>As I thought, you hear that as "before it would not EVER have won, not ever at all."
But Mark, as I suggested, and as many others in that thread suggested in varying ways, that is just your overly literal ear listening. Look, here's another way they could have worded it:
"...and if you bet out as we recommend, then of the times when you make a pair that would not have won had you checked, you will now win a decent proportion of the time."
Do you see what they're saying?<<
I see what *you* are saying, and I agree with it--as far as it goes. Betting out might well increase your chances of winning the pot. I believe you need to take this into consideration when you estimate your expectation for betting out. I also believe you need to take into consideration the cost of betting out when you estimate this expectation.
That's where I disagree with David and Mason. They claim: "The point is that when a lot of bets are in the center of the table you don't worry about saving bets. You do everything possible to maximize your chance of winning." (HPFAP-1999, p. 169.)
After you estimate your expection for betting out, you also should estimate your expectations for your other betting options. I believe you then should select the option that offers you the highest long-term expectation. Sometimes that means betting out. Other times, however, it means checking. Selective aggression--not blind aggression--is the path to success at the poker tables.
-----------------------
Yes, John, the authors could have worded it the way you suggest. So why didn't they? David and Mason are not idiots. If they wanted to write it that way, they certainly were capable of doing so.
Please reread the statement you mentioned in its fuller context. Do *you* see what the authors are saying?
As I noted in that November 1999 thread: "Notice that the two quoted paragraphs are an attempt to mathematically justify the advice of betting out on the flop. Most authors, when they perform mathematical analyses, deliberately use words and phrases in a fairly explicit sense rather than rely on readers to correctly infer their intended meanings. Of course, David and Mason are not presenting a formal 'proof' of their advice, so they are not using exact numbers. But notice how they carefully qualify their approximations: 'about 25 percent,' 'a decent proportion,' 'about a 15 percent chance,' 'as little as 15 percent,' and 'probably over 20 percent.'"
Do you see, John, how your revision would fall flat on its face if you used it as a replacement: "...and if you bet out as we recommend, then of the times when you make a pair that would not have won had you checked, you will now win a decent proportion of the time."
Your statement doesn't contribute at all to the authors' informal mathematical "proof." You just note that betting might help one win more often, wave your hands, and hope the readers don't question whether that possible extra chance to win is sufficient to cover the price of an extra bet or two. As I noted earlier, sometimes it will be and sometimes it won't.
----------------------------
In order to continue with their informal mathematical "proof," the authors need to assign a likelihood to winning with a pair when one checks the flop.
I feel they mistakenly believed the likelihood was zero percent if one merely checked the flop. The authors are humans, and they make mistakes.
Another possibility is that the authors intended to imply "whereas before it only would have won about 15 to 20 percent of the time."
I'm using the 15-20 percent figure because that's my estimate of how often you typically will win with a pair if you check instead of bet the flop and none of your opponents has an an ace in their hand. Of course, the 15-20 percent probably would drop to 3-4 percent after you apply the author's estimates of losing to a better hand.
Infering 15-20 percent from a literal zero percent seems like a stretch. But the 3-4 percent figure certainly is closer to zero. So, another possibility is that the authors really intended to convey something like: "You have 6 chances twice which is about 25 percent [assuming you are not against an ace], and if you bet out as we recommend, you will win a decent proportion of those times when you make a pair, whereas before you only win about 3 to 4 percent of the time [after taking into account that you might be against an ace]."
While this is a plausible rationalization, to suggest that the authors meant this borders on accusing them of intellectual dishonesty. It is extremely misleading to compare an adjusted 3 or 4 percent against an unadjusted 25 percent, and I don't believe David would be a party to such a tactic.
Again, I think the authors simply were careless in their analysis and failed to realize you also can win the pot with a pair when you simply check the flop. That's what I suggested in November 1999, and that's what I will believe until I have good grounds to believe otherwise.
-----------------------
Several months after the November 1999 thread, David acknowledged that their statement implied something that was obviously wrong. It appears that this is obvious to David and me, but it is not at all obvious to John.
I was hoping David would explain to John the reasons why he feels their statement implied something that was obviously wrong. But he appears to be in no hurry to do so. Too bad. It would have saved me a lot of writing.
You quoted me:
"it appears that indeed, as I suspected, a major objection, perhaps your primary objection to the passage,
'You have 6 chances twice which is about 25 percent, and if you bet out as we recommend you will win a decent proportion of those times when you make a pair, whereas before it wouldn't have won.',
involves the phrase, "whereas before it wouldn't have won.""
You then asked,
"Did you just figure this out? You didn't realize it Saturday when I noted it and you replied?"
Uhm, yes, I did. At 4:21, Saturday, I posted this:
'...whereas before it wouldn't have won.'
"Hmmm, this could be the part that pushes your button. I imagine that simple, unqualified, "wouldn't" might really bug the hell out of you. I'll bet you hear it as 'Before it simply wouldn't have won, ever. Period.', don't you? But I'll tell you what. That's just your hyperliteral ear hearing it. The authors simply meant that you'll win with a pair that often wouldn't have won has you let others in by checking - as I mentioned above. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess the authors know the pair will win sometimes even when you check."
But please let us waste time on *something* other than whether I said something then or now.
"Do you see, John, how your revision would fall flat on its face if you used it as a replacement... Your statement doesn't contribute at all to the authors' informal mathematical "proof""
No. I think you may be missing that my revision is only of the second part of the sentence that begins, "You have six chances...", not of the "proof". I believe you are misinterpreting that part of that sentence. Once you understand what they are saying, you will see what I mean. But I have other things to do this week, and may not take the time to keep re-clarifying it for you in different ways as I did in that 11/99 thread about the Heads up versus multiway "error". [1] Just insert my suggested revision after the first comma in that sentence. Then go back and forth between the original text and my revision to see if you can appreciate how they are saying the same thing.
"I feel they mistakenly believed the likelihood was zero percent if one merely checked the flop."
This is just strange that you would think this. How could anyone who has played more than, say, 100 hours of hold'em possibly think that? Anyone who has played at all (and S&M have put in a lot of hours over the years) knows that even in what looks like a near hopeless situation, a hand sometimes flukes into a win. And the present situation is FAR from hopeless. Obviously they know the likelihood is not zero percent. Again, try my revised wording. Really, see if you can see how it might reasonably be only a rewording of THEIR statement.
"It is extremely misleading to compare an adjusted 3 or 4 percent against an unadjusted 25 percent..."
I may misunderstand, but I think the "plausible rationalization" you offer, with the 3-4%, etc., is probably approaching what they meant. But I see no "comparing" of the adjusted 3 or 4 percent to the unadjusted 25%. 25% is just the chance of catching the card, nothing more. Say you catch a pair 25% of the time if you check-call, but because they'll so often lose, those pairs only add maybe 3-4% to your percentage of wins (given your gutshot). Yeah, maybe. Now, by betting, you add a few more percent. What's the problem? Where's the "intellectual dishonesty" in that?
"Several months after the November 1999 thread, David acknowledged that their statement implied something that was obviously wrong."
I'm still betting that he acknowledged something to the effect that it was awkwardly worded, and could lead to misunderstanding. That's different from being conceptually incorrect, and a far cry from the authors having been unaware that there is a non-zero chance of winning after checking.
Mark, why is it that I and many, many others have pointed out your overliteral interpretations and extreme focus on minutia time and time again, yet you ignore everyone and seem not to step back and look at how you approach these things. It is as if you have the same trouble stepping back and observing yourself and what you likely convey to others as you deal with these issues, that you have in stepping back and seeing the big picture of what an author is saying in a passage.
(As I said, I have other things to do, and, to be frank, am not really very interested in most of this debate anyway. So I will probably not be participating further. I might jump in again though if Mark says something substantially new or in some way indicative of progress in seeing the big picture and reading through a less literal, more flexible lense.)
[1] Actually, I just thought of something. If you want to email me (johnfeeney@home.com), I will provide you with my phone number, and would be willing to discuss it with you by phone. I think I could clarify it much more quickly that way as opposed to this back and forth thing.
Mark -- In my post above, please just disregard the portion prior to the quote, "Do you see, John, how your revision would fall...". I had misunderstood your question when i replied. At any rate, it's totally inconsequential, and not worth a corrected reply.
John,
At 4:21 p.m. on Saturday, you asked me what portion of the following sentence I found to be flawed: "You have 6 chances twice which is about 25 percent, and if you bet out as we recommend you will win a decent proportion of those times when you make a pair, whereas before it wouldn't have won." (HPFAP-1999, p. 169.)
At 10:31 p.m. on Saturday, I pointed you to the erroneous portion: ". . . whereas before it wouldn't have won."
At 11:36 p.m. on Saturday, you replied to that post of mine.
At 4:37 a.m. on Sunday, after a little poking through the archives, you suddenly discovered that my objection "involves the phrase, 'whereas before it wouldn't have won.'"
At 12:34 a.m. on Monday, I asked: "Did you just figure this out? You didn't realize it Saturday when I noted it and you replied?"
At 3:22 a.m. on Monday, You replied: "Uhm, yes, I did. At 4:21, Saturday, I posted . . ."
At 4:53 a.m. on Monday, You wrote: "I had misunderstood your question when i replied. At any rate, it's totally inconsequential, and not worth a corrected reply."
You underestimate the importance of your admission, John. This is an important step for you. You opened your mind to the possibility that you had made a mistake, you recognized that you misunderstood my question, and you admitted it.
There is hope for you yet! If you look at David and Mason's writings with a similar open mind, you might just understand that they also make mistakes. Give it a try, okay?
John,
Earlier, I wrote: "Do you see, John, how your revision would fall flat on its face if you used it as a replacement . . . Your statement doesn't contribute at all to the authors' informal mathematical 'proof.' You just note that betting might help one win more often, wave your hands, and hope the readers don't question whether that possible extra chance to win is sufficient to cover the price of an extra bet or two. As I noted earlier, sometimes it will be and sometimes it won't."
You replied: "No. I think you may be missing that my revision is only of the second part of the sentence that begins, 'You have six chances...', not of the 'proof'."
I understand that, John. I'm saying that your substitution, in the middle of an informal mathematical proof, causes that proof to fall apart.
You continued: "Just insert my suggested revision after the first comma in that sentence. Then go back and forth between the original text and my revision to see if you can appreciate how they are saying the same thing."
Okay. Substituting John's revision, the passage from HPFAP-1999 would read:
"Getting back to the above example, what's the chance that a ten or a nine will come in that spot? You have 6 chances twice which is about 25 percent, and if you bet out as we recommend, then of the times when you make a pair that would not have won had you checked, you will now win a decent proportion of the time.
"You also have about a 15 percent chance to make your gut shot. So you go from as little as 15 percent to probably over 20 percent because you bet that T9 and knocked out the over cards to your cards."
Notice how your revision takes away a key element of the authors' analysis. They are attempting to show that betting out on the flop rather than checking significantly increases your chances of winning the pot.
With your revision, however, the reader is left wondering: what are the chances of your winning if you check the flop?
In the authors' original analysis, they incorrectly suggest checking the flop leaves your chance of winning at as little as 15 percent--perhaps 5 percent less than your chances of winning if you bet out.
Using your revised analysis, the reader concludes that checking the flop leaves your chance of winning at anywhere from 15 to 20 percent--between 0 and 5 percent less than your chances of winning if you bet out. Is this difference enough to offset the extra cost of betting out? It's hard to say, because your analysis falls flat on its face.
David and Mason's analysis was incorrect. Your analysis isn't really an analysis. You just note that betting might help one win more often, wave your hands, and hope the readers don't question whether that possible extra chance to win is sufficient to cover the price of an extra bet or two.
Eventually, David acknowledged that their statement implies something that obviously is wrong. It really is obvious, John. Try opening your mind and attempt to comprehend this; a blind mind is a terrible thing to use.
Wow, how many responses do I warrant? What a reaction! I suppose something touched a nerve. Though I said I probably wouldn't continue with this thread, now I think I'd feel guilty if I ignored so many posts. So I'll respond to this one, and then - hopefully - I'm done.
You think my revision doesn't work because you still don't understand the original sentence, and are too inflexible to shift the way you hear it. You are also confused about the 'comparing an adjusted 3-4% with an unadjusted 25%'. Remember this thread, Mark?
*****************************
HPFAP "Heads-Up Versus Multiway" Error,
Posted by: Mark Glover,
Posted on: Sunday, 21 November 1999, at 10:28 a.m.
(Texas Hold'em - General forum)
*****************************
Well, there is no question you are suffering the same problem this time, unable to understand what the authors were saying because you are so rigidly fixed on your erroneous interpretation, and obsessed with trying to prove yourself. You were every bit as rigidly fixed on the notion that you were right, and they and I were wrong, and spewed just as much sarcasm in that thread as you have in these recent ones. And here again, if I wanted to expend a lot more energy going over things word for word with you, showing you different possible phrasings, I could show you again where you are wrong. But I know from past experience how long that would take (and that you would offer no apology in the end). That's why I suggested the phone. But I haven't heard from you. Well, I'm done trying to help. I've put enough time into it despite having little interest in dissecting trivialities regarding what are really fairly simple concepts. It serves no purpose.
Your constant sarcasm reveals that you're quite an angry young man, Mark. You sure don't like to be proven wrong, and resort to taunts and sneers when you're angered. I doubt this serves you well in any setting, and would suggest that you might want to try a little self examination. But you'll ignore this, as you have all of my observations about you.
Finally, I thought Mason was being a bit harsh when he suggested that your total lack of flexibility in thinking would hurt your chances of winning at poker. But this rigidity has just become clearer and clearer. I really do wonder how you can play poker without becoming absolutely paralyzed as you fix on details of hands at the expense of the play as a whole. The big picture... It's there... It's important...Think about it. Good luck.
I guess I lied about not posting anymore to his threads. Wow!!!
.
John,
I believe my view of the authors' statement is more objective than your view.
First, as I've demonstrated on this forum, I'm fully capable of recognizing the excellent points made by David and Mason as well as the errors they occasionally make. I don't remember ever seeing you take exception with any of these authors' writings. John, have you ever found a error by David or Mason? If not, you might want to question your objectivity, because errors do exist. David and Mason are human and fallible.
Second, David has acknowledged that this statement implies something that is obviously wrong. David is one of the persons who wrote that statement. If he has any bias, you'd expect it would be in the direction of stubbornly insisting that the statement is correct. Why do you think he would say it was not only wrong but *obviously* wrong? You suggested, "If he truly does feel it's wrong, then maybe he's got a bit of the same hyperliteral bug that you do." My, oh my. Do you think David and I are involved in some grand conspiracy to make you look foolish? You are more than capable of doing that all by yourself. ;-)
------------------------
You wrote: "You think my revision doesn't work because you still don't understand the original sentence, and are too inflexible to shift the way you hear it."
You can never be 100 percent certain that you completely understand what another person is thinking. And I must admit that as a person becomes more and more irrational and confused, my likelihood of correctly understanding that person decreases somewhat.
Still, I think I've done a good job of directly addressing the points you made while trying to defend the authors' statement.
For example, you wrote: "...and if you bet out as we recommend, then of the times when you make a pair that would not have won had you checked, you will now win a decent proportion of the time."
I agreed with your statement--when it is taken in isolation. I pointed out, though, that when your statement is inserted into David and Mason's informal mathematical "proof," it causes the proof to fall flat on its face. Thus, the authors couldn't have meant what you suggested they meant.
You responded: "I think you may be missing that my revision is only of the second part of the sentence that begins, 'You have six chances...', not of the 'proof'."
But I did understand that your revision was meant to be the second part of the sentence that began, "You have six chances..." If you only look at that single sentence with your revision, the sentence is reasonable. But that sentence is part of a greater analysis where the authors were trying to mathematically demonstrate that betting out on the flop results in your having a sufficiently better chance of winning the pot than if you merely checked the flop.
So I added your revision to the authors' mathematical analysis, quoted that modified analysis, and showed how you just "note that betting might help one win more often, wave your hands, and hope the readers don't question whether that possible extra chance to win is sufficient to cover the price of an extra bet or two." Your revision destroys the whole point of the mathematical analysis. There is a reason why the authors didn't write their statement in the way you suggested; it would have made them look like idiots!
While I logically refuted your concerns, you did your best to simply sidestep and ignore my explanations. I wonder why you would do that?
--------------------
You wrote: "You are also confused about the 'comparing an adjusted 3-4% with an unadjusted 25%'." Why is that, John? I've explained why it is intellectually dishonest to compare an adjusted 3-4 percent extra win rate with a 25 percent make-a-pair-but-not-necessarily-extra-win rate. Oh, that's right--you don't want to explain.
If you believe the 3-4 percent versus 25 percent comparision is intellectually honest, I would be concerned about how you make your points in your own book. I haven't read that book, but I certainly hope you write more reasonably there then you do in some of your recent posts on this forum. Caveat emptor.
John,
Back in November of 1999, when this discussion first occurred, you were complaining that I was taking David and Mason's passage out of context. Of course, I wasn't. When I added even fuller context to their passage, it only strengthened my argument that the statement was wrong.
Several months later, David acknowledged that their statement implied something that was obviously wrong.
When we now revisited this whole issue, you proposed a possible re-interpretation of their statement that, in isolation, makes a certain amount of sense. But when you insert your revision into the full context of David and Mason's mathematical analysis, it makes the authors look like idiots. Sweet irony.
Perhaps, several months from now, you will find the courage to acknowledge your error.
John,
Earlier, I wrote: "I feel they mistakenly believed the likelihood was zero percent if one merely checked the flop. The authors are humans, and they make mistakes."
You wrote: "This is just strange that you would think this. How could anyone who has played more than, say, 100 hours of hold'em possibly think that?"
I believe the authors simply were careless in their analysis and neglected to take into account the fact that you could win with a pair even if you merely checked the flop.
This is not so strange. The authors are humans, and they make mistakes. Do you believe that anyone who has played more than, say, 100 hours (or even 10,000 hours) of hold'em no longer is capable of making a mistake at the poker table?
The same applies to books. Do you think authors who have written hundreds of pages are incapable of writing an incorrect statement?
David has acknowledged that their statement implied something that was obviously wrong. Why can't you just accept that?
You also wrote: "Obviously they know the likelihood is not zero percent."
Of course they do--now and even before they wrote the book. But when they were writing the passage in question, they negelected to accurately apply this knowledge. It happens.
John,
Earlier, I explained:
>>Infering 15-20 percent from a literal zero percent seems like a stretch. But the 3-4 percent figure certainly is closer to zero. So, another possibility is that the authors really intended to convey something like: "You have 6 chances twice which is about 25 percent [assuming you are not against an ace], and if you bet out as we recommend, you will win a decent proportion of those times when you make a pair, whereas before you only win about 3 to 4 percent of the time [after taking into account that you might be against an ace]."
While this is a plausible rationalization, to suggest that the authors meant this borders on accusing them of intellectual dishonesty. It is extremely misleading to compare an adjusted 3 or 4 percent against an unadjusted 25 percent, and I don't believe David would be a party to such a tactic.
Again, I think the authors simply were careless in their analysis and failed to realize you also can win the pot with a pair when you simply check the flop. That's what I suggested in November 1999, and that's what I will believe until I have good grounds to believe otherwise.<<
You replied: "I may misunderstand, but I think the 'plausible rationalization' you offer, with the 3-4%, etc., is probably approaching what they meant. But I see no 'comparing' of the adjusted 3 or 4 percent to the unadjusted 25%. 25% is just the chance of catching the card, nothing more. Say you catch a pair 25% of the time if you check-call, but because they'll so often lose, those pairs only add maybe 3-4% to your percentage of wins (given your gutshot). Yeah, maybe. Now, by betting, you add a few more percent. What's the problem? Where's the 'intellectual dishonesty' in that?"
An intellectually honest wording might go something like:
"You have 6 chances twice which is about 25 percent, and if you bet out as we recommend, you will win approximately an extra 5 percent of the time when you make that pair, whereas before you only win an extra 3 to 4 percent of the time."
Their actual, but incorrect, wording was:
"You have 6 chances twice which is about 25 percent, and if you bet out as we recommend you will win a decent proportion of those times when you make a pair, whereas before it wouldn't have won."
The incorrect wording makes a much stronger case for betting out on the flop. The intellectually honest wording makes it clearer that checking the flop might be a viable option in many situations.
"you will win approximately an extra 5 percent "
vs
"you will win a decent proportion of those times"
"The incorrect wording makes a much stronger case for betting out on the flop."
Mark,
So this is your idea of intellectual dishonesty.
Vince
"The incorrect wording makes a much stronger case for betting out on the flop."
John,
Earlier, I explained:
>>Infering 15-20 percent from a literal zero percent seems like a stretch. But the 3-4 percent figure certainly is closer to zero. So, another possibility is that the authors really intended to convey something like: "You have 6 chances twice which is about 25 percent [assuming you are not against an ace], and if you bet out as we recommend, you will win a decent proportion of those times when you make a pair, whereas before you only win about 3 to 4 percent of the time [after taking into account that you might be against an ace]."
While this is a plausible rationalization, to suggest that the authors meant this borders on accusing them of intellectual dishonesty. It is extremely misleading to compare an adjusted 3 or 4 percent against an unadjusted 25 percent, and I don't believe David would be a party to such a tactic.
Again, I think the authors simply were careless in their analysis and failed to realize you also can win the pot with a pair when you simply check the flop. That's what I suggested in November 1999, and that's what I will believe until I have good grounds to believe otherwise.<<
You replied: "I may misunderstand, but I think the 'plausible rationalization' you offer, with the 3-4%, etc., is probably approaching what they meant. But I see no 'comparing' of the adjusted 3 or 4 percent to the unadjusted 25%. 25% is just the chance of catching the card, nothing more. Say you catch a pair 25% of the time if you check-call, but because they'll so often lose, those pairs only add maybe 3-4% to your percentage of wins (given your gutshot). Yeah, maybe. Now, by betting, you add a few more percent. What's the problem? Where's the 'intellectual dishonesty' in that?"
An intellectually honest wording might go something like:
"You have 6 chances twice which is about 25 percent, and if you bet out as we recommend, you will win approximately an extra 5 percent of the time when you make that pair, whereas before you only win an extra 3 to 4 percent of the time."
Their actual, but incorrect, wording was:
"You have 6 chances twice which is about 25 percent, and if you bet out as we recommend you will win a decent proportion of those times when you make a pair, whereas before it wouldn't have won."
The incorrect wording makes a much stronger case for betting out on the flop. The intellectually honest wording makes it clearer that checking the flop might be a viable option in many situations.
Ray, I've played with you lots of times, and I was always impressed by one thing about you in particular. You never seemed to take a big loss. Sure, once in a while I suppose you did, but you always seemed to be gone before you got burried. What are your thoughts on that subject? I know it wasn't always because the game was bad, because you quit some pretty good games sometimes. Care to fill me in and share some of your ideas on the subject? Thanx.
Bill who?
well anyway Bill one reason i dont usually stay when im losing is that i can always play in another game as i play many different games. this helps ones ability to pick the best game in town. the main reason i dont stay too long is that i feel that when losing most times its because you are playing bad or are out of touch with the players that day. even though they may be playing badly they may be playing in such a way that you perceive them wrong and will make mistakes that are too costly. many other small resons but you get the drift. one other is that when losing the game is not as much fun so its needs to be even better to be worth playing in. but i believe my way has worked for me to have a wonderful overall record.
Care to comment about underbetting the pot as a habit as many people have claimed you do in no-limit hold 'em? I've tried that tactic many times and I'm amazed at how many pots I can adopt for little risk and the bluffs I can induce. Thanks
After read Mark Glover's latest post I quickly skimmed the section of HPFAP he was referring to. I REALLY need to reread and study HPFAP but right now I have a quick little question. How many bets does it take before a pot is considered big? Medium? Small? And how do these terms apply to the flop, turn and river?
Louie's rule of pot size: 4 players for one raise before the flop, 2 callers on the flop and the turn, and one caller on the river constitutes a "medium" size pot.
I just made that up. I hope someone disagrees.
- Louie
Louie,
SB against BB no raise = 1 big bet
SB against BB raise and call = 2 big bets.
If the typical game has 4 callers with a raise then the typical pot is 4 big bets that see the flop. If you are in a typical game then something relative to 4 big bets on the flop must constitute a big pot. So if there are only two callers on the flop you only have a pot of 5 or six big bets. Relative to 4 big bets that doesn't seem big. If we look at it in relationship to the size of the bet then a 6 bet pot is 6 to 1. Is that in relationship to the bet? Maybe. The problem is not really determining what a big pot is. We all know that if there are 11 or twelve big bets in a pot on the flop that the pot is big. What is the lower limit for big pots? I'm not sure that it is that important. 7,8,9 seem to say to me that I want to win this pot. The question is at what point to do you put greater emphasis on winning the pot than trying to pick up extra bets. Please, don't mind my babbling here, I'm trying to think this out as I go along.
I think the answer is that it depends on the strength of your hand and your chances of winning the pot. I lean in favor of maximizing my chances of winning a big pot rather than trying for extra bets. So if my hand is questionably the best and I want to improve my chances of winning I will normally employ the best tactic I can to reach that goal.
Vince
I don't think most games have an average post size of four big bets on the flop. That seems to high. Four people seeing the flop for a raise every hand? I'm used to playing in games that a little passive, 3 maybe 4 pots a round are raised. So if the pot contains 4 BB's on the flop BEFORE any flop betting I have often thought of this pot as on the big side. You are saying this is a medium pot? So a big pot would be greater than seven BB's?
I understand you argument about the strength of your hand in relation to the size of the pot, but in terms of studying HPFAP I am kind of looking for some ranges in numbers for small medium and large pots. You've sparked some thought in this little brain of mine though, and that is appreciated. If you have any more thoughts on this subject it would be appreciated. I for one don't mind your rambling's, sometimes they arrive at a conclusion. :)
If you can babble, I can babble; in fact nit-pick babble:
Lets not confuse "average" pot size sith "medium" pot size. Some games will routinely have "small" pots while others "big" pots. Most pots, I believe, are ..err.. should be small pots.
I think the psycological and strategic difference between "big" and "small" pots is whether your analysis starts by looking for reasons to invest more (big pots) or if it starts by looking for reasons to invest less (small pots). So before the flop and when the pot is small you routinely check/fold unless you can find good reason to do otherwise; and when the pot is big you routinely invest more unless you can find a good reason otherwise.
- Louie
Do any of you do this?
Last night at $20-40 I had AA UTG and raised. The next player reraised and it's highly likely he had a pair of tens or higher. And I can count on him for protection after the flop, especially since he started the hand with only five small bets in his stack.
Everyone folded except the BB who called. And it was back to me. The reraiser had exactly two small bets left in his stack.
Should I cap it before the flop, leaving him with one bet? Or should I just call so that he has enough to raise me on the flop to drive out the BB?
What if there are two other players in, or three? Would it now be increasing better to just call because more protection is needed on the flop?
Tommy
I think I would reraise in this particular case. If you cap it you are garuntee to get money from both the all in guy and the BB, although you minimize the chances of dumping the BB on the flop. Is this a risk you are willing to take? I would. I think you will make the most on this particular hand by reraising preflop, since you are garunteed to get the all in guys money anyways. But, with two or three more players in the pot I would lean towards calling preflop and then betting the flop to let the all-in guy raise out my opponents. Just my thoughts. I think this is an interesting topic.
I think with more players you should be more likely to cap, not less. The extra bets you make preflop should make up for the protection you gain postflop. However, it is close, as even 5 players for 3 bets preflop makes a pretty big pot which you should want to win right away.
With only 2 opponents, 1 about to be all in, I think you can gain from the deception of just calling. I don't even think of it as looking for protection. AA is a very good hand, and will hold up a lot more than its "fair share." I think the way to maximize EV in this case is to get lots of bets in the pot when you have the best hand; the pot is not so big with 2 opponents that you should be worrying as much about trying to win right away. In this case, you can play it either way, depending on the texture of the flop. If the flop is uncoordinated, I would be willing to slowplay a little in order to suck the BB in. If it is scarier, use the protection factor from the all in raiser.
David
I am looking for some good pokerbooks, all games. And the way to get theme, from Belgium. Ty.
Here's a politically incorrect topic, but if we can talk about Asian poker players, and white poker players....? Aren't Americans of African heritage hugely underrepresented among the top players and in fact among poker players in general at public casinos.. ?
We should let the field fight it out for the last 9 positions at the final table then seat a Black right in there #10 with an average stack cuz there just aren't eneough of them playing.
LOL - Just kidding.
Not sure what your point is here.
For a long time, people asked "Why are there no black head coaches in the NFL??" Many surmised that this pointed to a good ole boy system of hiring that excluded minorities.
There is no such exclusionary system regarding poker players. You got money? Go ahead and siddown.
I play in Minnesota, so the demographics are probably different than most other places poker is played. I regularly see a few black people playing poker - not an unusually small or large number in my opinion.
I have personally never seen any person mistreated or excluded or anything by cardroom employees because of their race.
I am of Mexican descent, and I can honestly say I don't see very many Mexican Americans at the card room. (Awright, which one of you jokers yelled "Look in the kitchen!")
If Mexican Americans are underrepresented among top poker players or players in cardrooms in general (I'm sure they are represented pretty well in California), I highly doubt that is something that needs to be examined.
I am Mexican, I like poker. The two really don't have much to do with each other.
Fortunately, poker is undoubtedly the most equitable field of endeavor for everyone regardless of race. Truly, at the poker table, the only color that gets attention is green.
In AC there are very few, but nobody is stopping them from playing. Of these few, they all are regulars. Some are good players, others are not. Some play higher limits, others do not. Some of them are gentlemen, others are not. There is one at the Trop that picks his nose while he is playing at the table, then looks at his fingers, and cleans them with his pans. I don't think he knows any better, if you don't believe me, you can see it for youself, he is there all the time. He plays low 1-5 stud, when he is not broke. Most African-American players I see in AC are bad players. The ones that come in the summer for vacations, are sometimes the worst poker players you will see, and loaded with your favorited paper color: green.
Do you play in AC? At the high limits there are very few African Americans but at the lower limits they are representative of the percentage of the population. From memory on Saturday I played at the Taj had one at my table and Sands where there were three. I think I know the guy you're talking about at Trop, but there are some white guys just as bad. I've found in general, regardless of race or ethnic background Poker players are a good group of people, better than you find in the other areas of the casinos in AC IMHO.
nt
Sometimes I'm not sure if I'm being really gullible. I play with many African-Americans, fom wild-loose to infuriatingly tight, aggresive. (How about a player who keeps notes about his opponents at the table!?)
I lay no credence to ethnicity as a determining factor. Or am I being obtuse?
nt
I find jews to be very tight players, and very small tippers, in a 5-10 HE game I have observed them giving a $ 0.50 for a $ 150.00 pot. Italians are not very good players, short temper, and very emotional about bad beats, and they are constantly talking. IMHO
insecure,
You wrote: "Italians are not very good players, short temper, and very emotional about bad beats, and they are constantly talking. IMHO"
Now I know why I can't average four big bets an hour like Rounder!
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
It's a good thing you got some of that Polish blood in you to temper all those flaws that Eyetalians are so prone to.
Nick
I guess he means me. I gotsa all Iiitalian blood. And lord knows I don't play very well, tilt a lot and can't stop talking. Man what a recipe for game selection. No wonder Hosh always transfers to my table when I'm at Bellagio's. Hey from now on I'm only gonna play with myself!
vince
Dear Insecure Moron:
I only give 25 cents to the dealer when I win pots up to $1000. And I heard that Sklansky, another cheap Jew like me, he gives only a dime. Hehe. Yes, us Jews, we are cheap. And it is worse for me, cause I have a greatgrandfather who was Scottish, and a greatgrandmother who was Italian: When that Scottish blood kicks in, I give no tips at all; and when the Italian blood rushes to my head, I punch the dealer out. Oh, and did I mention that I my greatgreat grandfather, he was African American. When I am in that mood, I cannot win at all, but I sure can jump. Good thing I have no Native American blood: I would be drunk all the time and get lost looking for the Casino...
Hehehehe,
Mark
I am not going there...
You did already, get it?
Mark
>>Italians are not very good players, short temper, and very emotional about bad beats, and they are constantly talking.
They talk with their hands too much...
How can you tell when your opponents are Jewish? I always wear a hat so my horns don't show.
Maurice,
I know how he know: They are the guys who don't tip much...but then our friend Mr. Insecure Moron forgot about our Scot friends, they might be mistaken for Jews.
Oh, I know: The Scots all have red hair and they wear kilts. And the Jews have big noses...oh, but wait, my nose isn't big, and I do tip a lot (like the gangster in "My Blue Heaven", my motto is 'don't tip, OVERTIP'...uhoh, I better talk to my rabbi about this, maybe I can get a reverse nose-job and some cheapness lessons.
HEHEHE, I would laugh a lot more, but guys like Mr Insecure Moron are dangerous.
Mark
Insecure--
What an absolutely horrendous and offensive post. i am relieved to see people responding appropriately. Aside from being offensive and innacurate, there were probably things you didnt consider. The only Jews you would notice are people who choose to wear a Kippah or Tzitzit, do you know what those are? I can promise you that a number of your opponents that you are assume are not Jewish, are.
Also, i am sure in your complex analysis, you deduced the only italians are the ones with the heavy accents or whatever other criterion you have decided makes someone an Italian or not. I can assure you there as well, that you probably have no idea how many People that you have played against that are Italian and dont fit your sterotype.
BTW, here is a sterotype of my own. Insecure sterotyping Bigots who make naive static assumtions on people based upon their assumtion of that persons ethnicity, are not likely to be winning players.
I welcome you to my table, and i will wear my tfilin/kippah and have a prayer book there, just to make sure that you dont miss out on the opportunity to figure me out.
Elie
He's obviously poking fun at the earlier posts below which were discussing the traits of poker players based on their race. Jeez, mellow out.
natedogg
Nate,
But I have so much fun laughing at this, I thought my sarcasitc responses should get the BEST Post of the Year...
Mark
He participated fully in the Asian post. He had comments about both the Asians and Blacks.
Other posts by Insecure seem to follow a relative "novice" style and I see no hint of sarcasm in his posts.
I believe he just needed to add his opinion of these races as well.
I am quite capable of telling sarcasm, granted it is more difficult to tell online.
HUMOUR ON - type is good natured ribbing.
Natedogg, do you use these highly developed people reading skills at the table?
HUMOUR OFF
BTW, I don't mind discussing stereotypes, race etc. It is easy to be misconstrued online though.
"humour." Bet the Draw, you're not some kind of furiner are you? Humor off.
John
No, I am not a furiner. I wear a toque and say "eh" and "aboot" just like everyone else around here.
Close enough to the border to drive 15 minutes to play in the "enlitened" US of A.
8-)
I hadn't read much of his other postings and after doing so, I think you might be right that there actually was no sarcasm intended. The post that started this thread struck me as so ludicrous and ignorant that it just HAD to be sarcasm. Maybe it's because the post was the kind of thing I would write (as sarcasm). Also, the timing was great coming after the other posts about racial poker-playing traits. But the rest of this guy's posts seem to be pretty sincere. Amazing.
natedogg
I think that Bet the Draw is a hypocrite. But you, Natedogg, were right on the money. My comments were as a joke to the others posts about Asians and African-American, they were not politically correct, perhaps, but in this forum, I am just having a conversation with everyone (friends?) and trying to improve my poker, otherwise, I will have to have and attorney check my writting and an english professor check my spelling., and I don't have the time for that. They can call me a moron, I don't mind that. No sense of humor, that is ok too. What I learn out of all of these is that I know who the real good poker players are. And some people think that they know it all, when they don't. Even when they write perfect english they missed the point complitly, but feel good about themself when they think they got somebody, when they don't. I see it in life, I see it at the poker table and I see it in this forum IMHO.
Insecure has stated that the post was a joke.
I have apologized and now must apologize to you for ever doubting your people reading skills.
So sorry so sorry.
I am not worthy
Mike N
if only I could be right all the time when it counts! When money is on the line...
natedogg
nt
What? Natedogg, intelligent? Hey, I met Natedogg. Bright, witty, great personality maybe but intelligent? Come on give me a break, he plays poker for cryin ot loud. How intelligent can he be?
Vince
I'm damned tired of the anti-Swedish-English-Jew prejudice that abounds in this country, and I intend to band together with my Swedish-English-Jewish brothers and sisters and forge a bond with them such that we can STAMP IT OUT! All six of us.
I am reading my original post again, and I still think that my comments are funny. Sorry, I can't help it and I am not a racist.
nt
Short people got no reason to live
They've got little feet
They've got little cars
That go tweet tweet
Vince
4-8-8 game here in vegas. i made a play last night that my friend says was a bad play. 4 limpers to me, i raise out of the SB with JJ. my friend says " raise out of the SB with KK,AA always, and QQ raise out of the SB is questionable, dont raise with jj". (we are talking about with 4 limpers). is he right? just to give a little more info, blinds are 1 and 2 $. 2 of the limpers are loose passive tourist and the other 2 limpers are decent players. does anyone have an opinion? thx in advance.
If your raise from two to six, the play is almost certainly correct.
What?
The original poster said it was a "4-8-8" game, which usually means 1-4-8-8, in which the BB is 2, but raises preflop can be up to 4. Limpers in this situation have very good implied odds, but a raise here destroys those profitable implied odds, thus helping the JJ immensely in the long run.
Mark
What are you saying "what" to ?
The "two to six" refers to the limpers it would take to be correct. Is that what you are saying "what" to ? or is it the reasoning behind the play that you are saying "what" to ?
Howard
2 to 6 limpers is what I am saying what to. Deadbart fixed me up by explaining the raising goes from $2 to $6 instead of $2 to $4. It has previously been stated (in HPFAP I think) that with this hand either want 2 opponents or more than 5, with 3 or 4 opponents being the worst and that you should not raise with this number of opponents. That's what confused me. I thought he was talking about players, but he was referring to money.
Mark
After re-reading gunner's post and DS's response; I believe I am the one who misunderstood DS's response. So please disregard my above comment about limpers.
My Bad
Howard
Mark in a $1-$4-$8-$8 game, a player can limp in for $2 because the blinds are only $1 and $2 respectively. Hoever, players can still raise $4 so they can make it $6 to go. Now many players will fold if they limp in for $2 but have to call for another $4 when the action comes backs to them. This is like calling a double raise. In a normally structured game you do not have this situation. For example, the $4-$8 game at the Bellagio has blinds of $2 and $4 which means that once the guy makes the decision to limp for $4 he will almost always call a $4 raise back to him. But not so in a $1-$4-$8-$8 game.
makes sense now, i thought he was talking about # of players and that didn't make sense, thanks jim
I haven't played in a game structured like this (1-4-4-8 or any game where a preflop limp is less than a flop bet) but I am under the ASSUMPTION that it would be sometimes more profitable to limp with big hands (AA, KK, AKs, AQs) so you can RERAISE. The hands play well no matter how many players are in the pot. (To a certain extent)
First, is this sound strategy?
Second, if others are playing like this, how does this affect your decision to raise JJ out of the SB?
Squirrel
To limp re-raise you must be quite sure that someone else will raise otherwise it is a mistake to just limp in with premium hands. While your EV is positive with lots of players it is even more positive with a smaller number of opponents. I have found that in $1-$4-$8-$8 if I raise early with my premium hands I will still get a few callers just not as many.
With regard to raising with JJ from the small blind, I would only do it in a $1-$4-$8-$8 structure if I thought some of the limpers would fold otherwise I would not. This assumes that there are 3 or more limpers involved.
Wrong for not giving any detail. David, this forum is for learning. Your answer does not give any reasoning. Of course details could open up the discussion and possibly even disagreement. I don't find your answer helpful at all.
What do you see as the purpose for the raise? Does this hand play best against 2 or 3 opponents? Does it play ok against 4 opponents? What do you expect to accomplish with the raise? Build the pot, drive other players out?
Personally, with this bad position, I want to see the flop before I commit any more chips unless I can drive others out, which may be doubtful here if it is a typical low limit game. Too many chances for an over card to flop, then what? What's wrong with that reasoning.
Raising would be right if you think it will result in some of the limpers folding rather than putting in another $4 when they limped in for $2. In a standard structured game like the $4-$8 at the Bellagio this would not happen but in the Flamingo game it might.
"Wrong for not giving any detail. David, this forum is for learning."
This is not a beginners forum.
Vince
Gee, I don't know whether to respond as if you're kidding David or me or that I should put my tail between my legs and skulk off. HPFAP is not a beginner's book, but it would have about ten pages if it didn't have detail.
.
There is one area in one of David Sklansky's 2+2 essays - "Why are easy games hard" (www.twoplustwo.com/dsessay1.html) - that baffles me.
I quote from the essay:
"Play more longshot draws if you are drawing to the nuts or close to it. For instance if the flop is Ks 6h 5d in a multi-way pot I would much rather hold 7d 6d than Kc 10c."
Ok, in a multiway pot I realize that your K10clubs (with the flop presented) is very vulnerable as there is a high probability that you are outkicked to JK, QK, AK which are quite likely to be out there - and your backdoor straight possibilities are longshots.
However, if I was in late position and someone bet in front of me I would almost assuredly muck my 67diamonds (and perhaps this IS a weakness in my game and why I am posting this). Can someone please explain to me why calling (or raising???) with the 67diamonds is profitable in the long run in this situation ??? Surely it is a longshot play too that would miss far more often than hit and cost more in the long run?? What do you want to see on the turn? Another diamond? a 4 or an 8 (preferably a diamond) for the openender? Ok, another 6 would be nice but you still meet an A6suited out there.
I look forward to replies from experienced players.
Thanks.
Hi, If you caught a 6 or 7 you should win. The odds appx. 2-6's 3-7's with two draws. 5x2 = 10/42 or about 1 in 5 chances to win the pot. without counting on the dia's flush or straight. So if you make it in a family pot you should have good odd's. (nice big pot) The K-10 will lose about 80% of time in a faimly pot. I would fold for a araise so that means i can not bet. The old rule (small kicker win little and lose lot's.) We are talking mid level game with fair to good player that would not play worse than k-10. Have a nice day. Ron
I am still undecided about how much I want to delve into the subject of poker collusion. So I may cut short this many part series at any time. Anyway, in this first installment I want to bring up an extremely common and simple situation; namely where one colluder is in the big blind, while the other colluder is in late position and no one else has yet entered the pot.
The question is which situations call for the colluders to deviate from normal strategy? For instance if the big blind has two aces, what should the other guy do with QT offsuit? Suppose the big blind has 72. What should the other guy do with J8 offsuit? Suppose the big blind has A5 suited and the partner has two jacks? The blind has QJ and the partner has KQ? That's enough for now.
Q,To against A,A- If normal strategy is to raise then the colluder should just call and hope to get the remaining players between him and the BB to call or raise. If this works The the BB should raise or reraise and the colluder should put in another raise if any are left. This situation calls for deviation from normal strategy.
J,8o against 7,2o - Normal strategy is to fold. A call is out of the question. The only question is whether to raise or not. On the button with no blind chop I say raise. The cutoff is close. Early late is a fold.
A,5s against J,J. Normal strategy is raise. I'm going out on a limb here but I think that A,5s should fold and deviate from normal strategy.
Q,J against K,Q. This to me is the worst situation of all. It seems to me that there is no right answer here. Normal strategy is raise and It just may be that is still the correct strategy. I'm not sure but I think you still raise. If not then I fold.
David, if I get these right can I be your partner in the 80 - 160 game?
Vince
It’s more than enough for now.
How can this ever do yourself or poker any good?
Martin Amis, currently England’s most popular novelist, noticed a few decades ago that many of his paragraphs were copied word for word by some minor American author.
Of course he sued for plagiarism.
After years of going through the courts on both sides of the Atlantic, Amis won easily.
But now, more than 50% of the people that have some dim memory of the lawsuit, think that Amis was the one who did the plagiarizing.
1. AA and QT raise 2. 72 and j8 fold 3. A5s and jj call 4. QJ and KQ fold
Fold. Fold. Fold. Fold. Lets not give the SB any reaonable odds at all.
Don't delve into it. Teaching poker theory is one thing. Teaching collusion theory is quite another.
Why not just teach us how to pick pockets.
Now talking about how to avoid collusion is one thing, but you already got one joking comment about pairing up with you. How many lurkers will take up the studying of collusion if you start teaching it?
If we were to gain some useful knowledge from the discussion of collusion it would be one thing, but the Manhatten project didn't just produce a clean energy source.
It lead to armageddon. (Well almost)
Holdem seems like a poor game for colluding. Limit omaha8 or pot limit omaha high would seem like better games.
There was a team in Mississippi about three years ago, most of them from Memphis originally. I first ran into them in Lousianna where their thing was marked cards.
Collusion would happen by signaling key cards that were released. Let's say that someone released the Ace of spades and three spades flop. The signaling of this card would give one of the team players a chance to bluff the pot.
Another situation would be a very ragged flop, K 8 3 offsuit. If the team players who had released could account for two kings, then this pot could be seized very easily.
None of these guys could play that good, and some real players (Bert, Jack, Galen, Cain, Butch and the boys) must have sent em packing because I haven't seen them around lately.
It seems to me that potential colluders will gain more from this type of discussion than honest poker players. Why help the colluders?
While I'm not sure if this has much to do with Poker Colluding (but it does a little), the Manhattan project no-doubt SAVED us from Armegeddon since it insured that a sane, disciplined, and fundamentally "good" society emerged with nuclear superiority FIRST. Certainly the Nazi's would have used the bomb liberally, and I believe the Soviets would eventually have launched had they developed early superiority.
- Louie
I always found it pleasantly ironic that the Nazis did not have a bomb project because Hitler and others dissmissed the idea of "Jewish physics."
Another irony of the Manhattan project is that a very large percentage of scientists working on it were either members of the communist party or had direct relatives who were.
Paul Talbot
PS. I doubt the Russians would have used the bomb first had they the opportunity. The Russian modus operandi has always been about retaliation rather than agression.
.
Hi:
Enclosed is screen capture from my browser window. As you can see, I was visitting the 2+2 website, and Sklansky has begun a thread about collusion. Actually, that is not entirely accurate.... he has begun a thread in which the goal is to discuss the optimal play for colluders for a few typical hands.
It's his website... who am I to tell him what he can discuss on his own website?! However, I can't help but notice that the cardroom that I most frequent has an advertisement smack-dab in the middle of this page. Do you really want your ads to appear on the same page, or even the same forum, in which the person profiting from such advertisiing is leading a discussion on how best to collude?
He could do more damage with these discussions than all of the good that he claims to have done with the writing of his books. When your banner appears at the website of these discussions, and the readers of this very discussion are placed a mouseclick away from your tables..... well, exactly how much of our rake money do you pay for these ads?
Sklansky has commented in the past on how he thinks players should be hesitant to play at a site in which they have not hired an 'expert' on collusion to help police the games. I've always felt he has used these discussions to help position himself as THE expert on collusion, in the hopes it would lead to an opportunity in the future. Everything I have seen of your site indicates that you do not need his help. I feel much more comfortable with your team monitoring the games than I would with some well-known player or author who is being hired more for his reputation than his ability.
My point is that he pretends as though some good that can come from educating the masses on the proper play of colluders, but I think it is far more likely that he is actually just using these discussions to try to create a future opportunity for himself as a collusion-detector. While his motives should not concern you or me, I mention it only as an indication that his opinion regarding the benefits of such a discussion might not be entirely unbiased, and so it would be foolish to trust his optimism of the results of such discussions if our own opinion differs.
My opinion definitely differs. If you feel similarly, you might want to let him know, since it sounds like he plans on this being a multi-part discussion. I would hope that you might convince him of the harm that could come of such discussions. As a player at your casino, I would hope that your minimal reaction would be to distance your ads from such discussions.
Thanks,
Mike.
collusion n.- Secret cooperation in fraud or in illegal activities.
Why don't you do yourselves a favor and delete this entire thread. The rest of us will then pretend we never saw it. (even though our hearts will remain broken)
Some people are being a little harsh on David for bringing light to this subject. Accusing him of having ulterior motives is unfair and unfounded crticism.
However, I can see why this discussion has angered some. Nobody wants this kind of information available to those who will use it.
The bottom line is that the cheaters and colluders will probably figure this all out anyway. At least we'll be better able to stop it if we know it well too.
I wouldn't mind seeing this thread deleted. It's pretty ugly.
The universe revolves around the earth. Men have more teeth than women. It is impossible for man to fly. Heavy objects fall faster than light objects.
Surely, pure research is pointless. Experts sharing their knowledge can do no good. Only evil people would want such evil knowledge.
It is better that Mr. Sklansy remain the only person capable of detecting expert collusion, thereby insuring that he can command the highest price possible for his services. Honest poker players and poker game operators have no legitimate reason to want such information.
1. The QT suited should fold in tougher games, possibly call otherwise.
2. The J8 should raise. (72 should fold)
3. The jacks should raise and the ace five suited should call. In this case there would be no strategy change.
4. The KQ should fold.
I am only 90% sure of some of these answers so I welcome comments.
Here is one more: The big blind has K8 offsuit. The partner has QJ offsuit.
For now my goal is not to give detailed training in colluding but rather to show how intricate the subject is and how advantageous it can be even without using flagrant putting people in the middle plays. And yes, I also want to leave no doubt in people's minds that I am the best in the world in this subject. Perhaps Paradise Poker would prefer that I did not bring it up. So much for the accusations that I am their lackey. Still I doubt that they would take Mike M's suggestion to cancel their ad. It would probably be a lot smarter for them to pay attention to what I have to say on this issue..
Best in the world at a rotten subject.
I totally misread you A,5s and Q,J I thought they were in late position. Sorry can I get another chance?
Vince
qj with k8 raise
My mind is not adjusting to this thought process well. I would like to clarify what we are trying to examine. Are we looking for the best play strictly before the flop without regard to future action? Meaning, ignore situtions after the flop where having a partner would be advantageous? Are we looking to disguise the play so it is fairly undetectable to an outside observer?
Also look at this idea from a general perspective instead of specific examples. In the case of the big blind being strong, it stands to reason that generally we want to allow it to be attacked. When weak, we would want to protect it by "attacking" it ourselves. A second concept would be to look at it from the button and or small blinds perspective. IF I can see the colluders cards...what do I NOT want them to do.
DS: "The QT suited should fold in tougher games, possibly call otherwise."
Following my general idea, if correct, we want the aces to be attacked/or get action. So is this best achieved by calling, raising or folding QT. Raising is out of the question. So would calling or folding best allow the aces to get into action? I am not sure, but I am leaning towards folding. If we are taking post flop into consideration, or we are going to be bold enough to limp reraise (to the advantage of the aces), calling might be right. I don't know.
DS:
"2. The J8 should raise. (72 should fold)
This follows my general idea and I have little doubt this one is right.
DS:
3. The jacks should raise and the ace five suited should call. In this case there would be no strategy change.
I don't see a problem with just callng with the jacks. I think the combined strength of these hands is sufficient to lure in opponents. I havn't looked at this math wise. I have my doubts on this. If I am, say the button, what would I want my enemy colluders to do here? Well, I think I would want the jacks to raise, letting me off the hook. If I come in, it will be with a raise, and my hand won't mind A5, in or out.
DS:
4. The KQ should fold
Is the QJ sufficiently strong to withstand an attack with it's top pair out? I would like an explanation as to why the KQ should fold.
Overall, it will take a while to adjust years of thinking as a single hand and convert this into a cheating mindset.
It would seem to me that the best collusion players in the world aren't going to let you know that they are the best.
Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure somebody will) assuming that you can "signal" suit and rank to each other without anyone noticing you, and you’re pretty much taking four cards to the flop with a severe betting advantage. Isn't it always correct to play most playable hands? (With the exception that you can’t improve i.e. the same pair)Wouldn’t the betting situation dictates the most correct plays.
Also poker is a hustle. It's a hustle on every level. You get preferential treatment by floor personnel if you tip them. The casino gets a piece of every pot, (yea the provide a service not for you but for them) You end paying more for soda because you feel guilty if you don’t pay the waitress a dollar. It’s the greatest hustle of all because suckers will get lucky and occasionally beat you, and they will come back for more. Always trying to draw out on you so they can feel good about themselves. All the great players play who are friends play somewhat together. This thread does nothing more than discuss the severity of it. Collusion goes on every day to some degree. Do you people honestly believe that at a certain level poker players hold honor above money? If so give time, date, and location then shut up and deal.
Finally why delete the thread cheaters are motivated enough to learn on their own. They don’t David S. to teach them if they do at least we will know their tactics. So if where you read and learn if nothing more than to spot to colluding players so you can follow them to there car and take what they took from you. LOL
...behind the collusion questions posed by David Sklansky. Everybody seems to have a take on the appropriateness of the thread, but what about the rich vein of poker theory associated with determining such answers?
Summing up EV's in various scenarios is the basis for solutions to poker problems. Some problems are harder than others. A little while back David posed a question involving a hand to which nobody on this forum seemed able to produce a speedy and correct answer--I don't recall seeing David post the answer either, but the point is that some problems involving various scenarios and their branches and the associated EV's are far from simple. I am not familiar with an efficient approach to calculating such things as hands involving multiple backdoor outs and various associated scenarios, sio in a live game I often just try to guesstimate it as best I can. However the fact remains that there are solutions which can be derived for the most complex of hand problems.
The collusion questions David has posed above are really just a very advanced form of such problems (with the goals being dependent on a number of things, of course).
I am not trying to either encourage or discourage this discussion in any way. My view is rather neutral in that respect. Knowledge is knowledge, and that which people choose to use it for is dependent upon them, not upon the knowledge. I am merely pointing out that truly being expert at poker ought to mean being able to derive the mathematically optimal solution for such problems (and lesser problems too, of course, such as typical hand problems).
Speaking of straight hand problems themselves for a moment (no collusion involved), we have some very good players on this forum who provide valuable insights and I think we are all very glad that they are contributing. I have noticed, however, that even most excellent players tend to rely to a large extent on general principles, accumulated wisdoms, experience, and of course basic poker odds. What I have not noticed on this forum is very many people providing the sort of analysis David Sklansky or Abdul Jalib provide (well of course:-)
What I am trying to say here is that there is a methodology available, a process by which one is able to calculate multiple backdoor outs in various branches of a hand, etc. Sure at the table we try to ballpark it, but understanding the process, the method of deriving the answers to complex hand/EV questions, is a very valuable skill. This skill and knowledge is something that most of us as players could develop far, far more. If you are somewhat like me in this regard, you know there is a vast area out there into which you have just ventured into the fringes. Some people could care less. But I would be happy to see more complex hand posts with not only the answers derived, but with a summary portrait of the methodology utilized shown as well.
The specific hand post I am above referring to had something to do with an A7(?) suited trying to decide whether it was worth it to call in a certain situation when drawing to a backdoor flush, a backdoor straight, and an ace pair combined. The question hinged upon what odds the A7(?) needed to make the call correct in the given playing situation.
Getting back for a moment to the question of the collusion aspect of this thread, I do not think the discussion itself is likely to foster collusion or to greatly help would-be colluders, provided David does not supply a set of "easy-to-follow general principles" for effective collusion.
Whether or not David chooses to continue this thread substantially further or not, I for one would be very appreciative if in the future we might discuss the techniques of deriving the correct answers to questions like the hand problem mentioned above involving A7(?)s, or the discussion wherein David said his grandmother could outplay anyone while holding two Jacks if the other player held AQo if she simply held onto the hand if on the flop there was one overcard or less, but folded if there were two overcards (the other player had argued that the preflop reraiser, the AQo, had the best of it).
I played in a neighborhood home for the first time this weekend. They don't play any standard games that I play in the casinos. I generally played tight and waited for good hands and won money but wasn't sure about minimum starting hands in a few of the games.
Let me discuss one or the games. The table was 8 handed and the dealer anted each time so there was no confusion about who had anted or who hand not. Each player receives 4 cards and then 5 cards in the shape of a 't' is place in the middle of the table. You can either use 3 cards up or 3 cards across. The middle card is revealed last. You make the best 5 card hand possible from your 4 cards and the 3 on the board you choose to use. It seemed to me that a good staring hand was a high pair (or 3 or 4 of a kind if you were so lucky) with 3 to a flush. If I didn't have such a starting hand, I would simply fold.
There is no sense in bluffing in this game, you will get called and the best hand will be shown down.
Do my starting hand criteria make sense in this game?
Comments?
I get very mad when I lose at the table. I think I know why. It is because I lose money. If I was playing for matches I would not get mad. Would I? Since getting upset while playing poker is absolutly a no-no, what can I do about it? Any advise?
Understand that poker is a not a specific session but a continuous game which does not end. Make the right decisions each time you act on a hand and you profit, whether the results of a particular hand or session are favorable or not. You will show a win in the long run which is the only score that counts. Perhaps you're not sure what those right decisions are. Buy the books advertised here and study them. Don't delude yourself - either you understand the concepts and employ them throughout your game or you do not. If you still find yourself an angry player then you probably have a personality conflict with gambling or financial risk in general. Try the NASDAQ instead..
"If I was playing for matches I would not get mad. "
Well then play for matches. Treat your buy-in as if it were matches. Make sure that you are playing at a limit that is comfortable for you. Make your primary goal playing correctly. Then at the end of the session count your matches and go home.
Vince
This is something you will have to conquer if you want to succeed at poker. Suckouts and other stimulii that lead to those kind of emotions are common and if you let it effect your game, it's going to cost you money.
Check out Feeney's book "Inside the Poker Mind". I think you'll find a lot of insight at least as far as the cause (and cost) of emotions rising to the fore.
How to cure it is a different problem. One thing that has helped for me is to keep accurate records. But I don't think that will welp a losing player.
I will get the book. Thank you and the others for the advises. Everyone else, please keep them coming, I need them. I know for sure that sometimes I play too many hours in a session, and that, affects my emotion.
Another book you may look into is "Zen and the Art of Poker". It addresses alot of things about patience, the ebb and flow of the game, and emotional detachment from the results. IMHO.
The Zen book will also give you advice that will cost you money. The how to play poker advice is usually poor or worse.
I just got that book. I am presently reading it and so far I think is a great book.
It's not the money. It's the other players. You are probably playing at a table with some Jews and Italians. These races have an inate ability to get you upset over even the smallest loss.
This is closely related to the concern you had in a very recent thread concerning tipping and overt behaviour. It's these actions (by the Jews and Italians) along with many others that cause you to go on tilt.
I think I've touched a nerve...
Insecure has stated that his previous Jew/Italian post was a joke SO I apologize to him/her for my own sarcastice response in this thread.
About being Mad when losing. It's not just the money. If you ever golfed (substitute your own game of choice here) then you know it definitely not just the money.
You must
1) look at things long term
2) have a oversized bankroll
3) be patient
4) realize that you can't win everytime
5) realize that poorer players need to win sometimes else most of them wouldn't play.
6) be prepared for the worst outcome in any hand. Don't expect he worst outcome, just be prepared.
7) others thinks I just can't think of right now.
nt
Insecure,
thanks for thanks however,
thanks are not really needed on a 1 to 1 basis. It just kind of fills up the thread with stuff we all need to skip over each time. This is not email after all.
Note: THIS IS NOT A CRITIQUE OF ANY KIND. Just trying to keep number of posts I must read lower. Anyone wishing to post as often and for whatever reason is more than welcome to.
In other words, when you've screwed up a shot, you can get pissed and scream and hit the dog with your golf clubs all you want! But when it's time to make the next shot, keep your head straight and keep your eyes on the ball.
Usually I just try to hit a duck with a practice shot!
No not exactly. Very tough to get mad and then regain your composure. Must be prepared for the bad bounce or to find your ball in a divot.
After you finish hitting your dog with your golf clubs, I will run over you with my golf cart 20 times then feed your carcasses to my pit bull!!! You shameless animal hater!!! Cruel dimwit!!!
You know of at least two thinking and behaving habits that are preventing you from becoming tilt-free: #1-you let the fact that you are playing with money affect you emotionally #2-you sometimes play too many hours in a session. My first question in this post is "What else is preventing you from becoming tilt-free in addition to these two?
Addressing #1, I think Vince Lepore's advice is right on. Since you don't get emotionally affected when you lose matchsticks, think of your money as matchsticks. Alternatively, you can think of them as mere chips that are used for keeping score. Or you can treat them as "units" ("I'm gonna raise this guy two units", "Oh I'm behind ten units", "I'm ahead three units per hour these past 1000 hours", you get the idea).
In the book The Biggest Game in Town there are a lot of stories of people who have "a total disregard for money". I suggest that you read this fun book and use those people as inspirations.
Also, read John Feeney's book, paying especially close attention to what he calls "the professional attitude". This attitude, once fully integrated into your personality is the key to tilt-free playing.
Finally, study NLP. NLP has a lot of techniques (reframing, swish patterns, meta-stating, new behavior generators, anchoring, visual squash, double dissociations, etc.) for creating designer mental states that can be tailor made to any situation or context.
Addressing #2, in your mind go back to the times when playing too many hours contributed to your losing discipline and going on tilt. Remember how long they were. Then subtract 1 hour from the average. Make it a point to always stop playing once your total session hours has crossed this time period.
Insecure, running your brain and your emotions is a skill much like bluffing, figuring out the pot odds, and reading hands are skills. It is a skill worth learning and it is a skill that is very learnable.
"I think Vince Lepore's advice is right on. "
God am I am smart or what. I never heard anyone say that about Ray Zee!
vince
Here's a trick I use to help me. I think of myself like a casino or bar owner. People come into my establishment to give me buiness (play poker) and I profit from it when they play worse than me. Casinos and bars should treat their best customers with favors, compliments and generally make them feel important. When I lose a hand because someone drew out on me, I think of it as a positive thing; I just gave a great customer a free drink, meal, or good service or what have you. If you can think of these bad beats in a positive light, you might just find that your game improves considerably when you do suffer these losses.
Your advise is really something. Just great, thank you.
If you are an over-all loser than stay mad and stay away.
Leave when mad. If you get mad early often early in a session you are probably playing above your psycological limit such as if a $300 loss in a 10/20 will set you off. When you lose a pot objectively focus on your play of the hand, either identifying and correcting a "mistake" or realizing you played it well. Either way you will feel better (at least I do).
Your EGO takes a much bigger bruising when you lose real money.
- Louie
Here is what you should many times a day until it sinks in.
Go into a room where there are no people. Spread out your arms as wide as you can. Slowely turn in a circle. Anything you touch is what you can control. Everything else is not in your control.
Poker is the same only the room is smaller. The only thing at the table you can control is yourself. If you are not upset at your own play, and you shouldn't be, there is no reason to become angry. If you could control the actions of others at the table, they would simply give you their money and be done with it.
Mike
Than
I just orderer on this site but its impossible to know how long it will take to get it. I live in Canada.
Anyone have an idea?
Ty
Charlie
I have an additional theory to add to the ones already discussed.
I think that Asian attraction to poker and other forms of gambling could be related to Asian political culture.
Political culture in Asia, dating back to antiquity has always been one of despotism and totalitarianism. Observe, even to this day, the personality cults of various rulers and the lack of personal freedom throughout most of Asia. Even places that have a contemporary experience with liberalism have a history of despotism.
In despotic and totalitarian regimes, the ability of an individual is severely curtailed by the arbitrary weilding of power by the despot or state leadership. In such a society, no individual, particularly powerless individuals, can have any sort of garauntee of reward in life. You could work very hard and have everything taken away from you by an arbitrary use of power from above. Since you can not garauntee anything in such a society and all around you are examples of that control that comes from outside your ability to influence, the dominant factor in life is fate. All you can really do is your best and hope that it is enough, but there is no garauntee that hard work and good decisions will be rewarded, fate decides that.
If life is decided by fate rather than the actions of an individual than wealth and power have relatively less meaning than they do in societies where these are the result of hard work and garaunteed individual liberties. Therefor in a fatalistic society, gambling with those riches (or any money for that matter) is not really as risky because you are risking it just by existing anyway, why not take a chance with it? Either way, powers beyond your control will ultimately decide the course of your life.
In poker this philosophy could become very powerful. You want to work hard and make the correct decisions to maximize your chance of success, but you recognize that you have no control over eventual outcome so why worry about outcome, why be scared? Fate will eventually make what it wants of your life so just accept the way it goes.
Most Asian-Americans are first or second generation immigrants so this political culture could be passed down through generations in terms of general philosophy.
I guess one way to test this theory would be to see if it applies to Russians whose political culture is Asian in origin but have other significant cultural differences with the rest of Asia. I haven't met many Russian players though.
What do you all think?
Paul Talbot
Political culture in Asia, dating back to antiquity has always been one of despotism and totalitarianism.
Political culture in Asia? Is there really such a thing? Do Israel and Thailand have much in common? How does Iraq relate to Japan? I've always felt that India is somewhat unique and it contains a large percentage of the world's Asians.
Asia is a big place. I think the generalizations are ridiculous. Lets stick to poker.
Along Mairice thinking -- I think when Asians are mentioned -- we are "again I think" referring to Chinese, and the people of adjacent southeastern countries -- particularly Viet Nam, Cambodia, Thailand -- etc. Many People from Viet Nam are oversea Chinese.
It s hard to say why Asians are leading in Poker but of course I belive it s culture and Disepline.
Asians is more harmonis the other,
No stress = No bad Beats
Israel is populated mostly by European Jews so perhaps they do not fit, but the political regimes of the middle east have been very similar to those of the far east. Remember that the middle east was once ruled by the descendents of Ghengis Khan (who replaced local despots).
Political culture in Asia? Is there really such a thing? Do Israel and Thailand have much in common? How does Iraq relate to Japan? I've always felt that India is somewhat unique and it contains a large percentage of the world's Asians.Asia is a big place. I think the generalizations are ridiculous. Lets stick to poker.
I think this is the reason why the term "Oriental" was originally used. There's much less ambiguity in "Oriental" than there is in "Asian", as Maurice has noted. Political correctness gets the best of clear communication once again.
Actually the word "oriental" was originally used to denote Turks, Iranaians and Arabs.
Actually the word "oriental" was originally used to denote Turks, Iranaians and Arabs.
For an intersting discussion of the concept of "the orient" as imagined by Western minds see Edward Said's book "Orientalism."
Regards,
Paul Talbot
Where are the other refugees? If you get the chance, warn them about the abundance of poker content out here at twoplustwo.com. It might overwhelm them considering that they are coming from a poker content wasteland. Tell them to first land at "Other Topics" then work their way up to "Beginners Questions" then to "Other Gambling Games". You don't want them going directly to "General Theory" as it might cause poker content induced psychological trauma. I hope this advice helps.
I think this is the reason why the term "Oriental" was originally used. There's much less ambiguity in "Oriental" than there is in "Asian", as Maurice has noted. Political correctness gets the best of clear communication once again.
Terrence, you are exactly correct. I am getting tired of PC winning out over accuracy.
While we're on the subject. I refuse to use the term "African American". I can't tell if someone is American by looking at them. If I see a black person and wish to describe them as such, how do I know if they are American? They might be from France. Or maybe even from Africa.
If people do not want to be referred to as black, fine. Lets find another word. Just not "African American". I don't want to have to look at someone's passport to describe physical characteristics.
.
I will tell you why asian players are "better". THEY'RE NOT, but they do have a style which lends itself to big bet/tournament poker. I have been a professional player for many years, most as a prop. During my time as a prop in limit games I salivated for asian players because they were awful. They gambled too much and blew off money faster than any other type of player. In a limit game their hyper aggressive style did not pay off. Once I had won a few tournaments and got a bankroll i started playing exclusivley PL/NL tourney's and the PL/NL side games that accompanied them. These asian players that used to be my bread and butter were now my worst enemy for two reasons. 1. The hyper aggressive style. 2. a general lack of tells.
Most big winners at big bet are big gamblers. This is their edge when the money gets deep, they have an utter lack of respect for it at the table. They create stressful situations and thrive in this environment. if you have ever played LIMIT with phil hellmuth you would see how their mind works in slow motion. it is almost sad to watch as he blows money helplessly trying to create hyperstressful situations in a game where they dont exist. trying to find reads where there are none, trying to intimidate in a toothless game. (i'm sure mason can comment about how limit is not a toothless game, but he is wrong. i have never felt real stress in a limit game)
Gambling is also the demise of many big bet players. It always amuses me to hear people say, "can you beleive so and so world class player blew 20k sportsbetting or at the track?" or "can you beleive so and so is broke again after that big tourney win?" They assume that because someone is a great poker player they should know better, but many great poker players are just big gamblers who stumbled into the right game and have a special gift (see also stu ungar).
In the NL holdem game i frequent I love it when a big winner at the limit tables wants to come over and try his luck. in general his weakness will be calling to much, that is how he got the big win in limit. because at times, because of the size of the pots in relation to bets, he is not making that big of mistake. he blows his money off in my game so fast it should be a crime.
The player i am more leery to see come over after a big win is often times the horse/sports better or asian games player. It's not that they wont lose their money, they usually will. but they lose it making big aggressive bets into the nuts. and what that does is get you sitting waiting for the nuts while they bulldoze the game. this is not fun. and if that person has a penchant for reading tells they are one win streak away from being world class. You dont beleive me? see doyle brunsons post on the big bet page in regard to archie karras. If the money was deep enough he could hold his own with the best in the world. because he turned a beautiful game into a chinese pissing contest.
Are you saying that the lack of respect for money is the pre-requisit to playing no limit, and after that you have to get lucky?
Can a conservative player win over time in this environment?
as a limit player you never have to wrestle with the idea that every chip you have on the table is at risk every time the cards are dealt. In NL this is the case. Therefor you must come into the game with a firm understanding that chips are gamepieces and gamepieces must be played with. you can only respect the game not the money.
In limit aces is a big hand, it is a "through" ticket(as ciaffone likes to say). In NL it is a trap. I am not even excited to look down and see aces in an unraised pot. All i can do is raise it and hope i get re-raised, now the hand is big. Maybe i can get a raise tell from someone behind me and limp it to them. i dont want to see a flop with aces. If i do see a flop and there is any action i will drop my hand 95% of the time (if not improved). Why? because i am a conservative player and i do make money at this game. How? game selection. If i am in a game with 4 loose callers, 2 gamblers, 2 pro's and myself i don't need to be calling huge post flop bets with aces to make money, i will simply let this one go and live to fight easier opponents. If i have to make money calling big bets in 50/50 situations i have chosen the wrong game. Can i be pushed around? I hope so, much more than the average player because i dont call unless it is to set something up. the worst NL players can never be pushed around. do i push people around? often, if it is profitable to do so. when you push a world class player around it is usually a trap. when i am in a game with alot of pushing, i work to set up one big trap play. that is the beauty of NL you don't have to grind out 1bb/hr. to make $$. you are playing for ALL of your opponents money and you can do it in 30 seconds 6 hours into a session after everyone forgot about you.
do i play this way in tournaments, hell no!
the second best poker book ever written is The Art of War, Sun Tzu.
"In limit aces is a big hand, it is a "through" ticket(as ciaffone likes to say). In NL it is a trap"
trap me, trap me, over and over and over again.
vince
if the money is deep enough.
Give me a break. I'll play'em everytime and you can do all the trappin you like. Your certainly not even a little bit saying that Aces are not the most preferrable hand to have preflop in NL Holdem are you? The kind of trapping you are speaking of is better accomplished when you hold A,K against a weak player that thinks A,Q or K,Q is a big hand. Certainly, Aces can be trapped but I'll take my chances no matter how deep the money.
Vince
#1 I never said I wouldn't play aces. in fact i said i'd raise with them every time in a ring game.
Aces are the best hand before the the flop. after the flop you are going to lose as much as you win with them even if you are a world class player. I like limit players who limp in or call a raise and try to "trap" me with aces, that is a good way to go broke. In a short money game I love big hands i'll take aa and kk all day but when the money gets deep i want something different, i want a hand that will beat the player who wont lay down aa (this could be any 2 cards). when i think back on all the "monster" pots i have won not a single one was with a big pair in the hole. but many were against big pairs in the hole. most people do not understand just how weak aa and kk are in NL. most people wait all night for this hand and cant let it go. you can see this player coming a mile away by how they play their starting hands and every time they go broke they lament about how they "had to call" or how "aces always kill them". I can replay all those hands and usually see how they could of won a small pot instead of losing a big one or could have gotten away from the hand cheap if they really had guts or could read players. (note: the best way to protect aces is not to put your whole stack in when you get them it's to raise/limp re-raise with 67s or 44 more often than you think.)
Eighb: I like everything you say. How come I have never seen your name in this forum before? I save your post for future reference. Thank you , keep them coming. Insecure.
"I like limit players who limp in or call a raise and try to "trap" me with aces, that is a good way to go broke."
I see you are an expert. Of course in this case you are wrong but I'm not going to argue.
"when i think back on all the "monster" pots i have won not a single one was with a big pair in the hole."
All this could mean is that you don't know how to play big pairs or maybe you have a poor or selective memory.
"most people do not understand just how weak aa and kk are in NL."
Really. This is very enlightening. I suppose I could again claim that maybe you don't understand how they should be played and when.
"I can replay all those hands and usually see how they could of won a small pot instead of losing a big one or could have gotten away from the hand cheap if they really had guts or could read players."
I guess there must be a right way and wrong way to play these big hands after all. Thank you for revealing the secret. Now go back to the table and look for those 4,4's and 6,7 to trap those big pairs. Good luck.
Vince
vince you think in a very "limit"ed way. you act as if the things i've said are inflamatory when they are just common knowledge amongst big bet players. Doyle Brunson is posting on the high limit side, maybe you can ask him how good aces are after the flop in NL.(deep cash game)
i hope that what you are attempting is a counter strategy to confuse other forum readers so their game doesn't improve. i can understand that.
In no-limit, hands like 45o and 64o win entire stacks. AA, KK, QQ, AK only win the blinds. Sometimes, if you're lucky, you get to win a previous raise once you re-raise (go over the top) with them.
Small unsuited connectors and adjacents, when skillfully used to trap big cards(which has been played by a predictable big card player), are the bread and butter hands of no-limit holdem. They are the stack killers!
No-limit is about taking down whole stacks. You only get to take whole stacks with AA when you're lucky enough to be up against KK and you guys go all-in pre-flop.
"Small unsuited connectors and adjacents, when skillfully used to trap big cards(which has been played by a predictable big card player), are the bread and butter hands of no-limit holdem. They are the stack killers!"
If this is true we need someone like you to write a new theory of poker. The above is entirely silly and anyone that falls for giving up whole stacks against hands that include "traps" that you allude to will lose all of their money no matter what they play. They just lose it faster in NL. That is why NL is not spead anywhere. You and Insecure are dreamers. You listened to Doyle Brunson too much. He was telling you about a different era. A time when no one but a select few knew how to play poker. Holdem, limit or NL is a "big card" game.
Vince
Vince: I know in my heart that you are right, but what he said, sure sounds good. We see it all the time, big pair, suckout by little-little anything. But, I don't know if that is a winning way in the long run. I am a beginner and very insecure, so I believe everything. Some day I hope to have my own opinion about how to play "all" poker hands. Right now, I am going through some turbulence, but I'm learning from you and all good poker players like yourself. Thanks.
Hey Insecure, God what a handle. you gotta do somethin about that. I owe you an apology/\. In my last post I said Jawz and Insecure when I meant Jawz and eighb. Sorry I couldn't remeber who had started me off but it seemed like someone "Insecure" so I naturally thought of you. We need to do somethin about that Insecurity of yours. John Feeney, Help!
vince
Sorry, but I'm insecure too, especially because my browser seems to have stopped telling me how many posts there have been since my last visit in some of the forums. It's like it thinks I don't exist anymore. I'm writing this post in the hope of reinstating that little personal acknowledgement. If that doesn't work, maybe "Insecure" and I will both have to seek help.
I think that you guys are arguing something interesting about no-limit and probably no one is reading it because it is buried way down here in this asian thread. Why don't each of you post a summary of your thoughts in the high stakes forum or general theory forum and let others weigh in here?
Paul Talbot
Paul,
M.... and I debated this NL vs Limit issue ad nauseum a few months back. No one seemed interested. Well maybe Tommay Angelo for a while. But I have to admit one thing about this issue. My NL experience is almost non existence except for a few tournaments. So what do I know.
vince
man you should play some nl some time, no joke. it will blow your mind. it's like taking the training wheels off. now is the time where i'm supposed to act big and tough and invite you to my game so i can break you. no way! you are too interested in playing better poker, even if you don't know shit about NL you soon will and i don't need that type of player in my game. there are too many fish in the world to waste a seat on anybody who thinks about the game.
"Holdem, limit or NL is a "big card" game." Vince, I agree with you fully. But only if it's in a tournament (where the stacks are very short relative to the blinds/antes), and in limit ring games (especially the tighter ones).
What I've said about small connectors and adjacents apply especially to no-limit live games in which the average stacks are very high relative to the blinds/antes. This is so because of the implied odds factor.
Let's say the blinds are 1-2. I have 1200 in chips in front of me and am 2 seats to the right of the button. It is folded to me and I raise it to 5 on a semi-steal with 45o. The person next to me, a predictable big card player who has 1125 in chips re-raises it to 30 (being a predictable big card player, I know he's got either AA, KK, QQ, AK). Button, sb, and bb fold making us heads up. It's 25 to me. How much implied odds am I getting on a call? At least 43 to 1!
I would definitely call before the flop knowing that I can break him if I hit and can easily let go my garbage if I miss.
Flop comes A23 offsuit or 954. He's dead! Flop comes Q97, I more than easily fold my garbage. Of course, if I did this at limit(and I never do or will do this at limit even if you put a gun to my head), then I'm a major live one.
In summary, no-limit is a "take his entire stack in one hand" game. And all your individual plays should be made and coordinated to create the coup-de-grace set up that would do this down the road. And it doesn't even have to be this session!
this assumes a deep money game, avg. stack 100x BB.
Gambler: one who habitually overbets the pot.
Loose Caller: Short stack (less than 20x BB) who even occasionally calls pre flop raises or chases draws.
I've never read "The Art of War, Sun Tzu." I keep meaning to get it at the library, but the worst poker book ever written is with out a doubt "Zen and the Art of Poker."
Paul,
I agree with your point that political culture has had an influence on the belief in fate in many Asian countries. There may be spiritual and philosophical underpinnings as well, embodying such ideas as reincarnation, karma, and the destiny of an individual.
Beneath the facade of not worrying about outcomes and not playing scared, though, is the reality of what money means to many of the Asians I've met both in and out of cardrooms. This is the irony: Despite the imperturbable surface cool, gambling is more of a risk and they have much more at stake than most players precisely because of their history and culture.
Most Southeast and Pacific Rim Asians over the age of 25 who were not born in this country probably experienced firsthand hardships that may be difficult to fully appreciate. Ask a Vietnamese about his or her journey to America, and you'll hear about payoffs, bribes, boats that were lost at sea, living in refugee camps in Thailand or the Phillipines, relatives left behind or worse- and that's just getting here. The Land of Dreams. Where you get to deal with being poor and a minority and discriminated against every single day.
And you realize that, just like in the country you left, money is power.
So you gamble- for many of the cultural reasons already mentioned, with an understanding of the role of chance. But the "dominant factor in life" is not fate. The concern which supersedes all else is the security of your family, your extended family, including those back in your homeland, and this security starts with making sure they have enough to eat and goes from there.
I do not believe that "wealth and power have relatively less meaning" for many Asian players. I think it's just the opposite. This may seem counterintuitive. But what is visible from the outside may not be a true reflection of what's going on inside. In poker, this can be a valuable thing.
"zen" is a poor application of the texts of the sun tzu to poker. the texts must be read and understood for oneself.
How about The Book of Five Rings and The Tao of Jeet Kune Do? They're great tactics books too. And what's the greatest poker book ever written?
"I will tell you why asian players are "better". THEY'RE NOT, but they do have a style which lends itself to big bet/tournament poker... During my time as a prop in limit games I salivated for asian players because they were awful."
This does not hold true at 40-80 and above in SoCal.
i'm sure you're right. i never propped that big and once i got a bankroll i stopped playing limit poker. I play poker for the challenge, excitement and money. in limit there is only money, it is like a job. if i wanted a boring, unchallenging job i could make more working for my father.
RE: the debate with Vince concerning AA. It appears to this novice you are arguing over two different things and will, therefore, not be able to see eye to eye.
Vince knows the absolute power of AA and would easily be a millionaire if dealt these hands all of the time. But that is because he'll put the weak players in for a LOT of money before the flop. When they miss, which is most of the time, they'll lose a lot to him. If they hit, he'll read that and be able to get away from the hand.
You are arguing that if you are allowed to see the flop relatively cheaply there will be enough occasions that you hit a real strong hand to make up for the misses because the weak player that let you in cheaply will now not fold his AA and you take a huge pot.
you cant put the weak or strong players in for a lot of money before the flop unless you massively overbet the pot and then someone calls you. both are very bad plays (and unlikely? it depends on the game). Hands you win with aa are generally not shown down. you want to win uncontested (the best re-raise is a limp re-raise-old chinese proverb).
If the money is DEEP even the limp re-raise wont save you. say the blinds are 2-5 and the avg. stack is $700. you limp w/aa it gets raised to 20 behind you crafty button man calls you go over the top for $80 orig raiser folds. if the button man can put you on aa or kk and knows you will protect it he can call you with ANY TWO CARDS. Your only protection at this point is having made the same play with 67o (in the past) now the play is unprofitable for the button because his read will be weak. he will have to attempt a re-steal and now you can scoot it all in the middle.
ps. everyone knows the best book ever written was SS, if only for the cartoons alone.
Of course limit poker becomes more challenging as you move up the limits too. IMO this makes it more exciting as well. No, it doesn't have the "double through or lose your whole stack in one hand" fun, but many feel it allows for making more frequent plays of strategic interest. But that's for another discussion I guess.
Eighb,
What you are saying realy boils down to not becomming predictable; ie: playing only top hands this way. This is certainly true and increases your profit with the AA even more. An occasional play with 67s is done for future image, not because it is a strong hand in no limit poker. Of course if you get real lucky you get the best of both worlds, advertising and a large win.
67s is more than a "future image" hand. It's also a "take his whole stack in less than two minutes and send him broke crying and penniless" hand, when the right conditions( awesome implied odds) are present. Check out my response to Vince in this thread: Re:yes and no...., Tuesday, 13 February 2001, at 7:18 p.m.
Russian political culture is anything but "Asian in origin."
If you are referring to the socialist legacy of Marxism-Stalinism, this is entirely European in its roots.
If you are referring to modern-day "Russian political culture," it is rooted entirely on Western European Parliamentary model.
Where do you see anything asian?
Actually, the Stalinist brand of communism was anything but European. It did not follow Marx's or any other European thinkers vision of a socialist state. The USSR was a communist state, but ideology was really a facade that allowed a certain group to control the state apparatus. It's contemporary Asian parallel is probably Baathism in Syria and Iraq.
What is was similar to was the ruthless and total control imposed on Russia by despots dating back to the time of the Mongols. The individual has never been highly valued in Russia, society has been and societal control has always been the job of a strong centralized state directed by a single individual or small group. This political culture is Asian in origin, not European. Russia was part of the Mongol Empire, the Tsarist state that was set up after throwing off the Mongol yoke was patterned on mongol/tatar despotism.
One very interesting thesis that has been argued with regards to Soviet communism is that it was really just a modern form of orthodoxy.
Modern day Russia is technically based on Western parliamentray democracy, but if you think it actually works that way you know nothing about Russia. The parliament has virtually no power, the president is an "elected" Tsar who can (and does) remove his cronies in power across Russia at a whim. Furthermore there is no clear line between government and mafia and the courts have little power.
Contemporary political philosophy in Russia is dominated by the debate over the "third way." This debate centers around the rejection by most Russians of their communist past but also by what they see as decadant, immoral, Western capitalism. Central to this idea is a belief in Russia that they are NOT European in many key ways but a distinct civilization of both Europe AND Asia. This underlying philosophy of Eurasianism has long roots in Russian thought.
There are certainly plenty of Russians who think along Western lines, but once you leave Moscow and St. Petersburg and especially beyond the golden ring, there are very few. Hopefully economic development and exposure to western ideals will bring Russia into line with the west, but it isn't likely to happen anytime soon.
Paul Talbot
.
How do you play short handed limt hold'em?
there has been very little written on short handed playing. in hold'em poker for advanced players sklansky breifly touches the subject. is there any guide lines to follow similar to the starting hands chart in sklansky's books? any response would be appreciated. thank you!
In the 21st Century Edition of HPFAP there is an extensive section on short handed play.
I would love to put Bet The Draw and Mark Glover in the same room, so they drive each other crazy. Is this a good idea? Anybody second the motion?
Ohh! Now you've gone too far!
Felice Navidad (sp?)
But how are you going to referee if they fight? You are as blind as a bat!
I'd rather see Glover and Badger go at it. There's no quit in either of 'em, neither will ever back down, and each has a different but highly entertaining way of slinging the mud. If I can bring these two masters of... of something anyway... together, will 2+2 give me a cut of ticket sales for what promises to an explosive ball of internet fun?
Where is the best place to play poker in America, Los Angeles or Vegas ? And how easy is it to make 100,000 a year in limit poker ? Thnaks
id say in order san fran.--la--vegas. for one trying to make 100 grand. for someone happy with half-- a.c -conn.- or miss. area games.
easier to make 100 g's in business than poker as only the very best can do it with diligence unless they put alot of time into game hunting.
I noticed that Los Angeles ha a lot of casinos and the Commerce always has 2 games eachof 40/80, 30/60, 20/40, and 15/30 and usually 4 or 6 9/18 games going this is everyday. Most of these games seem to be really loose. Why are there so many clubs in LA ? and are there any other casinos anywhere like the Commerce ? Its really to crwoded and noisy there for me. Thanks.
Did anyone else notice how he justified his post?
If he wants Paradise to hire him, why didn't he send them a resume?
Is he in some kind of competition with Mike Caro on Planet Poker?
Could Sklansky's ego just not take that an idiot like Caro has a job catching colluders and he doesn't? (I say idiot because I haven't read anything that Caro has wrote that sounds intelligent.)
Sklansky keeps implying that collusion theory is very difficult to comprehend, and that the subtleties can easily be missed, so why is he discussing the subject with all of us ignorant forummers?
What is the point of his post? Just to prove how smart he is?
I would much rather David address the statistical analysis questions posed by forummers. Supposedly he knows something about statistics.
Though I think the reason David does not address very many statistical analysis questions, may be because S&M would like you to buy Theory of Poker, whether or not the answer to your question is actually contained in that text.
"What is the point of his post? Just to prove how smart he is?"
Gee, I think the above could be applied to your post. I don't know Mike Caro except via the internet and his Card player articles. I find him a bright humorus fellow that indeed has knows quite a lot about poker. But since you have declared him an idiot you must feel qualified to make that determination. I guess maybe the "genius" part of his self declared title really applies to you.
As for David's interest in collusion. I have posted here for a long time and collusion has been a concern of posters here since I began. David and Mason have both shown interest in writing an essay on collusion. A while ago there was a poll asking if we (2 + 2) forum posters thought an essay would be a good idea. I voted against it. Not because I don't find the subject of interest but because I don't believe that in a Casino environment collusion is much of a problem.
Online poker is a different story all together. I do not play online precisely for the reason of potential collusion. You must face the fact that the internet is not going away. Internet poker may be around for a long time. Educating the potential users of these online Casino's to the possibility of cheating and how it can be accomplished and what to look for is a sevirce not a disservice as you seem to think. David should continue with this effort and we should all thank him for it.
Vince
Although I thank Vince for his defense, The fact is that Mr. Neuhard's remarks are not without some truth. But so what. Did anyone think I write about poker merely for the benefit of mankind?
1. Caro is no idiot, by any means.
2. On line collusion will not go away.
3. I suspect most of these guys that are colluding are idiots and are just doing the basic, what do you have, lets raise the guy in the middle.
4. If 3 is true, we realy don't need someone to teach these guys how to hone their colluding skills. These essays will not help management, will not help the multitude of honest players out there, and will only help those doing the collusion.
5. I realy wish David would stop with the collusion posts.
Point 3/4 seem right on to me.
Expert colluders won't be going out of their way to teach others.
What we learn of collusion will be negated by what possible colluders learn.
We will pay only passing notice to the collusion thread (at least I will) but colluders will pay close attention indeed.
what makes dave an expert on collusion or poker sure he is great in presenting his thoughts ,but does that mean he is an expert?
Are you implying that you indeed fatten your wallet by selling priceless poker theory in you books for purschase and not for the benefit of mankind, Why David that probably comes to a shock to some of these posters here.
Nevertheless you and Mason continue to do your good work in your forums.
Very gracious to admit that my comments were on track.
I was in no way challenging your collusion analysis. (I'm not crazy.)
I just think that the poker community puts you and Mason on a very high ethical and moral pedestal. (Thier mistake.)
Good Luck on getting healthy consulting fee out of Paradise for your collusion analysis.
Thanks
Actually, yes, I'm sure many people believe that your writings are primarily philanthropic, but I think we can probably straighten that out.
When you began this conversation about six months ago, you asked your flock whether or not they thought a treatise on collusion would be a good or bad thing. I think you were being rather deceptive in even asking this question, because I don't think you could possibly believe that such a discussion would be beneficial to the honest poker players. I think that you were hoping enough people would show an interest that you could justify such a discussion, thereby making it look like you were simply satisfying a needy public.
Let me ask you point-blank: Do you think these conversations are damaging to the game of poker, in the fact that they will cause the dishonest people to have an even greater edge over the honest players?
I'm fairly certain you could be convinced that what you are doing is for the worse, but I don't think it's necessary even to do so, since I suspect you already know that.
You claim that the online casinos should heed your advice; I have no problem with you targeting them as your audience. I can supply you with about a dozen email addresses for those online cardrooms. You do not need to post such advice in a public forum.
Lastly, I am amazed by your comment that "there is no chance that anyone would know this subject better than me." No, no... the grammar does not shock me. You are very naive to believe that there are so few people out there with your poker knowledge, and that you know of each of those individuals. There are many people who are very knowledgeable on the subject that choose not to be vocal enough for you to ever realize where you stand in the pecking order. If you weren't quite so vain, perhaps you would have seen enough hints to realize this.
Not everybody needs to have passages from their books read to them in order to sleep at night.
Anthony,
What is the point of his post? Just to prove how smart he is?
David doesn't have to prove anything to anybody and he will tell you that to your face!! To me this is a challenge to David this collusion principle or whatever you want to call it. David loves a challenge and I'm sure he has probably given more thought to collusion than anyone else or at least as much thought to it as anyone. He has time and energy to look into it in a different way, because he is not involved in Planet, Paradise, etc. and he throws these questions out to reinforce some of his theories or probably a few times just for fun but it makes you think and if that is what David is guilty of I say Hang-Em High!!
jmo
paul
c
n/t
JV=Juicy Vaseline
lem·ming (lmng) n.
Any of various small, thickset rodents, especially of the genus Lemmus, inhabiting northern regions and known for periodic mass migrations that sometimes end in drowning.
Thank you for entering lemmings into our zoo that we have going here. It has been logged as a new entry. Also welcome to the forum since I don't see any JV's post since RGP demise so I guess you slid over sort of speak from Deja and couldn't figure out how to log onto rgp anymore.
Petroleum Jelly works better.
hobie wand kenobie I take it you've been talking to Zee and his black sheep with my name on it!!! I waaass going to baaack up some of your beautiful paaasages with some saaarcaaastic criticism but decided aaagaainst it!!!!!!!!!
BBBBBAaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!
Check out Sklansky's reply, he graciously admitted that I'm on the right track as to his motives for posting.
I in no way was challenging David's theory. Not too many people get a perfect SAT score.
As far as not being involved with Planet, or Paradise, your right...He only wishes he was involved ;)
In all my days here at 2+2 this is the first sklansky post that was worth the five characters he spent on it.
"Not too many people get a perfect SAT score"
Maybe collusion is his forte.
Vince
If we are talking about expert collusion online I think we should be thinking in terms of Omaha... I have to assume that expert colluders will want the game that gives them the biggest edge. Imagine three players working together at a 10 handed Omaha table they would know almost 25% of the deck.
Sean
>>Not too many people get a perfect SAT score<<
There are a lot more than you might think there is.
I guess the naysayers would be horrified to see my bookshelves. From right here I can see, to list just a few:
Dice: Squares, Tops & Shapes (crooked dice)
20 Years a Fakir (street peddler hustling)
Cheating at Bridge
Don't Bet On It (3 card monte)
The Stealing Machine (crooked card shoes)
Cheating at Blackjack
How They Cheat You at Cards
Gambling Scams
How Con Games Work
Keeping Carnies Honest: A Police Officer's Field Guide to Carnival Game Inspections
And even though I have had some of these books for over 40 years, and have earned part or all of my income from some form of gambling for just as long, I have never cheated. These books have, however, saved me a considerable amount of money. Let's knock off the witch hunt and try to learn something.
Don't read this: How to build an atom bomb
The fact is that with perfect information from partners, a good player can significantly add to his win rate without attracting the attention of opponents who cannot see folded cards. My very small sample of examples should make this clear. If by bringing this to light without going into too much detail, it spurs on internet sites to hire experts to help catch colluders, it should benefit everyone (including of course, me.)
PS I believe the QJ should merely call when K8 is in the blind.
I know you read the posts by JAWZ on Sat 2/10/01 3:01pm "Asian poker players" and "More on asians poker players" by Talbo on Monday 2/12/01 1;49pm and by SCALF,"African-American poker players" on Sunday 2/11/01 10;58pm. How come there are no comments from you about any of the responses to these three posts? Some people don't find comments about poker players of dark skin offensive, but they do if the comments are about the poker players' religions or nationalities. Is this correct Mr. Perfect person ? That is why I call you an hypocrite. It takes one to know one. I am an hypocrite myself. That is why I never criticize anybody. My question on this forum are always guided by an interest of getting to the true of things, mainly poker, and I see no crime on any other comments posted by many that are not poker related sometimes, but still very human. Poker is only a game, don't forget, and some day, not too far in the future, you and I and everyone around us will not be here.
Why start a new thread?
I too am a hypocrite. I know of noone who isn't. We agree.
I also think I shall quit critizing (except for the constructive type) anyones posts.
About your post, it is possible that it was made in jest. Even though you state this only after Natedogg suggests that idea, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and I apologize.
I am not "sorry" about my response since I believed I was responding to a actual racist post.
I didn't respond to all the other posts about Asian, black and whatever because I did not read them all and there is simply not enough hours in the day to save the entire world. Yours was a brand new thread WHICH I did not repond to either.
Why am I hypocritical because I made sarcastic remarks only about you. This makes me inefficient but certainly not a hypocrite (in this case).
Thank you VERY MUCH for reminding me that I will inevitably die. I usually make it to 4:00 PM before that crosses my mind.
Also, carefull about what you say about Poker only being a game. Poker veteran may be reading this!
Anyway, hope you accept my apology. Good Luck
nt
that's what makes the world such an interesting place!
n/t
This has got to damned be the most damned lame damned thread that I've ever damned read in my entire damned life. Shame on both of you!!! Shame on you, I say!!! BetTheDraw, you should know better and for that, I have absolutely nothing to say to you!!!!! Insecure...you poor soul....you clearly have some serious dysfunctions in you mental capacities. Now go set a psychoanalytic appointment with John Feeney, you miserable vomitous mass of lunacy!!! Shame on you you neurotic freak!!! Shame on you!!!!!
Was at the poker table last night and a conversation started about the pre-flop odds of makeing a flush with 2 suited cards in hand. I was told it was 20% which seems a little high to me, for some reason 16% seems to be the number i remember. Any help would be greatly appreciated
I'm not in a helping mood right now. Go away!!!!!
About 1/30. Roughly 3.x percent.
If you hold two suited cards, the probability of flopping only two of your suit and hitting on the turn or river (or both) is 3.8%. You'll also flop a flush .84% of the time and flop one of your suit and make it through the backdoor 1.7% of the time. Thus the combined probability of making a flush with two suited hole cards (and the flush being of your suit) is 6.34% or 14.8-1 against.
462 ways to end up with five cards of your flush suit on the board.
12870 ways to end up with four cards of your flush suit on the board.
122265 ways to end up with three cards of your flush suit on the board.
135597/2118760 = 0.0639983 is probability of making the flush.
Odds are 14.6 to 1 against making the flush
Buzz
Thanks,
I was quoting from the 2 of your suit flop and you hit by the river.
I didn't think the question was intended to include runner/runner.
Basically it shows that while suited cards are nice there is a huge reason why you don't play just any old suited cards AND why KJs has such little value in a pre-flop raised pot. On the other hand the 6.x pecent is significant when considering an AKs or AQs.
I read in a book that it is .837%
I think the math is as follows:
You have two cards suited. There is a possibilty of 11 more in the deck. The chances of the first card being of your suit is 11/50 (50 because there are that many cards left in the deck that are unseen) X 10/49 X 9/48...
11/50 X 10/49 X 9/48 = .00842.. or .842% So I am very close to what the book says..
If I am wrong please call me on it.
Walt
I re-read your post and you asked a different question that what I answered. I gave you the % of flopping a flush... Sorry..
I read in a book that it is .837%
I think the math is as follows:
You have two cards suited. There is a possibilty of 11 more in the deck. The chances of the first card being of your suit is 11/50 (50 because there are that many cards left in the deck that are unseen) X 10/49 X 9/48...
11/50 X 10/49 X 9/48 = .00842.. or .842% So I am very close to what the book says..
If I am wrong please call me on it.
Walt
Anybody have Turbo Texas Hold em and what do you think. I heard that is how alot of new pros work on their game. It is pretty expensive but if it worth it I will get it.
What do you think about tth or any other software for that matter
Thanks
Walt
it is the best software your money can buy. I have use it for >3 years now with all the new upgrades
It's not perfect, no software is. But you can spend the $90.00 or so it costs or maybe spend $1000.00 at a $3-6 tabel learning the same concepts Turbo can show you for the ninety dollars.
No claim to truth on this one, but I seem to recall that one of the recent WSOP winners supposedly spent months with TTH products as he had little real world experience. Anyone know the facts on this?
I don't think you can get exposure to a 5 or 6 handed game against aggressive opponents on a 3/6 table for any cost.
The software is not perfect, and it won't make you a better player by itself, but it is a very powerful learning tool when coupled with study and experience at the tables.
As you move up in limits the software pays off more and more.
I have been using Turbo Hold'em, Tournament and 7 Card programs for over 2 years. They have paid for themselves several times over. Well worth the investment.
Just started with Turbo hold-em, and it is great. Need to spend the time to learn all of the ways it can be used and proper interpretation of the results. It does take some work.
It does not do no limit hold-em, however. I may get that program next.
As long as u dont follow the advices of the advisor post flop it is a good practice!!!
Advisor is horrible. way too loose after flop
charlie
In general NL or Pot limit games are a lot less "technical" then limit games. You play against the player more then the cards. Computer software are very good playing cards and not too good playing against players.
I do not think software technology have advanced to the point where they can play good NL or pot limit games. So beating the computer in NL or pot limit games do not mean you can do well in actual games.
On the other hand if you can beat turbo texas hold-em game with a tough line up, you probably can do well in tournaments and 6-12 to 20-40 limit games.
I have been doing some searching and thinking about the agressiveness of my play. When I started playing stud, and could hold my own at the table, I had a frustrating time getting other players to play with me. I asked a player whom I thought would answer honestly why he thought this was. He told me I was way to aggressive, and I needed to slow way down.
I thought he was bs'ing me, but at that time my wins were small and my losses bigger. I took his advice and slowed down. My stud game improved tremendously.
I have jumped into HE, and from posting questions and trading email, folks seem to think I am too passive and need to pick it up. My 'too passive' was making me about 2 BB an hour, sometimes more. I thought this was reasonable because when the downward slide hits, it would all even out to hopefully the aspired to 1 BB an hour.
A few sessions this month I decided to get more aggressive, and I ended up losing both times at the rate of about 6+ BB an hour. OUCH!
Searching for an answer, I am starting to wonder if the problem is semantics and my perception of my play?
I am usually one of the more agressive players at the HE table, but in the land of calling stations, I don't know how to judge where really am and where I need to be. I am not comfortable enough with the players that are occasionally at the table to ask their opinion, because they are for the most part clueless and just gambling.
Any suggestions?
Mike
I am going to tell you a secret, and please don't tell anybody in this forum, because they kill me if they know, but I do better when I am not aggresive. I don't have the records to support this positive, but I go home a winner everytime. When I am aggressive, by this I mean reasing pre-flop everytime I am supposed to, I miss the flop and cost me a lot of money, that I am not able usually to make up the rest of the day. When I slow play AKo for example, if I missed, I fold and nobody knows what I had. If I hit then I can check raise, etc. Is this what you are talking about? Tell me.
"Aggressive" is asserting bets and raises in situations which are worth a call. "Maniac" is assering bets and raises in situations which are NOT worth a call.
You already know that betting and raising is desirable when you increase the size of pots in which you are a favorite or you can increase your chances of winning the pot.
A couple of pit-falls, however, come to mind: [] Aggressiveness with weak hands when the opponents are very tenacious. This may work against players who may fold but doesn't against strong calling types [] Confusing "Aggressiveness" with "Selectivity"; where many people "naturally" play more hands when they are feeling aggressive.
- Louie
JOKE, Aggressive is when you bet fast and win, Maniac is when you bet fast and lose.
so, if you are losing, you are a maniac,
just a joke. Nave a nice aggressive day Ron
In tournament play, let's say a player bets, or particularly if he raises somebody all-in playing no-limit, then the player he raises starts taking a long time to respond. Now at some point the player who made the big raise asks to have the player he raised put on the clock. Is this sometimes a tell?
[If the player who raised is bluffing, well...his asking for the clock might be considered a ballsy move since people will often get pissed when they are put on a clock.]
Hmm, I would conjecture that the longer someone thinks they are moving to the point of convincing themselves to fold. So you would want the clock on your value bets and not your bluffs, tho there may be a GTO mix of when to call for the clock.
JG
What does GTO stand for, I don't see it in the "abbreviations" section. [I'm always embarrassed when I ask this question, because it's usually real obvious.]
When Jim says it he means "Good Time Ollie", this guy who used to mix up his play just "to have a good time". But that's just Jim. Generally it's supposed to mean "game theory optimal".
I would think that asking for the clock would usually mean that the player wants a call.
This situation happened to me today and I found it interesting. Everyone folds around to you on the button. The big blind is almost all in, and only has 2 small bets in front of him. Are there any hands you would limp in with as opposed to open-raising?
-Sean
Assuming this is a live game and not a tournament, I can't see any situation where I would limp in. Anyone who allows himself to get short-stacked will call your raise with any two cards. He's looking for a cheap peek at 5 cards at a discount price. Raise your AX or pair since you're a showdown favourite. Muck your medium suited connectors and psuedo-attractive hands with no showdown power (JT, QT, Q9, K5s and such). The looser the SB is, the less inclined to raise you'll be. I really wouldn't want to play A4o knowing I have to beat two players.
One exception might be if you have AA/KK. Then you might want to trap the SB and build a side pot. I wouldn't do this in a raked game though; I'd just curse my luck, raise, and go to the showdown.
Those were basically my thoughts too. I had AQ so I just went ahead and raised and got all-in against some crap like J2, but I was curious what I'd have done with a big pair.
These all-in questions are probably important to those of us who play online since there seem to be more players who get shortstacked online, presumably because of the online credit card charge limits, and because someone who's down to $20 probably wouldn't bother requesting a cashout and would just burn it off.
-Sean
These all-in questions are probably important to those of us who play online since there seem to be more players who get shortstacked online, presumably because of the online credit card charge limits, and because someone who's down to $20 probably wouldn't bother requesting a cashout and would just burn it off.
Not sure of the other sites, but Paradise has a minimum $50 cashout.
Interesting point, though. If a weak player has dropped a decent sum since sitting down, and his stack has dipped below $50, be on guard for any weird plays. This could be a sign that he wants to recoup some of his losses quickly and cash out for whatever he can.
If playing online you are playing about double the amount of hands per hour as compared to a live game, how should you enter the data ( from online play ) into your stats. Intuitively I would think to just double your time played from the online game. Should you adjust the online stats in anyway?
Why not just keep two seperate records?
As far as converting the stats I guess it depends a lot on what you want to use them to know. If you are concerned with how much you can make per HOUR then don't convert, if you are concerned with earn per HAND, then you have to.
Regards,
Paul Talbot
Greetings all,
I am a skilled blackjack player who desires to add another game to his repertoire. I have two rather large card rooms available to me at local casinos.
I was hoping that some of the experts here could guide me in the optimum method for learning the game.
Here is my current plan:
I have purchased the following books:
1. Poker For Dummies, for a general idea of the game.
2. The Theory of Poker by David Sklansky for the meat of the game.
3. Hold 'Em Poker by David Sklansky for the game that most interests me.
4. Inside the Poker Mind by John Feeney for extra credit.
Is this a reasonable start? I have Plenty of money to put into play,
so I am "willing" to "pay" for lessons within the card room.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Many many thanks
Cheers and may the cards be with you.
Your foray into poker should be interesting.
Play the lowest stakes you can find for now. A 6-12 game can take $1000 a day from you if you don't know what you're doing. Hell, it can take $1000 a day from you if you DO know what you're doing.
The books are great but TRUST me on this, they don't come close to filling in the gaps in your knowledge. Just always remember that the books are guidelines and they illustrate alot of principles of play, but experience is the only thing you can get to help you win.
Read this forum often. I cannot tell you how much I've learned from the regulars on this forum. Except David Sklansky! He'll usually follow up some interesting thread with a comment such as:
"That is almost correct, but can be trouble in certain situations."
:)
natedogg
The vagueness of these types of Sklansky comments has an effect of forcing people into filling in the gaps for themselves thru the use of their own creative thinking and question asking. And in the process of doing so, they engage in self-discovery, learn to think for themselves, and generate their own ideas.
It encourages "active learning". It sure beats "spoon-feeding" - which is exactly what would happen if David just gave out the answers in full detail.
I've seen a lot of good discussions and different ways of seeing things as a result of this. And none came directly from David Sklansky himself. It is a sign of great teaching skills.
"I have Plenty of money to put into play, so I am 'willing' to 'pay' for lessons within the cardroom."
Once you've read the books and booked several hundred hours of play under your belt, you might also be 'willing' to 'pay' for private lessons with David Sklansky and Bob Ciaffone. I'm not sure how much exactly each charges but I know the former charges more. They're both worth it, of course.
Dave,
Welcome to Poker. I took the leap about a year ago.
My piece of advice is to take a look at 7 card stud. It is well suited to the skills of a card counter.
I'm sending an email to the last address I had for you. It is on worldnet. If it is not up to date, let me know.
By the way, I hear Turbo Texas HoldEm is an excellent tool. It costs about $90.
You've picked the right books. Theory of Poker is a must and any book in the Advanced series for your game of choice.
Good luck.
Thanks Maurice and all that have responded.
Maurice, I did indeed receive your email. Thank you!
I am not quite ready to join you at your favorite poker room, but soon. I found a $1-$3 Studd game at the neighboring house of cards. Probably a good game with which to start, however, I have a little reading and at least some home practice to do before I sit at the tables.
For practice, I enjoyed a lively home game over the weekend. It really got the juices flowing, but I know I am not ready yet. I'd like to at least have a chance when I play for real.
Question for all:
At the lower limit games at the casino card rooms, is the caliber of play generally pretty poor? Even if the game is imminently beatable, the hourly win rate must be extremely low.
What limits are needed for say $50 per hour? or even $100 per hour? And, at whatever those limits are, I imagine the competition is pretty stiff indeed, which makes me wonder if those win rates are ever attainable?
many thanks again.
Cheers and many thanks again.
What limits are needed for say $50 per hour? or even $100 per hour? And, at whatever those limits are, I imagine the competition is pretty stiff indeed, which makes me wonder if those win rates are ever attainable?
Normally, at a mid-level game, 1 big bet (BB) per hour is considered a good take. At a 10-20 game that would be $20 per hour. The lower the stakes the more BBs per hour you should be able to attain. Unfortunately, the reverse is also true. As a matter of fact, you probably will find yourself losing if you reach too high.
You are going to have to readjust your thinking. This is a lot different from blackjack. Blackjack is purely mathematics and statistics. Given a particular game and style of play you can determine your win rate once you get into the long run. Poker doesn't work that way. Remember, it is less than a zero sum game. Not only are players taking money from each other, the house is also taking a rake.
I can tell you from playing 7cs in CT. that the 1-3 and 1-5 games are pretty easy to beat. At the 5-10 level you start to find some good players but there are enough bad ones that some good money can be made. In the 10-20 games most people are proficient at their game but fish swim in regularly. Also the decent players are somewhat consistent and therefore not that hard to read.
Once you get up to 15-30 and 20-40 things change a lot. Not only are most of the players very good, the structure of the game changes. The antes are high enough that the action heats up. It is a very aggressive game. I got to the point where I was averaging about 1.5 BBs at 10-20, but I only average less than .5 BBs at 15-30 and 20-40.
Your mileage will vary.
Hi jpdave13--I'm a 2+2 lurker in addition to being a member on Wong's green chip pages, too. I started playing poker about a year after I started playing BJ, and both have been good to me.
Maurice gave you some good info & advice. As I often say, poker is a technique whereas BJ is technology. Live experience means a lot more in poker than it does in BJ. You still need to read the books--your list is okay but instead of "Poker for Dummies" you should choose good primers for 7CS and/or hold 'em instead, and then pick up the corresponding 2+2 texts for advanced players once you have completely understood the basic texts and can put them to use in live play at low-limit games. I play hold 'em only, and started with Lee Jones' "Winning Low-Limit Hold 'Em" and moved up to Sklanky & Malmuth's advanced hold 'em book--both have served me well. My only other major source of information is what is now the medium stakes forum on this site and all the excellent discussion in the various hand analysis threads--the free pages here are a LOT different than the free pages at bj21. I have also got a lot of milage out of Turbo Texas Hold 'Em, which I believe is easily worth the price for a new player to learn on more quickly than at a live game and more cheaply than mistakes in a live game will cost.
Win rates and standard deviation will not be what you are used to at the BJ tables. The best you are likely to do, in the long run, is 1 big bet per hour or maybe a little more, in a mid-limit/red-chip game. Playing anything less than 6-12 is just not worth the effort despite normally abysmal opposition since even a reasonable rake is high compared to the limits and abysmal players are usually slow players. Don't stay at the low limits longer than you need to, to learn the game. On the other end of the spectrum, games above 10-20/15-30 (the highest I play) are said to be pretty tough, so you can't expect to win at as high a rate as in games where there is a lower proportion of knowledgable opposition.
On the up side, standard dev. in poker is much easier to take than in BJ. I played about as much poker as BJ in 2000, and my poker results are practically linear when compared to my BJ results. Frankly, I wonder sometimes about the complaining I see here and on RGP about variance--try playing BJ you weenies! :-) Also, you don't have to worry about being asked to leave if you're too good, and an hour of poker is a lot easier to play than an hour of BJ. If you can get in about 6 hours of BJ in a typical full day of hit-and-run play (and that's usually only if you find playable conditions at every casino you enter in that period), you can probably put in 10 or 12 hours of poker in the same time, with a lot less stress and shoeleather.
These BJ-poker crossover threads are fun, both here and on bj21.
Regards,
TJ.
Many thanks again guys.
You have all been very informative and helpful.
I think I am heading in the right direction.
Interesting thoughts on variance.
The roller coaster in blackjack is unbelievable. But it looks like blackjack is more profitable in terms of hourly EV.
Oh well, It is nice to see that some folks do indeed ply their trade at both games.
cheers
I have just gone through my first extended dry spell which unfortunatly took my bankroll. (after some reflection I relize It was probobly not large enough to begin with) I know that I'm not the first person this has happened to, so I need some advice.
I really want to get back to the table but I want to make the "smart" decision with regards to my bankroll.
Should I re-build my bankroll completely or once it reaches a certian level can I begin to start playing again? Any suggestions are appreciated
Thanks
Why not drop down in stakes for a bit until you rebuild it?
Probably best to rebuild it to 1/2 of a full bankroll for the stakes you were playing. While doing so, read up and make an unbiased review of your play.
Then when you have your 1/2 BR drop down in stakes to half your previous stakes and beat that game. This way, if you find you can't beat the lower stakes you have lost only half.
Once you rebuild to a full stake for a good player at the previous stakes return to your previous level.
Continue to build a second BR separate from this one. Once you determine you have improved your play add them together and presto.
Thanks folks.
Because of your desire for public recognition, to make money selling books, or whatever other selfish motive you might have, you've sent me and hundreds of others back into the job market.
In the old days there were thousands of clueless suckers around willing to dump their money. Now thanks to kindly folks like Mr. Sklansky and Mr. Malmuth, the thickest hayseed from Dumbville knows better and lays his hand down. In the old days, Tweedledee and Tweedledum would always pay off. Now, you have to grind for 8-10 hours before you end up with a small edge, then you get busted or sucked out after you jam with it. Who needs that nonsense? Poker used to be easy. Now it's nothing but a miserable job with low pay and too many headaches. I used to play lowball and make a thousand a night. Suckers played back then. Now every game is me and eight Gary Kasparovs. This is because you wisened up the suckers. Thanks fellas.
Anybody who thinks they can make any good money in limit poker today is out of their minds. All pro limit players today are hustlers - that's the only way to make it. If you don't tilt the other guy, or shoot an angle, you've got no edge. He's read the same books you have. He knows the game inside and out just like you. Where do you think your earn is? Suckers? Loose players? Idiots? There aren't any anymore. Sure, maybe twice a week some chump will come over from the craps table and dump a couple grand. Two hours and he's busted. By the time your seat opens up you're staring at the same sour faced rocks. Forget it. Limit poker is dead, the earn is gone. Thanks to kindly folks like you guys, and CardPlayer magazines spread all over the cardroom (Sucker: What, you mean poker is not just luck?), hundreds of thousands in potential profit has been lost. What was once a great lifestyle is no longer available. Thanks a lot guys, I hope you choke on your book profits.
If you made a thousend a night you should now own the fucking taco-place or should sit with your ass in Bora-Bora !!
I feel your pain.
ROTFLMAO
But seriously, there probably is some truth to what you are saying. On the other hand, these books have exposed the game to many newbies. If it were not for the books, I would not have taken up poker seriously. I would probably have played a few times, had my ass kicked and left the poker scene.
While I (and many others) now beat the game because of the books, there are countless players who continue to lose despite having read the books. Many of these players would not play without having read the books.
From a personal perspective, the many poker books that I have read (but in particular the works of Sklansky and Malmuth) have made me a ton of dough. I couldn't thank them enough. The same thanks goes to all the bright posters on this board.
Once again though, that was a helluva funny post...hehe
PROGRESS, I once read a post from a ex winner that complained that when they (card rooms) hired dealer. they ( ex winner) could not make any money. Have a nice honest deal Read and study more.
You gave a perspective I didn't see. I didn't think it was a joke.
I thought it was from one of those who "learned how to play", then made some money, then our hero couldn't adjust when the opposition found out how the hero plays.
Like I said, I thought it was a just another bad player blaming others for his failures at the poker tables. It's better reading as a joke.
I don't have a sure answer to this complaint, though I did write an essay on it. (There may be more important facors than the books in making the games tougher.) But it raises an interesting question. Are there other games (played for money), or other professional endeavours in which the successful players/participants have been successful in large part by keeping information from reaching the unsuccessful participants, and have been able to continue this indefinitely? What about other endeavours which have developed in a way similar to poker? (little good literature --> more good literature ---> pros lamenting the effects of the good literature...)
John,
as regards "literature" or other forms of popular ententainment, on the contrary, there is more of an outlet for mediocrity or outright schlock than ever before. just think of the vast majority of T.V. sitcoms, "professional" wrestling, Howard Stern, Jerry Springer... Danielle Steele has sold millions of books as has Stephen King (basically a pulp writer with interesting, even exceptional plots).
and when people realized blackjack was beatable, more bodies than ever flocked to the tables, but very few have ever bothered to find out how it could be done.
Mark -- just to be clear, what I meant by "literature" toward the end of my post was the body of written material on any given endeavour (e.g., poker books = the "poker literature", chess books... etc.). I wasn't clear to me in your first paragraph if you'd realized that was what I meant. You definitely make a good point about blackjack.
thanks for the clarification. that word "literature" does get me slaloming.
I think to excel at chess these days, thanks to the ready availability of databases, one has to be a lot more book-savvy than in the past. that's why I quit entering tourneys. I kept encountering players with less natural ability (as far as I could tell) who could steer me into variations they had "down pat." attendance has been dipping at most tourneys, and I suspect this is the primary reason.
Yes but poker players, in general, are a different breed.
Last visit to vegas, saw so much bad blackjack it was unbelievable. (double down on hard 6, hit hard 17 etc)
I saw poor poker as well, just not in the same league.
nt
If books would change and improve people, the way you stated, mankind would be different. But, answering to you complain: How many poker players do you think read anything at all? Well, let me tell you: not too many. They don't read Poker player magazine, newspapers, comic books, etc. They don't read anything. This is a joke, I know, because there are enough *bad* players out there for you, just like always.
I happen to agree with you on a few things. The game has gotten harder today vs. what it was in the mid 80's when I played for a living. The players have gotten smarter and today's medium limit pro is much better than the pros I played with 15-20 years ago. I think alote has to do with S&M they put all their knowledge in these books for everyone to read. That being said, I also learned a great deal from D.S. first book Hold'em Poker. I made a great deal of money by studying that book in 1980 and reading Doyle Brunsons book a few years later. The fish back then did not understand jack shit. They knew nothing about hand rankings, check raising, free cards or the semi-bluff. Today even the fish know these moves but most of them do not use them at the appropriate time.
I played in some home games against rich fish for quite a few years in New York. I made alote of money from these fellows. I played them recently and they all were much wiser and smarter. I told a few of them that their game has improved and they told me they have read all of 2+2 books. But I have to say that if it were not for D.S. I would never have prospered in the game of poker. I read the books and also put my mind to work and that is what you have to do to beat this game. I personally thank David Sklansky and the 2+2 crew great job.
I think the glut of readily available poker information can often work to a solid player's advantage. We've all played LLHE games with a fishy player who chased and lost with a second-best hand, only to loudly complain about having "proper odds to call" or "x number of outs." Of course, they would've been unable to see past their own hand if yours was face up on the table, adorned with Christmas lights, and made using the oversized cards from the game show "Card Sharks". Yet they seem familiar with the most basic concepts of the game.
You can look at it this way: There's a sizable number of gamb00lers out there who--probably through hearsay--discover that poker is fundamentally different from a slot machine, and assume that memorizing hand rankings or skimming over simplified strategy guides will be their quick fix to cleaning up at the tables.
They inevitably find themselves in a situation that the book didn't explicitly cover, or find opponents reacting to their plays in different ways than the book "said they would." They get flustered, and eventually play more hands in the hopes of flopping situations that they've read about. Next stop: Tiltsville. It's rarely the tourists or the displaced keno players that I see hitting full tilt-- it's the newbies who are clearly playing too soon with the utmost minumum amount of education.
This may seem trivial to all of you but maybe not. I think it somewhat models a hand posted on the Medium Stakes forum. A friend offers you the following somewhat complicated proposition by stating:
"I am holding an index card with the value of 1000 printed on it. There are 3 piles of index cards labled A, B and C. Pile A has 10 cards 9 of which have numbers printed on them with a value that is less than 1000. One of the 10 cards in pile A has a card with the value printed on it of 1001. Pile B has 3 index cards 2 of which have values that are less than 1000 while 1 of the 3 cards has the value 1002 printed on it. Pile C contains 6 index cards. In Pile C 5 of the cards have a number printed on them that is less than 1000, 1 of the 6 cards has a value of 1003.
First you pick a card from pile A. One of two things can happen:
1) You pick an index card with a number that is less than 1000. If you do this you pick only one card from pile C.
2) You pick the index card with 1001 on it from pile A. If you do this I get to pick only one card from pile B.
The person with the highest number on the printed card wins. Furthermore I'm offering you 4-1 on the proposition."
Should you take the proposition? If so why?
by my calculation you are slight underdog.
Probability of success is: (1/9*1/3)+(9/10*1/6)=.187
I agree with that math, you are a slight dog, pass
Just set up a nice little prob. tree and you get the answer
Elie
!
What am I getting wrong here?:
"1) You pick an index card with a number that is less than 1000. If you do this you pick only one card from pile C. " ( I assume you meant "I pick" rather than "you pick"; if not I understand this even less than I thought.)
This means 90% of the time you will have a number below 1000, 15% you will lose, and the other 75% you will randomly win half. (Assuming under 1000 means the same thing for each pile.) This means you will lose 52.5% and win 37.5%
2) You pick the index card with 1001 on it from pile A. If you do this I get to pick only one card from pile B.
This means 10% total. 3.33% you will lose and 6.67 you will win.
So you will lose 55.83% and win 44.17%, making the 4-1 a big overlay.
I think in the first scenario, he did in fact intend "you pick"; you end up with the second card you pick.
I get an expected value of (9/10) * (1/6) + (1/10) * (2/3) = 13/60. 12/60 would break even on 4:1 odds, so I'd take it.
I think you misread pile C,
one card helps you, not two cards, therefore the prob. is 1/3 ot 2/3 and you should pass
Elie
I don't think I'm misreading the question.
First of all, I think you're referring to pile B, not pile B, when you say "I think you misread pile C, one card helps you, not two cards, therefore the prob. is 1/3 ot 2/3 and you should pass".
But anyway, your opponent is the person picking cards from pile B, not you. One out of the three cards helps him, therefore the probability you win in this case is 2/3.
The meta-answer is "no" since its almost always foolish to take the other guy's proposition. Now let me do some calculations.
When you pick from A 9/10 of the time you win 1/6 of the time, and 1/10 of the time you win 2/3 of the time. So you win (9/10)*(1/6) + (1/10)*(2/3) = .15 + .06667 = .21667, or you lose .78333, or are a .78333:.21667 = 3.6151 underdog getting 4:1 for your money. Take it.
So long as the cards aren't marked and you are not getting cheated and "pick" means take a random card, it looks like you should slap your friend for offering a bad proposition.
- Louie
I think you misread pile B,
one card helps you, not two cards, therefore the prob. is 1/3 ot 2/3 and you should pass
Elie
Elie,
I think maybe you misread pile B. As the proposition was written, if you draw the winner from pile A, then the propositioner gets to draw a second chance card from pile B, NOT you. Therefore, two of the pile B cards help you and Louie's analysis is correct.
Of course, if the proposition was supposed to read "you" rather than "I" in the description of the pile B drawing (as has been suggested above), then your analysis would be correct instead.
So really, I think the difference of opinion hinges on whether the problem was stated correctly originally, but I don't see any real grounds for thinking that it wasn't.
Chris
Yes, if the mark outdraws the propositioner with a lucky draw from pile A then the propositioner gets a chance to re-draw by picking from pile B. If the mark fails to outdraw from pile A he gets another chance from pile C.
You've hit the nail on the head. And now I am going to explain the how and why.
Have you ever played against David Sklansky in a live game? I have. In fact David and I are quite friendly and 'work' together quite often.
David makes a lot of money playing limit poker. He couldn't make a dime playing no limit. David is a great player. David is not even CLOSE to being one of the best players. So how does he do it?
Tourists literally throw their money at David. Many of them know him - his picture is on the back of all his books. Many of them have money to burn, and a lot of them would gladly flush a couple of grand for the privilege of being able to say 'I outplayed the great David Sklansky and pushed him off of a hand.' They do this ALL THE TIME. The more well known David becomes, the more money he makes because the more fish there are to line up and play back at him.
In his old book on draw poker John Fox gave a lot of tips on things you could do to create a profitable image as a player. One of them was, "Write a poker book." I don't remember what reasoning he gave, but maybe the authors are onto something. I wonder in what other ways it helps and in what ways it hurts. Maybe everyone needs to write a book.
Another potentially profitable image for a ring game limit player would be as " a live one tournament specialist who can't win at ring games if the life of his first born child depended on it". The hard part about creating this image is that you have to win a couple of tournaments first.
David is an expert in the technical area of poker. Most poker pros probably do not even know what game theory is while David can work on very difficult game theory problems. Limit HE is a game where technical knowledge is extremely important. NL games are less technical and you play the player more then you play the cards.
Since David is a very smart man and he select games that he can beat with a reasonable standard deviation that he can handle. I do not believe he does well in limit HE ring game just because he wrote a few books. He does well because his skill is most suitable for limit HE ring games.
They are both very accomplished writers and I enjoy and learn from their books. Quite frankly I think they are both much better writers than players. I frequently play at the bellagio and watch them and frequently play with both of them. I have seen both "On Tilt" and both play badly at times. The one thing I don't see frequently is them cashing in their chips at the cashier.
I am from the bay area and have no first hand knowledge whether David or Mason do well in actual ring game or not.
Someone else in the forum said they win because others want to play against them and throw money at them.
I do respect both of them and also Abdul as experts in the theoretical area of poker.
Let's say we mosey on over to Bellagio's. Once there we purview the high limit section. Drooling and wishing we could step onto the hallowed turf we spy two local poker experts playing heads up no less. No it can't be. Why it's none other than David "Oz" Sklansky and Mason "the real brain" Malmuth sitting on opposite sides of the Holdem table scowling at each other. We determine from our own expert evaluation ability that neither has an edge. Hey it looks like they are just starting to play. Hmmm they each have 100K in front of them. Blinds are 1k and 2k and theyr'e off.
Before we can see the first flop "Bova" the (best floorman in the world) walks up to us and says "Sorrry (he has an accent) jj-jentlemen but Mssr's Sklansy and Malmoooth (I told you he had an accent) wish not to bee distrurbed."
Pissed off we unhappily leave, cursing at Sklansky under are breadth because we know "Malmooth" is a good guy an would let us stay and watch. Poo on you David! Hope Mason destroys you.
About two hours later, after (me) killing them at the 15-30 Holdem game and (you) getting a little stuck at 4-8 (face it I'm a better poker player than you) decide to sneak a peek at the "BIG" game while Bova isn't watching. His name may actually be "Boba" but I have an accent also, and Bova is the way I see it. Well unfortunately our curse on the Mighty Oz didn't work. We count each stack and find that Malmoooth (where'd that extra "o" come from? Please keep your hands off of the key board), that's Malmuth, is behind 33K. So David now has 133K and Mason has 67K.
Suddenly, David jumps up and says I quit! O.K, O.K David jumping is a little stretch but he does stand up and make his declaration. Now, we all know David as the 800 Math SAT, poker expert, par excellance, so we wonder: "Why would he quit at this point?"
Well, I sure hope you guys have an answer because to be honest with you I don't.
Vince
This is too obvious: The race at Meadowlands is starting.
The law of probability says that he surely is LESS of a favorite now once he has won so that things can even out in the long run.
The political reason they were wasting their time playing no longer applies; whatever that reason was.
He's REAL annoyed at the jerk who keeps peeking at their game.
A seat openned up in the real main-game.
He has to go to the WC.
Did this really happen?
- Louie
"The law of probability says that he surely is LESS of a favorite now once he has won so that things can even out in the long run."
Louie,
You didn't really mean what you say here, did you? The fact of the matter is that now that David's stack is twice Mason's he has a huge advantage if the goal is to win all the other fellows stack. The size of his stack becomes his edge. So why would David quit? Is he correct to quit? Is there a point where he should quit?
No this did not really happen, at least not to my knowledge.
Vince
I'm a little surprised that you of all people didn't recongnize my dry humor.
Actually, the chance of winning it all is directly related to stack size, so DS would have a 2:1 advantage to "win". But he is also laying 2:1 so it averages out since he'll win 1 unit twice but lose 2 units once. Since they are evenly skilled it remains a waste of time to play.
- Louie
"didn't recongnize my dry humor"
Well to be honest I thought it was a little wet humor. You know, maybe you put too much SAUCE on the spaghetti.
Seriously, I beleive that this is an issue that comes up occaisionally. Especially when th casino's thin out and games go short handed and sometimes heads up. I have been in a similar situation to the one I described. Usually I play to keep the game going in hopes that it will fill up or if I have an edge. Sometimes though my edge is small or non existent. I was curious to get opinions about whether it is smart to continue on if you have a stack size greater than your opponents. The difficulty is figuring whether he will go into his pocket or not and how much he is willing to invest.
Anyway I thought it was an interesting quetion. I guess Mason answered it the best. He thought David was dumb and didn't know about the skimming. Well David showed him, he used his "collusion" skills to beat Mason all by his lonesome. Quite a feat huh!
Vince.
Your heads-up situation is no different than any other situation. It matters if you have an edge, whether you can get a better edge at another table, yaddy yaddy. OK, so there is some political issues such as you may prefer not to embarrass the sucker. Your stack-size relative to the opponent has no bearing in a ring game.
Well, it DOES have a bearing when it comes to such things as whether you really DO have an edge and how long it may take you to realize you do not: if you are getting cheated or are clearly outmatched you prefer to have a very small amount to lose.
- Louie
the obvious answer is that angelina fekali came walking by.
The answer is easy. That's the standard amount I skim off his royalties each year. So he just got even.
Or David is adding a new chapter in his Theory of Poker "Hit and Run" and other long term (pos.EV) cheap tricks to annoy your opponent.
This is a question for those of you who have a pretty good handle on both hold'em and stud. Suppose you are a good hold'em player, and you're now going to start learning and playing stud. Which of your hold'em skills or ways of thinking will you find transfer most readily and usefully to stud, and on the other hand which are the most likely to create problems in your stud play? Thanks in advance.
Since I play almost all the games now in tournaments I would say if you are more "technical" oriented you can make transitions from HE to stud (7 card hi) by just reading two books. The books will tell you what are the most important things in stud which is not in HE. In my case one area I still have not master is the difference between the structure. (ante verse blinds) I have not found any good explainations on this subject.
The most important thing in stud is which card is live. Another interesting point is "there is almost no nut hands". With nothing showing your opponent still can have 4 of a kind.
One thing that the holdem player tranferring to stud, at least at the lower limits, has to watch out for is the tendency to play too aggressively. You can burn a lot of chips trying to buy a 1-5 stud pot from a determined chaser -- alternatively, your aggressiveness may get you nothing but a meager bring-in bet, when nobody feels like chasing, and the game has no ante (as is common in the lowest-limit stud games).
I am a stud player moved to HE. When I play Stud I notice that HE players are in general poor Stud players. An excellent essay was posted by Mason on the subject. If I remember correctly he addesses both games.
In general HE players seem to forget that their board is not a community board...they don't look around. A powerhouse HE hand many times shouldn't get you past fourth street in Stud. Aggressiveness is also a problem, Stud is a trapping game, and aggressiveness is usually not rewarded. Stud hand can show a broadway on the board and only have a small pair in the hole. I have read that Stud also has a bigger deviation.
Good luck with your change!
As some of you may have noticed there is a thread below called "You people have ruined everything" where the author is complaining that our books have damaged the games. It just so happens that I have a slightly different point of view. Furthermore I am working on POKER ESSAYS, VOLUME III and one of the essays just happens to address this precise topic, so I'm repeating it here. (I also remember when I first started writing and being constantly told that I didn't have a clue. Of course most of those people are now gone.)
What Happened to the Lowball Stars?
In 1987 hold 'em and stud became legal in California, and the great poker explosion had begun. However, to those of you who aren't "old timers," there was still plenty of poker in existence before this date. In fact, some of the super clubs such as the Bike and the Commerce were already open for business, and they had many poker games going all the time. But there was a difference, only forms of draw poker were legal.
In case you didn't know, the most popular game was ace-to-five lowball draw played with a joker, which counted as the lowest card not already in your hand. My guess is that about two-thirds of the games in Southern California, which was where I lived in the early eighties, were lowball draw games. They came in all limits, from very small to the very large. I remember regularly seeing games at the $200-$400 level and higher. In addition, just like today, there were a few players who had become very well known because they were considered to be the best. They seemed invincible no matter what the limit, and no matter who their opponents were. But in a few short years after hold 'em was introduced, most of them were gone. They were unable to make the conversion from lowball draw to hold 'em, even though they were considered to be top poker players. So what happened?
This is something that I have contemplated for years, and I believe that there is an answer which can explain why these people went broke. It is simply the fact that lowball before the draw can look like hold 'em before the flop. Yet the two games are as different as night and day.
To see this, let's use $30-$60 limit as our model game. In lowball draw, we used to play it at an eight handed table with a $10 blind on the button, a $20 blind to the left of the button, and a $30 blind two positions to the left of the button. The first player in had the option to either fold, call the $30 blind, or raise an additional $30. Also, all additional raises before the draw were in $30 increments.
$30-$60 hold 'em appears very similar. The game is usually nine handed instead of eight, and the $10 blind on the button is not adhered to, but everything else is the same. So it seemed like the old lowball stars could have moved to hold 'em with no problems. But they didn't. This new form of poker wasn't as easy as they thought and many players got their bankroll destroyed
There were two major differences which the lowball players didn't account for: 1. The fact that only two starting cards were dealt instead of five. 2. Now there were four rounds of betting instead of just two.
Consequently, the lowball players misplayed their hands and did not evaluate them correctly, particularly before the flop. (In Hold 'em Poker for Advanced Players David Sklansky and I state that if you play your first two cards reasonable well and then only okay after that, don't expect to do much better than break even. However, if you play your first two cards poorly, your chances of being a winning player will be quite small.)
To understand what happened you first need to learn a little bit of correct lowball strategy before the draw. Opening play was very simple. If you were the first one to voluntarily put money in the pot you almost always raised. Occasionally someone would play a weak hand for a call, but they also might limp with a very strong hand. In either case, if you pretended that every pot was raised and based your playing strategy on this, you were on the right path.
So almost always raising if you were first in when playing lowball draw was clearly correct. You usually wanted to represent a completed hand because with five cards dealt to you that is what you could easily have, and with only two rounds of betting you were never very concerned with implied odds. (You also weren't concerned with other concepts such as semi-bluffing, buying a free card, check raising, and the psychology aspect was not as sophisticated. Also note that these ideas are not the thrust of this essay.)
Hold 'em is a completely different animal. Hands vary widely in their initial strength. Some hands, such as ace-king, aren't as impacted by implied odds as hands like a medium suited connector or a small pair. In addition, a hand like
Ad Kc
can frequently win without improvement if the number of players is kept small, while the other mentioned hands usually like many opponents. Plus the community nature of hold 'em makes it difficult for certain hands to draw out against some other hands.
Thus hold 'em requires a completely different strategy. Instead of raising every time when first in, you should do a lot of limping. But even more important, a big distinction in playable hands is required depending on whether the pot is already raised or if someone has just called the big blind. In fact, if an opponent raises and you are next, the number of hands that you play should be far less than the number that you play if this same player had come in for the minimum. But in lowball it wouldn't matter.
I believe that this was essentially the main problem. The lowball players didn't make this distinction. They thought that if a hand was playable against a limp, it must also be playable against a raise, and they were routinely calling raises with hands that should have been thrown away.
Specifically, a rough guideline in lowball was to call a raise with a hand that was as good as the original raiser's minimum raising hand. For example, if you somehow knew that an opponent's minimum raising hand in a certain situation was any four cards to a seven, you could play any four cards to a seven. On the other hand, if you somehow knew that an opponent's minimum raising hand in hold 'em was an ace-ten, you needed much better than an ace-ten to play. (Part of the reason for this is that hands like
Ah Ts
don't play very well against hands like
Ac Qd
or against pairs that are tens or higher.)
So what happens if you adopt this lowball playing strategy to hold 'em? The answer is that you will lose your money fast. And I do mean fast. I believe that this is exactly what happened to many of the old time great California lowball players when the hold 'em revolution began.
n
True for lowball. I also saw some Vegas holdem players have a difficult time adjusting to Cal. style holdem. Some of the weaker ones just went broke.
Question: I assume SoCal style is 6 or 7 players seeing the flop for 3 or 4 bets. So you need a hand that can take the heat. Which means playing ultra-tight, and ultra-aggressive.
The problem with ultra-tight is you have to make enough to cover the ultra-expensive SoCal time charges.
So between having to play ultra-tight, and having to maximize your win to be able to make up for the high rake, variance has to be through the roof even though you're playing few hands.
Anything I'm missing?
I haven't played in So. Cal. since 88 or 89 when holdem was first being introduced. I'm sure a lot has changed since then and players like Rick N who was there then and still plays now could best explain it.
Not necessarily.
I haven't played more than maybe a 50 hours in vegas, but I would characterize the games there vs. california as about the same level of tightness, probably a bit looser, and much much less aggressive.
You sometimes see 6 players in a capped pot preflop, but it's not every hand or even a third of them. But it's pretty rare for there to be no raise at all, and a pot that has more than 2 people in it will generally see bets and raises after the flop.
Players will cap pots with big pairs, AK and occasionally really random things like 67s or 55. So sometimes you run into a well disguised set in a huge pot, which can be disconcerting. It's a bit harder to push bad players around, since the bad players are really aggressive, but punishing them is entertaining due to the sheer number of chips moving around.
Abdul claims that vegas is a much easier place to earn a living as a pro. California doesn't allow smoking, which is worth a whole hell of a lot of ev if you ask me. It's hard to put a dollar value on avoiding cancer, but it would be high.
- target
Most of the old lowball stars learn how to play by experience. In the old days there are only 2 to 3 good books on lowball and one only cost $3 by Zadar?? which is still one of the best poker books (in the area of game theory). The old lowball stars were very weak in theoretical areas. So most of them cannot make the adjustment to HE. It took me over 5 years to learn how to play lowball with all the % and game theory situations calculated. It only took me one year to move on to HE. Then thanks to all the books it took me just months to learn all the other games.
You mean "Winning poker systems" by Norman Zadeh - definitely true.
I never played lowball but several times read Mason Malmuth's "Winning poker concepts at draw and lowball". I like it and it helped to broaden my poker general knowledge.
Zbych,
Mason Malmuth and Norman Zadeh has the best two books for low ball. Mason's is more general and is the best book for learning the low ball game. Norman Zadeh has some very advance math/stat/computer science/game theory sections which is extremely useful for those who use computer to study poker. It was him who inspired me to analyse poker hands for low ball and later on for HE. He also inspire me develop materials for writing a book on the application of game theory in limit HE.
Now I have some more time to do more study, I am starting to analyse limit HE in the area of game theory. I want to develop a system using game theory for headup play so that mathematically speaking it does not make any difference what my opponet do (fold,call or raise). This seems to be very complicated.
Just doing simulation for the 13 pocket pairs by itself already is very time consuming.
I, too, learned a lot about lowball and poker thinking from Zadeh's book. I look forward to seeing some of the results from your studies of Hold 'em.
Great explanation.
Mason, if you read this before this post gets buried, do you believe hold'em is the most sophisticated and subtle of the popular casino card games? (My knowledge of the other games is insufficient to weigh this.) Could you anticipate hold'em going the way of the dinosaur like lowball and draw?
Do you believe the games will continue to be good?
Aside: One thing I have tried to do is approach poker from the theoretical point of view. I know from experience this allows one to adjust to various types of games and opponents. The same apparently can't be said for those former lowball players.
Regards.
I believe that stud is a little more difficult than hold em to become an expert at because of the facts that it has upcards and the hands are more sensitive to the number of players in the pot. However, hold 'em definitely has more tricks on the later streets.
Both games should be around a long time.
Played any recently, for old times sake? How about high draw/Jacks back?
No, I haven't played in years and can't even remember the last time I played.
They do still spread 30-60 lowball at Commerce for anyone wanting a little nostalgic experience. They also have 10-20 in one or two small cardrooms in San Diego, but San Diego has some weird rules involving periodically being able to kill it for a third of whatever you have in front of you or something.
Went to the Normandie for the first time in years a couple of months ago and when we went to sign up there were long lists for the 15/30 and 20/40 games of which there were three going according to the board. Was about to leave for the Hustler when I noticed that these were lists for LOWBALL games and the one and only middle limit holdem game going (15/30) had a seat open.
Average age at lowball was about 70. Average age at holdem was about 35 (and I brought up the average).
Regards,
Rick
I might have used this joke here recently, so forgive me if I did, but if you write down the birth years of the players who participate in the 30-60 lowball game at Commerce your list extends back to the Magna Carta. (Hope no one who plays in that game posts here.) I'm only an ocassional player, but it seems the 30-60 goes every day at Commerce. Plus on some days they spread a 40-80 (or 50-100?) combination 1/2 hold 'em and 1/2 lowball.
I'm told the 20-40 at the Normandie is usually only on weekends, it's generally 15-30 only during the week.
First time I've ever seen the words "heaven" and "the Normandie" in the same sentence.
Regarding: Posted By: Rick Nebiolo (REgarding Southern CA LoBal and $5-10 or lower stakes.)
Gee -- there were lots of posts about LoBal, and so far I have read only a few -- so some of my comments may have already been posted by other posts which I have not read.
A few comments about Lobal as I remember it, playing it over twenty-years ago in Southern CA.
Going back as far as 1959" and probably much farther back", the must bet seven "or better" low hands after the draw was in effect. Without this rule there would be essentially no action after the draw. (For those not familiar with the 7's rule -- the first person to the left of the dealer must bet a 7 or better hand in order to win a bet or bets after the draw.) This rule is what creates the action after the draw -- (repeating myself) otherwise the game would be dead.
Also some games were played with just every player anteing and without a blind. Again these games could be very tight unless there were maniacs or wild and loose players in the game. In Lobal "unlike flop games", good players wecomed maniacs and wild players in the LoBal game.
The Lobal games with an ante and blind were a little looser, but still not that great unless there were a few very loose players in the game; that is: players that play essentially every two card draw hand to a seven or better -- sometimes two to an eight.
The introduction of the "Kill" was the thing that really made LoBal a good action game for skilled players. There were different kinds of "Kills."
At some card clubs "with antes, and with or without a blind," any player could look at the first two delt cards "and if they liked these good cards" this player could Kill the Pot -- i.e., he/she would post double the first round bet and the games stakes were usually doubled. Some clubs played this The Kill option only as a raise blind option after looking at the first two cards.
Another more popular was the Must Kill in an open blind game. After any player wins two pots in a row, this player for the next hand must post double the opening bet and the all stakes are doubled.
As you might suspect, the Kill option made Lobal a much better action game, and again all maniacs were welcome.
Again as you might suspect, expert players would almost always avoid being the Killer, that is not wanting to win two consecutive pots unless they had a slam-dunk hand to do it. The experts made most of their money on pots killed by their opponents -- I know I did.
I occasionaly see former lowball pros playing hold'em, but seldom higher than $3-6.
Mason,
Do you beleive an expert could have a bigger edge over medium players in low ball than in hold-em? My style of play makes me lean more toward a low ball type of game, (or to no-limit hold-em). I just don't think you can make medium players make that much of a mistake in limit hold-em, where I can see them making big mistakes in low ball.
A few books on low ball wetted my appetite for that game, it seems you can use game theory much more, but noone spreads it on the east coast, I don't think.
Mick,
What are the books on lowball that wet your appetite, I like to learn how to play.
Thanks
One book is called Winning Concepts in Draw and Lowball. I just happen to be the author.
"Winning poker systems" by Norman Zadeh Mason Malmuth's "Winning poker concepts at draw and lowball"
They are the best 2 books for lowball
No. The expert has a bigger edge in (limit) hold 'em over typical players. The opposite may be true over extremely terrible opponents.
We see these sorts of posts all the time. Browsing the medium stakes board, I saw two such posts: "1 player limps in early position and I have J9s. Can I call?" "There is a raise from UTG and a few cold callers. I have 43s in the BB. Can I call?" These situations are completely marginal, in my opinion. Assuming a typical game, a good player will only make a tiny profit with these hands, perhaps $1 or $2 in a $10-20 game, so it doesn't really matter much at all if you call or fold. (Against opponents who play particularly poorly, you would probably make more, but that's not the scope of this post.)
But the comment that "it doesn't really matter much at all if you call or fold" is only true from a mathematical perspective. I've been giving some thought recently to the psychological ramifications of the game, and I'm now of the opinion that it's probably a good idea to play a marginal hand if you haven't been able to play a hand in a while (or are bored for some other reason), or even are "on a rush." Let's think about these situations in more detail.
First, the boredom factor. Say you've been getting the typical selection of starting cards, or at least my typical selection of starting cards, and you haven't played a hand in a half hour. Then, lo and behold, you look down to see AQ in middle position. Finally, not just a playable hand, but a raising hand! Alas, a tight player raises UTG and another tight player (who knows the first player is tight) calls cold. If that AQ doesn't get thrown into the muck, you're, uh, something that rhymes with "mucked." Or, similarly, you look down and see a hand like QJo or 44 in early position in a tough game, which you decide to limp in with, or a tight player raises UTG and you defend your big blind with ATo. These situations are all going to cost you a fair amount in the long run. You would have made the correct play normally, but because you were bored, you slipped and it cost you. But, perhaps if you had defended your big blind with 43s in a multiway pot where you weren't worried about a re-raise, or had limped in with J9s after 1 player limped, you would have been saved from the boredom that would later cause you to make an unprofitable play.
There's also the "if I had played that hand I'd have won" element. Say you fail to defend your big blind with 43s and the flop comes 443. If you're the type of person who'll be adversely affected by this sort of situation, it's probably better that you play all of your marginal hands. Note that I'm not talking about playing a clearly unprofitable hand; I'm talking about hands that are marginally profitable but mathematically pretty close to even.
A situation in that vein happpened to me today. I was stuck a bit in a 20-40 game, 3 poor players limped, and a weak tight player on the button raised. I held T5s in the BB, and I would generally call in this situation with most suited hands. But, the first player who limped was pretty wacky and had taken a few beats recently, and I feared that he might re-raise, decreasing my odds, and the weak-tight player wouldn't help me jam good flops, as he tends to slow down when played back at, even on innocuous flops like 955 when holding something like QQ. So, I decided that I should fold. The wacky player didn't re-raise, and the flop came JTT. I'd have won a pretty big pot had I played. Fortunately I am sufficiently bankrolled that short term results don't bother me, but if I were playing, say, 100-200 instead of 20-40, I suspect that folding the T5s would have bothered me.
Finally, there's the "playing the rush" factor. Of course I don't believe that rushes exist anywhere but in the past, but your opponents mightn't believe that. Therefore, you might want to consider playing some marginal hands if you've been winning. Your bluffs and semi-bluffs might be more effective, or there could be other intangible benefits involved. (Some people might specifically try to take shots at someone "on a rush," so you might get called on the flop and turn by crappy overcards on a 943 flop /4 turn with your 43.
Comments?
-Sean
"I'm now of the opinion that it's probably a good idea to play a marginal hand if you haven't been able to play a hand in a while..."
Me too. However, for the effect giving action has on your opponents rather than for psychological reasons that apply to yourself.
OTOH perhaps you are on to something regarding the effect playing more hands has on your own psyche. It is more interesting to play more hands. Maybe doing so makes you feel more powerful and cheers you up a bit.
"Therefore, you might want to consider playing some marginal hands if you've been winning. Your bluffs and semi-bluffs might be more effective, or there could be other intangible benefits involved."
Absolutely. Again, IMHO, more for the effect giving action has on your opponents.
Just my opinion.
Buzz
The only one that's justified is the "playing the rush" factor as there really are real strategic benefits to loosening up when you're on a rush. You've got command of the game and the other players (including the more rational ones) may be intimidated by your "luck" - thus you are able to get away with more steals, and as you've mentioned, be more effective in your bluffs and semi-bluffs. And if you somehow get lucky while playing with a marginal hand, you can get a good pay off because of your now "action player" image.
But playing marginal hands for the sake of psychology for the two other reasons that you've mentioned (namely, boredom and "if I played that hand I'd have won" element) are forms of serving emotional weakness. The more you play less optimal for these reasons, the more dependent you will be on playing for these reasons for the management and control of these emotional states in the future. They can be like a drug that you will be dependent on. And like all drugs, they are leaks in your finances. Do your best to avoid them.
I suggest that you find other ways of entertaining yourself when you're bored. Engage in a good conversation, have fun observing the others play from the point of view of being an uninvolved observer, play different kinds of songs inside your head, watch the ballgame. Also, seek satifaction in the fact that you haven't allowed yourself to be tempted into playing a marginal hand despite having not been dealt anything worth playing. Count how much money you've just made in the long term for doing so.
The advice in the last two sentences above are also very applicable for the "if I'd had played that hand I'd have won" element. Remind yourself that such a play would have cost you money in the long run.
Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I'm not referring to playing in a less than optimal manner or playing in an unprofitable manner. Marginal means "marginally profitable," i.e. I'm talking about situations where your mathematically expected profit should be not that much greater than break even. If you think the examples I gave aren't profitable, then substitute your own situation that involves a slim profit, like something that would earn a buck or two in a $10-20 game.
-Sean
Do them for "the buck or two" (if the potential extra swings that could result are acceptable to you and your bankroll). Do not do them purely for the psychological reasons. The psychological reasons must be dealt with psychologically.
There are lots of fun ways to make the downtimes more exciting and productive.
Please elaborate...
"Uptime" is the mental state in which we're fully engaged with what we're doing. We're energetic, totally awake, very keen and observant, and alert. This can, and usually happens, when we're getting a lot of playable hands and therefore get to play. Being on a winning streak also helps. We're in the zone.
"Downtime" is the opposite of uptime. It is the mental state in which we're spaced out, bored, or in a trance. This can happen when the game is veeeerrrrry slow (lots of deck changes, mistake prone talkative dealers, slow players, etc.) and it can also happen when we keep getting unplayable hands for long stretches of time forcing us to throw hand after hand after hand after hand. Being stuck usually magnifies this making things even slower (Like when we're having a root canal done to us. We look at our watch and it says 11 o'clock. We sit there and it feels like three hours have gone by. Then we look at our watch again and it says 11:01!).
The immediate cost of boredom is that it makes us less attentive and therefore underinformed about what's going on. But the bigger long term cost is when as a result of this boredom, we start to develop an "itch to play" and end up playing a little bit too loose in order to wake ourselves up. When this happens, we fall into the trap, temporarily at least, of "playing for the excitement" and/or "playing for the action" - two goals that are in direct conflict with the well-formed goal of "play to maximize EV and hourly expectation". This is the reason why I'm totally against the idea of playing marginal hands solely for the sake of counteracting boredom. This could be habit forming and should be stopped, and early.
Uptime is like a factory that is going on full capacity. There is a lot of production. Everyone is busy doing something from assembling to packaging to shipping and so forth.
Downtime is like the factory that has been shut down because there have been too few orders. But is this bad? Maybe but not nescessarily. What would a good manager do? He'll take this as an opportunity to activate his brain. He'll go outside and gain more up to date data and information about the customers, the channels, and the competitors. He'll review past decisions to see if they still hold today. He'll re-examine his whole product line to see which products are contributing to profits and should therefore be produced more, and he'll see which ones merely represent costs and therefore should be folded. He'll take the time to re-oil the equipment and tune them up for future use. He'll also get his workers retrained and taught new skills so that they will be empowered to keep up with the times and be competitive. He'll review what went right in the past so he'll know what to do more of in the future. He'll also review the mistakes so he'll know what to do less of.
In poker, downtime is the opportunity to disassociate, to sit back, relax, to GET CURIOUS and to watch the other players, their habits, their patterns, their communications, from the point of view of being a detached observer. It is also the time to review one's plays and to visualize how one will respond to future scenarios, especially the one's based on real time observations of the other players. In addition, downtime is the time to stop and smell the roses, to take the time to feel grattitude for the blessings of being alive and healthy, and for the priviledge of playing this great game. Downtime need not be boring and unproductive if you just GET CURIOUS about what's going on around you.
The only one that's justified is the "playing the rush" factor as there really are real strategic benefits to loosening up when you're on a rush. You've got command of the game and the other players (including the more rational ones) may be intimidated by your "luck" - thus you are able to get away with more steals, and as you've mentioned, be more effective in your bluffs and semi-bluffs. And if you somehow get lucky while playing with a marginal hand, you can get a good pay off because of your now "action player" image.
Well, which one is it? When you're on a rush, are you able to get away with more steals (people are calling you less) or get away with more value bets (people are calling you more)? It can't be both.
~~
I don't think opponents' -- even the superstitious ones -- decisions are influenced much by perceived rushes. Or, at least, it's random enough and individualistic enough such that it doesn't matter. Case in point: In my first hour tonight I was on a rush like you wouldn't believe. One hand I had QdQh UTG and raised. Long story short, the board came Ac-5c-2d-8d-9d and I beat some guy's Ah5h (he played it strong the whole way) with my runner-runner Q-high diamond draw. Total fluke. Rush continues. The next hand in my BB I pick up Ks7s in an unraised pot and check. The flop comes three A-high spades, and I bet/raise with three people trapped. I get paid off all the way by those three opponents. Clearly, a massive rush, no? A few hands after that, I pick up QQ again, raise, and get only one caller. Huh?
What I'm trying to illustrate by this little sequence of events is that players in general are affected very little by perceived rushes. Sometimes they will fold to you and other times they will pay you off. In general, bad players (who of course are the type who believe in rushes) simply play their own hand. What other players hold is something to be worried about later (like at the showdown).
"Well, which one is it? When you're on a rush, are you able to get away with more steals (people are calling you less) or get away with more value bets (people are calling you more)?"
When I'm on a rush I almost always enter an "in the zone" state where I know exactly who I can bully and who I can't bully at that moment in time. When I'm with the former I'm more confident with my bluffs and semi-bluffs but when I'm with the latter I tip toe a little but I still go for it.
I also become more aware of who's waiting in the wings waiting to exploit my now marginal holdings. It's very intuitive and very person specific. I can't really explain it. I just sense it.
Not that I'm not aware of these things when I'm not on a rush. It's just that when I'm on a rush, I'm just more so. It's probably an adrenaline thing. Focused excitement.
I generally agree with you. Ideally, we should not let factors such as boredom etc. make us do something that we otherwise wouldn't. If you are capable of playing your A game at all times, then more power to you. But many good players can't play their A game 100% of the time. So, if you are going to stray, you may as well do so by incorrectly playing marginal hands i.e. make small errors instead of big ones.
For a long time, I used to play all pocket pairs all the time even when I knew that it was wrong to play them in some instances. I did this because if I flopped a set after folding, it would drive me nuts to the point that I would play subsequent hands poorly. The money I wasted on those hands dwarfed the money I would have wasted by incorrectly playing the hand where I was dealt the pocket pair.
I am over that turbulent period now thankfully. I can now fold pocket pairs correctly and still play my subsequent hands properly even if it turns out that I had folded a winner in a big pot...hey, I am maturing as a poker player:o)
Has this ever happened to you?
You are on an extended winning streak over the last few weeks or even couple of months. As the streak goes on you grow more and more confident. You are killing your opponents. You are really focused and you are playing way better than they are. As your confidence grows you start playing more and more marginal hands. You figure you can outplay them after the flop so why not? You add a few questionable calls or raises preflop, you keep rolling over your opponents. You perhaps add some more. Then all of a suddent you cant win.
This just happened to me.
It has actually happened a couple times before. I play better and better and then cross over the line and have to retighten. Normally it takes me awhile (an extended bad streak)to realize what has happened by today it all became clear.
I had a day when most of my big hands got cracked. This accounted for most of my loss, but combined with play that was too loose it became disasterous. I think the marginal plays can get hidden in the course of a session when your good hands hold up. Luckily for me losing badly made me immediately focus in on what I was doing and some gaping holes became obvious.
In retrospect while I could outplay my opponents with some hands that I could give up some EV with preflop, this group got way too big due to some short term luck. I've learned this lesson a couple times now, I sure hope it sticks this time.
Paul Talbot
You know, I'm amazed that I can't remember another post on this topic here. (There may have been one but...) I think it's really a very important topic for serious players.
I've been through the same cycle, and learned the same lesson multiple times. It takes a few slightly different forms as different things can influence you to play more hands. One is just the converse of the win streak you mention. You run badly for a while and it starts to affect your play in subtle ways. These kinds of cycles were the inspiration for the essays on "Subtle Losses of Judgement" that I included in _Inside the Poker Mind_. I'd be interested in hearing whether anyone has *never gone through such cycles, or feels they've totally conquered them. I also suspect sometimes players just don't recognize when they're happening. I'd *like to think I've conquered them, but from past experience I know better than to get too complacent about it. I think I've at least extended the good part of the cycle and reduced the bad part. I'll bet JAWS may have something to say about it. Good post.
... I think the running/playing well trigger you talk about is similar to something Mason mentions in one of his "Essays" books. He describes some excellent players he's see start playing more and more hands, and ultimately go broke as they end up playing just fundamentally too loosely.
You may recognize players that have had this happen. Players who used to be considered by many to be extremely lucky. One day (it may be a year or 2 later) you notice that no-one is saying that about them anymore.
BTW, I bought your book but have been two busy to read it yet. Where do I send the receipt to get the 2+2 Forum $10 rebate?
Talbot,
This is an excellent post. I haven't had the time to read all the threads I usually do and almost missed this one. I have to admit I have fallen into that trap and need to guard against it.
Regards,
Rick
I think I've convinced you on the 82s. Now I have to work on you about the Q9o.
;o)
Can I get an 'Amen', brother?
I am WAY better at not falling into this trap than I used to be, but nowhere near as infallible as I should be, either. I think we have all fallen into that "I am invincible.....I am Poker Playyyyer..." mode from time to time, when the deck is running all over you, and you book a nice win. But driving home in the car, you think back about all the stupid plays you made caught up in the moment, and the effect on the earn. Or worse, you think you're great because you did book a nice win, and don't even realize how poorly you really did.
The other night I had won something like 3 pots in 4 hands; not huge pots, but decent. Then I get Q9o in early position and muck it without a thought. They accidentally flip up, and somebody says something like, "You're nuts not playing that on a rush. Man, you're tight." Well, garbage in, garbage out.
Good post, Paul. Something we all need to be reminded of.
Good Post.
Yes, when you become "The best poker player in the known Universe", bad things often follow. It's inevitable that a downswing will occur and when it does it can be that much worse.
Possibly you may not be winning as much as you should have been while the deck has been in your favour.
I've been taught this lesson a number of time but I have yet to "learn" it.
It's quite possible that continual review of basic principles could help. One day while your re-visiting the basics you might realize that you've started raising with K9s in early position because of your utter domination of the fools that dare to inhabit the same poker table as you.
Anyway, so obviously, this has happened to me!
There's a section in "Zen and the art of Poker" that deals with this topic.
This going-out-on-a-limb to outplay the opponents stuff should much more be a function of how you and the opponents feel right now and much LESS on how you are doing this week.
The ..err.. A solution is this: develop a standard and CONSERVATIVE selective and aggressive strategy. When you "feel" good meaning you have psycological dominance over the opponents you can loosen up both selectively and aggressively. This feeling may last only a few hands so you MUST constantly monitor it or these adjustments will prove a death-trap. This feeling may last less than one hand when perhaps you find yourself in a pot only with someone who you DO dominate.
I think Caro presented one by-rote strategy: Be assertive when you won the last pot you contested, be conservative when you lost.
- Louie
Confidence is good.
Funny thing about confidence is that it actually makes you play better. It gives you better follow thru, makes you hesitate less, and supports you in projecting strength. This is good stuff. In fact, one of the most important skills that we have to teach ourselves is to have the capability to maintain confidence and belief in ourselves, no matter how tough the beats. This is the key to resilience.
But when we're (temporarily) running very lucky, sometimes confidence and self belief can backfire. Somehow, somewhere along the lucky streak, we start to credit our skills for the wins and begin to forget the real reason why we've been winning more than we deserve - luck!
This has happened to me many times. And each time, it has caused me to give back a portion of my wins once reality set in. I've been giving back less and less over time though as I've gotten more mature, hehe.
I use two tools: negative thinking and humility.
Each time I sense that I may be going overboard, I go back to all those times in the past when I went on a tear, won a lot of money, got overconfident, gave it all back, and felt very very sick and angry with myself afterwards.
First, this memory starts out as a movie. Then I step into this movie relieving the event as if it were happening NOW, with sensoround sound and in all its vividly rich details. I relieve the experience all the way to the very end when I felt very very very sick and very very very angy with myself. As I feel these feelings peak, I immediately stop the movie.
Holding these sick feelings inside me, I see myself in the future being stupid and going thru the same boom/bust sequence all over again. And feeling even sicker in the end.
As far as humility goes, I've forced myself to believe that there really are poker gods. I'm inside this crystal ball, and as I look up these gods are all watching me (kind of like the movie Clash of the Titans!). They're all very big, with white long hair and wearing togas. When I'm being humble - that is, when I'm giving luck the credit it deserves - these gods are smiling and nodding their heads in approval. They are proud of me.
But when I start to get egotistical - giving my skills all the credit, and luck no credit at all - they start to get angry. Their thick white eyebrows curl up and they start to look real pissed. One of them, believe it or not, looks somewhat like Doyle Brunson.
The great thing about over confidence and greed is that they can be aborted at any time. You don't have to suffer their full consequences before you learn your lessons. With negative thinking, humility, and imaginative visualizing, you can stop them at any point in the process. Personally, I like to stop them when I'm already beginning to start to go overboard a little bit. But that's just me.
"re-live the experience" "re-live the event"
This is an excellant string. We must all experience the same thing to one degree or another. I've found myself at a low limit table I am completely dominating, feeling real smart, and calling a raise in early postion with A-6o just to see the flop and outplay the table later, yeah right. I have been trying not to get in this mode, and I do think you have to work on this continuously.
I agree with everything. I'll just remind everyone that this applies, probably even more strongly, at low limits. When you win with a marginal hand, you win a lot more money (because more people are in every pot), and when others win big pots with marginal hands, those pots are huge.
Add to that: at low limits you can't use those brilliant hand-reading skills of yours, because people come in with anything. And you can't use your domination of an opponent, since someone always calls to the end anyway.
There is skill, however. From Talbot's lesson, the skill needed is to play better starting hands than your opponents, and be more conservative about which hands to pursue, than your opponents.
Dick
I thought this was going to be about that line they have on some tables Paul crossed over it or something like that.
This is more a battle of life and poker. When either is going well you forget the bad and become light headed into thinking it is always going to go well. When either is going bad you are heavy headed and raising your head becomes an effort. To be aware of the highs and lows of the game is very important. Many have stressed the importance of winning to create the aura of invincibility at the table at that particular moment. Others have also pointed out the next hand can crash all that down. This is where experience is a key factor in being able to switch to another game when low and letting that game go and start over, which I think is much harder to do at the same table or maybe even the same game. People who observe Zee have stated that is how he plays. He probably doesn't get to a low point but just decides that another game would be better right now. To move through highs and lows as though they don't exist and continue playing your best game for that particular day would seem to be the way to go to me. JMO
paul
what about mexican poker rules?
Thanks for any help
Marco
I' have always played mexican stud. By the house rules, every card you get will be face down. You each choose one to flip over starting with the person to the dealer's left and proceeding around the table. In 5cs, this leaves you with the usual one down and four up. With 7cs, this takes away the decision for the 7th card which is automatically face-down. I like this game.
I play in home games about twice a week (I can't legally play in casinos yet) and usually win. In my last 30 games, I have left down only twice. I usually make about 20-50% profit a night. However, since we play with low stakes this is not a great take. I read books and practice with odds and such, yet I never win big. I don't mind grinding, but it gets old when I know I am the best player at the table.
Bluffs always get called, but I can profit from huge raises that also get called. The loose game doesn't favor my style, but I feel like I should be winning substantially just on skill. When bluffs and buys aren't possible, it seems to boil down to who gets the cards. This can't be the only solution. Can anyone give me some pointers to increase my catch from these fish?
Thanks.
Start declaring the last round of the night Double Stakes. After a bit start declaring the last hour of the night Double Stakes. Then just start playing Double Stakes. Repeat as needed.
Don't get too cocky just because you can beat home games. When you play for the first time in a real card room or casino you are going to find it's MUCH MUCH harder to win.
1) Some of the people there will have had thousands of hours of playing experience. I doubt many in your home game do.
2) The rake takes most of the money that is put on the table. In most limit games, at the end of the night one person will go home big winner, a couple of other tiny winners, and LOTS of losers, some bit, some small. The table is taking off about 100 bucks an hour. That's over 10 bucks per person in a 9 handed game. At low limits thats a LOT.
-SmoothB-
Your %-profit is a useless measure: wouldn't you prefer to buy in $100 and win $40 (40%) than buy-in $50 and win $30 (60%)? How many bets/hour are you winning? If you average winning $30/night for 4 hours that's $7.50/hour. If the stakes are 50c-$2 then you are winning a whopping 3.75 bets/hour. Be proud. Then take Finn's advice.
When there is always fish at the river the game is NOT a crap shoot. You win primarily by avoiding hands and situations that are not profitable (i.e. you are selective) AND by getting those extra bets in with small edges. Yes, its a grind.
- Louie
Played a 11 handed game yesterday
i had some good startin hands in early/middle position and rised them but got zero or at max 2 callers :o(
Then i get dealt 89s in middle and all folded before me. i know its against the "book" to raise with those suited connectors specially with no limpers, but for advertising, can it be a good investment?
Of course i got only 1 caller and i made the nut straight on the turn!! Sadly, my opponent didnt called my river bet. Whatever, i decided to show my hand when 2 of the players yelled to everybody that my AK was good :). after all, i wanted to show them that i raised with 89s!! What do u think?
Sadly, i had almost none interestin startin hands that i can raised with for the rest of the session so i cant compared the result with those before my advertising.
ty for help
Charlie
Really , I tought that you were raising any suited connector from any position . From now and for ever , I will stop to call your raise with border hand ( AJ , KQ etc ) ...
Sigh now im in big trouble.....
anyway u never call my raises dammit!!!
Charlie
Your raise is fine and worked just the way you wanted. I would not show the hand. Let them think it was A-K. You'll have another opportunity to make the same move, and sooner or later you'll get called down and have to show it, then watch their faces. Why not get away with a bluff as long as they always think your on A-K?
You have to ask yourself in that spot, will you bet right out if high cards show? Before they saw the move with 89, I would. After you show them a bluff like this, you'll get more callers which is profitable for your good hands, but you'll be able to bluff less.
I have done this move at least once in every session, when I sense I am not getting any action on my raises. If I have to show the hand, I go back to playing solid. I'll continue to switch gears to take advantage of whatever mood the table seems to be in.
Last session I raised under the gun with 78s. Two callers surprised me. Flop came 6,9,2. I check and call and turn a 5. Wow. What action right to the river. Noone could beleive I had 78, because I played solid for several hours before that.
Mick wrote an excellent post. Stealing a pot is more profitable than advertising.
I would also like to point out that cultivating a tight image and then stealing them blind is one of the best stategies in Holdem. This is because in holdem the pots get so big so quickly that people are SUPPOSED to pay you off; unlike Draw poker where they generally are not.
- Louie
You should not have showed the hand. You should have mucked silently, making them wonder what you had that time.
Then you should have kept trying moves like that until you finally got busted - THEN show your hand.
By not showing, you get to make that move again. By showing, you can't make it again.
-SmoothB-
Not to be flip, but I would ask what you are advertising for? Advertising in most games isn't worth the money, your opponents if they look at all think you play the same cards they do.
And if it costs you a total of 2.5 BB for the hand and you lose, that's a good hours worth of playing you have to make up for.
My thoughts fwiw
Playing $3-$6 and I'm in the big blind with 45 offsuit. UTG raises and gets 3 callers. SB dumps and I (probably wrong) call the raise.
Flop comes 3 6 7 rainbow and I flop a straight. Well I come out firing and get raised, and I make it 3 bets and have one caller. 4th street J, I bet out again and caller dumps, I take it down.
Regardless of the results, was this a bad call? I figured with 4 callers the odds were there to go in with the drawing hand, and if I didn't hit, I would get out fast.
Please disregard the results and post comments. I don't want to hear "well it worked out so it was a good call." I am trying to improve my game and it's situations like these that aren't in any poker books I've read. Thanks
CB
Here's a book for you. Read S&Ms HPFAP. On page 42, "We generally do not recommend that you call raises in the big blind with a hand like: 5c 4h. If this hand was suited then the call would be okay."
Since, this is there web site I don't think they'll mind me quoting a couple of sentances.
My advice is to read the book-carefully. Here's some math. Approximately 33% of the time you will pair one of your cards on the flop. If the flop was Js 8s 4d, and you had 5s 4h, and it was raised what are you going to do? Do you think you're going to get a free card? You will be pissing away alot of chips making these calls.
Mah,
In my post below I wanted one more player. Let's say you primarily play for straight draws. I have trouble decoding the math on this from Petriv's Odds book (my excuse - the typeface gives me a headache), but I think you flop an open ender or double gutshot about 12% of the time. You will also flop some inside straights, for which you should have odds to draw to if the flop bet comes from your left and the pot is unraised. Add in the full, trip and two pair flops and I think this is a good call with one more player and marginal as is.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
Thanks for the explaination. But, the only place I can see playing this is if the game is somewhat passive with callers. If the early position player is the only one that bets and everyone calls, that's fine. But, it could easily turn into a war on the flop.
Consider this flop with a lot of players in the pot: Jh 4h 5c. A lot of times you will get tied on to your hand and someone with a jack or a flush draw will out draw you. You can easily trap yourself and loose a lot of chips with this hand.
I'm speaking from experience.
I think that you need to flop 44x, 55x, or a straight draw. Futhermore, I don't like a open ended straight with a possible flush draw when 4 or more players see the flop.
I think it's best to fold almost all hands in the blinds and use those chips for getting out of line on the button.
Tommy
Tommy,
Your position is not that bad here. You are not dominated by UTG and will be playing mostly for straight draws. If you get one and UTG bets the flop, you might have odds to checkraise for value if UTG gets three callers.
Why would you want to get out of line on the button? The button has value but not that much.
Regards,
Rick
"I think it's best to fold almost all hands in the blinds and use those chips for getting out of line on the button."
Walked into my local bait store the other day and the owner had on a new hat which read, "we rip off the other guy and pass the savings on to you"!
How about using those chips you're saving in the blinds on the button when HE gets out of line!, or put another way, why save chips and then waste them foolishly.
Of course I know you always have a reason for all your plays and I'm just kidding along with you.
Seriously, I read the stories on your website the other day and they are really good stuff. Both educational and very entertaining. I think my personal favorite was definately "vibrating symphonies"
Thanks for sharing
hillbilly
Rick and Hillbilly,
"Get out of line" means different things to different people. I used it sloppily to mean, "digress from what most players at 2+2 would consider reasonable."
My starting hand requirements from the blinds and other early seats are off-the-charts tight. And from the button, well, anything goes, literally.
From an image standpoint, it's a complimentary thing, one hand washing the other.
From a play/theoretical vantage, I think of it like this. If I'm going to invest one bet with 4-5, which is better, up front or on the button?
Would a general "defend" a hopeless position? No. He would conserve his resources and use them to defend a good position.
Tommy
CB,
IMO, the point that puts you in the plus column for the call would be a raise and four cold callers.
Regards,
Rick
Actually your reasoning and call were quite correct. I believe you missed a perfect opportunity to take down a much larger pot than you did. With the raiser to your left and you are first to act, a check is the smart move. The vast majority of the time, even if the flop missed the raiser, he will bet out on the flop. Many times, With a pre-flop raised pot, the other three cold callers will now call the smaller flop bet to take off a card. When those rags hit the board and you(BB) came out firing, a big red flag came out and you didn't get nearly the action you could have, had you check-raised. In the future, think about how to extract the most money from your opponents. Good Luck!
I have to disagree with the others somewhat.
I don't think the call is profitable. But I would make it. I make the call for the rest of the session. I don't want people constantly running my blind over; I want a lot of free looks when I'm in the BB. You make this call because even the most zombie-like totally unaware opponent does notice a player who is very tight defending his blinds.
So next orbit when you have something atrocious like T7o that you can't possibly in good conscience defend with, you at least get the chance to hit your TTx/77x/T7x/98x miracle flop. It doesn't even have to be that drastic. Say you have Q8o. There's an early limper and a late limper, and the SB folds. If the flop comes Q44, you probably have the best hand (and a reasonable shot at half the pot even if you don't). But if you are perceived as a player who is tight in the blinds, that second limper will raise your ass pretty much every time he plans on playing the hand (if he's a half-decent player). When he does, you can't call with your lousy Q8 (because of the presence of the early limper). The cumulative effects of these free flops, IMO, make up the very small loss you take on calls like the 54o. Just like it's a big mistake to give free cards to someone who would have folded, it's a great advantage to take free cards from someone who otherwise would have raised.
That's why I believe it's fine to make slightly -EV calls out of the blind in multi-way pots. However, in a very passive or very aggressive games, don't make these calls.
x
I hope you don't call raises with 45o very often. Watching people call raises with that kind of crap makes me salivate. 45, 37, 92 suited or not is usually not worth a cold call. Usually? I dump that stuff every time. It's weak.
nt
Not the worst call you can make, but close to it - especially in a a game where the S/B is only 1/3 of a bet.
You asked for it straight; thats how you got it.
From the B/B I call. It's not a call you get rich making, but it is one that - IMO - will show a profit.
Paradoxically, you do better with this call (and others like it) if the raisor is very likely to have a big pair.
This way, if you hit you at least have one opponent who is [more or less] "reliable" to pay you off.
Hope that helped; I am going to see what the others had to say, but I doubt there will be alot of (if any) disagreement.
J-D
P.S. With a raise and three callers, it MIGHT be a profitable call suited - if you play well post-flop (or are playing with dunces). Even with the bonus of flush potential, you lose little if anything by mucking it - you lose ALOT by being out of position (even though you do have excellent position on the raisor).
You were in the BIG BLIND - sorry.
Automatic call in almost every imaginable situation.
The other stuff (while not on point) does still hold true.
Going to take a nap now -
J-D
You lost probably a minimum of 3 big bets on this hand.
First of all, to address your question, the fact that UTG made the raise makes it more playable than if the raise had come from later position, because there's no fear of the re-raise. A lot of the other posters gave good answers...
BUT, a major factor in deciding to play marginal holdings is HOW GOOD YOU PLAY IT IF YOU HIT.
You played it terribly.
Your bet on the flop was the beginning of the badness and your re-raise kept it going. If you check, UTG bets, gets at least a couple of callers, and you call. Let UTG bet the turn, probably gets the same callers, then you raise. It's like you wanted to bet the flop, get raised and have everyone fold. Even if you bet and get raised, then call. He's now made the last aggressive move so you let him bet the turn, then raise him.
Granted, this is a decent sized pot so you can somewhat justify trying to take it right there, but you have a hand that can WIN MONEY. What are you scared of? Runner-runner suckouts? People calling 2 cold with 89 or 9T? Nobody re-raised pre-flop or on the flop with small cards, so its highly likely that everybody is drawing dead against you, unless a runner-runner flush comes.
If you're going to play your monsters like that, then you're probably better off not calling from the big blind with such a weak holding.
How you played this is how I would have played 45 if the flop came 45Q. That's when you want people OUT.
Hey ARK I really appreciate the honesty you gave me. One of the holes in my game is not winning, but winning the maximum amount per hand. I've read quite a few of low-limit books (Jones and Nelson) and they all pretty much say that slow-playing in low-limits is not a great idea because of the number of callers taking anything at all to the river. Now what you described is not necessarily slow-playing, but it sure was slower than my come-out-firing approach.
Now that I look back you're absolutely right. UTG probably had a big pair or big slick, and he is drawing dead against me. The other callers however, I was afraid of straight draws, whether they were open-ended or gut-shot. I never ever thought I played this wrong, the only thing I was questioning was the call on the flop.
Thanks again for the info, greatly appreciated. Can you add anything to this about maximizing profit in general in low-limits?
CB
Its hard to add anything general about maximizing profit in low limit games because every situation is different. For instance, I would never say to you, "always slow play your nut str8" because what if you have a bunch of opponents who will call any bet with anything (sometimes the case at low limits). Then there's no sense in slow-playing. That's why you see a lot of low-limit advice to the effect of "never slowplay trips" and things like that.
I wouldn't recommend slow-playing a str8 to the ace *usually* because people will often call with their big pairs and two pairs. Even at 3/6 I don't see a lot of people calling 2-cold with 89 or 9T (the hands you need to worry about) though it does happen and you need to know the guys who do it.
Slow-playing trips is often advocated but it only makes sense against certain line-ups and with certain flops.
If you really want to be good, think about these things away from the table so you can make the quick decisions at the table. Read up and play more and you'll start to see these things. Figure out why its not so smart to slow-play against a lot of people and why slow-playing trip aces on a board of A82 with two opponents makes a lot more sense than slow-playing trip 8's on a board of 89K.
Slowplaying good holdem hands sometimes back-fires too because if the flop is checked around, you're asking your opponents to call a FULL bet on the SAME SIZE POT on the turn, instead of the half-bet you could have made on the flop. That's a major consideration against a lot of line-ups.
That's only a few things without even trying. To answer a question about maximizing profits in low limit hold em games is, as you know, the subject of many books.
Playing Jacks or better draw in my home game, four times last night I had openers in middle position of a six-handed game. Twice I had two pair, twice a high pair. Not wanting to be drawn out, I made a sizeable bet to open, but was called by two good players behind me. With two pair I stood pat once and drew one once. With my pair, I drew three once and two once (with a high kicker). I didn't improve my hand on any draw.
All four times I again made a sizeable bet after the draw, because I am known as a rock, and didn't believe anyone had made a lock. Yet all four times one of the players called with a higher two pair or low trips. Having the opening hand cost me too much.
I am hoping for some general advice- Should I open and bet strong (which often buys the pot in this game), or let them draw on me? How many should I draw on these hands? And how should I bet after the draw?
Any help appreciated!
Dear CheckRazor <_four_aces@yahoo.com>:
I don't want to spend much time helping you on my own. I played Jacks or Better for over 20 years in Gardena Poker clubs -- until draw poker "jacks or better" essentially died out due to the legalizing of holdem, stud, and Omaha type games. There are many good books to read on draw poker.
THe author "Mike Caro" can help you improve you draw game. He has a couple of books out which would be of great help. Also Doyle Brunson's poker book: "Super Systems" -- "aka: "How I Made a $1,000,000 Playing Poker" has a section available for playing Jacks or Better -- this section was "again" written by Mike Caro. This is probably the best book on draw poker with the description for playing opening or calling hands. It is probably geared for the draw game with the joker in the deck.
Does your game play with the "bug" in the 53 card deck? The bug is the joker which can be used as an ace or as a wild card for straights or flushes.
When the Joker is in the deck -- opening hands such as Jacks, Queens or Kings are not usually advisable unless in very late position and you know how the players on your left play. Never opening with a pair of Jacks will probably save you money unless you play them pat and can bluff a good player -- don't try to bluff a call station.... Opening requirements when playing draw poker "jacks or better" with the 52 card deck are slightly relaxed when the joker is not in the deck -- experience will teach you how to open -- again I would seldom open with a pair of jacks unless the pot odds were justified it.
Good Luck -- Carl
s
Opening Jacks or better CheckRazor -- Saturday, 17 February 2001, at 3:03 p.m. Re: Opening Jacks or better Carl Willian James -- Saturday, 17 February 2001, at 5:32 p.m.
: Try other games, wrong board N/M CJC -- Wednesday, 21 February 2001, at 5:47 a.m.
Hi CJC: I knew: "Opening Jacks or better CheckRazor" was improperly posted in the wrongh forum. But I was just trying to help CheckRazor. I can see where people can get confused when selecting the correct Forum.
CWJ
Twice this week, once during a tournament, and once on Paradise 1 on 1; my opponent always and I'm not exaggerating here, always raised from the small blind on the button. Is this good strategy?
( I lost to both opponents but I felt they held cards over me.)
Max, go to cardplayer.com and read Mike Caro's piece on playing the blinds. You will understand basically what these players were doing to you and what you need to do in the future. Good Luck!
It is a good strategy to use if the opponent does not play heads up well.
This is discusses in HPFAP. If the SB raises preflop every time, if you don't defend at least 40% of the time you will automatically lose.
Heads up play is all about being aggressive and being able to play marginal hands well.
You must reraise fairly often. You should be reraising with hands that you probably are throwing away like ATo.
if you play heads up the same way that you would play vs. a full table you will lose your money very quickly.
And, if you play super tight, when you DO reraise your opponent will just throw his hand away unless he has a big hand too.
Read up in HPFAP.
-SmoothB-
I just posted a thread above that could clarify things a great deal, if 2+2 answers.
Heading to AC soon and want to play some HE at the Trop since I heard it went non-smoking. I am a low-limit player (up to $10-$20)
What HE limits in my range are spread throughout the week and weekend. Would I find more games during the week or on the weekend? Thanks for any info.
CB
Try other topics please. :)
Hey there. You'll find 2-4, 3-6, 5-10, and 10-20 throughout the weekend (and I think every weekday), and you get brushed into a game very quickly. Weekday games are very tight and tough, best time to play is after 6 or 7 pm in the wee hours on Friday and Saturday night. See ya there.
Jeff
In a structured-limit game where the big blind is significantly less than the size of the small bet (e.g. a $4-$8 Hold'em game with blinds of $1 and $2), and where players only have to call the big blind before the Flop (unless, of course, it's raised), is it generally correct to raise in early position before the Flop with big unsuited cards (such as KQ or AJ) in order to deprive the weaker drawing hands of their implied odds?
Do the same considerations apply in spread-limit games?
heihojin
Yes, it is correct to raise - for just the reasons you mentioned.
An unrelated (but important) point:
Games of this type - structured but with tiny blinds - are great games for a skilled player, but they are to a large extent "sucker games". His unskilled opponent has almost no chance of having even the occasional winning session.
You did not ask for a moral opinion on this topic, but I'm going to give you one anyway.
I played this exact game for several months in a cardroom out west - I choose not to say where. My win rate was a little over $20 per hour; in approximately 50 sessions (usually 8-10 hours)I left the room a loser less than 5 times - I never lost more than $200 in a session.
"POKER ESSAY'S" [either volume I or II] tells why a weak player is without a prayer in such games, and it explains it much better than I could.
Also, unless your opponents are absolute clutzes (mine were) you will not win very much even if your skill level is high. In plain english, the structure allows you (and of course them as well) to play super tight and not get eaten away by the blinds. It is ALOT like the 1-5 stud games you see in most casinos.
If I desperately needed a few hundred dollars, and was not in a particular hurry to get it (and had the good fortune to find really bad players seated at one of these games), it would be nearly impossible to fail in my attempt to get the money.
I'm not the poker world's social conscience, but to me this is almost like stealing from the blind (no pun intended.)
Sorry for the long-winded answer to a rather simple question, but that was something I've needed to get off my chest for a while.
Just to remind you (since my answer was several paragraphs longer than it need to be) the answer is yes; you should raise with your big un-suited cards for exactly the reasons you mentioned.
With AK, you might want to limp. I don't know if this is a hand I want to win $3 with. I may prefer to allow a few of them in, since if I hit the flop I can make a [proportionately] larger bet on the flop. If they want to over-pay to chase, that's OK by me.
Good luck,
J-D
Howdy!
This weekend, i played a game with a maniac. On one hand, he raised (for the 9th straight hand in a row i think.. includin with a wonderful 3-7o!) and i reraised from my big blind with KK. he reraised and i just call, planning to make more money on later streets.
The flop come A 9 9
i bet he raise i reraise just to know where i am he reraise i fold...
He show everybody one of his card....... a 2!!!!!!!!!
i have a problem when i play this kind of player. should i just check call all way long?
Im not the only decent player who find it tough to play the maniac. Another decent player on the table called a raise from him in the SB with K-7 offsuit... It was an expensive tilting for him, that time the maniac had a good hand lol
Charlie (who still thinks maniac are very good for his wallet :o) )
Just check call him with any Ace high or better. You can put in a raise or two on the flop if you have a strong hand, i.e top pair or better.
Betting "to find out where you are at" only works with opponents who will react naturally to your bet; in this case NOT raising without an A or 9.
Maniacs do NOT react naturally and could easily NOT be able to beat KK when they raise. It is therefore a pretty bad strategy to "to find out where you are at" unless you intend to call anyway.
Go ahead and be assertive against these guys but then routinely pay them off.
- Louie
PS. He had A2 or 92. If not, he would have shown BOTH is cards as a bluff.
PS. He had A2 or 92. If not, he would have shown BOTH is cards as a bluff.
Louie, he coulda even had 22. Ya still gotta call these maniacs down. and of course should a king hit and your heads up with no-limit your gonna get paid off one bet at a time for ALL of his chips if he does have the 9. Yes there are some tremendous implied odds here too. So I would check call.
Not calling him down at the very minimum is tragic with the pocket kings. These maniacs could have anything. Hell he coulda had pocket tens and thought they were the best hand anyways. Of course you saw the 2 but that's just to illustrate my point. Heck I may have even takin a chance and raised him on the turn one time. But no way am I going to muck.
Charlie,
All the replies to your post are probably good advice.
If you are a pleasure player or the maniac bugs you, than change tables if possible. But don't jump out of the skillet into the fire.
Also have patience and devise some good techniques to handle the maniacs. You want to have good seating position with respect the maniac. Experts sometimes disagree what good table position is? Some experts say that want the maniac on their immediate right, while others say the want the maniac on their left. Generally I want to be seated closer to the left of a good player. But position with respect to maniacs -- I'm not so sure what seating position is best. I don't feel confortable sitting too close to a maniac, therefore I compromize and try to sit essentially opposite of the maniac. This is the best of worlds for me. Also...
As you probably know, when a maniac is in the game -- the maniac make better players out of poor players, and often "on-a-temporary-basis" reduces the skill of the better players. I guess this is so because when the maniac raises every pot -- he creats a crap-shoot. That is he levels the playing field for many fairly skilled players -- but not all. When a maniac is in the game, many poor players who would have played a terrible starting hand fold before the flop -- thus reducing the money odds for the better players. The poor players fold when the maniac raises, or fold for fear of the maniac raising.
I would like to hear from some expert OM8 players regarding what table position they prefer with respect to a maniac. (?) For example, many times when playing OM8 -- if a maniac is on my left and I am first to call "close to the big blind" and when the maniac raises -- he will drive out many of the poor players who otherwise play almost every hand -- this decreases my money odds.
"I would like to hear from some expert OM8 players regarding what table position they prefer with respect to a maniac."
Carl - I'm not an "expert" but I'll give you feedback from a non-expert. Without any doubt whatsoever, I like the maniac sitting directly next to me and on my immediate right in Omaha-8.
With the maniac one or two places to my left, I find myself adapting to the maniac, trying to figure what the maniac will do if I bet - sometimes checking hands that I want to bet but don't want two-bet by the maniac. Obviously that is sometimes a mistake, but failing to take into account the possible action of the maniac is also a mistake. Therefore, the mere presence of a maniac on my left causes me to make mistakes. If I can't get a seat change, I take a break.
Sometimes you have opponents who will call a single bet but tend to balk at a double bet. With the maniac on my right, I have more control over the bet the opponents behind me will be facing. I can raise to knock them out or I can call to keep them in.
Thus I actually like playing with a maniac so long as the maniac is seated on my immediate right (because I feel I am able to take advantage of the situation).
Just my non-expert opinion.
I would appreciate advice regarding how to handle the situation when the maniac is not seated to my right.
Buzz
I think your fold was pretty good. you described some maniac starting hands but that doesn't mean he is a maniac when he misses the flop and starts to take some heat. if there were two suited cards on the flop he could be jamming a draw but there is a real good chance you are toast. John Feeney gives a good overview if the various species of maniac in his book and it is important to distinguish your maniacs properly if you want to be calling down with second pair. my personal preference is to jam the pot when you catch a maniac on a draw and you currently have the best hand.
My K7 was suited ...but the maniac has raised KK , there was a king on the flop and and a 7 on the river ,
My name is Rob and I am a degenerate gambler. When I was 20 I had my first bet. Within a year I had gambled away all my money, my car, my dog and my wife . But never mind that. On a serious note, can anyone please tell me the odds of making ATLEAST a straight (i.e., including the odds of making a flush and straight flush) with two suited connectors BEFORE the flop. The suited connectors are those of MAXIMUM STRETCH i.e., 4-5 to 10-J. Hope to read your best efforts soon. Thankyou and good luck.
anyone who gambled their dog away could not even win with Q7...and that's an 80% shot...
What do you mean 80% shot? 80% shot for what? The reason I ask about the connectors is - a player I know of likes to call a small raise with small suited connectors. His reasoning is, if you flop a straight with them your opponent would never put you on the hand. Afterall who calls raises with cards such as 5-6, 6-7 suited? Doyle Brunson? T.J Cloutier? Who are they anyway? Maybe David Sklansky knows the odds? Take the single examples...... What are the odds against flopping an open end sraight draw with 6-7 suited? What are the odds of flopping a flush draw with 6-7 suited? What are the odds I'll ever see my dog again? You heartless scarf wearing freak!
The answer is never, you must have a flop to make the hand.
No s*** Sherlock. Aren't odds for predicting future events? My phrasing may not be perfect, but would I really be asking what your implying?
You should get this book. It have most of the odds for HE.
You have to manually add all the cases yourself. There are too many of them and most have a very small probability.
1. 4 of a kind and full house. 2. flop a flush .84% flop a straight 1.3%. 3. flop 4 flush and then complete the flush 4. flop 4 to a straight and then complete the straight. 5. flop 3 flush and complete the flush. etc. etc. etc.
Most of the time you only need to know the odd of flopping something. And then what happen after the flop. The combination of all of them is just too much for any situation to be useful.
You know I am very tired of hearing ,"you shoudl get petriv's book on odds." I doubt there is anything in that book that a perservering player couldn't figure out by himself.
So lets solve this pb:
Lets count the number of ways you can make a)quads b) full house c)flush and d) a straight (which isn't a flush). Lets assume we have JTs.
a) 2(47C2)
b)44(9) {for a JJ TT x board (x not J or T)
+2(9(44C2)) {for a JJT xx board (x not Jor T) or a TT Jxx board}
c)11C5 + 11C4(39) + 11 C3 (39C2)
d)(is more complicated ... but we'll divide this into subcases d1 straight Q high, d2 K high d3 A high (all w/no spade flush)
Ill finish this in a later post.
10 handed game
1 middle limper, i have KTo on the button and called. Both blinds called
Flop 5 T Q rainbow
Checked to me i bet 2 callers
Turn 5
Checked to me, whats my move?
Results later
Thanks for help!
It depend who are the other players in the hand ? ...I hope the middle limper was loose ?
Good/tricky players may use this opportunity to check raise if you bet. The callers on the flop may have a straight draw or they may have a weak Q or a 5. I would check here with second pair. I would probably call the river if no A orK showed,unless raised to me.If no one bet the river I would bet, hoping to get paid by someone with a pair lower that 10's.
I would raise pre-flop, bet the flop , bet the turn, and check the river.
I do not like K10 and would rather raise with it than call. The same with Q10 or J10 or A10, on the button with only 1 caller.
First off I would have raised here, being on the button with this hand my first goal is to get rid of the blinds and try to isolate the limper. Then when you bet your ten i doubt that you will ever see the pair off 5's.
Sounds good on paper ! lol
It doesn't look like anybody has a Q and two callers isn't enough to presume someone made trips.
Consider checking and paying it off if the callers tend to be "tricky", otherwise bet.
Last weekend I encountered a situation where I was unsure of the proper response. Table had two loose/poor players sitting beside each other. Seated to their immediate left were two very good/aggressive players. I would say the rest of the table incluing myself were probably typical 2+2 type players in that we had fairly tight starting standards.
The strategy employed by the aggressive players was to isolate the weak players or early limpers by raising/reraising the pot with good hands, but not necessarily hands that would merit a reraise ( basiclly any two paint/medium Aces/medium suited connectors). This meant that those of us behind them faced raised/reraised pots and often threw away better hands.
How does one adjust their starting hand strategy to account for this type of play? Keep in mind that these were very good players and not maniacs. They understood that they were 50/50 against each other, could outplay weak players, and that given their position they had an effective read on the rest of us.
Having said the above it was still a profitable game for me because I was to the good players left. Had I been in front of them, it would not have been a good situation because my initial bet would have given them too much information. However even given that my position was good, I still felt that I was outplayed and gave up a lot of my winners since I was not playing marginal hands such as KJ/AT/JTs because I either faced 3 bets or an early position raise (weak UTG limps and one of the two aggressive players raises).
Thanks, Calvin
There's just not much you can (or should) do other than request a seat change. You're gonna have to throw away normaly playable hands for 3 bets. However, when facing just one (isolation) raise, you might want to re-raise with some of your better hands in order to try and foil their strategy. You have to be very careful though. If you do not play well after the flop (or they play much better than you), this plan can easily backfire.
The other option is changing seats. Ideally you'd want one of their seats. You are correct that by being to their left, you can see these raises coming and get out of the way, but it might not be a bad idea to be in front of them either. This is because (I'm going to assume) you are not a player who is worth isolating. These raises work for these two, because they are isolating weak players who presumably play weak hands. However, when YOU come in, whether limping or raising, they have little to gain by raisin or re-raising. In fact, it can be downright costly for them to try and isolate a better player holding inferior hands themselves. That's my take on it. Good luck.
Kevin
To see how good they are start flat calling the isolation raises. this should slow them down a little bit. The question is what hands to flat call with. given the agressive players very loose isolating standards you can be pretty loose yourself. First, I would flat call with all my hands, even the big pairs. Louie Landale recommends this and he has some pretty good advice. I would play unsuited aces to A-J. suited Aces to A-9, K-Qo, suited connectors down to QJ, K-Js, K-10s. I would also play all pocket pairs down to 99.
If the agressive players continue to try and isolate with weak cards then I would classify them as maniacs.
I think you should lower your starting requirements to that with which you would call one raise, but I definately would not go as low as Boris suggests. Unless you play very well post flop (which from your post you imply that you do not play as well as the players that you are up against), you should still throw garbage like KQ, AJ in the muck. Also if you are going to play, you should make it 4 bets. You will likely have the best hand, and position.
That's easy. Limp reraise with top hands like AA, KK, AK, QQ, JJ etc.
If you are to their left, take note of what they are raising with. Make it three bets with hands that are quite a bit better than their average raising requirements. IE AQo, TT, AJs, etc.
Guys like that make the game worth playing. They are easy to take apart. True, it's tough to know where they are, and they will play a wide range of hands very aggressively, but if you get in there with better cards and play aggressively then you will win big.
-SmoothB-
As long as you are playing solid poker these guys should be no threat to you. Make them pay when you have the hands and get out when you don't. If for example you hold KQs in middle position and folding then these guys got you scared and you better leave the table, on the other hand when you have a premium hand and you are poppin them you will do good against them.
Check raising guys like this is a great way to get a little tilt action if i have them read correctly.
Without reading the responses, I would say you have to patiently wait until it's your turn to take a shot at the poor players. With the good players being better than you, you are usually forced (from my experience) to live off the crumbs they leave behind.
Usually I stay out of their way when they are feeding unless I have a solid hand, then I play it and hope I come out on top.
"With the good players being better than you, you are usually forced (from my experience) to live off the crumbs they leave behind."
While this statement is most probably true in big bet poker, I don't think it's the correct attitude to take in a limit game. Luck plays a very large role in your results and unless you are a passive, tight and bad player you will not get outplayed by another player very often. The most common mistake will be calling when you should fold or raise, not getting tricked. All that being said Calvin was astute enough to see what was going on so I think he should forge ahead and not wait for the good players to leave a little something behind.
I think we are saying the same thing?
You should be playing about 1/2 to 2/3rds as many hands as the raiser, so long as its not more hands then you would play for no raise. You need, therefore, to get a solid idea of their raising standards.
If the assertive player will raise with KT or better than I'd guess you should be playing KQ or better.
- Louie
damn Louie, you recommend calling a raise with KQo? What's gotten into you? hehehe. only a loose goose like me would do that.
I sure don't recomend calling a reasonable raise from early position with KQ.
If I'm in this game, I'm waiting for better cards to come in with. If we're talking low limit, then tight is the right way to play. Just because your opponents are playing loose doesn't mean you should also loosen up and call or raise with hands that you wouldn't normally call or raise with. You still have to beat the rake, too. If there was no rake, then you could loosen up and play just a bit tighter than your opponents and still profit. A typical LLHE game will have tons of callers, so let the calling stations pay to see their cards. I'm not hanging on to a mediocre starter for three bets in any situation. Bets saved are just as good as bets won.
In Hold 'Em, there are 169 possible types of hands. However, there are 2704 possible combinations of two cards. Since there are 4 aces and 4 Kings, would you multiply 4*4 and compare that to the 2704 possible hands to determine what percentage AK would make up? If this is true then, the figure would be 4*4/2704 which comes to .006 roughly. This would mean that any AK (AKs included) make up .6% (Six tenths of one percent) of the total possible hands?
2704 is 52 squared. that's incorrect. 52 x 51 = 2652.
get a book it's easier...lol
There are 1326 2 card combinations. [52X 51] / [2 X 1] The 16 AK's are 1.2% of the total.
There are 1326 possible two-card combinations (52 * 51 / 2).
Of these 1326, there are 6 of each pair, 4 of each suited combo, and 12 of each unsuited combo.
So, your chance of AKs is 4/1326 and your chance of AKo is 12/1326 for a total of 16/1326 = 1.2%.
.
Chris and Dan are right. Mark forgot to take into account that 8d6s is the SAME hand as 6s8d.
Wow! I can't beleive that I missed that small oversite, and what A difference it makes! thank you all so much! I'm compiling some notes like these to test some theories in 5 card stud and shorthanded HE to help out my game. I thought since they both start off with only 2 cards, there are similarities in calculating the % preflop! Once again thank you all so much.
you're right. I noticed the initial error and jumped ship. one can still use the 52 x 51 total and get the right ratio as long as the redundant combos (e.g.,16 x 2) get counted, but it's preferable to eliminate the redundancies beforehand using the standard formula.
by the way, I can think of several examples when the order would be relevant. let's say you were organizing a baseball tournament and randomly matching teams for the first games. the relative order in which each duo was randomly selected could be used to designate which team is visitor and which is home. similarly, for chess tournaments, the order could be used to determine who gets to play white.
and when one considers the Dealer's hand in Blackjack, the relative order of appearance becomes a crucial component of the proceedings.
Thanks! The order of the cards, as I found out this evening, have a very important concealability factor in 5 card stud. I tried to isolate an ace who bet out by reraising him with a King showing. MY ace was in the hole. I read his hand for a worse kicker and took the pot. I'll have to think about this concept a lot more.
it seems to me that over a year the dealer will make more and consistant money off the poker table than any of the players and put in the fewest hrs. i would think a good dealer would make 20-30 a hr with whatever benefits he gets. any info on this or replys?
I'll bet a good dealer makes more like 40-50/hour.
so what are you saying you want to be a dealer??
a friend of mine, with a masters degree just hated the daily grind and has been dealing for about ten years now, says he makes about 60k dealing and knows just where to sit when he's not...lol
one of those rare birds that plays tight aggresive, most dealers seem to be the biggest suckers on the tables, no offense.
P.S. the one thing he had to work through were terrible hours in the beginning.
I talked to a blackjack dealer who was applying to be a poker dealer at one of the casinos up here in Colorado once during a game (he was playing not dealing). He told me that the poker dealers there made about $70,000 a year. This is at a place where they get a $1 tip on virtually every pot and often get bigger tips on bigger pots (they are getting WAY more in tips than I've seen dealers ggetting at the Bellagio for instance). I don't know what their base pay is and 70k sounds high but I can easily believe that most dealers make over $50,000 a year and some as much as 70-80k in some years.
Dealing actually pays pretty well when you consider that no educational background or extensive training is required. I say good for them though, I wouldn't want to sit there inhaling smoke and taking abuse for a living.
Paul Talbot
as far as salary goes. Lets not get into what they make here. Let those poor bastards keep what they get for dealing with us(tho most of us are very polite). Don't make'em send more to the tax guys out there.
In the club where I play , there is a rotation with the dealers , I mean there are around 5 or 6 dealers , and when they don't deal , they play but most of the dealer are very loose when they play ; they give away the money they make while dealing ...At the end of the year , I don't think any dealer is over in is money.
A freind of mine deals poker at the Billogio in vegas and makes about 120$ to 150$ a day, and once in a while might make 200$, they make 5.25 hr. and must claim 5.00 hr for tax purposes.
I plan on moving out to vegas in a few mons. to play and deal. I will be happy if between the 2 I make 50,000 to 60,000$ a year.
I don't know where the $70,000 numbers came from. In AC the tips are usually $100-$150 a day on average. They make minimum wage and must declare a reassonable amount of tips. I'd say $40,000 is a better number. As far as dealers being loose and wild players I think that happens a lot when they are coming off a shift. I've played with some really good dealers who play on their off days only. So what if they "win" more, isn't it better than having your "friend" dealing in a home game?
Howdy
I just checked my records playin 5-10 and 10-20 holdem. well in my last 160 hours of play i lost 950$ playing this game. im still a good winner overall but should ill be disturb with these kinds of streaks? Im playin in a club with some wild goose and a few good players.
Im just wondering if some of you folks had those kinds of streaks in the past and did u made any changes to your game?
Ty for help!
Charlie
Are you kidding - $6 an hour over 160 hours - how to you figure that is a "streak" - seems like a slight recession - if the games are wild your swings will be a lot more drastic than that - 160 hours is about a month worth of serious play and a less than a grand loss is not to be to concerned about - IMHO.
If you have been a winning player you ought to be out of the minor slump soon.
Change game : Maybe you could try the money wheel .
Wow. You call that a losing streak? If you discount the rake and tokes, you actually beat the game over those 160 hours.
To your questions, I've had dozens of streaks far worse than the one you described and I constantly change my game until things turn.
Tommy
I just ran into one of those kinds of streaks on Paradise. I was playing well and everything was fine and dandy. I was up more than $500 in the $3-$6 game in 2 weeks (not sure of hours played).
All of a sudden someone turned the lights out. I couldn't get a playable hand to save my life. In 3 days I never saw AA. Whenever I had a decent pair, overcards came in droves. I flopped the nut straight twice and had it cracked by a flush and a full boat. And these were the rare times that I had playable hands and the board hit me. The other times I had playable hands, the board couldn't have missed me more. TJs and the flop would come AA4. AdKd would see a flop of 4c5c7c. This happened for 3 straight days. It gets very frustrating when you can't even play 95% of the hands you're dealt.
I change my game a little in these situations. I play ONLY premium hands. I let most drawing hands go unless I'm in late position with 5 or 6 callers. I stick with painted pairs and painted suited connectors. This strategy actually sees you playing an even SMALLER number of hands, but playing the premium hands and letting everything else go preserves my bankroll, keeps me from going on tilt, and lets me ride out a run of cold cards without taking too much damage.
Any comments to add?
its tough enough to win at poker playing the optimum but to change and play less than that because of past occurances will prolong any so called bad streaks because you may now be playing a losing game.
despite what most think there is no such thing as running bad or cold cards looking forward. you can only say that the past has been bad, but that has no effect on the future.
.
Tommy, how bad does the streak have to be for you to consider "change my game until things turn"? And once you do, what specific changes do you make?
No certain length and no specific changes except that I think I play too timidly after the flop whenever I hit a two-hour drought. In general I feel like my game is always changing, even when it isn't, because at the start of each session I don't feel like I'm playing the same as I was at the end of the previous session. That's a strange sensation, one I suspect is common, and understandable, given the unique nature of each game and the developments within it.
Tommy
Charlie a 160 hour losing streak is nothing. In his book, "Gambling Theory And Other Topics", Mason Malmuth talks about a $30-$60 lowball player who can beat his game for $30 per hour but could nevertheless have a 4000 hour losing streak which is 2 years of full time play. I have a friend in Houston who won over $40,000 in his first 1000 hours of playing $20-$40. Over the next 800 hours he lost $13,000. Another friend of mine played over 1100 hours of $1-$4-$8-$8 hold'em here in Vegas and lost $2700.
That is why they call this gambling.
almost a year (9 months).
Lots of work on my games during a long break
Get real please ! you gotta be kidding with a post like this you must be a real loser. Do you think we are stupid ?
pretty loose game, but not wild. The 2 maniacs have been tame for the last hour or so. A couple calling stations lobby for a smoke. Anyways they all get back and here's what happens that makes me wonder how bad my river call may have been or was it as I thought marginally close.
5 players to me in the cutoff for one bet. I have 88.
Button raises behind me,(1 of the maniacs and will raise in this spot with 67s), then UTG whom opened raises(he's a bit of a calling station and not very agressive), all call, I call, button caps it. We go 8 handed for 4 bets.
Pot 32 small bets.
flop: 69J with 2 diamonds.
SB & BB check and opener/reraiser bets out. I call getting 35:1 when it gets to me. It ends up with 2 more callers, the button and the SB.
Pot 37 Small bets.
Turn 9 hearts.
same action and I count down the pot in my mind and come to 21 BB. I'm not real worried although it is a possibility bettor has a house but I don't think so. The young lady calling behind him doesn't have it or should would have already raised. Well it seems like I must call to make a house and I don't have the 8 of diamonds so that makes the flush draw bettor for me if it gets there. I call. SB calls. I notice to muself that had anyone raised it may not have been a good call on the flop or turn with the possibility of re-raise behind.
Pot 22 big bets
River: 8d......Bingo
there was a bet, call, and I raise. the bettor folds the young lady calls and mucks when she sees my house.
This pot was huge..over 1 1/2 racks. I invested 33 chips. Had I not made it my contribution would have been 21 chips. I am sure that there was no long term profit to raiseing the flop or turn on a draw in this case. I think it was correct to call tho.
Also what if there had been a raise on the flop? Would it be a correct call then?(supposeing no re-raise). Or a raise on the turn....what then?
Thanks, Larry
Since neither of your Eights is a Diamond then you may have only one clean out on the flop. In a jammed pot like this you are justified in playing your two outer as long as it is not bet and raised to you. But the fact that the Eight of Diamonds could give one of your many opponents a Diamond flush bothers me. I would call one flop bet but I would not cold-call a bet and a raise. On the turn with the board pairing, the implied odds are now there and the Eight of Diamonds now becomes a clean out so you are a 23:1 dog but you should get at least this much and more when you hit. If it were bet and raised to you then you should fold but otherwise you have a play.
California Hold'em,
I sit down, and about 15 minutes into the game I'm delt pocket jacks under-the-gun. I raise,get two calls, then the button 3-bets, small blind caps, big blind folds, the reast of us call, 5 players. [The small blind and button are both asians who have been speaking to one another in chinese(I think)since I've been there.]
Flop is: Ace(spades)2(spades) 8 hearts.
Small blind bets out, I call, guy behind me calls, the other guy folds, button raises, small blind 3 bets, I drop. The guy behind me thinks, he sees the button holding enough chips to cap, then he folds. Button just calls.
Now the two remaining players check all the way to the river. Small blind turns over Queen(spades)and 9 hearts, button has Q-2 suited(clubs) and wins the pot with a pair of deuces. I ask and get a table change.
I'd say just two bad players who are friends.
steve,
the ticket here is that they both showed on the end by checking down and the worst hand showing. if they were cheating this wouldnt happen. they were having a war as some players do or they were friends and thought they were helping each other. certainly their playing that way cost you the pot but what if you had ace king. then you would have fractured them getting two to one. this stuff happens but the end results of it usually puts extra money in your pocket.
Definitely not collusion. No way you'd have seen the hands if it was.
Next time you're in a similar spot, say this:
Kong ying mun
It means "English only" (more literally, "speak English")in Cantonese.
:-)
Tommy
It's commonly known that there are situations where it's better to check down a hand even when you think you are best -- for instance, when no hand that would lose to you would call you.
On the other hand, this means that you'll show down your hand. Are there any situations where you might want to bet purely to conceal your hand? This is more likely to take place in high or no limit, hand reading is comparatively more important than it is in medium to low limits.
For instance: I raise in late position with A5s, trying to take down the blinds. Board comes JT6 two suited. My opponent checks, I bet, he calls. Turn is a blank, we both check. River is a 5, he checks, I read him strongly for a missed draw that he didn't feel like bluffing with.
I'm very sure that I have the best hand. I'm also sure that he'll fold to a bet. Is it worth betting to avoid showing down my hand? There's always the chance that I'm wrong here, which makes betting bad. There's little upside in immediate EV. But if he throws his hand away as expected, I don't reveal valuable information to the table.
- target
Target,
My jaw dropped when I saw your subject because yesterday I jotted down this very concept at the table and filed it. I think this is a good idea, not only to conceal info like you said, but another long-range reason as well.
In an 'ideal' session, the only hands I show are winners. And many of those aren't shown because I'm last to act and win uncontested. (And if I lose when the river is checked, I don't have to show.) I think the ideal image is one in which hours go by, my stack grows slowly, and the opponents are thinking, "Damn, that guy has hardly ever turned over his cards, and when he did he had a monster."
I think betting the river with hands like the one you described is a good play.
Tommy
I agree. I have practiced this in the past. I do it when I am very certain I am good. Also, not showing hands now will allow you to get paid later. And I believe gaining bets with a losing image is more important than trying to steal pots with a tight image. So it works like butter.
good idea as i occasionally do bet so i dont have to show my hand but rarely as getting called is a disaster.. but bad example because in this case you might have been correct to bet because you made a pair of fives and could reasonably expect to get called by ak or aq. and the possiblity that he may have had a six and might fold. or even a ten.
Why would getting called be a disaster?
Suppose you are 95% sure you have the winner with a weak pair. You bet and most of the time the opponent folds.
Sometimes he will call with his weaker hand and sometimes he will call with his slightly better hand.
[Of course you say all this in your post]
In the latter case you have lost 1 BB which is a minor inconvenience but no disaster. Now, you may need to bet for value and not try any steals for a while.
A disaster would be having to fold after being raised [and unknowingly had the winner].
[I think I'm just wondering if you really meant "disaster".]
its just one bet but if you bet when you can only lose if called then its a disaster, kind of.
Usually in this situation, it is worth one more bet to try to steal the pot. It's your only chance. If they call, just throw your hand in the muck.
...what I think DS calls a "two way bet".
see it at http://www.cardplayer.com/brier.html
In discussing what to do with 2 overcards to the flop Mr. Brier says in 2 places that since you have 6 outs, you are a 7-1 shot.
I think this is wrong: with 2 cards to come you have something like a 24% chance to hit one (and some chance to hit several) out, thus making you a 3-1 dog. Or do I err?
I believe he was referring to seeing the next card only. This is similar to how you would evalutate a gutsthot, for example, that may have odds to call the flop but not necessarily the turn when you miss.
Regards.
Doug the reason I state it as 6 outs from 47 unseen cards which is a 7:1 shot is because in most cases when you miss you cannot afford to call a turn bet. As backdoor states, it is similar to a gutshot straight draw. You have four outs which is an 11:1 shot and when you miss you normally don't get to see the river for free.
With a flush draw or an open ended straight draw, it is okay to view these draws from the perspective of having two cards to come since the odds will usually be there to call a turn bet and see the river even when you miss on the turn.
He implies in his above post that if you are getting good enough odds to call on fourth st., that everything changes significantly. Not usually so. If fourth st will be a close (but correct)call, that does mean you can take a lot lower flop odds (unless fourth st is multiway).
xx
Can someone explain or elaborate on the above post?
Thank you.
One other point I neglected to mention. There is a HUGE difference between having outs to make a straight or a flush versus having outs to make a pair, even top pair/top kicker. In the former, you are a heavy favorite to win the hand when you improve. In the latter, you will frequently lose anyway.
is there anyway to beat a low limit game where everyone calls everything? play looser? tighter? it just seems like AA KK AK never ever wins
You are correct it is almost impossible to win. Not for the reasons you state, however. The rake is the reason that you can't win. I will admit that it is possible to make $5 or so dollars an hour, maybe more if you are an expert, but then why would an expert waste his time for $5 an hour?
AK goes down in value, way down, against many opponents. Keep on playing AA and KK and just wait for the long run to kick in. Just keep in mind that all of the money eventually disappears down the chute.
If you live in a universe where pocket aces and pocket kings NEVER win, then you will be a losing poker player unless you adjusted and mucked those pieces of cheese preflop and started driving strong hands like 10 7 offsuit that would be the favorite to take down the cash.
But such a universe has yet to be discovered. Until then, you are going to need more experience and more study. Learn about the "weirdness" of random card distribution. Figure out why the random distributions of cards sends you on such an emotional tizzy.
n/t
You have to be really careful about playing these hannds in low limit games.
If there is a lot of raising preflop then you can't play them in early position.
You should try to only play them in late position and never for more than 2 bets - preferably one bet. And don't raise with them for gawd sakes.
Be careful frop the flop on. If you aren't an experienced player you might end up calling to the river with a pair of sevens in a multiway pot because you saw someone win a huge pot with a pair of fives just a half hour ago.
-SmoothB-
SmoothB,
I agree with you that "If there is a lot of raising preflop then you can't play them in early position."
But if you are in late position, several people are already in the pot, and the game is not so aggressive, it is a good idea to call with suited connectors.
I also agree with you that raising with suited connectors is not a good idea. By the way, when the game is tough, it is right to raise with them once in a while under the right circumstances for deceptive purpose.
I also agree that when you call with a hand like 7-8 suited, and you flop a pair, you have to be careful, since pair seven is not a strong hand in a multi-way pot.
dredmahawkus, if you wnat to know more about loose game, read...
"Hold'em Poker for Advanced Players" by David Sklansky & Mason Malmuth. Part Four: Playing in Loose Game.
"Poker Essays, Volume 2" by Mason Mulmuth. Part Four: Strategic Ideas - Playing in Low-Limit Hold'em Games.
"Getting The Best Of It" by David Sklansky. Part Two: Poker - How to Play in a Loose Game & Why you lose in a Good Game.
In these sort of games your big pairs and slick go way down in value and your coupled and one gapped cards go way up in value. Your broadway suited cards also go way up.
It's not that AA or KK don't win it's that a pair is just not good eneough. In games like this Ak usually poses to Ax when the x pairs. It is just a fact of poker.
Play your suited broadway and connected cards strongly when you hav the nut draw and you ought to be OK. Preflop aggression is usually not the best tactic in these games see the flop cheaply and play well from there.
Of course there is always the "other" game.
Hope this helps.
I've got all the answers you need for learning to beat a low limit game right here.
Loose low limit games are really easy to beat. But few people can do it. Why? It's not that it's hard. It is very very easy to do. But you need discipline. You need a solid game plan and you must adhere to it.
My feeling is not that you are losing because your AA, KK, QQ, and AK type hands are not holding up. Every time I meet someone who makes this claim, I notice that while these hands most certainly DO get beaten, and quite frequently at low limits, they drag more than their share of big pots and are real money makers.
What happens is that these people steadily bleed chips through other weaknesses, but blame their losses on suckouts.
Here is what you can do to change all that.
Play mostly hands like AA KK QQ and AK. But play them well.
If you have QQ and the flop is ace high, and there is a bet and 5 callers, muck. Throw the hand away and wait for the next one. Sure, you'll be throwing the best hand away sometimes, but more often than not you'll save yourself some money.
If you have AK and the flop misses, and there are 7 people in the pot, muck it. Don't even bother betting the flop. Just check and fold. You'll throw away some winners this way too, but remember that ALL good players throw away the best hand sometimes. There are a lot of players who never throw a winner away but they are all losers.
Try to play hands that can flop big draws in late position, like Axs and suited connectors. But be very careful with these from the flop on. Remember with these hands you are hoping to make straights and flushes. And also try not to play these hands unless you can see the flop very cheaply.
NEVER EVER EVER play a hand like T9 offsuit. These hands are the biggest money losers in poker. And never play hands like ATo, KJo, QTo, etc. These hands will trap you. If they are suited, go for it. In a loose no foldem game being suited is a huge advantage.
Also, in late position you can play hands like 77, but you MUST flop a set to continue. Don't try to suck along looking for another 7 to fall because this will cost you a lot of money.
Don't play the kind of trash that other people keep winning with. Some people think, well, ive seen rags win the last 4 pots so those seem to be the best cards to play. That's crap. Trust me AA wins far more pots than 85o ever will.
-SmoothB-
SmoothB is correct. His view is easily testable as well.
Go to yahoo.com and play in their free games. Many of these games will be capped ten ways pre-flop. This should be the game that is most "unwinnable." You will go through huge swings, but the result at the end of the day is that you will be up a $1000 at 2/4 playing the way SmoothB suggests simply because you don't enter the pot often and when you do you have the best of it.
It is boring, boring poker though. If you play to have fun you either have to move up to a higher limit or find a tighter game where play becomes interesting or you have to take the gloves off and mix it up with the fish a lot to enjoy the game. I expect that this is why people lose at these games. Who wants to sit there for two hours not playing while pot after pot is won with crap? You sat down at a low limit table to enjoy yourself not stare at other people play so you start playing way too loose.
Paul Talbot
I usually play 5-10 10-20 levels in the casino. for fun i took out a few hundred to try paradise poker. after losing that against the loosest players i have ever seen in my life, i am trying to grind some back in there low limit games. have any of you people played in there? I think it is fixed. Its very hard to beat a whole table full of idiots who aggressivly over estimate there weak hands.
Thanks guys for the help i think the best thing to do right now is get a BR and go back to 10-20 limits instead of trying to grind out money in those low limit games. I have played poker 40 hours a week for 10 years. i win at 10-20 level 3 out of 4 times. usually 1 big win 2 small wins and a loss sometimes small sometimes big. overall at the end of the month i am ahead. Grinding out on a small game on paradise poker though just dosent seem like a money maker but more like a waste of time. even there 5-10 levels the people play like its a 1-2 game. If any of you have tried there site and made money let me know how .....i been there for a couple weeks and the money is slowly going down. the swings are unreal. bigger swings in 1-2 then 10-20 in a casino
Heh,
Maybe you should play the 10/20 online. They certainly don't play like idiots. If you wanna play at a table with at most one or two idiots, you should try the 20/40 at Paradise Poker. I know, I know, that one idiot can RUIN the game sucking out on you all the time. But if you just fold when they are in the pot, you can play with all the good players instead.
- Andrew
Low limit, no-foldem is a special breed of poker. As many have said, you usually have to show down the best hand to win. Just give yourself the best chance of having the best hand. You always have a lot of players in these games.
The MOST IMPORTANT THING is game selection. It took a while for this to sink in for me. I would stay too long in bad games. Now I won’t play one round in a game I don’t like. I ask for a table change immediately. Fortunately, I play in a casino that has numerous tables at the limits I play. This made an immediate difference in my results
Bad games for me are the loose aggressive games. They take a lot of chips and you have big swings. The best games are loose passive games. Lots of players in with little pre-flop raising, except when you raise. You can control these games.
In a LL game you need to eliminate plays that slowly bleed chips away. When you go a long time between winning pots, you want your stack to be reduced as little as possible. You have to have lots of patience and be willing to throw away hand after hand.
Do not play marginal hands. If you played a suited 8,9 in late position, for example, and the flop comes A, J, 8, get out. Don’t play the trouble hands up front, like AJ, AT, KJ, KT, QJ, QT. They are seductive losers in early and middle position. It is ok to play them in late position with the fewer callers in front, the better.
When the board shows a lot of possibilities, when there are many people in, someone probably has it. Be very careful in these situations when you have AA or KK for example. I have lost more money than I have made when a straight or flush possibility is out there, people are betting and calling and I have AA or QQ with no overcard on the board. I remember one hand where I had two pair and four to a straight was showing with a middle card missing. I threw away the two pair after a bet and two calls in front of me. It would have won. I felt fine about that, because it will lose about almost always.
You need to value bet your drawing hands. In a LL game, you have chances to maximize the size of pots that you do win. I always raise pre-flop with AA-JJ, AKs, AQs, KQs, in any position. You are going to get 7:1 odds or better most times, but they play well against fewer players also. After that, you have to play the flop correctly. If it hits, play it hard. If it misses get out.
If you have a four flush, with no pair on the flop, you want to bet it out if you are the first one in, and if there are others in ahead of you, you want to raise it. You only need three other players in on the flop to make the odds correct on this. I have won huge pots doing this. When you hit the flush, the other players are less likely to think you have it because you were betting before the third card hit. On the turn, you need four players in to value bet it. With fewer players, you just check and call.
You can do this with an open ended straight draw, but you have to be a little careful. You probably should not value bet with two to a flush, a higher straight possibility or a pair on the board. Just check and call on the flop.
I agree with SmoothB on hand selection. In late position, it is ok to call with mid-range suited connectors and suited one gappers, low and medium pairs, Ax suited and Kx suited with three or four callers ahead of you, BUT only in late position. If you hit, you can win a big pot. If you miss, you can get out easily. Be careful with Ax and Kx if you flop the A or K. You have a lousy kicker and it can cost you.
11 handed 10-20: 4 good players (including myself and my friend which is known here as " Charlie " ) , 4 loose passive and 3 millionnaire maniacs . It was capt preflop 40% of the time , and there was a raise preflop more than 95% of the time . I should have re-re-re-read the chapter about wild game in HEPFAP . oK I have lost 100$ ; I have won 3 pots in a 5 hours session . I have won 3 pots ; my 3 winning hands were AA , KK and Ac10c . Lets talk about my Ac10c and my AA . I'm dealt AcTc on the BB , 5 limpers , SB call , I raise ( someone say "you won't win with aces , too many players in the hand "), everybody call . Flop is Ah-4c-6h , SB check I bet , fold , fold , Middle position ( millionnaire pharmaceutic trader maniac)raise , loose passive call 2 bets , I reraise , they both call . The turn make the board Ah-4c-6h_4d 225$ in the pot. Don't like that card , but I bet , I don't want to give free card to a : 6X , XhXh , A9 , 57 , 78 etc . I have the intention to fold if there is a raise but they both call . The river is a Ts , I like it . I bet , Maniac fold ( missed a draw for sure ) , passive call , he has AJoff . I 've been lucky ! I'm dealt AA in cuttoff , UTG(which is the millionnaire pharmaceutic trader maniac) limp , 2 limpers , maniac to my right raise , I reraise , millionnaire marocan maniac reraise on the button to cap it , blinds fold , maniac UTG call , middle position limpers fold . Flop come A56 rainbow , I like it . UTG check , maniac at my right check ( i'm surprized ) , I bet , and Button reraise , UTG call 2 bet , maniac at my right fold and I just call with the intention to check raise on the turn . ( Was that the move to do ? ) . The turn is a K , UTG check , I check , and button CHECK (shit ! ) . An 8 on the river , UTG bets , I raise button fold TT, UTG calls ; he has A5off . Button told me that he has raise the flop because he wanted me to fold on the flop in case I had JJ,QQ or KK .If there was a bet on the turn , UTG would have check-raised it . I have lost few bets there . Oviously I have lost few big pot with great hand like QQ , JJ and AQ , and I have seen maniac call a cap preflop with mediocre hand like 96off .
Well i was in this game too as stated JP. I played 5 hours... net result almost -1000$ 50 BB. Number of pots i won with a net profit of over 40$: 0000000000000000000000! YUP ZERO Gettin destroyed by the citizens of Suburban Poker Man, the Any2card town.
The average pot was about 400$!!!
Ive never seen that in my life. ive seen the river twice in 5 hours. i had AKo a few times but this hand lost so much of his strenght when 7 players see the flop. The normal hand was a raise from UTG with AK from me, a 3 bet from one of the maniac and another maniac was caping it with 65o (and of course the flop went something like 4-7-8). SO heres the way to lose 950$ in 5 hours:
15 hands at 30$ (2 raise on the flop was the most common)450
3 hands at 50$ where i had sufficient odds to see the turn 150
2 battles to the river: 120$ each (got destroyed KK once by 1 of the maniac who made trips 2 with a 2 on the river!!!! of course he raised with his pair of 2 on the flop...)240
15 times BB and SB: 225$ (i wonder if i saw cards more than 2 times with my BB!!!)
minus my 2 30$ profit win (the only 2 small pots of the night lol)
and bye bye a 1000$. The worst is the game broke up in 5 minutes, after 5 hours of play :( They all decided ive lost enough i guess hehe
Like Piquetteaces said, theres was 4 good TA players in the game. well, The most amazing thing is that we all lost... 2 of them losin about 100 another 1 600 and me hehe 1000$
Do you have any special strategies in this kind of game. I tried to avoid speculative holdin and play big cards and specially big suited connectors. Sadly they didnt came too often (well maybe thats a good thing after all.... i might have got destroyed more!!)
Ty for help!
Charlie, whos really lookin forward for the next game...
You aren't going to win much in these games if that AT hand was typical of your usual play.
You can't raise this hand from the BB.
3 betting the flop with it? That's risky.
Sounds like in this game the only thing you have to do to win is turn over the winner. That's a pretty soft game. So why not just play big hands and play them well? There is obviously no need for deception, or to be tricky.
-SmoothB-
recently started playing in plo (max bet $300) . i have won twice and lost twice, and am up about $4000 total. games are mostly omaha 8, 7std 8ob. game if fairly tight, but i have developed a tight image - ie i only play the nuts. however, after analyzing my losing nights vs. winning nights, i realize that had i folded/not played my losing hands, i probably would have won all 4 nights. in other words, playing tight/nut hands only is a winning strategy.
should i just continue, or exploit/change my play somehow?
any advice would be appreciated.
I was a winner. I was great. I bought the books. I knew the the probabilities and numbers. I kept detailed records. I was killing 'em for 1000's of hours of play. But then...
I've been busted. They took everything I'd won in my life playing poker and then some. It hurts so bad. I truly belive I play tight and good and that I was unlucky. It hurts so bad, I ache to the core. Why? Why did this happen to me? Why did I go hours without winning a hand? Why did I always lose rolled up in stud or with aces in holdem. Why would I never make my good low flush and straight draws in O/8 or Stud/8. Why do I have to sit there and watch every loser and gambler around me catch lucky when all I ask for is to get average cards. I don't want to be lucky. I don't want to hit gutshots and runner runner flush draws. I just want to win when I have the edge. But I didn't, and now I'm busted. Go on tell me what you really think. Tell me how I'm just like every other gambler loose player and that I'm just crying. Maybe one day this will happen to you and no matter where you go or what you do, no matter how tight you play you will just lose and lose and lose over and over again till its all gone. But don't worry when you tell your poker friends "I got really really unlucky", they'll nod solemly and pat you on the back while they quietly think you're just like all the other losers out there.
Just one question. Did you by chance spend parts of your bankroll? Just curious. Thanks.
one summer it took me 4 months and alot of summertime vacationing fish to make $20,000 in 5-10 and 10-20 games..... then October came and i didnt win a hand i dont think that whole month . In stud every AQ flush lost to a AK flush ...every boat lost to wither a higher boat or quads. holdem, the nuts draws never hit. One months time 20,000 br gone ....it happens. sometimes no matter what you do or play you can't win. Only thing to do is tighten up and ride the bad luck wave.
Most of the best world class poker player have been busted and lost their bankroll in their life time. Most of them recovered.
But on the other hand most people lost in the long run are due to other factors. They start winning playing lower limit or during times when there are a lot of tourist (weekend and evenings). Then they move up the limit and play at other hours. Their competition get to them. Some expert can spot how you play in an hour. Any good player can observe another player for a few days and can get a decent line on the players play.
Also no player is perfact. They all have their strenth and weeknesses. The successful good player will pick their spot to maximize their strength and minimize their weakness. A consistent solid player will not want to play against very agreesive players. They will pick the conservative player who play by the books apart.
How long was the bad streak? What limits? What was your bankoll?
Why?
Why did this happen to you?
Easy, you were overbetting your bankroll. Pretty easy puzzle to solve.
- Andrew
Most overbet their bankrolls...it backfires sometimes. Others fiddle when the fire starts and then it is too late.
Get up a roll and go at it again.
Awesome post. I suggest you try writing. No kidding.
Tommy
Why? Why is anyone lucky or unlucky? I take this post very seriously, and I would like to know what your br was, what limits and where you played. This is one of the reasons I think the 300BB number for adequate BR is way too small. It doesn't take much of a losing streak to chew that up.
Jim Brier has touched on this before, and I think some of his examples are flawed. But it is still true that with a 52 card deck, it is not that unlikely that you will be unlucky, no matter how good you play. Lots of things can go wrong. Because of this, I sometimes think that the poker writers are taking advantage of a lot of people by leading them to believe that they can make a living at gambling. But of course, they wouldn't sell many books if they dwelled on just how risky this business really is.
Right on 3 Bet
There is way way more luck involved in poker than any of the book writers let on.
I feel some of your pain. I made a killing in January but it looks like I am going to have my first ever losing month in February. I'm pretty close to going bust but I can't say as that I'm surprised. I spent too much of my bankroll and I have always overbet my bankroll because I didn't want to fight against the house at the low limits. I'm crossing my fingers that I don't actually go bust because then I will have to take some time off from poker and rebuild my bankroll. next time I am not going to spend my bankroll until I have a very comfortable cushion.
Im near of havin my br emptied too... and im still a winning player... In november, i put 5000$ in a separate account as it was going to be my br to play a mix of 5-10 and 10-20. at that time i was over 3000 in a few months and gettin better...
Well in december it was x-mas time and i want to travel a bit... so i removed 2000$ from my BR :( movin it down from 5500 to 3500...
Well in january and february, im 2400 under... so my BR is now very slim :O( Shame on me...
I have about a thousand left (i had 2000 before last nite juicy 10-20 game....)
and im in deep sh**...
Now i dunno what to do... go back and try again that 10-20 juicy game where u can win 1500$ just by gettin a bit of luck (mmm) or stop playin until i build back my BR....
Any advices ty!
Charlie
Nate and Boris and Charlie,
If you think you're overspending, fine, but don't call it some kind of poker sin. Money equals time (rent and food) and toys (everything else). EVERY spending decision is nothing more than a manifestation of your priorities/means ratio.
Keeping a "poker bankroll" seperate from other moneys is a self-dillusionary device. When we have money to play, we can play, and when we don't, we can't. That won't change, no matter how we appropriate current funds.
Tommy
>>When we have money to play, we can play, and when we don't, we can't.<<
Does this have something to do with the SAT test above?
Actually that's more or less what I was getting at Tommy. Thanks for putting it more clearly.
natedogg
Tommy, agree with much of what you say about bankroll. I am happy with the way I spent most of my bankroll as I was able to relieve some debt, see old friends and give a nice Xmas present to a loved one.
however, I still do believe in keeping a poker bankroll because I truely love to play cards and texas hold'em is my favorite game. spades is second on my list and I want to learn how to play bridge. I prefer to play the mid-limits and to do this on a regular basis you do in fact need a bankroll that is separate from other money you might have. So, in the future I am going to TRY and maintain some bankroll discipline in the sense that I will have a chunk of "dead" money sitting around for the express purpose of covering my ass at the poker table when the cards start to run bad.
Yeah, you're right. I was saying exactly what I cringe at when other's say it. "This is what I do so you should do it to."
Did someone say bridge?
::: wiping fingernails on shirt in boastful posture :::
In the early 80's I went from novice to life-master in three years. Can you spell c-o-m-p-u-l-s-i-v-e ? lol
I've got a mountain of dusty bridge books if you need some. There's one you MUST read that I won't lend to you because if was a gift and it might be out of publication.
"Bridge in the Menagerie" by Victor Mollo. Hysterical and brilliant.
Tommy
Been to the cloth a time or two. Might want to consider finding a fast/wild 4-8 6-12 and take a 2-3 rack shot. A couple of good wins and you can take a shot at the bigger games. Better than sitting at home. Good Luck.
That's my plan Ed. also will have more time to go fishing.
My dwindling bankroll finally kicked the bucket this last week. I sat through a seven hour session without once showing a winning hand. Not once. That was hard.
Of COURSE I was overplaying my bankroll for what it was. I fully recognize that I was "taking a shot" with my meager remains hoping to build something quickly so I could get back into regular play. Oh well, shit happens.
And believe me, the rest of the table was playing like crap and winning tons of chips from each other. Like always.
I'll just have to take a poker sabbatical and see what happens. If I can just cash in these damn stock options I'll have a bankroll! Woohoo! Wait a minute! That's the KEY! I just figured it all out.
Poker is a hobby, a GAME, a GAMBLE. What the hell are you doing getting all worked up over a game? If you're betting more money than you can afford, then you've got a problem. It gets really old losing over and over again, trust me. I know all about that. I started playing over two years ago and I've been in the red since day one. But it is just a pasttime, a fun game to play. You should be competetive and try to play your best, but you shouldn't be concerned with you lose because it's GAMBLING. The best player on earth could not have won a dime with the cards I was dealt during that last session I played. He would have gambled and lost just like me.
If you want money, work for it. If you want to have some fun playing an exciting and challenging game, then try poker. Just don't play with money you can't afford. I myself have just squandered the last of the "fun money" I can afford to play poker with. I work for a living, so it's no big deal. I'll probably have a decent starting 9-18 bankroll in a few months or so.
See you then you lucky bastards all of you!
natedogg
There are some real lucky players out there that play like crap. I agree with 3 Bet Brett regarding authors of poker books. The truth is that luck is much more prevalent than they care to admit, and I believe that they know it.
I lost all my br to. Made some extra cash put it toward a poker night and lost all that to. Like you said with the cards you are sometimes dealt for hours upon hours the best poker mind in the world could not win with thoes cards. That's pure bad luck.
No matter what you do you can't control the cards your are dealt. You have to work with the cards in hand. These guys that think skill make up for a long run of bad cards are just in denial. Skill can improve you winnings when you do have good cards to work with but it can't change the cards in front of your eyes regardles of how hard you look at them.
I think I'll join you in that poker sabbatical.
Walker
if you need 300 big bets for a ring game.how many big bets would the same player need for heads up play? assuming hes a 1 big bet per hour winner in ring games and also a good heads up player.
Is this an SAT test?
actuary acceptance test
How can you spot an extroverted actuary?
He stares at YOUR shoes.
:-)
He want to write his own book about betting your hand and taking odds.
Am you sure he be wantin' this?
.
Chill blood! I be sure.
I'm not a winning player yet, and I was wondering how many clear mistakes can a player make per session and still be a winning player? (let's say an eight or ten hour session) Does it have to get down to less than one per session over the long run?
[I made(at least)three clear mistakes last night playing 3-6 hold'em which cost me 6 big bets. Even though I booked a win, I know it's those consistant mistakes that keep me from being a winning player.]
What is a "clear mistake?" Not changing to a better seat because you can't see the TV from there? Having a glass of wine with dinner? Folding the best hand?
I forget how many of these things there are:
Calling when you should fold.
Calling when you should raise.
Raising when you should call.
Raising when you should fold.
Betting when you should check.
Checking when you should bet.
Folding when you should call.
Folding when you should raise.
Ted,
What I was getting at is that "mistake" is undefinable. Let's say a guy check-raises you on the river and you fold and he shows you a bluff. Was your fold a mistake? If you define a mistake as, "Any play I would do differently if his cards were face up," then yes, it is.
But that definition is irrelevant because his cards are NOT face up. Folding could be the "wrong" play and the "right" play at the same time.
Or let's say you make a "normal" call on the button and come in second on the hand to the big blind and the BB had 7-2. Is your proper preflop call now suddenly deemed a "mistake" because of the results?
I think your initial question is unanswerable.
Tommy
Or let's say you make a "normal" call on the button and come in second on the hand to the big blind and the BB had 7-2. Is your proper preflop call now suddenly deemed a "mistake" because of the results?
Ted, this is a good example. Let's say you lay down a good hand on the button, and it turns out it would have been beaten by a 7-2. Despite this, let's also say this lay down was a mistake. How many of these mistakes can you make and still be a winning poker player?
It depends. If you knew the laydown was a mistake before you did it, the answer is zero. You can't make any mistakes that you know are mistakes when you make them and win. But mistakes are great teachers, and as long as you are still learning from them, they improve your game.
It's not so much a matter of how many mistakes you make, but rather the magnitude of the mistakes.
For example, let's say you have AT of spades on the button and you limp in after 3 limpers. SB and BB call.
6 people see a flop of
K T 4 with 2 spades.
SB bets out, 3 callers, and you just call. That is a mistake, but probably not a very big mistake. Clearly you should raise with 2nd pair A kicker and the nut flush draw. Making this kind of mistake is probably not going to ruin you.
On the other hand, let's say you have AJo in the BB. A tight player raises in early position after one limper, and another tight player raises on the button. You call in the BB. This is a much bigger mistake. First of all, the 1st raiser might reraise. 2nd of all, you are set up to make a 2nd or 3rd best hand that you will end up paying off.
Another very big mistake - and these can be the biggest - is folding a good but not great hand for one more bet in a huge pot when a scary card comes. This may be a good bluffing opportunity for someone and if you make the wrong decision by folding, it can cost you many BB.
In poker, there a lot of decisions to be made in any given session, and it is important to make the correct decision as often as you possibly can. But many of these decisions are very close, and it's probably not so bad to make the wrong decision now and then if the difference between the correct play and the incorrect play is a small fraction of a BB.
Anyway to answer your question - if you want to be a winning player you probably should not make any really big mistakes period. If you can make 1BB per hour, one big mistake can cost you many hours of pay. If you make very many of these you won't be a winning player.
As for the small mistakes - this is important - if your image is very tight and your bets and raises are getting too much respect, it is probably a good idea to make a few of these very close decisions on the side of loose play.
For example - if your raises are getting too much respect, it is probably a good idea to start raising with some limping hands on the button/late position even after other limpers have entered.
For example - 3 people limp in and you have JT of spades on the button. If you are very tight then you probably don't raise with this hand. But since you are going to play the hand anyway, raising, although a mistake, is going to cost you less than 1/2 BB. So go ahead and throw a raise in. This mistake costs you very little money but it makes you seem looser and may get you more action on other hands later.
-SmoothB-
Thanks SmoothB, your responce is even better than what I was hoping for. I'll definately print your post out and review it regularly. Thanks again.
.
**** It's not so much a matter of how many mistakes you make, but rather the magnitude of the mistakes. ***
Obviously it's both. How many does matter. Eight 1/4BB mistakes per hour will make you a losing player.
**** For example, let's say you have AT of spades on the button and you limp in after 3 limpers. SB and BB call. *****
Your example of the ATs on the button IS a big mistake. Raising gains you info, builds a bigger pot, etc. You can't afford many like this.
The example of folding in a BIG pot is not so clear. Let's make it a 20 BB pot. It costs you 1 bet to call on the river. Of course you want to call if there is a better chance you will win than the 20-1 odds. You want to fold if their isn't. Making a BIG mistake (a disaster) is not one if you save more than the pot over the course of 21 folds. In your example you state "good" but not "great" hand. Well, you're probably going to call. A trickier case is when you have a "weak" hand such as a rivered pair on your flush draw. Say you make third pair.
Of course if you are getting pushed around and end up folding too often in these spots then you're likely to be a losing player.
I agree with the AJo with 2 "tight" players in for 2 bets.
I agree with the 0 EV or "small fraction" of a bet actions. Do whatever you think will help you're image or whatever you like. If you don't mind variance then raise. If you like small swings then call or fold.
As for making small mistakes on purpose. If there is valid reason for an action such as changing image etc. then it is not exactly a mistake. But be sure of the reason why you are doing it. It's pretty easy to start playing and overplaying too many hands.
These are simply IMHO
Regards Mike N
**** Your example of the ATs on the button IS a big mistake. Raising gains you info, builds a bigger pot, etc. You can't afford many like this. ****
I definitely disagree that calling (as opposed to raising) is a big mistake here. My reasons:
1) Raising knocks out the blinds if they have worse hands than you, but not if they have better hands. Plus, depending on the skill of the blinds, their calling a raise may not give you any new information (most players through the mid-limits play the blinds much too liberally, IMO);
2) Your hand plays well multi-way, so you don't want to necessarily drive out the blinds. And while driving out the blinds *will* serve to get some dead-money in the pot, you risk being reraised by a dominating blind-hand, which will not only cost you an extra bet before the flop, but drive out other opponents, reducing implied odds should you make your flush;
3) Against aware opponents, raising pre-flop may reduce the action you'll want when you flop the flush-draw. If that flush-draw comes, you'd rather have an early bettor and many callers than have it checked to you. Of course, the opposite is true if the flop should come ten-high or even ace-high, in which case you'd probably prefer to have it checked through to you.
My point is that a good argument can be made for both raising and calling in this position with this hand, so I don't agree that calling is a big mistake.
Jason
Excellent points
"1) Raising knocks out the blinds if they have worse hands than you, but not if they have better hands. Plus, depending on the skill of the blinds, their calling a raise may not give you any new information (most players through the mid-limits play the blinds much too liberally, IMO); "
If I'm in the blind and playing a weak K I'm very likely to fold once raised. You do get more info on their hand siemply because of what they do. If they just called, I would consider that they could have weak K, strong, or possibly trips. I would think they don;t have AK, KT, or anything weaker than a T.
They are most likely going to call which is building a very nice pot. If they raise then I know where I stand.
"3) Against aware opponents, raising pre-flop may reduce the action you'll want when you flop the flush-draw. If that flush-draw comes, you'd rather "
This is on the flop however not preflop. Before I continue can you confirm if you are considering this as a pre-flop or on the flop example
Regards Mike N
**** This is on the flop however not preflop. Before I continue can you confirm if you are considering this as a pre-flop or on the flop example ****
Raising pre-flop can limit your implied odds for the rest of the hand. One reason not to raise pre-flop with hands like Ax suited and small pairs is that, should you hit your hand, your pre-flop raise is going to limit the amount of action you get.
In fact, considering that you'll only hit these hands (nut flush or trips) about 1 in 8 times, you need to win decent pots with them to justify the other 7 times you won't hit.
So, concealing the hand with a smooth-call pre-flop, you can flop a monster and have the rest of the field betting the hand for you the whole way.
Jason
SmoothB's example was on the flop and that was what I was describing.
I don't disagree with what you're stating pre-flop.
Thanks for the pre-flop advice however. ;-)
I recently got back from a 4 day trip to Vegas, i played 15-30 and 30-60 holdem, came up on the short end a few hundred, but encountered something that piqued my curiosity.
There were a few players i encountered whom i know play for a living in Vegas, wether they make money or not, i dont know, i can only see what happens when i play at the table with them, although i do know that they have been playing for at least a year and a half fairly often (4-7 times a week)(from the times that i have been there).
While there, i also played with a guy who writes for Card Player. Now the difference in play between the vegas pro and the CP pro was immense. the CP pro hardly played a hand, layed down a lot more, and didnt show his cards very often. The majority of VP's that i saw play, called far too often, a lot of the times 2 or 3 bets cold with hands like K-5s and Q-7s and would call all the way down with bottom pair (not that the last thing is neccesarily wrong, just something i noticed).
Here is my question. How can it be right to play that way? I think i can answer my own question in that it is not, and in the long run these guys cannot and do not win in the long run, and that the long run is a long time. But i cant tell you how many times i saw UTG raise, a VP flat call him in second position and at the end of the hand show K-xs or Q-xs or some other hand that S&M say is unplayable early, especially against a raise.
Anyone else notice this? Any comments? I think i read somewhere that the surest sign to tell that someone does not understand the game as well as they should is when the call raises too often preflop. If that is the case, the majority of VP's that i have seen dont understand the game.
Elie
What caused has caused you to assume that these bad players are "pros"? "Pros" according to whom?
By Vegas Pros i meant regulars as pointed out by Mason, bad choice of words on my part
Elie
I think that you are noticing players who come under the "regular" heading as opposed to "pro" heading. Just because someone plays often it doesn't mean that they are very successful. For instance, I can think of several players, most of whom are retired, who only roughly break even who are playing almost everyday. They typically play too many hands and are too aggressive with them. I think that this is what you are seeing. The very best players are not playing as you describe.
Thanks Mason,
Regulars might be the correct term, not Pros. However, i am not sure that all of these guys are retired, they might be, but some seem a little too young.
Look, my point is this. While intellectually i know that the way they play cant win over the long run, the times that i have played with them they do win. I also cant imagine that they could sustain continued losing if they are retired, so that is my disconnect. If they play for a living, how can they win? And if they win, how can they play like that?
The other area that adds confusion is that i have seen these same guys playing their for the couple of years that i have been going to Vegas. Now some of these guys might be retired, but i cant imagine all of them are, and that those that arent can sustain continued losses.
Anyway, just the thoughts of your avergae NYC home game/aspiring holdem S&M disciple
Elie
I live in Vegas,when I first started scouting the games,I assumed that most of the familiar faces that are there every day must be good players.When I first started playing I would focus on the fish,giving the regulars a lot of respect.This was a mistake,most regulars have holes in there game.They have played forever and won't change,some have read the books but decided they know better or don't have the dicipline.Many tourists are put off by the 'Locals',they are overreacting.
Elie,
When you see these guys short of retirement age who seem to “talk the talk” of playing for a living yet don't have the game it is very likely they have another source of income. My name for it is “Trust Fund Pros” but it could be an insurance settlement is fueling their fantasy.
Regards,
Rick
This reminds me of a Munzer interview a while back with a "Pro" who talked about buying a condo and a nice car with poker winnnings, as well as what a great life poker had provided. Since this person was a very good friend of my ex, I knew that the source of this pro's income was a trust fund, even thought the pro is a very good player. The Daniel N's of the world are few and far between.
Elie, I live here in Vegas and play almost every day. Mason is absolutely correct in what he tells you. The vast majority of regulars do not make much money over the course of a year playing poker. They have some other source of income like a pension, a trust fund, a working wife, etc. Some of the regulars who play low limit poker do make a living but you find out that they have to share an apartment, rent a room, don't have a car, are single, and frankly don't live very well.
Elie:
What you say is certainly correct. There are a few regular players right now, who have been winning for a while, who I guarantee will go broke. Sometimes, because of the high fluctuations that can occur in these games it takes a while, but I have seen these guys come and go for years.
I notice that Jim Brier has a post in this thread. The other day he attended a lunch that I also went to and one of these regulars was mentioned. Now I won't name this person here but he is someone who has been winning for almost a year since he came to Vegas and he almost has to be broke in the future, although it may take a little while. Jim should remember the conversation, but I think it is the same phenomenon that you are noticing.
nt
There seems to be a lot of discussion on this matter lately. So here are a few of my thoughts.
1) Poor game selection.
This is the single biggest -EV mistake you can possibly make. I know a lot of people whose primary source of income comes from poker, who will pass on a really juicy loose, passive 9-18 game to go mix it up with the rocks in 30-60. This is a huge mistake. Bigger limit does NOT equal bigger payoff.
2) Overbetting bankroll.
This has been discussed a lot. This usually comes from having a monthly nut that is too large for the player's bankroll. IE if your monthly nut is 3000 and your bankroll is only 10,000 then you can anticipate going broke. It WILL happen, it's just a matter of time. Count on it.
Personally, I think that if you want to go pro then you have to have a bankroll of at least 1000BB at the limit you need to support yourself. If you want to play mostly 40-80 then you need 80K bankroll. If your bankroll is not that large then keep a regular job until you build up your bankroll.
3) Not playing well
Let's face it, the vast majority of 'pros' are NOT good players. There are a million reasons for this. Some of them are decent players who are just better than most of the fish and grind out a little money now and then. Some of these individuals are kind of creepy and it is plain to see that it would not be easy for them to fit in to the 'real world'. Some of them probably have a lot of difficulty holding regular jobs, and poker is better than nothing even though they aren't that good at it.
4) Going on tilt
I have always been fascinated by tilt. Most people think I never go on tilt, but I admit that there have been about 3 times when I can honestly say I was tilting somewhat. Now I know what signs to look for and I believe that I can prevent it. At least I haven't tilted since I became 'aware'.
There are some players who play very well but turn into monsters when they go on tilt. I know one pro who will play good, solid poker day in and day out for a month. Then one day he will suffer a few bad beats and the beast comes out. I have seen this guy - NO KIDDING - burn through OVER 200BB in one tilt session. This cannot be good for your bankroll.
If you are even CONSIDERING going pro then you MUST be 100% sure that you do not go on tilt.
I know another guy who moved to Vegas with 100K bankroll to take a shot.
Within 24 hours the following happened to him:
He got in over his head in a 200-400 game. Lost over 20K in a few hours. Got really depressed. Got blasted (he was a recovering alcoholic). Somewhere along the way decided to try to win it back at the black jack tables.
Next day he was borrowing busfare.
Now he is a dealer and tries to be a low limit hustler and angle shooter, but his game was so shattered by that experience that he can't even win at low limit anymore. He is on permanent tilt now and cannot play without playing like a maniac. He looks like hell and has started drinking again.
5) Losing your game
This happens. Sometimes people lose their game and never get it back.
What happens is they usually start off by running badly for a while. Maybe they go a week or 2 or longer without winning. Maybe they suffer a series of ridiculous beats and go on tilt.
Whatever the cause, what happens is their game changes. They develop some bad habits that they can't break and then, even though the cards have been running normally, they still lose. They never do become winning players again.
On the other hand, they might run really hot for a while, and they develop bad habits THIS way. I think most pros are too loose and I think they get this way after running really hot for a while. IE the suited connectors always hit for a couple of months - so then they play them from any position.
6) How to prevent going broke
It's not that hard. A lot of going broke has to do with psychological changes. So, if you have been losing lately, you run the risk of losing your game. If this starts happening, you MUST seek out the softest games you can find and book some wins. This will help you get your confidence back and that is extremely important.
Sure, maybe you can't make your monthly nut if you just play 5-10 or 4-8. But it's either that or lose it all - your game, bankroll, everything.
Psyche yourself up in some soft games before trying to grind it out in 30-60 with that cloud hanging over your head.
-SmoothB-
SmoothB, I am fond of taking what others say literally. I believe that what people say is a literal expression of what actually goes on inside their minds. I hope you don't mind a few questions.
"....Now I know what signs to look for..." What signs do you see, specifically?
"...and I believe that I can prevent it" What specific actions (especially mental ones) do you take to prevent it?
"...At least I haven't tilted since I became 'aware'." What do you notice (see, hear, feel) when you're aware? What do you notice first, second, third...?
Thanks.
1) You have 76 of spades on the button and bet a gutshot draw the whole way as a semibluff. Then when you catch a 6 on the river you pay off a checkraise from an obvious playing opponent even though the 6 makes a str8 and a flush possible.
2) You call a bet on the turn with AK even though 2 others have called the bet and there is no A or K on the board.
3) You don't reraise preflop with AA because you just *KNOW* they won't hold up.
4) You play 97s UTG becuase you 'Haven't had a playable hand in an hour.'
5) You have As Ac and on the river you call a bet, a raise, and a cold caller on a board of
JhTh9h8h2c.
6) You have AA and fold on the flop when someone bets a board of 444.
7) You're stuck 2 racks, you are the only non-rock at the table, and yet all the other rocks are trying to get on the list for your game!
8) You've had 5 drinks and you wonder how people can be so stupid as to call you down with second pair - EVERY HAND.
How to prevent tilt? Just play a solid game and keep your eyes open for bad plays. If you find yourself making too many loose calls, playing to passively, etc then you might be on tilt. Just focus and play your A game. If you can't do it then get up and leave. Better to leave stuck than to stick around and get more stuck.
As for what I noticed - most people go on tilt after suffering a bad suckout or after not winning a hand in a few hours, or even after not PLAYING a hand after an hour or so. They get impatient and want to start winning. Fact is you must be patient and have discipline.
Also, if you start getting really bored or feeling like you are having a bad time you might be vulnerable to tilt.
-SmoothB-
Reading all this is somewhat depressing, what I mean is that it is very enlightening and is busting my little bubble right now. That home in Tahoe, living off poker winnings in Reno/Vegas just became a weekend in Biloxi to have a little fun.
sMOOTHb:
Had the pleasure of playing with/against you at pokerpages tourney. No smoke, but your posts make more sense than most, here and at rgp.
I'm not a pro, so this is offered as an additional reason(s)
(A) EGO - these guys don't know what they're doing, if I do everything correctly (w/o making any mistakes) I'm gonna beat their brains in. Focus of/on the game is lost and so is the b/r.
(B) Boredom - Winning poker for the most part is boring and the need for action instigates risk taking - playing the suited connectors early, etc ---- see I can play and win and get the seratonin flowing.
I suspect these work in tandem and alone to cause everyone to lose. To me tilt is a result of ego. So perhaps Zen, etc aint bad.
Please keep talking, I really enjoy your views. P.S. Will you, or sombody PLEASE explain that when a player is "all-in" and has two callers that the callers are at odds if they try to eliminate each other. Unless, of course, you have the out and out nuts and can do 2 for 1. Thank you.
Im not a vegas pro but im quite sure the same that happened to me can happen to them.
In the second half of 2000, i was a regular winner at the tables. Easyyyyyyyyy money i thought... i always made sure of keepin a 5K bankroll however... (vegas pro may have a 50K bankroll but play 80-160 instead of a mix if 5-10 and 10-20...)
So i start to go eat in expensive restaurants with my gf and we went in spain. In 7 days, excludin the prepaid airfares and accomodations, we spent 2000$. WHY? well why not i was going to win this money playin poker when ill get back anyway. After all i play with a bunch of callin stations and im always one of the 3 best players on any tables i sit. I have a sure edge on them!!! (vegas pros sure think that way) 3K is sure enough!
Well since january ive lost 2K (includin 1 wednesday in a wild 10-20 game where i havent win a pot over 40$ in 5 hours) If i lost 2K that fast a vegas pro surely can lose 20K in 1 week playin 80-160...
If i wouldnt have removed 2K from my BR, it still would be at 3K and i wouldnt even be worried about it. But god dammit, it is now at 1K and i need a miracle. Of course, i can find more money but i hate the idea of playin on old days saving funds or loans... Im just hopin poker god will be good to me but who knows maybe im going to lose another 50BB tonight. It can happens to everybody!! I would be very surprise if someone playing long sessions and has over 1000 hours of play never had a 50BB losin session.
Just had a few zeros and its the situation of vegas pro. Its all about bankroll (if u stick to your "A" game of course...)
You know its like a company who makes profit every year but has negative cashflows. Congrats on their profits, but wheres da money... Im still a winner at HE even tought my hourly average took an ugly drop and i might get broke .... as a winner!!!
Charlie
"Go broke as a winner."
An oddly comforting thought in the face of disaster, one I've had many times. After 12 years now full time, living comfortably, I duuno, probably cost me 30K/year on average, that's roundabout 360K in expenses I've paid from poker. No way I can lose it back, cuz it's done spent!
Tommy
An afterthought:
1) Some pros go broke even though they are winning players and are running well. That's because they blow their winnings at things like craps, sports betting, etc. I NEVER play table games when I go to Vegas - except maybe some 1 dollar BJ with my girlfriend. It is a -EV game. I don't gamble.
2) Some were never that good to start. I think Steve Badger and Phil Hellmuth are good examples of this. Badger readily admits that he has been a losing ring game player for the past couple years. I believe it - he is not very good. He got lucky and won a WSOP bracelet and the rest is history.
I find his card player articles very entertaining. Recently he went on a tirade, bashing 'rocks'. I almost laughed my ass off. He said that rocks (PUP's) as he called them) were pathetic losers from whom you can make a pile of money. I dont get it Steve - if you are so much better, how come you can't beat them?
Don't get me started on Badger. I kinda feel sorry for him anyway.
3) Substance abuse problems. Poker seems to attract a lot of addictive personalities and unfortunately some of the great players have also struggled with substance abuse problems.
-SmoothB-
Smooth,
Top notch thoughts/reminders/insights. Bravo.
I'm especially right with you when you emphasize game selection and playing too high. Wow, I used to be so bad at both. But no more!
Funny how it all runs together, being tiltless, carefully picking games, not getting antsy for the big score (or big comeback)by playing too high. One mental mechanism cures all when applied to each facet of the poker life: Patience.
Tommy
pros dont go broke. when they lose too great a % of their bankroll they play smaller until they get it back. they dont go on tilt much. or play tired, or in bad games ,or drunk or upset, etc,etc. they dont spend themselves broke either.
who goes broke then. its the great and good card players that go broke. those that are considered to be pros because they play well but are not. to be a pro you have to act like one. so the others win when things are good and sooner or later unless they change or make so much they do find themselves without money for a time.
What an arrogant post. I've know professional poker players who have gone broke. Once you get off your high horse, you'll see that not everyone shares your worldview.
- Andrew
I think Ray is correct. Real "pros" don't play over their head, don't spend more than they can afford, etc. It's like a business, period. A pro is someone who makes a living from poker.
For example, if a pro had 100k, has a nut of 2000/month, plays only 20-40 or 30-60, and is a winning player of at least .5BB/hour, this player will never go broke. I have never seen a solid, winning player lose 80-100k straight at these limits. If he were to run terrible and lose 25k, he would drop down in limits and/or lower his nut. This is what a "pro" does. The chances of going broke like this are extremely slim.
If the player is not a winner, than he cannot be a "pro." If a player tilts to big games when stuck, he is NOT A PRO and will go broke eventually.
Russ, there are many pros who go broke during their poker careers especially those that play pot limit or no limit. That is why some pros have to be staked to play in the bigger games. If a pro had a $100,000 discretionary bankroll he would not waste his time playing $30-$60. He would play something like $80-$160. Now of course you can simply define this person out of existence by saying that they are not a pro if they ever go broke. But a pro is someone who lives off their poker winnings. I know a couple of pros who have never played higher than $6-$12 and they live very modestly. However, if you want to live comfortably you need to be playing at least $15-$30 and preferably $20-$40. Some pros try to go for the gold by playing in high limit games. However, when they run bad they frequently go broke and some have to start over again. Dan Negreanu went broke when he first came to Vegas from Toronto playing in the bigger games. He went back to Toronto and made a comeback. He is now a very successful tournament player and a good high limit player in Vegas.
Jim,
I don't disagree with anything you've said. It all depends on how you define "pro" and what your available resources are. I don't think a "pro" with 100k and no other income or savings can afford to play 80-160, but that's just my opinion.
I would agree that a pro can play at any limit, as long as he is making a living, but a pro with no money cannot really make a living when he is broke. Relying on backers is very fleeting.
Some "pros" do go broke in some big bet games but when you go broke, you are relying on your PR skills and reputation to get someone to back you and then have to deal with an "owner." Some of these "pros" have much better PR than poker games and have been costing sucker backers money for years.
I consider most grinders pros and the others "gamblers" that have poker skills. There is a big difference between professional poker players and gamblers that have excellent poker skills. Sort of like Rounders, Knish is a pro, Matt Damon is a gambler.
As an aside, I think most backers are suckers, because if you are not in it for the long run, the backers are taking by far the worst of it, and when their horses don't run good, they get robbed out of necessity if not out of malice.
It all depends on how you define "pro"
Unless I'm totally confused, I thought "pro" meant that the player made the majority of their income from the activity in question. If you want to redefine "pro" to mean someone who never goes broke go ahead. I just won't understand you.
- Andrew
Your definition is good. Maybe I'm differentiating between successful professionals that can rely on poker ad infinitum and fleeting professionals that rely on poker when they win and are broke when they lose.
Well, one doesn't have to be an Einstein to determine that Andrew goes broke.
its easy to make a comeback at casinorama near toronto.....
easiest card room ive seen....
too bad its a 6 hours drive from here!!!
But just on one thing.
It's not a "waste of time" for a pro with six-figures (me) to remain at 20-40 and 40-80. I got to six figures a few years ago and became MORE careful. I even drop down to 6-12 after taking a week off after a bad run.
With all the talk about bankroll requirements, one key element is always left out. Age. At 42, if I go broke, I'll have less time to recover a retirement nest-egg than a 22 year old will. So I'm careful. I really really really don't want to go broke (again). Staying far within a bankroll is tons more fun, and easier to play well, than playing on the edge, which I did constantly at the beginning.
That's why I get so irritated when Skalansky writes about "If a player is good enough to beat the bigger games, he will move up."
This is an absurd assumption. I have no idea if I could beat the 80-160 at the Bellagio and I have no intention of finding out. I just don't care. I don't need the money, and I don't need the stress. And I'm not the only 20-40/40-80 pro with nothing to prove, happy just to make a living.
Tommy
So - I think - you just use a very high bankroll threshold, Tommy. That's a good thing to do. I've generally done the same. Why deal with the stress of any significant risk of losing more than you can afford? But wouldn't you agree that at *some point, if your BR get big *enough, and there's a bigger game readily available, that you think looks reasonably beatable, you would go for it? Say you had a 250k (or whatever) BR and Lucky Chances started spreading a *daily 80-160 game, or maybe a bigger blind NL game, wouldn't you want to move up to it?
To me, if such a game is not *so tough as to be unplayable (and sometimes they are), it's just a matter of doing the same thing with my money that I was doing at a lower limit, but in scale with my current BR.
So happens Lucky Chances had a steady 80-160 once per week for a year and I played in the game about 20 times. That's a bit different than hitting the road to seek bigger stakes, but your point is still made. I suppose it's again a matter of degree, how often a bankroll is stretched, and how far, and against whom, and where, and . . .
Sure, you should play as high as you can afford, if the game is profitable. But for me, my expectation at 80-160 isn't much more than at 40-80, and the risk at 80-160 is significantly higher.
Game selection is more important than the limit. I could make more playing 20-40 at Casino Arizona than I could playing 30-60 at Bellagio, and still with less risk. The point is making money, not playing higher.
When we have money to play, we can play, and when we don't, we can't. ~ Tommy Angelo
Yes, sure, I agree with that and (try to) follow it. It's a given as long as the goal is making money. If there's an 80 game that, day in and day out, is really only worth, say, $65/hour, and a 40 game that's worth the same, then the 40 should be your main game for sure. BUT let's not forget that there are also some players who don't derive important income from poker, and whose focus is more on testing themselves against increasingly tough levels of competition, even if that means decreasing poker income. (Of course there are other motivations for other players as well.) An example was the friend "Doc" described on the high stakes forum. He's got quite a few million in the bank and just wants to see how he can do against tough competition for a year. (Unfortunately it sounds like he didn't pick the option that would consistently pit him against the toughest opps, but...)
Oh great, I've been paying off some one who is just "testing" himself. That makes me feel alot better. Why don't you take up SCUBA diving or Deep Sea Fishing? Wouldn't that be more rewarding?
Also, if Doc's friend wants to play against the best, he should try the 400-800 games they've had recently. Those are some of the toughest line-ups I've ever seen. And the 60 and 80 O8 games have been pretty tough also. To be fair to the 80 HE game, even the worst players at higher limet play better than the bad players at lower limits, so you need more than a big bankroll to beat this game.
When we have money to play, we can play, and when we don't, we can't. ~ Tommy Angelo
Lay off Sonny or I'll sick Vince on you.
Well I do have just a bit o' the tester in me, but don't worry 3BB, I won't *too often seek you out just for sport. ;) Usually I try to go with some reasonable estimated hourly rate given bankroll constraints. But right now we're going to Disneyland. (I hear there's a juicy 100-200 game behind some unmarked door in New Orleans Square.) When I get back I do *not want to see Vince's name tacked to this thread.
I'll admit from the get-go this is a setup: Do you consider Ciaffone to be a pro?
Based on Ray Zee's post of what a real pro is, these are the traits and habits of the fake pro, the person who calls himself a pro and is perceived to be a pro by others but who, in reality, isn't:
- When the fake pro loses too great a % of his bankroll he continues to play at the current limit until he goes broke. He refuses to step down in limit even though it is the right thing to do given that he no longer currently is adequately bankrolled at this limit.
- The fake pro tilts much.
- The fake pro constantly plays tired.
- The fake pro constantly plays in bad games.
- The fake pro plays drunk or upset a little bit too often, etc, etc.
- The fake pro spends himself broke.
Now put yourself in the above person's shoes and honestly answer this question, "Can I possibly derive income solely from poker if I had all of these habits and traits?"
Of the pool of players who call themselves pros and who are perceived by others to be pros, a big majority are indeed fake pros - making ends meet more from hustling for a stake (usually for tournaments) or a loan ("negative financing") than from actually extracting money from the game.
The real pro treats poker as a business, as Ray implies.
There sure are a lot of fake pros in poker. Many of whom are "big name players". Don't be fooled.
Jawz says it better than me in using the words real pro and fake pro. the real pros indeed dont go broke but its the fake pro(not a person faking to be a pro) but a person who many perceive to be a pro. they are usually very good card players and do for a time live off their winnings but they conduct themsevles in a way that predetermines their future. many of the top card players and tournament champs fall into this catergory. and if they could treat it as a business as Jawz says they might indeed get to hold onto that stake.
While many of Smooth B's points might be correct, it is nowhere near this complicated. The illusion is with the definition of the term professional. This groups anyone who would take a field of endeavor and attempt to make a living at it. The problem is, you don't necessarily have to be good at this endeavor or even competent to be called a professional.
I can attempt to make a living by writing novels like Stephen King and therefore I am a proffessional writer. The fact that I would starve waiting for someone to publish my work, is irrelevant. Since this is how I am attempting to make the bulk of my living, I can call myself a professional novelist.
Many people sluff off Sklansky and Malmuth as two people who now derive a significant portion of their income from other endeavors. While this may be true, it was not always the case (as far as I know). Both were and remain successful professional gamblers and I would wager a large sum that neither will be going broke at anytime during their lifetimes from gambling.
To sum it up, becoming a professional at anything is easy. Just chuck everything else and delve into your field of choice. You are now a professional [fill in the blank]-. Becoming a successful professional takes a bit more hard work.
First of all, you will require the necessary skills and knowledge in your chosen field. In gambling, this means a thorough understanding of the game you are attempting to make money in and becoming certain you have and can retain an edge.
You will also require the proper tools and knowledge of how to take care of them. The carpenter must not neglect his tools and leave them in the rain or they will rust. A singer must ensure his or her voice is always in top condition. They realize that should something happen these to assets of their business, it jeopardizes their very livelihood. For the gambler one of the most important tools is his bankroll. It is not just the gambler by the way. Many businesses rely on working capital in order to stay productive and profitable.
I could go on and on. But the fact is, few people are successful in any endeavor they partake in on their own. This is why the majority of the population works for other people or corporations. It is not an easy task to go out and become a success on your own in any field. It is a sparse minority who accomplishes independent success. I suspect that poker and gambling activiities like it, have such a great appeal to the masses because those who are indeed successful at it, make it look easy. So why do many pros lose while others are successful? The answer is simple. Unfortunately the solution is not.
.
Still stating the blatently obvious. Time after time. Never fails.
Sigh.
-CONFUSED
From a non pro student. The points about bankroll and game selection seem so important. Playing from the edge instead of from deep within a large bankroll certainly affects play. (It does for me and I need to change that.)
In my evolution to what I hope will some day be semi-pro, I have finaly finaly gotten disciplined about game selection.
Playing 15-30 HE at a must move table, I was in a great game. Two horrible players to my right pouring money in. I got the nod to move to the main game. Feeling all confident and up for a big win, I looked over the line up and kept right on walking to a 10-20 table. This was a big step for me, definitely the right move even though I didn't want to do it.
Very good post and thread.
That's a professional decision. Of course, you probably got back on the 15-30 list because most casinos don't have proper rules against that or don't enforce the ones they do have.
You are on your way.
While many of Smooth B's points might be correct, it is nowhere near this complicated. The illusion is with the definition of the term professional. This groups anyone who would take a field of endeavor and attempt to make a living at it. The problem is, you don't necessarily have to be good at this endeavor or even competent to be called a professional.
I can attempt to make a living by writing novels like Stephen King and therefore I am a proffessional writer. The fact that I would starve waiting for someone to publish my work, is irrelevant. Since this is how I am attempting to make the bulk of my living, I can call myself a professional novelist.
Many people sluff off Sklansky and Malmuth as two people who now derive a significant portion of their income from other endeavors. While this may be true, it was not always the case (as far as I know). Both were and remain successful professional gamblers and I would wager a large sum that neither will be going broke at anytime during their lifetimes from gambling.
To sum it up, becoming a professional at anything is easy. Just chuck everything else and delve into your field of choice. You are now a professional [fill in the blank]-. Becoming a successful professional takes a bit more hard work.
First of all, you will require the necessary skills and knowledge in your chosen field. In gambling, this means a thorough understanding of the game you are attempting to make money in and becoming certain you have and can retain an edge.
You will also require the proper tools and knowledge of how to take care of them. The carpenter must not neglect his tools and leave them in the rain or they will rust. A singer must ensure his or her voice is always in top condition. They realize that should something happen these to assets of their business, it jeopardizes their very livelihood. For the gambler one of the most important tools is his bankroll. It is not just the gambler by the way. Many businesses rely on working capital in order to stay productive and profitable.
I could go on and on. But the fact is, few people are successful in any endeavor they partake in on their own. This is why the majority of the population works for other people or corporations. It is not an easy task to go out and become a success on your own in any field. It is a sparse minority who accomplishes independent success. I suspect that poker and gambling activiities like it, have such a great appeal to the masses because those who are indeed successful at it, make it look easy. So why do many pros lose while others are successful? The answer is simple. Unfortunately the solution is not.
"I can attempt to write novels like Stephen King and therefore I am a professional writer."
Sorry, you wouldn't be considered a "professional" writer unless you were published [Of course you could always start your own publishing Co. with yourself as your sole client if you were that desperate to be viewed (technically) as a professional]. But until you are published, you're merely considered a struggling writer and not a professional.
Ok. Then let's switch my example to this: I go to work for a company selling vaccuums. I sell three in my first year and I'm starving. But since this is what I do for a living, I'm still a professional salesman, right? Let's nitpick a little more shall we?
gee. let's have a circle jerk ! yeh
"Waking up with a bankroll and no job."
That's how I (eventually) define professional poker player when I'm explaining my career to an outsider. It doesn't matter how big the bankroll is, and it doesn't matter how long ago the last job was.
It's a present-tense thing. Past and future are irrelevant. Some players are ex-pros, and might again be pros. If they fit the above definition, today, then they ARE a pro.
Tommy
Maybe that's where I differ. If you are trying to make a living from poker playing, then you DO have a job and playing poker is it!
Sure a bankroll and no job is a pro. But that was the point of my post. This does NOT make a successful pro. To what you consider a pro, add a plan, discipline, continuing education, along with some natural talent, and now you might have a successful pro.
Duck,
We have no dignificant disagreement which means we can nitpick for sport. :-)
You wrote: "Sure a bankroll and no job is a pro."
Check.
"But that was the point of my post. This does NOT make a successful pro."
What's it make, an unsuccessful pro?
"To what you consider a pro, add a plan, discipline, continuing education, along with some natural talent, and now you might have a successful pro."
Lordy, I'd hate to hear your definition of a successful vacuum-cleaner saleman. :-)
Seriously though, I know what you're getting at. I just think it's all fluff, especially "add a plan." The bottom line is the bottom line. Either a guy is making it, today, or he isn't.
Come to think of it, how would you define an "unsuccessful pro?" (I don't mean "ex-pro.") In my view there is no such thing.
Tommy
Well, Ok. I see I cannot win this point. For one thing, I often post with a severe handicap on this forum because nitpicking is not my forte'. The other thing, is that I suspect we have no fundamental disagreement to begin with
I define "unsuccessful pro" as someone who eventually winds up broke or does not make enough money in his chosen trade, to make the living he needs to make. In other words, a failure. I don't mean that as a cheap shot to anyone who has gone broke either. I think failure (or let's be precise, setbacks) can be a good thing.
While things like preparation, study, and "add a plan" might sound like fluff to you, "making it" is not my definition of success. Without much of the former, it's far more unlikely to achieve the latter (success). I think one's goals should be slightly loftier than waking up in the morning and not being broke. I recognize it might be enough for some, I just couldn't live that way.
We agree that "failure" need not carry a negative connotation.
If unsuccessful poker pro = failed pro = ex pro, then by default, successful pro = current pro = no different than simply the saying "pro."
Maybe that was my only thought in the first place, that "successful pro" and "pro" have no distinction, in my opinion. Either way, whatever. Make it stop!
(I regret using "fluff." :-) )
Tommy
You are technically correct that "pro" doesn't necissaryly mean "good". But most people who talk about "professional poker players" DO mean thost that are good and have the proper attitude, discipline, etc that Zee points out below.
- Louie
Could someone please go to rgp and copy my post Mike Caro's latest Column on to this forum ? Thanks.
Mike correctly points out that with one card to come in no limit, your proper headup bet with a good hand into an obvious draw, should almost always be, not a move in, but rather an amount that is sufficient to insure that the player is making a mistake by calling, pot odds wise. (We assume he is getting no implied odds since you know his hand.) How much more than this minimum amount to bet, of course depends on your assessment of the chances that your opponent will make the mistake of calling various size bets above the minimum required.
Mike then goes on to give two exceptions to the above precept. He says that you might want to bet an amount below the above minimum, in other words an amount where he would be correct to call pot odds wise, if it is part of your general game plan or also if you are rather sure that your small bet will entice the opposite mistake of him folding when he shouldn't. But this second reason is wrong. It is never matrhematically advantageous to create the mistake of betting a small amount that should be called, simply because you are almost sure that he will probably fold. It is better to bet the larger amount even if you know that your opponnent will always correctly fold that bet. That may seem counterintuitive since it seems that you are always better off creating mistakes in your opponents. But in this case you are not. Do you see why?
PS There is however, a possible exception that Mike left out of the article. Against certain players it might be right to underbet the turn if that bet results in a call (while a proper bet wouldn't) and also results in an opportunity to induce a bluff on the river when the draw obviously doesn't get there. The net result of this play would be equivalent to getting a bigger fourth st. bet called.
I just posted this again under a separate heading, so it will be more noticeable.
Thank you
Mike correctly points out that with one card to come in no limit, your proper headup bet with a good hand into an obvious draw, should almost always be, not a move in, but rather an amount that is sufficient to insure that the player is making a mistake by calling, pot odds wise. (We assume he is getting no implied odds since you know his hand.) How much more than this minimum amount to bet, of course depends on your assessment of the chances that your opponent will make the mistake of calling various size bets above the minimum required.
Mike then goes on to give two exceptions to the above precept. He says that you might want to bet an amount below the above minimum, in other words an amount where he would be correct to call pot odds wise, if it is part of your general game plan or also if you are rather sure that your small bet will entice the opposite mistake of him folding when he shouldn't. But this second reason is wrong. It is never matrhematically advantageous to create the mistake of betting a small amount that should be called, simply because you are almost sure that he will probably fold. It is better to bet the larger amount even if you know that your opponnent will always correctly fold that bet. That may seem counterintuitive since it seems that you are always better off creating mistakes in your opponents. But in this case you are not. Do you see why?
PS There is however, a possible exception that Mike left out of the article. Against certain players it might be right to underbet the turn if that bet results in a call (while a proper bet wouldn't) and also results in an opportunity to induce a bluff on the river when the draw obviously doesn't get there. The net result of this play would be equivalent to getting a bigger fourth st. bet called.
This reminds me of the statement Mason made several weeks ago when he attempted to explain why bet sizing in no-limit poker is an easy task:
"[I]n most cases all you need to do is bet a little more than what would be correct for certain classes of hands to call. For instance, suppose there are two flush cards on board, it is fourth street, and you hold a good hand. Just bet a little more than what would be required for your opponent to get 4-to-1 on his call. Now if he calls you he has made a mistake. It's not that hard."[1]
I believe Mason's example includes at least four conceptual errors, so I reposted his comments on the HIGH STAKES forum to see if other forum participants could identify those errors.[2]
Error #1: You often can exploit your opponents and get them to make bigger mistakes by giving them significantly less than 4-to-1 pot odds to call. David Sklansky and several others noted this error.
Error #2: In those many instances when you do not know your opponents' exact hands, your bet size often should take into account the implied odds your opponents might be getting. Greg and several others noted this error.
Error #3: In those many instances when you do not know your opponents' exact hands, determining your opponents' odds of winning often is not an easy task. Just because two flush cards are on board, for example, doesn't mean your opponent necessarily is on a flush draw. And even if an opponent is on a flush draw, some flush draws have extra outs. "Target" noted this error.
Mike and David mention a couple more exceptions, which Mason might or might not have realized when he prefaced his remark with "in most cases." I'm wondering if David or other forum participants can explain any additional conceptual errors with Mason's example.
-----------------------
[1] Mason Malmuth, 5 January 2001 at 2:42 p.m., "Re: Amazing Hand by John Cernuto" under his thread of 5 January 2001 at 2:20 a.m. entitled "Amazing Hand by John Cernuto" in the GENERAL THEORY forum.
[2] Mark Glover, 7 January 2001, "Mason Malmuth's NL bet size error" in the HIGH STAKES forum.
Perhaps Caro was suggesting that the opponent is more likely to call a bigger bet (suspecting a weak hand) than a smaller bet (suspecting a trap hand).
- Louie
I just read the article and I couldn't figure out what the heck Mike meant. It was an insufficiently explained, distracting remark that could have been left out.
Tommy
I play in a 6/12 game that posts 6 on the BB, 4 on the SB and 2 on the button. If one were to leave the table just before the blinds and return during the button play they would be required to post 10 playing one behind the button, with 6 being live. It seems to me this might give better odds than simply playing through the blinds as one would be in a much stronger position. Am I thinking clearly?
Gary- Just so you know, you are now the second person to post under the handle GD. Also, I have no idea on how to answer your question. But I do think that constantly getting up and leaving the game when your blind come would bring about some (justifiable) ill will amongst your fellow players.
In many games as a new player you can post a bb after the button or between the sb and the button. For a long time most people told me it is better to post between the sb and the button because you can play one more hand. This is true for the casino but not for the new player. You post and play at the worst position if you do it in front of the button . You post and play at the second best position if you post after the button.
I think it's better to play your blinds instead of posting behind because:
1) You get the button 2) You don't get lured into bad-gamble situations by the live-late-position post 3) You get more hands 4) You get the button
Tommy
In a 10 handed game it costs you $12 per orbit or $1.2/hand. Skipping the blinds costs you $10 and you see 7 hands or $1.43/hand. Taking the BB in late position like this overshadows the increased total cost, even if you consider that you don't get the button. I think a phase in Angelo's post should change from "don't get trapped" to "don't get the opportunity".
GD(a) is right and this ill will WILL cost you. Don't do it often.
- Louie
When a new player sits in on the BB in our 10-20 HE game for example, he'll often say he'll wait for the button to pass, then have to post both BB and SB, 10 with 5 going in the pot. They then tell me it's because they would rather play from a later postion.
I have never understood this.
I tell them they will still be playing from late postion anyway, but would have seen THREE additional hands if they posted right away. BB position, SB position and Button postion. They post the same amount but miss all three of these hands.
Can anyone enlighten me?
Along similar lines as skipping the blinds: . .
** Skipping the button: I LA County, CA
Re: skipping: button or a round
(somehow I accidently posted an incomplete post -- I think the format may have changed and I got confounded -- whatever -- I apoligize)
Anyway in LA County, CA: the button hand must pay the collection fee(also known as the dead drop).
Skipping the button for one hand: Some players intentionally skip the button for one hand. The effects of this are: (1)on the next hand the "button skipper" must post the collection or dead drop. Now the initial pot contains the equivalent of two big blinds. The "button-shipper" feels that if "he" being still in late and good position, and if he can win the pot -- he than wins an extra bet(i.e.,he wins his collection fee back). Usually people that regularly are "button skippers" are eventually warned by management to quit skipping the button. (2) Button-skippers can create ill-will in the game, but the worst effect is that less hands are played per round. Playing less hands per round increases the cost per round. In a nine handed game, button-skipping causes the collection fee to increase by 11.3%, and in an eight handed game to increase by about 29%. Therefore it is evident, that playing in short handed games, the expenses go considerably higher. The houses doesn't usually mind this because they make the same amount per hour in a seven handed game as they do in a nine handed game.
Skipping a round of hands: There are some players who make a habit of playing one or two rounds of hands and then skip a round. I know a few players who skip almost every other round. Some players also feel that a certain dealer is bad luck, and they sit out until the dealer is changed. The effect of skipping are similar in some ways to the button-skipper. That is -- the expenses go up for the remaining players, and the blinds come around more often. These habitual round skippers often creat ill will among pleasure players who like to play in a full circle game (this includes me).
Any comments.
I'm just curious as to how many of you think that your bankroll requirements are larger in no limit than in limit assuming that you have the same win rate in both. I happen to think that the limit requirements are probably larger, perhapos even quite a bit. Part of the reason for this is that in limit:
1. Hands tend to be more multiway.
2. You may play more hands. (Caro even supports this in his column when he points out that AQo is more valuable in limit than in no limit.)
3. If you bet and are raised you call the raise far more frequently at limit.
4. There is generally more betting on all betting rounds in limit. Many no limit hands get shown down with no betting on the last couple of streets.
5. It is right in many more spots for opponents to try to draw out because of the larger odds that they will be getting. (An example would be Caro's example of top set against a flush draw. In this spot you can always bet enough to make it wrong for your opponent to call assuming you both have enough chips. You can't do this at limit.)
I'm sure others can come up with many more reasons. However, this is one of those points that can never be decided who is right for sure because the data doesn't exist.
I will however give one very simple example. In limit when first in from a late position it is routine to take a marginal hand like QTo and raise with it. In no limit this play is much more dangerous because if you are reraised you almost always have to fold. (In limit you don' like it if reraised, but you stay in the pot and look at the flop.) Thus in no limit you throw away some hands that you should raise with in a limit game. Now throwing away hands before the flop has the effect of reducing your bankroll requirements. Raising with them has the opposite effect.
I have no opinion of the difference in bankroll requirements for the two games, but
the points you make are the best exposition yet of why
limit is more complex than no limit.
"This is one of those points that can never be decided who is right for sure because the data doesn't exist."
Cool. Right up my alley. :-)
All your points make sense except maybe this one:
"You may play more hands [at limit]"
In a full limit game, the number of hands that we "may play" can change dedending on who is playing and how, but not by nearly as much as it changes at no-limit. In a seat within half-a-table of a couple inexperienced frequent-limpers, the number of playable hands at no-limit FAR surpasses those of any full limit game.
Choosing to seize those opportunities increases swings of course, thereby affecting BR needs. The nifty thing is that you can still choose to play real tight anyway and keep the swings down. I think swings are far more controllable at no-limit. Each player can make the game as big or as small as he wants to within his own little bubble.
But then, when a run of inescapable disasters comes our way at no-limit, we get hurt bad, more than at limit.
Conclusion? Just like the data, none.
Tommy
I just read the Rueben/Ciaffone big bet poker book. Caro's point about bankroll really stuck in my mind because I think it was Stewart Rueben who commented that in big bet poker his standard deviation on any particular hand is quite high but his longer term results show relatively lower fluctuations. I don't know if this is true and Rueben is probably an exceptional player so his results may not be typical.
This sounds like the old refrain: "We lose money on each sale, but we make up for that on volume." Does not compute.
Actually it does compute for a highly skilled player. the skilled big bet player has a much bigger edge over his opponents than in limit. This would indicate a samller bankroll is needed in big bet poker for a skilled player.
No argument about the BR question. My comment is on the Rueben quote: "...it was Stewart Rueben who commented that in big bet poker his standard deviation on any particular hand is quite high but his longer term results show relatively lower fluctuations."
This quote implies that the sum of the results of a number of hands with (self assessed) high standard deviation leads to relatively stable results. Statistically, this scenario seems unlikely; thus the "lose money on every sale, but make it up on volume" comment. So, either the self assessment on the hands was too loose (probably) or the the recollection on stable longer term results was kinda foggy. Or he has much bigger bounds on his "relatively lower fluctuations."
This is a fairly meaningless question. If we assume that bankroll requirements are fully determined by your expected win rate and variance, then the answer only depends on your variance.
If your variance is higher in no-limit, then you'll need a bigger bankroll to play no-limit. If your variance is higher in limit, then you'll need the bigger bankroll for limit. So which has the higher variance? All you need to do is play enough no-limit to find out, or ask someone who plays a lot of no-limit, and who keeps acurate records.
Of course, it might be that bankroll requirements are more complicated than ev/variance considerations. If so then we need to determine what these other considerations are.
- Andrew
You list many valid reasons why NL bankroll requirements may be smaller than Limit BR requirements. I agree with this general assessment.
I cannot easily imagine, however, having the same win rate at both forms (I haven't read Caro's column yet and am a bit puzzled as to why equivalent win rates are even being discussed).
The fact that the better player has a bigger edge in NL than in Limit (and therefore a higher win rate than in Limit) is perhaps the single most significant reason as to why NL may require a smaller bankroll.
You are absolutely correct, but that wasn't the premise of the article.
*
Let me retrack my quick agreement. Though I think you are probably correct that an expert player has a higher win rate at no limit given the same blinds, that's not really the issue. Your bankroll is determined by the relationship between your win rate and your standard deviation. Good players almost certainly have a better relationship between their win rate and standard deviation when playing no limit. So for instance a player who makes $25 per hour when playing limit poker probably needs a higher bankroll than someone who is making $25 per hour when playing no limit.
This is not a diagreement. Just something out there for comment.
I've found that $20-40 hold'em "equals" $2-3-5 blinds no-limit.
1) If I win no pots, $1000 lasts the same in both games, about two hours. To be more clear, if I went 100 hours without winning a pot at $20-40, I'd expect to lose about $50,000. Same with 2-3-5 no-limit.
(But keep in mind that the minimum open in the no-limit game is $10, and we play with a $10 optional kill, making it $20 to-go, and the kill is often out. So the 2-3-5 blind no-limit game works out to be more like a conventional blind-structure game with two blinds of $5 and $10, with a $10 minimum open.
2) $1000 is an acceptable loss in both games
3)Just by general feel, of what seems like equal risk over time, and equal hope-for gain over time, these two games are the same "size."
Tommy
...here are my thoughts:
1) While you, Mason, do provide many valid reasons why one's fluctuations may be increased in Limit (given the same edge), the fact that larger bets will be made in NL is quite significant. Whether the fact that one will be making larger wagers in NL and the corresponding larger variance (again given the same overall edge) outweighs the factors you have listed is the crux of the question. As you point out, we do not have data to measure such things.
2) So what would be my guess as to whether the larger bets or the factors you have listed weigh more heavily? Well, if I were playing against a table full of players I could just barely beat in the long-term (i.e a very small edge), I would probably prefer Limit to NL because, with only a small edge, I feel intuitively that I would have less chance of going broke at Limit under these conditions. So, my gut feeling is that the NL larger bet size factor may outweigh all of the other factors combined when it comes to determining variance and BR requirements given the same hypothetical edge.
I believe that Tommy is right that you can control your variance a lot more in no limit than in limit. I may be wrong but you have the most control in pot limit. In no limit I would think that you can be put in some situations where you have to put a lot of money in the pot as a favorite because your opponent forces you too. In pot limit you can control the size of the pot much better IMO. In limit hold'em a lot of money can go into the pot before the flop and which makes it correct to go a lot farther with some hands because the pot size is so big in relation to the size of the bet. If you have to play a lot of long shots because it's a plus EV situation the volatility of your results has to increase. I see a couple of pot limit players win money by exploiting some situations where the pot is small and they can simply pick it up on the turn. They rarely play a big pot and when they do it's usually against the worst players.
"I'm just curious as to how many of you think that your bankroll requirements are larger in no limit than in limit assuming that you have the same win rate in both."
This question sparks my interest for a number of reasons. Foremost the BR requirements for equivalent win rates. For instance suppose Tommay Angelo wins 1 bb/hr at 15-30. Make him a good player. His BR should be somewhere between 18 and 30k. How is it possible to equate that to a NL player that wins $30/hr? I don't believe that there is a direct correlation. In limit you have the luxury of making the same size bets throughout play and can use these bet sizes with edge estimates and a couple of other factors to determine BR requirements.
Wait, I believe I am beginning to see the light. In no limit you can also determine your BR requirements through bet size and similar factors to those in limit. You can adopt a betting strategy that pretty much mimics limit in that your openning raise may be x and your mid raise may be y and your big raise may be x+y or something that relates each raise and keeps things fairly consistent. The problem comes in when you must factor in your opponents response. But I don't believe that is as big an issue as it first appears. Experience should guide you fairly well in that area and give you a good idea how various opponents respond in various situations.
O.K so I think I'm on the right track for getting a handle on BR requirements for NL given a specifc win rate. I suppose one could take into account the estimated number of hands one plays per hour. Estimate the total amount of money he puts into all the pots, then multiply by his edge and win rate and come up with a BR requirement. That shouldn't be too hard. I bet Oz could do it if he was willing to elaborate. Mason probably already has but hasn't cleared his answer with Caro so may not share it with us. So that leaves Tommy. Come on Tommy you are a NL player give us a good BR estimate and how you derived it.
The other thing that interests me about Mason' question is the points he makes. Mason puts great emphasis on there being "more" of certain aspects of limit for requiring a higher BR. For example "playing more hands" and "more betting on all rounds". But these things of themselves do not make BR requirements for limit greater than NL. The counter arguement is obviously that in each NL betting situation "more money" is bet. I believe Mason's points make a better arguement for why Limit may be more complex than NL but not for justifying a greater BR requirement.
I guess the first point here "What is an equivalent BR requirement?" is the thing that is most interesting to someone like me that just doesn't play NL except in tournaments. So can anybody tell a mid limit player what his equivalent BR is for no limit given he has the same edge over his opponents?
Vince
Vince,
The correlation is easy to make. Bankroll requirements are dictated by ev/variance. If you know both you have a good estimate for your risk of ruin. From there you can construct reasonable bankroll requirements.
This isn't rocket science.
- Andrew
or is it the chicken/egg thing? How do you derive your ev/variance without playing long enough, and how does any reasonable player play long enough without a reasonable br? I think anyone concientious enough to figure out his or her ev/variance would not be the type to play underfunded.
Well,
You could just ask someone who's played a lot of live no-limit hold'em, and who has kept accurate records. I'm sure there are a few such people in the world.
- Andrew
From Page 52 of "Gambling Theory and Other Topics" you state:
"But suffice it to say that the standard deviation for pot limit games is significantly higher than for limit games, and the standard deviation for no limit games is probably significantly higher than pot limit games. This is obvious when you realize that your results over a long period of time can be dominated by just one or two hands in which a major confrontation ocurred."
Therefore, given the same expected value or win rate, bankroll requirements would be higher for no limit than limit because the standard deviation is higher.
I would also add that big bet players (no limit and pot limit players) have a history of going broke much more than limit players.
Actually, I think that what I wrote is right because I am thinking in terms of a very good player. In general a very good player has a much higher win rate at no limit or pot limit than at limit. Here is what else I wrote
"By the way, if you are an expert player, no-limit poker does not necessarily require a larger bankroll than limit poker. Remember, your required bankroll should be determined by the relationship between your expected win rate and your standard deviation. Specifically, if your win rate is significantly higher in no-limit than it is in limit, you actually may need a smaller bankroll than what some limit games require. (This is often the case for expert players since the edges they can achieve over typical players are usually much larger.)"
But Caro made an unusual stipulation, and it is that the big bet player has the same win rate as the limit player. This should change the style of the big bet player and probably reduce his standard deviation.
Well, change his style, or change his blinds. I wouldn't be surprised if a 5/10 pot limit player has a comparable earn rate to a 80/160 limit player.
- Andrew
Mason, you wrote:
"2. You may play more hands. (Caro even supports this in his column when he points out that AQo is more valuable in limit than in no limit.)"
It may not be that playing more hands per se increases your variance (assuming these hands are profitable in the first place). It may be the type of additional hands that are played in limit. A-Qo has some really nasty reverse implied odds in a beg bet setting and thus it is an easy hand to throw away. In a limit setting you may flop top pair and not ever face a bet large enough to make folding the correct play, even though you are more likely to lose with this hand in a limit setting because of the collective outs against you. This is especially true in loose passive games. I have no problems dumping top pair when faced with a double sized bet on the turn in a multi-way pot, especially if I don't have any redraws. But in a passive game it is likely to be you who is doing the betting with top pair.
The converse of the reverse implied odds situation is playing really stellar implied odds hands in a tight game with smaller pots. It can still be correct to play these hands but they will definitely add variance to your results. now if the game is loose your variance, with the same hands, will go down because the payout is so great when you hit. even if you are running bad, if you only hit one or two set/flush type hands in a loose game you can still go home close to even. In a big bet game if you hit just one set you will probably go home a very big winner.
Now why does playing more hands increase your variance in limit play? I think it is because games are very common that are neither really loose nor really tight. they are right in the middle where both A-Qo and 8-8 are very playable hands even though the ideal situations for these two hands are quite different. As a result you are often in playing marginal and positive EV hands. A sure way to increase variance in your results.
At no-limit I'd MUCH rather have 6-7 on the button than open with AK up front.
And the frequency of played hands depends entirely on the opponents.
Tommy
Two quotes from "Zen and the Art of Poker"
These two phrases from "Zen and the Art of Poker" hit me hard when I first read them and stuck.
The first is something I didn't want to be true, but was forced to accept, and now I embrace it: "Poker is a goalless journey."
The second beautifully captures an essential of the optimum mindset while playing: "Indifference to the passage of time"
Remarks?
Tommy
you have been going ouside with alex too much:-)
poker is indeed a goalless(are there two l's in this word it sure looks funny) journey but so what. but i like to say that poker is a stepping stone to something better.
"Indifference to the passage of time."
In the business world, productivity is closely linked with time. That is, most workers have a quota as to how much they should produce for a specified amount of time. The salesman has to sell so and so number of units, the factory worker has to produce a certain number of widgets, the blackjack dealer has to be able to deal a certain number of hands, the burger flipper has to be able to flip a certain number of burgers.
If these people do not meet their quotas, they are judged to be unproductive. And it takes as little as an hour to determine each of these worker's level of productivity.
In poker, on the otherhand, it takes thousands of hours to determine the player's hourly "productivity" (a.k.a. expectation). This is so because there is a lot of "short-term luck" involved.
Thus, if you are a pro but have a "woker's mindset" - that is, you have the belief that you have to produce something everyday in order to feel assured that you are a productive and non-lazy person who does an "honest days work for an honest day's pay", you're in big trouble because now you'll be judging your success by how much you've just won during the past eight hours!
I think having "indifference to the passage of time" will take you a long way towards going away from the all dangerous "worker's mindset".
And if you're a pro who has never held a job or who hasn't had a job in a long time, don't assume for a moment that you are immune from the "worker's mindset". Why? Because of peer pressure. Your wife will be calling you lazy and irresponsible because you don't produce something everyday. Your relatives will think you're lazy and irresponsible because you just sit around all day playing cards and "doing nothing". Your classmates in your high school reunion will think that you've grown up to be a "bum" because you are not a "real breadwinner". So beware peer pressure!
Another reason having an "indifference to the passage of time" is useful is that it will empower you to keep your attention focused on the current moment where EVERYTHING is taking place. This satori/mindfulness mindset will maximize your level of alertness, observation skills, and awareness in true Zen fashion.
"Poker is a goalless journey." Although I believe that poker is a neverending journey which in itself is it's own reward, I don't agree that it should be goalless.
I believe in always knowing my outcome at all levels of poker decision making and action. I want to know what the outcome of a particular check, bet, call, fold, or raise is. I want to know what my outcome is for playing tight or loose or aggressive or passive, during a given round or session. I want to know what my outcome is for projecting a certain image. I want to know what my outcome is for deciding to go to cardroom A instead of cardroom B. I want to know what my outcome is for playing against a particular group of people, at a certain limit, in a certain game, at a certain. Etcetera.
Having an outcome always, having the sensory acuity to determine whether or not we are achieving that outcome, and having the flexibility to make changes in our thinking and behaviors is what makes poker exciting and fun and engaging.
And when we're having fun, time flies and we become indifferent to it. Then we become awake, alert, and mindful.....
Your wife will be calling you lazy and irresponsible because you don't produce something everyday. Your relatives will think you're lazy and irresponsible because you just sit around all day playing cards and "doing nothing". Your classmates in your high school reunion will think that you've grown up to be a "bum" because you are not a "real breadwinner".
Which one of the above statements is not true?
And which authors of poker books led you to beleive they are not true?
n/t
The pro does not live in a vacuum. He is part of a family, a group of friends, a society. Even though he is an outsider, he still interacts with the mainstream when he is taking on his non-poker roles and identity.
And though there are a lot of good values that he can bring from the mainstream into his poker practice - like hard work, diligent study, discipline, etc., there are qualities that can be down right dangerous like the aforementioned "worker's mindset/mentality".
When I said those things that you quoted in your post, I was merely pointing this out. And yes they are all true, which justifies the act on the pros part of being very cautious about the effects of peer pressure on their poker thinking. None of the authors led me to believe they are not true because it's so obvious, it would be too redundant and duh(!) for them to put it in their books.
Good post. As to "peer pressure" and being judged by family and friends as "lazy" or a "bum" or as not being a "real breadwinner," it's my experience that friends and family who value time far above things, and have no ambitions of wealth or power, would trade their careers for mine is a second. Or at least that's what they keep telling me.
"Indifference to the passage of time."
When I'm "in the zone," I'm indifferent to everything, bad beats, spilled coffee, dumb rulings, everything. Much of my game these days is not about cards and bets, but finding that zone more often and for longer periods. I know this sounds hokey but I feel like I'm in Zen training when NOT playing, during the thinking/worrying/rejoicing/frittering hours, so that I won't do any thinking/worrying/rejoicing during the gaming hours.
"Poker is a goalless journey."
To me that phrase means FIRST that poker is a journey. That's an appealing concept in itself. But typically a journey has a destination. The qualifier "goalless," to me, means simply "without destination."
Raised in a western culture it's difficult to shrug away our goal-oriented indoctrination and look no further than where the journey has taken us so far. I've been shrugging-away lately, a lot, still wishing I could do it more, cuz I like it.
Tommy
"Poker is a goalless journey"
Maybe like a football field that has no endzones. Many lines on the field to indicate if you're going the right way but you'll never be able to score a touchdown.
Like a football field with no endzones, I like that!
I did not mean is it true these people will say these things. I know they will say these things.
I meant, aren't the things that they are saying very true.
If you don't think these things that are being said are true, I think you are deluding yourself, and my other point is that this delusion is reinforced by a lot of these poker books out there.
,,,
.
I routenely play in a 6-12 holdem game that operates with a reduced blind system. the blinds are only 2 and 3 dollars respectively. sklansky has said all poker begins with a struggle over the anties. since the anties(blinds) are lower it would seem that extreemly tight play is in order, However the implied odds for that structure are enormous. also it is farely easy to manuipulate people into staying with unprofitable draws because of the lower pot size on the flop. This seems to indicate that playing more hands is in order. Which is the case? all answers would be appreciated.
oh one other thing, since this is most often the lowest limit holdem game going in the house, and there are no other casinos for miles, the players are farely weak.
IF you feel comfortable about out playing them on the flop it might be a good strategy in this game to see more flops than in a conventional 6-12 blinds game.
I can't agree about the pot manuipulation part but it really boils down to the old saying - "a good player will make more money from poor players than great players can make off good players."
If they are loose and passive (wahooo) then you definitely win by playing very tight.
You'll win more by getting into more hands with them with cards like TJs.
If they really are loose passive then don't raise too much pre-flop and on the flop. They'll learn from you. You must raise for value on the river but they will expect you to raise at this point.
Yes, play more hands and simply drop out of the action early while they chase each other.
NOTE on more hands: They still have to be good multiway hands.
If the ante is low in comparison to future opening round bets you play tightly. But when blinds are low that means it is also cheap to come in. So there is no contradiction.
That's correct. No contradiction. Tight play doesn't only refer to starting hands.
I also live in Mississippi. Are you talking about the game at the Silver Star? Or somewhere else?
yes
So who are you? I generally play on Friday nights at the Silver Star. We should have dinner sometime and talk poker.
real big guy, 23 years old,glasses, smokes too much, usually lucky strikes, drinks diet pepsi, was up there last friday, probably wont be back for a couple of weeks though (and thats assuming i dont go completely broke in vegas over spring break)
were you in the #3 seat at about 1000PM?
I'll keep an eye out for you. Have fun in Vegas. BTW, do you keep records? I'm interested to see how much you're beating the game for. I'm not quite making a BB/hour.
Email boys email
;-)
I do keep records, but with that game the quality of the players can vary so greatly that almost 1bb an hour is probably really good, especially if you play it during the day, when the rocks are out. However I do not have neerly enough hours to gauge how well I am doing overall, much less in any specific game. feel free to email me anytime to talk about specific players and such.
and yes that was me last friday in #3
we play big omaha (five cards instead of four, all other rules same as omaha 8ob) at our home game and i'm wondering what adjustments i should make vs. regular omaha 8ob. with five cards, you are almost always going to get at least one dangler, so how much better should the hands be. what, aside from the obvious, are the starting hand requirements.
thanks
gt
Perhaps this post will get more attention on this forum. Consider the following list of players: Doyle Brunson, Chip Reese, Ray Zee, Mark Weitzman, David Chiu, Lee Salem, David Oppenheimer, John Hennigan, Tony Dee, Huck Seed, Johnny Chan, Howard Lederer, Annie Duke, Jennifer Harmon, Chau Xiang, David Grey, Bobby Baldwin, Magic Epstein, and Ted Forrest. Who are the ten best all around ring game players from that list? Who else deserves consideration? If the ten best played $1000-2000 H.O.R.S.E for forty hours a week for one year, who would win the most? Who would lose? Why? I know that super high limit games like this are usually played shorthanded, but part of being a great player is being able to adjust.
no message.
David is a 3 to 1 favorite to be best.
Doyle is a 2 to 1 dog to be best.
Chip is even money to be best.
Now I could be wrong but I know David a little bit. I have watched him play many times. I have never seen him play above 80-160. He may be the best there is but if he is not comfortable at them thar high stakes them others play at he is most assuredly a dog. At least until he becomes comfortable. Not an easy thing to do by the way.
vince
The reason you haven't had much response to this is that most of us never have and never will play at the level these players play, and don't know what their strengths and weaknesses are.
Just on overall record, Chip and Doyle would have to be at the top. Sklansky seeks out weak opponents and doesnt' play with these guys, so I don't think he belongs on the list. Most of the others don't play as high as Doyle and Chip either, so maybe you would have to lower the limit to 400-800 to compare them all. At that level, I would include Daniel Neagranu, and a little lower, Lenny Martin.
Seems like a begging question to me since it automatically disqualifies any players that don't have access to huge funds.
If you asked, "Who are the best $20-40 players" and included the celebrities among the contenders, I'd say it's a 500-way tie.
Tommy
the way it works out in real life is that those that are currently playing that particular game are the best. even a better player would need an acclumation period to adjust and most likely would lose during that time unless there was a real live one in there as well. there is such a huge difference between shorter handed and full table play that few excel at both. all in the list have a preference. having played with all of them i go find another table if i can, which there always is.
I have noticed an interesting commonality [tell] among some loose aggressive players. Perhaps I am wrong, as my pool of players to study from is small.
When a loose aggressive player flops a hand his expression changes from almost neutral to angry. When he doesn't flop a hand his expression doesn't change.
I use 'his' because I have only seen male loose aggressive players.
I have also noticed players for some unknown reason seem to be slightly intimidated by players with deep loud voices or large physical presence. Must be a child <-> parent flashback?
Passive positive players make me 'pause for the cause....'
Comments?
The single most important moment in any flop game is the moment the flop hits if you are going to pick up ANY tells this is the best time to do it.
You are ahead of the game if you are looking at the players instead of the flop - funny how few players are looking back at you.
Good thought. I train and train to look only at the other players when the flop hits. And, I never have anyone looking back at me. They are all staring at the flop.
It's hard sometimes, though, when it's a capped flop, multi way, and you are in there with AKs. I find myself peeking down when the flop comes.
Oh well, keep on working at it.
In a capped pot multi-way with AKs, you pretty much only need to look at the flop. It doesn't matter how the other players react. You are either going to make a hand or you're not.
natedogg
I haven't read the threads below on why pros go broke so this may already be covered, but I doubt it.
There are a few players who I have played against over the years who are way too loose aggressive but are still winning players. Yet they almost always go broke. What they do is that they make the mistake of playing too many hands but they play these hands in situations where it doesn't cost them much.
For example, if you always raise when first in with any connecting hand, play pairs too liberally, and call out of the big blind too liberally you are making losing plays, but not the worse ones. Thus if other aspects of your game are good you can still be a winning player, perhaps as much as two-thirds of a small bet per hour in a mid limit game.
But what happens is that you will be playing with a huge standard deviation, perhaps as much as three times what an expert would. This means that you can have tremendous upswings and downswings, and that's the problem.
When one of these players goes into a tailspin, his game frequently collapses. Now he'll start making other errors which are much more significant like calling raises with hands that can trap you for many bets if you happen to hit them.
Over the years I've seen several of these players go broke after doing very well for quite a while. They are the super star while it lasts, but they can't maintain their game when the big downswing comes.
"When one of these players goes into a tailspin, his game frequently collapses. Now he'll start making other errors which are much more significant like calling raises with hands that can trap you for many bets if you happen to hit them. "
Being of the "loose aggressive" persuasion I can verify having experienced the above. What has saved me from "going broke" is quite honestly, Mason Malmuth, David Sklansky, Ray Zee, John Feeney, Fossilman, M, Rick, Jim,et al....the whole 2 + 2 forum experience.
Just a thought.
vince
Vince,
Pretty somber post. You OK?
Seriously, you are correct. Whenever I start into a slump, I play a little less often, think about my past decisions, mistakes and reread HEAP, et al.
Bob
"When one of these players goes into a tailspin, his game frequently collapses. Now he'll start making other errors which are much more significant like calling raises with hands that can trap you for many bets if you happen to hit them. "
Isn't this the real reason why?
Regards.
mason,would a players standard diviation be higher online versus live play due to many more hands per hour being dealt?thanks
I'm not Mason. But if you play more hands per hour, your standard deviation should be lower not higher.
I'm not Mason, but sometimes I use his ID at the liquor store. Strictly speaking your sd is proportionate to the square root of the sample size so more hands will be more sd. It may seem a bit lower relatively speaking though to your win rate because that increases at a first order clip instead of .5. I.E. you're getting to the long run a little faster. The correct way to address this is to calculate your standard deviation on a per-hand basis -- something that would seem prohibitively difficult in real life(thus the per-hour standards), but is trivial to do online given the opportunity to review every hand you've ever played.
JG
.
the standard deviation is inversely proportional to the square root of the sample size
sigma = [(xi-µ)2/N]1/2
I'm on mega Paradise tilt.
JG
No, it's higher. In poker, you'll see greater deviations from the mean in several hours than in one, and more in 60 hands than 40. This is why the hourly swings online are so ferocious compared to casino play.
It would probably be a little higher per hand since there is a little less information available per hand.
Your per hour standard deviation is equal to the square root of the numbers of hands that you play times your per hand standard deviation. Since you get more hands per hour your hourly rate is higher.
Oops,
I didn't notice this post. Mason is correct. If you get twice as many hands online your standard deviation should increase by a factor of squareroot(2). As Mason said, there might be other reasons for higher standard deviations that that.
- Andrew
The standard deviation should be higher. I'll leave it to others (David?) to explain why.
;)
- Andrew
What would you expect a pro's SD to be? Do most pros track SD as agressive as a small timer like me?
None of the ones I know well enough to know if they do it do it.
I believe the reason a lot of winning players stop playing poker is not because they go broke. What happens is that they encounter a 500 or 1000 hour losing streak where their hands don't hold up and they are getting sucked out a lot. They then decide that poker is simply not much fun anymore and start to dread going to the poker room. At some point, they throw in the towel and do something else with their life.
In your book, "Gambling Theory And Other Topics" you discuss a winning player who could have a 4000 hour losing streak. It would be a very rare person who would keep playing poker for 4000 hours while losing. The vast majority of human beings would quit long before anything close to that was reached. There are many winning players out there, some of whom post on this forum, who apparently have no conception of how long a person can run bad in this game. If they ever encounter a 1000 hour losing streak we will probably never here from them again. Putting it another way, I suspect that many of the players of years past who no longer play (including many posters from a few years ago who no longer post) did in fact encounter a long losing streak and simply gave up poker altogether since playing on was too painful psychologically.
While what you are saying is accurate, it needs to be pointed out that the winning player who could have the 4000 hour bad streak was someone playing lowball draw where the relationship between the win rate and standard deviation is much poorer for a good player. While a downturn of 500 hours is certainly possible for a good player at hold 'em, the 4,000 hour mark is virtually impossible.
Just to talk a little more, in GTOT I define the coefficient of variation (CV) for poker as the win rate divided by your standard deviation. The draw lowball example that I give represents a CV of less than 5 percent. An expert at limit hold 'em can have a CV as high as 15 percent. That's a very big difference and it translates into a much smaller needed bankroll and moderate long term fluctuations.
Note: The CV is a commonly used statistical term. I did not make it up. It is simply the mean divided by the standard deviation.
mason, as i am going through a 182 big bet downswing right now in 5-10 holdem at planet poker.about 50 hours of play.up til now my largest downswing has beeb 100 big bets.a rare but not impossible event.i would like to know what is the largest downswing you have ever had at holdem?thanks paul
About seven years ago I lost just over $10,000 over a three month period of $20-$40 hold 'em. I won it back in about the same amount of time. (I was only playing about 20 hours a week at that time.)
I have never experienced anything remotely close to this again.
Hmmmmm....I wonder what the CV is for a winning player at no-limit holdem?
I agree with this analysis. When I have a losing streak over 100 hours (usually takes about 3 weeks for me to accumulate those hours), it is completely devastating from a psychological standpoint, and then I wonder if I should just stay at home and watch the soaps, or go back to work.
Jim-
What you're saying is no doubt true, but I think it might be deceptive. A 1000 losing streak does not necessarily mean consistent losing for every one of these hours. More likely it means that a player simply will not be showing a profit after this time.
Every day I see people who cannot beat the game, but are nevertheless, lifelong poker players. Surely, many of these old timers have put in far over 1000 hours, yet they keep coming back.
I've been playing in a lot of spread limit games (mainly up to a $5 bet anytime, but u can bet as low as $1 anytime as well) Everyone stays in on the flop almost every game with the exception of me and sometimes my friend ($1 ante, the typical raise is $2 with an occasional $5 raise) I'm playing about 30% of the hands depending on who is hot and who is not (certain psychos at the table, as soon as they win two staight hands bet $5 preflop, first card up in 7-stud, whatever, until they get beaten bad)
This is an easy game. And I'm trying to maximize my profits on the game. I clear about an average of $120-$150 in a 4-6 hour session with these guys. They aren't good players, but my question(s) are.
1) Am i playing too many hands? My logic on this is, everyone stays pre-flop. If i catch a monster hand I can punish my opponents very easy, but a poor hand lets me leave early. The average pot is $60-$80 with some pots as high as $200.
The opponents are very easy to read, with the exception of two guys (my friend and the host)
We play a large mix of games. Hold'Em, 4-4, Omaha Hi, 7 stud, and wild card games: 4-4 King Lo Hole, Follow the Queen.
I would love to hear anyone's advice.
- EnderFFX
Contrary to what other people will probably think, you are probably doing the right thing by playing so many hands.
For one thing, and maybe the most important, you don't want to play like a rock in a home game as juicy as this. You probably won't get invited back.
Also, did you say that each person ANTES one dollar each hand? That is a huge ante structure and if you play much tighter you will be the biggest loser at the table.
I must caution you however - if you play like that at a casino or card room poker game you will go broke fast.
In a game like yours, profit can be made as long as you just play tighter pre flop than most of the other players, and then play correctly post flop. That's because you will be playing hands that stand to win more than their fair share of pots.
Now, the problem is that your edge on any one given hand may be tiny. For example, if you got dealt QT offsuit EVERY HAND in this loose game, you would probably show a profit for the evening if you played it every time. But your +EV on any one given hand would be small.
Now put the rake in and that small +EV is now obliterated. You can't play QT offsuit profitably in a very loose low limit game with a rake - not because it doesn't win it's fair share of pots, but because your very small +EV can not overcome what gets taken out in rake.
-SmoothB-
I've mentioned this before. Why are you prefacing responses with assumptions about the other posters here.
Make your point but don't preface it with
"If you disagree with me you're probably not a good player" kind of bullshit.
This is very insecure behaviour. It's possible you're not insecure but this really indicates otherwise
Regards
Mike N
What part of my message was the least bit offensive???
-SmoothB-
"Contrary to what other people will probably think, "
In a previous post stating that posters who disagree with you on a point probably aren't very good.
You find this offensive? What is your problem?
If you don't like me or my posts then don't read them and don't respond to them. There was nothing offensive in this post.
-SmoothB-
Maybe not. Maybe just a bad hair day.
You don't see the point I making do you? It was probably not worth making.
I think I will take your advice.
Regards Mike N
"Contrary to what other people will probably think, "
In a previous post stating that posters who disagree with you on a point probably aren't very good.
Hard to believe you could be winning $25/hour in a high ante $5 game ..err.. hard to believe that's a reasonable expectation.
You touched on a point: folding marginal hands when the rush players are sure to raise. Extending this point you CAN play LOTS of marginal hands if the prospects of getting free cards later is high. If 4th street is routinely checked you can play more 3rd street hands.
Be sure, however, the hands you add have reasonable prospects of becoming solid winners BEFORE they are required to invest much. This almost always means there needs to be at least 4 4th street cards that give you a clearly good hand (where a big 4-straight is clearly a good hand but 2 small pair (stud) is not).
You are winning, I strongly suspect, because the opponents play too many hands and don't bet enough whereas you bet the maximum when YOU get the reasonable hands and draws. If you get 4 callers for $5 when you get there it won't matter much how many $1 you throw away.
- Louie
With the ease of reading, poor play etc. I think playing 30% is fine.
You're playing better cards than the others and understand the different types of games you play better than the opponents.
You may get away with playing a few more hands. Dropping out at the appropriate time. Knowing when to check-raise, when you will be raised and all the other knowledge is very powerfull when the other players are unaware.
120-150 seems rather high. Don't be discouraged if this drops off a little. Maybe down to 80-120 and then lower as the other players become better.
Sounds like you found a nice game. Now if you could find a game like that for every night of the week ...
Well first of all, I must say that it is a very wild game! Out of the 6 regulars that play 4 are gamblers, if they win two hands, they feel like it is "their turn" and then start pumping the pot no matter what they have.
Each opponent has a distinct set of tells, and the funniest thing is the atmosphere. Its a group of friends (I just got recently invited into the group 2 monthes ago) and there are a lot of egos, if someone bets out of turn, the next bet around, that person punishes the first person by betting the max in the blind.
I'm pretty sure my average will go down to like $5-$10 an hour, and im not concerned about how much i make, im just concerned about playing my best for the situation. It's a great atmosphere, friendly people, every person with their own quirks.
Thanks for your advice guys, i just wanted to clarify how my profits seemed so big. I consider myself a little above average poker player (i hold my own at a $5-$10 at the taj, and trop in AC) but by no means anywhere near to professional or able to make a living. (well if i did find a game like this every night i could :) )
EnderFFX
If you are a tight-aggressive player, is it best to maintain a tight-aggressive image so that your raises get maximum respect, or is it better to try to offset this image to get more action? I think that most of the time you are playing hands that like to thin the field, so that getting respect is more important than getting extra bets when you make a draw. On the other hand, you may not want loose games to tighten up.
I think that if you´re a tight-aggressive player, your image automatically IS tight-aggressive. Just use it correctly.
The best image you can have at a limit table is the 'tight rock' image. If you are playing at a table where people are observant and know how to play poker, you can rob them blind. You can win several bets by risking one small bet.
Many players make the mistake of assuming that a tight player will not bluff. This is simply not true. A tight play just waits for the opportunity to play when he has the best weapons available to him in the best position - for that particular hand . This means he'll muck AQ in the right situation and three-bet with it in the right situation.
Once a good tight-aggressive player in is the hand, there's no reason why he won't bluff as much or more than others. I sometimes sit at tables where I can bluff like a madman. I rarely see the flop but when I do, I can get away with a lot of tom foolery because everybody thinks "oh that tight-ass rock has got the nuts, I better fold my middle pair". All I've got is position that time. And an image. :)
The reason why I say it's the best image to have at a limit table is because you'll be getting the most value for your bluffs. You can only bluff with a bet that is usually 1/5th to 1/10th the size of the pot. If you're in a situation where those bluffs are working, eureka baby! You are robbing them blind.
In no limit, I think the situation is different. The goal in no-limit is to double up. You want to win massive pots with your stack. The only way to do this is to either be extremely lucky with your draws or to get paid off with your big hands. Since I am not lucky, and most of us are not, I must resort to the latter tactic.
In no limit, you will not get paid off if you are considered a tight-ass rock. Everybody will fold to all your bets and they will rob you blind whenever you don't bet or if you don't go all-in.
The best image in no limit is to be considered a guy who is willing to make a move at a pot. If the players know you can bet with absolutely nothing, they'll sometimes move in on you with absolutely nothing.
Here's an example. A few months ago I was playing 2-3-5 in San Mateo and I was up several hundred dollars. Most of those players know I'm inexperienced at no limit and they know I'm generally reluctant to play a big pot. I have rarely been all-in without showing a monster. They also know that I like to bet out on the flop with position more than I should. I'm known to buy lots of pots on the flop. I see the flop on the button with K2 and the flop come 228.
This is just about the best thing that can ever happen to you in no-limit, as you'll soon see. To flop a monster that is well-hidden on the button when others know you will try to steal on the button a lot, well, it's just about enough to make you cry tears of joy.
Of course everyone checks to me. The guy on my right is a very experienced, very good no limit player. He (thinks) he knows exactly what's going on. So I bet about $40 which was practically like blaring "I'm stealing!" through a bullhorn.
Everyone folds and now the pro on my right KNOWS he can take this pot. It's there waiting for him to take it. He doesn't need a hand at all, just some chips, which he has and he moves them all in.
Of course I call and win a huge pot, and I'm pretty sure I won this monster pot due to my image. Pure and simple.
So, in summary, I think for limit poker it's best to have a really tight ass image, and for no-limit poker it's best to have an image of being a guy who likes to steal. People will more likely play back at you when you do have a hand, that is the key to making money in big bet poker.
natedogg
The pot stealing pro wasn't a tattooed palistinian, was it?
- target
Mike Caro: a loose wild image is best.
Sklansky/Malmuth: a tight image is best.
Who is right? Caro. But it would take 15 pages for me to try and prove it. Later
I like to have respect for my preflop raises, especially when in early position. This because I usually raise preflop in order to thin the field.
after the flop you often want some action and a good way to do this is to semi-bluff and be willing to raise with less than the nuts, even way less than the nuts but to also have a monster a fair portion of the time.
so i guess a good image to have pre-flop is slightly weak-tight (especially in early position) and a good image post-flop is tricky and aggressive.
To be honest, I really only worry about my image when the game gets tight.
"Good players have a bigger edge at no-limit than at limit."
This seems intuitively obvious, as it did to me for years as a strictly limit player, until I started playing both games four years ago.
You could take some of the most consistent losers at no-limit around here and line them up with the best limit players (that have not played no-limit) and the good limit players would have absolutely no shot in that no-limit game full of "morons."
If a good, studious gamester sticks it out, he'll eventually get even and ahead against those players, maybe over months or even years. Most limit players give up before that and quit losers. I would have, and should have, except I'm stubborn as hell. That's why "few people play both games well." It's because few people bother to try. (And because VERY few have the opportunity.)
Back on track . . .
What the opening quote really says is: If you have a limit player of skill level x playing a limit player of skill level 1/2x, and then change the game to no-limit, assuming that their skill levels are the same at both games, the player at level x will have a bigger edge at no-limit.
And that is NOT intuitively obvious, theoretically, and utterly irrelevant in practice, because the skill levels of experienced no-limit players, even the "bad" ones, are clustered up significantly above the novice no-limit player, no matter how good that player is at limit.
In other words, no-limit ain't no easy pickins in a long-standing player pool. The "fish" are the guys like me four years ago, the ones who play a decent game of limit, and see some of the same donaters playing no-limit, and jump in thinking they'll get the money even faster. It don't work that way.
The edge that a good no-limit player gains has little to do with the nature of the differences between limit and no-limit and everything to do with who is playing and how. With the core group of the five toughest local 2-3-5 players sitting at the table, I think Doyle Brunson would be an underdog in that six-handed game at the outset. This is NOT a student boasting about his teachers. It's simply the way no-limit works around here. It takes time to learn what must be known before having an edge is even possible.
Tommy
I always assumed we were comparing apples to apples, i.e. good limit players vs. bad limit players and good no limit players vs. bad no limit players.
There are many players that I welcome (rightly or wrongly) at the limit table. This certainly does not mean I would like it even more if we were playing no-limit. In fact I would probably be giving up any edge I might have if I were to play no-limit with these players.
Boris,
You are SO right, the apples to apples thing. I suppose this is like any other comparison between limit and no-limit where we assume "all else being equal." That all else cannot be equal means we're forced into conjectureland. Still, the resulting ideas are worthy.
Tommy
Tommy's experience is my experience here, so far. Except for the part where he became a solidly winning player at NL, of course.
I am a reasonably good semi-pro in the bay area. I win solidly in the middle limit (20-40 and 30-60, mostly) games around here -- just upwards of 1.5 BB/hour.
I am a fish in no limit.
I either win or lose some small amount, or a lose a large amount. It's an interesting challenge, and I feel like I'm getting better, but I'm not sure how long my bankroll can stand it.
There are players that I have serious trouble getting a solid read on -- tommy is one of them. He either turns over a big starting hand, or two garbage cards that somehow managed to fit the flop. He won a hand sunday with 96o, which impressed me somewhat.
I can't find those thin value bets in NL. I also am way too readable at the moment -- the good players pick off my bluffs way too often. But I feel like I still need to bluff, so they can't fold too easily to my value bets. Otoh, they still mostly fold to them.
Basically, I can play agressive poker and get thrashed, or play weak/tight and close to break even if I stay out of the way of half the table.
So regardless of which game is harder, in the bay area, the no limit games are much harder than the equivalent limit games.
- target
"He won a hand Sunday with 96o . . . I can't find those thin value bets in NL."
A most interesting hand! I did a thin value bet on the river on that hand and got called and lost, when I was sure I had the winner. I forget some particulars but recall the main things.
I was on the button with the kill out which means I'm calling (at least) the extra $10 with any two cards.
I had 9-6. Flop came A-9-x or A-6-x, doesn't matter because I made two pair on the turn. The turn made a possible backdoor flush and the ace-on-board was not of the flush suit. The river was a deuce. The other guy had A-2 of the flush suit.
The pot was $60 or $80 before the flop. The flop was checked to me and I bet $40. The A-2 called and I thought he had a bad ace or a monster. There weren't any other choices, given the player.
He checked the turn and I bet about $40 less than the pot with my two pair. He called.
The river came a deuce, giving him top-and-bottom, and even though I was watching closely I could not tell that the deuce hit him. He checked again. I bet small, about $120, hoping he'd call with top pair.
When he called and I turned my hand over, I was STILL sure I had the best hand. He had picked up the back-door flush draw, which explains his call on the turn, and more importantly, why I couldn't read him. He was geared on the flush and had probably already planned his action if it came, and also his action if it didn't come, which was, to check smooth. The flush didn't come, and he checked smooth.
I'm thinking maybe I overrate 9-6 just a touch. :-)
Tommy
target wrote : "So regardless of which game is harder, in the bay area, the no limit games are much harder than the equivalent limit games."
maybe to you it is....but not to some of the ok nolimit players who are fish in the limit games (eldon for example). it goes both ways.
Unless I'm missing the point, it DOES seem obvious to me, that even a good limit player could be at a disadvantage against poor no-limit players. They are two very different games. It's like taking the Baltimore Ravens and pitting them against the Chicago Cubs. Even though the Cubs suck, they still figure to win a baseball contest. Unless of course they had to play them for the whole year and beat the Ravens for the World Series. Then the Cubbies would probably still find a way to choke.
I play in a game where we play 12 players on the table. i think being 12 players is a good advantage for a tight player. However, i wonder how i should adjust my strategy for these games.
The onyl adjustments i made is to simply fold Aj and KQ in the 3 first spot. Of course, suited connectors and suited aces went up in value in late position and i wonder if callin a hand like 6-8 suited after 5 limpers was EV+ in this kind of game
Ty for help
Charlie!
Although 12 players is a lot and you have a couple of more hands to look at between blinds I really think the "personality" of the table is a lot more important than the pure number of players.
IE: Are you seeing flops for more than one bet on a regular basis, how many enter a pot on a regular basis These questions seem a lot more important than the number of players unless we are comparing the table to 6 handed or so then you have a real disparity and different ball game.
Just a few thoughts.
Instead of counting your position forward from the blinds (1st poistion is "under the gun") you should count your position backwards from the button. You can then classify your position as "button", "late", "middle", and "early".
Well, 12 handed games have an additional category called "hopeless". Yes, don't waste your money with un-suited trouble hands when your position is hopeless. However, if you are in a typical somewhat-loose-passive game your drawing hands improve in value in hopeless position since you can expect more callers.
As for your calling in late position: it makes almost no difference how many players have folded. If 86s is worth playing in a 9 handed game after 5 calls then it is also worth playing in a 12 handed game after 5 calls.
- Louie
You can buy "Stat King" through Conjelco. Go to this URL to read a review by another player:www.twoplustwo.com/cgi-bin/smallholdem_arch.pl?read=781 - 8k
General Poker Theory
February 2001 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo