![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
When I first learned stud and was being taught by a friend who is an excellent stud player we had a debate about certain hands. I argued that small trips on third street an aces would fair equally as well if not better in 8 handed competition than head up. I argued that while lost a great deal of the time you would be getting odds of 7-1 and you would win enough than say if you won 90 percent of the times heads up. Also the starting hands would of the full field would not be nearly as good on average as the person willing to go heads up. Does anyone have any comments of math that is would show how even as the odds increase the probability of winning the hand decreases at a faster rate?
.
I'll take rolled up trips vs pocket aces anyday. I'll run the data tonite and report it tomorrow.
When you have rolled up trip deuces, you will win against 6 random opponents approximately 55.3 % of the time.
When you have rolled up trip aces, you will win against 6 random opponents approximately 69.2 % of the time.
When you have 2 aces and an unsuited little card (AA5 rainbow) you will win against 6 random opponents 30.7 % of the time.
Heads up, Ad Ac 5h VS. 2d 2c 2h : the trip deuces will win about 84.7 % of the time.
Trip deuces against trip aces heads up - trip aces will win 72.6 % of the time.
Bottom line - I'll take rolled up trip deuces over 2 aces any day.
-SmoothB-
x
I think his point is not that trips aren't any better than aces, but rather that the two hands might make more played against a large field for a single bet than a smaller field for a double bet. This is essentially the assumption you make when you chose not to raise with your rolled up trips until 6th street.
I'm not so sure about aces. Common sense says raise to prevent the two low pair suckouts, but maybe you would make more on the few times you hit your aces up.
It's sort of like asking if you'd rather play AA in HE against 9 people in for a single bet or 1 person for a double bet, so maybe there are cases in stud where you would call with aces on 3rd. I think you'd still limp reraise if given the opportunity, though.
I am not sure exactly what he meant. He said
,"...small trips on third street an aces would fair equally as well if not better in 8 handed competition than head up. I argued that while lost a great deal of the time you would be getting odds of 7-1 and you would win enough than say if you won 90 percent of the times heads up..."
I would not want to be up against 7 callers with bare aces or even aces up. The avg winning hand in a 7-8 man game is trips 8's. Of course there are times when all the straights and flushes could bust and Aces oe Aces up (on the river) could win, and when the do, they would win a lot of money. But if you had only Aces, would you be raising against 7 callers (I think not). Also, if you were rolled up with 7 or lower, I think you should raise early. Frankly, I would raise on 3rd with low trips and depending on position, on 4th or definitely on 5th with trips >9's.
I am going to Australia (Sydney) this summer. I hear the most popular game there is a game called Manila. Is there any hold'em played there? What are the basic rules of Manila? Is Manilla a game worth playing if you don't have a clue how to play, in other words will it cost me a lot to learn? If it will cost too much to learn there won't be much point playing because I will probably never play it again.
There is no poker (as of last November) in the casino in Sydney. In Melbourne, they have a big casino that has a lot of manila and some holdem, tho the holdem wasn't at very high stakes. I recommend forgetting gambling and checking out as much as you can of Sydney; you won't regret it.
As far as strategy for Manila, I have some ideas, but I don't have enough evidence to merit expressing them. Part of the fun for me was trying to analyze a new game that my opponents had all been playing forever.
JG
clinteroo
I run a private holdem game in Canberra every week. Canberra is about 3hrs drive from Sydney. Limit 5/10 with a kill, but we could arrange a bigger game if you're interested. email if you're interested on
sorry, dropped out before could finish. contact me on
stepok@yahoo.com.au if interested.
We'll get into trouble with the WFM over this but since you asked: Manila is played with a 32 or 36 card deck and is a communal form of 7cs. Each player is dealt 2 hole-cards, with one communal card turned to start, then there are another four upcards dealt one at a time, so there are five rounds in all. It's always played with limit betting, don't know the exact structure used in Crown casino, Melbourne, but usually only the last round is the big bet in games here. You must use both your hole-cards at the end. It's a very unusual game, and you would be advised to practise before youput any money into. There are an awful lot of suck outs becuase of the stripped deck and with five rounds of betting, each hand is expensive to play. Nothing you know about other forms of poker will help you much when you play manila.
There is no body of theory associated with the game, though someone ran up some basic charts recently. Some rues of thumb which many players use (some may be mutually contradictory: I don't play the game a lot and claim no expertise, though I think I'm winning overall)
Rolled trips are very common, and many good players refuse to play "mud runners" ie, trips lower than jacks, because if the board pairs you can usually only beat a straight (flushes out-rank full houses), so when someone bets at you after the board pairs, you are in trouble.
There a lot of split pots when four cards to a straight are out, so if you make a straight on fifth and a fourth straight card falls on sixth and there is a lot of betting and calling going on it means that you are going to be sharing the pot if you win, and if the board pairs on the river someone will probably scoop it with a boat. So your upside is small, and it will cost a lot to get to the end whatever happens. So you might have to throw away the nut straight on sixth if there are two or three bets and some calls before it gets to you,or if you have some raisers behind you. Sounds strange I know, but manila is like that. If you have the top trips of course you stay till the end no matter what. The board will pair at the end about 40% of the time, so if you are in the pot against several straights you are getting beautiful odds.
Starting hands: You can never play a pair which is dominated by the first upcard. QQ,and KK and sometimes even JJ is playable when the first upcard is smaller than your pair. (A,x) Going for a top straight when you have to get two perfect cards is not considered profitable by many players:eg: (AK)T, Q or J. You can sometimes win a huge pot with a baby straight, if you start with (T,x)A, where X is 7, 8 or 9. (the Ace counts as a six) The players with (A,x) will often hang on tillthe end, but they will need to make a book to beat you if you make your straight by fifth st. After all, if you have your straight, what can they have? If a ten falls or the board pairs you should surrender though.
Flushes are hard to get, and you should generally only play those which also have straight chances.
I don't know if any of this helps, and I can't guarantee the profitablilty of these points, but like I say, many players believe various bits of what I have said.
DZ.
manila' my favorite game...
Posted by: Aussie Kangaroo
Posted on: Friday, 14 July 2000, at 2:43 p.m.
Any comments on this hand?
Game 5-10 Omaha, full kill
Key players: D and E
6 Players see the flop for 10$ each on a kill hand (no raise).
Player A small blind $2
Player B large blind $5
Player C caller
Player D kill blind (AhJs8d7s)
Player E caller (AdJc9s3h)
Player F caller (inherits button)
Flop Tc9d7c
Action on Flop
A check: B check: C bet: D raise: E call: F,A and B fold, C call
Turn 9h
Action on turn
D bet: E raise: C fold: D fold ..... E wins, no showdown, but both hands were exposed afterwords.
Suppose the 3h were the 3d, (In player E's hand) does this change you opinion and if so, explain.
======================================================
Here is another O-8 hand.
As the first player to act in a game with very little pre-flop raising, and not a lot of agression in later rounds either.
You pick up Ad4c5d6s.
Do you raise, call, or fold?
Now, suppose you called.... and get 6 way action for no extra money.
Now the flop comes Ks Jc 4d
Now the BB bets out
What do you do?
I folded. I am not sure I did the right thing. I can imagine a multitude of excellent and good turn cards
-- excellent -- -- good --
{ 2d 3d 6d 7d 8d, 9d Td Qd 3c 3s 3h 7c 7s 7h }
In addition, there are quite a few decent ones, though some of these could lead you into making a 2nd best loser.
-- decent --
{ 2c 2h 2s 4h 4s } I left off the 3 off suit 8's because I really don't think calling for a bad low and a gutshot there makes sense, though it could work well. I also left off the three Aces, since your low will be almost surely no good if there are many players and you almost surely need to fill up to win. (and if few players come along, you implied odds get much worse than my basic assumptions) If I catch an Ace, I might call to see the river, but it is not really what I want to get.
So..... almost 1/2 the deck will probably cause you to take a peek at the river
After that, you will be looking at somewhere around 8 outs for high and a less clear low picture. I think a decent guess at you number of low outs is about 4. Sometimes you will have many, but other times, you will need a perfect card and still others will leave you with no shot to win low at all. You can also assume sometimes you will make a non-nut low and call, and still lose.
If we simply multiply outs here, we see that you will "get there" somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 in 8 times. My guess is that this justifies the call, but I've never been good at doing the math here. I will try.
I know you lose 1 small bet about 1/2 the time and lose 3 small bets about 3/8ths of the time**. Finally, you probably rate to win somewhere around 60% of the pot when you do get there. You will scoop some, but win half much of these times and sometimes get quartered.
Thus, in 8 hands, you will lose (1 * 4) + (3 * 3) = 9 small bets and you will win about 0.6 * ( pot_size ) - 3 bets (discounting action on the river, which rarely wins you lots of money unless you are scooping). If we have 7, 5, 3 callers in the 3 rounds before the river, the pot is 18 small bets, which comes to a win of 7.8 bets.
Now this analysis makes me think calling is bad, though not by much (barring rasises, which will almost always be bad for you, though if you turn a 3d, turn raises might not be so bad).
Any comments. Did I miss something in my method of analyzing all this. Were any of my assumptions way out of line?
Jim Morgan
** Based on the rather sweeping generalization that you will face exactly one bet on
Hand 1: Not much to comment on. E has a reasonable shot at an A3 low holding up given that only one other hand has shown any enthusiasm. He may have also 'read' what's going on. The other cards give him some hope of winning the high side. I think whichever 3 he has, calling is really the only sensible option given the information available here.
Hand 2: Ad4c5d6s Personally, I never raise with this hand. Change the 4 to a 3 and I would raise, but missing both the 2 and 3 is more than my fragile nerves can handle, and it seems like every time I win with one of those middlish-low straights - ESPECIALLY in a loose-passive game - the high gets chopped 2 or 3 ways.
As for whether to call on the flop, I'm folding. I think your analysis is pretty good, but I would add that some turn and river cards that improve your hand are also action killers. Any A or 2 hitting, or the 4 pairing, will almost certainly induce some folds. So things are probably not even as good as your analysis indicates.
First hand. I can understand the call from player E, although it's very marginal without the three being a diamond. Bare A-3 combo has an insecure chance at low. A-J combo is fair, J-9 combo is weaker. That's it, just three combos and none for the nuts before the flop, except maybe A-3 if a deuce flops.
E has no call after the flop. Pretty gutsy play for a game with six players seeing the flop.
E has no raise after the turn.
If I were playing hand D, I would call the raise from player E after the turn, even though there is a pair on the board. Although I think player D has a clear fold here with several opponents, I think player D has a call against only one opponent. Here everyone has folded to E's raise. D is playing too weakly. Sounds like player E is running all over this game and getting away with it.
Second hand. I like to mix up my play with A-4-5-6 suited. Mostly it's just a calling hand for me, but I raise pre-flop in late position about 25% of the time with it. With a flop of Ks Jc 4d, you missed the flop. Fold.
The trouble with calling here is that you probably don't have the best hand. Wouldn't you rather have a pair of kings (or even jacks) or a queen-ten to go with this flop? Ask yourself what cards you would want after any given flop. If you don't have them, frequently your opponent does. In the situation described the big blind probably has at least (1) pair of kings, (2) a pair of jacks, (3) queen-ten, or (4) king-jack. Wouldn't you rather have any one of these combinations than what you actually have? The best times to give up in Omaha high/low are (1) before the flop and (2) after the flop.
Just my opinion.
Buzz
.
Hi, Louie. Please post the result of the "lesson" you posted below. I appreciate it.
Post deleted at author's request.
its so great to see you admit that you make mistakes like the rest of us Badger. now that person who always says you never admit to being wrong is wrong. hooray for you.
oh, one other thing Badger. your mistakes are so horrendous that it may be wise to never listen to anything you say anymore:)
What were the mistakes? He spelled duh wrong maybe?
Vince
Kind of gives a whole different flavor to the term "bad beat" doesn't it?
Even if you're the best Omaha player alive, I don't see how anybody can maintain the concentration day in and out to avoid misreading a hand at least once in a while. You'd have to be a machine.
As for lowball, I'm always amazed whenever anyone whose IQ is at least two digits manages to stay awake for more than three consecutive hands. Maybe you were sleep-fogged.
Thanks for sharing the stories.
Your first mistake seems to me a pretty good move.You could have wasted even more of your valuable time.The second is practically routine in ireland.Surely the biggest mistake was in not offering Vince a piece of the action.DoooooooH.
badger ...
will your next article be entitled," tactics and strategies..the dumb and dumber of it"
great to see you sharing a session... but as ray says can we believe what you preach now in your posts
guess we can put the faith back in there...unless of course you muck again ...then we`ll get to hear vince tilt......
jg
"raise with AQhJ6h"
A4 was bad enough. You get looser every day! No wonder you can't win tournaments anymore!
"I immediately bet $100 on former Lowball World Champion and Lowball "player of the year" Vince Burgio"
Lowball player of the year? LOL. Someone must win the most slot tournaments, but I wouldn't back that someone.
"Last night's Lowball tournament. 48 players, dull as paste Lowball."
Maybe your problem is that you play boring games. You should take up stud.
Badger thanks for sharing your infalibility, but if I were to list all my Whopper's I would never get off this computer and would end up in jail.
paul the right coast
wrong coast paul,
maybe you and badger can get together and try to find out who is the most incompetent. ill award a prize. let me know where to send it to you. yfrz
Just send it to me I make bigger mistakes than those two before I even get into my car.
ukw
RCP
STORE 24
MALDEN, MA 02175
In general when we bet or raise we are signifying a very good hand. But to balance our strategy and not be readable, we must also sometimes bet or raise with hands that are not that good. But which hands should they be? Should they be the very worst of them, thus saving the better ones for calling purposes? Should they instead be hands that are just slightly below our legitimate betting or raisng hands, thus giving us the best chance to win if called? Or should they be in between? Or does it depend and if so on what?
"Should they instead be hands that are just slightly below our legitimate betting or raisng hands, thus giving us the best chance to win if called? "
They should be in this category but not specifically for the reason of giving yourself a chance to win. The reason is that when you show the hand your opponents become confused about your raising requirements. If you were to start with a horrible hand many opponents would realize that you were just out trolling and pass it off. So a reasonable hand that is out of the realm of what to expect is the best. BTW- that could include some hands a little worse than what the above implies.
Vince.
I kind of agree with what your saying but even if you raise occasionally with hands other than you suggest, you show it down and your opponents know what your doing you still gain something. Your showing them that when you raise you likely have a big hand but not always.
For this reason I think it valuable to raise with hands just below raising hands in value (for the reasons you stated). Plus other hands like raising occasionally with 87s to show opponents that you are capable of raising with hands other than Ace-Big or a pair. Plus I feel you lose little by raising with hands you'd otherwise call with b/c they have a good chance of making a playable hand.
Raising with abosute trash makes little sense to me. You'll hit a flop less often and show it down even less so chances are that the deception you try to gain by playing these hands will be futile b/c you showdown these hands less often then other resaonable hands and when this happens you gain nothing.
In my opinion, they should be hands that A) cost you as little as possible, and B) Hit flops that aren't expected to help a raiser's hand. Therefore, I'm not gaining much by 'deceptively' raising with a hand like AJ, since any flop that helps that hand could legitimately help a 'regular' raising hand like AK or JJ.
I specifically don't want opponents running all over me when I raise and a flop comes up 568. So, I'm gaining some protection for my 'real' raising hands by ocassionally raising with a hand like 89s.
If I'm playing in a game tight enought that I have some chance of winning the blinds from an UTG raise, then an occasional raise with a hand like 55 might not be a bad idea, since you can hit the lowest of flops with it, and EV from the blind steals means the raise costs very little in the long run.
I think that, other than eliminating the most hopeless hands, the best course is generally to let the situation determine your variations from otherwise optimium strategy. A player who is alert to his opponents will often spot situations to raise a hand he might otherwise call or even fold. This is especially true if you are the one who is paying attention and thinking ahead while your opponent is daydreaming or inwardly bemoaning his previous beat. This points up the value of thinking ahead *further and faster* than your opponent. Of course, experience helps greatly (for some) in this regard.
As far as the relative strengths of hands you would want to play other than "optimally", the surprise factor is quite valuable. If you only deviate slightly from your usual standards, your aware opponemts won't be influenced much, and your unaware opponents could care less. The trick is to find hands that truly surprise the opposition, without giving up too much expected value. Examples might be limping with aces in holdem or buried aces in stud, or more to the point, reraising with 76s in holdem under the right conditions--say you see you can't get the kind of multi-way action you would like with the 76s, but the late position raiser to your right appears to be stealing, and you can read him fairly well and have reasonably good control over him. Now a reraise may well be best, and if you show down the hand you will definitely create an impression in the minds of all who were watching.
Needless to say, plays of this type should be chosen carefully and cannot be overused, but they are close to an ideal way to vary your game without giving up much (tactically you may even be gaining), and will definitely create an impression.
Once you are sure you have created an impression (of any type), look for ways to use it to your advantage._
While there may be some value to having a "frequency" for playing deceptive hands, or playing hands deceptively, I really think that you can find most or all of your opportunities to do so by looking for specific situations. If the players in your game are too tough for that, you might have to implement some sort of "frequency" method (or look for a softer game). Note that Abdul seems to place great stock in not allowing your betting patterns to be readable. While this may be excellent advice perhaps against extremely good players and worth giving up some expected value for, I don't think it would be largely necessary except in very tough games. If there are only a couple tough players in the game you must be very alert to what is happening at all times and who is in the pot, and you must try to keep good balance between exploiting the weaker players and not being exploited by the tough ones. The situation can become especially tricky with a wide mix of skill levels contesting one pot.
Even in very tough games you should be able to find some specific situations that will allow you to deviate effectively. If you don't find these situations on the surface, you may be able to find them by getting deeper into your understanding of your opponents' thinking, or by thinking on more levels than they do. Of course, some of them may be able to do the same to you.
All in all I would say that generally you should let situations help you pick the spots to deviate, but that you should occasionally deviate anyway, bearing in mind that your goal is primarily to truly surprise your opponents and to take advantage of this both immediately (the current hand) and long-term (future hands), while not giving up too much expected value in the process.
When I'm playing pot limit or no limit holdem, I'm constantly raising UTG with hands like 64o and 53o. This makes me extremely unpredictable and allows me to get a lot of action. Even I cannot put myself on a hand.
It also makes you a loser
"When I'm playing pot limit or no limit holdem, I'm constantly raising UTG with hands like 64o and 53o. This makes me extremely unpredictable and allows me to get a lot of action. Even I cannot put myself on a hand."
After a little while you would be rightly pinned down as a maniac. Nothing unpredictable about that. (Since you don't say otherwise, I assume full handed.)
Your raises will be cold-called with greater frequency by all the good hands after you; the mediocre and drawing hands will fold, robbing you of any odds that would give your move any marginal value.
I do not endorse playing total garbage hands for psychological effect. I would never consider playing a 4-3 offsuit to look ridiculous and crazy. I do play something like a 6-5 suited on occasion. If you do play small connectors to vary your game, may as well have them suited and get the benefit from that.
Bob Ciaffone is undoubtedly the tightest player in the entire world. I once heard you laid a set down to one bet on the flop! You should by a wrench, to help you clamp it down.
Youve obviously not played with Bob when hes stuck.I can remember a guy looking ruefully at Bobs hand in a game in london once upon and remarking that this (winning) hand wasnt ranked very highly in his book on omaha.Bob replied that he wasnt stuck 1500 Pounds when he wrote that chapter.
Bob might be tight but the tightest player to ever make a living at poker was George Collins. He played in LV for years, I think he was originally from upstate NY.
Do any of you guys remember George? He was the rock of rocks but got enough action to make a good living.
If you are talking about holdem, then the answer is almost exclusively a function of whether or not there are more cards to yet to come. Basically, with more cards to come, you want your deceptively-played weak hand to be as strong as possible (either to prevent free cards for worse hands, or as a semibluff). When all the cards are out, and you decide to play a weak hand deceptively (i.e. bluff), it's best to choose the weakest ones (the ones that cannot win if shown down). There is something to be said for value-betting weak hands that you plan to call with anyway, but I don't think that's what David is refering to, since such a bet is only slightly deceptive.
The same would be true of stud, except that the possibility of scare cards throws in a monkeywrench. That is, there are times in stud games that playing a very weak hand fast is correct even when there are cards yet to come.
Tom Weideman
...but the point of Deceiving is what the name says and also what Sklansky's own Fundamental Theorem of Poker suggests. It's to make your opponent play very differently than how he'd play had he known your hand.
Perhaps Sklansky's after some rigorously and mathematically correct answer here, which defines a new "sub-category" of starting hands, hands with which it's alright to bluff irrespective of early/late into the game, type of opponents, etc; I wouldn't know. When I raise with QJo UTG, early in the game, I'm not deceiving anyone; I'm just playing the hand wrong. When I raise with that hand in another game, after a couple of hours have passed and, win or lose, I have showed down respectable hands, you could say I'm trying to deceive.
So, for me, the answer is IT DEPENDS. If you've been sold as relatively tight to the rest of the players than you can afford to play even garbage, all things considered. If you've been caught one too many times stealing and everybody knows it, you should have some very legitimate outs and you should not totally bluff when all the cards are out either, not until your image at the table has changed.
With a hand like 76s, I think that you get a draw about 20% of the time. So unless you hit a miracle flop like 77x or get a draw and hit - a lot of "deceptive hands" get mucked along with several bets.
If you win with them bluffing you may gain some tactical advantage by showing them, but that's a different arguement.
I'd really like to hear some opinions and ideas on post flop play e.g. check raising with second pair when heads up - what is the effect of that on an opponent? What does he do when you check the turn? Will he reraise you when you next do it and have a legitimate hand?
There must be some dramatic plays that can seriously effect opponents perception of you that can be achieved at minimum cost.
Very true in general.
In my example however, note that I am not commonly advocating this hand primarily for deceptive purposes, but rather in very specific situations as a tactical weapon against certain types of opponents.
The deceptive value is almost a side effect.
Pre flop (sorry David), I think it is best to be deceptive with hands that cost you only a little in EV (if at all) but stand out from the crowd.
For example, Mason't play of raising with small to medium pairs in back against a large field is rarely seen at the table. If you want to do it, why not do it with 22 or 33? Or raise a large field in back with 45 suited rather than JT suited.
On the other hand, don't raise several limpers with marginal offsuit hands such as AJ. This won't even raise an eyebrow of the average player but really can cost you some money.
In early position, it is important to use some deception. I just wrote a piece under the thread AA, KK on the holdem forum that notes a few examples.
There are too many post flop examples to enumerate but one area you should make a move now and then is raise bluffing on the end. You want to do this in spots where it has a reasonable chance of working, so if you are skillful, it should make you money. When you are caught, it is good enough just to throw your hand away unless someone asks to see it. Then it looks authentic and will get you action from those players when you want it.
Regards,
Rick
David,
Pre flop (sorry David), I think it is best to be deceptive with hands that cost you only a little in EV (if at all) but stand out from the crowd.
For example, Mason't play of raising with small to medium pairs in back against a large field is rarely seen at the table. If you want to do it, why not do it with 22 or 33? Or raise a large field in back with 45 suited rather than JT suited.
On the other hand, don't raise several limpers with marginal offsuit hands such as AJ. This won't even raise an eyebrow of the average player but really can cost you some money.
In early position, it is important to use some deception. I just wrote a piece under the thread AA, KK on the holdem forum that notes a few examples.
There are too many post flop examples to enumerate but one area you should make a move now and then is raise bluffing on the end. You want to do this in spots where it has a reasonable chance of working, so if you are skillful, it should make you money. When you are caught, it is good enough just to throw your hand away unless someone asks to see it. Then it looks authentic and will get you action from those players when you want it.
Regards,
Rick
In another post I mentioned picking up the 5/26 issue of Card Player Magazine to read Badger's article. It is entitled "Rebounding". I wasn't going to post on this because I felt like I would only be doing it to pick on Badger. Believe me that is not something I like to do. O.k., O.k. I like to pick on Badger but only because I like Badger. I do. I've never met him except here on the forum but that doesn't matter. I finnd him a very willing participant that can hold his own in any arguement on the subject of poker. Plus he is more than willing to share his knowledge and experience with us less fortunate. So even though I didn't want to pick on the Badger man I am in a frustration mode and need to vent so here goes.
Badger makes this statement in the article "the most common defensive poker tactic is raising to get a free card." This statement alone points to a fundamental misunderstanding of tactical use and manuevering. Badger in earlier discussions where he accused me of trolling puts forth an arguement that discussing a tactic without discussing the underlying strategy behind it is useless. I disagreed with that in part because it was part of a larger discussion on hand analysis. Badger was not for doing much hand anaylsis.
So here I am again trolling. You see "raising to get a free card" is an offensive tactic" not a defensive tactic. The goal of the tactic is a free or cheaper card. You make an ofeesive move to obtain your goal. the free card. That's it. Badger further shows his misunderstanding of tactical manuevers with his introduction to the article. He quotes Bill Russell a famous Celtic Basketball player noted for his defensive prowess. I quote:" I get most of my rebounds before they even took their shot". He uses this tstament and Russells other statements made during an interview to emphasis his point on defensive play. What he failed to see was taht Russell was not talking defense at all. Russell was talikng about rebounds. His goal was to win the reboud battle. He studied his opponents, their strengths, their weaknesses etc and then he developed and employed tactis to win the rebound war. His goal became rebounds and he made Offensive moves or tactics to gain his goal.
There are defensive tactics in poker. They include folding, calling , checking and some others I'm sure but not raising to get a free card. I would appreciate oppinions from others on this subject. Because as I stated above this is only my opinion and such just a discussion point. However, this discussion may be fundamental to understanding poker concepts in general and well worth the time to explore.
Vince
I have heard somewhere that the best defense is a good offense. Perhaps the line between offense and defense is inherently a bit fuzzy anyway.
Vince - Defense in sports is not weakly covering up and protecting yourself (except maybe in boxing if you are really taking a beating). Put simply for ball sports, defense is what you do when the other team has the ball.
Even if you are a defensive tackle in football and are yourself attacking the quarterback, that is considered defense. In attacking the quarterback you are defending your own goal. (Would you call a goal line stand offense)?
Similarly, rebounding from the other team's basket is considered defense in basketball because in doing so you are defending your goal (which is the other team's basket).
Raising from late position to get a free card in poker is also defense, because, presumably, you are on a draw and expecting to not bet the next round. You are thus looking to get the next card for half price. Of course if you hit your draw, then you will change from defense to offense, just like the defensive tackle who takes the ball away from the quarterback. Now the roles of the two teams reverse.
Think of the raise in poker with cards yet to come as the first step of a two step process. If the second step is a check, then the raise was a defensive maneuver. However, if the first step raise is followed by a bet, then the raise either was an offensive maneuver, or the raiser just got the rebound and is now on offense. Get it?
When you raise on the small bet round and then check on the big bet round, the whole tactic becomes clear to your alert opponents, but (if they have checked to you expecting you to bet) it becomes clear too late to them.
Buzz
Post deleted at author's request.
There's no time warp here in Vegas,read your article today.Hits the nail on the head when it comes to tilt for a lot of players over miss placed expectations. Amazing how many players who get so technical over poker theory can put themselves on tilt over routine events(ie losing with AA).I know,I'm one of them,now if I can apply what I know it gets much easier.For what its worth,your articles and Cooke's are what makes reading that freebie worth my time.
I have not yet seen the issue with the coin flip at Foxwoods
"it's not really important to think about the terms seperately"
Finally. Agreement!
Vince.
What is important is to understand the tactic and it's use. I could argue with Buzz but there is no point and it would serve no purpose. The point I was trying to make about Russell was that he changed the game for himself, personally. He changed the goal from stopping the opponent from scoring to getting the rebound. For him rebounding became the game. He developed a strategy to win that game. His tactics became his offense in winning the game of rebounding. Certainly he was half the time on the defensive boards but he was also half the time on the offensive boards if you just term things as offense when his team has the ball and defense when the other team has the ball. Semantics? Maybe? Important? It's in the eyes of the beholder.
Just a side note;
Did you know that the NBA record for the highest average offensive rebounds per game for a career is 5.1 ?
Record is held by that other famous M.M.,Moses Malone.
Also,They did not keep stats on offensive and defensive rebounds until the 72/73 season.
Just a tidbit,nothing else.
By "them" I mean those who don't read this Forum. Elsewhere I brought up a hypothetical $5000 No Limit Holdem, head up freezout. Both players start with 50 one hundred dollar chips and ante one chip each. (Unequal blinds and the button don't matter due to the nature of this proposition). I assumed that one of the two players agrees to move in every hand regardless of his cards. Though it would not be true in other games, in holdem, this scenario gives the other player a surprisingly small advantage, even when played perfectly. My guess was that the all in player wins about three out of eight freezouts. Paul Pudaite told us that it is actually 39% and would be more against non perfect play.
This result is of course a lot different than many people would think. I would venture to say that many would lay 5-2, and if not that, at least 2-1 that they would win the freezout against the perpetual mover inner. That is both mathematically and psychologically interesting. But let's make it more than that. Let's punish those who don't respect math and more importantly don't read this forum. We do that by spreading across the country and getting people to play us this proposition. In other words find people who will take the non all in hand with their 50 chips, and therefore constantly have to decide whether to call your all in move with their remaining stack (a stack that is smaller than yours unless they won an earlier large confrontation or play the first hand-I say that to make sure you understand the proposition.) Meanwhile you have a bet as to who will win this freezout, getting at least 9-5 odds on that bet. Hopefully of course, you will play as many such freezouts, getting these odds, as you can. Most freezouts should only take a few minutes.
Now to do this right, you need to use a little street sense. If you broach the subject out of thin air, most will smell a rat. Rather you should talk about the World Series of Poker, how much luck there seems to be in the tournaments and how someone who merely moves in a lot before the flop can get lucky. You eventually segueway into the proposition by saying something like "what would you lay me if I moved in every hand". Keep in mind the odds quoted are for a 50 chip, one chip ante each, freezout. It is even better if it is for less chips with the same ante, but don't go above 50 unless the odds are better than 2-1. When you guys have taken as many people as you can, in every card room in the country, report back to me with your results. And don't forget to remind your customers that they paid the price for not checking out this forum. That is the only reward I want. But you might want to give Paul a little commission.
It was very easy for me to create a program where the computer goes all-in on every hand under the conditions described (well, nearly, I was playing blinds of 100 and 200 due to forgetting the exact details of the original post). On a quick test I won 14 tournaments out of 20, although this is of course a very small sample.
Of course if you released a computer program which just went all-in every hand heads-up it wouldn't look very good. However I suspect that I can beat my own program at least 70% of the time heads up and I know that certain commercial programs I could beat 80-90% of the time in heads-up equal stack conditions (especially with constant blinds). Interesting.
Should I get the time to put together a computer counter-strategy I will be able to perform a statistically significant number of runs and I will let you know what happens.
Andy.
Yes, 20 tournaments is a very small sample, statistically speaking. If you are playing well and I did my computation correctly, there's a 15% chance that you'll win 14 or more tournaments out of 20.
If you are still winning 70% of the tournaments after 200 tournaments, let me know and I will check my work.
By the way, with the extra chip in the pot (from the 2 chip big blind), you should win less frequently than 61%, because the all-in strategy becomes less incorrect.
In my younger days I wrote a nasty letter to the editor about Edward Thorpe. The reason was that when asked about a blackjack situation that he hadn't put on his computer, he referred to further computer programs rather than common sense. By saying you will "check your work" rather than "Andy's result are logically impossible" you committed the same sin mathmeticians sometimes commit. Since two overcards vs. two undercars is less than 2-1 favorite and a pair against one overcard is about 2.5-1, it is absurd to believe the all inner could win only 30%. You should have said that.
David's line of reasoning is sensible, but computational verification is still required. This is because for sufficiently large stacks, the "all inner" (cute neologism, David!) could win less than 15% of the time. (I need to acknowledge WSOP Chinese Poker Champion Jim Feldhouse for recognizing this first.)
By the way, I actually had the opportunity to get odds as high as 10-3 on the prop today. I was lucky and won 4 out of 5 times!
I think anyone willing to place 10-3 odds here isn't playing near optimal strategy to begin with. That's not to say you weren't lucky...just not as lucky as you think you were.
Dan
I noticed when I was trying it out that it's very tempting to play A-small and small-to-medium pairs which I think is probably wrong.
Andy.
I'd just like to make it clear that I was not suggesting anyone was wrong, simply stating what had happened in a statistically small, perhaps extremely small, sample.
Andy.
You can take 2-1 for sure. Now go do it.
...the next time I see Daniel Negreaunu, I can just tell him "Forget about Gary Carson, I'll play you head up no limit for 5-1"???
The first results are in from the midwest.
Tried the "all in" NLHE freezeout sidebet with a buddy at last night's game. He is a skilled tournament player (double qualified for TOC, etc) while I am just a ring game mope. I think he would have given me 2-1 odds just to play him heads-up anyway, but I used your suggestion to lead in with a "those tournaments are all luck" line.
We set up with 20 chips each with blinds of 1 and 2. He gave me 3-1 odds on the side bet and I went all in at EVERY first opportunity preflop. He was very confident that he would win the sidebet and was very interested in the arrangement---as were several others in our game.
I won two of the three freezeouts, and pocketed his cash. We would have kept going, but the other players wanted us back in the poker game. He is interested in another try later.
Should I feel bad about scamming my buddy ala a "bar bet"? Nah! This guy personally knocked me out of the last tournament I played in Tunica. Also, he will lurk/post on rgp, but just can't seem to do the keystrokes to get over here to 2+2. And to top it all off, he is now reading the "Championship" books.
I'm using my winnings to buy the new Feeney book. See? Even Mason makes some money out of this.
Abe
Abe,
You surprise me!
Vince
Nice. 3-1 with only 20 chips each is MASSIVE. If your buddy thinks hard enough about why he's not taking your money it will help his game in the long run so don't feel bad :-).
If anyone thinks this is theory which can't be applied in practice, think again. Think about the best player you know, or the best player in the world, someone you would really fear heads-up. Do you think you would only be a 2-1 dog playing "normal" heads-up poker ? While you don't necessarily have to plunge it all in every hand, the lesson is to avoid all-in confrontations against a very weak opponent but go all-in, or at least commit to the hand, more often against a very strong opponent (certainly don't make many big laydowns).
I honestly believe that Chris Ferguson was almost certainly considering this as at least a factor when he made his final call.
Andy.
I have noticed what appears to be a phenomenon and have adjusted my game on occasion because of it.
It is simply this: I feel that women in general are more intuitive than men and tend to be better "people-readers". Therefore, when it is a close decision as to whether to attempt a bluff against a woman, I am less likely to do so than I would if my opponent were a man and all conditions were otherwise equal.
I am wondering if others have noticed this phenomenon, and welcome any remarks. Please note that this is in no way a sexist observation, merely my impressions at the poker table and my assessment of the occasional value of taking this factor into consideration.
Of course its a sexist observation.Now heres another one .Id be more likely to bluff a woman if it is a close decision as you can trust them to pass if it is the logical move because they dont have the masculine preference for losing money rather than looking stupid.
An observation based on sex is not necessarily a sexist observation. Sexism implies bigotry of some sort. Observing what seem to be subtle differences is not necessarily sexist or bigoted. If these differences affect the poker arena and interactions between players, they may have some degree of value in the decision-making process.
Note that I am not saying "all women", merely that in my experience, women "tend" to be better people-readers on an intuitive level than are men. I am not talking about anyone's proclivity for throwing away money, nor their capacity for rational actions; I am only saying that if I bluff, I think a woman may be more likely to "sense it" somehow. And I don't mean all women either; just more women than men.
Perhaps bluffing just isnt your natural game or dealing with women for that matter.
Not the strongest parts of my game.
Mine neither.
Your observation is partly correct, but as with all generalizations, could cost you money against the wrong woman. Aside from the female poker stars, the average woman plays a poker hand the same way she deals with men: it's hard to get her involved, but once she does, she doesn't let go very easily.
Yes, I am aware that it is a generalization, and for me it would fall well below almost every other factor in making a decision.
However, I am just wondering whether others have noticed this phenomenon too.
yes very basic fact ..women have had this gift since mankind began..I believe it had to do with child bearing and rearing...let alone considering thier genetics
I've played with a lot of women and can't really generalize on their play. Their playing styles and tendencies seem to vary as much as men's. I treat everyone who sits at my table as an individual to be disected on his or her own merits.
Good point, and that is my preference also. I would rely on generalizations omly in cases of incomplete information and very close decisions.
"I treat everyone who sits at my table as an individual to be disected on his or her own merits."
Being a cannibal has it's downfalls always sharpening the scapel in ISO then heating it in a oven at 150c for 4 hours. Life's a beach than you eat one!!!
ukw
Women are easier to bluff because of their extra attention to your subtle body languages. As far as I can remember I have 100% success bluffing (both bluff and reverse bluffs) female players in poker so far. Men generally think of the situation and what kind of person you are (past behavior) to determine the likelihood of you bluffing this time. Females look to your feelings and body languages, i.e, breathing rate, tone of voice,expression, movements. The way you move your chips in will influence her decisions. This is more extreme, most men and females use both methods to read you. You just have to find out what composition the person is masculine/feminine. After all humans have both left and right brains, but generally males have better developed right brain which deals with spatial, mathematical thinking. For example to navigate by remembering which way is the way out from past experiences, cognitive learning. This is why females know more about someone the first time they met than males does. Men use their memories to recall past moves made by you and think accordingly,i.e. deciding whether your a maniac,tight,etc. REMEMBER you can get masculine females and feminine males. To bluff men you normally have to set it up and let them think that your not deviating from your norm. To bluff females, this is my talent, just fake your body language.
Has it rver worked?
It works for me the majority of the time. Psycology is essential in pot limit and no limit tournaments. If you want to learn more about the differences in men and women, read "Men are from mars and women are from venus" by professor John Gray. It will give you some ideas about communicating with females. It will improve your sexual relationship as well. A female friend gave me it as a present.
Your comments suggest to me that you know very little about bluffing and even less about women.
Good bluffers have a high rate of success anyway. This is because:
(1) they only bluff in situations where they can credibly represent an unbeatable hand;
(2) they avoid bluffing in situations where the cost of calling them down is small, i.e., they pick situations where it's going to cost the opponents a lot of money to see the bluffer's hand;
(3) they don't give off blatant tells.
(4) they select their victims based on the opponent's previous playing patterns (as opposed to stereotypical views of that person's gender, race, age, etc.)
Your views of how women play poker are so far wrong that they would be laughable if not for the fact that similar views are the rationalization for continued discrimination against women in other aspects of life.
However, if you really feel you would have a 100% success rate bluffing against me, you are welcome to join my table any time.
Lol, Lin You misunderstood what I was saying. I didn't suggest any stereotypical views about women. I did mention masculinity/feminity but I also said that men and women BOTH have these traits. My suggestion to M was more about dealing with different types of people. Emotional and/or Mechanical. I believed that M knows all the pricinples that you mentioned, what I suggest is extensions to a regular bluffer. These concepts are good enough for smaller tournaments but the opponents I play against doesn't have MUCH patterns to there moves. They give off opposing tells with the same hands. I do represent a believable big hand and I do make it expensive for the opponents to see our hand (most bluffs are all ins more than mathematically eliminating the odds for them to call). I have to say again I did not grouped men and women separately. This was the subject of this thread, I just suggest ideas for bluffing masculine/feminine behaviour not male and females.
Whoever at the poker table treats woman the same as men, Orientals the same as Occidentals, and Seniors the same as young adults is not destined for a great poker career. I recommend joining the ACLU and forgetting about poker. Yes, there are exceptions to the stereotypes, butsometimes at poker you are forced to take action based on minimal info, and stereotypes are a lot better than a stone guess.
Bob, I said I don't base my judgements on stereotypes because it made me sound too sexist to Lin! Its very hard to suggest something and not get an argument these days. I started with a method to bluff male/female players, then got a complaint from Lin and so I changed it to masculine/feminine players. Now you're attacking me! I will quit poker when I lose my BR. I started playing bj and poker with only £40, now I'm playing £100 min buy in pot limit tournaments weekly. This is very surprising in my country for an 18 year old.
This is very illegal in some countries for an 18 yearold
My comments about taking into account things like the sex of your opponent when playing poker does not mean an endorsement of the thesis that was proposed. For example, if you play a grayhaired lady for being on a bluff you could be right, but you are going uphill. The thesis that was proposed is that women are harder to bluff because they read opponents better. There is nothing in my own experience to support this particular idea. Women do pick up on whether a man is a member of that particular group of males who hate to lose to a woman and are likely to resort to anything in order to get the pot. Since I am not a member of that group (having had my butt kicked many times by women at bridge, chess, backgammon, etc. as well as poker) I have not noticed my bluffs picked off by women any more than by men (or any less).
Forget about treating women the same as men. If you treat all men the same or all women the same you've already made a mistake. Rather than making a decision on a stereotype which probably has no basis in reality, why not use simple observation to gain objective information?
I know we can construct a fantasy situation where we're suddenly at the river with a player of some particular group, and we're forced to make a decision with no other information. But that situation really almost never comes up in the day to day battles.
And I seriously doubt that one's EV improves by digging into some arbitrary racial stereotype to make the fantasy decision yield a profit.
In fact, even in the case of the straw man emergency situation where minority group membership is all we know, I would suggest that the individuals physical appearence (dress, grooming, weight, style of betting, how they approached the table, even how they ordered their drink) is a more valid criteria for making a decision than some half-baked, sloppily preconceived stereotype.
There are no groups in poker. Only individuals.
-Marc
I agree with this physical appearance theory.If your opponent Looks like a woman go ahead and bluff.
No, I don't think I misunderstood. I've been on the receiving end of this crap my whole life. I've heard the same arguments as yours thousands of times, also the same denial, i.e., "I'm not sexist because I say I'm not."
However, that is getting off-topic. The question is whether women are easier to bluff than men. I have never seen evidence that, given equal playing experience and knowledge of the game, this is so. Where women are at a disadvantage is that many do not have the same experience or knowledge of the game that men of similar age, education, income, etc. have. They may also be playing on smaller bankrolls, because of the continued income disparities between men and women. So if you want to make assumptions based on those factors, I don't have a problem. But this right brain/left brain we-all-have-a-masculine-and-feminine side crap just wears real thin. It's been largely refuted by recent research, by the way, especially the right-brain/left-brain stuff.
You are two beacons in this otherwise silly, sexist, pseudo-scientific stuff.
Regards,
John
Nothing scientific about it at all in my opinion!
Just curious if others might have found women a tad bit harder to bluff out of a pot.
My pseudo-scientific theory at this point says it just might be because women can "smell" a bluff a wee bit better than can the average mechanical man. And, believe it or not, I have read that it is an actual scientific fact that women do possess a keener sense of smell in the biological sense too.
Silly? Why not. Have you ever actually tracked your bluffing success ratio versus both sexes? Or maybe it's just me. That's exactly what I'm trying to find out!
I will say that anyone who summarily discounts the possibility of such a thing is not likely to have a truly scientific mind. A scientific observer does just that---observe. He/she does not form conclusions first and then admit or dismiss possible theories or evidence based upon whether or not they gibe with his/her preconceived notions. Equal rights and respect by all means! But are we all actually equal? The furthest thing from the truth!
I will now illustrate this point by submitting a pseudo-scientific hypothesis. Women are more likely to see flashed cards by the dealer than men! If you want to call this sexist by all means go right ahead. Women are on average shorter than men, and their eye level is therefore lower when sitting, making it possible to see some flashed cards that the average man couldn't see. Maybe this is it! You can't bluff your opponent if she knows what you have!
M,
My comment wasn't directed at your initial post. I took that as a valid question, but I was a bit taken aback by some of the responses. I know you can learn a lot by observing, but I'm afraid your proposed observation would not be subject to strict control, and the only valid conclusion would be that some people will have differing opinions about the subject.
But, I'll agree--many women I know do smell better than mechanical men. I'm not refering to intuition.
Now, and I hate to do this, I'll venture forth with my theory in an attempt to back up your observation. Women who play poker have entered into what might be broadly characterized as a male arena. Like many people who enter a new setting, particulary one often thought the sole province of the male, women may feel a need to both prove themselves and show they can't be intimidated. As a rough analogy, I offer the rookie cop. (I have a few friends who are police officers and they confirm this.) They need to show they are not intimidated. New teachers also report similar feelings.
Think about your own playing experience as you moved up in levels. Didn't you also feel the need to show you couldn't be intimidated, at least at first. Of course, now you know that your fold to a bluff can often be the right move and should not necessarily be seen as a sign of weakness.
I think that given so many factors impossible to quantify, my approach to your question might have some validity. Or have I drapped myself in the mantle of sexism here?
Regards,
John
Good post John and thanks for the clarification.
If you're having 100% success bluffing ANY specific group, or any specific person, either you haven't played this opponent very much, or you're not bluffing enough.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Certainly true Greg. I seem to have noticed over the years that my bluffing success ratio tends to be lower against women.
Not 100% anymore. Just failed once against this woman tonight. I was too busy thinking about my university exams tommorrow and lack a bit of aggression to go all in on the river. She told me she was going to fold her pair kings because she thought I had flop trip queens. I haven't played women players much, maybe just around 30. I played the worst I ever did tonight, with 7 buy ins, a personal record! Its a lesson to be learn, never play poker if you can't focus on it. Surprisingly I was in top form for bj. This naturally shows that poker takes more concentration.
In my experience it isn't that women "tend" to be better people readers, its that they "tend" to make more bad calls to show that they can't be bullied around. In my experience that "tends" to be the case alot in older women playing in higher limit games. I got called down by an older women the other night in a 15-30 holdem game that held a-k against my aa all the way to the river on a flop of 9 10 2, Turn Q, river J. Although it makes bluffs ineffective, you get payed off well on your winners.
Here's a question for you all: What do you think the riskiest plays are in poker? I would define that as the plays that have the highest variance combined with the lowest EV. In other words, the plays that require the largest bankroll.
I'm asking because I was going to write an article about risk-averse poker strategy, but doing some of the math surprised me. I'm interested to hear what your comments are.
Some background info: The reason this is interesting is because of the work of J.L. Kelly, who showed that the maximum log-growth of your bankroll occurs when you are betting a percentage of your bankroll equal to your overall advantage. If you bet too little OR too much, your bankroll won't grow as fast. If you bet 2X the kelly optimum, your bankroll will oscillate around its current value, and if you bet more than that it will crash to zero.
The implication here is that if you are playing a poker game where your bankroll is sized correctly for the average advantage you have over the field, there may be plays that, while +EV, cause you to overbet your bankroll. And if your bankroll is big enough to tolerate those plays, you may be better off playing a higher limit with a risk-averse strategy.
Comments?
Without any math to back up my thoughts here, I would say the high risk plays I frequently see here on the forum and at the table are:
1. Raising on the turn with a come hand.
I see this a lot. A guy puts in a power raise on the turn having just a flush draw or a straight draw. When he gets called and a blank comes at the river, he usually has to bet again since he has no hand to showdown.
2. Three-Betting Pre-flop with weak hands.
A player opens with a raise in early or middle position and our hero feels compelled to now 3 bet with a medium pocket pair like Sevens in order "isolate" and subsequently "outplay" his opponent. The problem is that he gets called in more than one spot and then catches a piece of the flop. The pot is large, his outs are few, and he ends up losing a stack on a weak hand as a result.
3. Playing in raised pots with suited connectors.
Another situation that comes up a lot is that a guy cold-calls a raise with some piece of cheese like Nine-Eight suited because he read somewhere that some hands play better against a lot of opponents and there are a lot of opponents when he makes his bad call pre-fop. The pot then gets re-raised behind him with many players so he is obliged to call that too. Now the flop comes and he catches a piece of it. Like his buddy in #2 he is thrown into a marginal situation with something like bottom-pair and a backdoor draw in a jammed pot. So he hangs around, busts out at the river, and loses a stack or two of red in the process.
Don't forget these plays need to be slightly +EV
Refrasing yours:
1) Makes a good semi-bluff raise on the turn with a flush draw and correctly bluffs on the river when missed.
2) 3-bet a loose raiser with a medium pair where he usually expects to isolate him heads up or 3 handed with a bad call behind.
3) Calls 2 bets with a suited connector because nearly everyone is in and he doesn't expect a raise from the blinds. Then correctly plays to the river because of the pot odds.
Now I have no idea if these are the most high variance plays but they sound a lot more reasonable to make at all.
D.
Okay, so I have $100 left in my pocket. I go to the horse track and in the first race the #3 horse is going off at 2:1. I think he's even money to win, and my judgment in these matters is infallible. How much should I bet?
100
The answer depends on your utility function. If it's objective, and the $100 represents your entire bankroll, the answer is different than if you are betting $100 for fun, and can replace it easily.
Assuming this is your gambling bankroll, and you will be ruined if you lose it all, then the proper Kelly fraction is $50.
This question happens to hit home on some work that I did a couple of years ago. The work related to jackpots, where big money (for my budget anyway) is involved; but, believe it or not, I can find exactly those mathematical odds (2:1 where the odds are actually 1:1). This is my first response on 2+2, I don't know how much to write, and the full answer is really more than can be given on this simple text editor. If people are interested, I will put an article in our local cards magazine. Firstly though, Kelly doesn't apply here (or in my situation) because we don't have a choice about how much to bet. Fancy saying to the dealer, "sorry but I can only call that $100 bet for $50 because otherwise I am overbetting my bankroll ratios". You could choose a higher or lower limit table though I guess, but that is before you are bet into. I will omit working, other than to give some variable definitions....
PL = Probability of losing 1 unit sometime, not
necessarily on the first bet.
PW = 1-PL; should be self explanatory.
Pl = Probability of losing 1 unit at the first bet.
Pw = 1-Pl
G = gain on a winning bet. 2:1 odds gives a gain
of 3 because your 1 unit becomes 3 units on
winning. Then comes the formula...
(Pl-1)PL**G + PL - Pl = 0 (I can provide proof in
a bigger article).
We must solve this for PL, because we want to know the probability of losing 1 unit anytime, even if it did happen to build up to 3 units first before we lost all those 3 units in similar bets later.
I know the formula is correct because I have played with it, and I should offer an example...
If Pl = 1/2, and G=2, ie we are making a break even bet, then PL evaluates to 1. This says... "A break even bet is a bad bet, because you will lose it sometime on the swings.
If Pl = 1/2, and G=3, ie the question given, then PL will be less than 1, and I leave it to you to find out with the following hint... (divide by PL-1, until you find the root that isn't = 1).
If Pl = 1/2, and G=1.5 say, then PL will come out = 1, and there will be no solution between 0 and 1.
Back to the human side...
There is a probability of losing your unit bets that you have to be comfortable with, you can never be sure that you will never lose, but with odds greater than break even, you can get a probability of NEVER LOSING your bankroll. This probability can never be 1, but the greater G is in the above equation, the greater your PW is (that is the probability of never losing your original unit bet, and therefore your bankroll too.
This is a complex area, and is deserving of more than just this small text area that I am typing into.
Play on
When you mention 'risk-averse' I think 'utility function.' The value of a high variance, close to 0 EV play would be psychological which is hard to quantify.
No, in this case I'm talking about a gambler with an objective utility function, who might find himself playing with the proper sized bankroll overall, but winding up in situations in a poker game where he is faced with a call that is +EV, yet will cause him to overbet his bankroll which, in the long run, reduces the rate of growth of the bankroll.
The reason overbetting your bankroll between 100% and 200% of the Kelly optimum decreases the rate of bankroll growth is that your bankroll swings will occasionally force you back into lower limits, where it will take longer to rebuild your bankroll. Or more accurately, you will be forced back into lower limits more often than if you bet the optimum amount, and your overall rate of growth will drop.
Basically, as I've been doing the math I've discovered that what most people think of as high-variance plays generally have a high enough expectation that you simply never run into bankroll limits. For example, Rounder's belief in lowering variance by abandoning +EV gutshots is not a good idea. Even if there is only half of a big bet more than you need to call for your gutshot, the EV is so high that you'd be foolish not to go for it. For example, let's say you're on the turn, a player bets all-in, and you count the bets in the pot and discover there are 11 big bets, and you're a 10.5-1 dog to hit your hand. Your advantage in this case is around 4.4%, and your bankroll for you to make this wager only has to be about 23 big bets. Since you should have a bankroll of at least 400 big bets to play in this game in the first place, it should be clear that plays like drawing to nut gut-shots when you have the odds to do so are extremely high profit compared to the overall percentage advantage you have, and would be poor choices for lowering variance.
Incidentally, if a blackjack player saw someone turning away a bet with a 4.4% advantage, he'd have a heart attack. Blackjack players spend their careers playing with advantages of around 1/4 of that.
With a 10.5:1 shot I want 20:1 odds to take the chance if I take it at all in a live game.
Conditions would have to be really good for me to take this shot in a tournament.
Dan,
I only have a few minutes before leaving for work and I haven't read the other answers yet.
Pre flop, I believe cold calling early raises with trouble offsuit hands is a big mistake, even in back. I think Feeney's AQ Test is a classic example. When you get in trouble here, you lose a lot of chips.
Post flop, I believe it is calling raises and reraises with a small flush draw on the turn. Too often you will make it and get beat with a bigger flush or pay off a full when you make it when the board pairs.
That being said, I'm looking forward to your article. If it is half as good as the last one, it will be a gem. And this is territory that has not been mined much and is very important if you want to play bigger on a marginal bankroll..
Regards,
Rick
Remember, I'm not talking about losing plays, I'm talking about plays that show a profit, but require a large investment for relatively little gain.
Dan,
Being in a hurry this morning, I used a poor choice of words. I understand that you mean slightly +EV plays, but those with a high variance. And my guess is that your analysis will go against conventional wisdom yet be correct.
By trouble hands above, I would include hands such as AQ offsuit when calling an early raiser with several players that have cold called between the raiser and you. Even if the other players are weak, there is a lot that can go wrong during the play of the hand and you will often have huge swings. But I think it is a slight winner played well.
Anyway, your other post above looks interesting. I'll get back to reading that :-).
Regards,
Rick
Here's an idea stolen from Mike Caro. Avoid raising with AK and such pre-flop. I'm not in love with it but conceptually it has merit in looser games. I think it trades EV for lower SD.
-Fred-
Page 166 of HPFAP 21st Century Edition:
"On the other hand, if you are in a loose, passive game where they usually call, but only occasionally raise, you should play any Axs under the gun."
My question does not concern playing Axs under the gun, it concerns the definition of a loose, passive game.
Are the following games loose passive:
1. If an average of 4 players take the flop with an average of one raise per orbit is this game loose/passive?
2. Same as above but 3 players see the flop with one raise per orbit average.
3. 5 players see the flop with one raise per orbit.
4. 4 players see the flop with two raises per orbit.
5. 5 players see the flop with two raises per orbit.
6. 4 players see the flop with three raises per orbit.
7. 5 players see the flop with three raises per orbit.
Also, what do you do if you make a call with Axs UTG and the player on your left raises and only the BB calls? I assume it is correct to call one more bet. I have a problem folding any hand I limp with preflop, once it comes back to me for a single raise (for two more bets I frequently muck).
In general if 4 or more players are taking the flop on the average then this is a loose game. If less than 30% of the pot are getting raised pre-flop then it is a passive game. Now this is Jim Brier's opinion. But with that in mind here is how I rate your 7 scenarios:
Scenario 1 is loose and passive with only 10% of the pot getting raised.
Scenario 2 is medium, not loose not tight, and passive with only 10% of the pots getting raised.
Scenario 3 is very loose and passive.
Scenario 4 is loose and somewhat passive with 20% of the pots getting raised.
Scenario 5 is is very loose and somewhat passive.
Scenario 6 is loose but mildly aggressive since 30% of the pots are getting raised.
Scenario 7 is very loose and mildly aggressive.
In general these scenarios fall into the loose/passive category in my opinion.
Yes, you have to call when raised with A-little suited at this point and take a flop since there is 5.5 bets in the pot.
(Also posted on Texas Hold'em forum)...
Last night my regular poker group was playing Texas Hold 'Em and we had an argument over who should have won. It came down to two players.
These were the up cards: Ks, Qc, 9h, 10c, 8d.
Player one held a Qh and 3s
Player two held a Qd and 2s
Obviously both players have a pair of queens.
Player one claimed victory, and everyone concured (except me, and I wasn't player two, by the way), because his three was higher than player two's two.
I argued that the pot should be split, because in poker you play with FIVE card hands. You might have seven (or more) cards to choose from, but your hand can ONLY consist of five cards. In my mind, both players one had a pair of queens, a king, a 10, & a 9.
So, what's the offical word on something like this? I know if I had been involved, I would have gotten half the pot or packed up my bags and left, lol.
you are right Scott,the pot should have been split.
If you are playing in a home poker game, it is not a bad idea to take a few minutes and ask about the house rules before you ante up.
If you ever find yourself in a dealer's choice game,and they allow wild cards,make sure you ask about the rank of hands.I have seen some pretty ugly things happen in a home poker game,that could easily have been avoided with just a few questions asked at the beginning of play.
What I meant by the rank of hands is some people play six of a kind beats five of a kind and so forth.I don't like some of the more crazy rules but some people do play with them,and it's good to know up front.
Good Luck
Howard
Howard:
Interesting you bring that up!! I've played with these same guys for about a year and a half, playing every other week, so we've swapped some chips! lol...
Yeah, house rules... I am aware of ours, but the other night I learned one I didn't know about and I sort of raised a fuss (I tend to raise a fuss, but when it comes to money, I feel I am justified)...
One player said our house rules on Royal Flushes were that spades was the highest suit and would beat diamonds, clubs, etc. I had NEVER heard this before and said that if I got in that situation I would expect to at least split the pot. I'm not sure we settled it, but I feel if you get a royal, you shouldn't lose to another royal! Especially with WILD cards, and we frequently play with wilds.
House rules in our game say five of a kind is best hand. I assume six of a kind is impossible, but I am going to ask next time we play.
PS-- I'm VERY glad I found this message board. I love talking poker and look forward to picking some great minds out there!
Scott
In all my years of playing in home games I have seen many, many,variations on the rules, as well as on the rank of hands.I have played with people who play one suit beats another,as well.I have also seen many,many,arguments break out,that could have been avoided with just a short Q/A session before play started.
BTW/Another thing to ask about when you are invited to a game you have not played in before. When they play high/low or low only games, what is the nut low ? Besides A-5 and 2-7, a lot of home games I played in in Florida used A2346 as the nut low.
Good Luck
Howard
Your understanding is correct. A poker hand consists of 5 cards. Each player uses the best 5 card combination from his two cards and the 5 community cards to make the best 5 card poker hand. Frequently, the board plays. Here is an example. The boardcards are: KhQdJcTh2s. Player 1 has AK. Player 2 has AQ. Split pot because each player has an Ace for an Ace-high straight. Any third player who happened to be in the hand with an Ace would get 1/3 of the pot regardless of what his other card was.
Absolutely correct; a split pot.
Do you play Hold 'Em with wild cards? I did once. I got dealt two wilds in the hole and managed to put the entire table all-in. It was the dumbest thing ever.
Yes, we've tried that... It makes things very interesting and keeps people in the game...
(bringing this over here because I was interested in a serious discussion, rather than seeing others attempt to apply my words to things for which they do not stand.)
"I also want to remind you that I am talking about eight handed games rather than six. This is important not only because it makes it more mathematical" he said.
I find this kinda interesting in that I always treasured the game dynamics changing based on number of players a very mathematical function. It's like the attribute of the player who has found their way into playing one mode of play for one particular game that happens to be correct, but only because they're one member of a population of every style, the others of which have failed, none of which are borne of much theoretical insight. The same thing may be true for the person who has stumbled into a good model for how to play a full 20-40 game, but as it shortens to five handed is clueless on how to adjust. Why? Because they don't have the foundation of theoretical understanding of what's going on in a poker game to regenerate a new model on the fly.
What I'm not saying is what I'm not saying. Just thought this would make for an interesting discussion.
Moving from eight handed to six handed is not something you have to adjust to on the fly. It comes up too often. The main thing is that six handed is more psychological because it is more likely to include head up pots where having knowledge is not quite as important and having "skill" becomes more so.
Well, I've read the sections in S&M's books, read Mike Caro's occasional columns dealing with it, done some thinking and played a little short-handed. So I guess I'm well on the road to successful short-handed play, if well-on-the-road means out of the starting gate. But the uncharted course ahead looks pretty barren of signposts and guidelines other than the few basic/semi-advanced ones I've picked up so far.
The irony is, short-handed/high-limit is where most of the serious money in poker really is, whether it's live or even in tournaments. Many of us could go on being grinders making occasional inspired plays, but I would like to work on my short-handed learning curve starting now, so when I do have the money to really play short/high I will be somewhat prepared at least to have a real shot at the Gold Ring.
I propose we start an ongoing thread on this topic and augment it with heads-up play on the play money tables at Paradise Poker. I just logged on and noticed that there are 7(!) play money 1-on-1 holdem tables now, and THEY ARE ALL EMPTY. We can play, discuss results and theory, etc. in an ongoing way.
This is the Last Frontier of Poker: the land where fortunes are made and far less is generally known. I say let's get to know it INSIDE OUT in a continually evolving way and win the real money in this game instead of discussing "bluffing women" or close preflop calls. I don't know much about it yet but I will really work at it and share what I learn if some others will do the same. Of course we don't have to stick to just the play money tables at Paradise--reports and analysis of real money short-handed games in our home cardrooms or on Paradise will be valuable food for thought as well.
Many of the best Short/High players in the world combine knowledge with "feel", but I'll bet even they don't know nearly as much about the game as could be known.
What say ye to making this a real project?
I have to go to sleep now but before I go back to Foxwoods tonight I will check this post. If you are interested just mention it and we can start making arrangements to get started. I think something of an organized format would be helpful. Sort of like a planned course: we could try to map it out, or, if we are lucky, perhaps David could help us with ideas for a road map. I'm ready to really explore and learn (and earn).
The ultimate goal here is not just getting pretty good at it but getting to where we know as much OR MORE than many of the top players in the word right now. Sure it will take time and work, but the payoff (and satisfaction) will be far greater for those who have the desire and the talent than a lifetime of grinding at even modestly high limits would be. That's it. That's my proposal.
Sincerely, "M" (Mark Stults)
This post meshes well with a thought I've been having. I've decided to bring it into the open, and have a full post on the other topics forum.
See you there.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I spent two months(April and May) in Vegas and have just arrived in California. Have only played in a few games but cali is poker heaven. Despite the long drives and higher collection rates Cali, so far, bests Vegas in A)loose, action players B)game selection and C)things to do that don't involve poker.
I wrote this forum early this Spring about where to play (Cali or Vegas) and just about everything said was true. The vegas games were tougher and muuuuuucch tighter. So far the Cali games I've played in (6-12,20-40 Hollywood Park and 3-6,6-12 Crystal Park)have been excellent.
Thanks for all the suggestions.
chris
Chris,I remember your questions of a few months ago.Would be interested as you get acclimated,in any info you could pass on.I currently live in Vegas,but am considering a move to Cali in a year.Good Luck
Chris and MS:
I was just about to post something similar, but now I can simply add-on...MS: move to Northern CA!!!! Here is why:
I have played all over the USA and for many years at low to middle levels. I travel to Silicon Valley on business a fair amount -- and I find the games at Garden City in San Jose area, and this week on a combo business/vacation with my wife, at Artichoke Joes near SF --- well they are the best games I have ever seen. The games here this week have the easiest to beat players I have seen in 20 years....in fact these people are worse than that. Everyone always calls, on all tables I have played at. No one raises 90% of the time, no check raises ever, free turn cards, misread cards, simply terrible play. This is in 3-6 to 6-12 which is lower than my usual limits but who cares, free $$.
And fun. I got a Royal today...2nd this year. I got 3 !!! callers. they limped and limped and limped from my pre-flop raise to the end. Over 5 years and many hours in this area I am making so many BB per hour here that i wouldn't write it, no one would believe.
Mark
PS I like the rooms here too: No smoke, well run, good dealers, at Artichoke Joes they have a jackpot with no money taken for it. $3 button drop at 6-12, which is not bad.
i agree with Mark, in northern cal. you have places with wonderful living conditions and the games are great. the big draw back though is for a small limit player, in that the living expenses are very very high. but you would make so much so quick that you could move up to 15 30 and win easily. those games i saw there were so beatable by any decent player that there would be no reason not to play them.
Ray,
Right, I forgot about the living expenses. They do have larger games here than I have seen, but my visiting times are usually off-weekend. And the 20-40 players at Garden who I watched were way too loose and gambling like mad too...
..and I am glad you confirmed this, I thought I was in the twilight zone. hehe
Mark
I agree with your assesment of Nor Cal, but would like to point out one drawback: big fluctuations. When you run bad here, you run really bad. That being said, check out the 20-40 at Lucky Chances and the 15-30/30-60 at the Oaks. Basically 6-12 with richer people. Also the 9-18 at Casino San Pablo gets great when the jackpot (double jackpot in 9-18) gets big.
I agree that these games are good but they are trickier then a lot of people seem to think.
The San Jose mid-limit games are definely not just 6-12 games with bigger chips.
D.
David,
I am sure you are right, the 6-12 is pretty weak, so I cannot imagine that the 10-20, 15-30 or 20-40 could be as easy.
But I have felt that with the $3 button drop, someone who can play well can create a nice bankroll for themselves at 6-12, learn, and then try to move up.
Mark
I agree with it stated this way. There will be quite a bit to learn for the bigger games but it is reasonable to give it a shot.
D.
If you've been winning that much money I can only say you have been running good and should be wary of your play.
Anyone who is reading these posts and salivating over NorCal action should be wary. It's easy to start running good in these games and assume it's because you are so much better than the rest of the players. Once your cards go back to normal or even start running bad, you will lose a lot of money. The variance is so high in these games that most players, even experts, are not prepared or don't understand the extreme nature. I've seen players go up $2000 in two or three hours. I've seen solid, above-average players lose 4 racks ($800) in two hours. I've seen players swing $1000 up and down MULTIPLE times in one session. This is at $6-12 and even $3-6.
Most players from other parts of the country are not prepared for a 3-6 game that requires a $1200 bankroll to play for the weekend, or to be a regular $6-12 player that requires a $6000 bankroll if not more.
I've lost about $3500 in the past 600 or 700 hours of playing 3-6 and 6-12 NorCal hold'em, which is TOTALLY within variance expectations. I've seen other players who are not good and don't understand the game well lose $9000 in a month playing 6-12.
I believe these games are really not beatable for more than a BB per hour, maybe 2 BB at best, unless you are getting better than average cards. If you get even slightly worse than average cards, the games are practically not beatable at all, because the variance can be brutal.
natedogg
I'm interested in hearing from players that have played hold-em in A.C. and Foxwoods. Would like to know where the best games are, ie. those with loose action players.
A player in my 10-20 game just came back from Vegas and said the games he found were too tight. The Mirage 20-40 he said felt like he was playing alone, and the 30-60 at Belagio was not that good either.
I would rather take a shorter trip to the east coast if the games are better.
Go to Montana. Find the nearest bear warde, Ask him where the uni bomber lives. Go there. There you will find "Pretty Boy" Ray Zee. He will probably be in the company of "little Bo Peep" At least that's his pet name for her. Treating her as the pet she is would be more appropriate but hey to each his own. He is always ready to play loose holdem. He will call Paul feney up and Paul will fly in from Massachusetts on Pegasus. Both Zee and Paul are big with four legged animals. I think that Gary Carson might play if you promise to read his book and Yell "I hate Mason" three times before every hand. Of course if Mason shows up you have to make that I hate Sklansky. Gary doesn't like either of them but he won't tell them to their face. Sklansky definitely won't show up. Your a nobody. He does nothing for "nobody". John feeney may come in his place. John is a Sklansky clone though so only say I hate Sklansky 2 times instead of three. Unless pf Course tht know it all Badger decideds to play. Oh! Wait minute. you said Holdem. Don't worry. I thought you said Omaha. Badger doesn't know anything about Holdem so he may not have anything to say about the game. Yeah! Right. If Ray offers to call his nephew Scott, that punk from Columbia,be careful. He's under age! But can he count! 1,2,3... Counting em up here boss!
Let's see that's enough to get started. Don't let that rascal Zee get away with a full rake unless he gets a full game. He's like that, you know. Ray is good for getting a full game so he can get a full rake but he hasn't played with a full deck for so long that he may invite Yogi Bear to play just to fill up the game. He thinks Yogi Bear was the greatest Yankee catcher ever! Hey! Hey! Hey! BTW - Sit in the farthest left corner of Ray's tent. It's the only dry place around. Terrible leak problem in that tent.
You might have to wait a while for the game though. I hear Ray is righting the first "lowercase" novel in history. It's going to be a mystery, No excuse me, it's going to be misery to read it! Yeah that's it! Well I gotta go. If you need an eleventh ask Abdul. I wouldn't play in the same game as Montana Man Zee if he backed me like he did the Fossilman. Besides Abdul would get along better with Scott. They both could call up Sklanky after the game and tell him how they had an EV of x and won y while ditributing z to the bears.
Hope the Game is good!
Vince.
BTW - 10-20 1/2 HE Kill at Foxwoods. At times the best Holdem game anywwhere. At other times only good if you are as good as me.
20-40 HE Game at Mohegan. Grrrreat! Always. AC used to be good. Haven't played there in a while. Hope to this weekend!
I have played in the 30-60 Game at Bellagio. If I had the Bank roll I wouldn't play anywhere else! Yes, Sklansky, I would be a favorite!
I can't add anything to Vince's post so I will just have to second him. Sure wish I knew who he was, though. You don't find a mind like that walking around every day.
M,
No, most minds like Vince's are suitably confined. :)
If you're at Foxwoods on Sat., look for me at a 5-10 table, and I'll help you find Vince if he hasn't begun his journey yet.
John
Looooooooose Low Limit Holdem (2-4 to 5-10) at the Tropicana. The 10-20 and 15-30 can be either but mostly tight.
Taj has very loose low limit. 10-20 can be either, but there are usually enough games in the summer and during the weekends to support loose and tight. As the games go up, they get tighter, but there are always a few loose players in games up to 50-100. Taj is probably a little softer due to the influx of visitors. Trop has the same old rocks during the week.
Never been to Foxwoods
Turning Stone has 10-20 and 15-30 most of the time. Thurs., Fri. and Sat.-20-40. Fri night 30-60 and 50-100. Exit 33 on the NYS Thruway. Poker room rates--$60. to stay at the casino and $40. to stay at the motel about a mile down the road. Anyone else out there play at Turning Stone? They just added a golf course.
I can not recommend Foxwoods. I had an incredibly unpleasant experience there.
The dealers were terrible. The pit bosses were intolerably rude. The players were obnoxious and rude. Players were yelling at the dealers, pit bosses were yelling at the players...... unacceptable.
Furthermore, Holdem is not that popular there. You are much more likely to find high limit stud tables (75-150). I think the highest Holdem table I saw was 30-60 and it was short handed and broke up before too long.
Everything is expensive. People are rude. No one looks as though they are having a good time. Plus, most of the players at 5-10 and higher are professionals. I played 5-10 there, and sure enough, the next time I picked up a copy of Card Player I recognized three of the tournament winners. They had played at my 5-10 table.
DON'T GO THERE.
-SmoothB-
I can not recommend Foxwoods. I had an incredibly unpleasant experience there.
The dealers were terrible. The pit bosses were intolerably rude. The players were obnoxious and rude. Players were yelling at the dealers, pit bosses were yelling at the players...... unacceptable.
Was this just one experience? I've never seen anything like that at my table and I've played there a bit. I have seen some shouting matches at other tables (for some reason mostly mid-limit O8 tables), but nothing as horrible as you are describing.
Furthermore, Holdem is not that popular there.
This is certainly true. The east coast seems to love stud for some reason.
Plus, most of the players at 5-10 and higher are professionals. I played 5-10 there, and sure enough, the next time I picked up a copy of Card Player I recognized three of the tournament winners. They had played at my 5-10 table.
Only if there are alot of "professionals" who play any ace and garbage like Kd3c in middle position (in 5-10, I haven't played higher). It's probably true that there aren't as many true loose-passive players at FW (and Mohegan Sun for that matter) as there are in some places. But I think you can have an overlay if you start with better cards than they do and play as well after the flop (that guy with Kd3c probably plays fairly well when he gets a flop he likes).
Plus since there aren't too many hold'em tables, you have to be wary when the waiting list for the higher limits gets long - that means there are probably an excessive number of better players in the lower limit games.
I've found the players to be friendly on the whole and the staff to be fairly competent for the most part. Plus it's non-smoking (both Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun). Hooray!!
David
Foxwoods is the only poker room that I've played in. Maybe it's because of this that I like it, but I have found that nothing in Smoothb's post is true, except for hold-em not being as popular. I'm pretty sure that the 5-10 players aren't professials. If they are, they better find a day job, because thier not making money at poker. I have found that most of the players are friendly and the entire staff is very helpful and curtious.
I have no complaints, in fact, I'm going there tonight.
While FW does suffer from certain disadvantages relative to other cardrooms I've played in, it does not seem as bad to me as I've heard a few people say, both here and on RGP.
There are some very poor floorpeople, who just don't seem to be capable of making good decisions on a consistent basis, but many of them are also quite good.
There are some very slow dealers (and this is my biggest concern), but the majority are decent to good.
HE is very unpopular compared to stud. On a regular basis you won't find a HE game higher than 10-20 (with a 1/2 kill). During major tourney time, you will find 50-100 and sometimes higher, but not during most of the year, including holiday weekends when the casino is jammed full of tourists. You can find a regular, and loose, 20-40 HE game at Mohegan Sun, however. With the exception of this game, and the 3-6 games, the HE games tend to be MUCH tighter than SoCal, and often tighter even than the same limits in LV, IME.
Players are occasionally rude, but certainly not worse than LV and SoCal, IME.
I moved here from San Diego 1.5 years ago. I would prefer to play at Oceans 11 over FW or MS, but I'm not unhappy with FW and MS.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Even the worst dealers are tolerable here. I have only found 1 or 2 who were disrespective of the players. Dealers keep their own tips. They are very good. Floor people are hardworking and attentive. AC gives your money's worth.
Greetings,
I was recently playing a mid limit holdem game, and had been oblivious to a straight i had made when the board was 2 3 4 5 8 w/ no flush. I chekced as did the other player. (I had A K).
I said i just had A K and turned it face up, she quickly said she had J 8... another player said i had a straight, and i still had the cards in my hand. She claimed the hand was mucked and I said excuse me I still have them in my hand. She said she was being nice and let me have the pot but wanted 10 $ (a small bet). She is a dealer and wanted to bet that the had was really mucked once turned over... I thoguht once a hand is seen cards speak, AND i never let go of them!
And i thought once it is seen by the dealer/ eye int he sky if its the best hand and it goes to the best hand...
SHould I have given her 10? (she was weak and i figured i might as well keep the fish happy, and maybe i was wrong and she could make a big stink if she really wanted...) And is this hand mucked even when it is in your hand??
Not a chance. That hand is still live.
She's upset that if someone else hadn't opened up their big mouth, she would have gotten the pot. Justifiable, I suppose, but she's completely wrong and she knows it.
Dan
I agree with Dan. I have seen the same thing happen before and interestingly enough with a little wheel. She should know better. I probably would not give her $10, but it's a call you would have to make at the table.
Whether you want to give her $10 "to keep a fish happy" is up to you, but to give her the money to "stop her from making a stink" is clearly unnecessary, since your hand is live and wins the pot. I have seen a lot of stupid rulings in my life, but I have never seen a players cards ruled dead because of being facedown when that player still had them.
Thanks all for the response,
I don't think I made such a bad decision to do what I did. Although I think I was taken a little advantage of.
The odd thing is I asked one or two dealers at this casino about this and they said my hand was mucked, although now I know better.
Maybe giving her the $10 wasn't neccesary, but I don't think it was such a bad decision ( she gave way more back to the table.), and since almost 1/2 the table said I was wrong...
But now I know in the future! Thanks again.
If she's really a dealer then she _knows_ your hand is still good and is trying to take advantage of you. Politely refuse.
If she is a dealer in the same casino, if the hand played exactly as you described, and if a ruling went against you on this then _you_ should be the one making a BIG stink.
Andy.
"She claimed the hand was mucked and I said excuse me I still have them in my hand. "
Check, Check Show
Where I play This is called a SHOWDOWN !!!!! don't give her a dime....
MJ
I'm not sure if this is t