I just watched Rounders again on FX and have a question/comment about the last hand.
Why did KGB Teddy make such a large bet at the end? He thought Matt Damon had a busted straight draw. He states that the ace couldn't possibly help him. Why couldn't Matt ( I forget the character's name)have had A9 suited ( like the earlier big hand hand he lost)?
I realize KGB Teddy is on tilt but this still seems like a huge error on his part. What could have Matt had that would make him call the bet but not have a better hand? Did KGB Teddy want to make Matt fold to make him look bad?
I think the biggest mistake KGB made was not factoring in the difference in stakes. KGB was playing for money and Matt was playing for his life.
I really didn't like the scene where he told KGB his tell. He should have just folded and carved him up from there. The movie tries to mitigate the scene by having Mike say that he didn't have the kinda time needed to break KGB, and he wanted to put him on tilt, but I don't buy it. It just made for a good scene. Exactly how much time do you need in pot limit heads up? One hand can make and break someone, as it did here, and I don't feel that his "tilt" status changed the situation, as he was always playing smarmy-aggressive,( new style type, see MM's new book).
Have any of you guys ever considered that it was just two actors in a movie wrirren by screen writers (not poker players, for damn sure they were not no-limit poker players) for a non poker playing audience?
I actually thought the film did a good job of showing the ups and downs of poker life. Actually a great job. That first scene with Damon and KGB when he loses his bankroll?? Perfect, real. The way we can fall in love with a hand, wow! The ups and downs of the second and final game? When you regret like hell you kept playing and didn't leave with your win? Limit or no limit, anyone that says they haven't been there is lying.
Still, there were a lot of things that could have been done better: The one pointed out in post below about the tells was one. Putting the man on tilt is a lot less of guaranteed winner then playing to his weakness. Second, and one that has always bugged me, can anyone tell me--are there all night banks in NYC where you can go cash a $10K check? I sure as hell doubt it. Also, while card reading is an important skill, I don't know anyone that can look at a single play at a table and tell you 'exactly' what everyone has, the way Damon does of the Judges game.
Still, great movie and Mikey McDermott's girlfriend has one of the best butts in filmaking!
;-)
I thought the movie was reasonably realistic as well. I just hated the end. I wish Damon would have quit after he won the first game, having learned his lesson and not wanting to gamble so big anymore. After all, anyone can lose a single session and he was reasonably out of debt. A much better ending (but less romantic) would have been had he moved to Vegas and paid off his debt monthly through grinding the middle limit games.
Nonetheless, his sidekick's character was right on. The dead beat degenerate who only lives for the moment and takes others down with them. Unfortunately, I know lots of those types (they owe me a fortune).
Evidently you've never seen David Chiu deal. . .
I was called a tight unimaginative player by a respected player...Is that a comment or an insult? Sounds like a Kenneth Ng'ism...based on his posting history, it was both, he always talks like that. :-D
Tight unimaginative players can make lots of money, but they can't make it from tight imaginative players.
I assume they will make money from weak loose players. Then again, any reasonable player will as well.
Will the TUP make "lots" of money or just a samller pecentage of what an strong player would make.
Hello,
A while back I was discussing a hand with a dealer where he lost a large pot because the dealer burned and turned before action was complete.
That has happened to many of us and I shrugged and said "What can ya do?"
He forwarded an idea that I thought made some sense. It sort of borrows the 'All In Protection" concept from online poker.
He said that it is not right that dealers mistakes cause so much money to be pushed in a different direction, that the dealer had too much effect on the outcome.
His proposal was that if a card is burned and turned before action is complete, then anyone who has not yet completed their action be declared all in for the rest of the hand and all further betting between players who did complete the action is done in a side pot.
No board cards would ever be shuffled back into the deck. The dealer's mistakes would never affect the 5 board cards that come out.
I know this solution is not perfect, but he stated that this solution is more equitable than board cards being reshuffled and very likely changing the value of hands.
I was wondering if anyone had any comments on this proposal?
I think it has it's drawbacks - like the players declared all-in having no opportunity to protect their hands and pots may still be pushed the wrong way because someone draws out when they would have folded to a bet or raise.
However, I think this 'All In Protection' proposal may ensure that more money gets pushed to the 'rightful' owner than the current rule. The current rule is 'fair' in that you are just as likely to be hurt as helped by it, but it is unfair in that the dealer's mistake causes so many pots to go a direction they would not otherwise have taken.
What do you think?
PS: Yes, I made trips on the turn last night, but action was not complete and the card came back in and I lost a pot I would have won. The All In Protection proposal would have got me a good chunk of 'my' pot. Instead I got another "Gee, I'm sorry sir."
The Early Burn and Turn Rule as it sits now has only cost me money, it has never netted me a pot I would not have otherwise won.
it may not be perfect but it does seem alot better than the way the situation is [normally] handled now.
While we are on the topic, this is one "dealer error" that is, IMO, close to unforgivable under all but the most unusual circumstances.
It is almost always indicative of a dealer who is not paying attention; there is no excuse for a dealer having a cavalier attitude regarding a pot that often contains more than he or she earns in a day (sometimes)more than he/she earns in a week.
When I dealt in a game where it was common for five or more players to stay in past the flop I would often say, "pot right" - not as a statement but as a question.
I made my share of errors during that brief stint but I NEVER "burned and turned" with the action not being completed.
Nor did I ever expose the river prematurely.
I would have been ashamed to look the "rightful" winner in the eye if I ever did.
I see dealer's do it only to look at the victim with a s--t happens expression; it makes me cringe.
I have only been involved in two incidents as a player where a card was exposed early - 1 win, 1 loss, both relatively small pots.
The dealer who was responsible for my loss appologized profusely and admitted to having "drifted off".
Later that evening he approached me and INSISTED I allow him to make good the amount of the pot. ($61)
He is currently the manager of that room.
- Probably just a coincidence, don't you think ?
Ok, maybe I am losing my mind, but i was in a tournament today, no limit, about 3/4 stage, with middling chip position. I rasied in from the button, using 1/3 of my stack in doing so. The button reraised me, and i went all in. As i turned out, i lost when my flush hit, but 3 8's hit the board, giving his pocket 5's a full house. As I said something to him after the hand, he said he was ahead all the way, to which, i replied, "yes, in straight hand value terms, you were, but 55 is NOT worth a RR unless trying to abort a steal attemp". He disagreed, i said that had he knew what i had, AKs, he would not have reraised with 55. He again said yes, he would, and that 55 is equal to AKs heads up. I disaggreed, and had two other people jump in on his side, saying thatm heads up, ANY pair is at least equal to AKs. Now i know about running hot and cold hands, and differing hand values, but small pair Vs. AKs is equal-to-favorite heads up? That would go against all logic. You're never supposed to raise small pair, unless for deceptive value preflop, or just to buy the button or see the turn cheap if all check to you. Why is Aks almost always considered a raising hand if, isolated, it's noi better than 22? Am I losing my mind? In HEP, Sklansky says that 99 is a small favorite against ak, and I have always heard 10-10 is about equal to AKs. These both make sense, as they are VERY close on the Hand group scale, but A group 1 hand being behind a group 6, even 7? I find this very hard to believe. Someone please set the record straight. These players all seem very knowledgeable who are siding against me, and I find it hard to believe they could all SO wrong. So then, is it me?
Ok, if I was behind by about 2-3% with final holding knowledge, this still makes his reraising me a VERY bad move, any table persona aside,(which mine was definitely NOT a blind stealing crap raiser). His reraise put 80% of his chips in play, at which time I went all in,(he had about 10% more chips than I did B4 the hand) Am I at least permitted being right here?
If you have been showing down quality hands, he is in the classic "small favorite or HUGE underdog" trap; he is a slight favorite if you have 2 big cards while he is an enormous undergog if you have a higher pair.
- When there is a confrontation between pairs, the larger pair wins an average of (approximately) 80% of the time. AA vs KK is an example of the higher pair being an even bigger favorite (~82%) - 33 vs 22 would be a situation where the smaller pair has a better chance (I don't know the exact %) but is still a very large underdog.
Since you said that you had been showing down "real" hands I think his choice was somewhere between bad and horrendous. I reserve the right to retract if there were any major "financial" concerns but if this was in the early to middle stage of the tournament I can only think of a small number of situations where his play is something I would endorse.
However, there is a question you might want to ask yourself. Was HE showing down alot of trash ? In other words, did you consider the possibility that most players would only make the play he made with a big hand ?
If he has "KK" you are in a jam; I don't play alot of no-limit so I don't know these figures by heart but I think you are about a 3-1 underdog.
If he has "AA" the situation is near hopeless; the odds are more than 10-1 against you - perhaps as much as 15-1. (I really should learn these numbers but as a limit player, "hot and cold" percentages are of very little use to me.)
The bottom line is this.
There is no way I re-raise with his hand (55).
If I hold your hand and DO get re-raised I am probably going to stop and think, but I'm not going to be thinking about which he is more likely to have 55 or QQ. I'm going to be asking myself how likely it is that he holds a pair.
If this thread gets any additional responses they may be from those suggesting you should have factored the chances of him having a monster into your decision.
He didn't, but that does not mean he couldn't have.
- Better luck,
- J D
P.S. There is one more possibility to consider - one that should flatter you. If he knew that sooner or later he was going to have to "confront" you anyway, he might have been saying to himself, "let me see if I can get rid of this guy with a hand that is [probably] the favorite, even if it's only slightly favored".
The only problem with this theory is that he picked a bad hand to do it with. I'll leave it to those with more experience in these matters to come up with one, but I do NOT believe that "55" was a good choice.
even if it did work.
The tables had just converged, this was probably 3/4 of the way through the tournament levels, with about 3/5 of the participants gone. He had only been on the table for 5 minutes or so, so didn't have alot of time to gauge my play. Somewhere, i could swear that i heard that AA vs AKs was only a 6/5 favorite, but i figure that's gotta be wrong. Also , we were probably both stacked better than about 80% of the field, so the "don't fight another big stack" theory goes out the window, as does "attack the small stacks". This brings to mind something i read in "Zen and the art of Poker"; "In the battle of two tigers, One is killed, while the other is severely wounded". In other words, if you don't have to battle strength, don't. Plenty of rabbits out there.
You may want to say the same thing but it's better to clarify this, in order not to give out incorrect odds for consideration by players: Heads up, in Hold'em, AA wins 82% of the time (not an "82% favorite") against KK, so the pocket rockets' edge is 82%-18%=64% approximately. That gives pocket Aces, in this instance, odds of about 4.3-1 as a favorite.
The KK hand, by the way, fares very slightly worse when one (or two) of its suits match one (or two) of the Aces'.
this may not be the biggest factor, but is one---very tight players may get less action because the other players have seen your play--just tiny show of "not so good" hands can change the image. Jim
There could be a few reasons for your kind of results:
1. You might be tilting a little bit when you are losing. Tight players are awful when they loosen up just a bit because they become calling stations. Maniacs, on the other hand, sometimes become even more dangerous when stuck. If you do tilt a little, then at least do it in an aggressive manner (note: I am not advocating tilting).
2. You might be subconsiously leaving early when ahead and staying longer when losing. Thus, if you get out, you will leave a little ahead or if you get off to a good start. You probably don't like to leave stuck a few hundred so you stay until you get ahead a little or you are stuck enough to make you "throw in the towel" and want to quit.
Just some possible reasons for your results.
Thanks Russ, You have hit the nail on the head!!(my head).
Playing 1500-3000 I was down to $3000 in chips in the limit omaha tournament after putting in my $1500 blind. A player raised and I just called instead of moving all in, leaving myself with $1500. What parameters would make this play correct?
I can't think of a hand where I wouldn't just call before the flop in omaha in this situation (I can think of some that I would fold).
You have a hand that is very likely a clear fit or fold type hand, e.g., a low/mid straight wrap.
There is a third player in the hand who is already all-in.
There are others who will be forced all in before you within one table orbit.
Having a good but not great hand would certainly be one. Another parameter would be if you are very close to the money - perhaps enough players may bust out before the blinds come around to you again.
If there is no way the raiser is going to fold if you do go all in, I think it would be justify this play anyway unless you have an exceptional holding.
David;
Is not being focused on a 1st or 2nd finish, in favor of anywhere in the money another parameter for you?
Heads up, AKs beats JTs and JTs has a 5% edge over 55. Then, 55 has the edge over AKs!
A > B > C > A
Paper, rock, scissors.
Sorry if I have extended your pain Steve! LOL I actually like Shakespeare, but not sure I follow your reference to it? Mind explaining?
Anyway, as to your post on Making it Easy, I'm not sure why you would want it deleted. It obviously struck a nerve and was something that needed to be said. To some degree the mathematical discussion here (it's worse on the Internet Forum) has reached the point of being so much psuedo-intellectual BS.
A basic understanding of pot odds, odds, etc. is very important, but I just can't imagine Amarillo Slim or Johnny Moss sitting at a high limit game in the back room of a Texas saloon, jotting notes and doing calculations in their little black book. (Please, for all the people that will attack this post: I only said 'I can't imagine it,' I grant that I may be wrong.)
Best wishes.
Ray
Ray,
The source is Macbeth: "Life's but a walking shadow...a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
John
Sklansky, et al you smarties:
Why doesn't it make more sense to actually play tighter as the bully against the short stack in a tournament, and let the blinds, which are relatively larger, whittle away at him, rather than taking stupid shots at him, and thereby giving him opportunities he can actually choose from, between blinds?
When somebody is extremely short-stacked, once they put any money in the pot they are (or should be) committed. So, if somebody is half-way all-in with the big blind, or the like, I don't raise with my big stack unless I have AT LEAST an above average hand. His cards are random, so why give him the edge when I know he'll call? However, if he has the 1 bet in the blind and 3 or more bets behind, and it's late in the tourney, NOW he might fold with anything but a very good hand, because he's afraid of being eliminated.
So, you judge each situation, and you pick your spots to be aggressive. It might seem like a stupid shot when he calls me and I end up showing down J7o to his AK, but if his stack was the right size, then my initial raise may easily have been correct with ANY two cards.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
You do not need an above average hand to make raising with the big stack correct play in your first example. Since the short stack's chips are worth more than yours in a percentage payback tournament, you are getting the best of it by forcing him to gamble with you on a coin toss. Further, and this is important, even if you have slightly the worse hand it is likely to be correct to make the same play--for the same reason. As the stack vs. stack ratio changes the cutoff point for how much the worst hand the big stack can correctly play vs. the small stack also changes. Interestingly, it is further influenced by the number of players remaining in the tournament, since the less players remaining the greater equity you are entitled to from the tournament EV the short stack is losing in these confrontations. So when you and the small stack are the final two players remaining in the tournament you can force hinm to gamble even more, and be correct to do so, since you are now the sole beneficiary of the tournament EV he is losing.
The concept of chips being worth more in the short stack doesn't apply to heads-up situations, nor to winner-take-all events (and once you get heads-up, it is winner take all, since you're now only playing for the difference between first and second place).
You are correct about being able to play a SLIGHTLY below average hand if you're going to be heads-up against an all-in player. However, don't take that too far.
Also, in a real event, unless you are the small blind, you need to worry about that player also (which means you need a somewhat better than average hand, maybe). Or, if you know they're going to fold anything but AA, you will be playing against a short stack with valuable chips plus the dead money from the small blind, meaning again you can play a below average hand and do so correctly.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
This does not seem to be correct to me. My sense is that once you get heads-up in a percentage payback tourney it is not changed to winner-take-all, and the difference in chip values still applies. You are correct that you are playing for the difference between payouts at that point but I do not think that this changes it to a winner-take-all tournament structure. I think chips should still have different values based upon stack sizes even heads-up between the last two contestants in a percentage payback tourney.
You do bring up some interesting other points, and you are correct that any dead money in the pot can correctly influence your starting hand selection.
M,
You wrote: "I think chips should still have different values based upon stack sizes even heads-up between the last two contestants in a percentage payback tourney."
You might want to think some more about this, for Greg is indeed correct. When percentage payback tournaments become heads-up, they essentially become winner-take-all for the remaining two players.
If you understand why the percentage payback effects chip values when more than two players remain, it should be easy to understand why that effect disappears when only two players remain.
I still don't see it. Granted they are both guaranteed second-place money at a minimum, but when it is 3-handed they are all guaranteed 3rd place money at a minimum. Heads-up they are playing for the difference, but 3-handed they are playing for the differences, and so on.
Finally, to extrapolate further, when it is heads-up and one contestant has merely one lone chip remaining, are you saying that one chip is not more valuable than any single chip in his opponent's stack? This would seem to be what you are implying if you say that chips do not change value when heads-up for the final two spots in a percentage payback tournament. Yet unless I am seriously mistaken, my understanding is that that one lone chip is worth more than any single chip in the opponent's huge stack.
Mark,
You wrote: "You might want to think some more about this, for Greg is indeed correct. When percentage payback tournaments become heads-up, they essentially become winner-take-all for the remaining two players.
If you understand why the percentage payback effects chip values when more than two players remain, it should be easy to understand why that effect disappears when only two players remain." -------------------------------------------------------
I believe there is a fundamental fallacy at work here. This fallacy appears to me to be confusing the fact that they are playing for the difference between payouts with a winner-take-all tournament structure.
This should not be hard to illustrate. Let's say that the two final contestsants have: Player A=T3000, and Player B=T1500. The payouts for first and second place happen to be $30,000 and $15,000. If this were a winner-take-all tournament, the correct settlement/deal prices at this point would indeed be $30,000 for Player A and $15,000 for Player B. Since this is however a percentage payback tourney, the correct settlement/deal prices are as follows: Player A has a 2/3 chance of winning first place = $20,000, plus a 1/3 chance of winning second place = $5,000, for a total fair settlement price of $25,000 for Player A. Player B has a 1/3 chance of winning first place = $10,000, plus a 2/3 chance of winning 2nd place = $10,000, for a total fair settlement price of $20,000. From this we can see that each of the short-stack Player B's chips are worth more than each of Player A's chips on an individual chip basis.
Since we can figure this alternatively by taking the base guaranteed amount, $15,000, and to this adding the product of each player's chances of winning the difference between the payouts, i.e., $15,000 + 2/3 ($15,000) for Player A, and $15,000 + 1/3($15,000) for Player B, it is tempting to think that since they are "playing for the difference" they are now playing a winnier-take-all structure. But this is controverted by the above math which clearly shows that Player B's chips are each worth more than face value. The fact is that they are still within a percentage payback structure even though they are "playing for the difference." The guaranteed floor payout is what makes the difference and what changes the math of the situation, and what causes the chips to still change value.
I wrote: "The guaranteed floor payout is what makes the difference and what changes the math of the situation, and what causes the chips to still change value."
To this let's add the reduced first place payout as well.
The $15,000 for second place is already in their pockets. Ignore it. They are playing for the $15,000 difference, and their chips are worth the corresponding portion of $15,000. The chips of Player A in your hypo are worth $10,000, and those of B $5,000. If Player B doubles through, he and A switch places. At all chip counts the value of each chip is constant, T4500 in play divided into $15,000, no matter who has more, or how much more.
With 3 players, yes, you're still playing for the differences, but it is differenceS, plural. To extend things, let's give player A T1800, player B T1800, and player C T900, and instead of $30,000 and $15,000 remaining, we also have a third prize of $10,000. Now, the differences are $5,000 and $20,000. Players A and B each have 40% of the chips, so a 40% chance of winning. C has a 20% chance of winning. Let's estimate that C will finish 3rd 50% of the time, and 2nd 30%. That means A and B finish 2nd and 3rd 35% and 25%, respectively. Doing the math, their equity in the differences is Player A = 40%x$20,000 + 35%x$5,000 = $9750 Player B is also $9750 Player C = 20%x20,000 + 30%x$5,000 = $5500
Note that although A and B each have double the chips of C, their equity is not double. Thus, the average value of the chips in C's stack is higher than that in the stacks of A and B, even though we're only looking at the differences, and not the total prize.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg,
When they are heads-up, the short stack's chips are worth more on a real-dollars-per-chip basis than the large stack's chips are worth on a real-dollars-per-chip basis. When we do the math taking into account the total of both places this is clear. It should also be clear that this correct math produces a different result than it would produce if the tourney were truly a winner-take-all event. If it were truly a winner-take-all event the math would show that all chips have the same value in real-dollars-per-chip. These two values (the two real-dollar-per-chip values produced in this situation for a percentage payback tourney vs. a winner-take-all tourney) are not the same; therefore you cannot call playing off the final two places in a percentage payback tourney the same as a winner take all event. If it were, the math would show that the real-dollar-per-chip values were identical in both cases. But it doesn't. It shows that the real-dollar-per-chip values change (the short stack's real-dollar-per-chip value is higher than the large stack's real-dollar-per-chip) when playing off the final two spots in a percentage payback tourney. In a winner-take-all event these real-dollar-per-chip values would be the same for both parties regardless of stack size.
The fallacy is in throwing the second place prize out of your calculations for this purpose. While the fair deal/settlement price can be figured accurately starting from this premise, the real-dollar-value-per-chip becomes distorted if you begin the calculation from this starting point. Do you see why? (this has to do with fractions).
but you're wrong.
There is a reason why you should be concerned with the value of a chip. It teaches that if you're the short-stack and go up against a bigger stack, you need more than a very slight edge to justify the risk in the latter stages of the tourney, because the dollar value of the chips you might lose is greater than the dollar value of the chips you might win. Likewise, this concept teaches the big stack that they should go ahead and be more aggressive, becuase what they lose when they lose is not as valuable as what they win when they win. In terms of chips, the big stack can take slightly the worst of it, yet in terms of dollar values still be taking slightly the best of it.
Once you get heads-up, this concept disappears. Even if you do the math and include the second place money, here is something you'll notice. The incremental value of each chip is identical.
Let's say we have 100 chips in play. First prize is $200, and second prize is $100. Using your method, if I have 20 chips, my chips are worth $100 + 20%($200) = $140. If I win 10 chips from you, my value goes up to $160. In the first instance, you're saying my value/chip is equal to $7, while in the second state the value/chip has now become $5.33, so that chips are worth more in a short stack. It looks that way. However, what I really did was gain 10 chips and add $20 to the value of my stack.
now, let's say you had won that pot. You had 80 chips worth $100 + 80%($200) = $260. Average value = $3.25. You win 10 more chips from me, now worth a total of $280, or $3.11 per chip. Again, you might say that the value of each chip went down in the bigger stack, but notice that 10 extra chips increased your total value by $20.
Therefore, no matter how big or small your stack, every chip you add to it adds $2 in value, and every chip you lose costs $2 in value. Therefore, if you have any edge in terms of chips, you have the same edge in terms of money. This is very much unlike the situation described above (where losing 20 chips costs you $x, while gaining 20 chips gains you some amount less than $x).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
With the above parameters, the short stack holding 20 chips has equity of $120. ($100 + 20% of the $100 difference which = $120,
or alternatively, (20% of $200) + (80% of $100) = $120.
If this were truly a winner-take-all event, the short stack holding 20 chips would have equity of 20% of $300, which is $60.
In the first case above, a percentage payback tourney, the short stack's chips are each worth 120/20, or $6.00 apiece. The large stack's chips are each worth 180/80, or $2.25 apiece.
If this were a winner-take-all tourney, each chip in the tourney would be worth $3.00, regardless of who held it.
Since these values are not equivalent, it shows that heads-up for the final two places in a percentagfe payback tourney is not the sdame as a winner take all event with regard to chip values , and that chip valures still do change even heads up for the final two spots in a percentage payback tourney.
These chip value differences point up the fact that a bullying tactic by the large stack in a percentage payback tourney may be correct even with some holdings which are worse than "slightly worse" than the average holding. In fact there is a sound mathematical basis for such tactics (to a point).
As I mentioned in another post, when it gets heads-up, the large stack is the sole beneficiary of the tournament EV the small stack is losing on coin flips, and therefore should be even more inclined to bully the small stack when vying for the final two spots than when at a full table where the tournament EV lost by the small stack is distributed to all remaining participants. This is in direct conflict with the theory put forth by Greg (and supported by Mark Glover).
After re-reading this post I must admit I am starting to now become a bit confused. I thought I had a clear picture of everything involved but now I am questioning some new aspects.
If I am indeed wrong then I apologize to you Greg, and to Mark Glover, if I seemed brusque. I can see how your point that value-per-chip when it changes hands may remain constant, although it is clear that value-per-chip in the stack varies. It is also clear that if this were a true winner-take-all event, that value-per-chip in the stack would not vary, so how can we reconcile this apparent dilemma? Again this seems to somehow be related to whether you look at the whole chip picture or just the difference in chips.
Although my thoughts and statements regarding this have been rather definite, now I must re-evaluate. And before I do that I am going to catch up on some poker-playing this evening before it gets too late.
'Til later,
Mark ("M")
Well after playing some hold'em this evening, I am still somewhat unsure of some things.
It seems pretty clear that the math shows that chips do change value when heads-up for the final two places in a percentage payback tournament. However perhaps Greg is right, in the sense that at this point it no longer matters, because any chips which actually do change hands have a constant value. I don't think this necessarily fully complements Greg's assertion (and Mark Glover's concurrence) that this means it is winner-take-all at this point, but it is important. This aspect also seems to cast doubt on my assertion that the large stack can correctly bully the small stack much more freely even with subpar hands because his chips are worth less individually.
"It teaches that if you're the short-stack and go up against a bigger stack, you need more than a very slight edge to justify the risk in the latter stages of the tourney, because the dollar value of the chips you might lose is greater than the dollar value of the chips you might win."
Fossilman and M,
I know I'm getting in very late in this (interesting)discussion but I have a point to make. Well, you know me. I somewhat agree with Fossilman's statement that I quoted above. But there is another factor that is of prime concern in later stages of a tournament when you are short stacked. A factor that Fossilman does not seem to consider in his statement. Fossilman does not consider the possibility of "doubling up" and the effect that it will have on your making the money or winning the tournament. His staetment only considers the "edge" one needs to risk their chips when short stacked. Current dollar value of chips alone is not the only factor to consider when evaluating your risk. That's my point. Thakns.
vince
Wrong Forum, Man.
P.S. No more coaching newbies on the rail of my 40-80 7CS game :)
Maven
"His cards are random, so why give him the edge when I know he'll call?"
Minor correction: If you know he'll call. There have been plenty of times when I've seen bad players fold hands to which they should have been committed. Give your opponents every opportunity to make mistakes.
My own initial conclusion is that all of your ideas, plus many more not even polled here, are valid in isolation. But taken together, they pretty much cancel out, no matter how you cut it.
It's all illusion. But ain't life fun?
Anyone know where this phrase comes from? I am simply curious.
The expression is used in stud when a player receives a "picture card" (King, Queen, or Jack).
It is used a little more often in HI-LOW stud. In this game, "catching paint" (especially on 4th street) is usually an undesirable event since most of the quality starting hands contain either three small cards or a small pair with an Ace kicker.
I am not an old-timer so it is possible that there is or was another source from which this expression came, but this is the only place I still hear it used.
I hope that was of some help.
- J D -
Yes, thank you.
I had only heard this used in hi low, and in reference to a high card - not necessarily a picture card. But then, maybe I just wasn't that observant and it was a picture card.
I am not the greatest math person, nor am I the greatest at expressing myself here on these forums, so i hope that what i intend is clear.
I too am a people person and find my greatest strengths in poker are reading hands and situations, and going with intuition on some points. Yet at the same time, the medium level mathematical points are invuluable in my opinion. The combination of the two skills can do nothing but improve your profits. While situations and game selection may make the need to master one or the other sides of the spectrum unnecessary there are nothing but benefits to be gotten from at least an intermediate knowledge. Good examples would be tournament situations where you are laying odds to an opponent (NL or PL) or taking odds, or weighing chip value at varying stages, another would be PL omaha ring games where you are correct in certain instances to fold the nuts on the flop due to combined outs against you. In Limit games you can take the following thought process to make a mathematically correct play VS. a tricky player you dont know: Player A i have seen play these hands in this way my hand VS. those hands is an X% favorite, therefore i can expect a profit from a raise here.... or i should fold given the information i have.
Again i apologize if this is unclear, the point is dont underestimate what the statistical information can do for your decision making, it can do nothing but compliment a good intuitive gut instinct, and even when its just not clicking at the tables, math is something to fall back on when all else fails..
Best of luck....
-Ray
I agreee 100% fwiw
The Bellagio has many high stakes games, 80-160 through 1500-3000 on a regular basis (especially on weekends or hollidays). If you want to play big enough, probably in the range of 1000-2000+ its possible that they will arrange a game to suit your preferences.
Shawn
which reminds me--think I read it here on 2+ 2--Belagio recently had big 20 & 40 game-- 20,000 & 40,000 that is !!!
I bought this book recently and am halfway through the 400 or so pages. I find it enjoyable, and packed with interesting ideas.
There is something I am not quite clear on which is probably obvious to many of you ... Cooke repeatedly stresses the formula of volume multiplied by edge equals expectation. Obviously you want your money going in when you have edge - what I am trying to work out is whether or not you should be committing less money if you believe your edge is small, and more when your edge is large ?? In a way this doesn't seem right, as surely even if your edge is small you want as much volume on it as possible to maximise expectation??
It's not just the size of your edge, but also your certainty. If you think your edge is 10%, but occasionally you'll be wrong and your opponent will actually have you drawing dead, then you want to invest less money. If your edge was 5% but it was pretty much a lock at that figure, then you're safe to invest more.
However, in actual play, Roy's concept really isn't very helpful at all. I wouldn't spend too much effort working with it. That effort is better spent on tracking your opponents and figuring out their hands.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I've always taken Roy's edge motto as a kind of mantra for staying cool and always trying to make the right plays. If you concentrate on playing with an edge then after enough volume of play you will be ahead.
So I think of it more in a psychological way rather than as a tactical concept.
Regards,
Paul Talbot
If you think your edge is 10%, but you might be wrong and you might be in the negative zone, then isn't there also the chance that your edge could be greater than 10%. I'd rather invest more in an edge centered at 10% with high variance than an edge of exactly 5%. In the long run you'll make twice as much.
If, on the other hand, it was most likely that my edge is 10%, but this is a max, and I could be drawing dead (-100%), then there are many instances of this kind where I don't want to play at all. A perfect example is stud poker when an opponent pairs his door card early. You may think it's most likely that opponent has nothing else, making your overpair a small favorite, but it's also a reasonable probability opponent has trips, making you a giant dog. In this case, a fold is in order even though you may have the better hand greater than 50% of the time.
You're right. When you can identify a small edge with great certainty, limiting your risk by betting smaller tends to result in a lower expectation than risking a greater amount. This kind of marginal advantage is often confused with situations where your edge is less clear, and has a potential range that overlaps negative and positive but you're not sure where the boundries lie. Basic poker strategy involves avoiding these situations either by using information and analysis to clarify them or by limiting the amount risked.
Short answer: Pushing a small edge will increase volatility, which is something that you might not want.
Long answer: The question is about what you want to do, coincidentally. Theoretically, pushing small edges just as much as large edges is not the best way to make money, because it incurs too much risk.
Poker players don't get into this much (it's more common to blackjack players, and probably some other gambling types who are more free to choose their bets), but it is interesting. It's also directly related to what you're asking. Anyway, what you're really interested in doing when you're betting is making your bankroll grow, not maximizing your expectation. A simple example demonstrating this would be a wager where you bet your entire bankroll or net worth when you are a small favorite. You wouldn't do this because the risk is too great.
Mathematically, you also aren't maximizing your chance of doubling your bankroll. Too often you bust out. There's an area of mathematics that deals with "utility functions", I believe, that tries to maximize the rate of growth of your bankroll over repeated bets. The "Kelly Criterion" provides a formula for how to do this. If this is interesting for you, you may want to look at some explanation of the Kelly Criterion; you should be able to find one on some blackjack site.
Whew ... so this is surely more info than you wanted or needed. It's not all applicable or useful, either. Your statement about pushing your edge to maximize expectation is correct, by the way - which is why I don't believe there's a simple explanation to your question.
Thanks to all who have responded.. What I have taken from this is that I am right to think that you should still get your money in on small edges - AS LONG AS you are prepared to accept large swings.. This pretty much mirrors my game because while I am comfortably ahead I have experienced quite large swings both ways.
Funnily enough, reading more of the Cooke book yesterday it became a lot clearer that he advocates a style which will lead to swings, and stresses the importance of being psychologically able to handle that.
Luke, suppose you have a choice of two games. The first game is the Bellagio $30-$60 game where your earn is $22 per hour and your standard deviation is $600 per hour. The second is the $10-$20 game at the Mirage where your earn is $20 per hour and your standard deviation is $200 per hour.
Theorectically you should prefer the $30-$60 game but from a practical standpoint, the $10-$20 game might be better. In the first game, you would need about $3,000 over a nine hour playing session. In the second game, you probably won't need more than a $1,000. It is it worth exposing another $2,000 to win an extra $18?
While you may have an edge in both games, your edge in the $30-$60 game is only marginally better than in a $10-$20 game. But your risk is much higher in the bigger game. It is true that volume times edge equals expectation. But marginal increases in edge may not be worth the big swings that frequently go along with an increased edge.
So what does your hourly earn rate at the $30-$60 game need to be for it to be worthwhile tolerating the additional swings? $30? How do you decide?
It depends upon each person's financial situation and their tolerance for risk. Some people are risk takers and others are risk avoiders. Personally, unless I can beat a $30-$60 game for at least $30 per hour, I prefer to play in a lower limit game where my earn might only be $20-$25 per hour. But this depends upon the individual.
These ideas are drawn a bit from an earlier post. How can you determine what betting limits you should be playing at?
If you're bankroll is a million dollars and you are playing $1-$2 then you are wasting your time. If you're bankroll is $100 and you are playing $20-$40 you stand to lose your entire bankroll too fast. How can you determine what level is correct? Can you use your hourly rate & hourly standard deviation to determine what level you should be playing at? If you assume that your bankroll cannot be replenished what is a safe level to be playing at? What if you are will to accept a 5% chance your bankroll will be wiped out in the next year?
I suppose if your bankroll is small you would rather play at a lower limit, even if your hourly expectation is a bit lower than the next higher level because you cannot tolerate the swings at a higher level.
For example. Let's say you invest $100 to play at an online poker site. That $100 is all you will ever have.
Assume the limits there are $0.50-$1.00, $1-$2, $2-$4, $3-$6 and $5-$10.
If you start at $0.50-$1.00 when should you move up? When your bankroll reaches a certain level? When your hourly rate reaches a certain level? At some point you have to feel like you are wasting your time at that level. But you can't start at $5-$10, you could lose everything in 1/2 hour.
What would be a good reason to move back down?
Are there strategies (that normal people can understand) that will maximize your profit, but minimize your chance of busting out?
Sammy you need to purchase a book entitled "Gambling Theory and Other Topics" by Mason Malmuth. It is the definitive work on this subject. You can order it through this site and Conjelco by clicking on to the "order form" or "books" under "Directory" on the left hand side of the screen.
I think a good strategy is to start taking selective shots at the next limit when you have 150-200 big bets at that limit in your bankroll and then move up more permanantly when you get to about 300 big bets.
Using your example, with $100 (assuming you can't/wont replace it) start at $0.50-$1.00. When you get to $300 start playing some $1-$2 but only enter soft games and be prepared to move back if you hit a 25+ big bet losing session. At some point you'll cross the line and be playing $1-$2 as your regular game when you are somewhere around $600 and you feel comfortable with it. You can now take some selective shots at $2-$4 while you build up at $1-$2.
Repeat until you can't beat the next level or you run into the situation of Jim's 10-20 vs 30-60 example. Where you end up will have a lot more to do with what you get out of poker and why you play than it will have to do with any calculation you can perform.
I agree with Jim though, check out Mason's "Gambling Theory and other Topics."
Regards,
Paul Talbot
You make an interesting point about Jim's $20-$40, $30-$60 example.
Let's take an example at lower limits.
Say I am sure I can beat $3-$6 for $10/hour. And (currently) I can beat $5-$10 for $9/hour.
Unless I plan on playing $3-$6 for the rest of my life, wouldn't it be smarter for me to play $5-$10? That way I can learn to beat $5-$10 for more and eventually move to higher limits? In the long run, giving up $1 per hour now, could maybe result in more money in the future.
Any comments?
It ain't rocket science.
Play in games you are favored to win in. It's the game more than the limits. Learn to scout out the best games for YOU.
It is a lot better than setteling on a limit.
let's send the player in question - the one with the lifetime bankroll of $100 to the greatest 5-10 game that ever was.
There is probably better than a 60% chance that he will maul the game; there is at least 1 chance in 3 (perhaps higher) that he will take just one or two bad beats and be forced to retire forever.
He could even be blinded broke; in fact either of these could easily happen in a game as small as 2-4.
Do you even take the time to read the question before you answer it ?
Just wondering -
J D
- I see you are still posting without a return address. While I will admit to taking a certain amount of [misplaced] pleasure in pointing out those of your responses that are clearly made without giving any thought to the subject at hand, I - and I suspect at least a few of the other regulars - would at least consider contacting you privately if we knew where to do so.
Several games here have 4 or 5 people capping the betting on every card with little or nothing. These games seem insane, but how does one practice reading a table full of maniacs?
You don't. These games are not for players who thrive on identifying unique situations and taking advantage of them (say with dramatic steal re-raises on the river).
Lets play a different game. This game is a straight 8/16 with blinds of only 1-2. There is no checking and no raising; you either "call" or fold. 7 players routinely take the flop and 3-4 routinely show down. Some players don't even look until the show-down.
How would you play this game? Piece of cake, eh? Nice and easy, nice and predictable. Play tight and invest after the flop when you have a good chance to win the showdown. Yes, you will show down losers fairly often but so what? If you win 1/3 of the show downs against 3-4 players plus dead money, you are way ahead.
Well, this IS your "wild" and "insane" game, so long as you know its GOING to be capped.
- Louie
You don't read maniacs (unless you're a genius at it). You simply call, fold, or raise based upon your hand, and the presence of others in the pot, compared to their essentially random hand. With multiple maniacs capping it on every street, you don't really play poker. You wait for a hand that it is highly likely to be the best hand going in, and you decide on the flop whether the hand is still good enough to call them down to the river or should be folded now. A game like this is really just all math. And very profitable if played correctly. Also very boring.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I am a full time mathematician and just a recreational poker player. Some posts criticize the use of math in analyzing poker situations. But what else are you going to do, if you actually want to KNOW something? In any case, these questions are interesting (mathematically) in their own right.For example: players A, B, C remain in a tournament and A has a big stack. If A gets into a heads up confrontation with B, who has the best of it? Answer: player C! That's interesting, even to a non-poker player. You might say that this is intuitively obvious, but that would just mean your intuition happens to be right this time --- how could you really know this without actually analyzing the situation?
Here's something even more interesting. There exists an game-theoretically `optimal' poker strategy such that your expected profit is exactly zero (ignoring rake) REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOUR OPPONENTS DO --- there is nothing your opponents could do to throw you off that zeroEV even if they intentionally tried to lose to you. That's really interesting! But how could you know that without high-level math?
Have fun!
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Regarding your second point...
I assume you are referring to von Neuman's Minimax Theorum. That theorum only applies to *2 player* zero-sum games, however. How did you come to that conclusion about a game with more than 2 players?
-Anon
I guess I only had a vague familiarity with the theory, and didn't know what the theorem actually said. Perhaps you could tell me what is known about the case with more than two players. (Assume zero-sum.) In any case, I'm sure that whatever turns out to be true, will also be very interesting, and that that truth could not be discovered without mathematics, which was really my point.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Sorry, I misread your post; I have no idea what you're talking about. If you play minimax strategy in a 2 player zero sum game, your ev is greater than or equal to 0 (equal to if opponent plays minimax strategy also). I don't know what this exactly equal to zero thing you're talking about is. I am not a mathematician and have only a rudimentary math background.
Anon is absolutely correct. Game-theory strategies only produce the maximum expected value (which, by the way, would be negative because of the rake) that is possible when your opponents are also using the optimum strategy. Also, what your opponents do and the choices they make greater affect your expected payoff as well as yours. If your opponents try to lose on purpose they will definetely lose big time. The concept you were confused with is that in using game theory strategies, there is no way to gain an edge on you (if all players have the same choices) even if your opponents knew exactly what your strategy was down to the letter. In poker, game theory would produce a mixed strategy which would be a strategy based on making decisions with unequal probabilities. There are many good cheap books on the subject published by Dover.
Dirk,
You wrote: "Here's something even more interesting. There exists an game-theoretically `optimal' poker strategy such that your expected profit is exactly zero (ignoring rake) REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOUR OPPONENTS DO --- there is nothing your opponents could do to throw you off that zeroEV even if they intentionally tried to lose to you. That's really interesting!"
You might want to think some more about that claim. Perhaps you are referring to particular sub-strategies within the game of poker. Even in a two-player game, your expected profit can depend very much on what your opponent does (it will be zero, if she also plays optimally). This should be intuitively obvious.
A more accurate statement would be: In a two-player, zero-sum poker situation, optimal game-wide strategy ensures that your EV will not be less than zero. Even this is technically incorrect, unless you assume all potential advantages are equalized (e.g., randomly draw for the button).
Good post. Yes, it would be easy to give your money to a "perfect" player: throw away the good hands, play the bad hands, and don't show anything down.
I think your statement that the perfect strategy "ensures that your EV will not be less than zero" is correct.
- Louie
What Dirk is referring to is game theory strategy where you are indifferent to your opponents actions. I know this applies to certain situations but not sure that it applies to a multiplayer poker game in all situations. When it does apply, your EV using an equilibrium strategy will be 0 for that play, regardless of your opponents play unless he folds after you check and does not show down his cards.
PS: More accurately, if you use the equilibrium strategy, decisions won't matter but your EV may not be 0, depending on the situation you are already in. Assuming the play up to this point in a hand had EV = 0 for both players, then the EV of the equilibrium play would = 0.
As `anon' noted above, what I said does not apply to three or more players. But I am curious as to what the situation actually is.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Yes, a "n" person game has a solution as well. The two player case was proven in the late 20s I belive (1928 I think) and the n person case was proven in 1944 I think.
-Anon
Your second point, MathMan, is utter hogwash. "But how could you know that" when you are bogged down in high-level math?
If what you are stating is true, apart from the case of simply NOT PLAYING being your strategy, then God could not have created a universe that would support life forms.
I can't explain this thoroughly here, but understand that a "strategy" is an arbitrary simplification or a broad set of policies (as compared to the academic situation of perfect knowledge and anticipation of all possible events, assets, and contingencies). As such, your "optimal" strategy would be INFINITELY COMPLEX, and as such would consume the entire information capacity of the universe, and any quantum trapdoors into nothing, to store and execute.
In real life, there is ALWAYS an infinitesimally more complex strategy which will evolve INEVITABLY to displace yours in the Darwinistic consumption of the assets of the universe (that being entropy).
Love always,
SM
Steve Murray: what part of the word `finite' don't you understand?
I estimate that the number of ways a ten handed Texas holdem game can be dealt is about 10^21. There are 10 positions you could be in. There are much less than 10^24 ways for the betting to go (assuming limit and at most three raises per round, and no unlimited heads-up raising). So there are at most 10^46 possible games. This number may be big, but it is definitely finite.
(If you really want to get into it, all of the probabilities in your strategy would be rational, and therefore finitely describable.)
Of course, no such strategy could not be practically implemented, but that was so completely obvious to everyone else in this thread that no-one else bothered to mention it.
By the way, even the potentially infinite scenarios of unlimited heads-up raising and variable betting are no big drama, and all strategies worth considering would be finitely describable.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
What if you have some knowledge about how an opposing player is likely to play, you smarmy, ivory-tower lack-wit?
Or are you assuming you have perfect knowledge of how an opposing player is likely to play?
AND WHERE ON EARTH DID YOU GET THAT KNOWLEDGE??
Your example is only remotely meaningful if you have zero knowledge or perfect knowledge, neither of which are remotely possible in this universe.
Of course there are a finite number of ways the hands can be dealt, but the inputs into strategies from that point on are infinite. You think I am as dumb as those asses paying $30,000.00 a year to listen to you?
Of course there are a finite number of ways even a heads up game can unfold (assuming you can "know" how many dollars and assets there are in this world which could be pulled into the raises, which you cannot know). And using your hypothetical strategy, there are many threads that never would unfold, and so on, but... Oh, why bother...
Question: You also said they couldn't change your expectation even if they tried to lose to you. How would you know if they were about to try to lose to you, and how would that have any bearing at all? I don't get why you even mentioned that?
Dude! Everyone knows the difference between theory and practice. So what's the big deal. This just happens to be a somewhat theoretical thread. Other posters seem to be perfectly comfortable with this. Just go with the flow, man! Peace!
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
But your theory misses the central problem not only of poker, but of life on Earth: information acquisition.
From quantum uncertainty to the following essay,
http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/Economics/HayekUseOfKnowledge.html
the problem is not what to do when you have the information which, to quote the essay, "is implicit" in the data. Of course!
The problem is getting the data upon which to base your decisions. If it were possible to acquire this data perfectly, the microstructure of empty sapce would smear and collapse, and we would never live to witness it. So....
SM
What if your opponent turns over one card and winks at you?
What if it's a really hot day?
Oh, I get it, you're assuming you're planning on playing some "optimal" strategy, and that your opponent WILL know exactly what you are doing, and yet WON'T be able to beat you? And you will know...
You mean... Wait, now I REALLY get it!
YOU HAVE MISSED THE GAME COMPLETELY.
In fact, you've missed the game of poker so completely I am laughing out loud. I will leave it at that.
Thanks for a good laugh, and see you at the table.
How could you "know" your computer wouldn't crash?
Because I "know" your opponent could compute the probabilities of this happening, and compute a counter-strategy to your probable contingent strategy and, after perhaps only 50 years of play, he'd have ALL your money. ALL OF IT.
Love ya, silly!
What table? As I said, I'm a mathematician, rather than a poker player, and I have these discussions for the fun of it. Why would I sit down at the poker table with you? On the other hand, maybe I should consider it. You wouldn't happen to have a bit of a TILT PROBLEM would you?...
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
I respect your opinion that math is not an appropriate model for poker. There are people who don't know the game theory, but have an intuition for the game and the hand reading skills to be a winning player. Winning is more than knowing the math.
However, even if the model isn't appropriate, that doesn't mean that the model is in itself flawed; it's just misapplied. In other words, the math isn't wrong. Mathematical analysis can be done on a poker hand, regardless of whether you think the analysis is enlightening or not. It's the same thing with competing strategies. You can evaluate whether or not a theoretical strategy will win or lose against another. While no one will use such a strategy at the table, there will be people who resemble the strategies. You can use your hand and people reading skills to determine what strategy a person tends to use, and the conclusions drawn from theory might just provide the answer of how to play.
Dirk,
here's a question for you, can you prove that there exists at least one Nash Equilibrium in a nine handed texas hold'em game? assume no rake.
I have no idea about the answer to this question.
Funny, why doesn't the name of this "Nash" guy ring a bell? He must not be feeding too many people's kids.
`can you prove that there exists at least one Nash Equilibrium in a nine handed texas hold'em game? '
As is already, clear, I am not familiar with the literature. Could you give me a reference? By the way, is that an open question?
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
As I understand it...
A Nash equilibrium exists if each player’s strategy is optimal when compared to the strategies of the other players. Taking into consideration the strategies of the other players, a player’s optimal strategy is the strategy that will maximize the player’s expected return. In other words, a Nash equilibrium exists when each player makes his or her best response, taking into consideration the responses of the other players. Therefore, a Nash equilibrium in theory can exist in a nine handed game and can proven assuming adequate computational power.
As an aside, I would suspect that a Nash equilibrium is much more likely to occur in tight high-limit games than in loose low-limit games.
William
Okay. That's what I suspected a Nash equilibrium might be. So, does anyone know the answer to Boris's question:
`Is there at least one Nash Equilibrium in a nine handed texas hold'em game? (assuming no rake.)'
This might drive the anti-math guys nuts, but I think this is a really fundamental question to ask about texas holdem, or any other particular game.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
PS: anyone got a simple example of a game with no Nash equilibrium (or at least a reference to the literature).
"`Is there at least one Nash Equilibrium in a nine handed texas hold'em game? (assuming no rake.)'"
Answer: yes
"anyone got a simple example of a game with no Nash equilibrium (or at least a reference to the literature)."
We can create an example. First let’s create a simple Nash equilibrium and then we will modify the example so that no Nash equilibrium exists.
Example 1 (Nash equilibrium):
Suppose I offer the following proposition to two people, Joe and Bill. I explain that they must choose either White or Black and they will be rewarded in the following manner. If both pick White, they will each receive one dollar. If only one of them picks White (it does not matter which one), Joe alone will be given a dollar. If they both pick Black then Bill alone will receive one dollar. They are then given five minutes to secretly decide their choice, write it down on a piece of paper and hand it to me.
A Nash equilibrium exists when neither Joe nor Bill would want to change their choice even after being told of the other parties choice. Therefore, in this example, a Nash equilibrium exists when they both pick White.
Example 2 (no Nash equilibrium exists)
Suppose I now modify the game just slightly. All is as above except if both pick White, then only Bill will receive one dollar.
Now there is no Nash equilibrium. No matter what the original choices are, once the choices are exposed, one of the participants will want to change their choice. Having changed one choice, the other player will then wish to change theirs, which will in-turn cause the first player to want to change again which will... Therefore, there are no choices that are optimum for each player; consequently, no Nash equilibrium exists.
William
I have not seen the definition of a Nash equlibrium, but it would seem that each player should choose a playing strategy that is a probability distribution of choices, rather than a single choice (which corresponds to making a particular choice with probability 100%).
Then, in your example, there would be a Nash equilibrium when each player chooses black or white with probability 50%.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Hi Dirk,
Actually, there was no probability involved in that example because it is a version of a classic example often used to teach the Nash equilibrium. It has been a while, but as I remember it, a Nash equilibrium with more than two parties involved is also deterministic when, or if, it exists.
William
DEFINITION: Nash Equilibrium… If there is a set of strategies with the property that no player can benefit by changing their strategy while the other players keep their strategies unchanged, then that set of strategies and the corresponding payoffs constitute the Nash Equilibrium.
This definition seems to require a deterministic solution to me. In any case, it does confirm that the examples I gave were correct in that example #1 was a Nash Equilibrium and #2 was not.
William
P.S. That definition came from Drexel. I intended to indicate the source when i wrote the message but didn't, sorry.
William
I just asked one of my colleagues, and he thought the strategies were probabilistic (in general). He also said some games don't have a Nash Equilibrium (although a two-player zero-sum game definitely does). Now I feel I know the definition. I would be surprised if Texas holdem didn't have on but who knows.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Dirk,
Your colleague may be correct, but the example I provided is a widely accepted way of demonstrating the Nash equilibrium and is deterministic.
From previous:
“DEFINITION: Nash Equilibrium… If there is a set of strategies with the property that no player can benefit by changing their strategy while the other players keep their strategies unchanged, then that set of strategies and the corresponding payoffs constitute the Nash Equilibrium. “
Possibly, I can give an example and then we can use that example to further discuss this topic.
For simplicity sake, assume there are three players who see the river. Player 1 has a pair of Queens, player 2 has a busted flush and player 3 has three Ts. Now we expose the hands and start out search for a Nash equilibrium by making the following test assumptions: player 1 will check, player 2 will check, player 3 check. Now, if you change any of the decisions “no player can benefit by changing their strategy, while the other players keep their strategies unchanged.” Therefore, we have found a Nash equilibrium and it is deterministic in nature, not probabilistic.
Now let’s take a look at a second Nash equilibrium. We make the following test assumptions: player 1 will check and fold, player 2 will check and fold, and player 3 will bet. Again, “no player can benefit by changing their strategy, while the other players keep their strategies unchanged.” This is a second Nash equilibrium in this situation and it too is deterministic in nature.
There may be a third Nash equilibrium in this example, but I can not find it at this time.
I am not saying that the Nash equilibrium has no possible probabilistic applications, but I am saying that its application is purely deterministic in these examples. Possibly, your colleague could provide some supporting reference for his belief that it is probabilistic.
William
My problem at the moment is that I haven't seen a printed definition of Nash equilibrium printed in a book (I will try to look when I get time), so I am in the awkward position of having to speculate as to the definition.
My impression (from asking a colleague) is that strategies are *allowed* to be probabilistic, so a Nash equilibrium exists, given a probabilistic strategy for each player, if no player can increase expectation by changing to another probabilistic strategy (wile the other strategies remain the same).
For example, in the game of paper-rock-scissors it seems to me that the strategy where each player chooses one of the three options independently at random with probability 1/3, is a Nash equilibrium. (And it is probably the only one.)
But when I get a chance to go to the library and pick up a game theory book, I will be more comfortable with this.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
“For example, in the game of paper-rock-scissors (p-r-s) it seems to me that the strategy where each player chooses one of the three options independently at random with probability 1/3, is a Nash equilibrium. (And it is probably the only one.) “
Your phrase “And it is probably the only one” is, in my opinion correct. In any specific p-r-s game, the one-third choice is not always optimal when you are analyzing a specific game outcome with complete information. I do not believe that p-r-s has a Nash equilibrium outcome for any specific game with complete information and I have never seen Nash defined or demonstrated in such a way that it would.
However, we are not talking about the same application of Nash. In your example, you are describing mixed strategy Nash equilibrium with .33333 probability of applying each possible strategy (p-r-s), based upon incomplete information. As my thinking is evolving, I realize that I am describing a dominant strategy Nash equilibrium based upon complete information. After giving your statement some thought, I agree that p-r-s does have a Nash equilibrium if analyzed based upon a mixed strategy/incomplete information model, but at the dominant strategy/complete information level, it does not.
Obviously, I understand that poker is a game of incomplete information, but I understood your question to be asking if a Nash equilibrium could exist. I therefore used the dominant strategy/complete information model in order to determine whether one “could” exist or not.
Once again, yes you can apply Nash as you described. It is my fault for not mentioning (or even giving it significant thought) initially to the fact that I was working with Nash in a complete information environment and assuming a dominant strategy model. I just automatically gravitated to that approach without giving it much thought because of what I thought you were asking.
Please let me know if you find any startling revelations when you go to the library.
Thanks, William
.
Kim, they could fold a million times in a row, but could you "expect" them to fold the million-and-first time?
Meaning, they could give you money, but could you ever "expect" it?
But then, this is the type of discussion you'd expect to be carried on by people who can lose at poker, for amusement, and still eat. I think we should give them a free buffet!
Assume they can only fold if they are bet into. If evryone checks, they must show down.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Kim's proposal is relevant because in real poker games, Dirk's amendment cannot be applied. For example, before the flop and on 3rd street, respectively, in Hold'em and in 7 card stud, there is a forced bet (respectively, the blind and the bring-in), after which the opponent is not allowed to check, but must either fold, call, or raise.
More generally, in real two player poker games it is impossible to guarantee that your expectation will be exactly zero because optimal strategy exploits (achieves strictly positive expectation) strictly dominated actions by your opponent. By playing optimally, you can only guarantee that your expectation will be non-negative.
Here's another example of how an opponent can play in a manner that forces you to achieve strictly positive expectation if you play optimally: if you are first to act on the river and the optimal play is for you to check and call if your opponent bets, then if your opponent holds the nuts and checks, you will gain one bet compared to what you would achieve against an optimal opponent.
On another note, when playing heads up Hold'em optimally, you are only guaranteed non-negative expectation if you play an even number of hands. If you play a single hand, the game is not symmetric, and your worst-case expectation is almost certainly not precisely zero.
I agree with this post. There were errors in my initial post. What I said did not apply to games with more than two players. But I also now realise that a so-inclined heads-up opponent could force you to have positive (and so, non-zero) expectation, essentially by failing to make cinch plays. This would have followed from the original two player game theory theorem.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Dirk,
You wrote: "But I also now realise that a so-inclined heads-up opponent could force you to have positive (and so, non-zero) expectation, essentially by failing to make cinch plays."
Technically, your statement is correct. But you still might not understand the point that some of us are making. The "optimal" player still could have a positive expectation even if his opponent always made the cinch plays.
I think it's safe to say that the "optimal" player would have a positive expectation even if his opponent is today's best heads-up poker player. That's because it is unlikely that today's best heads-up poker player plays an "optimal" strategy.
(n/t)
I am extending my thoughts below on game theory with three or more players. (I made an inaccurate comment regarding multiplayer games in my earlier post `MATH IS FUN'. I have not read the literature on this.)
Consider the following three player zero-sum `game,' with three players named U (you), H and T. Each `round' the players simultaneously choose `Heads' or `Tails'. If one player chooses differently from the other two, then that player receive $1 from each of the other two players. If all choose the same there is no payout.
You, player U, need to choose a strategy to maximise your profits. (Not playing is not an option --- you must play.) Now suppose your opponents are very nice to you and tell you exactly how they will play.
H says `I will always choose Heads every round'.
T says `I will always choose Tails every round'.
Then no matter what your strategy, you will lose a dollar every round. (You only get to choose who wins that round.) Note that there is no collusion between your opponents, and they are not `playing well' in any sense. They are simply each playing a preset strategy.
QUESTION: COULD YOU BE IN A POKER GAME LIKE THIS: Each other player at the table has some `playing style' which corresponds to a (possibly probabilistic) strategy. Could it be that there is some combination of playing styles, so that you have negative EV, no matter what your strategy, even if you know all the playing styles of your opponents and you have unlimited barinpower.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
(I had a friend who used to play this game. He and his buddy had an uncanny ability to declare differently, but I digress).
The opponent's strategy is exactly the same as if they WERE colluding. It really doesn't matter if they know it or not. A duck is a duck...
Although I cannot put my finger on it exactly, this game is fundamentally different than poker. The outcomes of this game is based on arbitrary combinations of the opponents actions and not based on any relative "weight" of the opponent's position.
The analogy would be if an opponent deliberately chose a strategy that was BAD for himself but even more to the benefit of one other opponent. Even if they were not sending signals they would still be "colluding". Such a strategy would be to raise player A on the river when he bet into B in a situation where A is much more likely to have the better hand, which is usually the case. Hero's raise is bad for him since he loses one bet but even better for A who wins most of 2 bets. This is colluding even if hero "declares" this to be his strategy ahead of time.
No. Combinations of non-colluding styles cannot cause a "perfect" strategy to fail, although combinations CAN affect one's EV.
- Louie
Thinking about Mason's discussion of non-self weighting strategies it seems to me that this situation could not present itself. This is because you DON'T always have to play.
Paul Talbot
Assuming each player is equally motivated to win, that there is no collusion whatsoever and understanding that I have no choice but to play, my best strategy would be to create a fellow victim. Upon hearing my competitors strategies, I would inform both H and T that I hoped H had deep pockets because I was also going to choose heads each time. It is amazing how quickly fixed strategies can change under the correct circumstances.
Your example is fun to think about, but I do not believe there is a similar possibility in poker because the best hand can win no matter what H and T plan to do.
William
"Upon hearing my competitors strategies, I would inform both H and T that I hoped H had deep pockets because I was also going to choose heads each time."
Won't work if T and H are playing out of the same bankroll (even if they are not colluding in the game). This situation is all too common in real poker.
JQ Writes:
> Won't work if T and H are playing out of the same bankroll > (even if they are not colluding in the game)...
It should not matter if they are using the same backer’s bankroll provided they are only concerned about their own individual profit and there is no compensation from the overall profit of the bankroll. If they shared the bankroll’s profit, then they would be colluding by proxy because they would be motivated not to change their strategy no matter how many times they individually lost in a row. Dirk specifically excluded the possibility of collusion in his original post. The point is that I will force a change in strategy by putting either H or T on the spot because neither H nor T wants to be individually unprofitable.
> ...This situation is all too common in real poker.
Provided there is no collusion: How does backing two poker players from the same bankroll negatively affect a third party’s expectation? It seems to me that the third person’s long-term expected return derives from their individual poker playing skill relative to the two other opponents and not from the source of the opponents money.
William
"If they shared the bankroll’s profit, then they would be colluding by proxy because they would be motivated not to change their strategy no matter how many times they individually lost in a row."
That's not necessarily true. Let's say they are married and one of them just sucks, but the other can't do anything about it (make them stop playing, etc.).
They won't go broke because one spouse's winnings will more than offset the other spouse's losses. This might even be viewed as a justification for the winning spouse putting up with the losing spouse's losses ("He/she loses at poker, but I win even more than he/she loses, so it isn't a big deal.").
JQ, you used referenced the following quote from my previous message:
"If they shared the bankroll’s profit, then they would be colluding by proxy because they would be motivated not to change their strategy no matter how many times they individually lost in a row."
To which you replied:
> That's not necessarily true. Let's say they are > married and one of them just sucks, but the other > can't do anything about it (make them stop playing, > etc.).
JQ, there is not such thing as sucking or not sucking when it comes to picking heads or tails of a coin toss.
> They won't go broke because one spouse's winnings > will more than offset the other spouse's losses. > This might even be viewed as a justification for the > winning spouse putting up with the losing spouse's > losses ("He/she loses at poker, but I win even more > than he/she loses, so it isn't a big deal.").
The problem here is that you have equated my sentence with poker, but it was specifically in reference to the heads/tails game. In the case of the heads/tails game, what I said would most certainly be true. To play against a couple who share in the outcome of their joint bankroll, and therefore have no need to change their individual strategies, would be the same as playing one opponent and giving them two choices for each round. If you gave one opponent two choices then that opponent would be motivated to choose one each of the two possible outcomes and they would therefore be guaranteed a win for each round.
In the case of poker, money from a common source does not necessarily constitute collusion. That is why, in my previous post that, I stated: “It seems to me that the third person’s long-term expected return derives from their individual poker playing skill relative to the two other opponents and not from the source of the opponents money.”
In other words, you are quoting my statement out of context when you associate it with poker rather than with the heads/tails game. Additionally, I did specifically address poker later in the post and I also asked a question which you have not yet answered.
In your previous post you stated:
>> Won't work if T and H are playing out of the same bankroll >> (even if they are not colluding in the game). This situation is >> all too common in real poker.
Which caused me to ask:
> Provided there is no collusion: How does backing two poker players > from the same bankroll negatively affect a third party’s expectation?
Since you did not answer my question, I still do not understand what you mean by “This situation is all to common in poker.” What is wrong with players playing out of the same bankroll if there is no collusion?
Thanks, William
I think you missed the whole point of the H/T game, which was to illustrate a point about real poker.
All of my comments about shared bankrolls, married couples, etc. were referring to real poker, not coin tossing.
JQ Wrote: “I think you missed the whole point of the H/T game, which was to illustrate a point about real poker. “
Actually, the H/T game was used to ask a question about real poker, not to illustrate a point. Here is Dirk’s question before which he used the H/T game to set the stage.
Dirk Wrote: “QUESTION: COULD YOU BE IN A POKER GAME LIKE THIS: Each other player at the table has some `playing style' which corresponds to a (possibly probabilistic) strategy. Could it be that there is some combination of playing styles, so that you have negative EV, no matter what your strategy, even if you know all the playing styles of your opponents and you have unlimited barinpower. “
I am aware of no “constantly negative EV” corollary between poker and the H/T game except that their context specific situational characteristics are mutually exclusive. Further, I do not believe I missed the “whole point”, or any portion thereof. In fact, I responded specifically to Dirk's question in my initial post to him.
JQ, you have still not answered my question about why you believe community poker bankrolls are unfair in and of themselves without collusion being involved. Your husband and wife example did not illustrate anything that I would construe as unfair to a third party. I have sat in many private games and watched one spouse try to cancel out the other spouse’s loses. Although the spouses were playing from a shared bankroll, those games were still perfectly fair.
William
P.S. This is yet another example of why my wife believes that no one likes to talk to me on this forum.
"JQ, you have still not answered my question about why you believe community poker bankrolls are unfair in and of themselves without collusion being involved."
I think this discussion illustrates why they are potentially unfair. It is not a given that such "unbeatable style combinations" exist in real poker, but nobody has shown that they don't either. If they do, then community bankrolls could represent a form of indirect collusion where a style of play which would individually lose becomes a net winner in combination with another player.
JQ,
It seems to me that the community bankroll would not have any effect, provided there was no joint sharing of the overall bankroll profit. However, I do also see that you are making a very good and valuable point about community bankrolls and the likelihood of there being subtle cooperation in and between the community players.
Thanks for the explanation, William
"It seems to me that the community bankroll would not have any effect, provided there was no joint sharing of the overall bankroll profit."
My understanding of playing with a shared bankroll is that people doing it share in profits and losses. Otherwise, they aren't really sharing a bankroll, but are just loaning each other money.
However, I've never done this, so I could be wrong.
If they do share in the joint profit from a common backer then I agree with you completely, that it is a bad thing. However, if they just happen to have a common backer, and nothing more, then I think that is okay.
William
What about a game with 6 other ultra tough players, and three maniacs to your left. (Or maybe change the numbers --- the key point is you have bad position relative to the playing styles.) Could you be doomed in this game?
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
What about a game with 6 other ultra tough players, and three maniacs to your left. (Or maybe change the numbers --- the key point is you have bad position relative to the playing styles.) Could you be doomed in this game?
Maybe not on topic for this thread, but I think this is what you want, actually. If the maniacs are on your right, then even when you raise to isolate, tough players will recognize what you're doing and still play good hands.
When the tough players are on your right, then you have position on them. You get to see if any of them has a real hand before taking on the maniacs. It's the tough players who you need to worry about.
If I had three untra tight guys on my right, three maniacs on my left and it was the only game in town, then I would play. I would change my opening hand requirements and my expected standard deviation would go up, but my long-term expectation should still be positive.
William
In the game you described hero has the PRIME position. Since the maniacs are predicable hero would routinely check thus reserving late position on almost all betting rounds. Getting to see what the tough players do is worth much more than providing them with opportunities to toss their inferior hands by raising the maniacs.
- Louie
Does anyone have an example of an arguably unbeatable opponent style combination. Remember, maniacs need not be predictable.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
If I have the nuts on the river in multi-way action and the player on my right bets out, I generally can improve my expectation either by raising (and hoping the bettor calls or re-raises) or by calling (and hoping for overcalls).
If I ignored the differences in these expectations and always raised in this situation, you would have a negative expectation if you sat on my immediate right (assuming I otherwise play optimally and the other opponents always play optimally).
There are many other situations like this as well.
Mark, your example does not illustrate a combination of playing styles and is hand specific. The original question was: "Could it be that there is some combination of playing styles, so that you have negative EV, no matter what your strategy, even if you know all the playing styles of your opponents and you have unlimited barinpower.“
I believe the answer to Dirk’s question is no, but it would indeed be interesting to learn otherwise. If it were otherwise, then strategic collusion would portend a dark future for poker.
William
William,
You wrote: "Mark, your example does not illustrate a combination of playing styles and is hand specific. The original question was: 'Could it be that there is some combination of playing styles, so that you have negative EV, no matter what your strategy, even if you know all the playing styles of your opponents and you have unlimited barinpower.'"
More fully explained, the original question was: "Each other player at the table has some 'playing style' which corresponds to a (possibly probabilistic) strategy. Could it be that there is some combination of playing styles, so that you have negative EV, no matter what your strategy, even if you know all the playing styles of your opponents and you have unlimited barinpower."
I offered an example of a strategy that would yield a negative EV to a person no matter how she played.
You also wrote: "I believe the answer to Dirk’s question is no, but it would indeed be interesting to learn otherwise. If it were otherwise, then strategic collusion would portend a dark future for poker."
I believe the answer to Dirk's question is yes. Fortunately, most colluders whom I've observed are not particularly bright. I do wonder, however, how many colluders have escaped my detection.
Your opponents only had a negative EV for one hand because you had the nuts, not because of your playing style created a negative EV for them in general.
I already understand that a superior hand can create a negative EV for the other players at the table.
William
William,
You wrote: "Your opponents only had a negative EV for one hand because you had the nuts, not because of your playing style created a negative EV for them in general."
Previously, you seemed to have misunderstood Dirk's question. Now, you seem to have misunderstood my example. I will try to make it clearer.
Assume three people are playing. (It works for more, but this helps simplify matters.) Hero is in seat #1, knows her opponents' strategies, has unlimited brain power, and is trying to maximize her expectation. Nasty is in seat #2. Lucky is in seat #3.
Assume there is an "optimal" strategy for a three-player, zero-sum hold'em game. Lucky adopts this optimal strategy.
Nasty also adopts this optimal strategy, except for one modification. If he ever has the nuts on the river and Hero bets (or raises), then Nasty always will raise (or re-raise)--regardless of whether or not Lucky is still involved in the pot.
Do you understand that whatever strategy Hero adopts, that strategy will have a negative EV?
Do you understand that Nasty's strategy also will have a negative EV?
Do you understand that Lucky's strategy will have a positive EV?
Do you understand that the "three-way river action/Hero bets/Nasty has the nuts" scenario should arise multiple times over the course of many, many hands?
Do you understand that even if this scenario occurred only once in a billion hands, Hero's EV still would be negative?
Do you understand that even if this scenario never occurred, the *expected* value of Hero's strategy still would be negative?
Do you understand that there are many additional strategy adjustments that would cause Hero's strategy to have an even worse EV?
Sorry Mark,
Mark, you are still giving specific case examples and not general case examples. Specific case examples are too limited to effectively answer Dirk's question. He was asking a general case question regarding playing styles that, by their specific nature, would create a negative EV for one of the styles.
Let's not waste each others time any further on this one Mark, you are talking apples and I am talking oranges and it is you who does not get the point.
It is interesting how you always try to insult people when you get in over your head or when you discover you are wrong. That’s it Mark, throw up some insults and maybe you can obscure the fact that you were incorrect in the first place.
Let's not waste each others time any further on this one, you are talking apples and I am talking oranges and it is you who does not get the point.
You do have my permission to post one more insulting post in order that you can have the last word. Do not expect me to read that post however.
William
William,
I don't expect you to read this, but it might benefit others who do.
You wrote: "Mark, you are still giving specific case examples and not general case examples. Specific case examples are too limited to effectively answer Dirk's question. He was asking a general case question regarding playing styles that, by their specific nature, would create a negative EV for one of the styles."
Apparently, you still misunderstand my example and Dirk's question.
My example provides a general game-wide strategy that answers Dirk's question about whether an infinitely smart person can be forced to have -EV at a table of three or more players.
You also wrote: "It is interesting how you always try to insult people when you get in over your head or when you discover you are wrong. That’s it Mark, throw up some insults and maybe you can obscure the fact that you were incorrect in the first place."
Pappy Glover: "That's sort of like the toad calling the frog ugly."
I'm sorry if you felt insulted. It's sometimes hard to know at what level to talk to someone who seems to easily misunderstand questions and examples.
Perhaps I am wrong; I'm open to that possibility. But you haven't explained why, and I believe I have explained why not.
You seem awfully sure that I am wrong. You might benefit from being more open minded.
Mark, we will never convince each other of anything, with the possible exception that we are both potentially very insulting people. So let's admit it and get on with our lives.
Best wishes, William
William,
You wrote: "Mark, we will never convince each other of anything, with the possible exception that we are both potentially very insulting people."
I certainly remain open to the possibility that you can convince me of all sorts of things. "I'm not young enough to know everything." (J.M. Barrie)
And while I might not be able to convince you of anything, perhaps Dirk can. I encourage you to read his recent contribution to this thread entitled "Comments on 'How about this example?'"
I also encourage you to keep an open mind while you read Dirk's post. "The human mind is like a parachute--it functions better when it is open." (Cole's Rules)
Mark,
The reason I closed my mind to your comments was because of their style, not because of their content.
I'll try to do better next time.
No hard feelings,
William
Comments on this and the dialogue that followed.
First let's clear one thing up, and sorry if I appear to be taking sides, but you are certainly specifying a *general* strategy or playing style, when you say how to play in some specific situation, and then say `otherwise play optimally'. Moreover you can analyse the sign (+ or - or 0) of overall EV by analysing how play in the specific situation compares to optimal play.
So in the example Mark Glover gave, with payers Hero, Nasty and Lucky (or maybe Lucky1, Lucky2, etc.), the real question is, does Hero have have a counterstrategy against Nasty's non-optimal play, so that Hero's EV is not hurt. For example, if Nasty raises if and only if he has the nuts, and Hero knows this as we assume, then Hero can simply fold whenever Nasty raises on the river.
Note, we are assuming that Nasty's strategy is given, so he does not counteradjust. Also, what I said did not exactly describe Nasty's since he may also occasionally raise as a bluff, making Hero's decision more difficult.
So at this time, I can not tell whether or not Mark gave an example of what I was asking, but it is definitely the right way to go about looking for an example, (that is, consider strategies of the form `optimal except for this small change').
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Dirk,
You wrote: "So in the example Mark Glover gave, with payers Hero, Nasty and Lucky (or maybe Lucky1, Lucky2, etc.), the real question is, does Hero have have a counterstrategy against Nasty's non-optimal play, so that Hero's EV is not hurt. For example, if Nasty raises if and only if he has the nuts, and Hero knows this as we assume, then Hero can simply fold whenever Nasty raises on the river."
I don't know what an "optimal" strategy might be in three-handed hold'em (or even if such a strategy could exist). I would be shocked, however, if it excluded raising (or re-raising) on the river with anything other than the nuts.
You already mentioned that optimal strategy may include the bluff-raise. I would say optimal strategy almost certainly would include the bluff-raise. If I took the time, I probably could prove it.
Other times Nasty might raise with the non-nuts is with the second (or third, fourth, etc.) nuts. If the final board is 2h2dKs/6h/4h, Hero bets out with 2s2c, Nasty raises, and Lucky folds, would a (slightly modified) optimally playing Nasty only raise with 5h3h and not with KhKc? I doubt it.
If raised by Nasty (whose published strategy includes sometimes raising on the river with the third nuts), should an EV-maximizing Hero fold 2s2c in the above scenario? I doubt it. And if Hero should not always fold the second nuts to these kinds of raises, then Hero's overall EV will be negative.
Mark, your comments and analysis, just go to show how complicated things can be, even after trying to simplify.
I agree, that it is not even clear that optimal strategies exist (or that a Nash equilibium exists, whatever that is), but maybe this can be shown. But at the level of trying to give a moderately convincing example (to someone who is not too easily convinced), describing playing styles that are `optimal, except for...' is a good way to go. It's just that you example, even though it narrows the situation down to something more specific, the analysis is still way too complicated for me to convince myself whether or not it works.
I think I will start a new thread above, where the situation is simplified. (It'll take a bit of time to write.)
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Dirk,
I do not feel slighted at all that you feel Mark had a good point. The truth is that he had so worn my out by that point that I had stopped reading his posts.
William
I know I said there was not corollary, but how about this Dirk,
Consider the EV of a passive/loose player sitting at a table populated with aggressive/tight players. Now that is a long-term negative EV based upon contrasting playing styles!
William
William,
You wrote: "Consider the EV of a passive/loose player sitting at a table populated with aggressive/tight players. Now that is a long-term negative EV based upon contrasting playing styles!"
Why do you think contrasting playing styles will generate a long-term negative EV for someone who knows all the playing styles of his opponents and has unlimited brain power (and presumably is trying to maximize his EV)?
And what makes you think such a player would adopt a passive/loose strategy?
“Why do you think contrasting playing styles will generate a long-term negative EV for someone who knows all the playing styles of his opponents and has unlimited brain power (and presumably is trying to maximize his EV)?”
I based my example upon 36 years of playing poker and I have never known anyone who had a long-term positive EV that played a loose passive game when faced with a group of tight aggressive opponents. I am sure you can make up some story to the contrarily, but that has been my experience. The fact that someone is very intelligent is no guaranty that their intelligence will be put to work effectively in all areas of endeavor Mark. I am sure you know people smarter than you whom you can out play at poker. Many if not most players are trying to maximize their EVs, but not all of them are successful at coming even close to that lofty goal.
“And what makes you think such a player would adopt a passive/loose strategy? “
It was not my goal to explain why a person would choose one strategy over another. I just tried to answer Dirk’s question.
You know Mark; I do not think it a productive use of our lives communicating with each other. I think I will take a sabbatical from reading your posts, possibly for the rest of my life.
See you at the tables Mark (I hope), William
William,
I asked: "Why do you think contrasting playing styles will generate a long-term negative EV for someone who knows all the playing styles of his opponents and has unlimited brain power (and presumably is trying to maximize his EV)?"
You replied: "I based my example upon 36 years of playing poker and I have never known anyone who had a long-term positive EV that played a loose passive game when faced with a group of tight aggressive opponents."
You didn't answer my question. If I play an "optimal" strategy heads up against you playing a tight-aggressive (but not "optimal") strategy, our constrasting playing styles will not generate a -EV for me.
So why would constrasting playing styles generate a -EV for me in a three-player game?
You also wrote: "Many if not most players are trying to maximize their EVs, but not all of them are successful at coming even close to that lofty goal."
But Dirk's question explicitly assumes the player in question has unlimited brain power and implicitly assumes perfect emotional control (thus avoiding tilt, etc.). Presumably, such a player would be successful at maximizing his EV.
I also asked: "And what makes you think such a player would adopt a passive/loose strategy?"
You replied: "It was not my goal to explain why a person would choose one strategy over another. I just tried to answer Dirk's question."
You might have tried, but I don't believe you did answer Dirk's question. If an infinitely smart person would not adopt a loose/passive strategy against a table of tight/aggressive players, then you would seem to be answering some different question.
You also wrote: "You know Mark; I do not think it a productive use of our lives communicating with each other. I think I will take a sabbatical from reading your posts, possibly for the rest of my life."
It might not be productive for you. I often benefit from discussing issues with people who hold different points of view. Of course, you are free to do what you think is best for you.
Mark, you wrote "I often benefit from discussing issues with people who hold different points of view."
I assume you include "learning", in the "benefit". So how do you reconcile your claim with the fact that, in almost all the threads you are involved with, you want to have the last word/post?
(And they're not Thank-You notes either...)
A coin toss game is always "played to the river". In a poker game you can only hope your opposition plays every hand to the river. The scenario is just too different from a real poker game in too many ways.
I had my first ever live action experience last night at Harrah's in NW IN. While I have played fairly extensively online, with varying results, I just never really felt like playing a 10% rake with $5 max plus $1 jackpot drop vs. 5% with 3 max and playing in my undies,(the casinos tend to frown on this practice). So I decide my first experience will be in 10-20 1/2 kill Holdem, of course. first hand with posting directly behind button, I'm dealt 28c. Button raises behind me, 4 in if i call. Thought momentarily, but then mucked, of course, knowing better. This is real polay now, no BS. Play like you know what you're doing. Of course, I'd have filled up by the turn, but you knew that. This phenomenon happened 3 more times in the next 45 minutes, always when i had half a mind to call, but didn't have odds in my favor. Damn those odss, damn them straight to hell. Was down about $250 or so when the hand of the night came. I'm dealt 56o 2nd from button. 3 callers ahead, i limp in, 1 more caller behind me. BB raises, all call. 6 handed raised flop comes Q47 rainbow. UTG bets, 1 fold in front of me, 1 behind my call, BB raises, UTG reraises, I immediately put her on minimum top 2 pair, probable low set( her appearance didn't seem to denote a loose aggressive style), all call. Now, being that I am open ended with no flush about with already $240 in the pot, i've got pot odds up the wazoo. I put in a quick request to God for either a 3 or an 8, promising a little something extra in his tithe box for him if it was a non-flushing 3, and ASAP. Obviously, the big man is hard up on cash right now, for like lightning a rainbow-completing 3 hits the turn. Now, this table had been jumping on hands as soon as they were hit, but i felt that as i still had the BB to keep in after UTG bet again, i just called, know the 2 pair or set wasn't going anywhere no matter what as she was near out of chips, so i just called, putting in a quick addendum to my request, asking for no board pair, as i like my nuts to be the nuts, (silly me). A hits river. I cantain myself, hoping to get action from AQ or any other Ax- pair. UTG bets, and right behind her is a raise,( allin tho, dammit). AQ has reared its beautiful head to be chopped off. No more time for subtlety, I reraise, get CALLED by SB and UTG tilt raises allin, i of cousrse, call, pretty sure I'm not splitting, but not absolutely positive, anything's possible. Guy out of hand 2 spots behind me calls my hand B4 the show and is POSITIVE I have 56 and everyone else is wasting their time and $$$. First show is the obvious AQ after UTG, which the player in front of him swears will be good, although holder is sure he's beat. I figure him for third. SB shows obvious Q7 that he just couldn't let go of, and after my 56 is shown, a VERY pissed off UTG shows her pocket fours, which she played exactly right until the river, totally disbelieving someone would call a flop with 56o. Near as i could tell, it was about $600 in the pot, which seems pretty huge, and definitely the biggest i've ever won on a units basis( over 30 big bets!!!). Didn't win a single hand after that and still went home $175 to the good, alomost exactly 2 bb's per hour played that the pro's in vegas strive for, even with a 40% higher rake. I am very satisfied with my result, and even more satisfied with my play, as i did not loose up on crap hands just to try and hit, even though, if I'd started that way, i may have won closer to $1000, but, as I know, that way lies madness.
gh
I'm not sure that you're looking for advise, but...
The pre-flop call is bad, especially with only three limpers. In the long run this will cost you money.
On the flop you're committed, but you should definitely raise. The pot's huge, they're all coming anyway, so why slowplay. Remember: for a slowplay to be correct, the pot must be small, the next card could give someone a good second best hand, AND the situation must be such that you're opponents wouldn't have called your original bet. As far as I can tell none of these criterion are met on the turn, which makes a raise/ re-raise/ cap mandadory.
Anyway, glad to hear your session was a success. Keep turning straights.
Guy
I certainly hope you meant raise on the turn, and not the flop, as I had not yet made a hand and people were not realy checking to the raiser in those situstions where i felt i could get a free card. I will have to disagree with you, however, on the initial call. I had both blinds in, (providing SB calls), plus 2 ahead of me, with 2 more to act behind me, which brought 1 more. Low connectors, especially suited, (mine were not...) are DEFINTELY playable in this situation, as they are easy to get away from if nothing hits you on the flop, but they almost always pay very well, as some people just can't see people sticking around with any little cards and bet their overcards when they're already drawing dead. Are you saying a slowplay is no good if the pot is big? My play did allow far people to make better 2nd best hand, as AQ can attest, and I didn't want to invest too omuch, as i was prepared to lay down my hand if the board paired. Seen too many times where i hammered a straight home, only to have people call me, because they feel they are getting good enough pot odds to call for a possible house, which all were getting here, especially considered most people in this situation are obviously considering their 2 pair or trips good. Thank you for your input, however.
If you raise the turn, you win more or lose more, no doubt. And it's also very true that the 2-pair and set hands probably aren't leaving, and that they have odds to call. However, in the long run, you probably earn more by raising in spots like this than by calling. In fact, my probably is about 95% certain.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
On your first hand (82s) and faced with a raise, you should notice that since the raiser is on your left that you are NOT subject to any more raises. You are getting half price with impunity. In the hand you played (65) you are paying full price AND subject to additional raises, a clear loser. The first situation is MUCH better. Marginal Call with 82s, easy fold the 65o.
As for slow-playing: [1] Your flopped straight DRAW is well worth raising so long as you get 3 or more callers since you are only a 2+:1 dog to have the nuts on the river. Any "free card" issues are (very very thin) gravy. [2] Slow-playing the turn is NOT dangerous since nobody drawing to beat your straight is going to fold anyway, except for the improbably gut-draw 86.
Your primary consideration is how can you maximize the opponent's investment in this hand. Waiting to see the river card has merit so long as you can make up lost turn bets on the river; which is usually NOT the case. Slow-playing in this spot, then, has merit if you think someone behind you will call if you call but fold if you raise.
The correctness of YOU asserting your superior hands does not change just because the opponents will correctly call anyway.
- Louie
Which do you like better, live action or online?
"I'm dealt 56o 2nd from button. 3 callers ahead, i limp in, 1 more caller behind me."
Shows what I know since I would have folded this hand.
Nice attitude Mason...........be constructive or don't say anything
Oh he was being constructive. A little terse, but constructive.
natedogg
No-one has the time to explain why every time. The answer seems to be the cards did not meet his preflop criteria.
Probably the mid position call with small unsuited cards. With something like a 9Ts I might call or raise. 56 I probably fold.
I like Daliman thought process (he's thinking) but there looks to be some rationalization in playing the 56 at this point (mild tilt).
nt
Well, i guess there's no more damning evidence of my play than MM's faint non-praise. All i can say in my defense is that about flop % was about 40% B4 that, and I figured if it hit, it'd pay well. It did, and it did. Will try to play better in the future, I've got all your 2+2 stuff, so maybe I won't be so dumb in the future. Please forgive me, however, if i don't return the $$$. As far as the 28s non-call, yeah louie, a little tight, maybe a lot. Again, wanted to play right. If it was online, stupid as it sounds, i woulda done it. Feel much more comfy in online play, where i average about 4-5 BB's per hour win rate short handed. Thanks to all for your input.
As I said earlier you're a thinking poker player (as are many here on this forum)
You might have raised here rather than call (if you were calling anyway). Gain position, build image.
If it was wrong, why not determine how wrong. Doesn't look to be a large -EV but I suppose those add up over the lon run
Here's some numbers for M to convince him that strategy for heads-up play is the same for a winner-take-all event (e.g., a satellite) or a percentage-payback event. Or, in other words, once your regular percentage-payback event becomes heads-up, chips values become constant and there is no need to concern yourself with so-called tournament strategy anymore.
Hypothetical tourney, down to 3 players designated A, B, and C. Prizes remaining are $400, $200, and $100. Chip counts are T50, T30, and T20, respectively. Using Andy Ward's formula, the players have the following chances of finishing 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. Their prize equity is in the last column: A: 50% 33.93% 16.07% $283.93 B: 30% 37.5% 32.5% $227.50 C: 20% 28.57% 51.43% $188.57
Now, let's play a hand of limit poker where player B folds on the button, and players A and C each end up putting T10 in the pot. If player A wins, the chip counts become T60, T30, and T10, and the numbers become (with the new final column being the change in prize equity): A: 60% 32.38% 7.62% $312.38 $28.45 B: 30% 48.33% 21.67% $238.33 $10.83 C: 10% 19.29% 70.91% $149.29 -$39.28
But, what if C had won? The figures read: A: 40% 34.28% 25.72% $254.28 -$29.65 B: 30% 32.86% 37.14% $222.86 -$ 4.64 C: 30% 32.86% 37.14% $222.86 $34.29
You will note that when A, with a big stack, wins 10 chips, he gains $28 while C loses $39. You will also note that B makes $10 by sitting there doing nothing. However, when C wins, and the stacks become more equalized, B loses a little by sitting there. Also note that in both the case of A and C, they lose more when they lose than they win when they win. A is risking $29.65 to win $28.45, while C is risking $39.28 to win $34.29. Because the differential is greater for C (the shortest stack) than for anybody else, he needs a greater edge than anybody else before he should enter a pot.
Of course, the real lesson here is that you can gain a lot of equity by just sitting out, but when you do so, you ALWAYS want the big stack to win. But, whenever the stacks become closer to equal, you do lose (a little) by sitting out.
Of course, this doesn't mean you should just sit by and do nothing, because you are losing money by doing that (blinds and/or antes). The issue is how much are you losing in blinds/antes vs. how much you lose by playing without a significant edge.
Also, to get to the heads-up part, if A wins the pot, and it is for all of C's chips, C is out with $100 and A and B are playing for $400 and $200, with chips counts of T80 and T20, respectively. The present value of those stacks are $360 and $240, respectively. Note that if you do the math, every time A wins a chip, the value of his stack increases by $2, and everytime he loses a chip, it drops by $2. Thus, the incremental value of each chip is always $2 in this heads-up game, and thus you can now ignore the fact that you're in a tournament, and simply play each hand as you would pretty much any hand in a heads-up game. The only difference is that either you or your opponent is often short-stacked, and won't be able to play the hand out with full action on every street, whereas in a cash game you'd likely both have enough money to play things out as fully as you wish.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I agree completely, with the possible exception of the exact figures. I thought that the probability of coming last was proportional to chip size, but I really don't know. What is Andy Ward's formula? Are there formulas for more than three people?
In any case, your post is spot on.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Without following the figures in the first part of this post, I will say that I can see that the chips which actually change hands when heads-up for the final two places in a percentage payback tourney have a fixed constant value. What threw me off initially was Greg's statement that it essentially becomes a winner-take-all contest at this point. However if you do the math it is clear that the chips do indeed change value when computing the chips involved in both entire stacks. This is not the same result a winner-take-all contest produces for te same calculations. If, on the other hand, you compute the chip values only for those chips which actually change hands the chip values are indeed fixed. Therefore the big stack cannot correctly use the principle that his chips are worth less individually to gamble with the small stack while taking significantly the worst of it. This is contrary to what I first thought and posted.
Interestingly there is a completely different aspect which I believe does allow the big stack to gain if "flipping coins" on even money propositions with the small stack in a tournament. This is of an entirely different nature and is caused by the fact that the big stack can survive certain short-term losing sequences which the small stack cannot. In other words a sequence of, say, Win-Loss-Loss-Win-Win may win the tournament for the big stack, but the same mirror image sequence may lose the tournament for the small stack because he may be knocked out prematurely after the third flip, thus never getting to enjoy the following Win-Win. So a fair matrix of all theoretical coin flip results stretching into the future would produce even results if they have equal stacks, but the small stack suffers from something remotely akin to the dealer's edge in Blackjack; if he busts out first he loses. This is not a really good analogy, but the small stack is suffering from having his possible eventual winning sequences abruptly curtailed by an early loss which eliminates him from further competition and consigns him irrevocably to the lower prize. The big stack of course does not suffer from this effect unless the small stack is first lucky enough to avertake him.
...may be in thinking that the big stack forcing the small stack to gamble on even coin flips when heads-up provides some additional advantage. It is probably already contained within the chip ratio advantage and may well make no difference.
Re: your first paragraph: the two players are guaranteed at least 2nd place, so they effectively each have the 2nd place prize money in their pockets, so at this point, they really are playing a winner take all heads up tournament for a single prize equalling 1st prize minus 2nd prize. It really is absolutely identical to a winner take all heads up tournament for a single prize.
Re: your second paragraph: your sequence-of-coin-flips, gambler's-ruin type scenario is certainly a good way of looking at it. Qualitatively and intuitively it seems clear that the short stack is more likely to mgo bust. But this scenario can be analysed and quantified exactly. It turns out that each players probability of winning (by the other player busting out) is exactly proportional to chip size. (For example, a player with 73% of the chips is 73% likely to win.) So all chips do indeed have equal value when it's heads-up.
Trust me on this. I have just stated widely-accepted, well-known things.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Yes Dirk and thanx for the confirmation. Just after I posted this I realized this was probably the case and posted such under my post "My Second Error." But it is nice to have the reassurance that this is so.
I didn't read all of this post. But one quick way of looking at it is that once the tournament has become heads-up the only prize money that is at sake is the difference between first and second place since each person has at least a second place finish. Thus each chip is worth it's proportion of the remaining money still at stake. For instance if $500,000 is the difference between first and second and their are $5,000,000 in chips, the chips are worth 10 cents on a dollar, and this is the case no matter how the chips are divided between the two remaining players. (Of course this assumes that each player is of equal ability and that other factors such as position do not matter.)
Another minor point. When you read how the last two players contested a mutli-million dollar pot, that's not really correct.
"Another minor point. When you read how the last two players contested a mutli-million dollar pot, that's not really correct. "
Yes, but it makes for good press which in turn is good for poker.
Danny
I made some errors in my analysis and posts in a couple of recent threads regarding chip values. For anyone interested, I have summarized this and the correct line of analysis (which Greg Raymer first explained) in my post "Summary and Corrections." This post may also contain an error on a different note which I address in my post "My Second Error."
Isn't 2+2 (and all the posters) great? I learned something the last day or so. In many ways it is better to be wrong because then you stand to learn something. Thanx Greg and all.
A post below reminded me of a question I've had for a long time. The post read something like (i'm paraphrasing) "the correctness of an opponent's call does not make it wrong for you to push your edge"
It seems to me that when discussing hands, everyone always explains why their raise or call was correct. Player A will say "My pocket aces were an over pair on the flop, so it's correct for me to raise"
Then player B will say "I was getting 5 to 1 on my nut flush draw, so it was correct for me to call"
Then player C will say "after the raise and call in front of me, the pot was laying me 6 to 1 on my straight draw, so my call was obviously correct"
Now, how can everyone in the pot be correct? I can only think of two possibilities: 1. There is enough dead money in the pot to actually allow for all remaining players to profit in the long run by the quantity expressed as: dead money/# of players left
2. Somebody is wrong about their assessment of their hand.
Is there more to it than that?
CH
I think you've got it right. It's very easy for everyone to be correct. Let's take a really simple example. With one card to come, player A has aces and player B is going for a flush. The pot is currently 8 big bets. Player A is correct to bet, since he is approximately a 4-1 favorite on any new money put in, but player B is correct to call because he is getting 9-1 (including A's bet and not including implied odds) on an approximately 4-1 shot. So it's clear that player A wants to bet and player B wants to call.
Of course, players may have made incorrect assessments of their hands as well.
I don't like (1) pocket aces with both a straight draw and flus draw on the board (2) nor, do i like straight draw with possible flush....so it seems that example you showed suggests that they CAN'T all be right!
The correctness of a betting action is based on the information that the player had available to him at the time he decided on a course of action. It is quite possible for ten players to make correct decisions based on the information that is known to them at the time and yet be incorrect based on knowing what everyone has. But knowing what everyone has is not part of the information that is available to you. If it were, then it would be cheating.
Yes, because of the dead money, everyone can be correct on a later betting round. That doesn't mean they were correct on the previous betting rounds. ;-)
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
You're right on both counts although all poker games have dead money and your definition of "correct" is usually irrelevant and often the opposite of what one should do in a given situation.
The ante structure creates dead money. A big enough ante (or other bet prior to the decision point) can make it right to wager as a huge underdog even when the cards are face up on the table.
When you say "correct" you're implying the definition: "profitable in the current hand." Imperfect information, however, compels actions based on the probability of events over many trials, which sometimes makes the significance of the actual situation marginal to the point of irrelevance. If I bet a full house into quads, my assessment was "incorrect" by your definition. But if the information that's reasonably available indicates that it's highly doubtful that I'm beaten, the far greater error would be to avoid this "mistake." If I 4-bet and should know that my opponent wouldn't have reraised without the nuts, it might look like I'm ignoring the situation at hand, but I'm really ignoring how the long view can clarify what I'm looking at here and now.
nt
Every home game that I go to that isn't mine is set up super loose! The standard ante is a small bet and the biggest bet is usually four times this amount. I know that I'm playing too tight, because I'm being antied to death. My raises are also getting way too much respect, yet I can't seem to steal a pot. When I loosen up, I just lose more quickly. I'm having a terrible time varying up my game and picking the spots to make a stand. Please help! The setting for this is small time stakes. This is a 'friendly' game, so the buy in is miniscule, but I still want to win.
Even - You can't rely on tight play to win like you usually can in a small stakes casino game. You have to "play poker." Read Sklansky's The Theory of Poker for some good ideas.
Try to put your opponents on hands and then try to out-play them. Bet (for value, as a semi-bluff, or as a bluff) when appropriate. Reading your opponents and figuring out what action is appropriate is what poker is all about. When you have trash and you put your opponents on hands that beat you, you still have to play tight. The trick is reading your opponents.
But most importantly, if you are playing for small stakes in a friendly game, there is much more involved than whatever miniscule amount of cash you win or lose. Play to win, but join in the friendly comaraderie, and don't sweat it much whether you win, lose or draw.
Just my opinion.
What games are you playing?
Buzz
A theoretical question here. I know that game conditions and what the board looks like makes all the difference in the world. But, if on the river you have unimproved AA. How many opponets would have you to have in the hand still to make it correct to check on the river? I generally figure that I will pound hard with AA until I meet resistence regardless of the number of players in against me. But, on the river, where I am no longer protecting my hand, I will check if I have two or more players who have called all the way down.
Am I missing a major value bet here?
I would say most of the time, YES.
What are you putting your opponents on?
What hands/draws do you feel you are up against?
I like to figure out on the flop in cases where i have an overpair to the board, what cards I will slow down if come and which i will continue to pound away at, this is done by observing my opponents hand selection vs. position and my position throughout the betting.
Worst cases are the extremely poor players, calling two bets cold with hands such as J4s and other garbage, yet even in this scenario i will close my eyes and toss the chips in there.
Just my preference and experience...
Best of luck..
Ray
I think that you are missing a very important bet! Depending upon what limit your playing. Even at a 1-2 hold-em game you just threw away 4 dollars because you checked. If you bet all the way and there is only a few players left, chances are they called with just one pair. Like a pair of kings, or whatever other high card is on the board. If they made two pair, they will go ahead and bet regardless of what you do. You are risking one bet to make money from two opponents. Its also important to consider what your table image is at this table, and also if you raised before the flop. If you didn't raise preflop you are probably more likely to go ahead and bet. Just my advice, hope it helps! also what position are you in, if last to act this play probably makes more sense, because you might be looking at a check-raise!
River play is extremely complex. There is no point in gathering the # of opponents for this, because it depends entirely on the board and the situation.
I will say to ask yourself if the river card could help someone- if they could beat AA before the river, you probably would hear from them when they hit their 2 pair or better.
I checked AA in a GIANT pot on the river after a flop of KQT today against 3 opponents. Yesterday I river bet AsQd in a board of Flop: Qh 6h 8d Turn: 9s River: 7h in a HTH pot and got called by presumably QJ. It just depends on the situation so much that general rules are very tough to make.
Read the river sections of HPFAP again, and be very thorough in your hand reading. Good luck.
Dan Z.
The optimal strategy is sensitive to off-equilbrium behavior. In other words if your opponent makes a mistake then you need to punish him. But you can't overreact or he can exploit your behavior.
For example, you are often forced to call on 7th street to snap off bluffs. The pot odds require folding less often than the ratio of a bet to the pot. In practice your opponents may virtually never bluff, yet you are "forced" to donate an extra bet when you "know" you are beat.
A bigger concern is slow plays, especially in no-limit. The hero "foolishly" limps in with 56 versus Ax. The flop appears to be rags 347. The hero slow plays when an ace hits the turn, and then gets called all-in when a K flops on the river. Basically the sucker lets the hero in too cheaply and pays off too much at the end.
So when I see a surprising raise from a possible slow-play then I need to call enough to make bluffs unprofitable, but not enough to give pot-odds to slow plays. I dread the idea of playing flop games against Ray Zee or Doyle Brunson, where they would toy with me by playing loose and bluffing or taking shots all night. It would be like sleeping in prison with one eye open, being continually vigilant.
Going to vegas in a week for the first time.
Anybody having some thoughts about which casinos that are putting up good mid-limit holdem games when it comes to bad competition and rake ?
Thanks in advance
For a "typical" Vegas mid-limit (e.g. 30-60) hold 'em game, what are the ballpark figures for the SD using hourly figures? What about for 8-hour sessions?
(I'm asking both questions since poker wins/losses do not fall into a Gaussian distribution.)
SD of what? Pot size? Win? Loss?
sd of ev
that would be 0.
Couldn't ther be an sd for the ev of a raked game? But I doubt it would be significant unless they played rounds of wildly different games or had a fluctuating number of players.
You won't beleive the thoughts I just had.No insinuations here please. This guy is a Poker Hall OF Famer. Lets see you get there. If I understand his story, He loved drugs. Don't tell me he never played Poker stoned? Therefore How did he accomplish what he did in the very short time he did it? I know he was a natural at Photographic memory and could count. So they say when your high you get totally subjected (not subjective). He must have had this drug thing down to a science. He must have known how much he could operate on. He had focus. I'm just guessing at his devils. But you are all Poker Players. Can he just walk all over us if he was here today.? Hey he's on Drugs. He's in the Hall of Fame" With All Due Respect
slim
Playing ring game, limit poker, against good players, he would be as much of a sucker on drugs as anyone else.
Are you implying in any sense that, if, instead of "ring games in limit poker", Stu Ungar was drugged and playing no-limit tournaments, he would not be affected by the drugs? That, instead of beign a "sucker", he'd still be a world-class player, a champion?
Is this our cue to load up on snow and head for Binion's?!?..
No. Just that drugs make you simple minded. One focus is all you can get to when your high. So that Stu Was just a simple man when he played any form of poker and from ring to tourney. The question does not focus on what game. It asks...was drugs his ace in the hole because of the inherent blackout of your surroundings when stoned DID THIS HELP???? Focus
R
I spoke with Stu for a few minutes before he won his third WSOP in 1997. He didn't look like he was on drugs. But about a week earlier, I'm sure he was. Just my observation.
Read the way David Sklansky phrased his response to the "question" and you'll see why I called him up on that. Around here, Sklansky's posts are read not unlike Moses' notebooks ; a clarification is, therefore, needed as to why he thought it necessary to focus on "ring limit games", instead of making the point as clear as possible:
Any kind of poker playing is hurt by drugs - period.
But maybe the guy was so great at pot/no limit that even under the influence, he was still a great big bet player where as in limit, the effect dragged him down into a losing condition.
Depends on which drug, there's a big difference between playing poker on acid, and playing while snorting cocaine. Most drugs will cause one's play to deteriorate, but cocaine intially would make you play better. You would be more confident, more focused, more alert, probably more aggressive, all good things. Then of course you would need more and more cocaine as your tolerance builds and the need for the drug would consume you, pushing all other concerns to the background. At this point cocaine would have a debilitating effect on your game and your life.
It's hard to imagine him spending all his poker millions on drugs. The stories I read about him don't mention him as a frequent horse or sports bettor. My suspicion is that he lost most of his money the same way he won it: in poker games.
Not to speak badly of the recently departed, but could it be that he is just an incredibly high-variance player rather than some sui generis talent?
Lem Banker has said that Stu used to bet real heavy on sports. His (Stu's) bets alone would move the line, according to Mr Banker.
Good Luck
Howard
Amarillo Slim also stated that Stu lost lots of his money betting on sports and in Mike Sexton's recent article he estimated that Unger lost several millions while betting/playing golf. Forgeting about the drugs and other habits he may of had, I think he deserves his due. He was the greatest gin player ever, and the only multi-winning World Champion that has won a modern day World Series (97). The other players that have won it more than once (like Brunson and Chan) won them with small fields (30-100 players). When Unger won it in 97 there were close to 300 contestants. Many people don't realize how much harder it is to win a modern day World Series, espesially nowadays you have to beat out 500+ players.
I believe that you are quit wrong about his poker. He made many prop bets. Oh well, many poker players overvalue their own ability and denegrate greatness.
Maybe your onto something! I just read an article in card player magazine that says drugs cause fast play. Written under Phil Hellmuth's hand of the week. He states he was on drugs while playing and played better! Nothing serious just sleeping pills. Anyways im sure Stu wasn't always druged, especially when gambling but you never know maybe he played so good because he was on drugs.
'If I understand his story, He loved drugs.'
According to Icon Magazine Oct 1997 he said 'I did coke to keep up.......When you have access to it and the money don't mean nothing.....it's a sickness. I guarantee you it's taken 10,15 years off my life.'
I tried to get through the rest of your post Ricky but it was a little rambling and disconnected - not sure why. For a moment there I thought you were implying that a crippling addiction to cocaine may have been his 'ace in the hole'.
Facile, tedious, and ill-informed. Hatrick for Ricky.
Mason - where are you when we need you:)
mike cunningham
Here...Here
...to all the above insight and comments.
I meant no disrespect to Stu his family or friends.
R
never met him. never played with him. must be great poker player. clearly recall reading published details of last WSOP victory, and thinking sheer luck had saved him after some of his "bold" plays against better hands. sorry about that,Jim
Live Versus Online
OK, here are a bunch of my random thoughts on live versus online poker. A lot of them are probably wrong or at the least not thought out well enough.
-
Live –
-worse players in general
-pot-limit, no-limit, dealer’s choice, combination games
-comps (although measly)
-higher limits
-easier to focus
-more opportunities for tell-reading, intimidating opponents. In other words you are more likely to have the chance to control the game at a real-life table, rather than at a virtual table.
Online –
-twice as many hands per hour (sometimes more), and you can play two tables at once on Paradise
-a lot more games to choose from. You can play only in shorthanded games if you want, and you can play multiple short sessions without much hassle.
-cheaper overhead. No tokes, no paying for gas, etc.
-not a lot of wasted time. That is, you won’t have to drive to the casino/cardroom and walk in, nor will you usually have to wait a long time to get into a game.
Hold’em: The Paradise players, in general, are tough and tricky as hell. The Planet players are somewhat weaker. Your best chance to find a soft hold’em game at high enough stakes is to go to a live cardroom.
The nature of hold’em is that, more so than in stud, stud/8, and Omaha/8, you usually need to play a while at your table so that you can get to know your opponents and outplay them some later on. In my experience though, it’s easier to do this at a real-life hold’em table since the lineups don’t change as much.
Stud: I love how fast the online stud games go. I’d estimate they go about 150% faster than live. The online stud players are definitely weaker than the online hold’em players, but the stud players in live cardrooms tend to be significantly weaker than those online players. And if you want to play $15-30 or higher you pretty much have to go find a live cardroom. (The Planet game doesn’t get going often enough)
Stud/8: The Planet games are pretty soft and predictable. The $10-20 Paradise games tend to be filled with decent-good players, and are thus usually not worth playing, especially since Paradise players tend to be fairly aggressive as well.
But the absolute best stud/8 games are in live cardrooms, even at the higher stakes. Casino Arizona, for example.
Omaha/8: Omaha/8 was made for online play. In live cardrooms it is just too boring, because not only you have to play very tight, the hands go by very slowly. And I hate it that the live ones stop to “think” so often (more than in other games), then call anyway. Actually that happens a lot online too.
But when you play online, particularly on Paradise, it’s great. The players tend to be pretty bad, you get more than twice as many hands, and you can play two tables without sacrificing much.
There are some great higher limit shorthanded games to be found in live cardrooms though.
Discipline: One of the great things about live play is that there’s no deposit limit. In a single day, the live ones have the opportunity to lose everything they have on them, whereas online they can only lose $600 at most.
At least for me, it’s definitely easier to tilt playing online, since the action is so fast, and clicking the “raise” button takes a lot less effort than moving around chips. I can’t remember that last time I tilted playing live. I choose not to remember the times I tilted online.
Swings: The swings are much worse online, for two reasons:
1. you get a lot more hands per hour
2. the players tend to be more aggressive
Cashing Out: It’s a great feeling, at the end of a session, to rack up your chips, walkto the cage, and go home with your pockets feeling a little heavier than they were on the way to the cardroom. You don’t get to have this experience after a session of online play.
Losing, however, feels crappy online or live. Actually, I think losses tend to feel worse playing online, since it’s easy to lose a lot in just a matter of minutes since the hands go by so fast. Then again, in live, it’s hard not to notice the big smile on the sucker’s face as he stacks up the big pot he just sucked out on you to win.
Playing Primarily To Make Money: If you are playing full-time, I think your best bet is live. Not only can you can play higher, it’s easier to focus in when you play. That is, you learn more about the guys you play against.
If you are playing part-time, I believe that unless you want to play higher than $10-20, online should be better. But then again, playing online can get real addicting at times since you can literally play anytime you want. You can be in action two minutes after waking up in the morning. This may interfere with other aspects of your life if you can’t control it. Nevertheless, the speed and convienience of online poker can’t be beat.
If you are playing mostly for fun, it’s definitely more enjoyable to play in a live cardroom. But you knew that already.
Shorthanded Games: The online cardrooms rake too much for shorthanded games and heads-up games. At $10-20 hold'em, they usually are raking a buck for more than half the hands dealt; how the hell are you supposed to beat that? And it gets worse at the stud and split tables.
The obvious solutions would be either to use a time charge or to reduce the rake. But time charges aren’t too practical for online implementation.
-
That’s all for now I guess. What do you guys think?
Sincerely, sucker
d
One obvious aspect of playing online that was not mentioned is integrity. In live play you know you are not being cheated. The players never deal the cards that is done by a neutral dealer. If you think the dealer is a card sharp and is in collusion with one or more players to deal you bad beats then like Maxim says you have been hanging out too much with Oliver Stone! In live it is not an issue you can only be cheated by lady luck. In online play this can not be taken for granted. Personally, I have experienced more "funny" hands in my short stint of online play than my entire 3 years of live play. To put things politely about online play, something is a bit stinky in Denmark! In the few hours I played online I was set up for one schallacking after another. I was truthfully dealt more suited big cards in 4 hours of online play than I would expect to see in 6 months of live play. Am I the only one? I have friends who have also had odd experiences. I am ashamed of certain magazines and others in the industry who accept endorsments from an institution that is obviously bad for poker. To put things literally and without bias I will proceed to describe the last 4 pairs that I was dealt online before I quite out of suspicion. #1 QQ ended up running into KK. #2 KK ended up running into AA, this one was the most suspicious of all. The hand that held AA ended up going all in after the flop, as soon as he did so the other 3 players in the pot, who all felt there hand was worth a cap preflop folded leaving me heads up with my KK vs the all in AA. Notice I was unable to make any money on the side with my KK once AA ran out of money. HMMMMMMMMMMM. Hand #3 I held AA in a raised 3 way pot when the big blind ended up making fives full of sixes with his 5,6 offsuit. Finally hand #4 the straw that broke the pervervial camel's back, I held 88 the flop came 9,8,5 rainbow. After some betting pressure on the turn my worst fear became confirmed when my opponant turned over 99 for a set over my set. After this hand I cashed out in disgust. You be the judge. Hey I know getting some hands beat in succession is part of poker but this little string of dandys seems like a little too much to bear or believe. Any thoughts on the legitimacy of online poker??????????
how do you know? asked myself that time and again when I had just told myself - no, they wouldn't do that...but those weird hands-situations do come up & do raise ?? But seems they can make a ton of $$$$ without cheating. Is there any way for an outsider to know???
The fact is they can make a lot of money the honest way but they can make a lot more money the dishonest way. One thing that makes me sure, makes me KNOW, something funny is up is simply the unrealistic amount of suited big cards I'am dealt on the net. They are not all losers just mostly losers. Most people fear collusion among the players. I'am suggesting that yes this occurs but it is the small part of the integrety issue of online poker. The real problem for me is that these sites are in Costa Rica. Who is to police the actual software used by these far away sites? Further more who would know or be able to prevent the site itself from introducing a phony player into any game who would "accidentily win an extra occassional pot. Weak players who used to go to the casino and lose fairly to good players are now losing their money online to God knows who. Internet poker may go down as the worst thing that ever happened to the game of poker. What is worse is that the very people who ought to be outraged in poker's defense are the people or publications advertising this sick plauge on America's beloved card game.
for me the jury is still out - though I sympathize with the number of funny hands. at times it is totally maddening. for instance, I played today and lost 4 hands in which i was dealt A-Ko. now, to be dealt that hand four times in a short session is alone truly amazing. but to lose every one is even more amazing (and a bit tough to take). I have written it off to the ramdomness of the shuffle. Manual shuffles rarely produce purely random hands. In theory, a random shuffle might produce an AKo 50 times in a row -though improbable. but a manual shuffle will virtually never do so because of the mechanics involved remove the pure randomness of it.
One consoling thought is that you will always receive more bad beats than you give if you are a tight player because you will not play as many hands to the river.
regards,
b.h.
$8-$16 game at the Bellagio:
A new player who looked to be in his low 30s sat down in my game and he had that “I think I’m a good player” look about him. He limped in early position, everyone folded between us, and I raised with TT. The blinds folded and the limper called. The flop came Q94, no flush. He bet and it was my instinct to raise, so I did. He called. The turn was a 6. He checked and I checked. The river came a 7 with no possibility of a flush. He bet again and I called – beating his A4s.
A losing play based on what I knew about my opponent, or not?
[]
Why not bet on the turn ??
You played well based on your assessment of your opponent. Preflop, your raise is standard with a decent pocket pair like tens.
On the flop when a typical oppponent leads into after you raised preflop, it usually means he has top pair. Now a good player, or some player who is trying to play well, may do this as a deceptive tactic. Based on your read of your opponent, I like your raise. He may fold allowing you to win the pot outright and you avoid a suckout. If he calls, then he will probably check to you on the turn and you can take a free card if you wish.
On the turn, I like your check because you lose less money this way when he has a queen and you induce a bet from a worse hand at the river which you will call.
Well played.
jim makes this play routinely. Probably because he must do this to prevent being stolen off of, since his image is rust tight.
Should you consider a raise on the turn in this specific situation ? Gremlin
I'm mostly a stud player so you can give me some advice. In stud, it would be a terrible error to give someone a free card when there is any possibility they might fold. In this case, isn't is possible that opponent might fold if they don't have a queen for the double bet, not allowing the suck-out on the river?
Or, is it that in hold-em, opponent only had 5 outs (ace or 4= 5 cards)where as in stud, opponent in this situation has 14 possible outs, not counting redraws? I think this may be the correct analysis but it's very counter intuitive to a stud player.
Yes, Russ hold'em is very different from stud. In a heads-up situation when you are in the lead in hold'em it is very difficult for your opponent to end up winning the hand because of the community card aspect of hold'em. In this example, suppose pokertrek's opponent had a pair of eights. Well, there are only two cards in the deck that can show up at the river to beat pokertrek's pair of tens. His opponent would have only two chances from 44 unseen cards so the odds are 42:2 or 21:1 against him. He has less than a 5% chance of winning. All other cards that improve his opponent's hand also improve pokertrek's hand.
But in stud, the situation is totally different. If pokertrek had a pair of tens and his opponent had a pair of eights, his opponent can always pair one of his other cards giving him the best hand at the river as long as pokertrek does not improve. He would be no where near the underdog in stud that he is in hold'em.
Thanks for the explanation. That's kind of what I had been thinking but getting the explanation from a hold-em expert makes me certain. It's just a much different mindset. In stud, perhaps the biggest mistake you can make is not betting when there is a chance the opponent may fold, even if there is a chance you are betting the worst hand (in that case the opponent will not fold) with cards to come. Very rarely are you in a situation where a free card could not hurt you (although those situations do arise from time to time).
Thanks.
Jim,
Why not bet the turn and take the free showdown (if he checkraises you fold)?
Nothing wrong with the flop raise I think. But at this point the pot is big enough that you don't want to give a free card to something like AJ or KJ on the turn(a very probable UTG limping hand for most players). Or A4, for that matter. Perhaps if the pot been smaller then checking behind would have been a better play. (I do see the information value in checking behind though, because you learn more about how he plays by his action on the river.)
At this point you are either way behind (he has a queen) or you are ahead. But it's doubtful that he would checkraise you with just queens, or bet into you on the river after you had bet into him on the turn and he called. And if he does have queens, he will certainly bet the river (if you check behind on the turn) and you will pay off, so you lose the same amount.
And finally, if a queen or ten hits on the river, you can bet again and win an extra $16.
Regards, sucker
But with ace-jack he has only three outs to beat you at the river which is a 15-to-1 shot. It seems unlikely that he would be the flop into a preflop raiser having no pair, no draw, and just an ace overcard. With king-jack, he has five outs with any ten or king. This is an 8-to-1 shot. It is possible he might lead on this flop with his gutshot and king overcard but I think the most likely scenario is that he has some piece of the board like either top pair, middle pair, or bottom pair.
The problem with betting the turn is that you are investing one big double bet and you may get raised out of the hand. If he check-raises you, you will probably fold and you never get to see his hand. You also miss out on being able to induce a bluff bet on the end if he folds on the turn with a worse hand when you bet. But by checking it back on the turn, you are willing to invest the same double bet if he bets the river and you never get bluffed out by a tricky player. You also induce a probable river bet from a worse hand.
There is no flush-draw and very few straight draws he could be playing with given that board so a free card to someone who probably has only three-to-five outs is not a big risk.
Yeah, your second sentence is a very good point that I overlooked. He most likely wouldn't bet into a guy who showed strength preflop without at least a pair or decent draw. And with a pretty good hand, a lot of players would make the fairly common play of leading into the raiser, hoping to get raised. Then they would check-raise on the turn.
However, you are incorrect about the number of outs that AJ and KJ would have, since pairing a jack would be good. Ha! :D
Sincerely, sucker
You are right. He has three more outs than I thought. So I guess with king-jack he has eight outs which is about a 5-to-1 shot. If you bet the turn he is getting the right pot odds to call. But he doesn't know that because he should be playing you for a top pair of queens or something better based on the betting action. He probably won't recognize the jack as out. If has Ace-Jack or King-Jack betting the turn is definitely right.
I thought the opponent had A4s instead of AJ. If I'm not mistaken he has 5 outs instead of 3. Does this change anything?
Yes, with ace-four suited he has five outs which is an 8-to-1 shot. I think on the turn there is $76 in the pot and if you bet that would make $92 in the pot. It costs him $16 to call. His pot odds are less than 6-to-1. With ace-jack, I forgot that the jack was an out so he has six outs which is a 7-to-1 shot. In both those cases you would want to bet the turn. The problem is that we don't know what he has. We suspect that he is weak when he checks the turn but if he has a queen we are playing only two outs.
It is just one of those things where if we are wrong in giving him a free card, it is not the end of the world since he has very little chance of beating us.
and do it myself all the time. I love to induce bluffs and save bets at the same time.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
These young players who project "good" are very likely to have checked a pair of Queens, hehehe, so your raise was a good one but your turn check a bad one.
After checking the turn paying it off is routine.
- Louie
Louie, I lay down more than I "should" and I am usually right although, of course, I have been wrong and wonder, over the long run, if it has cost me. That said, the players I generally play against rarely utilize the check-raise bluff and those that do - the usual suspects - I call if I think the odds are there.
Interesting that you think players that project "good" tend to check-call top pair in the situation I outlined. I'll have to think about that one.
Lastly, I generally agree that betting the turn in this situation is the best play. However I can see that checking the turn has it's advantages in certain instances and for certain playing styles.
I didn't suggest he'd check-call with his top pair; I'm suggesting he'll check and probably raise. The tend to bet out with hands not worth raising (to represent a "good" hand) but check other good hands (representing a "bad" hand, hehehe).
I am seated to the right of the button with a Kh, 10s. Blinds are $1 and $3. All fold to player 2 seats to the right of me. He is usually a non-aggressive player who has recently been changing his game to a more aggressive style. He raises $10. Player between us calls as do i, all others fold. Me and the raiser each have about $300 in front of us and the player in the middle has about $150.
The flop comes Jc, Qc, Ah. The raiser bets $20 into my nut straight. Other player fold and i decide to just call even though there are 2 clubs on the board (bad move). Turn is 7c. Bettor checks to me and I bet $50. He doesnt't hesitate a second to raise me all in. He is a player i live with and play alot of cards with so i usually can read him pretty well. I figure he has got clubs, but not nut clubs. Then i thought about the ways 5th street couls hurt me. If another club comes then all he needs id one club to take it. Or maybe he hasd trips and a board pair would give him the pot. I show him my cards to see if i can get a reaction, then fold.
The other players at the table looked at me like i was insane to fold my straight. I realize my awful play before the fold was assinine but i thought the fold was pretty solid. Afterwards all the players at the table but one say they would have called him.
Anyone have any suggestions or opinions?
Thanks,
Jim
He seems to have bet more than the pot and you are "probably" beat and if not, he's surely drawing to beat you. If so, mindless fold.
But I pick at a couple other issues: Pretty brain-dead showing your hand unless you are SURE you can anticipate AND take advantage of the opponents likely reaction, such as if you are encouraging them to make a couple big bluffs at you in the near future. You are in serious trouble if you routinely call raises with KT. Did you consider WHICH non-nut clubs he could hand? Kc9c? You probably should have put him to the test by making a big move on the flop.
- Louie
This morning about 8am, I'm playing 6-12 with the all-niters in SF Bay Area. I'm the only one fresh as I didnt get to club till 5am. I've been in this game about an hour. Extremely loose game. Basically a bunch of calling stations with a little agressiveness mixed in for seemingly no direct reason.
The first 3 players limp, and I raise with AKo. 2 callers behind me, then the button 3 bets, and it's 4 bets by the time it gets back to me, where I just call and button caps it @ 5 bets. We are 8 handed. Usually I'm the one sitting out of most hands but not this time.
Flop: Qs 10c 6s 40 small bets in pot
I have a gut shot for the nuts with a runner runner nut flush draw.
Opener(very very loose calling station)bets out. 6 players including myself flat call but one is all in with only 1 chip.
Turn: 9s 45 small bets in pot.
Obviously a potential flush is out there including a str8 flush.
Opener bets out again. I have A high flush draw still and with that many bets in the pot I'm going nowhere. There's one caller between us with the SB, cutoff, and button still to act. I call, as does the button. We're now 4 handed but there was also an all-in in front of me pre-flop plus the 1 chip guy from the flop so we're really 6 handed.
26 1/2 big bets in the pot. River: 3c final board: Qs, 10c, 6s, 9s, 3s
Opener checks, next guy bets, I raise, muck then opener cold calls 2 bets, better drops. I scoop a huge pot of 63 small bets. I only had to call 8 small bets to get there, and then of course I added the raise when I did get there. I only saw 2 other hands during this hand. One was from the all-in to my right, he had 57spades, the opener had Q10 off with the 10 spades.
But....at anytime in a hand like this, with the tremendous pot odds should I have raised my draw? I see people do that alot and I have a hard time with it. I usually wont raise a draw unless I'm in last position. Sometimes not even then. Mostly I won't when I DONT want to thin the field for better pot odds and my draw is the nuts, with much better then implied or current draw-pot odds. But I will to try to get that free card in last position.
please comment on these thoughts.
The pot is big, I didn't count it, but big is good enough for right now. So why would you raise the turn? One reason is for value. But, since you are not getting enough callers it would not be correct to raise for this reason, since you are only 5-1 to hit. However, if you could increase your equity to this big pot by only a small percentage, you have increased EV.
So giving up a bet to improve your chances of winning is good idea. Thus if you think an A or K could be good, then getting a player to fold who is nullifying either the A or K outs would be a good play. For example, if you could get AJ to fold, you would be doing yourself a service, because a king would give him the nut straight but with him out it could give you the winner. Also, since you have the nut spade in your hand it would take a particulary astute player to reraise you, knowing you might be making this play. I would assume even a flush would just call. Now this play goes by the wayside if someone has a set, because an A or K does you no good.
So, step one figure out if an A or K could be good. Figure out if you could raise an out-killer out of the hand, which might not be possible depending on how loose the players are. Determine if your increased equity is worth the extra bet you are putting in. Determine your chances of being reraised.
IMO, the chance of raising out an out nullifier and an A or K actually being good is low. So, I would just call, but you know more about the players than I.
You played it right. First of all, the only place you can consider raising is the turn, since you don't have position for a free-card play on the flop. And with 3 players left to act behind you, you want them calling.
Even if you had the position to trap them in for 2 bets, I wouldn't raise the turn in that situation. With 3 spades on board, any semi-bright player is going to fold anything less than 2 pair after a raise, even if they've already called one bet. Plus, you'd probably only get 1 bet on the river. The way you played it, you saved the bet on the turn, then made it up on the river when you hit.
If, for instance, you had AKs, then a raise on the flop would definitely be in order if you could trap most of the players into calling (as opposed to cold-calling) two bets. But in your case, I think you played it right and made the most out of your hand.
You could have raised the flop for value IMO. You have a gutshot to the nuts (3 outs). You have 2 overcards (4 outs), and you have runner runner nut flush (1 out). IMO you should raise the flop to try and make sure your over cards are good if they come. On the turn I would have just called.
Derrick
Draws on the flop are real good. You are usually only a 2:1 underdog to make it and usually get 3+ callers. The added value you get with the raise must be ballanced with the potential losses of [a] those behind who will call 1-bet (if you call) but fold for 2-bets (if you raise), and [b] the better may 3-bet forcing callers to fold.
Draws should routinely be bet: in loose games for value and in tight games as a semi-bluff. Only if it appears you'll get exactly one stubborn-caller should you check. Your strategy to raise in late position when the better is early is a good one.
On the turn vrs 5 opponents, you do not WANT a "free" card even if you miss, since your draw may be about a 4.5:1 dog but you can get 5:1. Often bet in this spot if you have extra value such as a bad gut shot or an over-card which can win when the opponents don't have enough to bet themselves.
- Louie
More along the same line of some of my comments after the hand below.
This area seems to bother me alot. I see it happen with the many mid-level ability, lower limit players like 6-12, 9-18. I usually have to completely differing thoughts on the subject and I don't know which provides the best stategy and why even at times. I'll pick 2 hands from this morning.
Hand #1: I'm on the button which is one half of a small bet (6-12game)for collection that is live. There are 6 players to me limping in a calling station game so I call with my 7-10 suited. A hand I wouldn't see the flop with unless I had this position and no raises.
Flop: 8,9,2 (9&2 suited)
The SB bets out. all call to me. Now I have 15 outs. Do I raise because of potential for improvement to what I believe is the best hand if either one hits? I say this because with these players if any-one of them had a better flush draw/str8 draw they probably would have raised it anyways. There are actually 18 small bets in the pot. What if I'm in early position say one of the blinds in this hand? Or the one that really screws me up say the flop with these type loose gooses is 10, J, 6 and I have KQ with the nut str8 draw and 2nd nut flush with what I think may be 50-50 good over cards?
Hand 2: Again I'm on button. I new player with solid play joins game to my left. When it gets to me there are 5 players and I noticeably to my new neighbor (but the others are oblivious) almost muck but call 1/2 bet with Q2s. Now lets not get into how bad this may be. I mucked the same hand 45 minutes before on the button 6 handed and flop was Q22. anyways my new neighbor raises from the small blind. 8 players go 2 bets.
Flop: 653 (2 clubs)
SB bets out and they all call to me one the button so I raise hoping to get a free card next round if needed. everyone calls.
Turn: 4h
NO ONE bets! of course I check. Even tho some may put me on the str8 there seems to many to bet to try to win it. And a check raise is of course possible.
I was gonna put the rest of the actions out but they don't matter at this point. I won tho.
Really the point is what is the better strategy in situation like this? Bet the turn anyways? what if I'm say to the left of my agressor and they will all cold call 2 bets anyways with trash even. What about if I'm in early(say sb, bb, or opener) and the bettor is in late spot?
Thanks for all your thought on the subject.
Hand #1: I'm on the button with 7-10 suited. There are 6 players to me limping in a calling station game so I call with my 7-10 suited.
Flop: 8,9,2 (9&2 suited)
The SB bets out and all call to me. Now I have 15 outs. Do I raise because of potential for improvement to what I believe is the best hand if either one hits?
Yes, even if you think the SB MIGHT reraise and knock everyone else out. The more that call the better, of course. If you really believe that the SB WILL pump it again and almost ALL the others will drop, then calling will probably maximize your EV.
What if I'm in early position say one of the blinds in this hand?
If the players tend toward loose and passive then you ought to bet your strong draw. If the game is moderately tight or more aggressive, then you ought to check to see what the rest will do. You don't want to bet and then get raised right away.
Unless you can read one of the others for a better flush draw, you are willing to play this for as many bets as the table will take.
Or the one that really screws me up say the flop with these type loose gooses is 10, J, 6 and I have KQ with the nut str8 draw and 2nd nut flush with what I think may be 50-50 good over cards?
Pound away. It's worth dropping some of the others in order to make your overcards into good outs. Once again, though, you would like lots of callers for lots of bets.
Hand 2: Again I'm on button. A new player with solid play joins game to my left. When it gets to me there are 5 players and I noticeably to my new neighbor (but the others are oblivious) almost muck but call 1/2 bet with Q2s. My new neighbor raises from the small blind. 8 players go 2 bets.
Flop: 653 (2 clubs)
SB bets out and they all call to me one the button so I raise hoping to get a free card next round if needed. everyone calls.
I am assuming you have clubs. It's not just a free card play, it's a raise for value.
Turn: 4h
NO ONE bets! of course I check. Even tho some may put me on the str8 there seems to many to bet to try to win it. And a check raise is of course possible.
Aaagh! I think you must bet here, especially if you have the flush redraw. There is a good chance your straight is best. If not, you've got some outs, and you're freerolling another deuce. If you don't have the flush possibility, you could fold to a raise if you trust the raiser.
What about if I'm in early(say sb, bb, or opener) and the bettor is in late spot?
Bet and hope to trap several players for the late players raise. I wouldn't reraise for fear of knocking them out. If that's not relevant to your game, then raise away.
Bet the straight once it hits, and proceed as in the previous case.
Eric
In general, with a strong draw multiway concentrate on building the pot more than just raising. Raising sometimes limits the pot size. It depends on where you sit.
On the first hand I'd raise and hope for the straight. If this was any kind of tight game I'd be very concerned, but it doesn't sound like that's the case. When you can put your opponents on most any 2, and they're not crazy bout their draws, I like your chance of hitting discounted by the chance of losing.
On the second hand, I see 3 outs for the dummy end that keeps several better draws very much alive. (Qs2s with a 2-club flop?). Crying call but a muck wouldn't be bad. You don't want to risk a reraise.
.
always raise with K-10o!
Hand #1: I believe you said there were 6 limpers to you on the button. The SB and BB are yet to act and you call with T7s. I would call here as well... SB bets out and all call to you. I am assuming there are 9 people in the pot including yourself then... If this is the case let us consider just your straight being good. That is 6 outs if you discount the suit for now... You need 41:6 to call and you are getting 17:1 easy call... But the pot is currently increasing at a rate of 8:1. This means if you bet there should be 8 other callers. Therefore, even if you just had the straight draw on the suited board (about 7:1) you could raise for value here (getting 8:1 need 7:1). Now, since you also have a flush draw, this raise is a no brainer IMO.
Derrick
Derrick,
You wrote that "even if you had just the [nut] straight draw you could raise against 8 opponents with a two-suited board since you have six clean outs, are a 41-6 underdog, and the pot is increasing at a rate of 8 bets for every one that you put in".
This is not an accurate assessment of the situation.
The player in question is a 41-6 underdog to HIT HIS HAND; he is a much bigger underdog to win the pot.
If he hits on the turn with one of his "clean" outs it is very likely that someone out there is going to be drawing to the flush - especially with EIGHT other players contesting this pot. If we say it's a certainty that someone is drawing to the flush, he will hit on the turn only to lose on the river ~ 1 time in 5. Add in the times that his straight will get counterfeited on the river (remote but possible), the times that the board will pair on the river leading to a full house (NOT remote), the times that someone else will be drawing to the same straight (very remote) and the times that he hits his hand with a card that puts a second flush draw out there which leads to him being "run down by runners" (very remote but all these "remotes" are starting to add up) and it starts to become apparent that he is a much bigger underdog than 41-6.
Not only would he be ill-advised to raise here with just the straight draw, a very good case could be made for him folding if someone else raised before it got to him - even if he were still guaranteed to have 8 opponents.
- I doubt if I would have what it takes to fold a draw to the nuts in a 9 way pot with ALOT of money to be won if I could hit, but it probably would be the right play.
This is one of those times when you have a draw to the nuts but would actually prefer FEWER opponents; with this many it starts to play like Omaha - you're going to have to show the nuts to win and the chance of you having them when the smoke clears is not nearly as high as it might appear. (I'm referring to low-limit Omaha; if you've played it once you know exactly what I mean.)
I hope it goes without saying that I was in no way looking to show you up, but since "Larry" did ask for advice he really should get the whole story. I even think you KNEW raising a straight draw in a 9-way pot with a 2-suited board was a very questionable play and were using it to drive home a point - the problem is that we don't know how far along Larry is (at least I don't) and giving him bad advice for the sake of making a very GOOD point about raising with the straight/flush draw may be a bad idea.
BTW, I agree totally about raising with the "bigger" draw. Even though with this many players the danger of flush-over-flush is somewhat high (especially so given the fact that this flush will be only the 4th or 5th best if it comes) it seems that this draw is just too good not to pound away with.
One last thing - and this IS nitpicking but so be it, it's still true.
Loose low-limit players like to play connectors and LOVE to play suited connectors. With a board of 9,8,"X" expect to find someone with T/9 taking one off; 7/6 is definitely not going anywhere either. If they are both in there your outs are starting to disappear rapidly.
As attractive as it may seem to have this many callers with you holding a draw this big, the truth is you would be much better off if the small blind had bet out and only been called in only 1 or 2 places. It would constitute a miracle if 8 players put in 2 bets each pre-flop and 5 or 6 of them folded on the flop for one bet, but it would be just the kind of miracle this hand would love to see.
Best wishes,
J D
P.S. To Larry - if you are not familiar with a concept known as "Morten's Theorem" go through the archives and look for some of the old posts that discuss it. I can't recall too many situations where it applied as much as it does here. If you contact me privately I'd be happy to send you all you could ever want to know about it; expounding on it was a pet project of mine some time ago. Look at the bright side; if you find yourself in alot of 7,8, and 9 way pots where you hold a hand that may have as many as 15 outs, pretty soon you'll have enough money to HIRE someone to do your research. (LOL)
Good luck and best wishes.
[1] Your 15 outs gives you a little worse than even money to end up with very close to the nuts. You are potentially getting 7:1 for your even money hand. Half the time you lose 1, half the time you win 7. Those that don't want to raise for value in that spot ... [2] I assume you flopped a flush-draw/bottom gut shot. Raising here makes sense for value; but as you know I HATE raising for "free cards". Once you make the bad straight you might as well bet it; you probably have the best hand and certainly have outs even if not. You bet for value and it doesn't really matter whether you think your bet can "win it now" or not. Getting called by a worse hand is better than giving them a free card.
You seem to confuse the notions of "current hand rank" with "likeliness to win the show down". In your first example you are clearly going to win this pot over 1/3 of the time and it doesn't matter that your current hand rank is a paltry T-high.
- Louie
I've been in games where the collection came off the button but played live (like yours, usually for half of a bet).
1. Q/2suited with 6 callers is an automatic call in an unraised pot. I cannot imagine anyone disagreeing with this; even the tightest of the tight will tell you to toss in the extra $3 (6-12 game) and hope for your miracle flop. Your implied odds are enormous, just be ready to toss it if all you get is top pair and there is any significant action. (When I flop op pair with a hand like this I'm tempted to muck it when it gets CHECKED around to me; there are just so many things that can go wrong and so few that can go right.)
2. This is just an extension of the above. You should be taking the flop with over half of the hands you pick up in un-raised multiway pots when you have the button AND already have half of a bet invested. There are those out there who will say you should be taking EVERY flop; I don't agree, but they are probably not off by much.
3. Because of this, you will need to raise a little more often than usual from the cut-off if you were going to play the hand anyway. A good example might be a hand like T/9suited where 5 or 6 others have already called. Do you really want to let the button play a weak hand here for half of a bet and take away a pot that was otherwise headed your way ? If you don't see the wisdom in making this play, you might see it more clearly after the dealer pushes him a big pile of chips when he beats your flush with JACK-THREE of the same suit as yours. (I learned this the less expensive way; I watched it happen to someone else - I had the J/3.)
It seems like there was one other thing I wanted to mention but I'm nodding off as I type this. (Really bad sleeping disorder)
I hope you find some of the above useful.
Best wishes,
J D
Was in an unfamiliar poker room with all unknown players up about 35 big bets and having a good table image when.... Utg I picked up 77. Table was passive and 4-5 stayed in to see flop, raised by a midposition player. Flop was great J73r. I knew raiser would bet flop and turn so waited to checkraise the turn. When I raised, he reraised, and I raised again. He capped and I thought I was done. Checkcall the river where he showed JJ. On river a second 3 came to make us both boats. WHY did I raise his raise of my checkraise? I should have known he had to have the nuts after I checkraised him. Failure to stop for 5 s and think. I did think for about 1 s but not long enough. OR would others make this play and lose two extra big bets? Thanks for your response. Dave
You shouldn't need to "stop" and think. You should already know whether your check raise will "obviously" announce a set or not; at least in the mind of your buddy. Will he 3-bet with an over-pair? This understanding affects whether you wait for the turn to check-raise or not in the first place.
If he will 3-bet with an over-pair then you are a big favorite and should 4-bet; otherwise pay him off.
- Louie
I do it all the time, and that is why I am not getting anywhere.
Don't be so hard on yourself Dave. There is a cliche in hold'em circles which is: "when you flop the underset and lose, you should lose a lot of money otherwise you didn't play it right."
I have seen a lot of players pound the pot on a big overpair. There are 18 ways for him to have an overpair and only 3 ways for him to have pocket jacks given a jack on the table.
This is one of those situations where you are earmarked to lose money and there is nothing you can do about it. You caught a great flop for your hand and filled up so you are going to the river regardless.
I wouldn't lose any sleep over this one.
In a perfect world, one where you were free of distractions AND one where your thinking was always crystal clear, I would be inclined to say that you played your hand with a significant amount of disregard for what your opponent was likely to have had.
In plain English, when he 3-bet the turn you should have given a good deal of consideration to the chance of him having JJ; unless he was someone you knew had a habit of playing his hands excessively fast, it was [close to] the only hand a reasonable player could have, given the fact that YOU had the only other "big" hand that the board allowed for.
Put yourself in HIS position.
You have just been check-raised on the turn after having raised pre-flop. WHAT COULD THIS PLAYER HAVE THAT WOULD NOT BEAT AN OVER-PAIR ? (This is the hand he probably puts you on.) You don't mention what the turn card was; if it was a card that screamed out for him to make a "move" of some sort, this would change things to a degree but only a small one. Also, if the turn had been something like an off-suit Queen - making it very possible for "your" opponent to have made two pair - he (your opponent) is certainly justified in calling and trying to draw out (either by counterfeiting your hand or spiking a set) BUT HE ISN'T GOING TO 3-BET.
Let's try viewing it from his perspective using the following example.
You raise from middle position with a big pair; Aces make for the best "choice" since with this hand there is no way for anyone to be off to a better start. The flop comes J-7-3 rainbow. Unless the turn card BEGS for a semi-bluff check-raise by your opponent, said check-raise tells you that you are almost certainly behind - probably to a set, but even if you are behind to 2 pair, you are still trailing.
Even if you suspect your opponent is "making a move" you have (IMO) nothing to gain by raising; you are either ahead but in danger (to a big draw), or you are behind with very few outs. Ergo there is no reason for you to put in another raise. I am not suggesting that you even contemplate throwing your hand away here, but you should see why you have no reason to re-raise. This is a classic example of laying 2-1 on your raise. If you ARE ahead you get called; if you are behind you get re-raised, and when you are ahead it will often be by a small amount (overpair vs. monster draw) - when you are behind it will often be by an almost hopeless margin (overpair vs. set).
Also, your opponent - even if he is someone who loves to make fancy plays - will probably have what he is "claiming to have" more often than he will be "putting a move on you".
- I just realized that the necessary [albeit regretable] use of all the pronouns makes this anything but "plain english", but I am confident you have been able to follow. If you are intelligent enough to pose this question, you are likely intelligent enough to wade through my somewhat fractured way of expressing things. Please contact me privately - or post a follow-up - if I have managed to make my comments so confusing that you are NOT able to understand them; naturally this applies to all who choose to read this.
I will close this out before you get seasick; I am hoping the dizziness has not yet set in. (LOL)
Two final points:
1. IMO, your 3-bet on the turn was a mistake; this is not an opinion I am likely to change. I feel pretty certain of its validity.
2. If this is the biggest mistake you ever make, even if it is one that you do not stop making anytime soon, I would just as soon not have to make a living playing against you and 8 others just like you. JIM BRIER was absolutely right (as he often is). When you flop the dreaded under-set and don't lose a bunch of chips you probably played the hand badly.
I just think that here the bunch should have been a little bit smaller.
P.S. In my first sentence I referred to being in a perfect world. Neither you nor I live there; I could EASILY imagine playing this hand EXACTLY the same way as you played it. All of what I just said I said with the luxury of sitting in a quiet room and having as long as I needed to say it; those are two luxuries we DO NOT have in a cardroom. They aren't even available if you play on-line since you are required to make your decisions in a timely fashion. You usually get from 10-15 seconds (in case you have never tried this form of poker).
However, none of what I came up with was the result of knowing how things turned out in advance.
If you had told me you wound up beating an over-pair I would still have said you made an error going another bet on the turn.
Then again if you had wound up beating an over-pair you would not be seeking others opinions; you would be too busy patting yourself on the back and offerring to give poker lessons. (Chuckle - - -)
Don't feel bad; it's human nature.
Look at the bright side; even with this hand you must have had a pretty good run. It sounds like this hand cost you about 6 to 7 big bets. That's not too much of a slice of the 35 bets you were winning at the time.
- And I would definitely make you the statistical favorite to get those 6-7 bets back with interest by the time you left.
I hope I was of some help.
Best wishes,
J D
Thanks
This is an extension of the `Unbeatable opponent style combinations' post (5/2/2001). I reproduce the starting post at the end of this.
The question is: COULD YOU BE AT A POKER TABLE WHERE THE COMBINATION OF PLAYING STYLES (OR STRATEGIES) OF YOUR OPPONENTS IS SUCH THAT YOU ARE GUARANTEED NEGATIVE EXPECTATION NO MATTER WHAT STRATEGY YOU ADOPT.
Note: this can happen in a `fair' zero-sum game (see example below in reproduction of earlier post.)
Let's be specific about the scenario. There is no rake, so it is a zero-sum game. You completely know all the strategies of your opponents and you have unlimited brainpower. Assume temporary positional advantages are averaged out over hands, so that this does not affect expectation. Your opponents are not colluding (or cheating in any way) --- they are simply each sitting down and playing their own chosen strategy, and their strategy need not have any purpose or motivation.
Also, let's keep the poker game simple. There are three players. Each player gets ONE card. High card wins in a showdown, with suits being ranked --- so a `hand' is really just a number from 1 to 52. There are antes and/or blinds (or course) and there is ONE round of betting. (Make other rules/simplifications as you wish, as long as the game resembles a kind of poker.)
Each player's `strategy' is a complete description of what they will do (probabilistically) in every possible scenario.
So could it be that there is some combination of playing styles, so that you have negative EV, no matter what your strategy, even if you know all the playing styles of your opponents and you have unlimited brainpower.
------------------------------------------------
Old post `Unbeatable opponent style combinations' post (5/2/2001):
I am extending my thoughts below on game theory with three or more players. (I made an inaccurate comment regarding multiplayer games in my earlier post `MATH IS FUN'. I have not read the literature on this.)
Consider the following three player zero-sum `game,' with three players named U (you), H and T. Each `round' the players simultaneously choose `Heads' or `Tails'. If one player chooses differently from the other two, then that player receive $1 from each of the other two players. If all choose the same there is no payout.
You, player U, need to choose a strategy to maximise your profits. (Not playing is not an option --- you must play.) Now suppose your opponents are very nice to you and tell you exactly how they will play.
H says `I will always choose Heads every round'.
T says `I will always choose Tails every round'.
Then no matter what your strategy, you will lose a dollar every round. (You only get to choose who wins that round.) Note that there is no collusion between your opponents, and they are not `playing well' in any sense. They are simply each playing a preset strategy.
QUESTION: COULD YOU BE IN A POKER GAME LIKE THIS: Each other player at the table has some `playing style' which corresponds to a (possibly probabilistic) strategy. Could it be that there is some combination of playing styles, so that you have negative EV, no matter what your strategy, even if you know all the playing styles of your opponents and you have unlimited brainpower.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
I can't prove a thing, but I doubt very much that you can be forced to play this game at -EV without facing collusion.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I'm not sure either and it seems a bit dubious, but...let's say you were playing 3-handed with a 4-card deck. Could there now be such styles that would force you to play -EV without collusion? I don't know, but it seems to me that the chance of such things being somehow possible (without bothering to work it all out to be sure) would increase as the universe of possibe hands declines. Just a thought.
That is my thinking. As the game becomes simpler, you are more likely to be able to be outplayed by accident, as in Dirk's heads-and-tails game where the 2 opponents accidentally made it impossible for you to win. As the game becomes more complex, it is less and less likely that any group of opponents can put forth a set of strategies that you can't overcome with your perfect knowledge and perfect thinking.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I assumed in my scenario that there is no collusion, but we need to define collusion. Certainly, I eliminate the possibility of outright cheating, or any type of communication between players during the game, (each player gives no information other than that given by his action).
DEFINITION: Let's say that players are `semi-colluding', if, before the game, they have a conference and come up with a combination of strategies that will beat YOU, but during the game they simply each stick to their chosen strategy (and do not communicate or otherwise cheat in any way).
But it is possible that players who have never communicated, could just happen to choose the same combination of strategies that semi-colluding opponents would have.
For example, in my thread-starting post, in the Heads/Tails game, the strategies of H and T could have been the result of semi-collusion between H and T, but it could also be that, quite innocently, H and T have never communicated and they have simply chosen their strategies and stuck to them.
I don't know how to distinguish between these two cases. So for the purposes of this discussion, I say that semi-collusion is not scollusion, so that semi-collusion is allowed. (This is a thought experiment here. I would sprint from any table where semi-collusion had occurred.)
So, with this clarification, what about my question?
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
I think Mark Glover's response in the previous thread was very good, and I'll generalize it a bit to provide a "proof" that the answer is, "Yes, there can be a combination of player styles that will give you negative ev, no matter how well you play."
Start with three players that all follow the same optimal strategy. They all have an ev of zero. If there EVER arises a situation where there is a degeneracy of choices for a player's optimal action where he can get an equal ev by either screwing you or the other guy, then if he universally employs the strategy that screws you, then he turns you into a loser and the other guy into a winner.
Clearly this situation can arise in several ways, the most obvious being the one Mark described. If the evil player's analysis of the sets of hands possible for each opponent (the one who has bet and the one who is yet to act) provide an equal ev for calling or raising, then clearly raising hurts you if you are on his right and calling hurts you if you are on his left. The question of whether this person has the nuts in this situation or not is irrelevant. Note also that the person deciding the fate of the loser does not gain any ev, he only pushes it from one player to the other. In this sense it is different from the original example where the loser must lose but gets to decide who wins.
Oh, and there is one other simple non-positional example of this for 7-card stud hi low split. Again assume that three players follow the same ("optimal") strategy, except for the following deviation: Whenever there is a three-way pot where one hand has an obvious strong high hand (granted this is a rarity if everyone plays optimally) and the hero holds a low hand, the other (equally-good) low hand jams the pot with the high hand UNLESS the two low hands belong to the hero's opponents. In this case, the hero has to frequently concede pots to these guys when he has a low hand (or he can pass ev to the guy with the high hand by being stubborn and hanging tough), but doesn't get the benefit of them going to war with each other when he is the one with the hammer. I'm not sure if this would be considered collusion, though. I guess one could argue that the other two players are at all times looking out for their own best interests, since they know the other guy is crazy enough to commit suicide while the hero is not.
Tom Weideman
Valid, but if you eliminate the targeting of a specific opponent from the allowable parameters, then what?
In the example of the 3-way coin game, the two player who choose opposite directions might be doing so because they like heads or tails better, for instance. If the game were played blind with an independent party tabulating the results the result would be the same for the unfortunate 3rd player. Nobady is getting targeted this way but the result is the same. Can a similar effect be achieved in the 52-card rank game, for instance, or in real poker, without targeting? Can it be achieved in a game played three-handed following poker rules but utilizing only 4 cards, the K,Q,J,T?
The targeting aspect is part of the hi low split example, but not part of the extension of Mark's example I provided (unless you include as part of the game the possibility that you are able to choose your position at the table), because the opponents don't need to change their strategies based on who is in the hand. This leads to a new conjecture:
No 3-player game exists where the (non-targeted) strategies of the opponents make the game unbeatable if the hero can choose his own seat.
I don't feel comfortable extending this conjecture to games with more players, though it may also be true.
Tom Weideman
Tom,
Oh, great. I toil and sweat to get across a very simple explanation to the issue that Dirk raised. After I finally have the basic foundation in place, you swoop in and get to present a more general form of the answer. Thanks a lot! ;-)
Seriously, the more ways different people can explain this issue, the more likely it is that others will understand the concept.
Your hi-low example also was a nice contribution. I hadn't thought about that scenario until you mentioned it, and then it was pretty obvious. Good job.
Mark Glover's and Mark Wiedeman's examples are quite convincing that you can be in a -EV situation.
Actually, someone emailed me privately, with a complete analysis of a certain simple game (1 blind, other two players can only call or fold, then showdown; button rotates), rigorously proving that you can be in a -EV situation when other two players choose particular strategies. (In his game, hands are real numbers between 0 and 1.) So I am absolutely convinced for this game.
Mark Wiedeman raises a very interesting question. WHAT IF YOU CAN CHOOSE YOUR SEAT (in a 3 player game)?
Allow strategies to target relative positions, but not specific individuals. For example a valid strategy may include `always reraise when the player 3 seats to my right raises'. But a valid strategy may NOT include `always reraise when Fred raises'.
These conditions could be pinned down rigorously. In any case, I believe Mark's conjecture, and I will try to prove it.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
I was being way too ambitious when I said: `I believe Mark Wiedeman's conjecture, and I will try to prove it.' (It could be that it is true for poker-like games, but it is not true for all games, e.g. the heads-tails-odd-one-out-wins game.)
However I can prove for a 3-person (zero-sum) game --- 1 blind, other two players can only call or fold, then showdown; button rotates, --- (or any game where `blind' is required to have a fixed strategy), that, given your opponents' strategies, you can choose seating and strategy so as to have EV at least zero.
A crucial point is that your opponents choose their strategies, and THEN you choose the seating. Your opponents don't then get to modify their strategies once they know where they are sitting.
I won't go through the proof here, but an intuitive idea is that if A's strategy is `pick on the guy on my right' and B's strategy is `pick on the guy on my left', then consider how you would seat them.
(The actual proof uses totally different ideas. It is a `symmetry' argument. Some of you can have fun finding it.)
I could make concise statements of what I am claiming, but I don't want to get bogged down in technicalities.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
"Start with three players that all follow the same optimal strategy. "
This conundrum is oxymoronic. Three players cannot follow the same optimal strategy. Optimal strategy takes into account the strategy and playing style of each of your opponents. Mark Glover, if he claims that there are unbeatable combinations of playing styles is as wrong as you are.
Your other example:
"I'm not sure if this would be considered collusion"
Gee, I am.
vince
Your statement `Three players cannot follow the same optimal strategy' is just plain false.
Your statement `Mark Glover, if he claims that there are unbeatable combinations of playing styles is as wrong as you are' is just plain false.
(Your statement `Optimal strategy takes into account the strategy and playing style of each of your opponents,' is absolutely true, but it does not imply your other statements.)
Also, I would still like to see someone pin down a really good definition of collusion (after first considering all the subtleties involved), or maybe even a classification of *degrees of collusion*.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
"Three players cannot follow the same optimal strategy' is just plain false."
Wrong. I'm correct. Optimal strategy (if there is such a thing) must take into account your evaluation of your opponents play. You must constantly adjust to take advantage of that evaluation. Your optimal strategy is dependent on the play of your opponent. It is designed to take advantage of your opponents way of playing. It is DEPENDANT. Consequently, there is no way for even 2 people to adopt the same optimal strategy when playing heads up because if one is playing optimally with regards to his opponent he will win. The problem with mathematicians is that they believe that there is a formula that if followed will produce an optimal poker strategy. Wrong!
Collusion is cheating done in concert by 2 or more people. Cheating includes but is not limited to sharing information unknown to others concerning the current situation (hand). Also, an agreement to attack a third opponent when certain predetermined situations arise ala Tom Weideman's example.
vince
Vince,
You wrote: "Optimal strategy (if there is such a thing) must take into account your evaluation of your opponents play. You must constantly adjust to take advantage of that evaluation. Your optimal strategy is dependent on the play of your opponent. It is designed to take advantage of your opponents way of playing. It is DEPENDANT."
Thanks for sharing your differing opinion.
When I assumed an "optimal" strategy, I meant it in its game theory sense. I believe that is what Tom meant as well. You seem to be discussing what game theorists might call an "exploitative" strategy.
"The game theory's optimal strategy is a very conservative one based on the minimax criterion. It maximizes the minimum expected utility of the player, but is insensitive to the characteristics of the other players. No matter how poorly the other players play, the same strategy is always selected."[1]
Dirk requested: "Also, I would still like to see someone pin down a really good definition of collusion (after first considering all the subtleties involved), or maybe even a classification of *degrees of collusion*."
You replied: "Collusion is cheating done in concert by 2 or more people. Cheating includes but is not limited to . . ."
So, your definition of collusion is when two or more people engage in activities you consider to be cheating. I don't think this is a particularly useful definition, since it would require us to contact you to determine when an activity is cheating. Do you have a 1-800 number? ;-)
-------------------
[1] N.K. Khoo, "http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~nd/surprise_95/journal/vol1/nkk/article1.html"
"Do you have a 1-800 number? ;-)"
Actually it's a 900 number. I, like, Sklansky charge for my expertise. In case your are interested it's $10/min. The number is 1-900-BAD-BEAT. Please call, I love math problems. I should know (n) better than to jump in the middle of a discussion between math weenies. Game Theory, such an irrelevant subject when discussing poker. Tic-Tac-Toe is a much better game for such a thing.
You may call my theory Expoitive if you like. That's o.k. But whatever you call it, it is more correct to use my definition for optimal poker strategy than some silly game theory strategy.
vince
Vince, you always crack me up. I sincerely can't tell if you are trolling or not.
>> I should know (n) better than to jump in the middle of a discussion between math weenies. Game Theory, such an irrelevant subject when discussing poker. Tic-Tac-Toe is a much better game for such a thing.<<
Pretty gutsy thing to say when you don't know anything about game theory. Seems to me that it would be a lot safer for you to stick to what you know.
>>You may call my theory Expoitive if you like. That's o.k. But whatever you call it, it is more correct to use my definition for optimal poker strategy than some silly game theory strategy.<<
"Exploitive" and "optimal" are just words, so you can use them however you wish. They do happen to be words that were defined in the context of games long before you ever started playing poker, and just because they don't mean what you think they should mean, that is no reason to describe those of us using them correctly as being "silly" for doing so.
Too bad you missed an rgp thread I started some time back where I tested the ev of the collective rgp intuition for exploitive play against the game-theoretical, just-follow-the-formula ev. The results might surprise you. Anyone interested in my reproducing it here?
Tom Weideman
Tom,
Yes, I'd be interested. And, let me put it this way: Vince's understanding of math is much better than mine, but I do have a question.
Professors of literature in English departments have always disparaged linguistics people, claiming that linguistics can never get beyond the sentence level. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on whether or not Game Theory can be applied to a full, ten-handed limit ring game. That is, can Game Theory be used beyond the sentence level, the two- or three-person games? Excuse my ignorance if this question makes no sense.
John
"That is, can Game Theory be used beyond the sentence level, the two- or three-person games?"
You can use a tea spoon to shovel manure but when you're done you gonna stink like hell.
vince
Vince:
"some silly game theory strategy"
Tom:
"that is no reason to describe those of us using them correctly as being "silly" for doing so. "
Tom also wrote:
"Seems to me that it would be a lot safer for you to stick to what you know. "
Vince writes:
"Seems to me that it would be a lot safer for you to stick to what you know."
Tom,
You may want to stick to math. You obviously don't do well with reading. I called game theory silly not those that use it. And I would have thought a bright fellow like yourself would recognize "tongue in cheek" Especially when the cheek was swollen.
"I tested the ev of the collective rgp intuition for exploitive play against the game-theoretical, just-follow-the-formula ev."
Big deal. I don't place any faith in the entire human race's intuition so why would I care about the collective rgp intuition. I interpret (or misinterpret) your statement to imply that you feel there is a game-theoretical method of playing poker that will win against the entire rgp faithful. They must really suck.
vince
>>Big deal. I don't place any faith in the entire human race's intuition so why would I care about the collective rgp intuition. I interpret (or misinterpret) your statement to imply that you feel there is a game-theoretical method of playing poker that will win against the entire rgp faithful. They must really suck.<<
I was hoping you would say that. I'm pretty sure that judged by the same standard you would also suck. We'll never know because even if/when I post the test you're too smart to actually ever take it publicly. When I say you are too smart, I mean that you know better than to stick your neck out to the point where you can be clearly shown to be clueless.
Tom
"I mean that you know better than to stick your neck out to the point where you can be clearly shown to be clueless"
Clever. Unfortunately, for you, it wouldn't matter whether I took your test or not. For you see, the results would be meaningless. One just need consider the test designer and they'll (even you) will understand why. Maybe.
BTW - Tom ,I consider you to be bright, intelligent and an excellant debater. I can't say the same for myself. I only find fault with your steadfast belief in "Mathematical Poker". Oh, plus your relentless attack on my "clueless" being. Hey, I find it cute that you "were hoping I would say that". Why was the fact that the "rgp collective intuition sucks" on your mind also? Are you really Mark Glover?
Vince
>>Unfortunately, for you, it wouldn't matter whether I took your test or not. For you see, the results would be meaningless. One just need consider the test designer and they'll (even you) will understand why. Maybe. <<
That made a lot of sense. Thanks for clearing that up. [C'mon, I know you are capable of logical discourse rather than irrational lashing-out like this silliness. Try a little harder, please.]
>>I only find fault with your steadfast belief in "Mathematical Poker".<<
Calling this a "belief" tells me a lot about how crazy you think about these sorts of things. "Beliefs" have their place (most notably when one considers the unknowable), but in other contexts (like mathematics), they are ridiculous. It doesn't matter who believes that 2+2 = 3, because that sum will always be 4 anyway. Perhaps there is really no way for me to get this concept across to you. Your "understanding" of poker is based on such ephemeral things as beliefs rather than actual analysis, and you are unwilling and unable (probably the former because of the latter) to actually open your mind and learn something solid.
The bottom line is that you don't know anything about "mathematical poker" as you call it, so you are in no position to debate its merits or lack thereof. You seem to fear it like a cave man would fear the strange lights and sounds that eminate from a television set. Too bad, really.
Tom Weideman
"Calling this a "belief" tells me a lot about how crazy you think about these sorts of things."
"It doesn't matter who believes that 2+2 = 3, because that sum will always be 4 anyway. "
I thought this was dependant on the base. Maybe that's something you don't understand. Also I believe that even in the base 10 system you super math types call this "number theory".
Incase you have a problem with the word "theory": abstract thought, speculation. Another way of putting that is "belief". But that's just a "crazy" way to think, isn't. Are you really Marilyn Savant?
You are the enlightened one in this discussion yet your main arguement seems to be directed towards my intellectual abilities and closed mindedness. You are a sad person.
"you are unwilling and unable (probably the former because of the latter) to actually open your mind and learn something solid."
Learn something solid from you? Laughing...
"The bottom line is that you don't know anything about "mathematical poker" as you call it, so you are in no position to debate its merits or lack thereof. "
I believe this is true for both of us especailly after reading your dribble about game theory.
"You seem to fear it like a cave man would fear the strange lights and sounds that eminate from a television set"
Here I thought that I was talking to Tom W. not John Feeney or is it that in addition to being a Math genius you are a pschologist also. Gee, you is one fart smella.
Hey Tom don't bother responding. I'm sure your time can be better spent discussing Poker Game Theory with others more smarter than me.
vince
Tom,
You wrote: "When I say you are too smart, I mean that you know better than to stick your neck out to the point where you can be clearly shown to be clueless."
Don't be so sure. On several occasions, Vince clearly has shown that he can be clueless.
Maybe I can say a couple of things which might help. Maybe I can't but I will try.
This thread got off on this tangent first and then degenerated a bit. Does that mean that it was more likely to happen this way because this is a gambling forum, and many gamblers happen to be degenerates? Anyway this reminds me of a thread where you and I were at loggerheads and the main reason was the use of the word "conceptual" as in "conceptual error." Here too it is the usage which caused the first misunderstanding. Now that is just the way these math weenies who were around before you or I started playing poker decided to assign the terms "optimal" and "exploitative." They couldn't help it if the way they were using "optimal" was not optimal with respect to the English language and if they failed to consider the confusion that would later result from people trying to understand the usage of the math weenies' "optimal" based on the usage of "optimal" in everyday language. They were probably just Math weenies, not Math/English weenies, so that would probably explain it.
I was a bit surprised too when I found out that "optimal" in game theory lingo didn't mean optimal in the conventional sense. It really means picking a defensive strategy such that no matter which choices your opponent makes, he does equally poorly. And it is a strategy designed so that your opponent could be Oz times Oz and still not be able to outthink you and exploit any errors or patterns you might make or fall into. However it does limit your profit compared to what you could make if you could detect exploitable weaknesses in his play. There are mathematical parameters that such a strategy is based upon and these are grounded in solid fact. If you employ game theory strategy ("optimal") perfectly and have no tells, your opponent simply can never outplay you in a heads-up contest, no matter what. But your profit will be only to the degree that he himself deviates from perfect game theory. Almost always it is more profitable to look for weaknesses in your opponent's game and exploit these weaknesses. But if you are the one applying game theory perfectly (and giving off no tells which your opponent can take advantage of), any attempt by your opponent to exploit your play will fail anfd will in fact cost him money. So it isn't silly at all, but it does have very limited applications, notably as mentioned in Sklansky's TOP, as for instance if you are playing against someone you just know is a better player than you. Nowit could be the perfect defensive maneuver and might gain you a bit as the great player tries to exploit you. Of course to execute this properly you must be well-versed in it so it is almost automatic and you don't give off the tell of thinking longer at certain junctures. Damn I have so much poker homework like this to do which I keep putting off because I would rather play blitz chess or Diablo2 on battle.net:-) (My level 76 dueling Necromancer is getting pretty good but he still hasn't caught up with lilbaby, my level 82 Sorceress. He did hold his own pretty well against a higher level 'zon yesterday, though. Zons are so cocky (with good reason) but ultimately a properly built hi-level Necro should be able to handle them.
"but it does have very limited applications, "
"Of course to execute this properly you must be well-versed in it so it is almost automatic and you don't give off the tell of thinking longer at certain junctures"
Now, my very good buddy, Mister M, are you telling me that the above two statements, if true, do not, in and of themselves, prove that attempting to use Game theory, with regards to the development of a winning poker strategy, is not "silly"?
Maybe this will help:
"Silly: exhibiting or indicative of a lack of common sense or sound judgment"
Didn't want semantics to get in the way.
vince
Actually my statement is wrong.
It shouldn't matter how long you have to think when you execute game theory because the opponent is completely powerless to do anything about it anyway. What you might want to be concerned about, though, when trying it out, is giving off a tell that indicates whether you are bluffing or not.
I think with a modest amount of practice a good player could "switch on" game theory technique almost as easily as computing pot-odds/implied pot-odds. It's just that most players are only vaguely aware of it, if they are aware of it at all. Getting comfortable with it is on my homework list and I wish someone would take my Diablo2 away so I could get back to playing and studying poker.
"Actually my statement is wrong. "
I believe the above would classify as a "parry" if we were discussing fencing. But we're not, so I call it a "cop out" Thank you very much.
vince
I might not be explaining it all that well, but game theory and a mathematical approach to poker are anything but silly.
If you were to play someone heads-up you could not gain an advantage over a person (or a computer) who is playing a perfect mathematical game using perfect game theory, no matter how creatively or otherwise insightfully you might play (assuming no tells are present which can be utilized). He would beat you through your own suboptimal play while playing perfectly optimally himself. And if you don't know game theory (which includes optimal bluffing frequencies) and your opponent does, you could not prevent this from happening (though you still might get lucky enough to win).
M,
You wrote: "[Optimal strategy] really means picking a defensive strategy such that no matter which choices your opponent makes, he does equally poorly."
You might want to rephrase that statement.
You also wrote: "But if you are the one applying game theory perfectly (and giving off no tells which your opponent can take advantage of), any attempt by your opponent to exploit your play will fail anfd will in fact cost him money."
Technically, not "any" attempt will be costly--only those attempts that optimal strategy strictly dominates.
"poorly" is a poor choice of words, perhaps?
As to the second that is indeed a distinction which I missed. I was thinking of Player A trying to outguess or outthink Player B who happens to be using perfect game theory. If Player A thinks he has picked up on an exploitable pattern in B's play (when he hasn't) and then attempts to exploit it by straying from optimal strategy himself, that should theoretically cost Player A money, shouldn't it? Or only in some cases?
M,
Your first flawed statement: "[Optimal strategy] really means picking a defensive strategy such that no matter which choices your opponent makes, he does equally poorly."
Your response: "'poorly' is a poor choice of words, perhaps?"
I was objecting to the word "equally." All your opponent's choices will not be equally bad. If you played against a computer that utilized optimal strategy, I suspect your results would be better than a player who check/folded at every opportunity. And the check/folder's results would be different than a player who check/called at every opportunity.
Indeed, your first statement seems to be contradicted by your own second statement (below).
-------------------
Your second flawed statement: "But if you are the one applying game theory perfectly (and giving off no tells which your opponent can take advantage of), any attempt by your opponent to exploit your play will fail anfd will in fact cost him money."
Your response: "I was thinking of Player A trying to outguess or outthink Player B who happens to be using perfect game theory. If Player A thinks he has picked up on an exploitable pattern in B's play (when he hasn't) and then attempts to exploit it by straying from optimal strategy himself, that should theoretically cost Player A money, shouldn't it? Or only in some cases?"
Only in most cases. There are some cases where Player A can deviate from her own optimal strategy and not lose any expectation.
Nesmith C. Ankeny, in his book POKER STRATEGY: WINNING WITH GAME THEORY, presents a nice (albiet simplified) example of optimal strategy regarding a four flush draw in draw poker. If we assume Player B is known to be on a flush draw, always wins when she makes her flush, and always loses when she misses, then Player B's optimal strategy would be to always bet when she makes her draw and randomly bluff with a frequency of one bluff for every two "real" bets. This always guarantees her an expectation of $3.60 per hand (given the example's pot size, betting limits, and assumptions) regardless of whether Player A's call-to-fold ratio is 0:100, 20:80, 50:50, 75:25, 100:0, or any other mixed strategy where Player A never comes out betting or check-raises.
Player A's optimal strategy would be to check, then (if Player B bets) call 50 percent of the time and fold the other 50 percent. This always guarantees that Player B's expectation is limited to only $3.60 per hand regardless of whether Player B's bluff-to-real ratio is 100:1, 10:1, 2:1, 1:1, 1:2, 1:10, 0:1, or anything else.
Notice that if Player A mistakenly believes he has noticed an exploitable pattern in Player B's optimal strategy, he can deviate from his optimal strategy of 50% calling/50% folding without it costing him any expectation--as long as he doesn't get aggressive and start betting out or check-raising. If he calls 40% and folds 60%, he has deviated from his optimal strategy, but Player A (if using her optimal strategy) does not gain but rather still maintains an expectation of $3.60.
Of course, there are many paths that Player A can take away from his optimal strategy that will be costly. If he occasionally bets into Player B's flush draw, for example, Player B's optimal strategy will guarantee her an expectation that exceeds $3.60.
Thank you Mark. Your clarity is refreshing.
x
I believe that Vince's definition of collusion was fine, but here is Webster's, if that helps.
Main Entry: col·lu·sion Pronunciation: k&-'lü-zh&n Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin collusion-, collusio, from colludere Date: 14th century
William
collusion:" secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose -"
I'll buy that.
vince
I don't think that defining "illegal or deceitful" is any easier that defining collusion.
Bobby,
"I don't think that defining "illegal or deceitful" is any easier that defining collusion. "
As amazing as it seems Bobby, these words have already been defined. If you do not understand the meaning of certain words then try looking them up in a dictionary.
Just to be sure that you know what I mean by "dictionary"...
A dictionary is a reference book containing an alphabetical list of words, with information given for each word, usually including meaning, pronunciation, and etymology.
Try it, you'll like it.
William
William,
Bobby politely noted: "I don't think that defining 'illegal or deceitful' is any easier that defining collusion."
You responded: "As amazing as it seems Bobby, these words have already been defined. If you do not understand the meaning of certain words then try looking them up in a dictionary."
Do your dictionary definitions indicate it is "illegal" or "deceitful" to raise a bettor on the river when you have the nuts and your expectation is greater if you just call to entice overcallers?
"Do your dictionary definitions indicate it is "illegal" or "deceitful" to raise a bettor on the river when you have the nuts and your expectation is greater if you just call to entice overcallers?"
Probably not, but they should.. that dirty no good...
Vince
After I replied to Bobby's message, I realized that he might have just been making fun of the people asking for these definitions.
Mark, we all know what a helpful guy you can be, so why don’t you define these words for Bobby? Possibly, this would clear up the confusion in Bobby’s mind, assuming he really was confused about the definition of these words.
“Do your dictionary definitions indicate it is "illegal" or "deceitful" to raise a bettor on the river when you have the nuts and your expectation is greater if you just call to entice overcallers? “
If I understood your example, then raising in such a situation could be a simple mistake. It could also be an attempt to misdirect in such a way as to pay off sometime in the future. If it was an act of misdirection then it was deceitful, but does not appear to be collusive. Of course, you know as well as I that non-collusive deceit is an important part of good poker play.
William
William,
You wrote: "Of course, you know as well as I that non-collusive deceit is an important part of good poker play."
So, you're saying non-collusive deceit is not collusion but collusive deceit is collusion. Thanks for clearing that up.
"So, you're saying non-collusive deceit is not collusion but collusive deceit is collusion. Thanks for clearing that up. "
Look it up yourself Mark. Stop wasting my time and the bandwidth of the site. Go pick a fight with someone else.
William
i do it when i have someone i want to get even with or i threaten a good player with the thought that i might do it. its easy against one person in a ring game or shorthanded to make sure he cant win at all. if you read cards well when he has a draw run off the players and play him headup so he never gets multiway. or when he has say top pair and needs to limit the field, limp in right behind him and draw a bunch of people into the pot. others ways as well. no way for this person to win and it may not cost you too much in earn to break him for life. if he knows you are doing it there is no real defence but unknown he dies quickly.
I don't know if many people read as well as you, ray, but I've caught people doing this to me, flipped my bets, and taken their stacks.
I find it hard to believe that you could adopt a "bad" strategy targeting one player that was much worse for him than for you. If you could, sound players would do this all the time against each other.
Your first example (raise when he has a draw) is a "good" strategy, playing him heads-up against his draw. Your second example (you call with a weak hand to invite others in) must surely be worse for you than for him, since presumably YOUR hand plays even worse multi-way since you would have folded it against someone else.
- Louie
I believe all but one of the proposed scenarios up to this point fall into two broad categories. Either the scenario describes a game which is not poker or it is qualifying the game in such a way that the scenario would never happen in the real life.
I want to use Hold'em as the game in this example. However, many other poker games would also apply equally well.
I still believe the closest and most practical example is the one that I gave earlier. Assume a game in which all but one of the players was tight, aggressive and tough, and the remaining player was loose and passive.
I understand Mark's objection to my proposal based upon the loose player having unlimited brainpower. However, brainpower does not always equate to functional advantage in poker. I would argue that the most successful hold'em players play tight aggressive games. I would also argue that players who play tight aggressive games are generally better poker players than loose passive players are. Therefore, without regard to our victim’s brainpower, if he is a loose passive player then that player is either not very experienced or is just a lifetime bad player. Giving our unlimited brainpower victim the benefit of the doubt, let us say he is just inexperienced.
Therefore, I believe our loose passive friend will have a negative EV against a tight aggressive field. Additionally, even if he realizes that the other players are playing many fewer hands than he and much more aggressively, he will not have the experience necessary to effectively compensate. Therefore, he will have a negative EV because of the playing styles of his opponents, no matter how hard he tries to compensate and in spite of the fact that he knows his opponents strategy is tight aggressive.
Although there are qualifications contained it this scenario, I believe they are more reasonable than the qualification contained in any of the other scenarios.
...................................... First, time around:
QUESTION: COULD YOU BE IN A POKER GAME LIKE THIS: Each other player at the table has some `playing style' which corresponds to a (possibly probabilistic) strategy. Could it be that there is some combination of playing styles, so that you have negative EV, no matter what your strategy, even if you know all the playing styles of your opponents and you have unlimited brainpower. .......................................
My scenario answers this question is the positive and fits the parameters.
....................................... Second, time around:
The question is: COULD YOU BE AT A POKER TABLE WHERE THE COMBINATION OF PLAYING STYLES (OR STRATEGIES) OF YOUR OPPONENTS IS SUCH THAT YOU ARE GUARANTEED NEGATIVE EXPECTATION NO MATTER WHAT STRATEGY YOU ADOPT. .......................................
It also gives an affirmative answer here and meets the parameters.
William
"Each other player at the table has some `playing style' which corresponds to a (possibly probabilistic) strategy. Could it be that there is some combination of playing styles, so that you have negative EV, no matter what your strategy, even if you know all the playing styles of your opponents and you have unlimited brain power................................"
Maybe I'm missing something here but the answer to the above question here is, no. (given that there is no rake). The question specifically asks "so that you have negative EV". You being me or anyone else answering the question. Maybe it's true for others but it is not for me or anyone else that is a winning poker player. If I play at a table of mixed playing styles I will adapt to those styles and exploit them either individually or collectively. That's the job of a poker player. Winning poker players are winners for a number of reasons but the primary reason is their ability to adapt to current situations. If these players at my table are playing specific styles even if the styles compliment each other I will find a way to exploit them. Precisely because each individual is playing in a set manner and I know it or will know it after playing with them for a while.
The answer to "the second time around" is ditto.
Vince
I agree with you Vince, the technically correct answer is to the question is definitely no. What I was trying to do was to create a yes with as few qualifications as possible and have the example be real poker. However, without inserting special qualifications, the answer most certainly is no and you are completely correct.
William
"the answer most certainly is no and you are completely correct."
That's the first time anyone ever said that to me. I must be wrong.
vince
Vince, are you one of those guys who would not join an exclusive club because you would not want to belong to a club who would have you as a member?
However, your concern that, if I agree with you then, you might indeed be incorrect might just have merit.
William
My god now I'm really confused. Thank you, William.
vince
Vince,
You wrote: "I must be wrong."
You are completely correct (about your being wrong). ;-)
Vince,
You wrote: "Maybe I'm missing something here but the answer to the above question here is, no. (given that there is no rake)."
Yes, you are missing something here. The answer to Dirk's question is "yes." If you want to know why, you might want to read the thread Dirk started on 2 May 2001 entitled "Unbeatable opponent style combination."
You also wrote: "If I play at a table of mixed playing styles I will adapt to those styles and exploit them either individually or collectively."
But what if you (theoretically) played at a table where your only opponent played a game-theoretic optimal strategy? Do you think your EV would be positive?
What if you (theoretically) played at a table with two others whom played near-optimal strategies (the exception being that they always would raise you on the river if you bet out and they held the nuts)? Wouldn't your EV be negative in that scenario?
Read the earlier thread, think about these questions, then come back and share your informed wisdom with us.
"QUESTION: COULD YOU BE IN A POKER GAME LIKE THIS: Each other player at the table has some `playing style' which corresponds to a (possibly probabilistic) strategy. Could it be that there is some combination of playing styles, so that you have negative EV, no matter what your strategy, even if you know all the playing styles of your opponents and you have unlimited barinpower. "
The answer to this question is no. No. no. And since Mark and Tom Wiedeman don't know why it's no I can only conclude that they do not understand how to play winning poker. If one's opponent(s) adopt a strict style then one can exploit that style(s). Game theory is not powerful enough to overcome a "winning poker PLAYERS" edge. That edge is determined by a number of factors. One factor that is undefineable is "feel". It is not intuition as Tom Wiedeman seems to believe. It is more than that. It is not understanding odds. It is more than that. It is not understanding game selection. It is more than that. It is more than that! etc, etc, etc,
So Mark you see I did not miss something I believe you did. You believe and Tom believes that (yes I use the term believe) that poker is a game that one can gain an edge simply by the use of some formula. That may be true against inferior opponents but not against a winning poker PLAYER.
Vince
Vince,
You wrote: "The answer to this question is no. No. no. And since Mark and Tom W[ei]deman don't know why it's no I can only conclude that they do not understand how to play winning poker."
The answer to this question is "yes." And since you don't know why it's "yes," I am tempted to conclude that you are ignorant when it comes to game theory.
You seemed to have reached the same conclusion in your thread-starting post "Game Theory and Poker": "Your help in my gaining an understanding of that which I know nothing of is appreciated."
------------------
You also wrote: "If one's opponent(s) adopt a strict style then one can exploit that style(s)."
What if your opponent adopts a strict but unexploitable style, such as a game-theoretic optimal strategy? It would be a little tough to exploit that style, wouldn't it?
Is it hard for you to open your mind enough to imagine the possibility of such an unexploitable strategy? Try thinking about the child's game of Tic-Tac-Toe. If I programmed a computer to play an optimal strategy in Tic-Tac-Toe, do you think you could exploit that strategy and manage to win? I can guarantee you that the computer's expectation would be non-negative.
Now, suppose I theoretically had an infinite amount of resources and was able to program a computer to play an optimal strategy in heads-up hold'em poker. Do you think you could exploit that strategy and have a positive expectation? I don't.
----------------------
You also wrote: "Game theory is not powerful enough to overcome a 'winning poker PLAYERS' edge."
Why not? Is it just because you say so? Are you applying for a demigod position at 2+2?
Them's mighty strong words for someone seeking "help in my gaining an understanding of that which I know nothing."
-----------------------
You also wrote: "You believe and Tom believes that (yes I use the term believe) that poker is a game that one can gain an edge simply by the use of some formula."
No, I don't believe that, and I doubt if Tom believes that.
First, a game-wide optimal strategy for a zero-sum, heads-up game of poker (with advantages neutralized) will not guarantee you an edge--only a non-negative expectation. Your expectation would be zero if you played against another optimal strategy.
Second, it would not be simple to apply such an optimal strategy. It would be very complex.
Mark,
Since you decided to play title games I figured I'd join it. Of course my title is not quite as correct as yours but close.
What do you think of the following:
"but the underlying flaw that people make when trying to apply game theory to poker is that there isn't much room for them to mix. Game theory exists to predict what people WILL do not what they SHOULD do. That is if I could model a poker game I could come up with the strategy that the expert will use, but the reverse is not true; you can not model to decide what you should do."
A buddy of mine told me this and I believe him.
you wrote:
"Try thinking about the child's game of Tic-Tac-Toe. If I programmed a computer to play an optimal strategy in Tic-Tac-Toe, do you think you could exploit that strategy and manage to win? "
If you read my post to Tom Wiedeman you would see that I recommended he use his GT on a game like Tic-Tac-Toe. I had my suspicions that little boys like you were expert at that game. When I claimed that you may not understand how to play winning poker I didn't realize how right I was. Why, you think that Tic-Tac-Toe is a poker game. You cannot use Tic-Tac-Toe as an anolgy for designing a winning poker strategy.
"First, a game-wide optimal strategy for a zero-sum, heads-up game of poker (with advantages neutralized) will not guarantee you an edge--only a non-negative expectation."
this is not what you said. You claimed that (in so many words): there is a combination of styles that will gaurantee you a negative ev regardless of what strategy you apply" I said no and now you are changing to a gauranteed non loser. Why not get it straight what yoou mean and come back and talk with the big boys (almost demigod, yes I am appling). I like guys like you that look for a weasal way out when they are wrong.
One other thing:
"Second, it would not be simple to apply such an optimal strategy. It would be very complex."
How should I interpret this? The application of the strategy is complex or the development of the strategy is complex or both or none of the above?
Vince
Vince
Vince,
You asked what I thought of the following: "but the underlying flaw that people make when trying to apply game theory to poker is that there isn't much room for them to mix. Game theory exists to predict what people WILL do not what they SHOULD do. That is if I could model a poker game I could come up with the strategy that the expert will use, but the reverse is not true; you can not model to decide what you should do."
If I knew what "them" was, I might be able to offer an opinion on whether I think there is room for them to mix. If "them" is game theory and poker, I think game theory can be applied to poker. I think game theory describes what players "will" do, if you make certain assumptions about those players. I don't think game theory is normative.
--------------
I asked: "Try thinking about the child's game of Tic-Tac-Toe. If I programmed a computer to play an optimal strategy in Tic-Tac-Toe, do you think you could exploit that strategy and manage to win?"
You didn't answer my question.
Instead, you wrote: "Why, you think that Tic-Tac-Toe is a poker game. You cannot use Tic-Tac-Toe as an anolgy for designing a winning poker strategy."
I don't think that Tic-Tac-Toe is a poker game. I think one can use Tic-Tac-Toe as an analogy for designing a winning poker strategy. If two things are analogous, they are not identical. They are merely alike in some respects. In this case, Tic-Tac-Toe and heads-up hold'em both have optimal strategies.
I also asked: "Now, suppose I theoretically had an infinite amount of resources and was able to program a computer to play an optimal strategy in heads-up hold'em poker. Do you think you could exploit that strategy and have a positive expectation?"
You didn't answer that question, either.
---------------
Earlier, you wrote: "You believe and Tom believes that (yes I use the term believe) that poker is a game that one can gain an edge simply by the use of some formula."
Earlier, I replied: "First, a game-wide optimal strategy for a zero-sum, heads-up game of poker (with advantages neutralized) will not guarantee you an edge--only a non-negative expectation."
You responded: "You claimed that (in so many words): there is a combination of styles that will gaurantee you a negative ev regardless of what strategy you apply"
That's true as well. In a three-person game of poker, there is indeed a combination of styles that will guarantee that our hero has a -EV regardless of what strategy the hero applies. Please note that a three-person poker game is not a heads-up poker game.
--------------
Earlier, I also wrote: "Second, it would not be simple to apply such an optimal strategy. It would be very complex."
You asked: "How should I interpret this? The application of the strategy is complex or the development of the strategy is complex or both or none of the above?"
Both. In adition, you can interpret this as meaning you aren't very good at knowing what I believe.
"In a three-person game of poker, there is indeed a combination of styles that will guarantee that our hero has a -EV regardless of what strategy the hero applies. Please note that a three-person poker game is not a heads-up poker game"
Hey this was the thrust of the whole issue in the first place. So prove it!
vince
Vince,
I claimed: "Please note that a three-person poker game is not a heads-up poker game."
You responded: "So prove it!"
In a three-person poker game, three players are dealt hands. In a heads-up poker game, two players are dealt hands. Three players is not two players. It's sort of like that geometery issue you had so much trouble understanding: two lines with different lengths are not the same line. ;-)
William,
I had hoped someone else would explain your apparent misconceptions, since you don't seem very open minded to my comments. Alas.
-------------
You wrote: "I believe all but one of the proposed scenarios up to this point fall into two broad categories. Either the scenario describes a game which is not poker or it is qualifying the game in such a way that the scenario would never happen in the real life."
So what if a scenario would never happen in real life? Dirk posted two theoretical questions, not two empirical questions. If a theoretically possible scenario would never actually occur, it is still a theoretically possible scenario.
----------------
You wrote: "I understand Mark's objection to my proposal based upon the loose player having unlimited brainpower. However, brainpower does not always equate to functional advantage in poker."
Apparently, you do not understand my objection. Dirk wanted to know if a scenario was theoretically possible, so he gave his hero unlimited brain power. If that brain power is unlimited, then it is not functionally limited.
----------------
You wrote: "Therefore, I believe our loose passive friend will have a negative EV against a tight aggressive field."
So would someone who mistakenly believes you should check or call at every opportunity? So what? If you want to limit the hero's brain power, then there are many scenarios that qualify. But Dirk explictly assumed the hero's brain power was unlimited.
----------------
You wrote: "Additionally, even if he realizes that the other players are playing many fewer hands than he and much more aggressively, he will not have the experience necessary to effectively compensate."
A person with theoretically unlimited brain power does not need experience to effectively compensate. Such a player could devise an optimal strategy before he ever sat down for his first hand of poker.
-----------------
Dirk's question: "Could it be that there is some combination of playing styles, so that you have negative EV, no matter what your strategy, even if you know all the playing styles of your opponents and you have unlimited brainpower."
Your reply: "My scenario answers this question is the positive and fits the parameters."
No, you did not answer Dirk's question. You gave a strategy that a player could choose where that player has -EV. There are many such -EV strategies that a player could select. Dirk wanted to know if his hero could be forced to have -EV ***no matter what strategy he chose.***
Nor did your scenario fit the parameters of Dirk's question, which explicitly assumed ***unlimited brain power.***
"A person with theoretically unlimited brain power does not need experience to effectively compensate. Such a player could devise an optimal strategy before he ever sat down for his first hand of poker"
Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,....
Vince
Mark,
As you so well demonstrate, there is a great deal of difference between having brainpower, unlimited or otherwise, and putting that brainpower to use practically.
As an example, you seemed to miss that I said: “Although there are qualifications contained it this scenario, I believe they are more reasonable than the qualification contained in any of the other scenarios.”
I have just as much right to make qualifications as you do. Besides, in the end analysis, if you do not allow these types of qualifications then Vince is correct and we are each in our own way wrong. In the real world, VINCE IS CORRECT. Not you, not me and not Dirk, but Vince is correct Mark. The correct answer to Dirk’s question, if we do not include these silly qualifications, is 'no'.
You may never be able to admit that you are wrong or incorrect Mark, but I can. I was incorrect to assume that there was a way to answer Dirk's question in the affirmative and so are you.
William
William,
You wrote: "I have just as much right to make qualifications as you do."
Of course you can ask your own questions and then answer them. But when you claimed to be answering Dirk's question, you just looked silly.
You also wrote: "The correct answer to Dirk’s question, if we do not include these silly qualifications, is 'no'."
But the correct answer to Dirk's question, as he specified it, is "yes."
Your previous claim was: "My scenario answers [Dirk's] question is the positive and fits the parameters."
Do you see how this assertion made you look silly?
Mark: -------------------------------------------- "Of course you can ask your own questions and then answer them. But when you claimed to be answering Dirk's question, you just looked silly." -------------------------------------------- No sillier than Dirk when he tried to invent something called "semi-collusion" in order to answer his question in the affirmative.
Mark: --------------------------------------------- "But the correct answer to Dirk's question, as he specified it, is ‘yes.’ " --------------------------------------------- Actually, the answer is no.
Mark: --------------------------------------------- "Your previous claim was: "My scenario answers [Dirk's] question is the positive and fits the parameters." Do you see how this assertion made you look silly? " ---------------------------------------------
Within the qualifications that I specified, it did. However, without any qualifications the answer is no.
In other words Mark, if one puts enough qualifications around the scenario then a ‘yes’ answer can be synthesized, but the correct answer without any qualifications is 'no' when we are talking about limit hold'em.
William
William, all you did is give an example of a player losing money by playing badly against good players. Obviously you will lose money playing badly. Surely you misuderstood my question.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Dirk,
I did understand your question. I was trying to come up with anything which could possibly be considered real poker in which the answer to your question would be 'yes'.
If you read a post I made later, you will see that I do not believe the answer to your question is 'yes' when it comes to real world poker, unless one makes qualifications which are not realistic. Qualifications such as I made or Tom made or those made in any of the other examples I have seen thus far.
I wish you would get permission to post the proof that you received. I would love to read such a proof, assuming it is real world poker and actually meets the requirements that you set down.
William
"assuming it is real world poker "
I believe you assume too much.
Vince
Hi Vince,
At this point, when it comes to real world poker (limit hold'em specifically), I believe there is no proof because our hero could always adjust his playing style at least to compensate. In the case of a group of opponents attempting to play game theory 'optimal', I suspect he could easily exploit that situation. If he was good enough, he could exploit it to the point that the game theory 'optimal' play for his opponents may be to quit the game.
William
"he could exploit it to the point that the game theory 'optimal' play for his opponents may be to quit the game. "
Ooo, careful, math mania will get you. I can see Glover and idiot Pro and Mildmanneredmath getting ready to call you a moron. You are in for it! Funny isn't it how Math guys make statements then refuse to back them up. Is that the real way of mathematicians? Hey do you know how to tune-up a Volkswagon bus?
vince.
I guess we are now both charter members of the 2+2 Moron Club. However, you need not worry about me taking credit away from you because I will always give you credit for being the founding moron.
As for your Volkswagen bus, I can not help, sorry. Now if you had asked about putting a small block 350 Chevy V8 into a 1976 FJ-40 Toyota Land Cruiser then...
William
"if you had asked about putting a small block 350 Chevy V8 into a 1976 FJ-40 Toyota Land Cruiser then..."
I would have but I didn't think of it fast enough,,,
Vince
William, from the above post I get the impression that you too ought to at least peruse chapter 19 in Sklansky's TOP. Maybe you and Vince could go halves on it ;-)
What you must come to understand, and you WILL, if you READ this chapter and THINK about it, is that there is NO WAY to exploit your opponent's play if he is playing game theory optimal. It is impossible. A brilliant and perceptive poker player cannot ever attain an advantage against someone who is somehow playing perfect optimal game theory. He cannot "adjust" to take advantage of it because there is nothing there that can be exploited.
M,
You are now being silly. You said "that there is NO WAY to exploit your opponent's play if he is playing game theory optimal."
There in lies your silliness. No one PLAYS game theory optimal. One might employ a game theory strategy for a given (well defined) situation(s) but one does not PLAY Game Theory Optimal Poker. Also you do not only exploit your opponent's style of play on one hand. If a good poker player finds himself being dominated he will ask himself why. If he senses that his opponent is using a specific strategy against him he will change his criteria for playing and exploit his opponents style of play. You seem to think that there is a game theory optimal play for each situation regardles of how ones opponent plays. That is not true.
For instance what is the game theory optimal play for playing a pair of Aces on the button when all players fold to you?
The answer is obvious. You must have more information to play this hand optimally. You must take your opponents play into consideration. You must define optimal. You must not listen too much to those that call Vince a moron.
vince
Vince
Vince,
You make some good points regarding what should be considered during a poker hand. It is true that you can better take advantage of an opponent's errors by exploiting them than by playing game theory optimal.
However, if a player plays game theory optimal, there is absolutely no way to exploit his play. And for a given situation there is a game theory optimal play, regardless of how one's opponent plays. That's part of the idea behind GTO--that you make a play so that no matter what your opponent does, he does not stand to profit more by one choice than by another choice. If you deviate from game theory optimal in order to better take advantage of weaknesses in your opponent's play you are now playing exploitatively rather than playing GTO). In some situations the GTO play is not hard to determine. In more complex situations it is of course not as easy.
I certainly don't think you are a moron (as you should well know by now) but I really do think you should read and think about chapter 19 in Sklansky's TOP. If you had done this prior to launching into that discussion where you may have ended up being called a moron or whatever, you probably wouldn't have ended up being called a moron.
Thanks for being polite M; it is appreciated.
I have read TOP many times over and I have no bone to pick with what is teaches about game theory. I went back and read my post again to be sure that I had not made a mistake in how I set up my example and this is what I found.
"In the case of a group of opponents attempting to play game theory 'optimal', I suspect he could easily exploit that situation. "
The word that I would like to point out is 'attempting'. I used the word 'attempting' because it is not possible for a group of players to literally play game theory optimal over an extended period of time. I understand that they can accidentally do so from time-to-time on a few hands, but they cannot play optimally constantly. I also understand that if it were possible for a group of players to literally play game theory optimal then, by the definition game theory optimal, each players' worst expected return would be zero.
What do you think about the example of each player playing game theory optimal except for the player on our hero's left who would raise when he had the nuts. Many of the same people who maintain that game theory optimal play cannot be beaten also openly proclaim that the player on the left example will somehow exploit our hero who is according to example playing game theory optimal.
If one accepts that players playing game theory optimal have a minimum long term zero EV, then how can the "player on the left" example possibly be correct? It seems like a contradiction for the same people to accept the player on the left scenario while specifying that optimal play cannot lose in the long run. After all, our hero is supposed to be playing optimally, so he must be able to compensate for the probability that the player on his left may have the nuts and raise.
If our hero is playing optimally can you explain why he would have a long term negative EV simply because the player on his left always raised when he had the nuts?
William
This is the first I've read of this example.
Just to be clear, I am using your description of optimal play from an earlier post. I am not disagreeing with your statement. I merely quote it as a point of reference, in order to establish the basis for my questions. I appreciate the fact that you are taking the time to correspond with me on a non-insulting basis and I am looking forward to your answer.
M Wrote: “A brilliant and perceptive poker player cannot ever attain an advantage against someone who is somehow playing perfect optimal game theory. He cannot "adjust" to take advantage of it because there is nothing there that can be exploited. “
While I cannot speak for Dirk, I believe he would agree with your description of optimal play.
So now... armed with your description, let’s take a look at Dirk’s post to me from above.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) Wrote: “An example posted earlier by Mark Glover (and Tom Weideman) was if everyone played optimally (assuming that's possible) except that the player on your left always raises with the nuts on the river, even if there are several players still to act. This latter example is more of a convincing argument, rather than a proof, albeit in a real game. Sorry if this doesn't satisfy you. “
If our hero is playing optimally, I just do not understand how the person on his left raising when he has the nuts can overcome our hero’s optimal strategy.
If Dirk understands the ramifications of our hero actually playing an optimal strategy as per your description, then why did he ask his question in the first place? He surely knew the answer must always be no, if game theory optimal play is allowed.
How can any of the people involved in this thread possibly believe there is an affirmative answer to Dirk's question while also understanding the concept of game theory optimal play?
By the way, I did enjoy your response to me regarding going halves with Vince on TOP. That was a very funny line.
William
It seems to me that if the person on your left raises with a nut flush or quads on the river it makes no difference since you are going to lose the pot anyway. If, however, you hold the nut straight along with him, you clearly do not want him driving people out who have not yet had a chance to act.
I take it that you agree with me that the answer to Dirk's question is no, if our 'unlimited brainpower' hero simply plays game theory optimal poker. That is to say, the answer to Dirk’s question is no if we use the description of game theory optimal which you supplied earlier.
Thanks M, William
As this thread has had several starts already and I may even have missed some of it; I am not even sure exactly what Dirk's question is.
Although this example does show how an GTO player could be forced into having a long-term disadvantage which would cause him to lose, it is still an example of "targeting", which of course can cause anyone to lose under the right circumstances. He is targeted by the seating arrangement we have specified. Shuffle the seats randomly, and he will have no disadvantage.
Having a raise on one's left is a situation with which anyone playing GTO must deal. To state that our hero cannot adjust his actions and still achieve an overall minimum zero EV also says that GTO does not fit the description you so kindly supplied. If you are correct then compensation is possible by adjusting his strategy.
The problem with that specific example is that it is very situational and does not take into consideration the game as a whole. In any case, until someone can prove otherwise I believe the answer to Dirk’s question is no and the pseudo game theorists (present company excluded) who claim the answer is yes have not made their case.
Thanks again for a decent conversation,
William
for the conversation, though I am still a bit unclear as to the exact question and what the correct answers may be.
(See also thread below.)
Would anyone like to give a concise definition of COLLUSION, or offer discussion of what to do about it, or opine as to whether it is even a problem.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
I've noticed something. While playing nine-handed hold 'em, an average of three players will take the flop. When the game winds down to four or five, the percentage of, and often the number of, players seeing the flop increases, with all seeing the flop or perhaps one dropping.
Perhaps this is because they understand the idea of loosening up short handed, but I don't think that's it. It may be that the players remaining tending to be those who are stuck. It could be that action is contagious: the hands come faster, rocks start jamming, and the herd stampedes.
I've read both HEFAP21 and Abdul's site on short-handed play, and it seems that both ground their thinking in the concept that short-handed play is heads-up play. I'm sure this is true in some games, but not in others (at least until fourth street).
Has anyone else observed the same thing, and developed special strategies for this type of situation?
I think many players loosen up too much when the game gets short handed mainly because they are not as familiar with short handed play as with full table play.
Another aspect is that players who stay in short handed games are often eager for action.
Desperate, stuck players are often found in short games, but so are many other types (pros or props, for example).
Just my opinion.
Buzz
Loosening up when playing short handed is correct strategy and is a particular instance of the standard guideline that you play looser in a game with a larger ante.
Playing nine handed with a 1.5 small bets in blinds, it costs 1/6 of a small bet per hand to play. Playing four handed, it costs 3/8 of a small bet per hand. The difference is huge.
What size is the game (dollar size, not # of players)? I suspect it's a lower limit game. At the higher limits, more of the players are more experienced at short-handed play.
However, this is what I'm hearing from you. You're in a 10-handed game, and averaging 2.5 players seeing the flop. Now, 5 guys quit, leaving 5 in the game. Suddenly, you're averaging 3-3.5 players seeing the flop.
If this is true, then you have 2 things working in opposite directions. If your opponents are playing weaker hands, you can also loosen up your requirements. Contrarily, when seeing the flop against more opponents, you need to tighten up. The question is which of these effects is the greater in your game.
I suspect you should defend your blinds somewhat more liberally, yet play tighter than you otherwise might when out of the blinds. In other words, in most 5-handed games I might raise UTG with KJo as a blind steal, or to get it heads-up with a likely weaker hand in the blind. However, if a raise is going to likely get called behind, then I would either call only and see the flop, or just dump the hand.
Just an idea, and maybe not a good one. Let's see what the others say.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
What size is the game (dollar size, not # of players)?
I first noticed this a couple of years ago in a 5-10-20 game. Recently I've observed the same thing in a 1-2-4 PL game and a 1 ante, 5 blind, 10 to go no limit game.
I suspect it's a lower limit game. At the higher limits, more of the players are more experienced at short-handed play.
Right. So wouldn't you suspect this with a higher limit game? Higher limits = more experience = looser play. The question I'm struggling with is, "does it pay to loosen up if every one is doing it?"
However, this is what I'm hearing from you. You're in a 10-handed game, and averaging 2.5 players seeing the flop. Now, 5 guys quit, leaving 5 in the game. Suddenly, you're averaging 3-3.5 players seeing the flop.
This is correct. The NL game can be ten handed, the others max out at nine.
I suspect you should defend your blinds somewhat more liberally,
This I can't agree with. If I have something playable, fine, otherwise I toss the idea of defending a blind goes out the window. (In a game with Jim Geary, I would defenestrate it instead.) But I find in these loose short handed games one player is always jamming. He is on tilt, or running hot, or wants to bully the table. The person who is doing this can change minute by minute. If I'm behind him, I play extremely loose. In front of him I'm more careful.
in most 5-handed games I might raise UTG with KJo as a blind steal, or to get it heads-up with a likely weaker hand in the blind. However, if a raise is going to likely get called behind, then I would either call only and see the flop, or just dump the hand.
This makes a lot of sense to me. If a K or J flops, I'll lead out to 4 or 5 players and see who plays back, but basically I don't want calls. If I get a couple of customers, I'll take a good look at the turn and be prepared to drop it. KJo is one of my least favorite hands in ring hold 'em, but I like it a lot short handed. I'd much rathe see a J high flop than a K high.
It seems you've got a big bet game in mind. In big bet, I wouldn't worry about it as much, especially the blind defense thing. You're trying to win one big pot typically, and aren't so worried about losing an extra blind here and there. You're right about position. If they're playing too loose, defend less but call (raise) behind more.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Seems to me that it might have to do with the domination aspect of hold 'em. In a full game with 20 cards out people often shy away from certain hands because they are so easily dominated (KTo for example). With fewer players folks are much more apt to play unsuited big cards, A baby, etc.. because these hands will not as often be beat in a "kicker war".
Also, I think that people with either good skills or an overinflated sense of their skills play more hands shorthanded, thinking that they can outplay everyone after the flop.
KJS
It's kind of weird that the number increases. However, in a full game many players are aware that getting out of line in early position is costly. So players tend to play tight in the early seats if they have much experience. In a five handed game UTG is a lot closer to the button and more hands are playable UTG in a 5 handed game as opposed to a full 9 or 10 handed game.
Much of what has been posted seem OK. "phenomenon" may not apply--- situation is based upon logical, natural elements of the game and occurs more times than not. Here is what I see--
1. commonly occurs late night (early morning) and is populated by people who are stuck or those who love to play(sick?).
2. smaller field means small hands can win.
3. a real squeeeeze must pay more to sit there due to frequency of blinds AND perhaps be beaten more by some of those smaller hands.
4. those last two items mean it's correct to lower your starting requirements.
5. can be great games-- most every likes to gamble a bit more (especially me).
I'm stuck, and sick--deal faster! Jim
I put the quotation marks around the word [wrong] since I wasn't sure what word I really wanted to use...
Collusion -
Cheating -
Unethical -
The situation is quite simple. I have a friend with whom I play a great deal; I am referring to playing at the same table together.
We also spend alot of time talking poker. (It's a two hour drive from our homes to the nearest cardroom and we often travel together.)
NEVER has he given me any indication as to what he is holding - nor has he ever given me any clue as to what his course of action was going to be.
Ditto for my conduct toward him.
When we are in a hand together - especially heads up - we will do whatever is necessary to "beat the other guy's brains in".
Only rarely do we share wins and losses; when we are doing this we do NOT play at the same table.
A few of you probably see the next part coming, but here it is for those who do not.
We know each other so well and have played so many hours together that there exists a built-in advantage for us over the others in the game - we may just as well be signaling each other since in the last two years ( ~ 1,000 hours) of playing together I have probably been "way off" on my read of him less than a dozen times. (I have even spotted a tell of his; granted this is available to anyone who chooses to pay attention, but not many play even 10% as many hours with him as I do.)
- By "way off" I am saying that if he flops a set to a board of 9 7 4, and is in late position with several callers, I cannot tell you which set he flopped but I CAN tell you he has flopped a set.
We choose to play together for two reasons. They are:
1. The social aspect of having someone you like at the table, and
2. This very advantage of which I speak
- In spite of this edge, if it were strictly about money we would probably do a little better if we played at different tables. We both play well above average (IMO); if we REALLY wanted to maximize our edges wouldn't it be better for each of us to look for a game with NINE bad players as opposed to EIGHT ? Trust me, in A.C. if we wanted the former we would have very little trouble finding it.
BTW, almost everyone we encounter knows we are very good friends that spend alot of time together and often travel to A.C. together - it isn't like we are sneaking up on anyone.
I am not promising to stop if the majority of the responses suggest we should, but I AM planning to give those that make valid points a great deal of thought.
Thanks for any and all replies,
J D
Do you or your friend work in Virginia?
No - NY and NJ
I do not see how this could possibly be considered "wrong". I have several players that I play with regularly, some friends and some arch enemies, that I can tell what they have by the way they bet. Should I think quit playing in games that I know the other players? Certainly not!
I don't see anything even slightly "wrong" with your situation. Only if you start deciding as a duo to make plays to your mutual advantage does it become collusion. You raising out the field because you know your friend is bluffing/semibluffing is good poker no matter why you can read that player so well.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
There is nothing wrong with playing with someone you know, although there could be a political problem.
Semi-collusion would be if you were much more likely to raise with your draw when your Buddy bet what was obviously the goods, correctly figuring he'll 3-bet; then you would be if some other bet.
I don't see how both of you can benefit from having sound understanding of how the other plays. It may be to your advantage to make a spectacular fold of top-pair when you know your buddy flopped a set, but its to your buddy's disadvantage. Likewise for his reads on you.
But I suppose that your ability to ethically play near-perfect against him MAY give you some additional advantage over the other opponents; and I hope someone can help me out on this one.
- Louie
I think the only thing you are really worried about is the fact that he is your friend. if as you say all of the information you have on him is available to someone who pays attention at the table then there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. you are just using your experience and observation skills to your best advantage.
ask yourself this, if you met somebody randomly at the table,and every time you went he was there, thus you learned his play down cold, would you have a problem with playing with him? I wouldn't think so. do you have an advantage here? maby and maby not being as you do have one player of your ability at the table more than you have to. but is it an unfair one- I think the answer is no.
anybody else of your ability who was willing to put in the time could learn what you know.
I think I was reacting (perhaps over-reacting) to an event that occurred the other day.
I had limped in with Ah,Th from 3rd position after the first two players had called. Three more called and my friend caled from the button; it was obvious (to me!) that he had intended to raise but had changed his mind after so many others had come in.
The flop came J-T-T with two spades. It was checked to me, I checked feeling sure that there would be a bet; someone out there had to like that flop - I might even get lucky and find the other Ten and get two or even three bets out of 4 or 5 of my intended victims. (BTW, the point here is not to debate the wisdom of my check; I'd love to do so but I don't want to digress.)
Sure enough, the player to my immediate left bet out, the next guy raised, and the cut-off called the raise cold. I was waiting for my friend to muck, but he cold-called as well. Oh well, so much for me winning this one.
1. He could not have the a flush draw since there was no hand that he would have been considering raising with but been disuaded after 6 players had called before him. If he had AK, AQ, KQ, KJ, or QJ (spades) he would have been MORE inclined to raise after almost the whole field had limped in ahead of him.
2. He COULD have a straight draw since he would have been considering raising with KQ/off but changed his mind after getting 6 callers. However, he would NOT call 2 bets cold to draw to a straight with a pair and a flush draw on board. Ergo, he didn't have KQ. (The same could be said about the flush draw; even if he had the Ace-high flush draw I doubt he would call two cold with a pair on board, even against THIS group - too many ways to hit and still lose.)
3. He could NOT have a Ten for similar reasons as with the other two hands; if he held a suited Ten with any sort of decent kicker he probably WOULD have raised pre-flop; he certainly would not have been talked out of it due to the large field - he'd have been more apt to [raise]. Plus, he won't slow-play if the situation isn't close to perfect and this one wasn't even close. This ruled out AT/off on two counts; it's not a hand he would raise with pre-flop except for first in from late position, and even if he somehow found himself in posession of it he would not have just called on the flop; he would be in there jamming.
The simple fact was that there was only one hand he could have - pocket Jacks. It made perfect sense; it is a hand that we had come to the conclusion is often better played without raising (even from the button) in agressive games when a bunch of people have already come in. (See what the flop brings and if you do wind up with an over-pair try thinning the field if there is a bet from your near right; it was a perfect choice here since the cut-off was a [borderline] maniac.
- In fairness, it was not the ONLY hand he could have had; there was a very small chance he had Ks,Qs - he is human and it can be hard to throw away open-ended straight-flush draws in pots that are on their way to becoming monsters (plus he will often just call with KQs - correctly IMO - from the button against a large field.)
However, JJ was far more likely than KQs - more so given the way his back arched when he first saw the flop.
When it got back to me I tossed my hand in the muck; I didn't even have to stop to think it over since if I was somehow wrong (1% chance by my best guess) there were all sorts of other hands that could come along and take me off. Someone could even be sitting on JT which would leave me drawing to 3 outs.
I saved a minimum of five and a half big bets by being able to get away from my hand as early as I did. (BTW, a 7 came on the turn giving one poor soul a straight, and the flush got there on the river so my friend took down a huge pot - over 25 big bets, might've even been 30.
The first thought that came to my mind was "make sure you don't somehow allow your carsd to flip over". (It might have raised a few eyebrows if the other players had seen me toss trip Tens with an Ace kicker; many of them would have RAISED with much less.)
I'm glad the prevailing opinion is that we are doing nothing wrong; if it had been my/our intent to exploit the situation I would have stayed around and helped build an even bigger pot (though I'm not sure it could have gotten MUCH bigger) since the rest of the field was drawing close to stone cold dead.
One or two of the respondents said that it was no different than having a REALLY good read on another player: I'm not sure this is quite the case since it would be pretty hard to put someone on such a specific hand just from having played with them alot.
Still, having thought about it - and read the replies -I am convinced we aren't doing anything "wrong".
When I told him later what I'd done, his response was that he needed to do something so that next time I wouldn't get away so cheaply. He was kidding but the fact remains that as I stated in the original post, we will do whatever is possible to pry as much money as we're able to when we DO bang heads in a pot - more so if it's just the two of us in there.
Thanks for the replies.
- J D -
Can anyone recommend a good book to learn correct strategy for Omaha and Omaha 8/better. Thanks
Ray Zee's book on hi-lo is the best of Omaha8. Bob Ciaffone's book is the best for hi only Omaha.
Both can be purchased from Conjelco.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I just read T.J.s book, Championship Omaha, and I was very unimpressed.
Is it all about tournament play? And is it mainly about pot limit or limit?
Well easy on T.J. It's not his best soup. If you want to get strange I'll tell you this. Learn the rules from the book. But learn the game from playing. It's that way.
A.
I don't mean to take a shot at T.J. as he is one of my favorite player.
It is just that the book seems to lack any real sophistication. If you know how to play starting cards the book doesn't offer much.
He covers different forms of Omaha. There might be good information about Pot Limit but I really just breezed over those sections.
The game is (10-handed) 4-8 limit `half-and-half'. Whenever the dealer button reaches seat 10, the game switches from holdem to omaha or vice-versa.
Soppose the omaha is loose-passive pre-flop, but the holdem is a bit more aggressive pre-flop.
If a player misses both blinds ($4+$2) then the button skips them, and in the cutoff they post a $4 live bet plus $2 dead in the pot.
Now suppose you are in seat 9 or 10. You intentionally miss the blinds while the game is holdem (and you miss a holdem button if in seat 9, but you miss an omaha button if in seat 10) and then post 4+2, as above in omaha.
Is this play any good?
Is this play ethical?
Is it just plain cheap?
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
More like time-wasting, and it encourages a lot of people to do the same. "Well if he's missing the blinds, then I am too!"...
If you don't like a half and half game, don't play.
Of course, it is preferable that people don't intentionally miss blinds, but the real question is, are the rules such that people have an incentive to do that. If so, some would say there is a loophole to close.
Also note that this play is only possible in seats 9 and 10.
You said, `If you don't like a half and half game, don't play. '??! Of cours, all statements of the form `If you don't like XXXXX, then don't XXXXX,' are reasonable, but I don't see what that has to do with my post.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
The play becomes possible in seats 1,2,3...when the players following the blind skipper decide to skip theirs also.
This sort of foolishness is best dealt with by the players at the table, I would imagine it's difficult to write a rule covering it.
What my statement has to do with your post is; that's what the rest of the table should be saying to people who insist on 'strategically' skipping blinds in this fashion.
n/t.
Ya...left upper cut!
Dirk wrote: < Is this play any good? Maybe. You're skipping a big blind in HE that is likely to get attacked for a late position blind in Omaha that is unlikely to get attacked, but paying a dead 1/2 bet to do so. As you describe the game, this may increase your EV.
< Is this play ethical? Yes.
< Is it just plain cheap? Yes.
If the players figure out what you're doing, it will stand a good chance of ruining any gambling spirit the table has going, as they will see you're willing to inconvenience them to increase your EV by a few dimes.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Another consideration is if you have to take a bathroom break, and it is far enough that you will miss a couple of hands anyway. The question is, which hands do you miss?
Also, this play does not mess the blinds up.
But it certainly could affect other players attitudes.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
I agree that if the players figure this out it will hurt the mood of the table.
Generally speaking I would prefer to make up blinds in hold'em vs. Omaha because I feel that in Omaha you get less correctly playable starting hands (especially in Omaha/8).
I would prefer not to have to make up blinds at all in a low-limit rake game. Making up blinds in a higher limit game, preferably a time game, does not bother me so much.
It would classify you as what some pros call a "nit". I wouldn't want to be one.
CH
.
Yes!!!!
Introduce me to this person.
HEY!!!
Don"t run around here like playing poker is a sin. We are here to preferably make money.Why feel guilty about it?
I'm going to Vegas tomorrow for a week to play in a few supers and side games. A friend of mine wants to take a piece of my side game action and is willing to put up 25% of my bankroll.
My questions are:
What percentage of winnings should he be entitled to given that I am putting up 75% of the money and doing all the playing? We're good freinds so I am really just looking for some fair guidelines.
Also, a bankroll question. For a given limit, how many big bets would you recommend I bring for an adequate bankroll for a week of play avgeraging 6 hours a day. Assume that I have good table selection and would be an above average player at the table. I am not a pro so I don't need to protect this roll for future play. I intend to play 8/16 up to 30/60.
Thanks in advance for any input.
Paul Brown
Backing - Fair is whatever you both knowingly agree to. Aside from that, when a person only puts up a percentage of a bankroll/buy-in, it is common for them to get exactly that percentage back. However, since you're doing all the work for a week, I would think that anything from a 15-25% share of the profit for your friend is in the range of reasonable.
Bankroll - Off the top of my head, as this is not an issue I usually worry about much, I would bring at least $4,000. I have lost over $2,000 in one evening of 20-40 HE, and have seen others lose much more. If you figure on playing 8-16 and only moving up if you're doing well, then $4K should be plenty. If you start out higher with the intention of moving down if you get stuck, bring a lot more, because you aren't going to want to move down once you do get stuck (if you're a typical poker player).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
50 big bets is a huge loss. You must go on tilt now and then.
Not at all. Those are 6-8 hour sessions in a ram-n-jam California-style game. It's easy to lose 6 or more big bets in one hand and have played it as well as anyone could have.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I hope you're kidding, Andrew.
For limit hold 'em, a really loss in a session would be 50 BB although it is obviously possible to lose more. Two sessions in a row like that is also obviously possible but not likely. You certainly could lose 100 BB quite easily in 4 days without doing anything seriously wrong, just because of bad luck and a bit of bad play/play while tired.
Be honest with yourself about what you will do if you get behind. If you truly think you will play smaller, then you can take less. But if you are like nearly all other recreational players (I include myself), you will think "I am in Vegas, I did not come here to play small, and I will not get even playing small", and you will want to carry on playing at the same limit as you started, or bigger.
If you can afford it, just take plenty!
Supers are easier to budget for, since they go once a day and cost a fixed amount. But allow for 2 or 3 rebuys a day, since people go bust and rebuy like mad, and the blinds go up very fast. Do bear in mind that if you win a seat in the big one you have to play, although they used to let you roll it over to the next year.
RFL
Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable with less that $3500 plus whatever the supers are going to cost. When I've had friends take part of my action I gave them a straight percentage. This is overly generous from a financial standpoint, because you're the one absorbing all the costs and putting in the time. I've only done this a few times when I wanted to play over my bankroll. It's asking for a lot of trust to go out of town with a person's investment and have them rely on your results, so I rewarded those willing to be so trusting with a straight percentage payout.
If you can afford it, I would recommend using your own money. It has cost me quite a bit in earnings when I payed my supporters what their share was. At a minimum, I would suggest passing along some of the expenses.
In a recent article about 2001 WSOP, Mr. Glazer comments that so far most of the final tables of pl/nl games have been veteran big name players, but the limit final tables have been dominated by no-name inexperienced(at least from WSOP) players. Mr. Glazer further states this is clear proof that nl/pl has much more skill than limit.
However, could it not be that there are more players with significant limit experience, and therefore a larger pool of players to potentially make a final table, but no/pot limit play is not as popular and therefore there is a smaller overall pool of players and therefore you tend to see old faces at final table?.....HM?????
.
I think that this is the exact reason. That's why there were over 600 entries in the limit hold 'em tournament that kicked things off and it's also why that no matter where you go now there are good limit hold 'em players.
I think he also said something about comparing the best 200 American no limit players (or was it pot limit) with the best 200 European players. I doubt if there even are 200 American pot limit players.
There are only two cardrooms that I know of that push pot limit games and they both are in california. One has only one game, and the other tries to get down three or four.
This also brings up an interesting point. The initial hold 'em tournament is probably the worse tournament to enter from a players point of view since it is the one with the most good players.
The Horseshoe in Tunica, Mississippi regularly spreads pot limit omaha with blinds of $5-$10 plus some deuce-to-seven triple draw that is pot limit. The Coushatta Indian Reservation in Kinder, Louisiana regularly spreads pot limit hold'em and omaha with blinds of $5-$10.
The Soaring Eagle in Mount Pleasant, Michigan used to spread a $5-$10 pot limit omaha game but it died out a couple of years ago.
Many card rooms dislike spreading pot limit because the weaker players get cleaned out too often and this in turn hurts their limit action.
Actually, the pot limit game in Mt. Pleasant still goes every once in a while. In fact, it got off about a month ago.
I watched the game for a while, although since I've never played PLO I didn't get much out of it except that the way to play is to muck, muck, muck untill you get pocket A's, at which point you push in all your chips and sweat like a pig as the flop drops.
Needless to say, I came away nonplussed.
If that's all you saw, then your not ready! Jim
That really was most of the game. If you think that makes it beatable-- and I don't have any opinion on this one way or another-- than you should check it out next time you're up this way.
Is the sweating part essential or can you win without it?
And what do people call with?
RFL
Per Mason Malmuth: "I doubt if there even are 200 American pot limit players."
Of course there are. There are far more than 200. I could probably name 50 straight off the top of my head and I don't even live in the US (and I only know about Omaha, not Hold 'em). Then there are many many more whose faces I recognise without knowing their names. There are loads of them in Mississippi and Texas. At the Tunica tournament there were very numerous PLO games at all levels round the clock. It was the predominant cash game.
What MM really means is that he doesn't come across 200 of them in the limit games in LV. Fair enough: that is his universe.
This whole limit/pot limit/no limit debate is rather sterile IMHO, but I just find it irksome that MM is such a flat-earther about it! IIRC, Ray Zee, who has played all forms extensively at the highest level, thought that the order of skill (in decreasing order) was pot limit, limit and no-limit.
RFL
I'm sorry, it's just that I'm use to walking into cardrooms and seeing lots of limit games and no pot limit games. My guess is that The Commerce Club, which happens to be the biggest, probably has over 100 limit hold 'em games going on a typical night, lots of other forms of limit poker going as well, and zero pot limit games. With the exception of the few pot limit games already mentioned, and some games that appear around a tournament, that's the way it is.
I don't know how many regular pot limit players there are but I agree with Mason Malmuth. Pot limit is very popular as a side game when a major tournament is going on and pot limit is popular along the Gulf Coast. But in general it is not spread on a regular basis in the vast majority of card rooms throughout the country.
It has often been pointed out that pot limit is the game of choice in England. I talked to an English pot limit player while I was playing in the Bellagio $15-$30 game. He stated that England does not have very many card rooms and that if they want to expand poker they will have to add more limit games.
According to him the reason is obvious. The edge that a good pot limit player has over his weaker opponents is simply too great. The weaker players get cleaned out or simply get tired of losing their money and find something else to do.
In order for a game to prosper as a gambling game the mixture of luck and skill has to be such that the weaker player can win often enough to make it a pleasant experience for him. This is why limit poker will always be far more popular than pot limit.
You are absolutely right about England.
London, for example, a city of 8 million plus, has two card rooms (though far more casinos), and one is not even open every night. Between them I would guess they have 15 tables, although only rarely all are busy at once.
You are also right that pot limit being the only game on offer means that a lot of people who drift in for the first time lose consistently and then drift away. I suspect that the truly clueless would also lose at limit, but at least then they would probably get an evening's entertainment out of it, whereas in pot limit they can be bust in one or two hands. That's certainly what happened to me when I started.
However, a much bigger problem in England is that hardly anyone new does drift into the cardrooms. Far fewer people play "kitchin table" poker in the UK than the US, so very few people even know the rules. Our Victorian gaming laws basically prevent the casinos from advertising. And cardrooms are intimidating places to enter for the first time. The players certainly don't make you feel welcome, and in England, the staff are not nearly as good as those in US at "meeting and greeting".
Finally, the least amount you can put into a pot limit game in London is generally £50 or £100, which is a lot to the brand new gambler, especially if it all goes in one hand. And what is more, it won't usually even get you to river in a contested pot. There is just nothing equivalent to $2-4 or $1-5 for novices to start on.
Maybe a few more new players will appear following Late Night Poker and the Poker Million, but I suspect that poker in the UK has much deeper problems than just being pot limit through and through.
RFL
Jim,
I've been reading about this p/l arguement for Years. Mason has been telling the poker world the same thing for years. I play a lot of poker in a lot of different locations. My guess is that No limit and Pot Limit are not spread in > %98 of the Casino Card rooms in this country. BTW - I don't believe that it is the edge so much that keeps the games from being spread. It is the fact that new and weak players can go broke quickly. That does not necessarily translate to edge. A good limit player may have the same edge over a weak limit player that a good p/l player has over a weak p/l player but the p/l player inflicts big quick losses on his opponents. I believe this is the overriidng factor. That's not to say that the good p/l player today doesn't have a big edge over his weaker opponents. But the reason for that is usually because the weak players just don't get the playing time (because of the limited number of games spread) to become somewhat proficient. It is not as some have claimed because p/l and n/l require more skill than limit. Just the opposite is true.
Vince
Jim Brier posts good stuff...your last comment was to the heart of it. and even when they book a loss, they get more for their $$$ because they go bruke more slowly. as to which is better player, P/L, or lmt, unlikely that major agreement will ever be reached.
to me, differences in play allmost make it like two different games...so why compare?
David Sklansky wrote an excellent (although IMO less than comprehensive) essay on this in one of his books.
If you define skill as the abscence of luck, then I agree with the statement that no-limit and pot-limit require more skill.
I don't accept this definition, but if you do - - - well then Mr. Glazer is right.
Most would agree that there is less luck in the game of chess than in any other (non physical) contest.
However, this fact alone does not make expert chess players more talented people than expert backgammon players.
The latter is (IMO) one of the most difficult games I have ever played yet I "beat up on" a world class player for well over an hour - I won (or he conceded) in 10 of 12 games.
- Had I stayed he would have probably owned my house by the end of the day in spite of the fact that we were not playing for outrageous stakes. That should give you some idea of his "skill" level. (BTW, I play fairly well.)
If a "very good", recreational chess player took on the 100th best chess player in the world it is unlikely he or she would ever win a game. Chess does not allow the inferior player to "get lucky" - not even once in a while.
This is a useful analogy to no-limit/pot-limit versus limit. In either game the expert will eventually get all the money if the disparity in skill is large enough.
Sadly for those of us that play limit, it is possible for "eventually" to take a long time; it's not only possible, it's usually the case. This can hold true even if the opponent is far less skilled.
If a genuine expert and a novice put $5,000 each on the table and agreed to play 10-20 holdem until one of them had it all it could take weeks for the expert to get the money. He might do it in a matter of days, but it's not likely he would finish his work quickly. It could even go into months, but this is not likely; I am assuming they are playing 8 hours a day.
If an expert pot-limit player and a novice plunked down the same $5,000 each to play freeze-out pot-limit (or no-limit) it would probably be over in less than a day; I am assuming the same sized blinds as in 10-20.
Perhaps an even better way to look at it is this. At the end of a two-hour session it is very likely that the pot-limit player would at the very least be ahead; at the end of the day it is a virtual certainty (even if the novice had not yet gone broke.)
In limit, I would happily take 3-1 on my chances of being ahead of an expert at 10-20 after 2 hours. (I would want a little more if you pitted me against one of the true superstars.) I don't even think I would be a monster underdog against the expert to be ahead at the end of the day, although I probably WOULD BE behind.
I don't know what my chances are of being ahead of a pot-limit expert at the end of two hours, and I'll never find out - the game will never take place since I do not hate money.
What is my level of skill ?
I like to think I play very well - I have won a decent amount of money in the last 4 or 5 years - but I am definitely NOT an expert. I don't know if I could ever become one were I to dedicate my life to honing my skills. Maybe I could (maybe not), but I am not one as of this writing.
P.S. I tend to agree with the assertion that the reason you often see the "same old faces" at the final table of no-limit tournaments is due to the small number of people who play no-limit on a regular basis.
I think Mr. Malmuth was wrong about there being less than 200 players in the U.S. who play N/L or P/L on a regular basis (I also think he said it for emphasis and didn't really believe the number was THIS low) but he was right about there being far fewer of them than there are limit players.
If we were to count up all the people in the U.S. who played poker on a "regular basis" (perhaps 500 hours a year is a reasonable number to use) I would guess that the limit players would outnumber their no-limit/pot-limit counterparts by at LEAST a thousand to one.
In truth I think the number would be even higher than this, but I am leaving out those people who play only in very small stakes games. I'm not mocking them, but you cannot really use a 3-6 player as part of this example; it's quite likely that they do not have enough money to play N-L or P-L on a regular basis. A person who plays 15-30 -- 30-60 probably does have enough; he either chooses not to play NL/PL or he can't find a game.
Or both -
You make some good points. However, I do not agree with your last statement.
I'm no poker expert, but I am someone who has logged thousands of hours in $2-6, as well as thousands of hours in no-limit. For a few years, the only two games I played were 2-6 and no-limit. I did okay in both.
Last week I played $8-16 hold'em four of the last six nights. Also played over forty hours of O/8 last week. These games have been very,very, good (both hold'em and O/8). Although I've been running very good in limit of late, if I come along a small blind no-limit game with some very bad players (which happens more then most people realize), I will be in that game in a New York minute, I know that in a no-limit game filled with a few very bad players, my earn is a lot more. Even though I'm no expert,I don't need to be. You put a novice in a no-limit game and you might be surprised how fast they can go through chips.
Good Luck
Howard
that was close to precisely what I was trying to say; perhaps I need to work on how I express myself. (I'm serious - it may be a problem.)
I have played less than 100 hours of "big bet" poker in my entire life. Even with that being the case, if you were to find me a game with as few as 2 "novices" (ONE might even be enough) it would be a foot-race to see which of us got there first.
Thanks for the response -
J D
about your race to get there--- That would make three players the pros would welcome!!! One who has played less than 100 hours can't begin to realize the difference. nothing personal, I just know three fish would have the sharks swarming. Jim
The (hypothetical) offer was to play against 8 or 9 people who were just plain BAD players; I would run to this game regardless of the structure since I could run away as quickly if I got there and found a handful of "big bet" pros had joined in.
I was not now (nor have I ever been accused of) mocking PL/NL in terms of the amount of skills needed to play them well.
The fact remains - modesty be damned - that I happen to be someone who adjusts very well (and very quickly) to changes in stucture.
I would make myself a significant favorite over a group of imbeciles at almost anything.
I won a large amount of money playing BADMINTON several years ago against a person who had alot more money than brains, in spite of the fact that I ahd only played twice in my life.
I am (and was at the time) a far above average tennis player - is this a reasonable analogy ?
Response(s) appreciated - - -
J D
Ill buy the badminton -tennis situation. but about the poker, I thought your post said find game with as few as 2 novice players, and you would run to it. You would likely do better than mem but not so sure about the others. good luck, Jim
Lets have a tournament of snatching coins off your elbow. I assure you that the ENTIRE "final table" will have only skilled coin-snatchers.
This is poor reasoning. All this proves is that skill matters more in NL/PL than Limit. Poker is CLEARLY a more skillful game than coin-snatching, yet skill matters more in coin-snatching. Unskilled snatchers cannot win.
- Louie
I'm not even sure it proves that much. All it shows is that the edge that the good no limit player achieves over the poor player is larger than the edge that the skilled limit player achieves over the poor limit player. You might be able to argue that the smaller the achievable edge between good and bad players the more gaining that skill matters. But I'll let others elaborate.
to suck up to our host.
There is absolutely a greater disparity between good and bad players at PL-NL then there is at limit.
However, there is one point I have never heard mentioned before - and it's bound to "get the goat" of those who live off their earnings at "big bet" poker.
Let's suppose I have a friend who is VERY intelligent but has never played a hand of poker in his life.
Let us further suppose that I have 48 hours to prepare him to play in a game against nine of the dumbest people (and worst players) that you have ever met.
There are 2 games available that fit this description; one is 20-40, the other is no-limit (with blinds of say... 5 and 10 dollars).
Playing in neither is not an option. (Think of some contrived reason such as social pressure or something along those lines.)
The game is going to go for a total of 24 hours - 3 days, 8 hours a day.
Where should I prepare him to play ?
IMO it isn't even a close call.
My friend's first poker experience is going to be in a no-limit game.
(BTW, I am assuming bankroll is not an issue.)
........................
WHY ?
Because if the players are truly horrible, he is almost guaranteed of a win. It will probably be a small win since under the circumstances I will likely stress a very tight approach, but it will still be a win.
I know I'm going to make some people angry by saying this but it is an almost inescapable fact.
I CAN TEACH AN INTELLIGENT PERSON ENOUGH ABOUT BIG BET POKER IN TWO DAYS FOR HIM TO BE ABLE TO ALMOST ASSURE HIMSELF OF A WIN AGAINST OPPONENTS THAT HAVE LITTLE OR NO SKILL AT THIS GAME.
There is no way you can say the same about limit.
I play regularly against some of the worst players that ever set foot in a cardroom.
I have a win rate at 3-6 and 5-10 that I have stopped speaking of since few of those I tell believe me.
(My combined hourly rate is well in excess of $20/hour just in case any of you were wondering.)
- I have also lost over 50 big bets in a session on numerous occasions, and I do not go on tilt.
Comments ?
J D
You are probably right. Just have them play a very small number of hands and when it is right for them to play a hand they just move all in.
By the way, you wrote about those who make a living at big bet poker. As far as I can tell, there are very few of these people in existance since there are so few games. While there are a fair number of people who make a living at limit.
J. D. , using same conditions generally, (1) which game would you put him in if both were populated with average -for that game-skill? (2) and which if very skilled?
Mason, no legal games in Houston - no cardrooms (which are open to the public), but i guess there must be perhaps 20 who make their living on big bet poker there. Jim
I wouldn't let him near the "big bet" game; I would mentally prepare him for a loss in the limit game tho I think I could limit that loss - at least to some extent.
If both were shark tanks the same would hold true; I would, however, prepare him for a larger - and almost guaranteed loss. In the 1st game I would not be shocked if he booked a small win - I would be stunned if he beat the super-tough limit game.
I'd consider a win in either of the big bet games to be a nearly impossible feat. Moreover, his expected loss in the big bet game would not only be larger but more of a certainty.
- If possible, I'd have him fake an illness rather than allow his first poker experience to be against pros. (If he had to play NL against a table of experts I don't think I could watch; the sight of blood has always made ma a little woozy. =)
J D
P.S. To put it more concisely, I'd put him in the limit game in the latter two scenarios. If money not lost IS the same as money won it is where he would be safest. It is a paradox; I'd put him in a big bet game against a group of helpless players (and expect a small if unspectacular win), but I would not let him near the same game if he had to go up against players of even moderate skill.
Is this fascinating, or what ?
J. D. Yes, very fascinating....there's even a lot of sense in there too! Jim
Mason, I have talked to a number of good pot limit players. Virtually all of them have been broke or near broke at least once in their poker playing careers.
BROKE, yes Jim Brier, in my years of the underground world of gambling in Houston,I came to conclusion that the only ones that don't have that long streak of bad cards, the only ones that stay in the money were the bookies!! Jim
Yeess there are far more limitplayers than P/L players. Thus-moregood lmt players thanP/L players. And yes, part of this is because cardrooms want to protect players so they can pay rake for longer period of time. One thing which may increase interest in P/L is the practice of starting a tournament with limit betting and, after progressing to X point, changing to big bet.----But surely this # of players element is not significant in evaluation of Glazer and Zee opinioons???
Sorry I do not recall which, but one of regular columns in Card Player has suggest ways to blend twomethods of betting (or create new).Having played mostly P/L, I'm bugged by fact that pot odds are nearly there for so many draws--you can't protect your hand. there are some very large lmt games, so it' not size yhat counts. need structure advancing greatly at each level. Jim
why not have structure that greatly advances at each level. It's not that some players dont't want big games--there are some very large lmt games. Seems to me that bankroll requirements near same for 20-40 lmt and for 10-20 P/L. Jim
"One thing which may increase interest in P/L is the practice of starting a tournament with limit betting and, after progressing to X point, changing to big bet."
This happens anyway since late in a tournament someone is usually all-in before the river.
"Having played mostly P/L, I'm bugged by fact that pot odds are nearly there for so many draws--you can't protect your hand."
I don't mean to be too harsh, but this sounds like the argument that pot limit players who can't beat limit games make. (And I have played with plenty of people like this, especially during the months of April and May.)
The fact that you can't automatically bet enough to protect your hand makes limit a strategically very difficult game. Much more so than pot or no limit in my opinion. In our book HPFAP-21 we have a section on loose play which gives advice on how to handle this problem. As we show, it is sometimes correct to make some very strange plays in order to protect your hand -- not necessarily on that round but on a later street. This is one of the real seperators between those who do well at the limit form of this game and those who struggle.
you're right about size of bets in late trnmnt rounds. And you are really right about me having trouble beating lmt games--sorry to say, P/L too! As you know, a huge pot can be won with things like 6,8 in P/l loose player can more easily be saved by this from time to time--so i have had to tighten up on starting hands, and maximize each chip played in lmt so I can win a few. Jim
Just to set the record straight, no form of poker is easy to beat at a good rate.
I play 7stud, usually 1-5. I play to win. If somebody sitting next to me holds his cards where I can see them this gives me an unfair advantage over the table. But I can't resist using the information. What are the ethics here. I'm not rubbernecking, just seeing cards that are amateurishly held in view.
Tell them once. Continue to take advantage.
Louie is absolutely right; he also expressed it concisely - this is something I'm working on.
It's not going extremely well. (LOL)
People play poker for different reasons. In a 1-5 game you might actually cause the player more distress by embarassing him or her than you would be helping them.
If you go out of your way to see someone's cards you have cheated. Other's may tell you differently; they might say that anything short of actually stacking the deck or colluding with another player is legal and that poker is war. They would be wrong.
Poker is war, but there are rules governing our conduct even during a war.
Best wishes,
- J D
if someone saw you see the other guys cards. would they be entitled to know what the cards are?
when i see someone's cards (when im waiting for a game) i usually always tell the whole table what theyve got, and the dealer usually always tells me not to do that.
curiously, this never happens at the medium limit games.
brad
If they are dumb enough to expose their cards, it would be wrong for you to let them keep their money. IMO.
I posted this exact same question about a month ago. The biggest name that answered my post was Ray Zee, and I believe he said that it is cheating. This is because you are getting an unfair advantage over the rest of the table, as well as this person.
I think the big names of poker such as Zee, Brier, and Brunson try to keep poker as straight up as it can be. Poker has a bad image to the general public, and we all have to do our part to make it more acceptable. Then there will be more games for us to choose from, and we will all benefit in the long run.
Until I received the post from Zee, I thought it was the guys fault for showing me his cards. I didn't really consider the advantage I was getting over the rest of the table, or how my actions may affect the image of myself and of poker in general... pretty deep hey.
Just My Opinions,
Derrick
there is hope for you derrick. as you know poker is a small world and what you do tends to follow you all your life.
If someone is exposing their cards to me, I give them one warning. If they keep doing so, so be it.
There are some players who play Stud and Hold Em as if they are playing Pai Gow, they could care less what you have or if you know what they have. They play their hand only and are blissfully ignorant of anything going on around them.
Oh well.
My introduction to Omaha Hilo was in playing Wilson Software's version, and thought that point values for starting hands were the norm, but have found no other information whatsoever on them in any other books. It seems an excellent way to teach beginners what hands are playable. I highly doubt wilson was the first person/company to think of this idea, but in my 30+ books on poker, I have heard no mention. Any opinions on point values for starting hands in both Omahas, and possibly somewhere that I could possibly get some good definitive information in book form on it?
Hutchison has a point count system. Take a look it might be the same.
http://www.homestead.com/ehutchison/OmahaSystem.html
Ken Poklitar
I thought that Cappelleti's book had a point count system in it. I've heard of 3 or more such system's over the years, but have never actually seen any of them.
I think they are too inflexible, and not actually that useful. If you were determined to never really learn how to play the game at an advanced level, but were good at memorizing such system's, and wanted something to keep you even to slightly ahead in a loose, low-limit game, then using a point count might have value. Otherwise, learn to evaluate the strength of your hand in relation to the players/situation you're in, and you'll win a lot more, at a higher level, in the long run.
Read Ray Zee's book for hi-lo, and Ciaffone's book for high only.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I came up with what is DEFINATELY the ultimate point-count system for Omahaha hi/low. It involves assigning one point for "nut" 2-card combinations like KK, Axs, and A3 (extra for AA and A2), half point for non-nut 2-card combinations (like JJ, Kxs, and A4), and a half point for some 3/4-card combinations (like A25 and AQT). There is some adjustment when the pot is raised.
- Louie
I have been reading The Theory of Poker and using Tournament Texas Hold'em to practice. I have become pretty efficient at calculating pot odds vs. my odds of winning a hand. However, I am having a hard time calculating my odds of winning if I have already made a hand. Does anyone have any advice on how to do this? I have a good memory and do a good job when I have to memorize a chart. Any advice would help greatly.
I am not sure I understand your question exactly; if you are asking what I think you are, just do the opposite of what you would do if you were drawing.
Determine (or at least estimate) the number of cards that you think will beat you, divide this by the number of possible cards that can come, and you should have your answer.
If you make your hand on the flop you will have to do some slightly more complex calculations but they will still be the opposite of the odds you would be facing if YOU were the one that was drawing.
I am referring to holdem or Omaha; if you play stud you will often have to "fly by the seat of your pants" due to the almost infinite number of combinations that could possibly exist. Stud does not lend itself very well to pinpoint accuracy as far as odds for (or against) improvement are concerned.
I hope that was of some help. Feel free to contact me if you wish; if you phrase the question in a way that I am certain we are talking about the same thing I'm sure I can be of assistance.
Best wishes,
J D
I too am not clear about the question. If you are playihg limit vs pot, or no limit, then it may not matter any way because if you have best hand you probably will be betting regardless of odds. In big bet poker things change, so what are you playing and why are you asking? Jim
Well, it depends on the situation. Here's an example from Hold 'em.
Suppose its fourth street and the board reads 10c 9c 5s 2h.
1. You have 10h, 10d; one opponent has Js,Qs; the other has AcKc. How many cards improve your opponents? How many cards improve your opponenta and also improve you to a full house or quads? How many unknown cards? If you can calculate these, you can calculate your chances of winning.
2. Now let's say we have the same board, you still have 10, 10; opponents have 5, 5 and 2, 2. You have the same hand, but completely different odds of winning.
This is why it is important to be able to read your opponents in order to calculate the odds. There's some good stuff in TOP about this, but, having never used it, I don't know if you can practise reading hands with Turbo Hold 'em.
J-D answered the question that I was asking. I did phrase the question very poorly, and I am sorry. I ment to say that when I am drawing to a hand, I am pretty good at calculating my odds v. pot odds. I was having trouble understanding my odds if I have already made a hand. Thanks for the advice.
If I understand it correctly, Mr. Krieger is basically saying that the only way to really be successful in HE is to play with fish at your table.
He ran a Wilson sim. with 8 solid players and two fish and none of the good players even came close to winning 1/2BB an hour.
Is Mr. Krieger's assertions correct? Even if correct, what relavance does it have given he ran his tests with computer simulations?
No.
Krieger is assuming that this program does a good job of accurately representing real play. That's not true. I played in an excellent $30-$60 game last night. It basically had two live ones. Sometimes you only need one. Also there is a big difference between expert play and that of a typical player.
I thought that both articles by him and Dalla were way off base (even though the Dalla article was just asking questions). If Krieger was right, there would be virtually no successful players.
The problem with computer simulations is that you cannot program what a "solid player" does. A "solid player" does not follow a fixed set of rules from which he never deviates. The "solid player" has a highly variable strategy based on the particular opponent or opponents he is playing against. "Solid players" also do not do things in a random manner. Every betting action has a specific purpose based on the particulars of a situation. I don't believe this variable strategy can be accurately characterized using game theory or some random number generation.
To give you one example. A computer following a fixed set of rules would never limp in from early position with a hand like ten-eight suited. If it did it would do it in a random manner or based on some fixed set of criteria. But a top pro like Roy Cooke did in fact limp in from early position with this hand based on a unique set of circumstances that a computer could not incorporate. He ended up winning a big pot as a result.
It has been my experience that while computer simulations are interesting, I do not believe that such studies bear any relationship to the realities of how poker actually gets played. This is why a computer expert like Lawrence Hill can write all the articles he wants about how hands match up with each other or with various boardcard combinations but what he does is totally irrelevant to what happens at poker table.
I agree with you about the Hill matchups.
But what testwould you require a computer program to pass to make you change your mind about a computer being able to play a limit ring game well?
sure Jim Brier is right. and no program can be writen because they are yet to develope a computer which can match the human brain. each person is a maze of actions and reactions, multiply that by 9 other players, then by the varibles in the 52 cards, the by the luck factor.....wow! no wonder it's so hard for me to win. Jim
Could a program be written to incorporate HFAP strategy guidlelines? My answer is yes.
In response to the gentleman who said no program could ever be written to take into account all the variables in a live poker game, I must disagree.
A computer could easily be programmed to not only play solid poker, but also to adjust its standards based on the actions of the other players. In other words, the computer is quite capable of "learning".
For instance, the computer might be begin by adhering to S&M's guidelines for starting hands. Then, after a few rounds, it might analyze the play and notice that there is little preflop raising. It might then start playing small pairs and small suited connectors from early position.
It might notice that player "A" will raise only with A-K suited or better from early position, and will muck A-Q behind it. It might also notice that player "B" will raise with a pair of 6's from early position, so it will call.
These are all adjustments that strong players make. THe computer can adjust as well. It fact, the computer can remember EVERY SINGLE HAND, and so it should make these adjustments better than the human.
The one thing it cannot do is take into account tells or body language, for obvious reasons.
If a computer can beat Gary Kasparov in chess, it can play poker as well as the best human.
But can a computer look around and get a feel for who is going to stay and who is going to fold? Can a computer figure that Mike is a solid player except when he stuck over two grand in a $30-$60 game with a couple of drinks in him in which case he is more likely to semibluff a drawing hand?
Unlike poker, chess is a deterministic game. All the information that is possible to have is right there out in the open on the chess board and there are a finite number of possible moves and subsequent moves. Poker is not because you are dealing with incomplete information.
Jim,
If the same amount of resources went into developing a poker-playing computer as went into developing IBM's Deep Blue, do you think you would have a positive expectation in a heads-up match? Do you think any human would?
"you think you would have a positive expectation in a heads-up match? Do you think any human would?"
Of course the Human would win?
What a silly question.
vince
vince
Do you think we'll ever be able to land a man on the moon?
Of course not. What a silly question.
"Do you think we'll ever be able to land a man on the moon? "
Which moon are you talking about bright boy?
vince
One thing that makes these simulations different from real life is that all of the "good" players are exactly equal in skill. In other words, if you were one of the good players in this game, there would still only be one or two people who were worse than you. I don't find it surprising at all that when you are essentially tied for third worst at the table you aren't going to make that much money. Someone who makes his living at this kind of game would hope not only to have some players involved who play very poorly, but also to have at least some small edge over the other players as well.
Another reason is that expert players know what strategy changes are necessary to exploit flaws in the way the weak player plays. I doubt if the simulations do this. Thus the simulations should under estimate what the expert player can make.
I picked up AQo UTG and raised. Only the BB called. Flop was A63, I bet, BB called. Flop was 2 BB checkraised me, I called. River was 2. BB bet out, I put him on 2 pair on the raise and debated raising the river but chickened and called. I had 2 pairs and Q kicker. BB showed A4o. Comments greatly appreciated. Regards, Dave Playing low limits.
Pairing the river 2 doesn't do you ANY good unless he has specifically 63. For all other hands, whoever had the lead on the turn still had it on the river. If the river was a 6 you just outdrew A3 and A2 since his smaller pair was "counterfeited".
In holdem, "improving" does not mean "hand rank got higher" it means "hand rank got even higher than the opponent's improved hand rank". If you have a set of 6s and the opponent a set of 9s, pairing the board 44 does NOT "improve" your hand, even though you now have a full-house.
The opponent over-played his hand somewhat unless he thinks you'll play QQ this way AND pay him off. It looks like you are beat so raising would be a bit obscene.
- Louie
`
Out of the blinds you could put him on a number of hands. So your really in the dark to what he has. I think after he checked raised the turn and showed stength that you had to respect that somewhat. Just calling the river is the smart play even though you had the winner.
What separates good from great? the willingness to take chances? but the idea of taking chances seems so contradictory of the ideas that are outlined in many poker books that advocate tight play.... thoughts/comments?
The ability to read hands accurately. This will frequently allow you to make plays that don't seem right to others.
to quote Edward G. Robinson from the movie "The Cincinnati Kid"- "Thats what its all about, making the wrong move at the right time".
Easy to say after you hit your one outer.
1. No ethics. 2. Willingness to cheat.
uh.....right....
Well... When I think of a good player I think of one who has learned to play fairly tight and aggressive (maybe even by the book), but seems to ignore who he is playing against and the current situation and the mindset of the players.
I think great players are constantly aware of these things and when they can get away with things that good players don't even consider. I think great players do alot of more thinking and have a much better line on their opposition than good players.
Was UTG with red aces. Raised and was called by a middle player, raised by a late player and it wound up capped (me). Flop was A 10 5, about all I could hope for. Bet and got two callers. Turn was 9, bet and both callers stayed. What are they staying with as I am tight and aggressive? River was J, I bet and was called middle and raised by late player. I had put them on big pairs initially and still thought so but would someone stay with KQ? Maybe. I just called and won when middle showed 99 and late showed JJ. Again did I miss 1 or2 big bets on river? Am I always beign weak on the river? Thanks again for your thoughts. Regards, Dave
If you didn't get raised on the turn you can almost rule out a set. Even though he [99] wound up saving money, not raising on the turn was a MAJOR mistake - what if the "late" caller actually did have KQ ? He would have been giving a cheap card to KQ, KJ, or QJ - three hands that it was very reasonable to think the late caller might have. The call on the flop with 99 was probably not a terrible play; there were quite a few chips in the pot and he only had to call one small pot. (JJ's flop call was obviously also OK but his turn call was - as I'm sure you realize - a terrible play. He was getting nowhere near the proper odds even if he was certain that his hand was good if he hit it [which, of course, it was not], and he had no reason to feel certain it would be.
Let me pause here. You didn't ask me to analyze the hand; you asked if you should have 3-bet the river.
I would probably NOT have re-raised. The fact that neither player raised the turn would lead me to believe that one or both of them were drawing; when the raise came on the river I would be concerned that the raisor had hit his [draw].
I know it's a cliche, but when you raise on the river without the nuts you are laying 2-1 that your hand is good. I don't think that you could be 66.7% sure that you were still holding the winner. Add in the fact that if you raise you would have to EXPECT the middle position player to muck his hand - so by not "hitting it" again you get the same amount of money in the pot but risk less in order to do it.
(Read the passage in "TOP" about going for the overcall.)
While you probably missed out on at least two and more likely three big bets by playing it safe, I think you made the wiser choice.
You may be missing out on alot of river bets, but I don't think you missed any here.
- Who are these guys ? They pay way too much money to draw to longshot hands and then misplay them when they come in.
The irony here is that if "99" had raised the turn as he was supposed to, you would have won a much larger pot; you would have been able to put him on a hand - a hand you knew was practically dead - AND you would have probably lost "JJ" allowing you to go as many bets on the river as the house allows (or until 99 was all in.)
#1. Missing "thin" river bets is seldom a tragic leak in a players game unless it gets totally out of hand.
#2. If the "late" player was someone whom you knew had a really bad habit of over-betting his hand, alot of what I said above could be wrong. However, in this instance he would have to have a VERY bad case of this illness for you to have been correct to raise.
Just one man's opinion - I'm curious what the others have to say.
Best wishes,
J D
In a LL HE game, you really can't rule out the possibility of someone drawing to a gut shot, especially if they have face cards in the hole. I've seen it thousands (millions?) of times and still don't want to believe it. Without knowing the late player's style, it's hard to conclude. Did he have tendency to draw at any draw (including gutshots)?
I think you have to be somewhat cautious on the river when late player raises. What's he so excited about all of a sudden? Did he hit his max 4-outer? Does he figure you for A-K, and hit 2 pair on the river? Because your set is vulnerable now, I don't think you missed a bet.
Maybe could have checked the flop, but that's really debatable. Could set up a check-raise on turn, but are risking a free card to your opponents.
I think you did fine, you stacked the chips :)
Tom Wiedeman called me a neanderthal (cave man) that is not willing nor able to learn. Mark glover agrees. They are probably right. Just in case they are wrong I am seeking your help in trying to understand that which I don't currently understand. That's a lot but for this exercise I'll try and limit the scope.
Both Mark, Tom and my good buddy M took exception to my position on Poker and Game Theory. Specifically as it related to the following:
"QUESTION: COULD YOU BE IN A POKER GAME LIKE THIS: Each other player at the table has some `playing style' which corresponds to a (possibly probabilistic) strategy. Could it be that there is some combination of playing styles, so that you have negative EV, no matter what your strategy, even if you know all the playing styles of your opponents and you have unlimited brainpower. "
They answered yes I answered no. My questions are: What type of game is poker classified as with regards to game theory? Is it a zero-sum game.. just how would you classify poker? Can someone give an example of how and what mixed strategies by n opponents would satisfy the above yielding a negative ev for player x?
That's enough for now. Your help in my gaining an understanding of that which I know nothing of is appreciated.
Vince
Actually I did not take a position as to whether the opponents' combined styles could force you to be a loser. I did think it was interesting and I raised a question or two. In the latter part of the thread I attempted to give a brief description of why game theory is important and not silly, although my description was a bit clumsy and perhaps a bit off since I haven't really done my homework on it;-)
Just a quick thought and I haven't thought this out and won't go to the effort. But as soon as you limp in they could gang up on you to win that pot. For instance they might raise, reraise, and raise again. Now you most likely fold unless you have something like aces or kings. From this point on they play exactly identical to you. My guess is that you are now a loser 99 percent of the time.
This question reminds of a debate that appeared in Arnold Snyder's BLACKJACK FORUM MAGAZINE. If my memory serves me right it was between the late John Loeb and Don Schlesinger. Loeb (I hope I'm spelling this right) was a critic of the Kelly strategy which maximizes your bankroll in the long run. Schlesinger seemed to challenge him to produce a strategy that would beat the Kelly strategy. The answer was to come up with a strategy that would have a very high probability of being ahead of Kelly after a short period of time, and then to switch to Kelly once you were ahead. (Note: That small percentage of time when it is not ahead of Kelly it might be way behind.)
So while it may not be possible, and I don't have the answer at my fingertips, to come up with a combined strategy for the other players that guarantees you will be a loser, I don't think that it would be difficult to come up with a combined strategy that will almost always assure that you are a loser.
Perhaps if someone out there remembers the debate between Loeb and Schlesinger they could confirm that I have the facts right and add some other worthwhile insights.
Under the circumstances you have suggested, I think you would just have to play slightly differently. You would know that the raises don't mean what they normally do and you would simply play percentages for multiway pots. If they gang up on you, they are paying 2-1 against you, so I don't really think that's a bargain for them.
I don't think there is an unbeatable strategy that two can employ against one successfully, if that strategy is known to all. Of course, if the two are colluding, signalling, etc, then that is a whole new ball game and almost impossible to beat.
Mason,
Good response but I want more. What category of games for game theory analysis purposes can we put poker in? Let's use Limit Holdem as the Model. I believe that I have a fundamental misunderstanding of Game Theory and it's applications and I'd like to start somewhere near the beginning. I know you are not my teacher but I like you, that should count for something. Besides David doesn't answer my calls anymore. Seriously, since Tom Wiedeman and Mark Glover are so adamant about game theory being such a useful tool for strategically beating poker there may be more to it than I give it credit. If poker can be beaten by a team of players that can simply adopt complimentary playing styles without colluding this becomes an important issue. In fact if this is true then I would expect to see Glover, Wiedeman and M team up to destroy (run over) the poker world one level at a time with their unbeatable legal (no collusion) method. And why haven't you and David written the "How to beat poker with Team Game Theory Strategy" book?
Vince
v
Vince,
To start at the beginning I believe one should read chapter 19 "Game Theory and Bluffing" in Sklansky's Theory Of Poker and think about it. Although I did this a little bit a while ago, I never really practiced with it, or with the ideas. I might have gotten a "B" on a test on it at that time if I was lucky and if the test was not too hard. If the test had lots of exercises involving producing the correct answer in a short period of time (like in a real poker game) I would surely have gotten a "C" or worse. I think the next step is to really get familiar with it so that it can be applied at will in the heat of battle. By now I have forgotten some of it so review and further practice is essential.
I suggest you begin there and if you don't have the book hurry up and get it. I will review and practice with it too and it should provide the basis for further discussions on this forum.
Vince:
David and I have written more about game theory than you realize. David has a game theory chapter in his THE THEORY OF POKER, and I have a chapter called "Betting and Game Theory" in my GAMBLING THEORY book which gives some results that you might find very surprising and which should influence your betting frequency, especially on the end in hold 'em.
Mason,
You do your readers a disservice when you jump in the middle of a discuaaion and make a comment that is irrelevant to the issue. The main issue of this discussion was that the others calim that there are complimentary styes that gaurantee you a negative expectation when you play against them. Game theory has a place in poker but it is a limited place. I've read some of David's stuff on game theory and he has never made a cliam that I can remeber that game theory should be a big part of a winning players game.
Vince
Game Theory may or may not be a big part of a winners game. Much of this depends on how well your opponents play and how often you feel that it is necessary to resort to it. When playing short handed, I use game theory ideas all the time.
But there is one thing that I am convinced of, and that is understanding the basic ideas behind game theory and how they apply to poker should play an important part of successful poker strategy. Much of what I do at the table is influenced by it. I suspect that you haven't read, or at least don't understand the essay in my Gambling Theory book. Grasping it might change your comment.
"I suspect that you haven't read, or at least don't understand the essay in my Gambling Theory book."
I like they way you put this. "haven't read, or AT LEAST DON"T UNDERSTAND".
Thanks for the vote of confidence. I guess I won't bother to read it.
vince
Mason wrote:
"I suspect that you haven't read, or at least don't understand"
Vince writes back:
"I suspect that you haven't read, or at least don't understand"
You see Mason the issue was not whether Game Theory is or is not a part of a winning poker players strategy. I believe it is a tool that should be used. I guess you just don't get it or at least don't understand that or maybe haven't even bothered to read the disussion issue here. Or maybe what you are now saying is that : "There are complimentary (game theoretical possibilities) styles that two or more of your opponents can adopt that barring collusion and no rake can gaurantee (That's Gaurantee as in make sure) that you have a negative ev no matter what you do. Is that waht you are saying? If so I would certainly like to read your essay that shows how this is done.
vince
Of greater interest to me was the question of whether a combination of styles could combine to harm you IF there were no targeting of you in any sense AND all seat assignments were random. It was shown that in an extremely simplistic 3-player non-poker game this could easily be the case if coins were used. The player matching someone else's choice must shell out $1. So if A always picks Heads and B always picks Tails (perhaps because those are historically their luckiest choices) then player C is always screwed. While this does nothing to prove that anything similar could occur in poker, it does raise some questions. Some of these questions were well answered by participants in the thread but I think some questions yet remain.
I don't know anything of the debate between Schlesinger and Loeb but my strong guess would be that such a strategy could not beat Kelly because the few times it underperformed would offset the times it outperformed. Actually I would guess that any system other than Kelly would theoretically have to produce a lower overall return, including Loeb's system.
I don't think there's a combined strategy apart from collusion that could force a third player into negative EV. If third player knew the strategy, then he could adapt to it. This is different than the coin game because the coin game has some funny interactions going on which are not present in poker. In poker, the best hand wins the pot, period. In a worst case, third player could use game theory to randomize his play and break even but I think just choosing good hands and knowing the strategies of other two players would be enough. If they don't use signals to play only the best hand against him then I don't think they can put him into negative EV.
But this is only an opinion based on experience and knowledge of game theory and mathematics, I have not PROVED anything.
John E. Leib "tricked" Schlesinger. Leib would follow a simple tournament strategy as soon as he got ahead by any amount, through matching Don Schlesinger's bets. Leib did not demonstrate that Kelly was an inferior money management system.
It was great fun, though. Especially when Schlesinger walked out in a huff! But those were different times.
There is a very interesting text by John Leib on Kelly (anti-Kelly, naturally) in Finding The Edge.
Hello Cyrus fr a bj CC
Vince,
You asked: "What type of game is poker classified as with regards to game theory? Is it a zero-sum game.. just how would you classify poker?"
Poker is a zero-sum game if the players make payments only to each other (i.e., there is no rake or time collection). Poker can be a two-person game, a three-person game, a four-person game, etc. It depends on how many players are dealt a hand.
------------------
Dirk asked: "QUESTION: COULD YOU BE IN A POKER GAME LIKE THIS: Each other player at the table has some 'playing style' which corresponds to a (possibly probabilistic) strategy. Could it be that there is some combination of playing styles, so that you have negative EV, no matter what your strategy, even if you know all the playing styles of your opponents and you have unlimited brainpower."
You asked: "Can someone give an example of how and what mixed strategies by n opponents would satisfy the above yielding a negative ev for player x?"
Yes. See the example I offered in Dirk's 2 May 2001 thread entitled "Unbeatable opponent style combinations." Or see the examples Tom Weideman offered in Dirk's 7 May 2001 thread entitled "Unbeatable opponent style combinations revisited." (Oh, that's right, you already saw Tom's examples.)
------------------
You also wrote: "Your help in my gaining an understanding of that which I know nothing of is appreciated."
If you really want to gain a better understanding of game theory, you might begin with Nesmith C. Ankeny's POKER STRATEGY: WINNING WITH GAME THEORY, Norman Zadeh's WINNING POKER SYSTEMS, and Morton D. Davis' GAME THEORY: A NONTECHNICAL INTRODUCTION.
PICK SOMEONE OR TWO THAT YOU KNOW WILL THROW THIER HANDS AWAY UNDER A LITTLE PRESSURE, AND MAKE PLAYS AT THESE PEOPLE. IM NOT SAYING DO IT EVERYTIME YOU GET HEADS UP, BUT IF IT WORKS 30% OF THE TIME, YOUR WAY AHEAD. THIS IS NOT A MOVE FOR ALL PEOLPLE AT THE TABLE SO BE PICKY ABOUT WHO YOU CHOSE, AND THEN GIVE IT A SHOT. MUST BE AGRESSIVE, AND TIGHT ALL IN THE SAME MOTION IN TODAYS GAME. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR IF ANYONE AGREES WITH THIS OR NOT. { {COMMENTS APPRECIIATED.}
I usually just raise when I have a feeling. But, it might be just gas. I think your approach might work too.
MS Sunshine (mr)
John,
Turn off your caps lock key. I find that the person that folds often under pressure, is picked on by everyone. If anyone folds to pressure once while I'm there, I'll hit them everytime I can, don't you?
6-12HE med-loose game. But it's suddenly gone kinda tight and passive for about 20 minutes. I'm in SB. 2 players limp, cutoff raises, button calls, I call with Qh Jh, one of the limpers 3 bets, cutoff caps.
Wow change of texture? I don't remember the exact flop but I'll be pretty close and enough for this discussion.
flop: 3h, 8h 6d
I check, cutoff bets, button raises, I call with my overcards(which I think are no good) heart draw.
we go 3 handed.
Turn: 5h
Now the cutoff raiser nows my play fairly well, and is generally cautious when I'm in. I decide to test him instead of going for a check raise I'll see how he likes his hand now. I bet out. He raises!, button re-raises! Now I remember that I took my time thinking about pre-flop play. Specifically what would these 2 players play pre-flop with the noted action. I decide I may be beat by both of them, but probably button with AhKh. I decide to throw my 3rd nut flush away. And cutoff caps the betting.
Was this the right play? I hardly ever show my hands but this time I showed the 2 guys next to me and the dealer saw it and they all gulped when I mucked it. Very interesting tho that they had such a hard time with my thoughts of mucking. This made me think maybe I made a bad choice. What do you think?
if it's capped on both turn & river it will cost you about $100 more-- for a pot of over $400. Since tight before that hand, likely sudden action caused by big pairs. does not look like big mistake to fold. nor to call.-- I would have made crying call. Jim
I just finished a very long session; I'm going to sleep on this one.
Wow, what a spot to be in - - -
One thing comes to mind immediately (in spite of being tired enough to fall off this chair.)
If you did have the best hand on the turn you can be close to certain that there were at least six cards in that deck that would have taken you out of the lead.
"AA" may have been over playing his hand, but be I'd be shocked if one of his Aces wasn't THE Ace.
These are things you need to think about. My bleary eyed guess is that you made a good laydown - an opinion I reserve the right to change after I have had a chance to LAY DOWN.
If you recall, this is a little similar to whether or not to raise with the straight draw in a family pot with a 2-suited board.
Having the best hand and winding up with the best hand is often NOT the same thing.
I'll try to have something clever to add tonight.
Best wishes,
J D
go with my original plan; if these aren't psychotics you are very likely beaten by one of them. The other figures to have a draw with which he is trying to take both of you off - a set would be the obvious guess.
DON'T KEEP ME IN SUSPENSE, WHAT DID THEY HAVE ?
I'm not so much concerned about being right or wrong, it's just that I'm dying to know.
BTW, Louie is 100% right about showing this laydown. I wouldn't tell my closest friend in the world I ever laid this hand down. If he plays (or ever decides to take up playing) he will absolutely use it against you one day.
P.S. In the games in which I am usually found, none of the players would lay down the WORST flush in the deck in a pot this big. There aren't many who would lay down top pair here.
Yes, I AM serious.
J D
The raiser had aces with the nut flush draw. the button reraiser had AKo without a heart. I made my worst laydown of the year with this one. pocket rockets took this huge pot.
Well, one of them is clearly making a mistake. And if one of them can make a mistake so can the other. It looks like there will end up being about 21bb in the pot and it'll cost you at least 3 to draw. Even if they keep raising you're still getting 4:1.
I think you should pay it off; but certainly DON'T show the lay down.
- Louie
Vince Lepore once again has done 2+2 a great service in posting the following...
>>If one's opponent(s) adopt a strict style then one can exploit that style(s). Game theory is not powerful enough to overcome a "winning poker PLAYERS" edge. That edge is determined by a number of factors. One factor that is undefineable is "feel". It is not intuition as Tom Wiedeman seems to believe. It is more than that. It is not understanding odds. It is more than that. It is not understanding game selection. It is more than that. It is more than that! etc, etc, etc,
So Mark you see I did not miss something I believe you did. You believe and Tom believes that (yes I use the term believe) that poker is a game that one can gain an edge simply by the use of some formula. That may be true against inferior opponents but not against a winning poker PLAYER. <<
This great service does not come from his saying anything that could even remotely be considered true, though. But in his inimitable style, he has "manipulated" me into passing along some information about game theory just to demonstrate how deeply he has imbedded his foot into his mouth. I hate being tricked in this way, but I can't help it. I can only assume I am being tricked, because no one in their right mind would make such a confident pronouncement about a topic that they no absolutely nothing about like Vince has done...
What follows is an exercise intended to demonstrate a bit about the power of game theory in poker. It is pretty simple example and perhaps a tad contrived (I am not willing to do the immense amount of legwork for a complicated, full-blown multi-street hand), but it should serve its purpose.
You and I are playing heads up $100-$200 holdem. I'm down to my last $300, while you have a few racks in front of you (you bastard!). I put in my big blind on the button, and you post your small blind. The cards are dealt, and you, hoping not to lose your live one, decide to ease up on me a tad so I may not be too upset to rebuy. You announce you are calling in the dark as you do so. Not to be outdone, I check in the dark. The flop comes... Ac 9c 3s. You check in the dark, and I do as well. The turn is the 6c. Again we both check dark. The river is the 7c, and you check dark again, while I look at my cards to decide whether to throw in my last $200.
You read me like a book (this could explain my results up to this point), and you know for a fact that I will value bet any hand equal to or better than the lone 5 of clubs, and I will bluff with all hands JT-high or worse.
1. What hands will you call me with? That is, what is the weakest hand you will call with?
A week later, the roles are reversed in some bizarre twist of deja vu. That is, you are now on the button with $300 ($100 of it in the pot in the form of the big blind), we have checked in the dark until the river, and the same board has come up. The difference in this case is that I CAN'T read you like a book, but you can still read me. That is, you know what hands I will call with, depending on my mood.
2. What hands do you bet for value (give the worst hand you will bet for value), and what hands do you bluff with (give the strongest hand you will bluff with) for each of my moods listed below?
a. Usual mood: I call with any hand better than or equal to two pair, 9's and 6's.
b. Loose mood: I call with any hand better than or equal to a pair of aces with a jack kicker.
c. Tight mood: I don't call with any hand worse than a set of 3's.
Notice that the cards have broken completely even here, so how our results compare to each other is an indication of our long-term results. I am clearly at a disadvantage, since you can adjust according to how I play, and I can make no such adjustments. Let's see how you do... Tell me your strategy for each case and I'll compute your ev.
Tom Weideman
So that's the answer, huh? Well foot in the mouth Vince must apologize for being so stupid.
"1. What hands will you call me with? That is, what is the weakest hand you will call with?"
Well I believe I would fold everything and call it a night. Since I had so much of your money I would let you have a little back and hope you came back next week with a bigger stack. I know I'm real stupid for doing this but that's me.
"A week later, the roles are reversed in some bizarre twist of deja vu."
Well I guess I would just call with anything and if I lost kno big deal. You see, I can read you like a book and I know that since you've won you will return next week. So I'll just go home, take a rest, get some more money and kick you ass next week. Stupid huh. But a good player will do these stupid things. Oh one other thing do I have to wait for these stupid situations to arise before I can employ your wonderful strategy?
And thanks for giving me credit for doing a good deed here on 2 + 2. Of course if I knew everyone was going to have to listen to your drivel I may have thought twice about it. But that's me.
Tom wrote:
"(I am not willing to do the immense amount of legwork for a complicated, full-blown multi-street hand), but it should serve its purpose. "
Good idea. This is the kind of bull Mark Glover also employs when he is caught with his pants down.
vince
Tom,
If nobody else wants to take a serious stab at your problem, then I'll give it a shot.
You asked: "1. What hands will you call me with? That is, what is the weakest hand you will call with?"
When you said you would bluff with all hands JT-high or worse, I'm assuming you mean AJT97-high or worse.
If that's the case, then I'll call with any hand you would value bet. That is, "any hand equal to or better than the lone 5 of clubs."
If you were a tad more gun-shy with your bluffs (i.e., checking your non-club JT hands and bluffing AJ987-high or worse), then I'd have to fold those lone-5c hands and call with a minimum of Ac9c8c7c6c.
You then flipped the scenario and asked: "2. What hands do you bet for value (give the worst hand you will bet for value), and what hands do you bluff with (give the strongest hand you will bluff with) for each of my moods listed below?"
Perhaps I don't understand your question. Would I ever bluff when you are in any of the moods you listed? I'll try to answer the value bet portion of this question after I get this bluffing issue clarified.
Since you are apparently going to be the only one participating.
Tom
1. Given the level of my math skills, It would be best if I state my assumptions: I will value bet 1/3 of the time, bluff 1/3 of the time, and check one third of the time. I also assume you won't bet, but will only call. I assume you will have a club 5 or higher 1/3 of the time. When we both have the club, we will each win 1/2 the time. For the sake of computation, I will also assume that the scenario is repeated 18 times.
If you call all of the time, regardless of your hand:
You will face 6 of my value bets, losing 5 and winning 1: (1*400) - (5*200)= -600. You will face six bluffs, winning 2 and pushing 4: (2*400)+(4*100)= 1200. You will face 6 checks, winning 2 and pushing 4: (2*200)+(4*100)=800. Your cost in blinds will be 1800. -600+1200+800-1800=-400 so your EV for calling all bets would be -400/18.
If you only call when you have a 5c or higher (1/3 of the time):
You will call 2 value bets, winning 1 and losing 1: 400-200=200. You will call 2 bluffs winning both: 800. You will win 2 checks and push 4: 400+400=800 Ante cost remains 1800. 200+800+800-1800=0 At least you break even here, if my assumptions are correct. I don't have a clue how to set up an equation and solve it for a guaranteed win. I'll play with it some more before I move on to #2.
theoretically unbeatable. computor vs. player. formuls vs. player. WOW so much posting about such improbable, imponderable, situations. and, I would guess, few (if any) changes of opinions....guess I will keep reading in hopes of learning something, even if it seems futile at times,but logic tells me nothing is 100%. Jim
I picked up AA second after big blind. Utg limped, I raised, there was another raise and I capped. Flop was not great KJ8. UTG bet out. I thought I had a pretty tight image and capped so was thinking he had 2 pair or a strong draw. I just called. Turn was some rag, he bet out again. I called again. River was nothing much, he bet. By now there were just two of us. I called. He showed AK and I took the pot. Question. Where or when or if shouold I have raised him? Was this inducing a bluff? ha, ha, or just poor play on my part?Thanks, Dave BTW a 3-6 online game.
It would help a little to know the suits but I will assume - since you did not speak of them - that they were irrelevant.
I am also assuming that only the three of you took the flop - UTG, the re-raisor, and you.
I am not a big fan of counting the number of possible combinations there are for the different hands "UTG" could have; this is 3-6 online - there is almost no telling what he was capable of having.
That said, the biggest raise you missed (IMO) was on the flop. There are only three hands in the deck that leave you crippled - KK, JJ and 88. There are ALOT of hands the 3-bettor could have had, especially if he was back near (or on) the button; I never say "never", but if I were going to play against a tight, early position raisor it would almost always be with a hand that I COULD 3-bet with. I might choose to trap the blinds with "AA" but this is [obviously] not case of having a hand that is too weak to re-raise with.
My list of hands that are good enough to 3-bet with could go down pretty far if,
1. I can rely on the blinds to behave reasonably - I don't want to play "88" for 3 bets against two or three opponents. (I don't really want to play "JJ" or "TT" under these conditions either, although with these hands it would not be quite as bad.)
2. I can use my position on you to outplay you on later rounds, either by extracting the maximum when I flop a monster OR by being able to push you off a hand when I feel that you did not get the flop you were seeking. A good example might be if I 3-bet "AKs", you capped - pretty much announcing "AA" - and I flopped a gutshot draw, "Q T 4" for instance. (It would be nice if I got at least one of my suit, but it wouldn't be a requirement.) If the turn brings either a Queen or a Ten and I think there's a reasonable chance of you folding to a raise, this gives me an extra reason for wanting to get involved in this pot with you.
- If the turn gave me a flush draw (increasing my outs to 12) I would make this play almost every time; the math should show you needing to fold only about 10% of the time for this raise to show a nice profit since folding my 12-outer is out of the question. If I didn't pick up the additional outs I would do it much less frequently, but if the turn was a Queen (pairing the highest card on the board) I would still lean toward taking a swing.
The point of all this is to illustrate that IMO your major mistake here was not failing to get more $$$ from "UTG" - it was in allowing the 3-bettor to see the turn for 1 bet. If he is paying attention, he more or less knows you have Aces; by raising the flop you disuade him from trying anything cute (such as the play I described) while also making it wrong for him to draw to his 4-outer. (If he calls, he is either stubborn OR you have a BIG problem - more likely the former since the pot is too big for him to slowplay a set.)
DON'T INVITE AN OVERCALLER TO BEAT YOU !
If "UTG" has you, he has you; there isn't much you can do about it (and it seems unlikely he does since this seems like an almost automatic check-raise for him if he flopped a monster. There is close to nothing you could possibly have capped with that got damaged by THIS flop; a check-raise here is almost sure to work.)
This pot already had ~ 14 small bets in it after "UTG" fired at the flop; this was a must-raise situation for you. Calling made it correct for the player behind you to take one off with as little as two outs (a pocket pair or something like "KQ" or "JT".)
The same applies to the turn. Sometimes we get a second chance to go back and fix our mistakes. There are now ~ 8.5 BIG bets in the pot; at this price the player behind you would be correct to take off one more in an attempt to hit his hand - as long as he has at least 4 outs - since he can make up for this slightly "loose" call with the money you WILL pay him on the river if he hits. (He might even collect some from "UTG".)
You had two chances to protect your hand; you passed on both of them. Tsk, tsk, tsk. This was a big pot. Once they get this size you must focus on winning them, not on the [small but existent] chance that one of your opponents has you beaten. Which would have been a bigger disappointment, losing a couple of extra bets or losing the pot to an overcaller who didn't even play badly by calling ?
I guess I don't have to answer that.
At least you dodged the bullet THIS time. Next time instead of trying to DODGE bullets you might want to grab the other guys gun and TAKE OUT all the bullets.
I have been playing alot online of late and I am well aware of how it feels to build a nice pot only to feel like the flop let you down. Still, you cannot become passive whenever you get a scary board. (Hell, they're ALL scary boards at 3-6, even in most cardrooms but more so online.)
This hand is a great example of why low-limit players absorb so many - ahem - "bad beats". You said the turn was "some rag".
How would you have felt if the 3-bettor had two "rags" of exactly the same rank as his hole cards ?
If you've never seen someone 3-bet "66" (or the like) pre-flop, we must be playing in different games. - LOL
I hope I was of some help.
Best wishes,
J D
Hey J-D I want to thank you for the answers you have been taking the time to provide. I agree with what you are saying and it is more valuable than reading a book and trying to apply it instantly at an online table. Havie been trying to work on getting more aggressive and not playing "weak-tight". Guess I am thinking "How can that guy call my raise without a hand?" too often. You are right, I was thinking about UTG and ignoring the third player. Thanks again. Regards, Dave PS When you play online are you seeing a big difference between 3/6 and 5/10?
Someone who flopped a gut-shot is getting the right odds to draw even if you raise; the pot being so big already. I would therefore be tempted to flat call the flop figuring to raise the turn. But if nobody else called I have no difficulty with you just paying him off since someone is showing aggression in spite of your obvious premium hand.
Here's another hand: you call UTG, the young but otherwise solid player raises, the aggressive player 3-bets, you call, and the kid caps it. The kid's sure to have a good hand. The "red-flag" flop is KJ8.
[1] You have AK. Your hand isn't worth a raise.
[2] You have KJs or JJ. Your hand IS worth a raise.
Wouldn't you be tempted to bet out with AK but check-raise with KJ/JJ? Well, lots of opponents think this way as well. This means that the fact that he bet out is a sign of relative "weakness" under the current situation.
- Louie
None of what you said here could possibly called wrong but I will go out on a limb and say that it may not be the "best" strategy - taking all factors into account.
I stand by my assertion that allowing the 3-bettor to see the turn for one bet is a mistake; I don't think that "UTG" can be relied upon to bet out on the turn. You more or less (correctly IMO) pointed out that his flop bet was sort of a "let me see where I'm at" move. This being the case there is very little reason to consider him LIKELY to bet the turn.
Also, regarding the 3-bettor getting correct odds to draw to a gutshot even if he had to call two bets cold...
1. His call is not closing the action; he should be concerned about a re-raise on the flop from "UTG", and if one occurs he is paying way too much to draw to four outs.
2. Even if he takes the ~ 7-1 (his actual odds if he calls two cold - granted his implied odds are very high) he then has to worry about either of the other two players overtaking him on the turn by filling up.
In this particular case this possibility (#2) did not exist, but wouldn't you be concerned about it if you were in his place with a gutshot draw ?
I would and would therefore be very leery about calling two cold on the flop - especially when you factor in #1.
Let's take another look at it from Dave's perspective.
If he smooth-calls the flop there are a large number of hands that the 3-bettor would be correct in calling with; he's getting ~ 14-1, there are very few hands with which he would be INCORRECT in peeling one off, since now his call DOES close the action.
I will say again that I don't have a serious problem with your approach; I'm just not sure it is the best available way to go at it.
I'm for lowering the boom now; if he calls two it seems I have acomplished more; if he folds, so much the better.
I also find out more if he re-raises than I would if he were to simply raise the single bet. If he 3-bets the flop I am probably in deep trouble; I doubt if I would be in any hurry to get rid of my hand, but I would likely proceed with caution - losing the least if I am beaten while winning the same amount if I hold the best hand. (In other words, if he 3-bets I will surrender control of the betting to him; if he has me I lose the same amount, if I have him I give him just enough rope to hang himself.)
If I smooth-call and HE raises, I really haven't found out very much. (There was no mention of suits here - there are a number of draws that he could be raising with. It's not likely he will 3-bet a draw; it is a possibility, but it would not be something I'd expect since "UTG" could still "go one more" and wreck his plans. A cap MIGHT even convince me to fold; it's hard for me to see how this would please the 3-bettor if he IS on a draw.)
These are just a few thoughts - the plain truth is that in an online 3-6 game, they usually just go ahead and do what they were intending to do. Forcing them to call an additional bet (especially on the flop) seldom gets them to alter their plans.
That's why I love those games so much. Its true that you are stripped of alot of the "power" plays you have at your disposal in a bigger game (against sane opposition.) The only reliable way to get money out of these games is to show them the best hand.
But when you do, many of the pots you win are almost obscene in size.
Or as a friend of mine likes to put it, "they leave alot of money out there when they forget to beat you".
Best wishes to you and Dave,
J D
Thinking you have "a tight image" online.
Majority of online players, especially at LL, can't remember what their last hand was, much less how you are playing. If you show down stone cold bluffs every hand, they might remember that (and write your name down for future reference). But no one remembers a good player.
I know this topic has been drilled to death on other forums, but how does one beat a loose passive game? The one I speak of is a 3-6-12 game. Maybe the question should be about how to play this structure differently compared to a 2 bet structure.
The table I was at recently saw 5-6 callers per hand, and a pre-flop raise from late position will rarely eliminate the blinds. The entire table will call a flop bet of 3 dollars, and the times I wanted to check-raise it often checked around. Is the turn the time to make a raise with strong hands? I found that I was taking my premium hands against too many players. Also when I loosened up and played suited one gaps all the way to 6-4, the few times I did flush I was outflushed by hands like J-4.
Also, another problem with these limpers is if the board pairs on the flop, or turn for that matter it's likely you're looking at trips. I consider one of my big strengths to be hand reading yet it is often tough.
For the night my three biggest hands were from the blinds K-2, 8-2 both where I flopped two pair and boated by the river, and 7-4o where I flopped a straight. I know I can't loosen up to play trash, but what exactly are the cutoffs? Any help would be appreciated on pre-flop play, and bluffing on the end for the bigger bet.
Thanks
How to beat these games? With attitude adjustments.
[1] Forget the notion that you can routinely put particular people on particular hands. Yes, you'll rarely know when the river 7 makes someone two pair.
[2] Forget the notion that you will routinely know on the river whether you have the better hand. No, you find out in the show-down. This means you will OFTEN find yourself in the show-down with your pants down; either making bad value bets or making hopeless calls. Doh!
With sensible selectivity before and on the flop, and sensible assertiveness, you'll beat these games, but not glamoursly.
- Louie
Definitely not glamorously, but if done properly you can beat them for a nice figure.
I'll leave the glamour to others; I'll take the cash.
J D
For those of you who think my foot was in my mouth when I claimed Tom believes that there is a Math formula for playing winning poker, well, I rest my case.
It should be pretty easy now for you guys to just buy that formula from good old Tom and go out and beat them Holdem games to death. And I deserve all the thanks as Tom has so humbly admitted. Ain't I nice. Of course my humble self would like to share some of the credit with Mark, "Is this April", Glover.
vince
Vince,
You wrote: "For those of you who think my foot was in my mouth when I claimed Tom believes that there is a Math formula for playing winning poker, well, I rest my case."
On 8 May, Tom claimed: "Start with three players that all follow the same optimal strategy. They all have an ev of zero."[1]
Perhaps you are confusing zero EV with positive EV. If not, perhaps you can cite an instance where Tom claims there is a mathematical formula for playing winning poker. Perhaps not.
--------------
[1] Tom Weideman, 8 May 2001, "Re: Unbeatable opponent style combinations revisit" in Dirk's 7 May 2001 thread entitled "Unbeatable opponent style combinations revisited."
Mark,
How about the "Player vs the Formula" by none other than our boy Tommy. Does shoe taste good?
Vince
Vince,
Earlier, you asserted: "For those of you who think my foot was in my mouth when I claimed Tom believes that there is a Math formula for playing winning poker, well, I rest my case."
Earlier, I wrote: "[P]erhaps you can cite an instance where Tom claims there is a mathematical formula for playing winning poker."
You responded: "How about the 'Player vs the Formula' by none other than our boy Tommy."
How about it? I double checked and failed to find any claim by Tom that his formula would outperform any strategy that you could come up with. Can you quote the passage on which you are basing your assertion? I'm guessing you cannot.
I'd also guess (but could not guarantee) that his formula indeed would produce a higher expectation than a serious strategy that you developed (on your own). But it doesn't look like we will be able to test that second prediction.
Mark, You are a joke. Now wait a minute I can't rally mean that. I mean after all how can a human being be a loke. A joke is some abstract thing, isn't it? Oh well, you know what I mean. Or do you? Probably not since you coud not decipher the underlying meaning of Tom' spost "The Formula vs the Player."
"Notice that the cards have broken completely even here, so how our results compare to each other is an indication of our long-term results. I am clearly at a disadvantage, since you can adjust according to how I play, and I can make no such adjustments. Let's see how you do... Tell me your strategy for each case and I'll compute your ev."
Have you never seen such a blatant "please, go ahead, let's see how you do, take this teat, please" challenge to prove ones point before. Or are you being purposely ignorant or are you so much an egotist that you can't admit that you are wrong. Do you believe his title the "Formula vs the Player" and his challenge were to show that the player is better? Oh I get it your answer is :"I don't know what his purpose is?" You are beginning to annoy me. Of course if Tom is reading this and he is an honest person he may comment and telll you that was his intention. Maybe. I hope he doesn't though because I would hate to see you go into shock.
Vince
Just noticed some sort of debate on the subject. Anyway the bottom line is this. Someone who uses only game theory, if he could somehow do it perfectly, cannot lose and will almost certainly win. But he won't win as fast as someone who is an expert and is not playing game theory as long asd his opponents are not either.
David,
You wrote: "Anyway the bottom line is this. Someone who uses only game theory, if he could somehow do it perfectly, cannot lose and will almost certainly win."
Your claim is true in the case of a zero-sum, heads-up game. It is not true if there is a rake or if there are at least three players.
I'm guessing that you understand this. But Vince seems to be having trouble wrapping his mind around this concept.
They're both so easy to discard, at a glance!
Great time savers.
Mark,
Maybe you should reread David's post. It has absolutely nothing to do with our discussion. Maybe you haven't realized it but David has a knack for getting into a discussion and diverting the it from the topic at hand. Or maybe you just don't get that.
vince
"Anyway the bottom line is this. Someone who uses only game theory, if he could "SOMEHOW DO IT PERFECTLY" perfectly, cannot lose and will almost certainly win.
David whay is that when fellows like you and Mark and Tom make statements you can't back up you qualify them with lines like those above.
vince
Interesting post. Though I am not a game theorist, I took a lot of it when getting a Ph.D. in Economics. As always, reading Sklansky (and the rest) reminds me a great deal of the economics papers I used to read. The approach is the same, with two steps. First, reduce a complex problem to a simple one (hopefully not losing too much in the process), and two, solve the simple problem. This can be extremely powerful--I am a big fan of Sklansky/etc.'s books. But it is also dangerous, as the first step in the process can sometimes get lost in the shuffle. Knowing the optimal bluffing frequency only helps if you have some idea as to what is in your opponents' hands, and therefore know what "game" you are playing.
So, I think Sklansky is right, given that you do a good job understanding your opponents. This allows you to understand what "game" (in a game theoretic sense) you are playing, allowing you to solve the game (and make the right plays). But, a great game theorist with a poor understanding of his opponents will get killed--he will make all the right moves at all the wrong times. This, by the way, is why poker is interesting to me--understanding both people and the game is necessary.
Jimfrom,
I graduated from high school. Barely. I do not know game theory. At all. I had the same thought: "Knowing the optimal bluffing frequency only helps if you have some idea as to what is in your opponents' hands,"
Does that make me smart like a phd?
Vince
If only getting a Ph.D. was proof of intelligence. Another thing I like about poker is that it humbles you.
Only point I was trying to make: I have done a lot of reading about this, once upon a time, and I think you need to be careful when you try to apply game theory to anything, really. The hard part of game theory is defining the game. Solving the game is relatively easy. In poker, that means having a decent idea as to what your opponents hold. I am sure most of you have seen a genuinely bright mathematically-inclined person getting picked apart by old-school, intuitive players. The smart guy might be making the right moves based on what he sees, but the other players are making sure he sees the wrong thing.
J.
Jimmy,
I was only joking about the smart guy stuff. I was being stupid again. Your post supported or confirmed, if you will, the way I feel about game theory. My response more appropriately was "Thanks for your comments". So now I will apologize for the poor inappropriate attempt at humor and repeat:"Thanks for your comments".
vince
You are using game theory both when you play optimally, and also when you adjust from optimality to maximize you EV given your oponents non-optimal play (if, and it's a big IF, you correctly characterize your oponents non-optimal play.
However you cannot beat (or break even against) semi-colluding opponents.
Definition: semi-colluding opponents do not communicate or in any way cheat during the game, but they discuss and plan thair strategies before the game so as to (try to) maximize their combined EV. Note that some completely non-colluding players could just happen to sit down and individually play strategies that semi-colluding players would have played.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
"Note that some completely non-colluding players could just happen to sit down and individually play strategies that semi-colluding players would have played."
What do you think the odds of that happening are? Sklansky has already stated that he believes that an optimal game theory player cannot lose. Are you now telling him he is wrong?
Vince
If you are up against semi-colluding players (or completely innocent players who just happen to be playing a certain combination of strategies) then, even with no rake, your EV would be strictly negative. This can be absolutely proven for certain games, including very simplified versions of poker. It is probably true for almost any kind of poker. Moreover, I could definitely convince David Sklansky on this, if he chose to examine the arguments.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
'... your EV would be strictly negative. This can be absolutely proven for certain games, including very simplified versions of poker.'
Could we please see some examples ?
What happend to the 3-person-1-blind-game ?
It's so obvios that you are on the right track !
But I would like to see some concrete proof !?
Someone emailed me privately with a proof for the 3-person-1-blind game. Since they did not publically post it here, I don't feel I can do so, though they could if they so chose. But take my word for it, the situation can be completely analysed.
An example posted earlier by Mark Glover (and Tom Weideman) was if everyone played optimally (assuming that's possible) except that the player on your left always raises with the nuts on the river, even if there are several players still to act. This latter example is more of a convincing argument, rather than a proof, albeit in a real game.
Sorry if this doesn't satisfy you.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Dirk,
Why not email the contributor to whom you refer and ask him if you can post his proof? It sure would be good to put this thread to bed.
As for your example, it is very situational and not style related in a general sense. Our hero can still have a significantly positive expectation in that specific game overall. In your example, the player on the left is effecting everyone on his right negatively who has already bet. In addition, our hero is supposed to be able to modify his style in order to attempt to overcome whatever disadvantage he has because of the combination of styles of his opponents. If our hero is a good player then he will tear up the players who are attempting to play optimally through his ability to get his opponents to misjudge what he is holding.
Of course, if you do not allow our hero who has unlimited brainpower to apply that brainpower and take advantage of his opponents then we have changed the premise of the original question.
William
.
Hi everyone. I want to start a thread about blind play. After playing TTH for 1000 hours and online for about 700-800 hours I have come to the conclusion that blind play is a major leak for most players. This is good. I am assuming most players do not faithfully read and implement what is on our forum but those who do are sure getting a lot of help. Wanting to contribute something myself for a change. 1. Play is too loose in general. In particular calling from SB. Why would anyone call an early players raise, especially if another player saw the raise. You must have quite a hand. The SB callers usually have trash. 2. If an early position solid or tight player gets no callers but you the BB, try this. If the flop comes up garbage or all small cards, checkraise and bet out until he folds. Learned this one the hard way. Will try to record and summarize responses and post in some sort of organized way. Dave
It's been tried,
and tried,
and tried.
It used to actually work - not all the time but often enough to make it profitable.
Then, as with all good plays, somebody decided to do it every time he had the chance to.
He not only went broke, he wisened up even some of the dimmer bulbs in town.
(He is currently doing some yard work for me in order to build up another bankroll; I hope he treats this one with a little more reverence.)
He probably will; 8 hours a day in the hot sun will put things in perspective.
- I am paying him a very generous wage. In another week or two he should be appearing at a cardroom near you. -:)
J D
You said yourself that play in that game was loose, therefore calling a raise on the small blind with a marginal hand is not a bad move, for 3 reasons:
1)If the raise is made in ealy-middle position and has alot of callers you are getting good pot odds on a bet and a half.
2) If the raise is called by alot of people theres a good chance many of the big cards are out allowing you to hit a low flop in wich your small hand becomes huge.
3)If you are noticeably limping in with a bad hand and hit ragged flop a string of fearless early position bets may allow you to bluff a decent pot.
I am comfortable with playing omaha/8 at a full table. However, I am uncertain on what changes to make when the game gets shorter. In particular, what sorts of starting hands would one play in a three- or four- handed limit omaha/8 game?
You'll need far less nut-hands to win. Combination non-nut hands such as 2nd pair and the 3rd nut low draw is a strong hand since its extremely unlikely you'll get scooped by a single opponent, yet you CAN scoop AND you can get the opponent to fold a weak one-way holdings such as top pair (only) or 2nd nut low draw (only).
Small straight draws and 2-flushes count a lot more short handed since they are much more likely to win when they get there.
So you play starting hands that CAN give you these advantages, such as Q4hQ2 and hope for a flop like J8h3. Your over-pair small flush draw 2nd nut low draw is very weak at a full table, but is very strong heads-up.
- Louie
Okay, I thought I would start a separate thread so that I could clear up everything at once, rather than respond in every individual thread.
1. Thanks for your support Mark, but there IS in fact a "poker formula", at least for head-up play. It's not that I "believe in" one, as Vince suggests, any more than I "believe in" the existence of a formula that describes how the earth orbits the sun. I really don't care if Vince in his ignorance mocks me for stating this. He already lost the argument when he was too terrified to see if he could defeat a "formula player" he could read perfectly (and one that doesn't play perfectly to boot!). I don't know how I could groove him a better pitch than that, but despite all his bluster, he refuses to swing. I'm done paying any attention to anything he posts on this matter any more, as I am satisfied with my victory. Have fun with your trolling, Vince - you're just pissing in the wind from here on, since I won't even be reading your posts if I think they are about your views on game theory. I wouldn't be surprised if everyone else here did the same thing.
2. The point was brought up that if game theoretical play is so powerful, why haven't armies of math geeks descended upon the poker scene and claim their prize? The answer to this is easy, but has many parts. The first and simplest reason is that this method of play is very, very hard to implement, even in an approximate form. There is at least one such "game theory approximation practitioner" that I am aware of, and he won the world championship of poker last year. The second reason is that game theory as applied to poker is still in its infancy. The intricacies of multi-street play are bad enough, but when you start to include multiple players, the concept of an equilibrium strategy needs to be discarded and you are on completely new ground. The third reason is that people smart enough to work out such a thing often have other avenues to revenue that are better, and poker players that could work it out (there are very few of us) are too busy making a living off their exploitive strategies to take the time to get skilled at a game-theoretical method.
3. David expresses the conventional belief that a skilled exploitive player will outperform a perfect "formula player". I used to believe this as well, but now I no longer feel this is the case. The number of situations that arise where non-optimal play by the opponent hurts them is far greater than I once realized. The amount gained by guessing at an exploitive strategy (however "educated" that guess might be), is not really that much compared to the ev of simply playing in an optimal fashion.
4. Though I am not certain of my stance in #3 above (pretty sure, but not certain), I AM sure that someone without an understanding of game theory will have a difficult or impossible time exploiting an opponent well enough to outperform an optimal player. This is because in order to employ a good exploitive strategy you need to know which side (too loose or too tight) of the optimal play your opponent is on, and you can't know this without knowing what the optimal play is. For example, if you think that a player calls too often in a certain spot, but in fact they are near-optimal, then increasing your value-betting frequency and lowering your bluffing frequency is a disaster for your ev (assuming your numbers are "usually" near-optimal).
5. No one seems to have an interest in sticking their necks out by posting their strategies in the thread I started called "The Formula vs. The Player". Too bad - it particularly demonstrates a lot of what I was saying in #3 above (as well as several other things). I'm perfectly happy to just let it die - it meant work for me to calculate ev's anyway.
Tom Weideman
I agree with most of this. I'm not so sure about 3 though. I think there is much to be made by adapting to and exploiting another's far-from-optimal play (such as being more inclined to call a habitual bluffer). However, if you incorrectly conclude someone has a certain type of non-optimal play, and make the adjustment for that type of non-optimality, you could be in big trouble. (You don't have to worry about this if you play optimally --- if you could ever implement it.) Actually, point 4 already says what I just said.
After various posts and emails I have been convinced that a player, no matter how good, will have negative EV (not zero) against semi-colluding opponents.
Definition: semi-colluding opponents do not communicate or in any way cheat during the game, but they discuss and plan thair strategies before the game so as to (try to) maximize their combined EV. Note that some completely non-colluding players could just happen to sit down and individually play strategies that semi-colluding players would have played.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
>>I agree with most of this. I'm not so sure about 3 though. I think there is much to be made by adapting to and exploiting another's far-from-optimal play (such as being more inclined to call a habitual bluffer).<<
Actually, by far the more common exploitive adjustment is to choose to fold when optimal play says to call. I really think that most people don't realize how good of a "read" they need in order to make the exploitive choice significantly better than the optimal one (and I believe that most people overestimate their hand-reading abilities). That is, I think that the characterization of optimal play as defensive play is overstated.
In the final analysis, those of us who have been winning players for some time believe we must be doing a good job of exploiting opponents simply because we HAVE been winning (and many others who have no idea what game theory about stupidly assume this is the ONLY way to play a winning game). My new opinion is that this win rate may actually be eclipsed by the win rate of a decent game theory approximator against all but the very weakest opposition. And someone that can do both (can deduce the approximate optimal play well, but makes occasional adjustments against extremely weak opponents) would completely dominate the poker scene. Notice that this is a reversal of what is currently going on for a few knowledgable players: playing exploitively in almost all situations, but using game theory in a few tough spots. It could be awhile before someone capable of what I have described comes along though, for reasons I mentioned in my previous post.
Tom Weideman
These are very interesting points. I understand exactly what you are saying, though I don't have the experience or knowledge to know if you are right.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
(and many others who have no idea what game theory about stupidly assume this is the ONLY way to play a winning game).
Do you really believe that there are winning players around that are that stupid? Besides me of course or are you just being you same old defensive self.
"My new opinion" Just how new is this opinion? Do you have any facts to base it on? Are you speculating again, Tommy boy?
"And someone that can do both (can deduce the approximate optimal play well, but makes occasional adjustments against extremely weak opponents) would completely dominate the poker scene."
If this were even remotely true you would see a slew of poker simulators on the market that were expert poker players. Just like in chess. They would dominate online poker to such an extent that David would no longer claim that you can win online. But since it ain't so, since game theory is not as powerful as you claim you don't see good computer program poker simulators. And you never will! "You know you never will. And the patches make the good buys harder still."
Vince.
"Definition: semi-colluding opponents do not communicate or in any way cheat during the game, but they discuss and plan thair strategies before the game so as to (try to) maximize their combined EV. "
Boy, are you naive. Anyone that acts in this manner is a cheat whether whatever you call it. Semni-colluding, give me a break. If this is your idea of playing fairly perhaps you have a problem with understanding what it means to be honest and above board.
Vince
VINCE, YOU ARE TOTALLY FAILING TO GRASP EVEN THE MOST BASIC ELEMENTS OF THESE CONVERSATIONS. YOU MORON! YOU FOOL! YOU IMBELICILE! HAVE A NICE DAY :)
"VINCE, YOU ARE TOTALLY FAILING TO GRASP EVEN THE MOST BASIC ELEMENTS OF THESE CONVERSATIONS"
So why would you bother responding to a moron? You know what is sad, you really believe you know what you are taliking about. Now that is sad. Sad for you not for me, I'm a moron.
Hey, why do you call yourself "mildmannered"? Don't bother I'm sure I wouldn't understand that either. But I do understand cheating and you don't Mr. Semi-colluder".
Why did you apologize to Sklansky? If he’s wrong he’s wrong and if you are right (ha,ha) then you are right. You are another big mouth math weenie like Mark Glover and Tom Wiedemean that hate to admit when they are wrong. So what do the do? They attack the morn, Vince. I think that is childish but what do I know? BTW I guess you believe Louie Landale and the others here that agreed with me are morons also.
Vince
Dirk,
First: It does not seem to me that your example of "semi-colluding” fits the requirements of either of your posted questions.
Second: Collusion before the game is collusion in fact and is very definitely cheating.
Why not just admit that there is no combination of styles that will cause our “unlimited brainpower” hero to lose and get on with your life. Your semi-collusion example seems like an act of desperation to me Dirk and calling Vince a moron only reflects negatively upon your.
Assuming your job is actually to teach, I hope you do a better job of dealing with students who are brighter than you than you have done with Vince. There is no shame in admitting you are incorrect. However, there is shame being incorrect and then resorting to calling people morons just to avoid admitting your error.
William
Forget about semi-colluding. The simple fact is that there is a combination of styles that will cause our ?unlimited brainpower? hero to lose. How his opponents came to have those styles is a red herring.
As far as my reply to vince, I got sick of his mindless insulting posts when people are trying to have an intellegent conversation, and my post was very much par for the course in THIS forum.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Mildmannered,
Your so full of crap you are disgusting.
"I got sick of his mindless insulting posts" Your math buddies started the "insults" but you didn't bother openning you mouth towards them. You make me sick.
vince
Tom,
You wrote: "Thanks for your support Mark, but there IS in fact a 'poker formula', at least for head-up play. It's not that I 'believe in' one, as Vince suggests, any more than I 'believe in' the existence of a formula that describes how the earth orbits the sun."
I understand that there is such a "poker formula." I was trying (futilely) to explain to Vince that this game-wide, zero-sum, two-player optimal strategy does not guarantee a positive EV. It only guarantees a non-negative EV.
You also wrote: "No one seems to have an interest in sticking their necks out by posting their strategies in the thread I started called 'The Formula vs. The Player'. Too bad - it particularly demonstrates a lot of what I was saying in #3 above (as well as several other things). I'm perfectly happy to just let it die - it meant work for me to calculate ev's anyway."
Perhaps I helped get the ball rolling. Sorry if it chews up some of your time. ;-)
Why don't the links work on the other topics forum. I want to read about the no smoking at the Bellagio, but everytime I click on a link it just takes me back to the top of the forum. All of the other forum links work fine. By the way, this has happened before, but after a while the problem mysteriously went away. Any suggestions?
I just tried it and it worked fine. Every now and then temporary glitches do develop, but I suspect if you try it now it will be okay.
Mason, thank you for responding so promptly. I just went back to the other topics forum and tried it again. It still doesn't work, yet this forum works fine. Is anyone else having this problem? Has anyone else ever had this problem in the past? When I click on a link over there it just takes me back to the top of the forum--no messages are shown. It's weird. If anyone can help--thanx.
Mason,
"Every now and then temporary glitches do develop"
I'll let Vince elaborate!!!!
paul
Paul,
There is no such thing as a "temporary glitch". A glitch is a glitch of course of course and noone should mess with a glitch unless of course your name is Missa Mason.
Vince
Professional poker players are the laziest form of human life on the planet. Just ask David Sklansky, he has admitted as much. Pros play poker because you can simply walk into a cardroom, plop your ass down, and play your damn trade--no fuss--no muss. The problem is that you get stale playing poker every day, but your livelyhood depends upon it. Compare this to a job where you get paid the same regardless.
I played poker professionally for many years and I can speak from experience. Poker players are some bad ass lazy dudes. I'm glad I got up off my ass and made a living for a change. It was tough to do--once you get into that grove of sittin around a card room all day you don't want to do anything else.
I always thought I'd love to play professional poker, and come and go as I please, but near as a can tell, these guys put in twice as many hours a week as I do, for an unsure salary. I know for a fact there there are players who will at times play over 120 hours a week. No thanks. I prefer to keep it as a leisure activity where i can sometimes supplement my income, rather than have to depend on it.
You're right. I'm lazy. I'm so lazy that I typically only play 30 hours per week so that I can spend more time not doing other things.
Tommy
Hey Mark have you read Tom's latest post? Probably not because you would have to admit that YOU ARE WRONG! and stupid Vince is correct. Better not read it!
Vince
Vince,
You wrote: "Hey Mark have you read Tom's latest post?"
Yes.
You also wrote: "Probably not because you would have to admit that YOU ARE WRONG!"
What was I wrong about?
Tom Wrote:
"Thanks for your support Mark, but there IS in fact a 'poker formula',..."
Mark,
Your ass is overloading your mouth it is farting. If you must always be right, if it is a psychological thing, if it will destroy you if you should ever admit defeat then I feel sorry for you. I will not play this "Badger" game with you anymore. I will not argue your silly views on game theory especially since you refuse to show proof of them. you and Tom are made for each other. In fact he asked that you take this conversation to e-mail. I guess he's afraid of others viewing his "optimal earth shattering poker formula". E-mail may be a good idea.
Vince
Vince,
You quoted Tom: "Thanks for your support Mark, but there IS in fact a 'poker formula',..."
Yes, there is a "poker formula." No, it doesn't guarantee you a positive EV. I'm sorry you do not understand this concept.
Vince, stop humiliating yourself. Get some self respect.
You aren't too bright but we like you anyway.
Pro,
Not bad for an anonymous ass. How about trying to post something useful. That is if you know how, being a pro and all.
Vince
Tom,
I find it amusing that when a smart person can't get anyone else to do it for them they declare themselves a winner. You are pathetic and so are your theories?
Vince
Vince,
Do the 2+2 forum a favor and stop trying to post on theory related issues.
You are a self-styling intellectual wannabe who wants to be like David and Mason but who will never be up to snuff. You don't have the brain capacity to grasp poker theory. End of story.
We respect everyone who grinds it out at the low-mid limits. But don't try to be what you aren't. And don't spread the disinformation that comes from your lack of knowledge - the younger players might learn some bad habits if they actually listen to you.
At issue with regards to my point on Game Theory is the answer to the following questio. This is how it started.
"QUESTION: COULD YOU BE IN A POKER GAME LIKE THIS: Each other player at the table has some `playing style' which corresponds to a (possibly probabilistic) strategy. Could it be that there is some combination of playing styles, so that you have negative EV, no matter what your strategy, even if you know all the playing styles of your opponents and you have unlimited brainpower. "
I said no. Tom "The self proclaimed winner" said yes along with Mark Glover. They then proceeded to attack my lack of understanding of Game Theory to defend their view on this question. Attack the messenger when you can't back up what you are saying. Well enter Oz, (David Sklansky). Now David (who I'm sure makes cooments without regards to understanding the issue as I believe Mason also did in this discussion) makes the following assertion "If a player plays perfect game theory strategy he cannot lose and almost certainly will win". So my fellow posters if David is correct that if someone plays perfect game theory strategy cannot lose then how can the answer to the above question be anything but "no". According to David there is no way to force a "perfect game theory player to have a negative ev".
So i guess that makes me right. Big deal! You want to know what I think. I think that David, Tom and Mark are, as the definiton of the word theory indicates, speculating and are afraid to admit that they have no way of knowing if they are correct. Even David qualifies his statement with "if he could do so perfectly" with regards to the application of a theoretical game theory strategy. That is a cop out statement if I ever heard one.
The bottom line about Game theory is that it is a tool that a winning poker player should, not necessarily needs, to be aware of. It has limited applications in certain specific situations but is not necessary to know or use for a poker player to be a winner.
Vince
I have serious doubts that non-colluding styles can force losing on a superior opponent; at least at poker. Perhaps I also need to add the caviate that there must be no cheating going on AND each opponent is not "trying" to screw any one particular opponent; hero in this case. I would like to see evedence or proof to the contrary.
And I think we agree that a "perfect" game-theory strategy is ONLY the "best" strategy when vrs other such strategies. When the opponent deviates from it then the "best" strategy will ALWAYS be for you to deviate as well: if the opponent bluffs too often then you should not call at the theoretical frequency but should routinely call.
However, I disagree that winning poker players need only be aware of its existance. Rather, in order to adjust to actual inferior strategies of the opponents you need to know from what YOU are deviating: In order to reduce your bluffing frequencies and increase your value-betting frequencies against a tenacious opponent, you first need to know what the correct game-theory frequencies are.
And ... you often don't know how an opponent plays, she may play extremely well, or you may be psycologically pinned down. These are great times to play theoretically "perfectly".
- Louie
I don't think they attacked your views on game theory in order to back up their position on this. They were pointing out that you harbored some substantial misconceptions about game theory terminology and perhaps about game theory in general.
With regard to the question you quote above I am not sure if you are both arguing about the same thing nor am I clear if they are attempting to eliminate any indirect form of targeting of a player from their scenarios. If you consider any targeting of seats as targeting, or any options for seat choices other than random as a form of targeting, I don't know what their answers would be and I never read the original Mark Glover answer as it was in another thread (though I will now attempt to hunt it down). I would be doubtful if a player playing perfect game theory could be forced to lose if all players had to play blind against unknown opponents unless just maybe you happened to somehow be unlucky in that you drew a bad seat in relation to your opponents and that the most aggressively-styled players were on your left and the tightest players were on your right. But even this is a chance form of targeting and it would probably only reduce your EV instead of causing you to lose (in my guesstimation).
THE 3-COIN GAME: In fact even in the 3-player coin flip example should be considered a chance form of targeting--I don't think one opponent always picking heads and the other tails is a valid parameter with regard to this because you are assigning the values. If you specified "always picks the same choice" that would be a valid parameter as to style because that would allow the possibility of both opponents selecting the same (heads/heads or tails/tails) as well and thereby gives the third party a fair shot. So I feel that this example is flawed inasmuch as it is indeed a form of targeting if the goal is to evaluate playing style effects which are non-targeted.
Three people go to eat at Denny's on the strip. Two come from the Venetian and one comes from the Aladdin. Because the guy who got the screaming comps at the Aladdin has to walk a little farther and shows up a couple minutes late, his buddies are already seated in the booth. What are the odds the third person gets an empty half of the booth? No targeting or colluding, but he is dead. The same thing can happen in poker.
JG
Yes, although I can at the moment only see one parallel in poker. In high-low one low might, with the assistance of a high hand, squeeze another low off a draw.
The above and other instances such as where a bet and a call may make it very hard to overcall also springs to mind. I would think that playing styles such as these, if overdone, would also be punished in compensation.
The poor slob that got to Denny's late just better hope that he isn't the third one in the three-urinal restroom, or he is certain to be rubbing elbows with two people while he drains his lizard, rather than just one.
Tom Weideman
This lends itself to another example. My first one had position (assuming v is a constant and t-0 is in an inertial reference frame) as a factor -- a better way to have expressed it would have been to say they show up in any chronological order, but one guy likes looking at the Thunderbird while another prefers gazing towards the El Cortez. It doesn't matter what order they show up, but the GTO seater is screwed. The urinal example which comes up quite frequently where I "work" is that the bathroom nearest my cubicle has 6 urinals. I really like taking the fifth one in. My buddy really likes taking the second one in. If these aren't available, we will take an adjacent one. We dominate others' opportunities for GTO elbow room.
In all seriousness, I'm amazed that the existence of the concept of domination is even being debated. You could say well poker is different, but all games are like that. Have you ever played monopoly in a non headsup setting and been screwed by two other people who looking out only for their own self interest happen to deal such that they both benefit to your loss? Or take my favorite game, Scrabble. In tournaments, of course, the game is always played heads up, but imagine a 4-player kitchen table game. You are player 4. In general, player 1 makes small-scoring plays that open up one line on the board. Player 2 uses that line and scores well but opens up a triple-word-score line. Player 3 uses this great line, but by doing so has killed the last opening on the board. Now it's your turn and everyone else has scored and the board is shut down again.
These may seem to be contrived examples, but there is no doubt that the exact same thing can happen in poker games without any malice aforethought. It just happens. Usually, your opponents are making sufficient mistakes that this concept is small compared to whatever else is going on. If not, you probably should just find an easier game. But still a common situation where it does arise is in tournaments where you can't change your seat/table/whatever and are screwed because of the interplay of the styles of those who happen to be at your table.
JG
nt
Jim,
I agree that specific situations such as you describe can and do occur even in poker. However, none of the examples you provided seems to address what I was trying to delve into, which is the question of whether stylistic differences amongst opponents, not specific situations, can combine to cause a player to lose who is playing very good poker and very good game theory. Yes, opponents' styles will have an effect upon the hero's EV, but is it possible for them to somehow cause him to lose in the long run without any direct or indirect targeting? I tend to doubt it unless there is some form of targeting involved. For instance in the Denny's booth example the other two just happened to arrive at the booth first. Randomize the order of appearance and the hero will have no disadvantage. In the urinal example, randomize the order of appearance of persons including others. In the 3-coin flip example, allow the players to pick a style such as "always selects the same choice", but do not assign the specific choices for them. In poker, allow opponents' styles to include such things as being very aggressive on the Turn or River, calling too much on the River, routinely betting low draws aggressively in 3-way pots vs. a high hand and another low, and anything else we might like to assign which may be difficult to play against in certain spots. However we do not assign the certain spots, certain hands, or certain seats and all players play according to their profile regardless of who is in the pot. Now is it possible for the combination of styles to force a good player who plays well (if not perfectly) and utilizes game theory well (if not perfectly) to lose? Perhaps others were posing different questions, but this was the aspect of the question which most interested me. I doubt the combined playing styles could cause him to lose in poker, and further doubt (though not as strongly) that combined styles (not combined specific situations) could force a player to lose in other games as well if we hold to the premises that we can assign styles but not specific situations, and that the hero plays the most mathematically correct style at the table which also incorporates more optimal game theory than his opponents.
^
I amended my Denny's example so that it was purely a function of stylistic preferences. In the urinals, I said if the interloper is first, we take one adjacent to him, if he's not first, we take our preference. In either case, he is 100% to be elbowed. I leave it to Tom to construct the examples for poker. :)
JG
I am not sure if I follow your rephrasing of the Denny's example. Maybe I am just being thick here, but it seems to me that if the guy from the Aladdin has an equal chance of arriving either 1st, 2nd or 3rd that he would not have the worst of it. I haven't been to Vegas for several years so I am not sure what you mean by the GTO. We can't specify that he has to arrive last if we are just to assign styles not specifics.
In the urinal example I agree that the interlopers are 100% certain to be elbowed. If being elbowed costs $50 then you might have something with this example. With a randomly rotating field of contestants an optimal player might usually try to take an empty spot instead of trying to elbow people. A rough parallel in poker might be if certain players adopted the policy of always raising if they have a hand they would play anyway and they have a chance to isolate a player on their right.
In the urinal example, I'm not saying that against average fields, interloper isn't OK. It's just in this case, he ran into an opponent style vector that, while not necessarily maximizing their interest against all comers and situations, in this case is destined to screw him. The same thing with the Denny's. The two folks who have their favorite views strictly adhering to them are definitely giving something up when they are not the first one to Denny's -- best play for the second person is always to take the booth complement of the first -- but once again a specific combination of styles one stumbles up against may create situations where you are screwed. These styles are probably not GTO(game-theory optimal), but in a given instance serve to cut into the EV of a third opponent because of unplanned interplay.
And, (not for M but others,) interplay is the key word here. You can control how well you play against given opponents, but you are powerless to confront interplay. The most well-known example of this is Morton's "schooling" wherein under certain circumstances(and quite frequently as a matter of fact) a fish will make a suboptimal play, but at the same time transfer EV out of your pocket due to the interplay of the field against you.
JG
Good questions, M., but I don't see how to really pin down the notion of targetting. I don't see how to pin down some of the other concepts you listed either.
The question of the effect of choice of seating (raised earlier by Tom Weideman) or randomized seating, is very interesting, and it certainly makes a difference.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Vince,
You wrote: "Now David . . . makes the following assertion 'If a player plays perfect game theory strategy he cannot lose and almost certainly will win'. So my fellow posters if David is correct that if someone plays perfect game theory strategy cannot lose then how can the answer to the above question be anything but 'no'. According to David there is no way to force a 'perfect game theory player to have a negative ev'."
As I explained to David, his statement is wrong. It is too general. A more accurate statement would be: "If a player plays perfect game theory strategy in a zero-sum, two-player game, then he cannot lose and almost certainly will win."
I'm looking for 2nd hand copies of "Psychology of Poker" by Alan Schoonmaker and "Inside the Poker Mind" by John Feeney. If anyone has these books or any other poker books and are looking to sell then please email me at pocketaces80@hotmail.com
Thanks!
Amazon now has a feature to let you search for used copies of books. You might also try adavanced book exchange (abebooks.com I think). There are also regularly poker books on ebay.
Considerign however that both books are under $30 I think you should be able to afford spending a bet or two on each of them. Especially Feeny's book which should pay for itself many, many times over.
Regards,
Paul Talbot
Can anyone tell me if the following rake for limit hold em is acceptable or good?
10$ - 20$
rake is 5$ per pot
Thank you in advance
If the rake is taken regardless of pot size (that is, the house takes $5 even when the pots are small), the house takes way too much out of the game. A common rake would be 5% / max. $3, no flop / no drop. Still, if the rake is a bit higher, this doesn't necessarily mean the game is unbeatable or is in fact worse than a game with a smaller rake; the quality of the opposition is very important, here. Usually $5 rake for a $10-20 game would be a little bit too much, though.
A rake that high is neither acceptable nor good. But that doesn't mean that you can't beat the game.
An old friend of mine, a fellow gambler, once found a small game with an unthinkably huge rake. His companion said - 'Let's get out of here. Only a bunch of complete idiots would play in a game with such a high rake!'
My friend replied, I can't think of anything better than a game full of idiots.'
He ran over the game and made huge winner.
If the game is really loose and passive you can beat a game with such a high rake. But if the game is anything close to tight or tough, forget it. You could win, but remember that game is taking a huge amount of money off the table and it is going to be a tough swim upstream.
Well, it's a good game and most players are seeing the flop. You are just about to sit in, but consider this, 30 hands an hour times about $4 a hand is $120. That is six big bets an hour. This like playing with God, having God holding out two cards. Playing only group one hands and group two out of blinds, that's about one hand every two rounds. That is $30,in blinds, plus $5 in rake if you win. Almost two bets you have to average to stay even. Can be done, but it is not any kind of strawberry patch.
MS Sunshine (mr)
Yes, the rake matters, even to good players.
Pro, I agree with you. If the game is good enough, you can overcome a very high rake. When I first learned poker in Lake Charles, Louisiana back in 1995, I played $1-$5 stud. They raked 10% up to a maximum of $5. Later on they took out an extra $1 for a jackpot. This has to be as steep as it gets. Nevertheless, I averaged almost $6 per hour in this game after almost 1400 hours of play.
By my nearest calculations, it seems that when i do happen to flop a straight, i get drawn out by a full house, usually runner runner, 113.6% of the time, and if i happen to do it heads up, i fold right away now. This seems to be a winning straegy for me. That and folding AA because a 4 card straight or flush ALWAYS hits the board, and never me......
Yes, you are MUCH better off making your hand on the river than making it on the flop. That's a fact. Its too bad that you get to bet when you make it on the flop and the opponents get to bet when you are trying to make it on then river.
Be sure not to let the intensity of your negative emotional reaction adjust the actual frequency or severity of these negative events. How you feel about it is usually BIGGER than its actual long-term cost.
- Louie
Hey guys. Has anybody out there used both Wilson Poker Software(Turbo (name of game here)) AND Acespade's poker software?
I'm thinking of purchasing a software suite, but I'm not quite sure which one is better-any heads up comparisons would be greatly appreciated-as well as reasons. Why is one better than the other? Better AI, better features, more realistic play?
I am in the same situation - I have played with the Wilson's demos but when I asked Acespade's about a demo they said they did not have one but to look at the captured screens on their web site?????
Online 2/4 game. Middle position player bets, I raise with AQo on button, BB calls raise. Flop is 9A4r BB bets, middle raises and I call raise. Turn is 3, BB checks middle bets, I call, BB calls. River is 7, no flush, BB checks, middle bets, I call, BB folds. Middle shows down A7s for two pair (on the river) and I fold my AQ. Comments are appreciated. I would have been more aggressive if not for two betters. Was this an overplayed hand by middle or underplayed by me? Thanks, Dave
You should have made it 3 bets on the flop. At that point you probably have the best hand. As it turns out the other player isnt going anywhere.
I don't know Dave. This is a tough one. In some of the middle limit games I play when the big blind leads at an ace-high flop when there is a preflop raiser present this usually means at least a pair of aces. When the next player raises, this frequently means two pair. Calling two bets cold when you may be looking at only three outs is a huge mistake. The problem is that in these low limit games, players are unaware and occasionally do goofy things. There is a remote chance your hand may even be good. I think three betting on the flop is probably overplaying your hand but folding against an internet low limit line-up is probably a mistake. I think you have to call and simply pay off all the way to the river. I cannot fault the middle limit player for limping in with ace-little suited in a small game like this where there is probably not much preflop raising and usually lots of limpers.
Jim -
You have to remember that these online games can be extremely aggressive, even at limits as low as 2-4. And I don't mean loose aggressive - most players play quite solid from the flop on.
It is not at all uncommon to see people bet and raise second pair for value in these games. It is very common for a hand like JJ to bet out, and for AT to raise.
3 betting is correct. If you are up against any 2 pair or better you will get checkraised on the turn.
If you are really timid you might 3 bet the flop, let the turn get checked through and then call the river.
More on internet poker
Of course, these games are easy to beat and I do mean EASY. I have never been able to understand Ed Hill's problem.
The thing is, these games DO require some adjustment.
For one thing, there are no HORRIBLE players at levels above 2-4. Sure there are plenty of bad players all the way up to 20-40. But there are no players who see every flop (and of course the hand doesn't really start till 4th street.) There are very few who will play or raise with QJo in early positon.
These games are super aggressive. I won't play anything but AA KK QQ JJ TT and AK in early position. Ill play AQ but I wont always raise with it. No one seems to notice if you play super tight so it's ok.
For those who are accustomed to using good game selection with games well stocked with fish, it doesn't happen online. Don't get me wrong - there ARE fish and plenty of them. They just aren't as fishy. And you'll be lucky to get 2 at your table - forget about getting 4 or 5 - it won't happen at levels above 2-4.
And there are very very few maniacs - once in a while someone will go on tilt, but its not like you can always find a nice loose game.
I think that was Ed's problem. I think he underestimated the talent of 50% of the players online and treated them all like fish.
I don't know; you see a lot of exotic holdings from players in early position all the way up to the 10-20 games. I routinely see QJo, usually played for a raise, as well as suited A's, all pocket pairs, etc.
The defining characteristic of most online players, IMO, is that they overplay their hands. There's lots of raising an early position player with A no kicker in multiway pots, check-raising with draws in three way pots, and so on. The adjustment, IMO, is to do more to induce bluffs, since I see many more bluffs in these games than in almost any live action game I've ever played in.
In my experience online players would rather get in a checkraise or bluff you out than simply bet their aces all the way. If they're not being tricky then they don't think they're playing poker, regardless of the impact on their bankroll. It's analogous to the bj player who splits threes against paint. They know it's a bad move but it's fun and they came to have fun.
O.K Pro you did somethin good here. I'll forgive you.
Vince
You have A2 nut low and the pot is being jammed. You are 99% sure one of the jammers is an idiot with nothing but nut low and you are getting quartered.
Is it unethical to show your A2? Or to annouce it verbally? Onthe one hand it's a kind of collusion but on the other hand showign your opponents your cards is hardly regarded generally as anglign since you are givign away information.
I think I lean towards thinking it's unethical but part of me wants to just scream sometimes "I have nut low, don't quarter it!"
I've never done it but wanted to. What do you all think?
Regards,
Paul Talbot
It goes beyond unethical. It's called cheating.
It is definitely a no-no.
However, in the long run you will win as a result of this play from the bad player in question, owing to the fact that although you lose when you and he share low, you will win _more_ when the roles are reversed and you have the high (making various assumptions). I believe that Jim Geary once posted (can't remember if it was here or RGP) some mathematics underlying this statement, and a number of his old posts are archived in a very useful resource at www.jimgeary.com.
Oh no!! Not again!
Here is the link:
http://www.jimgeary.com/poker/letters/PWTPT021.HTM
In fact, it is a response to exactly the question you posed.
Oh no!! Not again!
Why not consider folding?
I'm always impressed when someone says something like ,"why not consider folding." YOu can't be serious unless the pot is truly misicule this is insane even if you know it will be capped.
For once I feel like the unethical bad guy. Ive gotten stares and throats cleared , and comments like ," do we have a problem?" when in analogous situations.
Or even "Figure it out!"
Somehow I think turning over your hand should be legal in situations like this (THere are a few other situations where I think I shoudl be allowed to do this in say 7stud, but i digress). WHy should this person have to pay off the clown w/the nut high bc the other person w/the nut low is too dumb to figure out he's quarted! I guess its not the end of the world though in a 3 way pot if you are quarted you lose 1/4 of every bet you put in the pot. If its a four way pot you lose (and gain nothing) if you have the nut low and only 1 other also has the nut low.
The poker room should have a rule. Either you are allowed to expose your cards or you aren't. People should not be put in an ambiguous situation when a simple rule could clarify the situation. (This not to say that rules can clarify all situations.)
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Either the pot is big enough to make calling for a quarter profitable or else it isn't.
And isn't the rule of thumb 4 or more calling and even raiseing is fine if your going to get a 1/4. When there are 3 people, do you fold on the turn or river and let the other guy get half and you get nothing?
And like I said it has to be miniscule to even consider folding on the river when you know a) you are quartered b) it is a 3 way pot c)it is extremely likely it will be capped.
How small? Let's see you lose 1 BB on the river if you call the cap? But you get 1/4 of what was in the pot before the river. So if you have More than 4BBs in the pot before the river you can call the cap and not lose money.
Like I said this is miniscule in most O/8 games as many have 4BB (especially in low limit) in the pot BEFORE the flop.
If you are getting jammed on the river and are going to get a quarter, it's a simple math exercize as to what to do. How about on the turn and it gets jammed three way and you are "99% sure" you are going to be quartered? I guess folding is out of the question since "the idiot" will get half. Show that idiot who's the non idiot by making sure he doesn't make money even if it costs you money!
If it will cost me money, why would I want to show anybody anything?
You wouldn't want that idiot to turn his negative ev low into something positive by folding your quarter!! You need to punish him and calling isn't the ticket. Keep reraising!
Even if the pot is small before the river you usually cannot escape.
The reason is that you, and the other players, will probably have put in at least one bet before you realise for sure that you're going to get quartered, certainly in a game with less skilled players.
Let's say there are only 2BB in the pot, and then on the river it goes bet, you call (you've only got nut low, but you might well be getting half with it, and you want an overcall if so), it's raised behind you, and the first bettor re-raises. *Now* it is obvious that you are getting quartered, but there are 8BB in the pot, of which you will get 2 if you call. You will have to put in 3 more BB to get it (unless the action stops early), of which you will get 2.25 back. So you have to call even though the pot was very small before the river.
In that example, there were only 2BB in the pot before the river, and you only put in one BB before you realised you were quartered, but you still have to call. There will usually be more than 2BB (the minimum with 3 players in is 0.75BB) in the pot and you might put in more than 1 bet before the ugly truth dawns.
The maths is different if four raises are allowed, as in LV, but you still generally just have to grit your teeth. It also can be different if you think you only have 1/6, which is quite possible.
Oh no!! Not again!
Paul,
I would give the other nut low raiser dirty looks as I call or check. You can't show your hand (I know you've been the guy that get the high half before as well, would you want the 2 lows to stop raising?)
I agree, suppose you were playing holdem or any other high only game, and you found a sucker who said "I know you have 4 kings (which you just flopped), but I only need one card to make a royal flush, and I have never had a royal flush so I am going to call your bets to draw". as he was reaching for his chips somebody piped up and said they folded the card they needed before the flop, how would you feel toward the player who spoke up? but its too late, your opponents cards are already in the muck. your the other idiots speaking up has cost you money, just as your speaking up in the omaha/8 situation would cost the high player money. so unless you like other people taking your money away then you should not take money from somebody else.
I picked up JJ UTG and limped. Middle position player raised and a late position and one of the blinds called raise. Flop came 974r I wanted to thin out the crowd thinking that middle who had double the chips of everyone and seemed aggressive would raise my bet. He did and the late position player went all in while the blind stuck around. I still had the middle player put on two big cards or big pair and blind on draw. I did not reraise but called. Turn came good a J giving me trips but still a possible straight card. I bet, middle raised again, blind still called raise and now I was really thinking of raising but didn't. River was another 9 giving me nut boat. I bet and did not get raised, of course. Won a very good pot, neither showed down their hands. 1. How do you read what they had? 2. Should I have put in a raise on my trips? The play to thin crowd did not work as intended but did add a lot of money. 28 big bets when smoke cleared. I did not get a history so may have some slight errors here but no flush play.
The raiser obviously had a big pair so your plan to thin the field, this time, was hopeless: no sense thinning the field when you have 2-outs. The real question is whether he'll raise with is two big cards even when the tight player bets into him. And even if you DO "thin the field" HE still has two of the 3 overcards you are afraid of. "Thinning the field" would have merit if you can get HIS over-cards to fold.
Its a complete mystery why you would not 3-bet the turn. The chances someone has a straight is pretty low, and even of one of them "probably" has it you are still getting 2:1 to draw; which is no disaster. You would need to be "probably" sure before a call is correct.
- Louie
Why not raise on the turn? Sure, you might be beat, I still would have raised to find out.
You are correct, I should have raised on the turn..I thought of it but didn't take enough time to think it through well enough. Think I get playing too fast online. Play better preflop, think that is an edge I have as I am winning pretty well. One other thing I do is give too much credit to what the other guy has.. I am thinking how can he call my raise unless..... Anyway, doubt if I will make these mistakes again. Thanks again for taking your time to answer. Regards, Dave
Don't fall into the trap of always thinking, "Hey, they have to know what I have. I raised, so they most likely have the hand I fear. I'll wait to see if I improve then bet." My wife has a good saying. It goes, "they are not going to put any more money into the pot after they miss their draw. So, get it now while they still want to pay."
MS Sunshine (mr)
I assume you meant 28 SMALL bets. (?)
No big deal - still a vey nice pot - just making sure that I didn't get totally lost here. .......................................................
AS to the actual play of the hand, you have stated that you now realize that not raising the turn was a mistake; I'm thinking that not 3-betting the flop was also a questionable choice.
In this particular case you almost certainly caught a break and ran down a bigger pair, BUT if you play alot online you probably realize that the preflop raisor could easily have had AK.
Think back to the action on the flop; don't you find alot of players who would have played AK exactly the way this player played his big pair ?
If you knew this player well enough to be reasonably sure that his raise on the flop meant a big pair you played it correctly. Also, your poor position means a 3-bet on the flop is going to do little more than get extra money in the pot; neither of your opponents is going to fold for one more bet. However, there is one edge you might have gained by re-raising the flop. If you show this much strength the preflop raisor is more likely to toss AK on the turn if he does not improve - and this is something you definitely want.
This may all seem moot since in this case he seems to almost certainly have had a bigger pair, but does seem worthy of consideration since next time you could find yourself up against overcards. If you chase AK out of this pot you have achieved alot; if it turns out that you ARE up against a bigger pair you've only "wasted" more [small] bet to try.
It sounds a little like one of those situations where:
1. if you are right you have accomplished a great deal
2. if you are wrong you have paid a small price to try
- and this was a good sized pot.
It's usually a mistake to assume that a preflop raisor has a big pair (unless he or she has shown this is all they will raise with). The math makes overcards a much more likely holding.
It's just a thought. I wasn't there; your way may well have been the better way.
Best wishes (and nice pot),
J D
When it comes to game selection I am curious as to what ideas some of you may have.
Assuming that you are not familiar with a most of the players at a given table(s) what do you look for to help determine the best game to sit at?
I usually look for a lot of chips and a noisy table, but I'm sure there is more to look for. Any ideas?
Game selection is the most important thing.
1) Watch the table for a few mins. How many people are seeing the flop?
2) What % of the time is it getting raised preflop?
3) How much of the time is there a bet and a raise on the flop?
4) How many times do you see a reraise?
More people seeing the flop, better. Less raising, better. A loose passive game is always the best.
You should be able to figure out whether a game is worth playing within 1 orbit EASILY.
I also look at the quality of the starting hands that are winning, look at what people are standing raises with, if there are two raises before the flop and the winner pairs his 4 to go with his flopped pair of aces then you have found a winner.
look for people showing down stuff like pocket sixes against a board of A-K-10-5-A or top pair no kicker.
basically if you are a winning player then look and see how often you see somebody doing something you wouldn't do.
Thanks you both for the imput
I have a student who is incredibly gifted. He has more raw skill and potential than practically anyone I have ever seen. If he continues the track he's on you will all hear about him in the next couple of years.
Anyway, this is a 'local hero' who did make the big time. This kid started out by playing in a tiny dealers choice game. It was 1-5 spread limit with a 10% rake to 4 dollars. They played holdem, omaha, and a few others.
This kid was able to beat that game for about 20 dollars an hour for over a year. I never really believed it until I got to know this kid and observe him play. Now I don't doubt that there were some bad players in that game. He admits as much. But for anyone to beat a game with such a huge rake for so much for so long, that says something.
Eventually it got to the point where he became very unpopular at that cardroom. People would insult him, yell at him, etc all because he was taking all the money out of that little game.
Makes sense. Sounds like the guy could read his weak opponents very well! I can see why the recreational players didn't want him around.
When you think about it though, his opponents were right. You'd think a guy who could crush a 10% to $4 raked 1-5 game for 4 BB/hr should be able to make a lot more at higher limits. Sounds like he's doing that too.
How long has your student been playing?
He played in that game for about a year before I met him and started teaching him. When I met him he had never played higher than 4-8.
I've known him about a year - he's been playing a total of 2 years. This guy as an INCREDIBLE ability to read hands - he's actually taught me a few things he figured out on his own.
Tell him to go play bigger.
nt
Running that well for a year? I know this kid. Would you like to come to LA sometime - I could set up a heads up match between you. Bring a lot of cash.
Yes, people can run hot for a year or even longer. People can also run cold for longer than a year. The more mathmatically inclined Mason Malmuth has shown that a winning professional lowball player can lose for a YEAR without going to far outside expected results.
I'm not saying your kid is not a good or even great player, but don't lie yourself, you HAVE to run good to beat a game like that with a rake that high for 4 big bets an hour. Period.
Good players who run good, THAT's who wins at poker.
natedogg
Let's say the rake was $10 per hand in all poker games. Would there be any games?
There will come a time in the (distant)future when the casinos will need to charge that much and more to make a profit. But of course the stakes will be higher as the value of money goes down with time.
If the rate of rake increase is higher that the rate of money-value decrease, poker could fizzle out. Comments?
Tommy
Tommy,
I have given this matter some thought.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that poker as we know it will not be spread anywhere in Vegas at some point in the future. It might not be for 20 years but the day is coming.
That is not to say that it will cease to exist - far from it. But I doubt that there will be games with a human dealer, etc. It is getting too expensive and casinos aren't making any money from the poker rooms now.
Internet poker may become the most common and popular way to play poker outside of home games. This assumes that it is not banned, etc.
This might be very good indeed for poker professionals in one sense.
For one thing, if these places are fully licensed and certified, it could become more cheat free than live games.
Also, pros would have the freedom to live anywhere. Poker would be less seasonal - good games all the time, etc. Since more people would have very easy access to poker, there would be more new players.
The rake should come down too. Right now the rake that's being charged by paradise poker and other places is an outrage. At some stage there will be competition in the market - someone will open a site with half the rake, or less, and the place will make the others obsolete and still make a huge profit.
Has anyone ever projected what PP probably makes in a day? I shudder to think.
I believe that large poker rooms today are quite profitable, just not as profitable for the casino as other games. If casinos truly weren't making any money from poker, there would be no poker rooms. I'll take a table that rakes over $100/hour any day and happily assume all associated expenses. The notion that poker does not show a profit for casinos is IMO a long-standing myth, and this is not even counting the spillover busines such as a spouse playing slots or a poker-player going on tilt in the pit.
Why do you think that so few of the casinos on the strip have a real poker room? There's the mirage and the Bellagio.
Sure, a few have small rooms with a couple of games - Excalibur, Mandalay Bay, etc.
I am not saying that there wont be any poker in Vegas. Maybe they will have some kind of automated system of dealing. Who knows. But it IS getting too expensive. Mason has touched on this subject numerous times.
last summer, I heard one AC guy talking to an ex AC guy - bascally saying 4 of the high limit players had gone bust (losing $100K-$200K each) because they went to the pit (bacarrat). if the Taj did not have the poker room, maybe they'd have only gotten one of these suckers....but instead, they got 4. there are fringe benefits that is a bit more difficult to value....how much? don't know...but it may be worth a lot.
My understanding is not that poker does not show a profit, but that the profit is less per square foot that other casino games. This applies to Vegas, and to California rooms where the casino income from "asian games" is far higher than from poker.
Tommy
Well run poker rooms make an enormous profit; some are even run horrendously yet still have a healthy bottom line. The badly run yet highly profitable rooms are, in most cases, located in places that provide them the good fortune of being the "only game in town" - or at least one of the few games in town.
IS ANYONE AT THE TAJ READING THIS ? ? ?
Even if we cut your $100 per hour figure in half, the mega-rooms are earning a fortune.
The following point has probably been made many times; I believe Mason touched on it in one of his books.
Casinos look at slots and other "house games" and see the huge (or at least larger) profit they make and do not feel there is any reason to use up valuable space on a poker room. Of course they don't understand the fact that many of those in the poker room would never visit that casino if there were no poker. Even those players who do on occasion "steam off" money in the pit would not be there if poker were eliminated. There is also a large number of people who play nothing but poker; this group is composed in large part of retirees who can absorb the [sadly for most of them inevitable] losses of a 2-4, 3-6, or 1-5 game but couldn't "last" in the pit even if betting the minimum. This particular group also puts a high priority on the social aspect of the game - something you can't rely on finding when playing in the pit. They want to win, but victory is often not that important to them. Participating in the event is of much greater importance.
You often hear lower limit players complaining that they pay more in rake than the big game players pay. Their actual claim is that a 3-6 table earns more for tha casino (or cardroom) than does a 15-30 game.
That is preposterous; even at $4 per hand, the pace of the average low limit game allows for a staggeringly low number of hands per hour. (I'm not even going to address Omaha - I dealt low limit Omaha once and came close to dozing off several times.) Few dealers are able to get out more than 12 or 13 hands per half hour shift and those that can are prohibited from doing so by players who need to be told on each of the three betting rounds (post flop) that the action starts to the left of the button. For those of you who have not been to the east coast - it can be painful to watch.
However, none of this changes the fact that the lower limit games account for the overwhelming majority of the room's poker tables, and the lion's share of the total poker revenue. If the smallest game in a big room - the TAJ for example - was 10-20, the place would look as if someone had yelled "fire"; I doubt that even on a busy Saturday night they could maintain 20 tables of mid to high limit action - midweek there would be nights when no games were going.
It is an indisputable fact that low limit subsidizes what we like to refer to as "real" poker; if 3-6 were abolished there would be very few places for those of you who play 20-40 to go.
This post may seem to be heading in no particular direction (bear with me - I'm working on expressing myself more concisely and it's not going as well as I'd hoped :) but the main point is that most existing poker rooms are making plenty of money. Comparing the profit of a poker room to the profits of the pit is an absurd way to look at things; if management chooses to take this approach it should also dispose of blackjack since few of today's players make the huge errors that used to be commonplace - the errors which provided a large portion of the casino's revenue from this game. I have no accurate method for determining a figure but it would seem as though the "average" player is giving up ~ 1% (maybe a bit more, but not alot more) to the house. If you do the math you'll see that a "red chip" blackjack player is leaving less money behind than is a 3-6 holdem player, AND the expenses for running a blackjack game are far greater than those for running a poker game - regardless of which method you use to determine the figure.
Poker isn't going anywhere. It's possible that online poker will become a BIG business; there is alot of it being played already and the numbers can only go up. I don't know if it will ever take a detectable chunk of business away from cardrooms as a group; I do know it will never REPLACE live play.
I am very happy about being able to log on and play from the comfort of my home. I am referring to smaller games; I would sooner chew on tin foil than play above 5-10 using a technology about which I am not all that familiar. I'm not even addressing collusion. Although I am unable to imagine it not being a major problem in bigger games, I have not seen one blatant incident of it in a low limit game - nor has anyone I have spoken with about it. Alot of online players have told me of how they were cheated in one way or another but when I ask them to provide me with a specific example these players are "not able to recall the exact hand" even though it was always a "big pot" (LOL) - hardly what one would call compelling evidence. Ditto for those who are certain that there are people with the ability to hack in and alter the random distribution of cards. I'm sure someone out there has this capability but how likely are we to find this person "stacking the deck" in a 3-6 game. Wouldn't they be putting their talent to use at something slightly more lucrative ?
One last point regarding collusion (and "non-random" card distribution)
When was it completely eliminated from live play ?
- I hope it wasn't while I was asleep last night. I hate it when a significant event occurs and I'm not there to see it. Someone could have called me; I would have answered the phone. :)
You can all rest easy; there will be live poker around longer than we will be around.
1. There are too many atrocious rulings yet to be made by floorpeople who lack any manner of formal training one would expect a floorperson to have.
2. There are millions of cards still to be thrown at a dealer who had the audacity to put out the one card in the deck which could alter the outcome of that hand.
I will conclude with the biggest reason why live poker must (and will) survive.
3. It is almost impossible - although they are probably cooking up a plan right now - to have one of the most time honored "icons" of every cardroom exist in an online setting. No room would be complete without them and even though they can be annoying they have become so much a part of poker I'm not sure if we could do without them. Not to mention the fact that they need us.
What will become of the railbird ?
I guess they could "borrow" enough money to buy computers and join in on the internet poker explosion, but how would they be able to monitor the movements of their most reliable "victims" ? (Is that too harsh a word ?)
I shudder at the thought of the poor unfortunate who has located a game that "he could maul, no doubt about it, if only he had a stake", and he or she being unable to locate their "backer".
If you have never missed out on a "sure thing" because of circumstances outside your control, you can't truly understand the hardship this would place on the trusty men and women of the rail.
As God is my witness, I will NEVER allow them to endure this travesty.
I'm sure there are countless numbers of you who feel exactly the same about this as I do.
UNITE againt the oppression and the oppressors!
- J D
M wrote
Does the fact that spreading those raked poker tables eliminates variance from that playing area play any role in their decision? Casinos are supposed to be over-whelmingly bankrolled.
I don't think the online rake or any other rake is an "outrage," no matter how high it is. The casinos offer a product at a price and we the consumers can buy it or not. That philosophy has held true since the dawn of commerce.
Of course I would prefer a lower rake, but then, I'd also like to pay $10 for a new car. What you or I prefer has little bearing on market forces.
Tommy
uh... what post were you responding too? Vegas has the lowest rakes in the poker world. Tommy's question concerns the very real threat of rakes increasing faster than inflation. if poker survives anywhere it would be vegas.
Tommy, I think we are already seeing this in a reduced form in so much as the rake has risen faster than the stakes (which have actually dropped on average, perhaps). Of course it depends upon the time frame we look at. Somehow I think poker will be too resilient to ever really die but I wonder what will happen after the growth in poker finally levels off.
First off, please, before you read this remember it is Vince Lepore's opinion. It is not meant for Pro, or Tom Wiedeman or Mark Glover to read. Please don't. I don't need anymore of your freaken insults. Well, maybe Mark's.
Tommy,
Poker Rake will actually come down in the future. I said it here first, please remember that. Poker is the bread and butter of many California Card rooms. Unless they change out there to Vegas style gambling the card rooms are going to be forced to make their games affordable for their customers. I don't know how they will do this but they will work it out. I don't really believe that the rake will come down but I needed to get your attention. What will happen in those places where Casinos feel they can make a bigger profit via other gambling games, the games will just move to another location. For instance if Bellagio's and Mirage close thier poker rooms the games will move to a Casino that can realize a profit from holding them for a reasonable rake. That may mean that all poker in Vegas moves downtown or to some off strip location. Do I believe this will happen? Not in the forseeable future. Someday maybe.
Vince
Higher rakes could come but are limited by diminishing returns, so poker will stay alive as long as it's profitable. Pro poker players may have to buy fewer small appliances though. ;-)
There's room to raise the drop ($3) in the Bay Area. If the crazy domino game gets 1% per hand per person ($100-150 per deal), a $5 drop isn't unrealistic.
Poker may go into a coma in Vegas. Once it got down to a few rooms, though, the $3 drop would come in and the rebound would start.
The same will happen in the Bay Area the day after slots are legalized, but poker will again recover. It may not be as profitable as slots, but it's still very good money.
The last time I visited my local L.A. card barn, there were 2 $15-30 games going, 2 $20-40's, 1 $30-60 and 2 $40-80s. Let's say that these games only go 50% of the time. At 9 players per game times $14/hour in the 15-30, $16/hour in the 20-40, $18/hour in the 30-60 and $20 in the 40-80, that's $4,651,560/year for the medium stakes poker section (if my math is correct). And there were a ton of 9-18 jackpot games going, not to mention the stud, lowball and high stakes games.
As long as enough people can leave the room a winner some of the time, there will always be poker games. And as long as the poker players also visit the Asian games section or the sports book section or other casino games, the poker rooms will exist.
20 years there might not be any cars because at the rate that their cost is increasing they'll cost an average of $80,000 and who can afford that?
My prediction: low limit poker will move to the internet and casinos will spread more middle games, which will be fed by players coming up from the internet.
has the rake risen lately in any major casino? last time I was at the bellagio, it was only $5 per half hour at 30/60 and only $7 per half hour at 80/160
collection went from 5 to 6 per half hour at casino arizona last month for all time games.
brad
Tommy,
If the Indian Casinos keep adding games in California laws might change to allow similar games in the card clubs. Since they can’t easily add space or open new facilities, poker could be shoved into a small corner within a month or two. I know Hollywood Park is already wired for slots.
It’s my nightmare scenario but it could happen. Poker players have little political power as a group.
Regards,
Rick
Good point Rick.
The main reason there is poker in Minnesota is because the Legislature would not let Canterbury Park have slots, their first choice.
Slots would mean that they took business from the flourishing nearby Native American casino.
If it was legal for Canterbury to do so, they probably would rip out every table and fill the place with slots.
Poker, the way it is played in a Cardroom, has not had a major productivity gain ever. Therefore, in relation to other industries it becomes relativity more expensive to spread poker. This is what has the potential to end poker as we know it.
Other industries have the same problem. Barbershops also have almost no productivity gains. Therefore, the cost of a hair cut tends to outpace inflation.
I'm a big fan of Game Theory and zero-one-games.
Here is one: 3 players - BLIND blinds - EARLY and LATE can call or fold. What is optimal stratey according to Game Theory ?
Defining 3 variables: c1,c2,c3 (numbers between zero and one)
c1: EARLY will call with this hand or better
c2: LATE will call with this hand or better if EARLY has folded
c3: LATE will call with this hand or better if EARLY has called
Because we have 3 variables we need 3 equatons:
c1: 2*c1*c3-1 = 0
c2: 2*c2-1 = 0
c3: 3*c3*(c3-c1)-(1-c1) = 0
Solving this system of 3 equatons (and multiplying by 1000 - just to get nice numbers) we get:
c1=633.97 * c2=500 * c3=788.67
That was easy.
Big Q: Is there in this game any possibility that any 2 of the players could collide against the third ?
For the time being I will leave it to others to ellaborate !
As I consider my self the manager of this thread I have to tell you that 'name-calling and stuff' will not be tolerated!
Be nice !
Huh?
In your example there is no ante but the blind has to bet "1" and the others can either call "1" or fold? If so, Late should call just over half the time when early has folded. I don't understand your equations but you came to the same answer for c2.
Please explain these "easy" equations.
Collude? Yes. Certainly if Early and Late told each other their hands they could crusify Blind by playing "better hand". But even if they don't show or tell, Late would play noticeably tighter when early was in (losing a little EV for himself), thus sometimes depriving Blind of a 2:1 win when he's got the real goods.
- Louie
'Collude? Yes. Certainly if Early and Late told each other their hands they could crusify Blind by playing "better hand".'
That would be cheating.
'But even if they don't show or tell, Late would play noticeably tighter when early was in (losing a little EV for himself)...'
Maybe you'r right; but I would like to see some mathematical proof of it !? I'm working on it my self.
I have made absolutely no effort whatsoever to verify if the following is correct. I just read it and convinced myself that the idea is right. In any case, the calculation is reproducible. The two players A and B simply play in such a way as to minimize Hero's expectation. Note that A and B could simply come to the table with their strategies (specified by numbers c1, c2, c3) without communicating in any way. So if their strategies just happen to minimise Hero's expectation that does not imply collusion in any way. Dirk.
-----------------------------------
Here is the simplest example I can come up with that shows how, without explicit collusion, your opponents can force you to lose money in a multiplayer poker game.
1. Randomly select "Blind", a player who posts a blind bet of one chip.
2. Deal each of the three players a statistically independent number from the uniform unit distribution (0,1).
3. Play begins with "UTG" (i.e., "under the gun" -- the player seated immediately to the left of the blind), who must either call (wager one chip) or fold.
4. Next, "Button" (i.e., the player immediately to the right of the blind) must either call or fold.
5. If either UTG or Button calls, there is a showdown (including Blind) with the highest ranking hand winning all chips wagered; otherwise, the blind is returned to the player who posted it.
Notice that Blind has no decision to make, so that the game can be reduced to a two player non-zero-sum game between UTG and Button.
Let X be the set of strategies available to UTG, and let Y be the set of strategies for Button. Given strategy x belonging to set X, and y belonging to Y, let V1(x,y) and V2(x,y) be, respectively, the expected payoff to UTG and Button when UTG uses x and Button uses y.
x*, the optimal strategy for UTG, is x such that V1(x,y'(x)) is maximized, where y'(x) is the Button strategy that, given x, minimizes V1(x,y). y*, Button's optimal strategy, is defined similarly.
x* is to call if the rank of UTG's hand is at least Sqrt(2.5) - 1 (~0.581), and to fold otherwise.
y* is:
(a) if UTG folds, call if the rank of Button's hand is at least 1/2. (b) if UTG calls, call if rank > (1 + Sqrt(2.5)) / 3 (~0.860).
(The derivation is left as an exercise.)
Now suppose you are in seat 1, Albert is in seat 2, and Boris is in seat 3.
If Albert plays ranks above
(2 - 2 Sqrt(3) + Sqrt(12 - Sqrt(27))) / 2 ~ 0.572
when UTG and optimally otherwise, and Boris plays ranks above
2 - Sqrt(3) + Sqrt(11/2 - Sqrt(27)) ~ 0.819
(when Albert is UTG and calls) when Button and optimally otherwise, then no matter how you play, your expectation for this game cannot exceed -0.000198 chips. (Again, the derivation is left as an exercise.) #
As I understand your example. Due to the structure of the rules, the blind has a negative expectation provided his two opponents play optimally. Therefore, our hero will have a negative EV specifically when he is required to post the blind.
Since you mentioned placing the button randomly, our hero could theoretically achieve an EV of at least zero in an infinite number of trials. In other words, if each participant plays optimally and we randomly place the button after each round, then all of the players will have an EV of zero over the long run. There is therefore no advantage given to any specific player in this example, at lease none given in the general case.
The poker player formerly known as Jack Wrote: “Big Q: Is there in this game any possibility that any 2 of the players could collide against the third? “
Your example indicates that the answer the above question is yes, as far as there being a ‘possibility’. However, your example also provides for a defense to this collusion (chance combination of styles) through random placement of the button. Therefore, your example indicates that there is a possibility but it will not necessarily provide any advantage to the ‘2’ players.
I do have one little nit to pick with you.
From your example: “Notice that Blind has no decision to make, so that the game can be reduced to a two player non-zero-sum game between UTG and Button.“
My nit is that I believe this example is indeed a zero sum game because the negatives and positives always equal zero when added together. Since the blind can still win or lose, I do not think it appropriate to eliminate that player from the zero sum calculation.
You know Dirk, I think there may not be a general case proof for this question either, but I would love to hear one if it exists.
Anyway, good example.
William
Thanks for the clarification of the problem ! - But ...
'x* is to call if the rank of UTG's hand is at least Sqrt(2.5) - 1 (~0.581), and to fold otherwise.
y* is:
(a) if UTG folds, call if the rank of Button's hand is at least 1/2. (b) if UTG calls, call if rank > (1 + Sqrt(2.5)) / 3 (~0.860).
(The derivation is left as an exercise.)'
I'm lost here ! What is the mathematical expression you are derivating ?
William: The crucial point is that even though the button takes all positions equally often, the rotation ordering is always Hero, A, B.
Jack: That calculation fell off the back of a truck. I did not check it.
Dirk Wrote: "William: The crucial point is that even though the button takes all positions equally often, the rotation ordering is always Hero, A, B. "
Hi Dirk,
Sorry, I did not pick up the positional constraint. However, it still seems to me that Hero's long term EV is zero assuming he plays optimally when he does not have the blind.
As an example:
Blind,UTG,Button;
Hero, A, B, Hero has negative EV if 'A' and 'B' play optimally;
A, B, Hero, 'A' has negative EV if 'B' and Hero play optimally;
B, Hero, A, 'B' has a negative EV if Hero and 'A' play optimally.
The net result of all of this should be zero... Shouldn't it?
I will go back and read your post again.
Thanks, William
If all players play `optimally' in all positions then everyone has zero EV. The expectation for each position, blind, UTG button would be non-zero, but they would add to zero. But if A and B modify their play (as specified in post) in the case that Hero is in blind, then Hero has even worse EV while in blind (while EV in other positions is unchanged for Hero) and so Hero's overall EV is now negative. Hope this clarifies it.
dirk
Thanks Dirk, it does clarify it greatly. Again, the word optimal is the cause for confusion. Okay, I agree if our hero used a betting strategy, which was inferior to his opponents, then he would have a negative overall EV.
I think we are in violent agreement for a change.
William
Dirk,
You Wrote: "But if A and B modify their play (as specified in post) in the case that Hero is in blind, then Hero has even worse EV while in blind (while EV in other positions is unchanged for Hero) and so Hero's overall EV is now negative. Hope this clarifies it."
If Hero was playing optimally, then he would compensate for their style of play when he was not in the blind. Therefore, our hero would have at worst a zero EV. At least this would be the case if we continue to use the definition of optimal that was supplied in the previous thread addressing your question.
Either that definition of optimal was wrong or your above statement must not be correct. Optimal play does allow for adjustment based upon your opponents playing style(s). Didn't the definition we used for 'game theory optimal’ (GTO) indicate that the worst case EV for a player, playing a GTO strategy, would be zero?
In this case the zero EV adjustment would be to use the same respective positional call/folding standards as ‘A’ and ‘B’ when not in the blind.
Assuming it is correct, I do think the math you supplied was clever. However, I am confused about this seemingly inconsistent use the term 'optimal'.
Thanks, William
A player can have an optimal strategy RELATIVE to all (in this case both) his opponents' chosen strategies. When we say all players are playing optimally, we mean that no one player can do better by changing strategy if all other players leave their strategies unchanged.
However the choice of strategies described by modifying BOTH A and B's strategies means that Hero has a negative EV even if he plays optimally relative to these strategies. Moreover A and B are each not playing optimally relative to the other two players --- that is each of them could do better by changing strategy --- for example A could change strategy to improve his EV (but that would also improve Hero's EV) at B's expense --- and the same holds with A and B swapped. So the strategies described minimised Hero's EV --- or equivalently, maximized A and B's COMBINED EV, but did not maximise their individual EV's (subject to the other not changing strategy). Note that this looks like collusion between A and B against Hero, but it could be that they quite innocently chose their strategies and that these strategies just happened to be to Hero's disadvantage.
SO, TO REPEAT, A AND B MAXIMIZE THEIR COMBINED EV. EITHER ONE OF THEM (BUT NOT BOTH) COULD IMPROVE HIS INDIVIDUAL EV, BUT ONLY BY REDUCING THEIR COMBINED EV
dirk
You wrte:
'Now suppose you are in seat 1, Albert is in seat 2, and Boris is in seat 3.
If Albert plays ranks above
(2 - 2 Sqrt(3) + Sqrt(12 - Sqrt(27))) / 2 ~ 0.572
when UTG and optimally otherwise, and Boris plays ranks above
2 - Sqrt(3) + Sqrt(11/2 - Sqrt(27)) ~ 0.819
(when Albert is UTG and calls) when Button and optimally otherwise, then no matter how you play, your expectation for this game cannot exceed -0.000198 chips. (Again, the derivation is left as an exercise.)'
Very interesting !
Are you stating that if the two player's were to collide against the blind they would play c1=572.158 and c3=819.173 ? If you are it's very interesting because I come up with exactly the same two numbers ! But I don't use any sqrt ?
What happend to the truck ?
I dunno. I guess the square root also fell off the back of a truck.
I recently was severely criticized for verbally counterattcking (with chatter) a player that was intentionally trying to put me, and other players present on tilt. The player attempting to do so tilted before anyone else did and he lost a lot of money. I didn't feel bad about it. I'll fight fire with fire any day. Is this wrong?
I'm sure my Mom would agree its OK to get him to stop, although she may recite that "honey ... vinegar..." aphorism. I doubt my Mom would agree its OK to bury him even after he stops, just because "he started it".
- Louie
I do somewhat the same thing. I am a very decent, fun guy to be around, but when I want to, I can be a world-class smart-ass. Just ask any of my teachers.
I will spar good-naturedly, but I don't do the same thing he's doing, I don't 'fight fire with fire.' I guess I fight fire with jokes and wisecracks.
I always try to make it humorous, not necessarly making the "tilter" the butt of the joke, but trying to create a fun table. No one likes to watch a fight.
Welcome to the club. I almost never attack anyone while online. I wish it was never, it makes me a smaller person when I react to someone taunts.
When someone wins, fish or player, its alright if they gloat. If I win and they criticize my play that's even more OK, since I have the pot. When they ridicule an "action" player, that is not OK. When they make a player feel selfconscious about their play or drive them from the game by telling they will be busted soon. That is when I become upset because not only are they taking food out of their mouth ,but mine also. To a lesser degree the practice of players picking on a "live one" then trying to get them headsup bothers me. I believe a fish should feed eight players not just one very well.
I believe that a poker is a social game. It should be fun or challenging, but never an uncomfortable experience for the recreational players.
J.P., I'm sorry if I went off topic.
MS Sunshine (mr)
Does anyone know good sites to visit about short-handed Hold'em stategy (4-6 players). I've visited Abdul's page, but it has a lot of broken links.
Thanks
Personally I do not feel that sunglasses (or hats for that matter) should be allowed at the poker table--they significantly detract from the game. Tells are an inherent part of poker and if a person has a hard time hiding emotions/actions that might give their hand away then that is a weakness in their game that they need to work on. Using sunglasses is using an object NOT inherent to the game to alter the outcome. thoughts/comments?
Wow, I haven't heard such a tough stance before.
I don't aggree though, because if you don't allow sunglasses will you allow regular glasses? (Isn't this unfair to those who happen to wear glasses). What about those who wear glasses and prefer glasses w/some tint? etc etc. It will be hard to draw the line.
Poker is all about concealing information, and if people wnat to wear hats and glasses I think it is just another way in which they do it. So I cant' really see making it illegal to wear hats and glasses.
On the riverboats, in 1800's where poker started, someone trying to bring this rule of no hats in, would soon find themselves all wet. Maybe all the changes are not for the best in poker.
MS Sunshine (mr)
Get out of our game. YOu who wish to ban sunglasses or anything short of cheating or a major disturbance. I could name fifteen different THINGS that People COULD have a problem with at a poker table. I have the solution. Don't play at a table where JUST you are offended. If anyone wants to play with a small rodent going in one ear and out the other constantly I don't care. Who are you looking to save? Me? I don't want to be saved by anyone but myself.Theres always a table with no sunglasses or hats or rodents (the jury is still out on the rodents). Settle down. I can appreciate we poker players Policing our own. BUT Think about it. Are you going to ask Scotty to take 'em off? And Phils' headphones. And oh by the way you have to wear Either Gray or Black because I am COLOR BLIND> (don't fall into the matrix we need you out here)
I still love ya!
actually this year at the WSOP no one was allowed to wear headphones....and that includeds Phil. Damn communists....
I agree it might be hard to draw the line but I think we can all agee there is a big difference between regular glasses with some tint and wrap-around Oakleys with a reflective coating on them. also, Im not sure why you think that there would be a problem with people wearing regular glasses (i.e.not sunglasses)if it was decided that people coudln't wear sunglasses...I don't see how regular glasses could give anyone any kind of advantage.
Does there exist a threshold between a little "acceptable" tint in regular glasses and too much "unacceptable" tint? Is this notion enforcable at all?
Regular glasses give the person an "advantage they otherwise wouldn't have" and its a "weakness ... they should work on". Heck, if one cannot see the other guys board then that's tough luck.
Lets put a 5-second time limit on decisions since any longer time gives to inexperienced players an "advantage they otherwise wouldn't have" and its a "weakness ... they should work on".
Lets disallow lap-top computers with simulators that will advise the player on a good course of action, since this gives ... yaddy yaddy ...
... Mmmmmm. Well, I guess I have to agree that there IS such a notion of too-much-advantage, but believe dark glasses are way below that threshold, even if I cannot define exactly where that threshold is.
But I think the reality of the situation will favor "custom", and "custom" includes glasses, hats, lady friends looking over shoulders, but does not include computers.
- Louie
"Does there exist a threshold between a little "acceptable" tint in regular glasses and too much "unacceptable" tint? Is this notion enforcable at all? "
Yes.
"Regular glasses give the person an "advantage they otherwise wouldn't have" "
sorry but that's not the same thing...using glasses to be able to see the board does not in anyway give a person an advantage over the rest of the players..it simply allows he to see the board like everyone else
"and its [having bad eyesight] a "weakness ... they should work on". Heck, if one cannot see the other guys board then that's tough luck. " "
it's is certainly NOT a weakness in the person's game...wearing glasses simply allows him to receive the same information that all other players receive
"Lets put a 5-second time limit on decisions since any longer time gives to inexperienced players an "advantage they otherwise wouldn't have" and its a "weakness ... they should work on". "
1)it's debateable that thinking for a long period of time gives someone an "advantage"..regardless of whether the player makes a bad move or good move it most likely has little to do with how long they thought about it 2) there is a big difference between using your mind for an advantage (seeing as using your mind for an advantage is largely the point of poker..)and using an artificial/outside object such as sungalsses
"Lets disallow lap-top computers with simulators that will advise the player on a good course of action, since this gives ... yaddy yaddy ... "
I'm talking about things that you bring to a poker table...not how you prepare for poker before the game. Software certainly gives you an advantage overall but it gives this advantage by teaching you the best was to play--so, again, you are using your mind. and you obviously don't bring the laptop and software to the table with you--you just bring your knowledge. sunglasses are not knowledge/wit/smarts.
No on ever complains about sunglasses. Hey, I don't like your face,can we ban it from display? It gives you an unfair advantage in that the rest of the table is repulsed by it.
lol "I don't like your face" -- what, are we in sixth grade? it amazes me how immature you (and others) are....if you don't agree with me FINE but at least make an intelligent rational argument...but it just doesn't seem like you (and many others) are able to do that.
WHAT!!!
I don't wear shades to hide MY tells I use them to look for others I don't like players seeing me watch them for reactions and the shades help me avoid headaches I get from bright card rooms.
You are off base here and ought to rethink your opinion.
I'm hardly way off base-- whether you use them to protect your own tells or watch for other peoples tells it really doesn't matter--you are still using them to allow you do do something that you wouldn't be able to do otherwise. As for the bright cardrooms...give me a break.. we all know the main purpose is for potecting/scoping out tells.
Personally, I don't feel that you should be allowed to wear shirts at the poker table. You might be hiding cards up your sleaves. Get real. This post is pathetic.
gee really insightful post--might want to ty explaining yourself and formulating an argument...your comparison to shirts is just simply not the same thing and you know it.
If you are playing limit poker and your game is primarily based on tells you will not be able to win no matter what your opponents wear. IMO it is wiser to focus on something that matters...like learning more theory and putting it into practice.
1) I was talking about allkinds of poker limit, NL, whatever...it is really besides the poin. 2) I wasn't saying that my game or anyone else's game is based mostly on tells...I was simply saying that it is part of the game and it seems a litle odd that players are allowed to use things (like sunglasses and hats ) to purposely hide them....if you're gonna play poker then PLAY POKER
I wear briefs since boxers would be too distracting, if you get my "point" so to speak. So briefs give me an advantage that is not inherent to the game.
But so long as my briefs don't detract from the game, such as if I constantly slow the game down with manual adjustments, it shouldn't be disallowed.
- Louie
nt
wow really insightful I see things so much clearer now
Another advantage of briefs ... you CANNOT see things clearer.
thanks for the update...
.....race car drivers shouldnt were helmets and seatbelts because they are irrelevent to how good you drive.
Helmets and seatbelts protect the drivers body just like sunglasses protect the players bankroll, by disallowing others to read them.
sorry but race car drivers wearing helmuts nad seatbealts isn't even close to the samething as poker players wearing sunglasses... the point of racing cars is to go fast, drive well and win the race--dying obviously plays no constructive or positive role in racing--wearing potective gear does NOT help you win it simply prevents you from dying or being seriously injured. "Tells" on the other hand are an integral part of poker...poker is partly a game of deception and picking up on "tells" and learning to control your own are a significant part of the game. Wearing sungalsses artificially alters this part of the game.
Want another example? let's take boxing... suppose pofessional boxers could wear head gear and chest potetctors if they wanted to--all the sudden those crushing upper-cuts and right hooks don't seem to mean as much, do they? You might say "well they are only trying to protect themselves"--while this is true what we must realize is that hurting your opponent is the point of boxing and using protetctive gear alters that siginificant part of the boxing sport/game. just as sunglasses do to poker...
........where you're coming from, but whether sunglasses allow players an unfair advantage or not really doesn't matter to me. Like Shollenbarger said, we (most posters on here anyway) live in the U.S. and we are free to wear sunglasses, hats, womens underwear on anything else that makes us feel good.
As for the point of boxing being "to hurt your opponent." Well I am an ex-boxer and a huge boxing fan and that statement is really ridiculous. Boxing is a art form and/or a science. I seriously doubt any boxer gets into the ring with the intention to hurt their opponent.
1)the argument about this being the US and so we should be allowed to wear whatever we want...is just not a legit argument. Poker is a game and can have whatever rules its players see fit and poker clubs are pivate places of business that can have whatever rules they want as long as they don't discriminate against people based on race, religion etc...
2) I'm a huge boxing fan too and while I may have takin a little poetic license to make my point the fact of the matter is that huting you opponent IS a big part of boxing --and to deny that is to just be in denial about the true nature of a sport that you like. Yes there is a great deal of skill involved in boxing, as in any sport, but hurting our opponent IS the ulimate objective in boxing. Why else would the knockout be considered the "highest" form of victory? Why are the heavyweights loved so much more than other weight classes? b/c they have more knockouts in their fights. If boxing is all about science and scoring points etc then why don't boxers wear head gear and extra large gloves like amateurs? Boxers don't hate their opponents (usually) and don't wish them harm outside of the ring and everything in the ring is just "business" but that does not detract from the fact that huting people is a big part of the sport.
"Hurting your opponent IS a big part of boxing"
It is a big part, but its not the point. People do get hurt and killed, but if it was the main point then the fighters would be happy about hurting the other participant and they would take pleasure in hurting or killing them.
"Why is the knockout considered the 'highest' form of victory."
It is the highest form of victory to the fans and audience, because that is what they came to see. Professional boxing is a business and the point is to make money, and in order to do that you have to give the customer what they want. So to do this boxers strive for knockouts so they can make more money, however there is a big difference in wanting to hurt someone and wanting to knock someone out with the intentions to bettering ones financial standing.
Its amazing how these threads tail of in other directions. :)
Ben, players should be allowed to wear sunglasses or hats or whatever they want for the following reaons. In my experience, players who focus on things like wearing sunglasses to protect their eyes from giving away information are the type of players you want in your game. They tend to be weaker opponents who feel that wearing sunglasses will win or save them money. While this may have the smallest bit of truth in it, it does not protect these people from the more substantial and revealing tells. The fact that (1) these players are more likely to be lacking in strong poker theory, (2) we live in the United States of America and there is nothing stopping you from wearing sunglasses as well, and (3) we do not want to restrict weaker players from bringing their "secret weapon" to the poker room because they may feel that their advantage is gone and/or go play poker somewhere else.
Thank you for a mature post. I agree w/you to a large extent. Maybe I should clarify things--I realize that for most people who wear sungalsses they give that person little, if any, edge b/c as you said they are often weak opponents who are focusing on things like sunglasses instead of correct straegy etc. And I cetainly don't think that I've lost out on money because I played against someone with sunglasses. But at the same time I just find it very odd that we allow some type of outside object/tool to be used in a manner that is INTENDED to give the user an advantage over his opponents...it just doesn't make much sense.
'I realize that for most people who wear sungalsses they give that person little, if any, edge b/c as you said they are often weak opponents who are focusing on things like sunglasses instead of correct straegy etc. And I cetainly don't think that I've lost out on money because I played against someone with sunglasses.'
You've answered your own question. You should not be worried about them wearing sunglasses. Even though you might disagree with the principle of the practice, the reality is you probably would be wise to keep allowing players to wear sunglasses simply because you want to play with those people. It would be impossible to make wearing sunglasses at a public cardroom illegal, so any prohibition of sunglasses would have to be by cardroom policy. Furthermore, even if certain cardrooms began doing just this, there will surely still be other cardrooms who would not prohibit it. And you do not want these players to get out of the gambling mood. Let me give you an example using a golf hustler. We'll say that you can play a two over par game while your challenger plays a fifteen over par. Would you give this guy a one stroke handicap and play him for even money? Yes, of course you would. While it might not be exactly fair, if that one stroke given to the other player either gets that golfer to play with you or gets him to play for higher stakes, you would definitely want to let him have the stroke. (Realize though that in the sunglasses scenario, the edge given to that player is minimal at best and would most likely be equal to less than 1/10000 of a stroke.)
I understand where you are coming from and for the most part I agree--I am mostly just arguing on a matter of principal.
I wear polarized tinted lens everywhere, at all times. I have two pair; one for driving, the other for up-close work such as poker. After dark, clerks in convenience stores and tellers in banks do not like them. Cops do not like them. Straight Johns sneer that I am putting on airs. "Who do you think you are?" I have an eye injury that makes me sensitive to bright lights and glare, so anyone wanting to take them from me will lose the fight. In court or in the parking lot. In bed, with my dark glasses on my face, while waiting for sleep, instead of counting sheep, I snap my fingers.
When the U.S. Senate held the impeachment trail of Clinton, sitting just below Edward Kennedy was a Senator who wore brown tinted 'shades', I suspect he has a problem with bright lights and glare.
I'm not talking about people who use them for medical reasons..what we're talking about here is people who use them to try and get an unfair advantage.
Also, there is a huge difference between people who wear glasses b/c they don't like bright lights and people who have a medical condition/injuy (such as yourself) that causes bright light to bother their eyes. not liking bright lights is not an excuse to wear sunglasses at the table. A medical condition IS a legit excuse.
So what, you're going to have to bring a doctor's note to the card room?
I sort of relate to your argument, because I hate trash talk and think it is unethical and rude. I think it is not about poker. Eventhough inducing tilt is profitable, I don't do it and look down on those who do. I wouldn't ban it though.
You may be "right," but what you suggest is impossible to enforce.
They protect my eyes. From sneezes. From angry glares.
I would never go to town with my pants unzipped, so, why play poker with my big expressive eyes hanging out.
I caused a muscle builder in a bar to miss his shot when I Bumped him. When I left. In the parking lot, he broke my nose. I did not then wear dark glasses, but if I had; a broken nose would not be enough to give them up.
Lucky for me that was not an issue.
Banning sunglasses is way too much trouble for what it's worth (i.e. people bringing medical documentation to the poker room, THAT IS TOO MUCH). Big deal if you can't see your opponents' eyes.
Banning hats would be like the US gov't banning alchohol. Not gonna happen.
Unless it is quite harmful to others, I think policies that allow the most freedom are the best.
One of the rooms in Calgary bans sunglasses. I once asked why (out of curiosity, I have a goofy looking face that is hard to read so I don't wear sunglasses) and was told "People don't need to wear sunglasses indoors."
No noticeable difference in the level of play was observed by me.
I believe this nonsense belongs on the other topics forum.
Thank you
Ben,
I have always played according to the philosphy that a person can do anything in poker which he believes will bring him an advantage at the table (except cheating of course). I think that this is pretty much a universal principle held by poker players. Deception (not cheating) is acceptable conduct in poker. So, if a person believes that wearing a hat or a visor or sunglasses brings him an advantage, by deceiving his opponents as to his actual feelings, intentions, etc., then we can not reasonably disallow it. To suggest otherwise, in my opinion, is ridiculous. I am sorry if this hurts your feelings/ego, but.... you posted the question, and you did ask for opinions.
Bruce K.
Bruce,
First off thanks for your response. I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Second, your response has in no way hurt my feelings or ego and for you to assume that I would auomatically think your response is superior to my line of reasoning is...well...egotistical.
Now on to the issue.
"a person can do anything in poker which he believes will bring him an advantage at the table"
I agree -- except when people start to bring outside objects intended to give them an advantage. This is supposed to be a game about a person and their skills --sunglassses and hats, whether you want to admit it or not, detract from this. To make a comparison (albeit not an equal comparison...) why not let Major League Baseball players cork their bats ?
"Deception (not cheating) is acceptable conduct in poker"
I agree -- but wearing sunglasses isn't deception. it's using an an object to cover up possible weaknesses (or whatever you want to call them). Deception, in poker, is using your mind and body language (without the aid of "tools" such as sunglasses)to convey ideas contrary to he truth about your hand.
"then we can not reasonably disallow it"
for the reasons I've stated above we definitely CAN reasonably disallow it.
"To suggest otherwise, in my opinion, is ridiculous"
sorry you feel that way.
Ben, I hear where you are coming from ever since I saw Last Starfighter. One ship vs the amarada:
Grig: I've always wanted to fight a desperate battle against incredible odds.
Just because no one agrees with you, don't be swayed. Spend a few more days tilting at those windmills, baby.
MS Sunshine
You have no inherent right to discern a tell. Some player's hearts beat faster when they have a big hand or when they're bluffing. Should we ban heavy shirts and sweaters which disallow us to see their heartbeart, or turtlenecks which disallow us to see their carotid artery?
I sometimes turn my heard to the side when the flop comes so opponents can't see me look at the flop when it comes, thus depriving them of any tell I might give away. Should this be banned?
Some players wear earphones, listening to Alanis Morisette or Lawrence Welk while they play. They thus cannot respond, since they can't hear me, when I ask em a leading question during the play of the hand, depriving me of a tell. Should the headphones be banned for this reason?
Some players drink while they play, obscuring their normal behavior with alcohol induced stupor or rancor. This makes their body language different than it is when they're sober. Should drinking be banned because of this?
Tells are not an inherent part of poker. Discerning tells is a skill as is disguising them. Nothing someone wears (clothing, glasses, hats,) should be banned because it inhibits an opponent from using his skill to his advantage. This is exactly what I try to do on every hand I play: inhibit my opponents from using their skill, whatever level it is, to their advantage and to my detriment.
Thanks for the post -- you make a good argument. At least someone on this forum is able to formulate an argument. my response:
"You have no inherent right to discern a tell."
I agree but at the same time no one has the right to use a foreign object (i.e. sunglasses) to help them cover up a tell.
"Should we ban heavy shirts and sweaters which disallow us to see their heartbeart, or turtlenecks which disallow us to see their carotid artery? "
No because wearing turtlenecks or heavy shirts serve many other purposes besides covering up an artery. You could simply like the color or the style, you could be cold, your aunt gave it to you for your b-day...doesn't really matter the point is that shirts of any type are used primarily for purposes other than hiding tells.
"I sometimes turn my heard to the side when the flop comes so opponents can't see me look at the flop when it comes, thus depriving them of any tell I might give away. Should this be banned? "
No becuase you are using your body to convey and or cover up a specific idea -- you are not using any outside objects to help you attain your goal of fooling your opponents.
"Some players wear earphones, ....They thus cannot respond, since they can't hear me, when I ask em a leading question during the play of the hand,depriving me of a tell. Should the headphones be banned for this reason? "
No. This is the same idea as the turtlenecks/shirts.what we are dealing with here is intent...does anyone wear headphones specifically so they don't hear questions and therefore don't have to answer? doubtful.... Also,headphones or no headphones no one is ever obligated to answer another persons question. You might say "well no one has any inherent right to see/hear anyone's tell" --correct but at the same a persons behavior at the poker table IS part of the game--and a fairly significant part at that and people have no right to use any outside objects in an attempt to hide their tells--either you came to play poker or you didn't.
"Some players drink while they play, obscuring their normal behavior with alcohol induced stupor or rancor. This makes their body language different than it is when they're sober. Should drinking be banned because of this? "
No -- again, drinking alcohol (just like wearing headphones and wearing turtlenecks)is not done with the intention of providing an advantage--quite the opposite I would argue.
"Tells are not an inherent part of poker."
yes they are and you seem to realize this as you described how you go to great lengths to discover other people's tells and disguise yours.
It's not so much that people are disguising their tells --that is a perfectly legit part of poker--it's that they are doing it with outside objects -- wearing sunglasses doesn't require skill. Learning how to control and manipulate them without the aid of sunglasses/hats etc DOES require skill and in the end isn't skill what poker is all about?
Ben: I don't see sunglasses as a foreign object. People naturally wear them. It's not as natural to wear them indoors as outdoors, but poker rooms aren't the only place you see people with sunglasses on inside.
When I say tells are not an inherent part of poker, I mean tells are not part of the structure or of the rules of the game. String bets, for example, or other angle plays are not allowed because they upset the fairness of the game. Sunglasses do not do this merely because they don't allow you to see another person's eyes. If sunglasses are unnatural, certainly turning to the side when the flop comes is an unnatural movement designed to accomplish the same objective as wearing sunglasses.
The fact that wearing sunglasses does not require skill is, in my judgment, irrelevant.
Thanks, by the way, for your compliment in your first paragraph. You too present your case very well.
You are definintely wrong about one thing. There ARE people who sometimes wear sunglasses for reasons other than to hid/watch for tells. I will occasionally wear them because an 8-10 hour session of looking at flops is hard on my eyes. Sunglasses prevents my eyes from burning and becoming red. Maybe I'm in the minority.
I actually don't like sunglasses. Not because of tells, but because I feel it can discourage action from loose players. If I were a loose player who sat in on a poker game to have a good time, I might be embarassed to lose to some intimidating looking pro wearing sunglasses. I might just fold instead of paying him off. Imagine this player's plight at a table full of these intimidating pros all wearing sunglasses. I think this is a better argument for not wearing them than anything having to do with tells.
Thanks for the post. I definitely see your argument about sunglasses discouraging action. Regardless whether sunglasses hide tells or discourage action they are both reasons to not allow players to wear sunglasses--it simply detracts from the game.
I just noticed a response of yours in the (now achived) thread "A Couple More Mistakes?"
As always, your clarity is refreshing.
.
I am sorry as I am sure this has been discussed before (although I was unable to find any threads on the topic)...
Bob Ciaffone states both in his book (Improve your Poker) and on a Pokerpages quiz that stud is a much safer game than hold'em as far as deviation is concerned.
Is this universally accepted?
Even if true, can a greater overlay be established in stud to make it more profitable than HE (i.e., is it a greater skill game?).
"Pokerpages quiz that stud is a much safer game than hold'em as far as deviation is concerned. "
Yes.
"Even if true, can a greater overlay be established in stud to make it more profitable than HE (i.e., is it a greater skill game?). "
Stud requires a bit more skill. Whether that translates to a greater overlay or not depends on the game you are in. Normally Holdem offers far greater profits at equivalent (not the same) limits for a number of reasons. Number one reason is that most Holdem player think the game is simple and requires not much thought and conseuently they play very bad. Stud players even though they may be bad are usually of the mind that the game requires skill and play more conservatively.
Vince
I think the accepted view is the opposite. For example, in Poker Essays Mason talks about the need for a larger bankroll to play stud than hold 'em.
Were Ciaffone's comments about low limit stud? In a $1-$5 game with no ante and just a bring-in I could see his comments beign true but as you move up the ante becomes a higher and higher percentage of the small bet which means there are a lot more hands you have to play and you have to play them more agressively making the game's fluctuations much higher.
As for the second question, I think many would answer yes in the big stud games.
Paul Talbot
Here's an article I wrote on this subject.
Which is Bigger?
by Mason Malmuth
One question that I hear poker players debate is which game is bigger, seven-card stud or Texas hold 'em? The stud advocates will tell you that there are five betting rounds instead of four, that it is much easier to draw out so that there is much more chasing, and that calling a bet on sixth street is usually automatic. The hold 'em advocates will tell you that there are more mutiway pots, the betting on the first round is often two full bets as opposed to a bring-in, and the large luck factor that is present between the first two cards and the flop encourages maniacal play. So who is right?
During the past few years, I and an associate have been collecting data on both games, and we have come to some surprising conclusions. My friend is an expert stud player and a very good hold 'em player. We have kept careful track of our results and now have good estimates of "our" standard deviations for some of the games that are spread in Las Vegas. At first we found these results to be somewhat contradictory, but I now believe that we understand exactly what they mean. Also, you need to understand that everyone plays differently, and games in different locations can have different levels of fluctuations. So our conclusions may not be true in all situations, but I believe in general, they are fairly accurate.
(For those of you not familiar with the "standard deviation," let's just say that it is a measure of how much short term luck there is in a poker game, and short term luck determines how big a poker game is. That is, the bigger the standard deviation, the bigger the game.)
To start, lets look at something obvious. If you were in Las Vegas and went to The Mirage and compared the $20-$40 stud game to the $20-$40 hold 'em game you would notice the hold 'em game has far more chips on the table, per person, than the stud game. And the pots, usually, are much larger. A typical hold 'em game generally has many more mutiway pots than the stud game. And, a typical hold 'em hand has many more raises than the typical stud hand. Thus, it seems obvious that hold 'em should produce a much higher standard deviation than stud, and therefore be considered the bigger game. But our results show an hourly standard deviation of $280 for the $20-$40 hold 'em and $350 for the $20-$40 stud. This brings us to the surprising conclusion that if your skills are somewhere between that of a "live one" to a marginal player, then hold 'em is bigger. If your skills are somewhere between playing pretty good to expert, then stud is the bigger game. (We also have results, again based on our play, for higher limit games which are consistent with these numbers, but for purposes of this essay I will not address them at this time.)
(For some of you who also track your standard deviation, these results may appear small. What we have discovered is that as the years have gone by our standard deviations have dropped. We suspect that this may have something to do with our hand reading skills improving.)
So why is this the case? Why does the expert hold 'em player have more control over his results than the expert stud player, while the live one will swing more wildly in hold'em than he does at stud.
We believe it is the result of two reasons. First, reading hands may be more effective in hold 'em. You only have to figure out two cards instead of three, and you get to see your opponent's last card. This impacts your results in two ways. When playing stud, you may know your opponent's primary hand, such as two aces, but you won't know his kicker; or you may know he started with a three flush, but will have no idea if he improves his hand in other ways. On the end, when playing stud, you frequently have to call because of the size of the pot. In hold 'em, even though the pot may be bigger than it is in stud, you can sometimes safely throw your hand away. If the flush card gets there, you may know without question (if you are an expert card reader) that you are beat.
The other reason is that the expert stud player plays looser than the expert hold 'em player. In fact, as your stud game improves, you will gradually find yourself playing more hands, while the opposite is frequently true for hold 'em players. There are many reasons for this, but two of them are that in stud you can adjust hand values based on the upcards, and you can often call for just the bring-in bet. Hold 'em seems to work just the opposite. The better you play, the more traps you try to avoid, thus many players concede that their hold 'em games tighten up as their skills get better.
This brings us to a final and somewhat entertaining conclusion. If you are talking to another poker player and he begins to argue that hold 'em is the bigger game, then it may be safe to assume that he "plays poorly." On the other hand, if he argues that stud is bigger, not only might this be an expert player, but you probably won't want to play in any game with him, whether it be stud or hold 'em.
nt
Masons essay is conclusion based or research. He cleared up the misconceptions. Squelched the old wives tales. Put it in perspective. I was one who thought hold'em was an Easy game.When i burned my small bankroll on back to back Bad Beats with KK and AA, I quit till I did the homework I so badly needed to do. I think I grew to hate 7 stud because of the asswipes at the stud home game. Then I bought a book. I had no Idea there was any strategy to 7-stud. Now, I respect that game. Standard Deviation needs to be accepted by all of us as part of the game. It does work our way sometimes. I want to ask if playing both games makes you better at either?
Helo all !!
I am wondering if i can se the wsop final table anywhere at internet?? i know i can LISTEN to it at ultimatebet.com but would like to know if i could se some live-pics from the final-table too /// take care and gl at the tables ;-) !! Swedish boy
I think pokerpages.com is doing something for it.
Where can I pick it up on T>V>? thanks
Slim
I am so proud to be a part of the Poker Society out there. I read the entire post and responses to "Sunglasses at the Table". And the statements made for letting people come to the table as they are was refreshing. We Play Poker! That in and of itself tells you we are free. We chose. Not you. If you want to tell me something I Have to do Tell me I have to accept YOUR contributions to ease any losses I might incurr. This crap is how it starts. And the next thing you know, we will have to wear an eigth grade uniform to the table immediately after we wash our face and brush our teeth. take your Hitleristic, commune,socialist attitude and get out of our game. I do give you alot of credit for inducing so many responses with your statements.I'm passionate about the game not mad at you. You have the pleasure of thinking the way you want, Because of the Liberty we all enjoy in this country. If all of our elected leaders wanted to ban every little thing in society would we truly be free? Hell we incrementally lose our freedoms every legislative session. DO you want to give them ideas? Just enjoy poker. (noiamnotthegreatone)
Sincerly, proud!
Everything in this post is meant with all due respect.
You (and most other people who have responded negatively) have not responded to my argument. You merely rant and rave about how I don't like something that you think is ok. But what I'm trying to get from you here is WHY you think it is ok. "Just because" is NOT an answer. *Almost* no one on this forum has even begun to formulate a real argument-- they just yell and scream without making any solid points. I'm not actually trying to ban anything I'm just trying to stimulate discussion about something that is very much part of the poker world.
On to your post:
"And the statements made for letting people come to the table as they are was refreshing."
pretty amazing seeing as almost no one (with a couple exceptions) has made a reasonable argument FOR allowing sunglasses. Most of the posts come in two varieties: 1) arguments that boil down to "just because" or just simply make very little sense and 2)childish rants and raves filled with trash talk and name calling because they simply can't think of anything intelligent to say.
"This crap is how it starts. And the next thing you know, we will have to wear an eigth grade uniform to the table immediately after we wash our face and brush our teeth"
Give me a break.
"That in and of itself tells you we are free. We chose. Not you. If you want to tell me something I Have to do Tell me I have to accept YOUR contributions to ease any losses I might incurr."
This is ridiculous. As I have stated before the argument that we live in America and are free and have the right to wear sunglasses if we want to is simply NOT a legit argument. Poker is a game. And like all games this game has RULES and it can have any rules that its players/organizers see fit. Your personal rights and freedoms as an American have NOTHING to do with the rules of any game. What if Shaq showed up to play basketball in a pair of khaki pants, no shirt and sandals on...wouldn't go over too well would it? but why? I mean, gee, if he feels he can play basketball just fine wearing those clothes he should just go right ahead , right? but, alas, he can't. And why's that-- because basketball has rules--just like every other damn thing in society. Damn communists they just take away everything... "take your Hitleristic, commune,socialist attitude and get out of our game"
grow up.
O.K. I will directly address what you have presented. You are right, if the world of poker banned Sunglasses,headphones etc. we as players would have to play poker under those circumstances. Did I directly get to your point? -------- address this> the WSOP in 2002 will be completley NON-SMOKING. Suddenly the smokers in the tournament DON'T Have A Choice. But the question really is... where did the tournament directors get the Idea that non smoking is the way to go? ---------- All the ranting and raving in this post comes from people who leave other peoples Choices to the people making those choices (ie..to wear whatever) We don't mind. WE rant about this...in todays society the slightest bitch about something someone "DOESN'T LIKE" ends up to BE A LAW. We who DON"T MIND what another person wears DON"T GET OUR SAY because we don't bitch about IT. How come politicians and society in general don't respect WHAT IS "NOT" SAID AGAINST SOMETHING? Well were all tired of being the silent majority so now were bitching. If you started a campaign against sunglasses at the table it would only be a matter of time before they would be banned...so allow me to tell you now,before it's too late to just get over it. WADR (with all due respect) (notthegreatone)
rl ps.meet me on this post at "Other Topics" under "the biggest lie in america today" bring a lunch.
I think the fact that we live in America and are free is a legitimate argument.
You asked "why wouldn't it go over to well if Shaq showed up to play basketball in a pair of khakis."
Because, Shaq is employed by an organization that has rules. It is not against the rules of basketball to play in khakis, if you want to go to a playground and play ball in khakis you are free to do so, but it is against the rules of the organization that Shaq works for. There is no poker organized body that runs things. Nobody that plays poker is employed by an organization, (exept maybe props) they are more of an independant contracter.
You also said, "if the poker world wanted to institute a rule banning sunglasses it would be perfectly legal and legit and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with your inherent freedoms as a person or American."
This is where you are wrong. First of all there is no so called "Poker World" (meaning a organized governing body) and it would be illegal to ban something like sunglasses at the poker table. Why?
The only way this would it would be legal to ban sunglasses is if players were sponsored by corporations like Pepsi or McDonalds. But still then, only those corporations could ban their players from wearing sunglasses, they couldn't do a darn thing about others. And if this happened there would be a lot of discrepencies, then the next step would be to make a National Commission. If this were to happen the National Commission could ban sunglasses from all poker tables, just like the commisioner of basketball can ban Shaq from wearing khaki's.
But you see, it would be illegal for a casino or card room to ban something like sunglasses because the casino does not employ the players and sunglasses don't present a clear and present danger to any person (unlike smoking). There is no doubt in my mind that if this went to the Supreme Court, that they would rule it a violation of the first amendment for a casino to ban something like sunglasses. And if someone like Phil Hellmuth wanted to sue Binions for not allowing headphones during the WSOP, he would probably win in the Supreme Court.
This is just like the situation with the golfer Casey Martin, who has a medical condition and wanted to use a golf cart. Well, since he works for the PGA he has to abide by there rules.
Now this so-called golf cart supposedly gives him and unfair advanted (just like your agrument against sunglasses). The only difference is, he works for an organization that has a commision that makes rules. We as poker players do not.
Now, if he wanted to go play at a country club, he would be more than welcome to use a golf cart because he would be playing at a place and time unaffiliated with the PGA.
Do you see why sunglasses couldn't be banned without a National Commission?
"I think the fact that we live in America and are free is a legitimate argument."
It isn't --I'll get into the specifics (again) in a moment.
"Because, Shaq is employed by an organization that has rules. It is not against the rules of basketball to play in khakis, if you want to go to a playground and play ball in khakis you are free to do so, but it is against the rules of the organization that Shaq works for."
Bingo --congratulations you have successfully argued against yourself. granted the Shaq example was not an equal comparison but that doesn't really matter b/c it still illustrates my point vey well. Private cardrooms, just like the NBA, ARE organizations/businesses that have every right to make and enforece ANY rule that they see fit (as long as they don't discriminate based on ace religion etc...and of course they can only enforce it in their own cardroom ) Period. There is really no argument here. Just as restaurants will refuse you service if you do not have a shirt and a pair of shoes on when you enter their building. There are no rules in the "game" of eatig that prohiit eating shirtless but, hey, McDonalds clearly doesn't like that and it is completely within their legal rights to refuse you service.
"First of all there is no so called "Poker World" (meaning a organized governing body) and it would be illegal to ban something like sunglasses at the poker table. "
You're right there is no overarching Poker organization that sanctions all poker games and creates rules. BUT private cardrooms (i.e. in a casino etc) do organize and promote games within their cardroom and have ultimate authority and jurisdiction over what happens in the poker games in their room.
"But you see, it would be illegal for a casino or card room to ban something like sunglasses because the casino does not employ the players and sunglasses don't present a clear and present danger to any person (unlike smoking). "
Don't you see, It does not matter ONE BIT whether or not the people playing in the cardroom are employees of the cardroom/casino. Cardrooms are PRIVATE places of business and they can (and do) refuse service to anyone for any reason (short of refusing servce based on race etc). And just as a side note: Shaq is absolutely NOT an employee of the NBA (as you insisted earlier). The NBA does not in any way pay him. The Lakers cut his check. Shaq just happens to play in the games and league that are organized by the NBA . The NBA is a private organization that can make whatever rules it wants to. The players and teams abide by the rules because they think that abiding by the rules is a fair trade off for having the NBA organize regular games, championships etc.
"There is no doubt in my mind that if this went to the Supreme Court, that they would rule it a violation of the first amendment for a casino to ban something like sunglasses. And if someone like Phil Hellmuth wanted to sue Binions for not allowing headphones during the WSOP, he would probably win in the Supreme Court."
With all due respect this is just ridiculous. I'm sorry you feel that the Supreme Court would side with your argument but that fact is that they would NOT. Hellmuth would NOT win a court case against Binions over he headphones. Binions is a private business that is the organizer of the WSOP and can institue any ule they see fit including the banning of headphones. If you do not believe me please ask a lawyer or brush up on some legal fact.
One final point: Rules by an organization such as a cardroom are not forcing anyone to do anything. If you don't like the rules at a particular cardroom (or restaurant or ANYTHING) then simply leave. Just as the businesses are able to make any rules they want citizens are able to reject those rules by not engaging in business with the establishments that have rules they disagree with. It's that simple.
n/t
This is my first chance to get on here today.
After some thought, I guess you are right, I may have typed some things in the heat of the moment, and probably went way to far with the Hellmuth example.
Since I neglected to realize the fact that casino's and card rooms are "private businesses" and not public, I guess they are within their legal right to ban anything they want without discriminating on the basis of race etc.
However, you have to look at it from not only R. Limbaugh's point of view but also, from the 'business' its self.
R. Limbaugh is right that if we start taking away things that are normally considered to be freedoms of expression, then after a while, we won't even be able to play poker at all.
Furthermore, if you own or run a card room do you really want a reputation for taking away citizens rights to express themselves freely. Heck no. Its just like you said, "if you don't like the rules at a particular card room, then simply leave." And that is what most people would do, leave. And that would be bad for business.
P.S. I know Shaq doesn't work for the 'NBA'. I was just trying to imply his affiliation with an organization.
no clothing is acceptable at the poker table.
ahahahah! gee, you sure are funny !
Late in the tournament, I held two sevens under the gun and moved in $12,000. There were nine players anteing $100 each, and the blinds were $400 and $800. Neglecting the fact that chips change value in a tournament, the question is whether this play shows a profit if my opponents will call with any AK plus any pair, tens or better. What about eights or better plus AK? What about fives or better plus AK?
This problem is fairly easy to do mathematically but some of you may want to weigh in with your gut insincts. Those of you who do try to calculate it, should probably ignore the very small chance that the bet will be called in two different spots since I doubt that swings anything.
Assuming that your underpair will be a 4-1 dog and that against AK you will be even money, I make these the approximate* figures:
Being called by AK or TT or better +217 tourney $.
Being called by AK or 88 or better -374.
Being called by AK or 55 or better +11.
*I have calculated the odds of running into a particular hand as x^8, x being the odds of one player having that hand.
wouldnt it be x times 8, since you have 8 chances to have x, not x^8 because x^8 is the probability of all 8 having that particular hand(which is impossible, but the probabilities dont know that)? if i am wrong, please explain.
Sorry for my poor explanation, the method I used to work out the chance of a player having a particular hand (which is only approximate) is:
The probabil1ty of one player having AK is 16/1225. So the probability of him not having AK is 1-(16/1225) Therefore the probability of 8 players not having AK is (1-(16/1225))^8 and so the probability of one of the eight players having AK is 1-((1-(16/1225))^8).
This is only a good estimate of the probability as it assumes that the players hands are independent of each other which they are not. It is close enough to tell whether or not something is clearly right or wrong. In this case though it appears to be clearly marginal:)
This play would obviously show a profit.
I think the play shows a profit, but is not necessarily the best place to get your money in. In my opinion just because a play is +EV does not necessarily mean it is the right thing to do in a NL tourney.
Dave already said neglecting changes in the value of tourney chips.
I think it will show a +EV.
I'm not quite sure I know what I'm doing so I'll just take a shot at the first question, which has two parts:
1. What are your chances that nobody has TT or above or AK?
Ignoring the overlap between AA/KK and AK, and other "devilishly complicated" overlaps, the chance that none of your eight opponents has these hands should be roughly 1179/1225 to the 8th power, which is about 74%. I think.
2. What is your ev if you get called by AA-TT/AK, discounted by the probability of them having it?
I'll assume that you're a 4-1 dog if you get called by a pair, and even money if you get called by AK (as everyone knows, it's actually slightly less). I'll also assume that you're the shortest stack at the table and will double through plus pick up the antes and blinds if you're called and win.
No one calls: ev = $2,100 X .74 = $1,554
Called by a pair (and losing): ev = .26 X 30/46 X .8 X $12,000 = ($1,627)
Called by a pair (and winning): ev = .26 X 30/46 X .2 X $14,100 = $478
Called by AK (and losing): ev = .26 X 16/46 X .5 X $12,000 = ($542)
Called by AK (and winning): ev = .26 X 16/46 X .5 X $14,100 = $638
Giving you a total ev of $501. My guess is that it's lower but still positive for all scenarios.
If your opponent will only call with a better pair than you have Plus AK you are a winner with your sevens. But you knew that. With fives or better also.
vince
It may show a profit but it don't win the WSOP and $1,500,000!
Vince
However, it may be exactly the right thing to do if you're at a $1000 single satellite table and you look around and see T.J. Cloutier plus several other high quality opponents.
Vince is wrong. As Dave McG said, the play loses money if you get called by specifically eights or better as well as AK. It only shows a profit if players play either tighter or looser than that.
I may be wrong but I may also be closer than McG shows. 77 is definetely a favorite against A,K (about 11-10). O.K I'm probably a slightly bigger dog than 4-1 against an over pair. I didn't do the math. I guessed. I did suspect that I may be wrong about 8,8 and > but David said to use our gut feelings. so much for gut feelings. Now if there were only a game theory optimal strategy I could use then I would be right and I'd be somebody.
vince
In a NLHE tournament - it's the "here and now" that counts. There are times to push in with this hand but I don't think UTG at a full table IN THIS TOURNAMENT is the time for a this move.
UNLESS you know there is a really good chance you can steal from here based on your read of the other players.
Now maybe you will win your next 30/60 pot with a pair of 7's but who cares.
My initial reaction was along the lines of what you wrote here. However, when I thought about it more the move made sense. I'm thinking that T12,000 is a very small stack at this point in the tournament so trying to double up makes a lot of sense. Why sit around for hours trying to nurse a short stack when you're not even close to getting any money back. Doubling up to T24,000 would give him a little room to operate.
Doubling up would be great, but there is also a hell of a chance to go broke. I'd rather try to find a better situation to get my money in there, either having a better hand or position.
Thats exactly what I was thinking about last night. Long term doesn't matter in a tournament and any player who plays that way is never going to win a tournament. Sure, you still have to play good percentages and get your money in there when you have the best of it, but realistically, you have to base each hand individually on its chances of winning now.
With the average stack $60K and the table being tough, it would have been wrong to eschew a plus EV of $400 or so. Bishop's comment that you must consider your chances of winning very highly, is true but he seems to forget that my chances of winning were over 80% including the not insignificant ante steal. (I did steal the ante by the way.)
By my calculations, you are laying 5.7:1 pot odds. That equates to having to win over 85 percent of the time to be ahead in the long term. Also, there are too many other factors to consider as pointed out by WGB, Rounder and Bishop. Your thinking is great for a ring game. I doubt if any of the final table players would think like this.
The funny thing is, even though it may not have the same EV, I could push my chips in much more convincingly with AK. But what do I know, I have no experience at this.
85% huh. What about the times you get called and win.
About the same as when you get called and lose isn't it?
sorry tyro but that broke me up. It reminds me of certain times when I have made conceptual errors (they were doozies, btw).
Did I make a doozie? I don't think I am explaining myself well and I don't want to beat it to death.
A good laugh does wonders though, doesn't it.
An interesting thought, aside from the profitability of the play is the size of the bet you chose. Generally when I see a raise that is larger than normal, it tends to make me think my opponent doesn't want a call. That doesn't mean I would consider calling (you) with less than Jacks.
However, in your situation, I don't think you would want to bring it in for less than $6000 (if you chose to raise) anyway. Once you've put $6000 chips into play, the additional equity gained by your $12,000 bring-in (possibly stealing the antes, or exerting maximum pressure against the bigger stacks) definitly seems worthwhile. At this level in the tournament I think you have too much hand to pass, and a limp might invite a big raise where you know you'll be entering the pot as a small favorite or a fairly big dog. Not to mention that it can be a disaster to play a medium (small) pair against the blind.
Rather than over-all profitability, I feel as if the difference in leverage the additional chips you put in the pot impact the viability of your play is significant. The fact that you were playing against a tough field seems to make the over-all profitability of the play more likely.
and following along with thoughts expressed by Conly (above), a small raise could even triger a (rare) situation of multi-player flop --which probably not good for this hand. Or triger a steal bet & raise, etc. I don't know the math, but I like the play because you may wind up in about 50-50 situation with extra $$ from antes, etc. Jim
There are 52choose2 total hands, = 52*51/2 = 1326 total hands. There are 16 (AK) + 6*5(TT or higher pairs) or 46 premium hands an opponent can call with; or 1326-46=1280 hands he'll fold. Ignoring bunching and therefore presuming independant events, all will fold (1280/1326)**8 = .754 or 75% or 3:1 in favor. When called you win 1/5th of the times he has an over-pair (30) [6 wins) and half the time against AK (16) [8 wins], leaving you winning 14 times and losing 32 times out of 46 or winning 30% of the time when called.
So 3 times you steal $1700 and one time you lose 12000*70% and win 13700*30% = 3*1700 - 12000*7/10 + 13700*3/10 = 5100-8400+4110 = +810 over 4 hands, or a net profit of 202.5 per hand when you raise all in.
if they'll call with 88 or better: there are now 58 hands they call or 95.6% chance for a fold or all 8 fold 70% of the time. ... This is much worse since you in win outright less often AND win less often when called.
55 or better is better since you can get called by 4:1 dog hands.
I'm SURE you can do better than $202.5 with your 77, such as raising less than a full stack which drastically reduces your risk but only increases the number of calls somewhat. THEY may think you are committed after the flop but you are not unless you flop a set.
Long-term strategically you MAY need the opponents to know you are willing to raise with this hand, but I have some serious difficulty doing so for immediate short-term EV since you are only going to get called when seriously beat; and would be better off doing it with Axs or 65s.
- Louie
$2100, not $1700 Louie.
Louie,
Not meaning to nitpick but don't you have 50*49/2 possible hands since you hold 77? Also you don't quite win .20 of the time versus an overpair given set over set possibilty. Further it seems you should estimate you EV down slightly for the times you are called in more than one place.
Your analysis seems right though, and it seems to me that you should almost always raise less than your full stack
These nit-picks are rather important since they make significant changes in your final EV.
Yes, forgot to add the small blind. DOH!
Right. 50choose2 since you have two of the cards. Ooops.
I recall the 4:1 dog pair-under-pair odds from somewhere, and presume it adjusts for set-under-set. Hot-and-cold it should be easy to verify.
I would think your odds go UP substancially when you get more than one caller since MOST of your wins will be when you make a set, and if you make a set you WANT someone calling with another over-pair. e.g. if you out-run QQ you are very likely to also out-run JJ.
- Louie
I can see the math that some have posted, and don't have any argument with the concept that if they call with 88 or better, you lose EV, while if the call looser or tighter you gain EV.
But, why isn't it typically a better play to raise to T2500? I mean, was the table such that you knew one of the bigger stacks was gonna come down on you with a reraise that would put you all-in? While that happens, in my experience it isn't something that I would expect to happen to me anywhere near the majority of the time. Usually, such a reraise would indicate a strong hand, even if not a better hand than 77. Was your table particularly aggressive with reraises? Is my experience not in line with the WSOP main event in this regard?
By making a normal raise preflop, you have room to make a flop bet AND a turn bet if you choose. Bet T3000 on the flop and T6500 on the turn. If they have AK they've either beaten you or will likely fold, and if they have an overpair they may also fold to the 1 or more overcards that didn't hit you but which you are willing to bet anyway. Of course, all of this assumes you can do a good job of telling when the flop has helped them and when it has not, something none of us are anywhere near perfect at doing.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I'm surprised no one had made that same comment, Greg. Untill reading your post, I liked Rounder's answer the best... but you make the most pertinent point. Whatever + EV you stand to gain with an all-in move... I feel you can gain almost as much with a standard raise, and trim your negative EV by allowing yourself the opportunity to get out when you know you are beat. Plus, though out of position, you have the opportunity to bet the flop with an overcard on the board and gain some more value with the hand. DS said he picked up the blinds with this play, but I would argue that there existed a bet size measuring less than $12,000 that would have won the blinds as well, without risking his entire tournament fate.
Craig H
Is that you will now be played with when someone has AQ AJs KQ QJs as well as 88 and 99. Second problem is that you will often fold a hand that would have won.
Put another way, a smaller raise does not cause opponnents to make a FTOP mistake.
DS wrote: "Is that you will now be played with when someone has AQ AJs KQ QJs as well as 88 and 99"
Will you really? Then why don't you have a lot more than 12K right now? If they're calling UTG raises with these hands, then they are either great at outplaying everybody postflop, or they are very lucky. I really don't understand how this is a problem, unless they are so aggressive that they're going to play at you preflop with these hands by reraising (and expecting you to fold so often that it's a good reraise). Still, if that's the case, then you should have been able to knock a bunch of them out and have a big stack by simply playing only AA and KK.
Please explain how they're playing all these hands against the UTG raisers and not going broke doing so.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
While playing hands against an UTG raise can be risky and often ill-advised, the size of the raise has a lot of bearing on the risk assumed by either party. For instance against a minimum raise someone could call with weaker hands or trap type hands hoping to get lucky or to see the flop then see what happens. The greater the stacks are in relation to the raise, the more room there is for this type of play. Even if the opponents are not playing purely speculative hands (with position), they could be playing high card hands somewhat for value if the cold raise to them is small enough, especially if they happen to hold a large stack.
I've found out that the biggest weakness of my game is my table image and my readability. Is there a resource (book, website, etc.) that could help me improve this aspect of my game?
Some sessions I have a good table image, but it is too easily influenced by my mood. I know that I need more discipline in order to maintain a good image.
I also know that I have at least one tell, and I don't know what it is. Not knowing what it is is the worst part.
I'd also be interested in hearing how others overcame their table image and readability problems.
Thanks for any input!
Brian
Brian - "I've found out that the biggest weakness of my game is my table image and my readability."
Remarkable. How did you find this out?
"Some sessions I have a good table image"
What is a good table image? You should be able to exploit any table image you have. If you want to play tight, choose inexpensive places to be too loose. If you think you might be easily bluffed, start raising when you suspect someone might be bluffing you. If people always bet after you have checked, suspecting you will fold when they do, occasionally check-raise. If people always raise your blinds, play your blinds like a bulldog for a while. It may cost you some money to play in this fashion, but it is part of the price of playing poker.
"I also know that I have at least one tell, and I don't know what it is. Not knowing what it is is the worst part."
What an interesting statement! How could you know you have a tell, yet not know what it is?
"I'd also be interested in hearing how others overcame their table image and readability problems."
You should be able to sense any involuntary body movements you make. If your heart beats wildly thus causing the blood vessels in your neck to pulsate, or if your hands tremble when you have a good hand, you're a goner. Quit poker and take up golf.
Otherwise, if you are worried about readability problems, be aware that most low limit tells are made by people trying to pretend they hold something other than what they have. If someone to your left has chips in his/her hand and seems to be about to bet or raise, the opposite is usually true. When opponents talk as though things look grim, that usually means things look rosy. You can avoid such tells by cutting out the act.
If you continue chatting when you have a good hand but clam up when you are on a bluff, try cutting the conversation while at the table. If you tend to stop breathing when you are bluffing, remember to control your breathing. If you fumble with your chips during a hand, quit it. Make a move toward your chips only when it is your turn to act, and make the move in the same way all the time.
Sometimes you can tell how someone likes their hand from their facial expression, including their eyes. Some people unconsciously get a very subtle look of pleasure on their faces when they have good cards. (But too much of a such a look could mean they have poor cards). If you are worried about possibly having these mannerisms, wear a hat and some sunglasses. Practice a dead-pan poker face while looking in the mirror.
Hope this helps.
Buzz
I try to bet and raise with the same motions all the time .
Do not say anything about your cards or the board while you are in the hand. I use to talk to much and it cost me quite a few bets before i learned this.
Play your normal game and your image will take care of its self. Trying to project a false image is to much work and not worth the effort.
PokerPL - "Play your normal game and your image will take care of its self."
I agree.
"Trying to project a false image is to much work and not worth the effort."
That may well be true if you play a winning normal game.
Poker is a game of deception. You want your opponents to call your bets and raises when you have a good hand. You want your opponents to fold when you bluff. If Brian's opponents fold when he has a good hand and call when he bluffs, the reason is more likely that his play is too predictable than he has a "tell."
If Brian feels his table image is bad either because his opponents are pushing him around and he can't figure out how to stop them, or because his opponents seem to know when he has a good hand and when he doesn't, then he might consider altering his normal game.
Whatever the motivation for his post, Brian would do well to be less easily read by his opponents, as would we all. A way for him to do that is to occasionally consciously alter his betting style.
Taking advantage of his table image means betting in a less predictable fashion, which probably will involve projecting a false image, at least to start. After a while, that which was at first a false image may become a part of Brian's normal game.
That's pretty much how it worked for me, anyhow.
Now I use my "table image," or at least consciously try to use it, to my advantage. It doesn't take too much work or involve a lot of effort any more, although I admit it did go against my grain for a while, and thus was difficult.
Now, playing my "normal game" involves using my "table image."
As it turns out, different people see me differently. A few very poor players hardly see me at all, being too pre-occupied with their own cards to even notice how the rest of the players at the table are playing. If an opponent is determined to never trust me because he/she saw me bluff once or twice, then I am rarely going to bluff against him/her. Against an opponent who is always going to believe that I have the nuts when I bet, a goal will be to steal pots when I don't think he/she has the nuts.
Poker, as I see it, necessarily involves deception. Don't you want your opponents to think you have something other than what you actually have? Why else would you conceal your down cards from them?
Just my opinion.
Buzz
"Remarkable. How did you find this out?" (regarding my biggest weaknesses)
I have noticed that most of the time I sit down at a table when I'm happy, confident, and really chatty, I do very well at the game. It's as if I somehow throw off the games of my opponents. On the occaisions when I am not as gregarious, my game is usually even or down a bit. My opponents sense a bit of weakness from me, and move in for the kill, so to speak. That's no good for anybody's game. The outgoing, confident image seems natural to me, but I let my mood influence it, which I know is bad. I suppose most of overcoming that is hard work, which I'm not overly afraid of.
"What an interesting statement! How could you know you have a tell, yet not know what it is? "
I know that I have a tell because one of the players in my home game told me I do. He just won't tell me what it is :) He says he knows when I have a monster. He says he can't tell the difference between a bluff and a mediocre hand, but I'm now starting to have trouble getting action on a monster, which is costing me money.
Thanks for the suggestions!
Your playful, confident image may help you, because your opponents begin feel that the game is more about fun and gambling than about strategy and winning. Sometimes, when your losing or in a bad mood, you just have to suck it up and act as if you're just there to have a fun time and expect to lose.
I had this happen to me at a 1-5 game at Binions during the World Series of Poker last week. Some guy from the mid-west kept drawing out on me. He kept cracking my better hands on the end. I went down over eighty dollars. I was feeling frustrated and a little angry, but I sucked it up and pretended it didn't matter. I became social and waited until I could get some of my money back. I knew I eventually would. In the meantime, this guy was losing "my" money to other people. I ended up winning all but forty dollars back when it was after twelve noon and the final table of the world series was starting. My father was saving me a front row seat. As I left, I said "Well, I haven't won all my money back, but I have to go." Pointing my opponent with a smile on face I said: "This guy took all my money and then spread it around the table." By that time he was down close to two hundred dollars. Everyone smiled. I lost but still had and enjoyable time. I would have to make it up tomorrow, which I did. You can't win every time. Keep that happy go lucky image up and you should do better softening up your opponents and making the game more enjoyable for everyone, especially the fish.
I would recommend watching "Mike Caro's" Video Tells and make sure you don't do anything that he shows people doing.
I notice when I'm playing that some people "exude" weakness or strength depending upon their hand. It's like I can just feel it. From, other players I get no feeling at all. I believe that the less you emote internally over a hand, the less likely your opponents will be able to read you. So you might try not to feel one way or another about your hand, just think about the correct strategy.
Table image has little to do with how or what we bet. That's because the time we spend betting is an extremely small fraction of the time we are at the table, and all behavior reflects on our image.
Try this. After every hand, do nothing. If you are out of the hand, and you watched some drastic betting and were surprised at the cards at the showdown, do nothing. If you are in a hand, and your top set gets cracked by a runner runner, do nothing. If you are in a hand, and you showdown bottom pair and you think it's no good, and then everyone mucks, do nothing.
I'm not suggesting that you be a robot. I'm suggesting that acting indifferent to the game and results can make for a good image. And ultimately, truly feeling indifferent can improve results.
Tommy
Paranoia and indecision create the nightmares you describe. You can reduce your paranoia and indecision by playing lesser stakes, playing less hands, and by reviewing past hands and doing more homework. If you found yourself not knowing what to do, spend a half hour later figuring it out.
Find a friend you trust to play against you with a view towards locating that tell. Once you know you can reduce its frequency but you can also do that tell in other situations; just don't exxxxxxagerate it.
- Louie
When the small blind is $10 in a $15-$30 game how loose should you play? We will say the big blind is just a average player and the pot is not raised.
.
I believe in a tight pre-flop approach in most cases.
Though I am not a world class player I would rate my game as well above average; as my overall abilities improve I find I am able to add a few more hands to my list of "starters".
When you are in the small blind most experts agree that your starting requirements in a game with a 2 & 3 chip blind stucture should be [just about] any two cards - assuming the big blind is not a major threat to raise. (15-30 with blinds of 10 & 15 qualifies).
I am one of a small number of people who don't agree with the "call with any two" policy.
I believe ONE [card] is enough if it's a good one.
Seriously, if you think about it for a minute you'll see why folding even the dreaded "72" is probably a mistake when the cost of calling is 1/3 of a bet.
If two others see the flop you are getting 8-1 odds for your call; you need to be very careful post-flop due to your position but these odds are too good to pass up when you only have to beat out (or knock out) two players.
If there are alot of players the same concepts apply although the situaion plays out in a different way.
With six others seeeing the flop you are getting 20-1 odds; you won't win very often but you will prevail enough of the time to show a profit.
More players - less wins - large payoff...
Less players - more wins - small payoff...
Either way calling it costs too little NOT to call.
Best wishes,
J D
on this site, I see ConJelCo listing of Ciaffone book "Omaha Hold-EM Poker". Is that what I want for advanced, P/L omaha??? thanks, Jim
the important thing is that if you spend any real amount of time playing poker you need to read all available books on poker and learn to sift out the good from the bad ones. id read everything Bob writes as he is one of the good ones.
Dare I suggest that ONLY if one is willing and able to "sift out the good from the bad ones" should one "read all available books on poker": Those that don't read critically and who mindlessly accept whatever they read, should NOT read "Stud Poker Blue-Book".
Bad advise is of benefit only to those who can recognize it as bad advise.
- Louie
Zee and Ciafone have written the best Omahaha books.
i dont believe that anyone could ever become a winning player that couldnt sift out the bad from the good in poker books. those that believe everything they read are doomed no matter what. those are the skills that a player must have to be a winner. i guess i address my comments to people that intend to get good rather than someone that wants to read a book while on the toilet and expect to get somewhere.
nt
thanks for both comments, Ray. I borrowed & read your book about two years ago, benefited too. Now have been told about a Ciaffone book, so my question was rather specific. Please respond Jim
i think then you should borrow a copy of all his books.
I did. Thanks for all of your help. Jim
Shit!
I mean, shoot! I always read my poker books on the toilet. Does that mean I'll never get any good?
Sadly yours, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
since you got good-- it follows that you spend too much time on the toilet Greg. perhaps you eat too much bran. my i suggest buying a comfortable chair. or follow Ken's way and eliminate all the good things in bed for reading.
.
That's funny Ray.
Jim: always tell an author from whom you're seeking advice that you didn't pay him for all his work! I wouldn't lend my book to anybody cause my wife and I both study it.
I see your point, Ed--didn't think about that--now I can better understand his comments. A friend brought that book over because he was wanting me to play in an Omaha game that was new in town and knew I had little experience. Reading it sure caused me to see things differently (UNlike hold-em). Now there is a little P/L game which used to be all hold-em, but during several months of my absence they changed to part Omaha. recently on this web site was posting about Ciaffone book, and I was just trying to be sure to get the right one. game is in Houston (underground)-- I live about 1 & 1/2 hours away so don't go often--but been twice now and it is very good game which I hope to go to every week or so. anyway, glad for your post because now I better understand.....Jim
Ciaffone has another book on PL and NL games that is quite good. It has a chapter on PL Omaha written by his co-author, Stewart Reuben. The whole book should be read since it all works together, and info germane to PLO is in all chapters.
P.S. Monitor the rake carefully in all the Houston PLO games.
Here's an interesting idea for which I'd like some analysis from some math/stat geeks. Suppose one had an expectation of 1 big bet/hour and a standard deviation of 12 big bets/hours. If one adopted the following strategy, it seems like one could reduce their session standard deviation: Play 2 hours. Play 4 more after that, but quit if you are ever approximately even. How much would one reduce their session standard deviation playing in this manner? Obviously, one is not reducing the the bankroll one needs to avoid going broke, as poker is still one long session.
Any ideas?
-- Jeff Norman
Let's say the game is stud in order to take blinds and posting out of the equation.
Couldn't one lower his "session standard deviation" to the lowest possible by playing one hand per session?
(I'm not trying to be a smartass and I might be missing your point. I was taught here at 2+2 that the only purpose for tracking SD is to have a measure for comparison and self-evaluation against a theoretical standard. If that is so, then isn't session length irrelevant?)
Tommy
You could reduce it even more by not playing at all.
Session standard deviation only makes sense if your session lengths are all approximately the same length of time. In this scheme you would find your sessions varying from 2 to 6 hours, and that would be like comparing apples to oranges. Furthermore, a scheme like this, assuming all other things were equal, would have no impact on your hourly standard deviation or your hourly win rate.
The best way that I know of to reduce your standard deviation is to improve your card reading skills. This also has the effect of improving your win rate.
Lowering your standard deviation while increasing your EV is the best situation I can imagine for a poker player. Out of curiosity do you think most players are too "tentative" about reading hands? I guess what I'm getting at is that do you think most players don't try to put there opponents on specific hands often enough especially on the turn and river? Hope this question makes sense.
I think that most players who are trying to win put too much emphsis on the first two cards and neglect the play on the later streets. This of course includes reading hands which allows you to occasionally to make some dynamic strategic moves.
Thanks, Tom...for clarifying that if you use the formula to approximate hourly s.d., it will not work if your session lengths are biased. The next question is, how much can you reduce the estimate? I suppose this is just a curiosity.
And yes, many players, even good ones, tend to put too much value on winning and have many small wins and a few large losses. I myself am much more apt to quit if I am +small than -small!! Aren't you?
In addition to Mason's comment. Some players fall into the trap of playing tighter (and weaker) to lower their standard deviation. This method does usually lower the standard deviation at the expense of expectation. This is why Mason's "best" way to lower standard deviation is the best.
P.S. Calling people "geeks" is probably not the best way to get responses to your post. Fortuneately, there are many magnanimous people here.
I don't think being a geek is a bad thing. Maybe older people think it is, but the way it's used now is usually different. For example, Harry Anderson considers himself a geek and the band Weezer is full of geeks and is listened to by geeks. I'm not a math guy to the extent that a lot of people on this forum are, but I consider myself to be a geek. Now if he said nerd...
Agreed. Especially here in Silicon Valley, geek is a badge of honor. Thing is, I spent most of my life undoing the geeky tendencies of youth, and now it's in fashion. Heh.
Tommy
Geek is not so insulting when applied to some arenas of knowledge.
Sport geek is insulting, math geek not really.
IMHO anyway.
Since I have actually bitten the head off of a live chicken, calling me a "geek" is just a commentary on a past that's slightly off of the SD for the modern US.
No. This will only reduce your MEAN session standard deviation, but adopting this strategy will cause you to occasionally play HUGE sessions since you never get close to even; such as when you lose all the money you brought with you.
You can reduce your standard deviation by opting to reduce your investment in "marginal" situations. This means fold when its marginal between folding and calling, calling when its marginal between calling and raising, and checking when its marginal between checking and betting.
- Louie
First a quibble. I think you meant "median", not "mean." "Mean standard deviation" is a term I have never heard, but my interpretation of it would probably be that it means THE standard deviation.
Your post reminds me about the people, and we all know them, who refuse to quit when they're stuck. And I expect that you are right - their typical (note I didn't say "average") session result is a small win, but a couple of times a year they log a session of -5,000.
Dick
Jeff,
You are right, following that scheme would reduce your standard deviation after it is normalized to an hourly number (of course the session sd is meaningless when all the sessions are different lengths). Also, as you pointed out, it would not accurately portray your fluctuations when it comes down to calculating bankroll requirements.
The "problem" is that the ACTUAL hourly standard deviation can only be calculated by taking hourly samplings. You can approximate this by taking samplings at other intervals, but there cannot be ANY bias in the decision to take these samplings, or the approximation is tainted (and the more bias there is, the more tainted the approximation).
I know a lot of players who don't like to leave a game stuck, and therefore play marathon sessions after which they often leave with a small win. If these people are using their session results to compute their standard deviation, they are not getting an accurate measurement. They are also the ones most likely to say, "I have had 15 straight winning sessions!" Big deal.
Tom Weideman
In Super Systems, where David writes about Hi-Lo stud 8 or better, he states that if played correctly this game should have the least varience on ones bankroll. My question is should one expect a lower varience at Omaha Hi-Lo 8 or better then at Texas Hold'em.
there is no section on "hi-lo stud, 8 or better".
There is an excellent section on "hi-lo stud" but not the "8 or better" version. The game was not played with a qualifier at the time the book was written.
There is not a big difference between these games; there is a HUGE difference between them.
There are others out there who could do a better job of explaining why this is so, but for now please take my word for it; if you tried playing "8/OB" using the strategies SUPERSYSTEM offers for "H-L" you would get slaughtered if you were up against decent players.
As to your question(s)...
Omaha/8 is probably the LEAST volatile (low varience) form of LIMIT poker available, although hold'em - in spite of all the the bad beat stories you hear being told - is also one of the less volatile games.
If you are looking to avoid volatility the game you want to avoid is stud [high-only]; this applies to what is often referred to as "real" stud, not to the spread-limit (1-3, 1-5) games that are played with no ante. "Real stud" has a two-tiered betting structure and an ante; the ante doesn't have to be large but it must be meaningful - at a full table the total amount of the antes should be at least equal to one (lower tier) bet. The factor that determines varience is the proportion of the ante to the game, not absolute size. I play in a 6-12 stud game with a $1 ante; this game has a larger varience than 15-30 stud with a $2 ante.
When the "8 or better" qualifier is in effect - and it almost always is - HI-LO stud is a very volatile game, assuming it's "real" stud. It probably has the highest varience of any form of poker, with the exception of low draw (lowball). This is really a moot point since both stud/8 and lowball have practically disappeared.
If you are looking for a game with the lowest varience the best choices are:
"Jacks or better high draw" - Most experts agree that this has the least volatility of any form of poker; that could explain why it's almost impossible to find this game in any cardroom. High draw played without the "Jacks or better" qualifier is almost as stabile but I have never seen this game played in any cardroom.
"Omaha hi/lo, 8 or better" - This game you can find, but it never did become as popular as people predicted it would. Most of the bigger cardrooms have at least one or two games going but it's a boring game (IMO) and it moves very slowly.
Hold'em - They play it everywhere from as small as 2-4 to practically as high as you want to play, and it is a reasonably low-varience game. It has become more and more volatile but it is still among the more stabile forms of poker. It's also the most popular game played in cardrooms; stud is a very distant second.
Stud - There isn't much more to say about it. It isn't insanely volatile, but the higher the ante the higher the varience.
Lowball - This has the highest varience of any form of poker you will find in a public cardroom. In spite of this it is almost completely gone except for a few of the enormous rooms in or near L.A. and S.F.
I'm tempted to editorialize but you caught a break; I was up most of the night and am just too tired. =)
I hope I was able to help.
Best wishes,
J D
Thanks for your imput. I play Hold'em on a regular bases and was thinking about learning Omaha 8 or better.
I have to disagree. The Super/System section on stud/hilo is very applicable to modern stud/8 games. Essentially the only adjustment (beyond the obvious 8 qualifier) is that certain high hands become playable under certain conditions.
But if you never played a pair smaller than aces, you wouldn't be making a huge mistake in most games.
- Andrew
I have to agree with Andrew here. I had the same debate with him awhile back on RGP and it prompted me to go reread the Super/System chapter and I was forced to conceed that he is right. I would recommend reading Sklansky's chapter before reading Zee's book because I think Sklansky does a great job outlining the basic theory of the game after which it is pretty easy to make the adjustment to 8 or better.
People should still read the Zee book though, it is certainly not an either/or situation.
Regards,
Paul Talbot
I have been playing poker for many years, recently I started to play mid-limit (15-30he -20-40 he) poker in L.A. The swings ae big and I find I am weak in these wild games. I usually run over weak tight and loose passive games. I am having a hard time with these wild L.A. games. I would appreciate any insight on how to beat these games.
Thank You,
J.W.
These games are VERY tough to beat. They are extremely high variance as well. If you were to play solely in a wild and crazy LA 6-12 or 9-18 game, I'd say you need a bankroll of 500 big bets or more to be safe.
One big reason why these games are so hard to beat is that good players will focus on the horrible preflop play of their opponents and think they can outplay everyone, when in reality the preflop play may be bad but a lot of the players in these wild games play a pretty mean post-flop game.
That said, your strategy in this game is pretty simple.
1. Play super-tight preflop. I mean SUPER tight. Whatever level of tightness you are imagining right now, it's not tight enough. Be very sensitive to position too. Don't play anything up front except monster pairs and AK. I mean it.
2. Get as many players out as you can on the flop or turn. Your primary goal is to get to the river heads up.
3. Never fold on the river to a single bet if the pot is 3 handed or less.
4. Ram and jam when you have monster draws on the flop in big multi-way pots. (ie. a flop of 7d9dTs and you hold Ad8d. Do not stop raising in this case).
5. Do not ever bluff. Not even once.
6. Wear a seatbelt and bring your straightjacket, and when you get tired of all of it, go find a better game. These games suck and should be avoided. Good luck!
natedogg
.... before last night. After consistently posting wins of between $500 and $1,000 each played day in Vegas over the last two weeks, I hit LA to visit friends and decided to check out the Bike for its Hold Em tourney. After coming out midpack I sat in a 20/40 and coughed up half my Vegas winnings in a time frame that was so fast I didn't know what hit me till I was done. Cards and moves that worked great in LV turned into Meathead moves here. It's like playing on the Internet in a lot of ways. No one folds. Second pair seems to be considered a perfectly reasonable 're-raising' hand in bad position, small pairs into a board full of face cards will call to the river. Geezz it was nuts. I played for years in the Bay Area and even there it wasn't this nuts. I'm scared to go back!
First off these wild loose games are not very tough to beat, you just have bigger swings. I agree that most of these players play terrible pre-flop, but only a few of them actually play well after the flop. Even those that play very well post flop will not make up enough ground to compensate for their poor play on the first round. Playing super tight only applies when the game is super agressive, and if the game is loose passive (yes some of those so.Cal games are passive) you should loosen up rather then tighten up. For example, you don't need monster pairs- any pair will often do up front if the game is agressive on the flop and beyond, you just need to be careful when you don't have an overpair, straight draw or set. Just because the pot is only 3 handed you shouldn't resort to becoming a calling station- there are plenty of times when folding is an easily correct play. Finally you say to never bluff- once again you try to simplify things way too much. Obviously bluffing in these games is something that should be rarely done but if you pay attention to whats going on in the game and you are against opponents who notice your solid image you will find great opportunities to bluff more often you think.
Read the recent threads on the mid-limit forum concerning playing in loose games. Some of the main points are summarized below.
A good strategy for playing against weak-tight players is not a good strategy for playing against tricky but over aggressive players.
For the most part it is not worthwhile to try and limit the field on the flop. Therefore, bet for value on the flop and if you want to thin the field, raise on the turn.
review the concepts of implied odds and reverse implied odds. What sort of hands can you take heat with in a multi-way pot? Do you really want to go to war with AJo in this game?
Play your position. In a tight game early position is not so bad because you have the first opportunity to steal. In the Loco games early position is a real drag.
Be prepared for some big swings.
Avoid stepping on cracks in the sidewalk and don't walk beneath ladders.
i was playing 15-30 last night and took some heat for raising 6s,7s utg. my thought at the time was if im going to play it i better raise with it. this gives me two chances at the pot if i dont hit the flop im looking for, and big cards come then i have a chance to bluff at it, and if i do hit my hand then nobdy can put me on that hand. well the flop came 5,8,9 the nut straight and i got paid off. the guy in middle position had pocket aces and he was livid. now i dont do this type of play very often, but i think this is a very strong play. there main argument was i need pot odds to play a hand like that, but i told them im just trying to win as many pots as i can big or small. any comments are appreciated on this kind of play.
You should only play 7-6s UTG rarely and I see nothing wrong with raising with it so long as you also do that only very rarely (limping is preferred). Also, consider what type of game you're in. If there is a lot of pre-flop raising and action on subsequent streets, don't play this type of hand up front. If the game is more passive, and you have more of a chance of getting to the river cheaply, you can play suited connectors more often.
Guys who lose to cheese with pocket Aces are always livid. Your response, that you're trying to win as many pots as you can, was a good one. I would also have said I always raise with suited connectors. This both makes them feel you're a live one and also allows you to either steal or get some free cards when cheese flops in future hands.
S & M have good discussion in HPFAP on playing smallish suited connnectors up front. Again, it should be done only rarely in the right type of game.
The passage in HFAP about this variance play is my favorite part of the book. Not because I do it, but because others do it so often.
How often should a baserunner try to steal home? How often should a coach try a fake field goal on fourth and 20?
In theory, HFAP's words are useful because of the reasoning behind the play. In practice, they give serious students justification and entitlement to get out of line far more often than the book recommends. For that I'm thankful.
Tommy
I have found if you patiently explain to the player who had Aces, "I would raise with good cards if I ever got them". The irate player will usually calm down and apoligize.
MS Sunshine (mr)
If you want to raise with seven-six suited, then do it out of the blinds when others have limped in. If you want to make a funky play from under the gun, raise with a medium pocket pair like eights or sevens. These plays add just as much unpredictability to your game but at a much lower cost.
When and where do you play?
I don't think it is such a big mistake to make a play like that.
However, there are some things to keep in mind, and this play cannot work for you if you deviate from any of these things.
1. You MUST be able to get away from this hand if you catch a weak piece of the flop and there's action. Don't start thinking, "maybe that guy doesn't really have top pair" when the flop is K62 and you get raised.
2. You MUST have a tight image. Therefore you can't make this play early in the session. Only do it after you've played a couple hours and have shown down several good hands. If you do it early, not everyone will assume you have tight raising standards. SHOW them you have tight raising standards before you deviate from that.
3. You MUST bet the flop no matter what if you get the flop 3 handed or less. This is obvious.
4. You must fold if it is capped back to you. You can obviously call one bet more if it is reraised once, but you can't call two more bets. Just let go and be done.
5. You can only do this move ONCE in a session, so pick your spot well. Try to do it when everyone behind you looks like they'll fold. This hand will play out a LOT better if you have best position. Once you make a play like this, you cannot benefit from it further by doing it twice, so only do it ONCE per session. Period.
This move has worked for me as part of my arsenal because I tend to develop an extremely tight image while playing at a table for more than a couple hours. I usually just sit there and fold a parade of 92o for hours at a time. If I raise it up with 87s after a few hours of folding or only raising with premium hands, I am guaranteed to have everyone misread my hand if I hit. And it shakes them up and puts them in confusion for later when I have real hands.
I don't make real hands very often, so this is good.
More often than not, I simply take it down after the flop, or I get away from it and they all think I missed with AK again.
natedogg
thanks for your comments. alot times people see a post and like to tell you how stupid you are and how they would love for you to come play at there game. your thoughts are exactly what i was thinking. i have a pretty tight image also so the move is very deceptive. thanks again for your insight.
I like what you told them ("I want to win a lot of pots") as long as you don't believe it. OTOH if you really do have a tight image its probably not believable. You might just say that you got bored. Now the next time you go a round and raise with a stronger hand you've given them a reason to give you action. Otherwise say nothing. Let the aces stew. Anybody talking about pot odds at a public poker table is already showing a fairly large gap in judgement.
I am somewhat disturbed to have read Mr. Caro's most recent article about chattering during play in order to obtain information about how to play a hand.
As a neophyte poker player, I have been reading several books (some written by Mike Caro), magazines and this forum to learn as much as possible about correct percentage play, strategies, pot odds, etc. But I have never thought of verbally badgering, chattering or otherwise annoying my opponents during a hand. Am I missing a key component of poker?
Picking up a tell is fair game. It is definitely buyer beware. If a person does six jumping jacks everytime they have pocket aces you are allowed to take whatever inference you care to the next time they get up to do six jumping jacks. But deliberately manuafacturing reactions? How about dropping something on the floor so you can look at their cards when they stoop to pick it up?
I think not. From my limited experience reading Mr. Caro I have been able to glean that he feels virtually any activity that results in winning money from the opponents is not merely acceptable, but applaudable.
This is a great shame on a great game. Call me naive but any game, sport etc. that does not hold an ethical standard has little merit. Looking at people's cards, goading, chastising, gamesmanship may not be dealing from the bottom of the deck, but it is a similar disgrace that has nothing to do with the skills of good poker. Or, are there no limits to what Mr. Caro calls "poker"? If he is correct, then there cannot be any such thing known elsewhere such as sportsmanship as this is a direct conflict to this principle of: "As long as it helps you win it is permissable".
Imagine a scenario where a player inadvertently exposes a card giving the other player a tremendous advantage. Can you ever imagine Mr. Caro (or a proponent of this system of ethics) offering to re-deal? Will we ever see anything resembling this type of sportsmanship at this level, say in the WSOP?
b.h.
YES. You could have seen it this year, not at the final event, but one in which Phil finished second. Read about on pokerpages.com Jim
Who's Phil? I only followed the wsop briefly but did watch the final table. There were two Phil's. Which Phil did you mean, the one who came fifth or the one who came fourth or did you mean another Phil?
I am not sure about spelling-- Phil Helmouth ?? It was not the final event, and if I recall correctly, last 2 players were Phil & Tony Ma. Jim
I have played with Mike on Planet Poker for about a couple of hours. He certainly is "guilty" of coffehousing although truth be told, it didn't bother me in the least which is why I put "guilty" in quotes.
He certainly chats it up a lot and is a pleasure to play with (at least online).
BTW, I haven't read the article you are talking about. I hope to get my copy of CP in a few days.
skp-
PLEASE don't tell me you subscribe to that rag.
Hehe...no...I pick up freebies at the local casino when I pop in there now and then to say hi to some of my buds.
We don't get Poker digest in the casinos but I don't subscribe to that mag either.
Thank God. I can't imagine what kind of sucker would pay for such an interminable (that's intermiNAbleh for our francophonic friends) parade of inane articles and anecdotes. I can probably count on both hands the number of things I've actually learned from CP, and I've been reading it off and on for almost three years.
You can read it now at www.cardplayer.com. Go to articles on the menu.
You missed a very important point that Mike made in that article. He made it clear that the players that he used this verbal gamesmanship on, at no time were offended or aggravated. They enjoyed their time playing Mike, unlike the many mouthy knowitalls we all have to endure too often. Poker is a mind game played with cards and Mike Caro is a Master. I understand you are relatively new to the game and are educating yourself in various ways. I applaud you for this, but keep one thing in mind, poker, like life, isn't fair. Good Luck!
You should have seen Mike in the old days. Crazy Mike was a mild description of him. He would do almost anything to get other players to think he was insane and then use that perception to extract money from them. For example, in draw poker, he would call an opener (who needed a pair of Jacks or better to open) with nothing, stand pat and then turn the hand over on the showdown and laugh.
Verbal manipulation is certainly allowable and is not a violation of either the letter or the spirit of poker rules. Mike does it in a fun way. His opponents enjoy his banter and "craziness." Many of the most famous and best players in the world have been chatterers. Caro is a staunch proponent of honesty and integrity in the game.
This Fox guy's been around.
Lucky urinal indeed.
Happy someone remembered my lucky stall.
I thought it was the lucky stall of the scary looking guy looming behind you :-).
You and John (no pun intended :-)) have very good memories indeed.
By the way, a friend of mine who was playing 9-18 hold em at Commerce now play 15-30 lowball every day at the Normandie, 20-40 on the weekends. Lowball lives at tne Normandie. . .
Andy,
The Normandie is lowball heaven. We all know that :-).
Regards,
Rick
It was a pleasure reading that article as it reminded me of some things I havent done in a game for awhile. It also showed me more about figuring out another players hand. In fact last weekend I said some thing to a player when I was in a hand with top pair(big blind)lousy kicker after she bet behind my check. I instantly knew she was on a draw. This allowed me to muck my hand when the flush got there.
Today in fact I was in a hand, Big blind again, with 5 players to see the flop for a bet. I had stated I was not peeking at my cards. Capped them, checked the flop, when it got to the last guy I was complaining I was gonna bet on the turn and fired when no-one did. THEY ALL MUCKED BECAUSE OF MY BANTER. Well at least in some part because of it. No-one thought I ahdn't really looked at my hand and one encouraged another that I had a semi-monster so theyall went. I turned over my hand to see some crap like J5o to a board with no possibilities of anything. But I won 5 bets.
If you read my trip report on "Other Topics" you can see that this works both ways. I was talking up my hand on the turn (trip 7s) in a game, going on about how I was gonna rake the pot, etc.. This time I was being honest. Well, the case 7 hit on the river and I bet my quads and got called in 3 places--all by full houses waiting to pump it up on the river. Miracle card but my action was killed by my mouth.
KJS
Caro does a lot of work to keep the integrity of poker intact. You need to go back and read that article a little more carefully. He makes it very clear that he is not the guy that sits down, immediately starts talking, and never shuts up. Instead, he is pleasant and sometimes gets into a little mind game with his heads up opponent. One of the things I like about poker is that it isn't sterile. So many things in this country are khaki covered and starbucks stained. Instead of wimpifying poker like so much of the country is, let's keep it a game of tough souls, wits, and analytical reasoning. Caro doesn't advocate doing ANYTHING it takes to get the money. He advocates thinking a little about the pyschology of the game which many people overlook.
good responses all - and am reassured that Mr. Caro has such a good reputation for his integrity. In that light I can view the article somewhat differently. I also appreciate the Poker is not a sterile inanity (like tournament bridge has become with screens, bidding boxes and no talking) - so it is important, as MC says, not to make it one.
regards,
b.h.
I just want to make a general comment concerning some of the things that Caro advocates. First, there is definite value in some of these concepts, though I disagree with his position on image. You can increase your earn by talking appropriately, using tells, etc. However, it needs to be pointed out that these things will only help someone make a little more if and only if that person is already a pretty good player. There is just no way it will triple your income. Furthemore, if, for example, you like to call raises with KTo, it won't really manner what you say.
Was that one of the hands he advocated calling raises with? KTo!?!?!?
Mason has also written about image in general vis-a-vis Caro's recommendations. (I can't remember which book, I think Poker Essays #1). One of his points is that while Caro's wild and crazy image is correct for draw, it is probably wrong for hold 'em where you prefer a tight image.
If Mason is a General and can comment on Caro then this Master Sergeant can also make a comment even if it isn't genereal or even if it is.
Caro has unmistakingly told you all what poker playing is all about. Poker playing is about winning money. Honest poker players, of which I include myself, try as best we can to out play the opposition without chicanery. Caro chooses to employ tactics that some of us find objectionable but in fact are not dishonest or even unethical. The truth is that very few people have the ability to act as Caro suggests to extract information from opponents by constantly chattering during play. I've never played with Amarilo Slim but have heard stories that he never keeps quiet and is always prodding his opponents to extract information. Using this tactic may work for Caro. It may work for you. I know it would work for me. I can carry on a conversation, joke around and not let myself get distracted from the task at hand, winning. If it is not in your personal make up to do something like this then don't bother even trying. Even though I believe I could employ a tactic designed to extract information via constant chatterring to and badgering opponents I don't. But I don't think there is anything wrong with doing so. If an opponent is weak enough to fall for this type of tactic they are weak enough that just playing good solid poker against them will be enough to get the cheese. Chatter doesn't work well against good poker players.
vince
I've played heads-up hold'em about 6 times on-line and I really stink. It's a whole different ball game than I'm used to, can you give me any general advice on how to improve my game? Books with a section on heads-up play....anything!
Thanks
Two major differences between heads up and a ring game are: [1] The qualify of winning hands is DRASTICALLY reduced from a ring game, and [2] Usually nobody flops any pair.
Therefore... [1] You should expect to show-down hands Ace high or better, and [2] YOU need to win most of the pots nobody flops anything.
[1] Means do NOT be inclinded to fold just because the other guy bet, and you need to bet or raise with almost all of your pairs. [2] means you need to bet almost all hands that flop anything; including "good" hands like one-over-card gut-shots.
Most players who play before the flop will routinely see the turn card and rightfully so. You therefore need to be betting often on the turn to encourage these players to fold. I.E. don't just take one stab at the flop.
You MUST identify players who only bet or raise with quality ring-game hands (premium hands before the flop, top-pair or better on the flop). These are the only players against who you should routinely fold when they bet.
- Louie
.,.,.,.,.
HPFAP21 has a section on short handed play where heads up is discussed. It is important that you read this.
You can play for play money on Paradise Poker. It is a good place to practice. I improved tremendously in just a couple of weeks. You get different styles of players to play against. Of course it is not like real money, but it is a place to begin.
You will have to learn by doing. Here are some things I have learned, but I can't begin to give a full account:
1. Play hands that are good for short handed play: any pair, any two cards nine or above, A4 or better, K6s or better, suited connectors and one gappers, connectors down to about 8,7. You can relax these slightly when you are open raised in the big blind because you are getting 3:1 for your call. This depends on what kind of hands the other player raises with.
2. Play aggressively, but not over aggressively. Open raise out of the small blind with pairs, A,9 and better and paints. Raise when you pair the board and see what happens.
3. You really need to get a sense of the other player. This means early in the session, you might go to the river on hands that are not as strong as you would like in order to see how the opponent plays. Some players are super aggressive if you let them get away with it. They will run over you.
I don't know if I am right on all of this, but I have been winning way more than losing.
A very large chapter in a book would be required to even begin to discuss this thoroughly.
.,.,.,.
A zero-one-games with 3 players: BLIND blinds - EARLY and LATE can call or fold. What is optimal stratey according to Game Theory ?
Defining 3 variables: c = (c1,c2,c3) (numbers between zero and one)
c1: EARLY will call with this hand or better
c2: LATE will call with this hand or better if EARLY has folded
c3: LATE will call with this hand or better if EARLY has called
Expected Value(EV) for the 3 players as a function of c is:
EV(BLIND)= c1*c2-1+c1*(1-c2)^2+c3*(1-c1)^2+1.5*(c3-c1)*(1-c3)^2+(1-c3)^3
EV(EARLY)= c1*c3*(1-c1)-(1-c1)*(c3-c1)+0.5*c3*(1-c3)^2
EV(LATE)= c1*c2*(1-c2)+2*c3*(1-c3)*(c3-c1)+0.5*(c3-c1)*(1-c3)^2+0.5*c3*(1-c3)^2
Notice that:
EV(BLIND)+EV(EARLY)+EV(LATE)= 0
Differentiating EV(EARLY) with respect to c1 and EV(LATE) with respect to c2 and c3 and equalizing with 0 to find optmum we get:
EV(EARLY)'(c1)= 2*c1*c3-1
EV(LATE)'(c2)= 2*c2-1
EV(LATE)'(c3)= 3*c3*(c3-c1)-(1-c1)
Solving this system of 3 equations (and multiplying by 1000 - just to get nice numbers) we get:
c1=633.97 * c2=500 * c3=788.67
EV(BLIND)=-399.06 * EV(EARLY)=167.93 * EV(LATE)=231.13
That was easy ?
Big Q: Is there in this game any possibility that any 2 of the players could collide against the third ?
More about that later. I'm working on it.
I won't pretend to understand your equations.
Collusion can only be performed by either Early or Late since Blind makes no decisions. You can "easily" check for collusion by simply adjusting C1, C2, and C3 up and down a little bit (which should reduce the decision maker's EV), and see how this affects the EV of the OTHER two players; which is expected to increase BOTH. The one that benefits most is the one the decision maker is "colluding" with.
Determining the "best" strategy for a pair of colluders is anothing matter completely.
- Louie
I didn't check the calculations, but at first glance they look right. Regarding your question:
>>Big Q: Is there in this game any possibility that any 2 of the players could collide against the third ?<<
I think for this game the best collusive strategy is relatively easy to find. Seems like you just turn it into a head-up game with your team holding whatever the better of your two hands is. If both teammates are out of the blind, then the one with the best hand comes in. If one of you has the blind and the blind has the best hand, the other player stays out. If the non-blind has the best hand, then you work out the proper stay/fold frequency for that hand head-up against an unknown hand with one bet of dead money in the pot.
The latter case above has a few complications, but a quick look tells me they work themselves out - that is, those complications don't seem to bring about any anomalies in proper strategy. I could be wrong about this, though.
Also, I believe that knowledge of the collusion on the part of the third player affects the result, so that should be specified.
Tom Weideman
It occured to me after posting that you may have meant "collusion" in the sense of "accidental collusion" where two of the players play non-optimally and create a negative EV for the third player, but have no knowledge of each other's cards.
The only room for flexibility for this will occur when the two players in question both are outside the blind (I don't think it can happen when the pair has only one decision to make between the two of them). Even in this case, I have my doubts that a no-communication collusive strategy can be found for this kind of game.
Tom Weideman
' ... Seems like you just turn it into a head-up game with your team holding whatever the better of your two hands is. ... '
That is what Louie Landale in a former thread called 'playing the better hand'. There is no doubt that this would be a very powerfull strategy. But it would be cheating - not colluding - in this context.
' Also, I believe that knowledge of the collusion on the part of the third player affects the result, so that should be specified. '
Good point ! We should ask a second Q: What if the third player knows the two others were colluding ?
I thought somebody had already answered in an earlier thread. Just assume Early and Late players maximize the sum of their expectations, or equivalently minimize the expectation of the blind. Surely it would be easy to sit next to your friend and say
"Don't show me your hand. Let's just slow play each other with no raises heads-up. In this game don't worry too much about my raises or overcalls."
Think about bridge. The partners "collude" through bidding without explicit communication. It would be hard to win at bridge otherwise. Ray Zee has already explained how he can harrass an individual player. He could probably do this even if the players were disguised. If one player is too loose then he loses to a table of tight players. But if two players are too loose then they can subsidize each other. This is what happens in California low-limit. Good tight Vegas players get run over by bad loose players who jam every pot. These loose players are unwittingly subsidizing each other. The optimal strategy in these games (super tight) would lose in Vegas, and the optimal aggressive Vegas strategy is not a big winner against a table of bad loose players.
I have not verified any calculations. Suppose you are player U and the other two players are A and B ( with clockwise order U,A B. The question is can A and B play so that U has negative EV (with button equally shared).
I am sure the answer is yes. Everyone playes Nash equilibrium strategy when U is not in blind. (Definition: The strategies form a Nash equilibrium when no one player can change his strategy to improve his EV. Note that this says nothing about what happens if two or more players chamging strategy.) When U is in blind the others choose strategies, so as to minimize U's EV while in blind. Equivalently, they are maximizing their combined EV, but not their individual EV's. You can calculate these strategies, as specified by c1, c2, c3, by minimizing EV(BLIND), assuming you have the right formula for EV(BLIND).
Note: A and B could do this without ever having communicated.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Game Theory as it applies to real poker is a valid subject for this forum. Stuff like the above which is no more than an exercise in Game Theory for the Sake of Discussing game theory and not poker belongs on the other Topics forum or private e-mail. I believe it is unfair to discuss irelevant material in a forum dedicated to poker theory. I open these posts expecting to find Poker Strategy related material and I find Math problems. Math problems that in no way relate to real live poker games. Please Mason Clean up this forum!
Of course if someone can prove the above Game Theory stuff has any relevance at all to real live poker I will rescind my request. Fat chance!
vince
Vince,
You wrote: "I open these posts expecting to find Poker Strategy related material and I find Math problems. Math problems that in no way relate to real live poker games. Please Mason Clean up this forum!"
Perhaps you don't understand how these math problems relate to poker. That doesn't mean other forum participants are incapable of making the connection.
P.S. Did you try to find any of those game theory books I recommended?
"Perhaps you don't understand how these math problems relate to poker. "
Perhaps you don't either. Of course you being who you are would not admit it.
"That doesn't mean other forum participants are incapable of making the connection. "
Yes it does.
"P.S. Did you try to find any of those game theory books I recommended?"
P.S. No. Did you try being honest, admitting when you are wrong and apologizing as I suggested?
Vince
Be nice ! ;-)
PPFaJack,
Please explain the relevancy of your game theory post to live poker strategy. Dare ya. Maybe big mouth Glover will help you or Tom or M. They seem to have all the answers. While you're at ask Mason and that know it all Oz to show us the relevancy of your game theory exercise. This should be fun and enlightening I'm sure. Go back to MIT!
vince
Vince,
While I am not well-versed enough in game theory to follow much of the equations at the start of this thread, I do think that theoretical game theory has some relevance to real live poker, and as such it is is more than just an exercise in abstract math with no practical implications.
I submit that if I learned more about game theory I could see the connections even more clearly, and I suggest that if you learned more about game theory you could see the connections more clearly too. What's stopping you? (what usually stops me is downright laziness or a preference for playing blitz chess or Diablo2).
"I submit that if I learned more about game theory I could see the connections even more clearly"
Well M, when you complete your learning you may have something intelligent to say about this so called connection. Until then you should probably not take sides since you do not know what you are talking about.
Have a nice day.
Vince
P.S. You may find that after thoroughly studying game theory that I am correct or hasn't that possibility entered your math mind?
I am not trying to argue about whether or not you may be correct on certain aspects of your prior interchanges/debates with Tom Weideman, Dirk and Mark Glover.
I'm just saying that I think it cannot be correct to state that math equations dealing with game theory have no relevance at all to live poker or to poker theory in general. Is this what you were trying to say in your original post ("Mason Please Clean Up This"), or am I misinterpreting what you meant somewhat?
Jeez, Vince, I like you too much to so often be arguing with you. At least read chapter 19 in Sklansky's TOP and then see what you think.
"I'm just saying that I think it cannot be correct to state that math equations dealing with game theory have no relevance at all to live poker or to poker theory in general"
No this is not what I said. I said:
Game Theory as it applies to real poker is a valid subject for this forum. Stuff like the above which is no more than an exercise in Game Theory for the Sake of Discussing game theory and not poker belongs on the other Topics forum or private e-mail. ... Math problems that in no way relate to real live poker games. "
Is that clear. Then I challenged with:
"Of course if someone can prove the above Game Theory stuff has any relevance at all to real live poker I will rescind my request. Fat chance!"
Then you, Mark and ....Jack made silly unintelligent answers (well your response was o.k.)which in no way addreesed the issue: Is the post that we are discussing and others like it relevant to real live poker? I say it is not. Mark gave a goofy answer in which he effectively claims that I and I alone on this forum am incapable of grasping the connection. Jack used some silly smiley faced answer to sarcastically attack my arguement. You, I will admit, attempted to make a valid point on this subject. And make no mistake about it. I believe that game theory may someday play an important role in poker strategy. But the discussions here have in no way shown what that role is or how to best implimient it if there is a role. The discussions here are, IMO, nothing more than academic exercises in game theory with no relevance at all to poker.
Someday I may elect to study and learn game theory as best I can but I'll be damned and consider my self more of an idiot than Mark Glover does if I will learn game theory so that I can use it in poker strategy only to find I've wasted a whole lot of time. Those respected poker people that are proponents of the power of game theory and cannot point out that power, but claim that it is there, are doing a great injustice to those of us that listen to them.
So there.
Vince
Vince,
You wrote: "Mark gave a goofy answer in which he effectively claims that I and I alone on this forum am incapable of grasping the connection."
LOL.
I actually think you are capable of grasping the connection. Interestingly, you are the one who seems to believe you are incapable of grasping the connection.
"I actually think you are capable of grasping the connection. Interestingly, you are the one who seems to believe you are incapable of grasping the connection"
Again divert from the issue. Show us the connection of the post in question to real live poker. That's the issue not me.
vince
Vince,
I'd like to think you are just being silly, anyway. I hope your logic isn't really as flawed as you make it seem.
Yesterday (at 11:42 a.m.), you asserted: "Mark gave a goofy answer in which he effectively claims that I and I alone on this forum am incapable of grasping the connection."
Ninety minutes later, I corrected your misinformation: "I actually think you are capable of grasping the connection. Interestingly, you are the one who seems to believe you are incapable of grasping the connection."
Today, you wrote: "Again divert from the issue."
Perhaps your understanding (or not understanding) the connection between this game theory problem and poker is a digression. If so, it was you who initiated the digression.
In any case, I believe I was quite justified in correcting your misrepresentation of my views.
"In any case, I believe I was quite justified in correcting your misrepresentation of my views."
Naturally. You wouldn't be Mark Glover if you didn't. How about proving the relevance of these silly game theory posts that were the main issue. Or are you like the other guy, Not Obligated. I really think that non obligated means that he should move to the other forum topics with non poker related posts. Don't you agree?
vince (silly vince that is)
Vince,
You wrote: "I really think that non obligated means that he should move to the other forum topics with non poker related posts. Don't you agree?"
No, I don't agree. I think non-obligated means not obligated, and I feel it would be rather arrogant if you really believed anyone actually owed you an explanation.
Another poster once compared you to the little shepherd boy who constantly cried, "Wolf!" I think it is an apt analogy. You seem to delight in playing the fool, so you should not be too surprised when people suspect you are trolling rather than attempting to engage in serious discussion.
Earlier, I noted: "Perhaps you don't understand how these math problems relate to poker. That doesn't mean other forum participants are incapable of making the connection."
You replied: "Yes it does."
With responses like this, perhaps you can understand how I, for one, believe it is unlikely you would accept any connection between this game theory problem and poker--no matter how obvious the explanation might be.
Now go tend to your sheep.
Ninety minutes later, I corrected your misinformation: [etc]" A sure sign of a mark is his or her insistence on the little things, while being convinced that he or she is perfectly capable of seeing the forest beyond the trees. He or she, at the same time, ardently believes that the other party is a fool for mistaking said tree for ..just a tree.
In other words, Mark : your name might've been aptly chosen.
PS : Vince Lepore is correct on another issue, also. "Non-obligated" means at least "not willing", if not "not capable", in a web forum context.
PPS : Game Theory is most certainly relevant to poker playing, last time I checked. Even things which do not readily seem to have any relevance, at first sight, turn out that they do. But I do not know what are the small and "insignificant" Game Theory things Vince Lepore is talking about.
"But I do not know what are the small and "insignificant" Game Theory things Vince Lepore is talking about."
Cyrus,
I'm not sure where you got the above but I may have said something like that somewhere. Below is a response I gave to M in a previous post. It is and has been my position on game theory.
"Game Theory as it applies to real poker is a valid subject for this forum. Stuff like the above which is no more than an exercise in Game Theory for the Sake of Discussing game theory and not poker belongs on the other Topics forum or private e-mail. ... Math problems that in no way relate to real live poker games. "
... Then I challenged with:
"Of course if someone can prove the above Game Theory stuff has any relevance at all to real live poker I will rescind my request. Fat chance!"
From the first sentence in my response you will see that I believe that Game Theory has relevance when developing a poker strategy. However, I also believe that most of the game theory exercises done on this forum use poker hands to discuss game theory but have no value whatsoever in the discussion of poker. If that makes sense, you understand what I am saying better than I do.
vince
"Of course if someone can prove the above Game Theory stuff has any relevance at all to real live poker I will rescind my request. Fat chance!"
No we don't ! We are in no way oblgated to prove anything !
"No we don't ! We are in no way oblgated to prove anything !"
Not obligated = Not Capable. I guess.
vince
Vince,
On 12 May, you issued the following plea concerning game theory: "Your help in my gaining an understanding of that which I know nothing of is appreciated."[1]
On 26 May, you wrote: "Well M, when you complete your learning you may have something intelligent to say about this so called connection. Until then you should probably not take sides since you do not know what you are talking about."
LOL.
-----------------
[1] Vince Lepore, "Game Theory and poker," 12 May 2001.
Mark,
Great tactic. When you do not have an answer divert attention to another subject.
vince
I am in so much disappointment! Mr. Glover, I have for two weeks so much read these talk threads of game theory ideas. Before, maybe you see my posts that I was thinking maybe to ask to protege you. You said you were thinking in big freedom and I don't think you were thinking like some other poster was god or to be so adulated or kissed on bottom. I was thinking you were the real poker guy who could help me with the real play of poker. But now I don't think so!
You last week or something were so much kissing Mr. Weideman. I think his bottom could be maybe sore now. Just like some with authors you were just kiss-kiss-kiss, yes Tom, Thank you Tom, I kiss you Tom. (This surprise me because I was thinking you follow Abdul.) But now for even more time you say nothing of poker. (Maybe because Tom make you feel so big with agreement on this subject?) It is all just theory of games and saying of awful sayings to Mr. Lepore. The games theory is good but Mr. Lepore is maybe right one this time. Put it into poker and maybe you will look less as no real poker boy, kisser of bottoms. But I will say I do not look for mentor from you now any more. I am sorry. I even look to your old posts a little and can see no poker of the real game. You are little bit smart I think and very good quoter, but why do you never talk of the real poker? I feel funny but will give you an advice. I think you need to see poker how it is and think in free way for yourself, Mr. Glover, so Tom's bottom will get better!
So mien heir, you think you are funny, huh dieter boy? Vell ve hav vays of making you vish you vere not geborn! Be wery careful miene freund. My ex-vife was a deutcher person and she taught me a lot of the vays of the german high command. So you better vatch out..you better not cry..you better not make me mad ..I'm telling you vhy. I don' like it das is vhy!
vince or wince to you!
>>The games theory is good but Mr. Lepore is maybe right one this time. Put it into poker and maybe you will look less as no real poker boy, kisser of bottoms. <<
First of all "put it into poker" has been done on several different occasions on this forum. One very interesting thread occurred a long time ago when David Sklansky provided a Seven Stud hand and asked that for an "optimal solution" employing Game Theory. Paul Pudaite provided one. I think a lot of insight was gained from this solution because the optimal solution was certainly not an obvious one. From my perspective, as a person that does not have an in depth knowledge of Game Theory, the optimal solution can provide a good THEORETICAL point that provides INSIGHT to how to play a situation so that a player that is better than me can't gain a significant advantage.
I would urge that derogatory terms like "kissing bottoms" not be used. I've been inappropriately derogatory myself but I was wrong and I think that using such terms detract from the discussion and don't help add to the body of knowledge that can be attained.
"First of all "put it into poker" has been done "
Tom,
First, please do not associate me with this dieter character. The fact is, as I have stated, the post at issue cannot be "put it into poker". It is an exercise in Game theory but not poker. It has no relevance to real poker.
"David Sklansky provided a Seven Stud hand and asked that for an "optimal solution" employing Game Theory"
I did not read Sklansky's "optimal solution" but will take your word for it that it has value for poker players. I have never claimed that "game theory" cannot be used by a poker player in certain situations. The problem as I see it is that almost all (vast majority - most - very high percentage) of the discussions on this forum concerning game theory have no relevance to playing poker. They are academic exercises in game theory. The authors of these posts would have you believe that there is value (Poker strategy) in there examples. I believe the opposite is true. I believe that invalid concepts do more harm than good. Consequently, I challenge any poster that claims there is such a thing as a game theory optimal poker strategy to back up their claim. So far none have taken me up on this. They always respond by attacking me as an "idiot", "moron" or with some other choice term. However, they never back up thier claims. It is one thing to define specific situations in which one may effectively apply a game theory optimal strategy but quite another to define a specific applicable game theory optimal strategy for playing poker.
Vince
I think they will be able to come up with some good examples and I urge them to do it.
By the way much of your gripe seems to be related to the posting of what you see as purely theoretical rather than practical poker. While I don't agree with your assessment that such theory is totally useless in a practical live sense, I can't help noticing that even if you are 100% correct about this aspect, that the title of this forum is still General Poker Theory, not General Poker Practical Concepts. So what would be wrong with posting pure poker theory on a poker theory forum?
"So what would be wrong with posting pure poker theory on a poker theory forum? "
Nothing. It's posting game theory problems under the guise of relevant poker strategy that is the issue. The game theory problems that I've seen posted here are in no way related to poker theory other than the use of poker hands to demonstrate the game theory. It's the reverse that is necessary. Maybe you didn't read my last post very well or maybe I din't explain myself very well. Either way it's ok you wake up with yourself.
vince
You men are terribly right! I am sorry I am sounding funny some days. It is I think just to be difficult to talk good with writing. (I guess I am even sounding bit German or something? <(:^] ) But I try because you are the coolest of all men and I am so happy to associate with Mr. Lepore. I will now call you Vince! 8-] My friend say I need no Mr. Okay, so right!
Yes Tom you have a right idea that these theory of games we can put in poker and give us the good intuitions. I see this here some days. I just associate with Vince that I will be so happy to see them always put to poker so that we may us them in the most cool and real ways in the felt tables.
I am apologizing for all derogatory terms in my postings. I am just disappointing with Mark. I am reading him so much times say we are to think only in all free ways, and do not worship any the posting men. But then I see him so much worship Mr. Weideman and it seems never talk of the real poker, just little wrong sentences and quoting things. So OK he is worshipful. So cool then. But I will try to not derogate now, but oh I was needing mentor to learn the top poker play and I will not be looking at Mr. Glover now. But I will love him. He is fellow man of mine, so I will just love him. Mark I did an apologize. You are maybe cool guy. I love you. I am hoping you love me (but maybe just not mentor for me). Will you love me Mark though I said some awful saying of you? Will you love me now?
.
You do love me Mark! Thank you and I love you more. Please but one thing, not to say the awful sayings to Vince. I am associating with him! Talk only in loving way. Thank you man! @8^]
"Please but one thing, not to say the awful sayings to Vince. "
Danke Dieter, du bis meine freunde!
Wince
dieter,
I'm surprised that you've learned to eliminate all those pesky capitalized nouns, yet you still seem to struggle with English syntax. Nice job, but as Yoda might say, faking think I you are.
John
^
Oh you fellows are such very smart, boys. This is why I am loving you so much! I am glad I will never try to fake you guys out. For sure I am fake, IF I was faking... But who is faking? I am thinking you fellows are hearing me to be German or close by country? This is so much what people tell me I am probably sounding. They say, "You are not real German man." I have to say they are so right. I am not German or any other place. Well, I am some place. I am here! 8-] But with serious words I will say I am just American. I will not want to be German or try to fool anyone. (Besides I know you boys are such razors to never be fooled. You are coolest of poker men!) Well I do want to be German or something, I think. Yes it is deep in me. But I know I cannot do it. It is little bit confused, I think.
But then anyone maybe wonder why am I to sound bit German or something to everyone?? Okay, I guess I know. It is little bit embarrassing, little bit strange maybe, but I will say with sincere lips. It was that many several years ago I get SO into some characters on T.V., I just love them so. How funny and nice they are with their monkeys and muscles and other good things. Not just one, but some few of them. They are always German and Austrian and close by men. I love these men! They are best of all I have seen. These cool guys they are LIFE to me! So I just try always to be talking like those cool men. After little while I am talking like them all the day. I then take dieter for my name because it is so cool. Little bit longer and I cannot stop. I continue talking that way so much all the time. Then I notice (this part is bit strange and I feel scared when I first notice. <:-0 ) I cannot talk in old way I used to talk anymore! I speak no German even, but now I am able to talk ONLY this T.V. German way. This is maybe little bit silly I think. I am apologizing now. But it is me... dieter. 8-) I guess I got little bit too much into those men?
But this is okay. I feel not hating of these men who give me this voice. I am making good from it. I have fantasizing that man like me maybe play poker. So I am learning poker! This is how I find you nice people! Now I will learn to poker and make money out of lemons or sows ear. This is why I am looking for really top mentor to show me how to win the real cool way of poker. I know I will learn all the poker winning things so good because I will learn of this mentor exactly as I did learn the German men on T.V. I will put my life into it! I will BE cool poker man too! Maybe mentor for me can be Mr. M? M - I like that. It is simple little tiny name. It is also first letter of my Mama. She was one of first people in my life. So maybe M will be first mentor for me? But I am also associating with Vince, so maybe I think about it more now. Thanks to you cool men for answering to my posts. You are my idols! (But Mark I just love, not like idol any more because he is I think little bit mean man. But he is loving me too! Maybe I am helping him to become more nice man. 8-)
I never had a mentor either (in anything). It is easy to feel a bit lost sometimes, dieter, but the truth is that we must learn to rely upon ourselves. This is true in poker and in life. Anyone looking for an idol would do just as well picking Porky Pig or Donald Duck as Colonel Klink. Even in some of the world's religions it is written (Christianity: "You are the Light of the World.") (Buddhism: "Be ye lamps unto yourselves"--Buddha in his farewell address, exhorting the monks not to depend upon him, or the order, or the scriptures after his death, but rather upon themselves).
It is human nature to wish for a leader, one to emulate, etc. We can learn from such people, but in the final analysis it all comes down to our own understanding and application of our knowledge, and to our own character (which we can develop gradually as well).
Looking back at watershed events in my life, it seems that my greatest successes have come when embracing this concept, and my greatest failures have come when placing the power or responsibility somewhere outside myself. This seems accurate whether the issues were outwardly measurable or were measurable only by success or failure of my personal character in a given situation.
Hi Dieter,
I think that it is wiae of you to "associate with Vince". I believe it's good that we both feel the same way about game theory. It will make our "association" run smoother.
But as much as I hate to admit it we cannot "derogate" as you say Tom or Mark for opting for game theory optimal play over intutive play. They are correct when they claim that game theory optimal strategy will win against intuition. Now for your first assignment I want you to tell the rest of the class why this is true.
Your Mentor,
Vince
Vince!
You know I like you, and respect your opinion, and consider you an asset to this forum. That said, this is the kind of thread that men like us should generally avoid.
Guy
O.K I give.
Vince
' What happened to raising? '
Good Q !
Other Q's:
What if we expanded the game to 5 or 10 player's ?
What if we expanded the game with a second round of betting ?
What if we ... ?
More about that later. I'm working on it me-self.
Hi!
Looking for the best books on 5CardDraw. Any comments and suggestions welcome...
Stephan
Super System has extensive coverage of this, including odds tables
Mason's got a book called, I think, something like Winning Strategy in Draw and Lowball. Also, an oldie, John Fox's Play Poker, Quit Work and Sleep 'til Noon,, but it's probably very hard to fine. Mike Caro had a draw poker report, but again I'm not sure if he still offers this.
Those are the ones I had in mind already. But thanks for confirming...
I will do my reading and get in that juicy home game next door!
Thanks, Stephan.
Also check out Winning Poker Systems by Norman Zadeh. It is one of the best and I saw it remaindered for a couple of bucks at B&N a year or so ago.
I just read Tommy Angelo's story, "The Worst Beat Ever" on pokerpages and it is essentially a word for word recount of a story that TJ describes in one of his books. I want to know why Tommy did that without first writing "this is an excerpt from TJ's book". What's up?
Craig H
Geez craig your really pushing this issue by posting it on most sites.. I dont get where your going with this pettiness...
jg
Craig,
Good question, perfectly legit. Here's your answer. Feel free to copy and post it wherever else you've asked your question.
I collect a tremendous amount of ideas while playing and then come home and put them in various files. Some get expanded on later. The vast majority don't. I have enough stuff to write at least 100 articles and a couple books.
The spark for "The Worst Beat Ever" was the idea of using the "That which does not kill him makes him stronger" quote in reference to a bad beat. So I set out to come up with the worst beat I could concoct, and quickly decided that losing to a hand that had NO outs would be as bad as it gets. This would require dealer error, and I made up the story you read.
I had not and have not read TJ's book that contains a similar story, but I heard about it right away when "The Worst Beat Ever" appeared in Poker Digest a few months ago.
The only explanation I have, and if this stretches credibility, I can't help it, because I'm more baffled than anyone, is that somewhere along the way I heard mention of TJ's hand at a poker table. It might have gotten logged in my subconscious. I know it didn't get logged any higher than that. It's not in my notes. And there is no way I would EVER willfully make up a story so close to an actual event without making reference in the article to the actual event.
The only other explanation, again I admit it sounds implausible, is that I made up a story that coincidentally resembles TJ's story. This is what I believe happened.
Either way, I still had a blast writing the thing, but I truly regret the similarity of the two stories even though I had no preawareness and broke no ethical code.
Tommy
Greetings,
Do you think a tell tale sign a of weak player is constantly complaing to the floor about not keeping the games full? Or those who constantly complain about people who walk? Even in 7stud games!?
I suspect the reason these people complain are because short handed poker forces them to actually play poker as opposed to simply waiting for good hands.
I strongly suspect this statement is true, though I welcome all comments! :)
What do you think?
I would say it's a sign of a weak person more than a weak player, but I'm sure here is significant overlap.
I have a bone to pick with something you said, though.
I suspect the reason these people complain are because short handed poker forces them to actually play poker as opposed to simply waiting for good hands.
Don't confuse smart poker with weak poker. Shorthanded/full game/no limit/low limit are all real poker, they are just different. A good player at one style may not be as good at another. These people then complain about "not playing real poker" when they don't do as well as they think they should.
Eric
A good poker player should always be able to make adjustments, and playing 5 or six handed should be one of the adjustments they are able to make.
Granted there are a different set of skill (in playing short vs pt limit etc), however it is much easier playing a full limit game than any other.
I dn't see what is objectionable about my comment.
True enough, a good all-around poker player can do all the things you describe. I suspect that when you use the phrase 'good poker player' you mean that all-around good player, which is fair enough. I know people who are very good shorthanded hold'em players at the low to mid limits, but are mediocre in other games. They are good players at their special games, but not all-around good.
The objectionable part (to me) is the contention that any form of the game or style of playing is somehow not real (or less valid, etc) when compared to some other form of the game or style of playing.
I suspect the reason these people complain are because short handed poker forces them to actually play poker as opposed to simply waiting for good hands.
I contend that waiting for good hands in most full hold'em games is a significant part of playing that game properly. It is no less "playing poker" than proper play for the shorthanded game, it is just different.
It is true that being unable to adjust means that these players are not good all-around players.
I guess I would have been happier if you had written shorthanded poker forces them to play in a style they are not comfortable with rather than the implied elitism with its hierarchy attached to the two different games and their attendant styles of play.
Eric
In the low limit games I play in, I think those that do not want to play short handed probably do not play it well because they never play shorthanded. I think the reason they do not want to play short handed is that they want to play for bigger pots and the blinds come too fast.
Hello, this happened 5-25-01........
In a 3-6 kill game this situation occured. It was a kill and after the flop first player checked, second player was assumed to have checked, third player bets out, the fourth(me),fifth, and first player all call before second player decides she wanted to bet out originally. Player three, who had bet to begin with and was called by three player, pulls back his bet and mucks his hand. I call for the floorperson. What is the proper call in this situation?
A) Does the original bet stay with three callers?
or
B) Does the second player still have the right to initiate the start of the betting round?
If the floor made the right call. Here it is. The floor pulled back the third players bet and all callers bets. Then let action start with the second player.
I could be wrong but I think the call is wrong. I believe A to be the correct call here. In the end, I flopped three 5's, turned a full house, and rivered four of a kind!!!
Thanks for your help!! Responses welcome.......
It is cardroom policy dependant (of course), but the usual way to handle the situation is to let the action stand as if the second player had checked. Then warn all the players about acting in turn (in a timely fashion) and admonish the dealer for not controlling the action properly.
Eric
floor is wrong as usual. after two callers which if given enoughtime for the person behind to object which she didnt, the bets stand. the one who took his bet out should have to leave it in and lose. everyone should have a chance to bet. but if they let the action pass them with enough time for them to object then they are assumed to have checked. no other way works in practice.
Shouldn't player who took his money out simply have to put it back and get to see the flop or next card? That seems much fairer to me.
Yes...... The third player should have got to keep his cards. The betting should have stayed where it was. The only thing is, the third players cards did not hit the muck pile until the dealer took the cards and placed them on the muck. I told the dealer not to muck those cards several times. He did not listen to me.
I thought that when action has taken place in four different positions that those actions stand and can not be back tracked.
This player who bet out would have been stuck through the entire hand because he would have made a full house on the turn.
Bad luck for you with quads:)
As floor, I would probably refund him the money either from pot, or from house (maybe comp lunch). I'm a softie, I just hate to see people lose money based on mistakes and confusion, even if it is their duty to know the rules.
Russ
This person called preflop, bet, got three way action and then second player decides you skipped me and wants to bet out. The second players action as far as I am concerned should have been the final action on that betting round.
This third player is very familiar with the rules. His agressive style should have bit him in the butt. This time he gets away with it.
If second player wanted to bet out in the beginning she should have raised when action then came to her. All the action should not have been taken back with more than two players acting after the original bet by third player.
I do agree with Eric's reply.......He should not lose though. He should be able to get his cards back (as long as the dealer has not mucked them already). His bet should have been the start of the action. The dealer in this case didn't listen to me. He let them touch the muck and then pulled them off.
Does anybody have the correct rule for this situation?
What is the correct call???
http://www.neo-tech.com/poker
its alot about hustling and angles and stuff but has some good insights and is fun to read.
It's one of Frank Wallace's books originally published in the 1970s, he put in on-line a few years ago. It is fun to read and can certainly start some ethical discussions.
Hi, all
I posted a similar query on RGP so I'm trying to cover a number of bases here.
Basically what I'd like is a list of books you feel relevant to poker with the exception of the traditional Sklansky/Zee/Malmuth/Brunson/Whoever-Else "how to play" poker books.
What I'm looking for are those works that can be used to understand poker from perspectives other than the specifics of the game itself. As an example, there's a local player "western Washington state" who insists that the book, "The Tao of Pooh" gives philosophical insight that can assist in poker.
I'm compiling my own list to read or reread and I'll post that later, right now I'm trying to get some outside insight to see where I've got leaks in my curriculum pokerae.
Thanks in advance.
Read books that deal with subjects that are metaphors of poker, like war, business, sports, etc. Also, read books that discuss components of poker like math, persuasion, psychology, finance, etc.
War: The Art of War by Sun Tsu, On War by Clausevitz, Strategy by Lidell Hart.
Business and Finance: strategy books by Kenchi Ohmae (Mind of the Strategist), Avinash Dixit (Thinking Strategically), Peter Drucker (too many to mention), and Michael Porter (Competitive Strategy, Competitive Advantage).
Books about trading by Jack Schwager (Market Wizards, New Market Wizards, Stock Market Wizards), Bob Feduniak (Futures Trading), and Van Tharp (I forgot the title).
Psychology and persuasion: John Grinder, Richard Bandler, Anthony Robbins, Robert Dilts (go to the search engines to find out about these guys).
Math: ask Mason Malmuth for recommendations.
Sports: Charles Garfield (Peak Performance), James Loehr (The New Toughness Training for Sports, Harvey Pinckney (this is probably the wrong spelling, he writes about golf philosophy), Education of Body Builder (by Arnold), Tao of Jeet Kune Do by Bruce Lee, Mastery by George Leonard, Secrets of Inner Strength by Chuck Norris.
Big Deal by Anthony Holden
Inside the Poker Mind by John Feeney
Shut Up and Deal by Jesse May (a novel)
The Man With the $100,000 Breasts by Michael Konik
The Money-Spinners by Jacques Black
Easy Money by David Spanier
I'm looking to buy:
"Big Deal" by Anthony Holden
and
"Man with $100,000 breasts" by Michael Konik
Where can I get these books since they are out of print?
Does anyone have these and are willing to sell (I will pay top dollar).
Thanks!
Big Deal, Biggest Game in Town and a few more are available at www.mobbooks.com
You gotta be kidding me......
"Big Deal" for $125
I just saw one sold on ebay for $30.
You may find one there and you may pick up a bargain. I have seen copies sell for as little as $10 and as much as $170. Depends on how many people see the auction and are interested. But if you think $125 is high, check the prices on www.bookfinder.com which is the most complete search engine for out-of-print books.
.
I found this an interesting problem, so I copied it from pokerpages. I hope this is OK with Bob Ciaffone, Poker Pages and 2+2. If not so, I want 2+2 to delete this message.
" You are playing $20-40 limit hold'em with a bet and three raises allowed
You pick up the Qc-Jc in the small blind. All fold around to the button, a fairly aggressive player, who opens with a raise. You should
a)Fold, because you have a bad hand to call a raise with
b)Call and hope to buy help on the flop
c)Reraise, to knock out the big blind"
What would you do in this situation?
Etowah
"Call and hope to buy help on the flop
Explanation: Examine closely the character of your hand. It is one that must buy help from the boardcards to win the pot. When you have a hand that needs improvement, there is no sense in trying to knock people out of the pot in this type of situation. You have no objection to the big blind calling a raise here; it is not like he will be seeing the flop for free. Save your power plays for hands that might win a showdown heads-up without improvement, hands like 7-7 or A-J."
I was a little suprised about this answer. In fact I would have thought that both other options would be the superior play, not sure which one being best. I just can´t see a reason for calling 1 1/2 small bets with a hand wich might be dominated, especially when out of position. When I raise back, I might pick up the pot on the flop without improvement. Folding against a hand wich might easily be ahead preflop can´t be a big mistake neither.
Probably Í´m missing something here. But what is it?
Etowah
A while ago, I posted a hand in which I had Q-Js in the blind and was raised by a good, tricky, aggressive player in late position. David Sklansky said that my call of the raise was marginal, that given the skill and playing style of the raiser, a fold wouldn't have been wrong.
I think a raise is definitely wrong. You can say that when you re-raise you "might pick up the pot without improvement" with any hand. But why do it with what is essentially a drawing hand from poor position?
I think youre missing the point here. If the guy is agressive he may be trying to steal with a wide variety of hands here. I think that image plays a large role in this hand. Play according to how your opponent percieves you. I could be wrong but depending on your opponent, and his perception of you, you could play the hand any of the 3 ways. Sometimes folding would be best, sometimes calling and sometimes folding would be best. It all depends on the situation IMO.
Goat must agree wholeheartedly with your thoughts.its exactly my way of dealing with sitaution.type of player he is and his perceptions of the players he`s trying to run through... the bunching factor might take effect here if anything and again probably not
jg
I think Bob's answer is the best answer if and only if you choose to play this hand at all. I think the choice to play here depends on whether you think the BB will come along for another bet.
If it looks like the BB won't come, I think you have a clear fold. A drawing hand out of position is big trouble and you can trap yourself really easy if you're not careful.
If the BB does come, now your opponent is making the odds better for your drawing hand and taking away some of the strength of the button hand. True, you are still out of position, but the extra player maybe enough to justify seeing the flop.
Depending on what comes, you have to play even better after the flop if you happen to catch a passable but not great hand.
That's my 2 cents for what it's worth
Mike
I play in a game where it is considered customary to raise from the button - when you are first in - with (almost) any two cards.
This being a fairly loose game it does not come up all that often, but when I am the small blind (or the big blind with the small having already folded) I reraise approximately 80% of the time regardless of my hand.
** Of course, sometimes I am fortunate enough to pick up a big hand; these are included in the 80% figure.
I then bet out on the flop expecting - and hoping - to get raised; the button usually obliges. His raise is usually indicative of weakness - if he has a big hand he will wait for the turn or even the river to raise - but if he calls I am probably looking at a big hand.
Every once in a while he will even fold. -:)
I then call his flop raise and fire at the turn if I have little or nothing and vary my play if I happen to flop something big.
After I call his flop raise and bet the turn, he is usually convinced to muck all but his best holdings.
If I had to guess I would say I win 75% of the time when I have nothing. Added to the pots that I win when I do have the better hand, this is a very profitable play.
I KNOW this would not work against better opponents but against this group it is almost a reflex action.
It has a very high success rate AND it "trains" the button not to "abuse his raising priveledges".
As I said, I'm spoiled in this regard so I'm not sure what the best play would be in this situation against an unknown opponent.
I'm sure you could make a case for all three options, but the raisor would have to be extremely tight before I would give any serious consideration to folding.
With "QJs" I absolutely disagree with letting the big blind see the flop for only one more bet. I would lean toward raising if I thought that's what it would take to get rid of him; if he call two cold (or caps it) I have at least done all I was able to do to get rid of him. If I call he is getting 5-1 odds to call. At that price if HE winds up beating me I have only myself to blame.
It's not the end of the world if he does call a double raise; my hand does alot better than most people seem to think, even with having to be out of position.
Best wishes,
J D
In HPFAP we recomment that you reraise (and I routinely make this play). This will usually knock the big blind out and make it tough for your opponent to call if he doesn't flop anything (or already hold a big pair). Furthermore, notice, that when an aggressive player raises first in on the button he could easily be holding a hand like QT or J9 that you dominate.
What about a button who will go to the showdown with a decent ace? Does that change things? What about the big blind? If he's weak, would it lean you towards calling? I would tend to just call, as Bob C suggests, unless the button was out of line and my hand is likely the headsup favorite. Regards.
What Mason is telling you is that when playing poker it is almost always correct to be the aggreesor and try and take control of how a hand is played. The above is a classic example of how that is accomplished.
Vince
Vince, I agree with your idea. I still think you need to be a favorite, on average, handwise, to the button. The typical playable hand range here might be 77-AA, AK-A9, any card jack or bigger. As such, QJ, is on the edges, suited or not. It is also one of the weakest headsup showdown hands of the above. If you are not the favorite, and you run into someone with a showdown hand, you are looking at the wrong end of the horse. If the big blind was a problem, I would raise or fold, ya know, the old cliche. The Minister of Truth sends his regards. R
backdoor,
I cannot argue against your conclusions. I think they are sound and following them you will never get in too much trouble. Mason's idea is also sound albeit more aggressive. For that reason I like his way of playing the hand.
Vince
Vince,
You wrote: "What Mason is telling you is that when playing poker it is almost always correct to be the aggreesor and try and take control of how a hand is played."
Do you think Mason is telling us that all betting rounds usually will get capped when two players--who both follow 2+2 recommendations--get involved in a hand?
Personally, I prefer selective aggression over almost-blind aggression.
"Personally, I prefer selective aggression over almost-blind aggression. "
That's probably why you are a loser. You are a loser aren't you? If you weren't you wouldn't make silly inuendo's about comments such as the one I made. It's obvious you do not understand what it means to "try and take control of how a hand is played." There is nothing in any recommendation that I have ever read that would lead two poker players following 2 + 2 recommendations to routinely cap betting rounds. Unless they were idiots or just didn't understand what Mason and David were trying to tell them. I haven't read everything 2 + 2 authors have written but I'm sure you have so how come I don't see the reference to their work that tells palayers to routinely cap a betting round when heads up against another 2 + 2 proponent. You being Mr. Reference and all.
Vince
Vince,
Earlier, you wrote: "What Mason is telling you is that when playing poker it is almost always correct to be the aggreesor and try and take control of how a hand is played."
I then asked: "Do you think Mason is telling us that all betting rounds usually will get capped when two players--who both follow 2+2 recommendations--get involved in a hand?"
You replied: "It's obvious you do not understand what it means to 'try and take control of how a hand is played.'"
You might be confused here, for I did understand that portion of the statement. What I found odd was Mason's contention "that when playing poker it is almost always correct to be the aggreesor."
You also wrote: "There is nothing in any recommendation that I have ever read that would lead two poker players following 2 + 2 recommendations to routinely cap betting rounds."
To me, "almost always" generally means somewhere in the neighborhood of 98 percent of the time, and the "aggressor" is the player who made the last bet or raise. So, if two players in a hand both followed Mason's advice, I would expect most betting rounds to get capped.
I understand that some people play poker with the goal of becoming the table's "alpha male" (so to speak). But I thought David and Mason's books generally were geared towards increasing one's expectation.
You wrote: "I haven't read everything 2 + 2 authors have written but I'm sure you have . . ."
I haven't either.
You continued: ". . . so how come I don't see the reference to their work that tells palayers to routinely cap a betting round when heads up against another 2 + 2 proponent."
I never claimed they made such an assertion. I merely pointed out that it is a reasonable inference to draw if Mason indeed suggested "that when playing poker it is almost always correct to be the aggreesor." Perhaps you can provide us with a reference to support your interpretation of Mason's advice?
Anyway, thanks for trying to clear this up.
"What Mason is telling you is that when playing poker it is almost always correct to be the aggreesor and try and take control of how a hand is played."
Mark,
I understand your need to be right but If you notice there is no period after the word aggreesor (aggressor)in the sentence above. The complete thought includes "and try and take control of how the hand is played". Maybe you find that by playing passively you are able to take control of the play of a hand. Or you might say that there are times when playing passively is the right play. Yes but Or maybe you are going to give us a lame brain exclamation like "I prefer selective aggression". To which I would reply "Duh!" The fact of the matter is that it is "almost always" correct to be the aggressor when deciding to play a poker hand. The reason is that the most effective strategy for playing winning poker is tight and aggressive. If one adopts this strategy as their own they will "almost always" find themselves in playing situations in which being the aggressor is the best way to play.
"Perhaps you can provide us with a reference to support your interpretation of Mason's advice?"
I know it sounded as if I attributed this thought to Mason and David but I will admit that they have never made this statement. It is my interpretation of some of their material. Of course even though it is my interpretation, it is certainly a more correct poker philosophy than anything you can come up with. Here is one reason why: "almost always" generally means somewhere in the neighborhood of 98 percent of the time" So how do you refer to 95% or 80%. Just how small is your almost always neighborhood? Another reason: "and the "aggressor" is the player who made the last bet or raise." So how would you define maniac? Gee looks the same doesn't it? Now how right can you be? Another reason: "So, if two players in a hand both followed Mason's advice, I would expect most betting rounds to get capped." You obviously expect too much or just don't get it!
"I merely pointed out that it is """a reasonable inference"""
I would comment on this but I can't stop laughing.
Hope that clears it up for you Mark. Rest easy and let those that understand poker guide your dreams.
Vince
Vince,
Earlier, you wrote: "What Mason is telling you is that when playing poker it is almost always correct to be the aggreesor and try and take control of how a hand is played."
Now, you finally acknowledged: "I know it sounded as if I attributed this thought to Mason and David but I will admit that they have never made this statement. It is my interpretation of some of their material."
Why did you attribute your advice to Mason? Did you have his permission to write statements on his behalf? If not, don't you think you should apologize to Mason (for misrepresenting him) and to backdoor (for misleading him)?
---------------------
Earlier, you wrote: "What Mason is telling you is that when playing poker it is almost always correct to be the aggreesor and try and take control of how a hand is played."
You made a mistake. No big deal. I offered a couple hints about the problem and politely gave you an opportunity to clarify what you meant.
You could have said something like: "I wanted to stress the importance of aggression and got carried away. While aggression often is the correct play, it is not 'almost always' the correct play."
Instead, you asserted that I probably was a loser.
You then appeared to cover up your error by ignoring the foolish portion of your statement and writing: "It's obvious you do not understand what it means to 'try and take control of how a hand is played.'"
Nice try. But you failed.
---------------------
Earlier, you wrote: "What Mason is telling you is that when playing poker it is almost always correct to be the aggreesor and try and take control of how a hand is played."
After quoting that full statement and noting your half quote, I refocused your attention on the problem: "You might be confused here, for I did understand that portion of the statement. What I found odd was Mason's contention 'that when playing poker it is almost always correct to be the aggreesor.'"
Now, you apparently want to try to deflect attention from your cover-up by pointing out "there is no period after the word aggreesor (aggressor)in the sentence above."
To quote you, "Duh!" Unlike you, I wasn't trying to hide any portion of your silly statement.
In any case, you later repeated your original mistake: "The fact of the matter is that it is 'almost always' correct to be the aggressor when deciding to play a poker hand."
----------------------
You wrote: "The fact of the matter is that it is 'almost always' correct to be the aggressor when deciding to play a poker hand."
Sometimes it is difficult to tell whether you are being deliberately silly or unintentionally ignorant.
If you almost always try to be the aggressor (i.e., play like a maniac) in a most poker games, you usually will lose money. Sorry to break the new to you, Vince.
Mark, Blow it out your ass!
Vince
Vince wrote: "What Mason is telling you is that when playing poker it is almost always correct to be the aggressor and try and take control of how a hand is played."
I think it is often correct, but not "almost always" correct. By the way, the point of my post is not what Mason may or may not have been trying to tell us, but rather the following:
I would be curious as to just how often, on average, it is correct to take aggressive action, given the whole array of commonly played poker games at the middle limits and typical situations which tend to arise. Anyone want to take a crack at this? Above or below 50%? 60%? 70%? How often is it correct to be the aggressor and try to take control of how a hand is played? (no conditional arguments here, although such do matter greatly; the question is meant in the most general sense possible and thus encompasses all types of games and opponents as they commonly exist). So just throw it all into the mix and take a guess as to how often aggressive action should be the most profitable course to take (assuming you have good reason to even be involved in the hand in the first place).
I don't know the answer to this--I'm just looking for guesses and the rationales behind them. Assume everything gets averaged out, even the number of players at the table (for instance, a game 80% full might be close to the average number of players actually present at the table, including short-handed situations).
For anyone who would like to break it down further, try dividing it into two categories and give a percent for each: Hold'em and Stud.
Is it really over 50%?
Don't you think you ought to define a few things first like what does it mean to be the aggressor. Don't come up with Mark's maniac answer. Guess what your wrong and I'm right and Mason never said be the aggressor almost always I did. Are you trying to say that if you have an opportunity to take control of how a hand is played that you should pass on the opportunity. Well if the opportunity arises it is almost always correct to be the aggressor correct. The few times it isn't correct may be when you have the stone cold nuts which leaves almost always. One other thing, Mark professes that he prefers selective aggression. Well I am going to let you in on a little secret. A "selective aggression" though optimal sounding is in fact a losing strategy when compared with "tight aggressive" for all but the best players. Like me. And even then it still may cause more mistakes for the expert than playing a straight tight aggressive style.
Now I'm gonna go back and read your post again bcause I forgot what you said.
Vince
vince
When I play holdem I am the first better or the first raiser 75% of the time.
15% of the time i am probbally on a draw and do not want my custermers riased out if i bet.
10% about I have top pair or second pair and do not think my kicker is any good but the pot is to big to fold.
Those are pretty good number. O.K. maybe 75% is not almost always but my guess is that even in some of those instances when you are on a draw or have middle pair or top pair with a bad kicker you make aggressive moves. That would raise the 75% somewhat maybe even close to almost always.
Vince
Assuming typical game conditions, approximately what percent of the time is it correct, on average, to take aggressive action during the play of a hand? By aggressive action, I mean raising rather than calling or betting rather than checking. For Hold'em? Stud? Both?
More than a lot.
vince
^
If I saw somebody "routinely" 3-bet with that type of hand out of the s.b., in that situation, and i were sitting to his left, I'd start capping out of the B.B. ("routinely")to get head up with him(the s.b.)with as little as A-9. I'm not sure if it's mathematically sound, but I'd sure do it.
Why on earth would you cap with A9?
A9 plays pretty well in a 3 way pot. It is also not that big of a favourite over QJs. Furthermore, you have to think about what will happen if the SB sees YOU routinely capping with as little as A9. your just begging to get slaughtered with over aggressive pre-flop play.
You know, I think you're right. You gave me some things to think about. Also, if you were in that situation(in the big blind), where you've got a loose/aggressive player on the button raising, and a smart player in the s.b. who will take advantage of that by lowering his re-raising standards a tad in hopes of knocking you out to get head up with the loose player, then what are the hands with the least amount of strength you would cap with if you thought it might get you head up with the small blind?
Thanks
well first of all I don't play in these types of games too often (thankfully).
IMHO, it would be good idea to move to a seat opposite the sb and button players. this is because I play pretty tight from my blinds and because when I am in a heads up situation from the blind I don't want to deal with a skilled, tricky player.
What hands would I cap with? I don't know. I usually play in loose games so I try to put in less money before the flop so that when other players make post-flop mistakes it will cost them more. I also usually think I'm one of the better players at the table (I don't know what the reality is) so I'd rather be aggressive after the flop when decisions are more difficult.
I guess against tight passive players I would be more agressive and would consider capping with AA, KK, QQ, AKs, AQs. I would cap as a bet for value cuz theres a good chance they won't go too far with their hand. only problem is tight-passive players will generally have stronger cards to start with.
For me the choice is between raising or calling. I agree with Ciaffone that when you are out of position in a heads-up situation having high card strength or a decent pocket pair is probably more important than having a suited connector. Against good players or players over whom I feel I have little control, I like Ciaffone's approach.
However, if I am running good and I have dominant image I think raising is right. The reason is because I have such a high probability of winning the pot outright by just betting the flop. In fact if you choose to raise, I think you have to bet the flop virtually every time. Furthermore, with decent connectors like queen-jack suited I have a very high probability of catching a good flop that contains a queen or a jack or two of my suit or an open-ended straight possibility.
I posted this same question a few days ago. I rarely have a real strong opinion about what is the "correct" play because every situation is slightly different. On this issue though I strongly believe that a call is the worst possible play. If you take the view that QJs is a drawing hand then you for sure have to lay down because you are not getting the correct price to play a drawing hand. If you think that you have a better hand than the button and you trust your post-flop skills then obviously you should raise. You have an opportunity to play heads up with better starter cards. Why would you pass this up?
His question illustrates the difference between a full-table mind-set and a short-handed mind-set.
Option "A" should be "Fold because you are a weak-tight player and QJ cannot make top-pair top-kicker".
Option "B" should be "Call and relinguish the pot to the agressive player who may have absolutely nothing unless you flop real lucky; but even then you are going to give him free cards to outdraw you."
Option "C" should be: "ReRaise, knock out the BB, and realize that a good part of the time you are going to win this pot before the showdown even when you flop nothing".
Now, doesn't THAT make it easier to answer?
- Louie
In The Theory of Poker, David Sklansky states that, when calculating pot odds, you need to consider likely raises. In the simple case the pot is $40 and you are staring at a bet of $4, your odds are 10-1 at that point. However, if a player after you is going to raise, your odds are actually less, since you will end up calling $8.
My question is this... what if you never saw the raise coming? For example, say you have a draw that's 8-1 against, $40 in the pot and a three way game (you are in the middle). The first player bets $4. Here, you are getting odds to call (11-1), so you call. Now, the last (wild) player blindsides you with a raise and the original bettor calls. What are the pot odds at this point? Do you treat your first $4 call as "in the pot" and calculate your odds based only on the additional $4 you have to cough up (saying, at this point, you are risking $4 to win $60)? Or do you include your first call, saying you are risking $8 to win $56 (7-1), making your 8-1 draw a loser and sending it to the muck?
If the former is correct, does it follow that you'd always call in this situation i.e. "if it's worth calling the initial bet, it's worth calling a later raise (that you didn't see coming)"?
Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!!
After being raised from behind with the original bettor calling there is now $60 in the pot and it costs you $4 with no further raising possible (perhaps a key point). Your pot odds are 15-to-1. The money you put in before this point is no longer relevant.
In general, when you call initially you will usually be calling a single raise behind you. However, there are exceptions. Based on previous betting action and the texture of the board, you may decide that given the presence of a raiser your hand is almost surely beaten and you have decided that you have insufficient outs to continue playing. Your decision to now fold after being raised from behind is not so much based on pot odds as it is based on a reassessment of the strength of your hand.
That was a very easy question to answer, however - - -
I just wanted to make note of how well you were able to do it in such a concise and understandable way.
As time has passed I have often measured my progress by how much (and how often) we disagree.
- What I really mean to say is how often you have had to "set me straight". This is happenning less and less these days.
However, I am still (and I suspect will continue to be) impressed by your ability to say in a sentence or two that which takes me a PARAGRAPH or two.
I am sad to say this is something at which I have not improved much. (I'm doing my best; that's the tragic part. -:)
I think you deserve to be thanked for taking the time to answer as many posts as you do - especially those that do not afford you the opportunity to "dazzle" us.
P.S. That is close to as much as I have ever sucked up to anyone from whom I do not want something. (LOL)
Ergo, it must be sincerity - I can think of no other reason(s).
Best wishes,
J D
your posta are the greatest...i am still waiting to buy a book co-authoured (at least) by jim brier (if he does exist)...gl
(n/t)
ScottS,
Often the first mistake is calling a bet in the first place when it is quite possible that you will be raised from behind. When you barely have correct “pot odds” and “implied odds” (i.e., future bets you will collect) in the first place, the initial call is often wrong since the raise behind is rarely one “that you never saw coming”. Here is an example that illustrates my point.
You are playing in a typical 10/20 holdem game. Let’s say a solid player raises UTG before the flop. The small blind also calls. You have Jd-Td in the big blind and make a marginal call. The flop comes Qs-9c-3h giving you an open ended straight draw. The small blind checks and you check since you don’t think you can semi-bluff steal with this board into an UTG raiser and small blind that could also call or checkraise. The UTG player bets and the small blind calls. You have an easy call since you at this point are only a little worse than 2 to 1 to make your nut straight. The turn is an Ad. Now the small blind bets. Now you are a 4.75 to 1 dog to make your straight (8 good cards and 38 bad cards out of 46 unknown). With $80 now in the pot you are getting “pot odds” of 4 to 1 to call, which is not quite enough. But you figure to get at least one future bet (your implied odds) if you make it. This would give you odds of 5 to 1. But should you call?
The board now reads Qs-9c-3h Ad. You have an aggressive player behind who raised pre flop and bet the flop. Obviously the turn card could easily hit him hard. Let’s say you estimate that about half the time you get raised by your UTG opponent with the small blind also calling the raise. Let’s call this case A. The other half the time you will get the UTG opponent calling with him folding the other half the time. This is case B. In other words, the UTG raiser will raise the turn half the time, call one quarter of the time, and fold one quarter of the time. This is reasonable given this board and typical opponents. Also note that there are other cases (such as facing a raise and reraise after your initial call), but we will ignore them for now.
In case A you figure that if you make your straight you will collect 1.5 big bets on the river on average. In case B you figure to get one big bet on the river when you hit.
In case A your call is going to cost you $40 and you figure to make $170. This consists of $60 pre flop, the $80 your opponents put in on the turn, and an average of $30 you should collect on the river. So your “real odds” for case A are 4.25 to 1 against.
In case B it is going to cost you $20 and you figure to make an average of $110. This consists of the $60 pre flop, the $30 from your opponents on the turn (remember, the flop bettor will fold half the time), and an average of $20 on the river). So your “real pot odds” for case B are 5.5 to 1 against.
If you combine both cases you will average paying $30 and average making $140. This is 4.67 to 1 against so if my assumptions are reasonable you have a marginal fold.
However, I only used two cases for simplicities sake. On the turn you may get raised by UTG and reraised by the SB and face a possible cap. You will earn more on the river if you make it but it will rarely make up for the $60 to $80 ($100 in Las Vegas) it could cost you on the turn paying to make your draw on the installment plan. Another problem is that the cards you need could easily be in your opponent’s hand. This is especially true of the king. So if you factor in both of the above it is probably a clear fold, although few of us can make it at the tables (doing this math may help me for the future).
BTW, if you make a marginal mistake of calling in the first place (forgetting to anticipate the possible raise behind), it is almost always correct to call the raise since you are now getting clearly correct odds on your second call. But if it is raised and reraised you should recalculate since you should often fold. Since this is hard to do at the table work out some typical scenarios at the kitchen table so you will be able to think quickly in battle.
Anyway, I hope this helps. Doing the problem above helps me, as I need to work on my math and logic. All comments welcome.
Regards,
Rick
This is a great example. When you are drawing, you should not like being bet into with a preflop raiser yet to act and a dangerous board. You are frequently setting yourself up to be taken for a four or five bet ride on the installment plan which ruins your implied odds. I think that too many players simply look at their immediate pot odds and then dream about how much additional money they will make when they hit.
Beware calling bets from your right particularly when there is player to your left who has shown strength in earlier rounds and it looks like the turn card may have helped him (or at least not hurt him).
That's why I say that your position in relation to the probable bettor on each round of betting is more important than your position in relation to the button. The button definition of position is the only definition that most players have in mind when they say "I had good position". Frequently, that simply is not enough...you have to know "where you are at" in relation to your opponents moreso than the button.
Hi,
Would somebody please explain to me what the cut-off posistion is.
Best regards and thanks in advance,
Keenan
just before the button..
The cutoff seat is the seat just to the right of the button. It was given this name because when the player in this seat chooses to raise preflop this frequently results in the button folding thereby allowing the cutoff to act last on each succeeding betting round. Hence, the player in this seat "cuts off" the button by raising. The cutoff and button constitute the late position seats in a full game.
Hi,
Just a quick note of thanks for the responses - I kind off thought this was the cut-off but then I thought it may be the middle position which would cut-off early from late. Angain Thank-you.
Best regards,
Keenan
Craig,
I didn't see your post from a few days ago about TJ's article until today and I just wanted to be sure you knew that I replied.
Tommy
Thanks for your reply... I didn't mean anything by it, I was just wondering what was up.
CH
For those interested I have a new essay up on our Essay Page. It is called "Why Hold 'em Players Lose at Stud."
n/t.
There is a well-known formula for estimating your standard deviation (the maximum likelyhood estimator in one of Malmuth's books).
I would like to ask people what their hourly SD is as a sort of poll.
I have a few comments:
1. The formula in Malmuth's book has an "N" in the denominator. I think that it is OK to use N-1 in the denominator, since that is the unbiased estimator; of course it makes no signifigant difference.
2. Be careful in using the Central limit theorem to invoke normality for relatively few hours of play (say less than 30). The distributiion of poker results is skewed and takes a while (how long exactly I am not sure, depends on the game too) to be approximately normal. This is a very common error
3. When calculating you risk of ruin, do not make the common error of looking for that -2 sigma endpoint. This gives you a ROR of about 1/2 of your real ROR. This is becuase of the "barrier" phenomena -- consider the case where you actually have a negative bank for a while and recover -- this of course cannot really happen because once you hit zero you have hit ruin. Poker players have something to learn from the blackjack nerds here. See bjmath.com.
4. Estimating sigma is done with the chi-square distribution. It is a very very common error to compute your sample standard deviation and take it as the actual sigma. It is just an estimator! The number of hours given below are actually higher because of the fact that the distribution of poker results is not quite normal. So be conservative in you estimates. Here are some numbers:
Let s be your sample hourly standard deviation s. (This assumes a fixed game against fixed opponents, or approximation thereof. Fudge accordingly) A. to be 95% confident that s correct to within
1% you should play at least 19, 204 hours
5% " " " " 767
10% " " " " 191
20% " " " " 47
B. to be 99% confident that s correct to within
1% you should play at least 33,218 hours
5% " " " " 1335
10% " " " " 335
20% " " " " 84
5. The model used here is a random walk with drift. If you hourly SD is 10 bb's then if you play n hours, you SD is about the square root of n times 10. E.g you SD for 4 hrs is 20 bb's (it is actually bigger because of non-normality). If you play 36 hours, you SD is pretty close to 60 bb's. So the hourly SD is actually 10 bb's per sqrt(hour) in math-nerd speak.
My STD in real life is 9.7, on-line it it 12.4. (given there are about 50% more hands dealt on line, its actually lower, so to speak.)
I started out in blackjack, and learned poker only after I was backed off at my local casino. (Turning Stone, in upstate NY) As I wasn't playing professionally, I enjoyed the wild ride of full Kelly betting for Bankroll management.
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/thorp/paper.htm
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=kelly+criterion
With Kelly or fractional Kelly, you continually modify your betting level to reflect your current Bankroll. Now, this is relatively easy in BlackJack, where you can place almost any bet you want. But how does this apply to a cardroom, where your wagers are fixed once you chose between the two games going, 3-6 and 15-30? So instead you ask yourself what the chances are of going broke playing 15-30, and contrast this with the chance of going crazy surviving on ramen noodles playing 3-6, and you make your choice.
But playing two tables online, you can achieve a fairly fine-grained approximation of Kelly. For example by playing 1 table at 2-4 and one table at 3-6, you are approximately playing at 2.5-5. (Actually you are playing at the earn of 5 and the Standard deviation of sqrt((4^2 + 3^2)/2), or $5.10, but why quibble.)
In addition, Kelly betting is derived using single bets, not around a "family" like have in limit holdem. So I did a numerical experiment with bunches of players playing bunches of hours, and satisfied myself that the fastest exponential Bankroll growth (maximizing log utility funciton) occured when you play with :
BR_units = STD^2/Win_Rate.
Contrast this with the formula given by Mason in one of his Essays books, I forget which, of 9/4*STD^2/WR. This translates to %44 fractional Kelly, which is close to the .5 Kelly reccomended by some published blackjack writers.
But, like all poker Bankroll discussions, this must quickly collapse into academic hand-waving because there is no way to analytically determine your win rate. To measure it to within, say, .25, you need to play 1600 hours. By this time, your Bankroll should have doubled several times with only modest reinvestment of your winings, and thus should no longer be playing the same game you were measuring, you should have improved, and are most likely playing against different opposition.
But its fun hand-waving, and I think it is very important to have a "feel" for the type of swings you should expect to see. I really recommend one of the essays in Feeny's Book, "Inside the Poker Mind", in which he uses the metaphor of a robot you've taught to play poker, and how you would react to _it's_ inevitable swings, as opposed to how how you feel when _you_ get sucked out on all day. It helped me, anyway.
All the best,
zooey
I am not sure how Kelly translates into poker (and want to know!), but your formulas don't make sense to me. Full Kelly is really the one that maximizes log utility, and your version of this looks like it is smaller than the one you say translates into .44 Kelly.
Perhaps the ROR set-up is more appropriate for poker since you can't easily adjust your bet based on your win rate (if the game is extra juicy you might try to get the stakes raised, and other fantasies...)
Btw I used to play bj at the Stone too.
"In addition, Kelly betting is derived using single bets, not around a "family" like have in limit holdem. So I did a numerical experiment with bunches of players playing bunches of hours, and satisfied myself that the fastest exponential Bankroll growth (maximizing log utility funciton) occured when you play with :
BR_units = STD^2/Win_Rate.
Contrast this with the formula given by Mason in one of his Essays books, I forget which, of 9/4*STD^2/WR. This translates to %44 fractional Kelly, which is close to the .5 Kelly reccomended by some published blackjack writers. "
I completely agree that Kelly betting doesn't translate well to limit poker. I just was curious to find, given a win rate and std, what (fractional) limit would maximise log growth.
So I simply did a numerical experiment, varying y: BR_Units = y * std^2/win_rate. Using normally distributed random numbers, and assuming that games such as $12.37-$24.74 existed, I did enough trials to get a relatively accurate log growth rate for each y. I then plotted the results versus y, and got a classic kelly curve, in which returns are maximized for y = 1, steeply drop off for y < 1, and slowly drop off for greater than one.
Then I compared the return with y = 9/4, or 2.25, the number publised in one of Mason's essays, which was about %65 percent as big as y=1. Then, musing on the difficulties of measuring a win rate accurately, and stepping up and down between distantly spaced limits, I decided 2.25 is a good number to reccomend, but I'd like to be a bit riskier while my (Paradise) bankroll was small, so I used 1.5, and getting as close as possible to the recommended limit by averaging two tables.
The ride I experienced was wild, I regularly lost over %60 of my bankroll, but I doubled my $200 buyin 3 times (to 1600) in 180 hours of play. Now my Bankroll is something I feel like protecting, so I'm being more conservative, playing 5-10 while I hopefully improve enough to beat the bigger games. :-)
best,
zooey
i try to use deception in a different way than most. rather than play certain hands differently than usual, i play most hands the same.
for example, i usually come in for a raise when first in in hold'em.
also, i bet out almost all decent hands from early position after the flop...
four flushes, four straights, gutshots (with many callers), pair+overcard, pair + backdoor flush/straight, top pair, two pair, set.
i do take into account if/where a raise will come from, whether i want callers/folders etc, but you get the general idea. i think abdul has touched on this some, but basically its just how i play though. i bet out mostly. i do check raise some to protect my checks, but not that much because i play loose passive low-limit and there are 4 other pre-flop callers to protect me from being bluffed. does this make sense...
There are three general ways to deceive. Either you (1)play different hands the same; or you (2) play the same hand differently at different times; or you (3)play hands "backwards" from the "expected" way to play them.
(3) is very dangerous because it might lead you, for example, to slow-play a hand that should be jammed.
In the game you describe, I think (1) is more suited as a method of deception than is (2) and this appears to be what you are doing. So long as you are playing solid hands, always coming in for a raise should not be a problem. And in loose, passive low-limit, jamming on the flop should also not get you into too much trouble, provided you do take into consideration the factors you list in your last paragraph.
Keep in mind that the value of deception in low limit games is not that high. There are usually a lot of clueless players, so you should usually play your hand for its value and situation rather than in a deceptive manner.
it may work but its not optimum. there are many times you want to limp in early and many hands are played better if checked and called or check raised on the flop. your way would make it easier for me to put you on a hand. also when you check i now know i can usually get you out with a bet or i dont need to fear you in the hand.
These loose low-limit games with out-of-tune opponents support playing your hands to maximize its EV and forget about "stategy" in the sense you suggest. These strategic considerations are reserved for opponents who are reasonably aware of what YOU are doing and are trying to do something about it.
I also adopt a play-the-same way but have it reserved for certain situations: such whan I 2-bet before the flop I will always call; "never" 4-bet. If if I get check-raised on the flop I will likelwise always call. Or I will routinely "check-to-the-raiser" so long as he's aggressive. Or will routinely check the flop when in the blinds.
You need to know what you are trying to achieve before adopting these strategies. Its either to increase the equity you get with the majority of your hands by sacrificing some EV on a minority of your hands, or its to disguise the minority by playing them like the majority.
- Louie
I was wondering if anybody has any idea if the typical player has a higher standard deviation at poker or backgammon? I was considering learnign backgammon but of course it will be a lot of work and I'd like the straight facts first. Sorry if this is in the wrong forum I wasn't sure where to put it.
Thanks in Advance,
Donny
all i know is that most of the greatest backgammon players have taken up poker and hardly play anymore backgammon. its a money thing. those are the straight facts.
A good backgammon player will win more consistently against weak opposition than a good full-tabled limit poker player. Good poker players frequently have 100 hour or longer losing streaks. Losing streaks extending up to 1000 hours are not uncommon. This sort of thing is unheard of in backgammon.
Now all that being said, backgammon was in vogue in the 1960s and 1970s because of the efforts of celebrities like Lucille Ball and Hugh Hefner. It started to die out in the 1980s and was pretty much killed off in the 1990s. I believe it was discovered that the game is not as good a gambling game as originally envisioned because the better players win too consistently. Furthermore, the game has been subjected to computer analysis. Computer programs like "Jellyfish" and "Snowy" play top notch backgammon with the doubling cube.
If you are going to learn a gambling game in order to make money, I think poker is the way to go. If you become too proficient at backgammon, it will be difficult to find opponents who are willing to lose money to you.
"Losing streaks extending up to 1000 hours are not uncommon."
Yes they are!
Vince
I have a friend who is generally considered to be one of the best players in the world and has made a substantial amount of money in his lifetime playing. But he didn't make the money playing the almost best players. He found out a fish and somehow developed a parasitic relationship that to the fish's mind appears symbiotic. In that sense, it's not completely unlike poker at the highest stakes.
JG
There are a lot of places to play poker, when does one go to find people to bet on backgammon? After you win 2 or 3 games, does anyone keep betting? More than a few dollars?
It depends on your motive. If you want to win money, poker is the way to go. I used to play backgammon and was introduced to poker through it (many players play both) and haven't gone back. The main thing is that if you want to play backgammon for any reasonable stakes, you are going to be playing very very good players where your edge will be small if you have one at all. If you're happy to play for $5 a point and against the same people (because the backgammon community is generally small, even in big cities) but want to learn another strategic game, then by all means, pick up backgammon. It is a lot more fun then ring game poker because you make a lot more decisions/hour. If you want the mental stimulation play backgammon, if you want the money play poker.
Rob
At mid to high-limit backgammon, you'll have to look far and wide to find enough soft opponents to sustain you. Not so at poker.
Tommy
Thanks a lot everybody. I was going to school in California and learned to play hold em. I'm good to sit there and play tight and collect......but I'm back in NY and the lack of public poker is very depressing. The police seem to hate poker but as far as I know backgammon doesn't have that problem. All your points are well taken and for now I guess atlantic city is only 2 hours or so...........urrrr. The point made about backgammon being more fun because you get to play all the time is true of course but I'd rather have less fun and more money. Thanks again.
Donny
I play both. I started backgammon and was (somewhat recently) introduced to poker through the backgammon community.
Personally, I think backgammon is a harder game. There are a lot more decisions to be made, and the relative merits of those decisions can be debated at length, as the game is hard to understand. You get to play more, too. FWIW, though, I am finding that games are quite similar ... you need to identify what aspect of the hand/position is important and choose the right tactic, and the difficulty is in the identification.
However, comparing the amount of money that shifts around on a poker table, the gambling aspect makes poker the clear choice if that's what you're after. Although the better backgammon player has a huge edge though the doubling cube (the ability to evaluate positions is extremely difficult, yet necessary to make competent cube decisions - and those decisions are worth an order of magnitude more than checker decisions), the player base is missing. You won't find people in a 5 dollar/point game who are clueless. Anyone who is willing to play for a couple dollars a point is competent enough. To get the hourly rate you would in mid limit poker (10-20$ a point, maybe?), you will only face good players.
You also asked about standard deviation. If you play with aggressive players who aren't afraid of a tough take or a gammonish cube, then the cube can get high. That makes your SD higher.
How much money do you have?
If you have a lot take up poker. It's noce to have well heeled beginners in the game. If you are poor take up backgammon.
vince
I used to play backgammon. What others have said about finding weak competition is true. And when you do find soft competition it would probably be outside of a club. And then you will sometimes having trouble getting paid when you win.
It is much harder to get good enough at backgammon to be a small winner in clubs than it is to become a small winner playing hold'em in a casino. This makes it a frustrating game to play if you are eager to get an income from the game.
Another thing about backgammon is that regular players usually know how good they are relative to other players. Thanks to the internet you can play a lot (for money or not) and get rated. Your rating converges much faster than $/hr playing poker, and so you will know exactly where you stand relative to everyone else in the backgammon community. You would almost never get an intermediate backgammon player to play for $50/point or more because he will know that he is out of his league. Poker is obviously much different as self delusion abounds among players.
OTOH. if you find backgammon interesting and don't mind not being a winning player for a long time, then there are advantages. As I said before there are very good internet servers, and they sponsor tournaments frequently. Backgammon tournaments are relatively a bigger deal than poker tournaments, so that gives you and excuse to travel. Unlike poker, there are expert computer progams that you can get to practice. Jim mentioned the most popular two. There is a freeware version of jellyfish that you can download.
If you live in NY and are too far to play poker often I think Backgammon is a good game to pick up.
Granted your opposition won't be as weak in backgammon as they are in poker, but there are alot of weak players playing for a reasonable amount of money.
If you read McGriel's backgammon, and Robertie's new book (639 positions), and get experience you shoudl be able to do alright. (Robertie's advanced BGm is very good also...)
I think too many people addressed this question as an either or question. But I think if there isn't much poker near you backgammon could be a fun thing to do and learn.
Another thing about backgammon is that regular players usually know how good they are relative to other players. Thanks to the internet you can play a lot (for money or not) and get rated. Your rating converges much faster than $/hr playing poker, and so you will know exactly where you stand relative to everyone else in the backgammon community. You would almost never get an intermediate backgammon player to play for $50/point or more because he will know that he is out of his league. Poker is obviously much different as self delusion abounds among players.
This is an excellent point. In addition to the online servers, there's another place where you will find out how good you are fairly quickly - local clubs and weekly tournaments. The top players in the club consistantly do well; by playing in these for a bit, you can get a quick metric as to your play. These better players will often give advice, too, if you find the right club. In the least, there are usually discussions about positions that come up. If you are a bad player, you won't be able to follow, and you will be out of place.
Playing poker is a social thing in this country. They can continue to play in social home games and mimic play of other people, and they get positive reinforcement. They have no idea how badly they can play. No such equivilent exists in backgammon.
Thanks again for all the responses. years ago I was in a park in New York playing backgammon for extremly small stakes before I went away to college. One of the best players in the world had been kibitzing (im a chess player and there is a lot of overlap) and aftewards he asked me why I wanted to learn backgammon. When I said, essentially, to win money he started yelling at me telling me what a stupid waste of energy and effort it would be. Then he said if you want to learn a game at least learn poker....everybody plays poker...who plays backgammon? It made a big immpression on me because he was really screaming and I knew he was in a position to know what he was talking about. I'm actually happy to hear that you agree with this assesment as I am much much farther along at poker than backgammon.
Donny
There is much talk of collusion on internet poker and of partners (both overt and covert) at tourneys.
But how much edge would partners gain, exactly?
The fewer the partners, the less good hands available to build on, but add more colluders and the profits need to be divided into more portions. So both large and small team size has a disadvantage.
Occasionally the fish will win despite the odds, resulting in a larger loss then normal to the colluders. Another disadvantage.
Is there a mathmatically 'best level" of collusion? Is the edge significant? If each player can earn 2BB/hr fairly, can they REALLY make a lot more as a team?
A9
According to my calculations, a 6 player team ganging up on 4 players would have between 22% and 31% better chance of hitting their 2-15 outs on the turn. They would have between 23% to 32% better chance on the river. I don't know how this translates to real money, but the advantage seems substantial.
You don't need many (or any) partners online. An ambitious cheater just needs a simple infrastructure of separate computers and isp's to be completely anonymous. Casual colluders just take turns as they have live cards.
Why do you think losses would be larger than normal if one of the four patsies win a hand? Good colluders simply take the advantage given by the superior odds. Pump and dump colluders get caught. No overt collusive play is required. Play solid poker with better odds and it should be a no-brainer. Eventually the stacks will be yours. No?
Hey,
I'm currently reading "The Theory of Poker" and I must admit I'm a bit confused on the Fundamental Theorem of Poker and how it relates to Multiway Pots.
There is a short paragraph that states that it does not always apply to multi-way pots and gives one example.
However, I have another example in which I need help with the math to illustrate it:
Using a similar example to the book:
You are playing with three other people and there is one card to come (let's say we are playing Hold'em). You have the best hand and the other three players are on 5:1, 7:1 and 6:1 draws.
There is $10 dollars in pot and you bet $10. Therefore your opponents are getting approx. 2:1 pot odds. The fundamental theorem of poker states that you are hoping that each players calls because any time an opponent is not getting close to proper odds against you, you are rooting for him to call.
However, in multi way pots you are playing against many players and the odds that ONE OF THEM makes their hand will increase. Does this matter, do you still want all of them to call???
Firstly, how to calculate this mathematically? I.e If three players are 5:1 , 7:1 and 6:1 underdogs to win. What are the odds/probability that at least one will win?
Secondly, does this not make the fundamental theorem of poker kind of useless in a game like Hold'em where many people are in the pot and even though they are not getting sufficient odds to call you you would still like most of them to fold??
Thanks, JM
Calculating individually whether or not you want each player to call will work out the same as working out the probability that at least one will win and then calculating whether you want 3 more bets in for that risk. In fact, if they are duplicating each others outs (for example, if two of them have the same hand) then you will be winning more money.
Note that there are some multiway situations where even though it incorrect from your opponent's standpoint to call (ie they are losing money by doing so) you still don't want them to call (they are costing you money). This doesn't invalidate the Fundamental Theorem per se, but the money they are losing is being won by one of the other draws, rather than you. For example, a nut flush draw might be winning the money donated by an incorrect call from an opponent holding second pair. This is known as Morton's Theorem.
Chris
Recently I was in a game where I suspected 2 individuals of colluding. They would raise and re-raise each other when in a pot (and others are in it) and one of them would fold before the river or once, when I asked to see the hand, this guy had nothing, from start to finish. No one else at the table seemed to notice or suspect. What do you do if you think two people are colluidng and you are the only one who suspects it? Do you say something to the dealer? the floor? Do you do it quietly or do you make it known you suspect someone? Without solid proof, it could be an uncomfortable situation and/or unfair accusation.
i
I was fourth seat past BB and picked up AJs. Early position player limped, I limped (mistake?) and BB checked. Flop was AQ4 with two flush. Checked to me, I bet, both called. Turn was 8o, I bet was checkraised and both players in. I folded. River was K making 3 flush. Both players checked it down and showed A4o and A5o. I threw away the winner. I put the BB on two pair on the turn with early position player seeing the raise ?? I don't know.
Comments very welcome. thanks, Dave
"I don't know."
If one player showed A4o how did you throw away the winner? Are you saying that you threw away the nut fush draw with top pair and a good kicker because you got check raised? Didn't you count the pot and your outs? If not that is the reason that "You don't know"
Vince
I may have misposted this one and there was a 2 pair out there after all. Thanks. Dave Time to quit for the night.
Raise with AJs unless the limper is weak-tight.
You have 8 outs vrs Q8, 9 outs vrs A4, and 6 outs vrs A8 (6+:1 against) (not counting the likely flush draw out against you) and are drawing dead against a set. You are getting 8:1 to draw.
You didn't raise B4 the flop, so from their perspective your most likely hand is a paranoid Ax giving brave opponents an opportunity to take a shot against you, such as someone who started with a flush draw and then turned a pair or someone with JT gut-shot (loose call) and then turned a double-gut-shot.
You are getting pretty good odds to draw even if you KNOW you are beat; but you can "easily" still have the better hand. Routinely call this raise unless the raiser must have a set.
Trust me. If you abandon hands this easily opponents ARE taking shots against YOU that they don't normall take against other players.
- Louie
if I am a even money player, and I quit everytime I am up or down $300 (in a 20/40 game), and assuming the odds of me winning or losing is 50/50...how do i go about calculating the odds of certian streaks?
for example, what are the odds that after 30 days, I've won 25 and lost 5?
30x29x28x27x26 divided by (120 times [2 to the 30th power])
thanks
Or, more generally, if x is the number of wins and y is the number of losses:
Odds = C(x+y, x) * (1/2)^(x+y)
where
C(x+y) = (x+y)! / x!y!
and
x! = x * (x-1) * (x-2) * ... * 3 * 2 * 1.
So, to use your example,
Odds = C(30,25)*(1/2)^30
= ((30*29*28*...*3*2*1) / (25*24*...*3*2*1)(5*4*3*2*1)) * (1/2)^30
= (30*29*28*27*26 / 5*4*3*2*1) * (1/2)^30
= 30*29*28*27*26 * (1/120) * (1/2)^30.
Man, I hate typing equations in regular type.
--Chris
Hey,
3 players have a 3:1, 4:1 and 7:1 chance of making their hand
What are the odds/probability that (i) none will make their hand (ii) at least one will (iii) exactly two will etc.
I am comfortable with finite mathematics, I just can't figure out how to do these types.
Any help would be awesome!
Thanks, JM
More assumptions are needed to solve this. The simplest case is when each hand is independent. This would happen if you were looking at 3 different players each in a different game. If it's 3 players at the same table in the same hand then there is probably some correlation between the hands making it or not.
If you assume independence then take each case separately and add. For example:
Prob of exactly 1 making it is:
(.25)*(.8)*(.875) + (.75)*(.2)*(.975) + (.75)*(.8)*(.125)
since we usually don't care whether we finish in 2nd, 3rd, or 4th; our only interest is whether or not we finish in FIRST.
The probability of AT LEAST one of them making it - assuming that they each need different cards to "get there" (or as Steve said that the events are in no way related) is:
1 - (.25 + .20 + .125) = .425, or 42.5%.
The "fourth" hand had a 57.5% of beating the other three (if I understood the question =).
I am not the leading "math geek" here, but I can hold my own with most of them; if you would like to re-word this so I can be sure I am understanding you I would be happy to give you a more precise answer - as well as explain the appropriate methods (or formulas) used to tackle these equations.
Most of them are not that difficult to do once you know how to approach them.
Feel free to contact me privately at the above address if you wish.
Best wishes,
J D
I have a feeling Steve does not need my help in this area. =)
i totally forgot about that trick to use 1- the probabilty that no one succeeds
thanks a lot
tppkfaJack,
The one relly important thing that you have said during this discussion, IMO, is "No we don't. We are not obligated..."
It's impotant to me because I agree with it. You need not prove a theoretical point. This is after all a discussion forum. Of course there's more to it than that.
vince
Please check my math, I think these are correct but I would like to know:
1. Bellagio or Mirage, 8-16 or 6-12 I forget which. I hold KK in late position, I raise, two callers. Flop is Kh3h7c, check, then I bet, guy on button raises, early player folds, guy reraises, and we end up capping. We cap again on the turn when a rag hits. I lose when Heart hits the river. I commented later that the guy was at least a 3 or 4:1 dog after the flop, when I checked the math, it looks like he is 1 in 6. Is this right?
2. Online midlimits: I hold AQs cutoff seat. I raise, two middle callers. Flop is AQJ, suits don't matter. Check check raise. turn a 9, check check raise. River is a T; bet, raise, fold (me). KJ (str8) beat TT (set). I figured out later that together they were about 40% and I was 60% to win this after that flop. Is this right?
How would you compute these?
Mark
reminds me of online poker! Flop straight flushes!:)
I'm not up to doing the math for #2, but #1 is fairly staightforward.
The flush draw HITS his hand almost exactly 35% of the time. (In this case he hits exactly 1/3 of the time since we know what cards are in your hand.)
He WINS when he hits AND you don't fill.
This will occur approximately 30% of the time.
You were roughly a 70% favorite to win the hand when the flop landed.
You were roughly an 84% favorite to win after you survived the turn. He had only seven outs since the seven or "turn card" of hearts would have given you a full house rendering his flush worthless.
I won't comment on the play of the hand since you didn't ask, but in case you're interested you made a total of ZERO mistakes.
He beat the odds. It happens.
Best wishes and better luck,
J D
In the first case the flush draw is about a 3-1 underdog. Lets assume he doesn't ahve a straight flush draw or a pair.
P(flush wins)= P(two flush cards that don't pari the board)+P( one flush card and an unpaired board)= [1/45C2] ((8C2)+8(27))= 244/990. Or 3.05 to 1.
I'll do the other later tonight and post it!
For the second hand. AQ vs KJ vs TT withe flop of
A Q J.
Lets calculate the probality each win and the probability of a tie.
P(tie=chop)=P(K&T)= 6/[43C2]
P(TT wins)=P(winning strt)+P(winning boat or quads)
=P(K and blank OR 98)+P(TT or JT)
=1/[43C2]{ (3(32)+ 16) + (1 + 4)}
= 117/903
P (KJ wins)= P(st)+ P(winning boat)+ P(trips)
P(T and blank)+P(kk, kj or jj) +P(J and blank)=
1/[43C2]{(2(32) + (3+ 6 + 1) + 2(32))
= 138/903
THus P(AQ wins)= 903- (138+117+6)/903=
642/903
= 71% or 2.45 to 1.
If we count the 6 ties we get
642 + 6/3/903= 71.3% or 2.48 to 1.
I can explain more if you like....
Let us assume that we know that you hold KK, and he holds 2 hearts, but not the 7 of hearts.
Let us also assume the heart draw has no runner runner straight possibilities (only the hearts)
Flop: Kh, 3h, 7c
Boards where hearts will win: After the flop...
Probability of Board 1 (heart on turn): On the river there are 8 known cards... (52 - 8 - 17)/44
odds are: 8/45 * 27/44 = 216/1980
Probability of Board 2 (heart on river): Probability of Board 3 (runner runner hearts): Total: (217 + 216 + 56) / 1980 = 489/1980 = 163/660 or 3.05:1
Derrick
Let us assume no suit will matter.
Boards that beat you: Derrick
Pot Equity ----------- I have been thinking about pot equity % and I would like other's views on it. I haven't seen anything about it in books but I believe that a discussion about it could generate valuable insights (for me lol).
Example -------- Now what would really help would be someone with pokerprobe to work out a few examples with %. Consider this you have AK offsuit UTG before the flop and raise. You get four callers. 10 SB in the pot.
Lets for the sake of the example give the following hands;
BB 10s 8h
You Ac Kh
P2 9d 9h
P3 Kc Js
P4 7c 6c
What is your equity in the pot? Say AK offsuit wins 25% (guess) of the time against the four other (non-random) hands. If there were no more bets you would win 2.5 sb on average. You put in 2 SB so you have an average profit of 0.5 SB per hand.
Who Owns The Pot? ------------------ So do you own this pot? No. You have the biggest individual share of it but the other players, taken together, own three times your share. You don't want to take all these players on together because you are outnumbered and out equitied. Individually you may dominate the non-pair hands and be roughly even money with the pair hands (QQ and below). However you don't mind taking them all on (if they all stay in) because you have more than the average share of pot equity (25% to 20%).
Preflop Raise --------------- Lets think a little about the raise preflop. In a game with thinking players you will get some players with small pairs to fold preflop. Is that good? From a pot equity point of view it probably is. If you limped and they limped you would be up against another player and one who is roughly even money with you (so diluting your equity). But from a non pot equity point of view small pairs don't play well without flopping a set.
The Flop ---------- The flop is the defining point of player's hands and this is where one can gain some valuable insights on how your pot equity changes. If the flop misses you your pot equity will have changed dramtically. It is a fault of mine to still think good hands preflop have a similar value before the flop as it does after. Now instead of having the best pot equity you are behind in fact you may be below the average pot equity. But unless somebody already has you dead you will always have some pot equity as will the other players.
Let's say the flop is:
Jc 8s 3c
(This is where somebody with poker probe could help out)
What are now the pot equities for your hand and the other players?
Increasing Your Pot Equity --------------------------- Before the flop your raise had positive pot equity results if you are now behind betting decreases the absolute value of you own pot equity (not the %). Ultimately it is not the pot equity % you are interested in but the absolute value of your pot equity. How do you increase the absolute value of your pot equity?
1. Increase your pot equity %
2. Increase the size of the pot when you have larger than the average pot equity %
1. You can increase your pot equity % by getting hands that are not dead to fold. Are these hands making a mistake to give up their pot equity and fold? They are correct to fold if the amount they have to pay (over the remaining betting rounds to the river) is more than the absolute value of their % pot equity at the end of the betting rounds. 'They are not getting the odds to call'. On the river you have either 0% or 100% pot equity (unless a split pot).
2. Now if you have bigger than the average pot equity % then you have no worries. If you put a bet to aplayer with pot equity below yours then you gain. If he folds you gain an increase in your pot equity % (and therfore absolute pot equity value). If he calls then you gain directly in absolute pot equity value.
Fold or Call? -------------- Fold or call which is preferable to you the bettor? It of course depends on the value already in the pot. This links in to what Mason and Jim were discussing in the AQ off thread. If you a have a small advantage over a player when he calls a sigle bet you gain a small fraction of that bet. But if you can force an opponent to face a double bet he may fold and give up more in committed pot equity than you would gain in your % of his call.
On the Turn ------------- What happens if a blank hits the turn?
Turn:
2s
Board:
Jc 8s 3c 2s
Does everbody's equity remain the same? No. The hand that is made and leading increases its pot equity % and all the other hands decrease their pot equity %. Again this matches what Mason and David have said about betting top pair of aces on the flop from early position and sometimes checking on the turn to induce a bluff or semi-bluff. If the turn and board are non-threatening the person who was induced to bet is making a much bigger mistake than calling on the flop. Firstly his pot equity % has dropped from the flop (assuming you are ahead) secondly the betting has now doubled.
Conclusion ------------- I have rambled on too long and not got to say all that I wanted. There are two main conclusions that I am coming too. One is the difference value of hands postflop versus preflop. The other is how important the play of your hand is, more so than consideration of your real pot equity. If you can manipulate your opponents (by betting and using position) to give up their pot equity too cheaply you have a great advantage. Also if you can recognise the situations were you have below average pot equity and against tenatious opponets who won't relinquish theirs judicious folds may be made.
I'm sure my logic is faulty in places so I welcome any comments and corrections.
Keep Folding
Folding Pete
Sorry, you lost me, but perhaps some of the following is what you are looking for.
>> Your relative pot-equity (25% in your example) is a prime consideration when determining whether or not you should bet or raise: do so if you will end up winning more often then "your fair share" or more than average. For this factor, the size of the pot is only indirectly relevant. (The other prime consideration is whether your bet or raise will increase or decrease your "pot equity", but I digress...).
Perhaps your "absolute" pot equity represents your chances of winning vis-a-vis the size of the pot; which is the prime consideration when deciding whether or not to call.
These two thresholds, simplistically, determine whether or not you should [1] Check&Fold [2] Check&Call [3] Bet&Raise.
>> Your last statement is misleading, since you will often check-call with below average pot-equity against tenacious (non-bluffable) opponents.
>> "Owns" the pot seems irrelevant. There is only a 2% difference between winning 49% against 2 opponents and winning 51%. The most relavant factor is whether you are a "favorite" meaning, as above, you'll win more than your "fair share"; i.e. 34% or more against 2 opponents.
>> Careful relying on the simulators to determine "pot equity". The meaningful factor is "actually win" which means you must go to the showdown. Clearly small pairs weilded by sensible players will actually win LESS often than a simulator suggests since they routinely fold on the flop, thus losing 2/5ths of their chances of snagging a set. An extreme example is a real whimp wielding AA in no-limit; this player's pot equity is near zero when against an aggressive player who knows the wimp will lay down big pairs against any big bet.
- Louie
15/30 weekly home game can deal either o/8 or holdem which one is pos most important and which one game is somewhat loose weak
there is more to it than that. which do you play the best and they the worst. o/8 is slower so less hands get out during the night. that means less deals for you. id go for the holdem as you would play more hands from the button. nothings simple huh.
In the loose home game i play you can buy a pot every once in awile in holdem but in 0/8 you have to almost always show down the beest hand.
Play holdem.
Positional advantage is generally greater at holdem, but you need to be the type of player who can take advantage of position; such as a willingness to raise with 2nd pair against a questionable better.
REALLY loose players have less chance at Omahaha since the worst Omahaha hands have much less chance to win than the worst Holdem games.
Another consideration I have noticed is that if others are playing Omahaha, they tend to play more selectively when someone deals "boring" holdem. They also tend to get a little annoyed which is bad politics.
- Louie
The first thing you must do is to step down to a lower limit game immediately-sooner if possible. Play a few hundred hours at a lower limit. If you still cannot win, then keep going down incrementally all the way to the $1-$2 game at Ocean's 11 in Oceanside if you have to. You must get into a game where you are an overwhelming favorite to not lose. When you start winning again, then incrementally move up as you are winning.
The second thing you must do is to write down as many hands as possible in which there was substantial involvement on your part. Are you playing too many hands in raised pots? Are you going too far with hands once the flop comes? Are you simply getting sucked out? Are you getting held-over a lot(for example, you have KK and you run into AA or you have AK and your run into AA). Try to write down about thirty or more hands each month and then post some of them for comment. Share the rest of them to some friend you know is good at the game to see if you have any leaks. There is professional help available at a reasonable cost as well like Bob Ciaffone who advertises in CardPlayer.
Finally, you must realize that the luck factor is overwhelming in this game. It is common to encounter losing streaks which extend over hundreds of hours. The more you play, the more likely this is to happen.
I've had so much practice at handling long losing streaks I don't even know where to start babbling.
Taking a break is certainly a good idea but I think it helps best if done with a specific purpose and if we do not return until that purpose is served. The purpose is to let time-heals-wounds do its thing.
We take some time off and think the emotional wound is healed, only to find out quickly and brutally that it isn't. We lose to a three outter, then a four outter, and then bam, within a half hour after returning from a long break, all the defeatist why-me self-destructive self-pity feelings flair up again, the same self-torturing mindset that made us take a break in the first place.
This is the test. It's time to quit for the day, right now. It's time to take however long a break it takes, again, until the beats bounce off the way they do when we're running good.
In this regard, pros have a huge advantage over recreational players simply because we get more practice at healing the emotional wounds inflicted by long losing streaks until ideally the scars are so thick that the wounds are shallow and quickly healed.
But recreational players have a big edge when it comes to the second type of wound, financial. A player who makes more money than he needs to pay the bills can simply wait for his bankroll to rebuild. The do-or-die pressure does not exist.
Pros don't have that luxury. Among our tortures is the familiar four-months-ago-I-had-$60,000-and-I've-finally-made-it-to-easy-street. Then one day we wake up with, say, enough to pay the bills for two months, and emotional wounds bleeding all over the place, and omygod, it's over, I'm dead.
Then there's how to take a break. Whatever priorities poker happens to have, make it lower, way lower. Don't read poker think poker or talk poker. That's like taking the stitches out early. A waste of good thread.
Yeah, take a break, any break, but know why and how.
Tommy
.
I agree with the other posters but I would add a few things. First, how is your health? Do you feel well? My biggest losing streak ever accompanied a period where I was feel really lousy. I thought that I was such a good poker player that I could play through that and do just fine.
I play in a game with one regular who is a professional. He showed me how professional we is last Thursday when it was obvious he wasnt feeling well but the game was great. He racked up and left saying to me that he couldnt play well feeling bad. I hope I have learned that lesson forever.
Second, what is your attitude? Do you believe that you will lose when you sit down? You must believe that you will win and play accordingly. Make the bets/raises when you are statistically correct. Get out when it is incorrect. It is very difficult to do this when you believe that you will lose anyway.
Now one final thought, you said something about it being different when you are sports betting. That concerns me for your poker play. Are you a gambler or are you a poker player? You are the only one that can answer this question. If you are a gambler, you are much more likely to find these losing streaks as you are running uphill as others are playing the pure odds and you are gambling.
Just my thoughts. Good luck.
P.S. Last night I lost with AA, KK, QQ and four full houses two of which I flopped. Luck does have a lot to do with outcome but not with how you play the cards.
Good question. I had a nasty 200 hour losing streak online where one plays about twice as many hands as live. This happened after a good run where I was making over 2 BB per hour for 200 hours. This was a good opportunity to completely reread and study all my poker books and search the 2+2 archives for certain situations i was unsure about. I feel that I emerged a better player as a result of this. However, for awhile I was really thinking about all those posters who say online is crooked, etc. When normal play once again appeared, the sites seemed to be more honest. I am currently doing real wall and have the feeling that things will always be good. Time to watch it I guess. Hang in there and take it slow. When the cards come you can make back a lot of money fast. Dave
Dave, your post is as close to my feelings as any. I am thought to be as close to a rock as any tight player. That's what I want others to think of me, because this gives me an opportunity to steal and bluff in just the right situations. When I had a streak that just couldn't get any worse(I thought), I stepped away from playing for awhile to regroup. I read and reread a number of poker books and read hundreds of threads on two plus two. What I found out was that I did have leaks in my game, that no one could convince me of, prior to my self evaluation. Since I have returned to the battle, I am consistantly showing a profit. The only advice that I could give any player experiencing a bad streak is that no matter how good you think you play, your game can stand improvement. When you think that you always play your best and the only reason for your losses is bad luck, then you are in real trouble! This comes to you from a guy who has won many tournaments and is thought to be one of the best players in the state. The truth is that I am a work in progress. Be humble and understand that we never stop learning how to be the best that we can be! Thanks to everyone who contributes to this forum. Good Luck!
Humans are creatures of conditioning. Behavioral psychology would suggest taking some very small wins. This breaks the losing streak. Then condition yourself using Turbo to quit when winning modstly, or when losing to quit with modest losses. It has worked for me before.
turbo?
Wilson's software. Its easy to beat.I used it to learn to count the bets in the pot. I still use it at times for simulations. I also use it to condition my mind. I'll get my position "stuck" on purpose( (of course its just play money) and then play solidly while focussing on small positive affirmations(if I play well, and don't tilt, the cards will turn) to get close to even, or even. Then quit. It conditions the mind.
Almost all the poker writers say money management is foolish. Well for me , it is not. It is critical. Several times I've let big wins get away in real games by not leaving properly. Several times I've turned small wins into losses, or small losses into big losses. Using the software to train as much as possible under said conditions has helped. It's a method I've developed to condition my mind to leave right. It works. In live play, I find myself leaving better. If I've lost for for 3 or 4 sessions in a row. I book very modest wins, and leave. My mind then moves away from focussing on the losing streak.
1. I'm with Jim - lower your limit. Stay comfortably within your currently reduced bankroll. You can apply this directly to your sports betting - lower your typical bet size to match your current bankroll.
2. As several others said - re-evaluate your game. Each of my losing streaks has resulted in a better understanding and better discipline in my subsequent play.
3. My addition to #2 is: Tighten Up! Now maybe, if you are moving down from the Bellagio 30-60 game to the Bellagio 15-30 game, maybe tightening up is not the way to go. But for lower limits, it sure is. For low limit pot-raked poker games, every time I have improved my game, it has involved tightening up.
This has direct applicability to your sports losing streak. Tighten up your standards as to what games you will bet, and sit out a whole lot of borderline ones. I didn't like the sound of your "I play for the action" statement; are you "playing too many hands" ? Betting too many games where you don't really have an edge?
4. Re-read Mason's Gambling Theory and Other Topics, the essay "How Much Do You Need?" and a few other companion essays. It helps to review just what you can expect in terms of fluctuations. It can also be applied to your sports betting - use his results for Blackjack, and substitute per-hand for per-sports-bet.
This essay can also help you decide how much to reduce your bets, as in #1 above.
Of most importance: Tighten Up!
Wishing you better luck, Dick
"For low limit pot-raked poker games, every time I have improved my game, it has involved tightening up."
Speaking of billboard material... this is one of the finest sentences related to poker that I have ever read.
First, honestly determine why you're in a losing streak. Is it bad luck? Poor play? Or both?
If it's bad luck, then there's nothing you can do about it but ride it out. Continue to play optimally and resist the temptation to play higher. And enjoy the process, knowing that it is a natural thing that all players ultimately experience, and feel confident that it will be over sooner or later. Take pride in the fact that you have and will continue to be disciplined and upbeat even when things have gone crazy. Having done so is the difference that will make a difference in your long term results.
If it's poor play, ask yourself, "In what way, specifically, am I playing poorly?" Playing too tight? Too loose? Too passive (not value betting/raising enough, slowplaying too much)? Too aggressive (over semi/bluffing, betting/raising medium hands for value a little bit too often)?
Poker being a mental state dependent game, ask yourself, "What mental state or emotion is contributing to my poor play?" Desperation? Anger? Fear? Resignation? Impatience? Frustration? Boredom?
.....and if I were playing well, instead of poorly, what mental states and emotions would I be feeling instead? If I were playing awesome and enjoying myself, what would I be seeing in my mind, saying to myself, and feeling in my body? As you notice the answers coming to you, recall a time in your past when you felt these positive feelings inside you, and as you do, step into the experience and get back those feelings again NOW once again feeling these great feelings surge inside you, think of what you will see and hear right before your next session and as you do, notice the feelings double in intensity! then double it again as you see yourself go thru future sessions feeling great, confident, and enjoying yourself regardless of the short-term results. Everything - and I mean EVERYTHING - that happens (good beats, bad beats, winning streaks, losing streaks), makes you feel great pleasure inside and makes you feel good about yourself and all of your capabilities....
.
You need a less frustrating hobby.
Try herding cats :-)
Posted by: Edgar
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 10:32 a.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 3:33 p.m.
Posted by: Dan C (dannyc12@bitstream.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 26 April 2001, at 2:32 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 2:44 a.m.
Posted by: Daliman (clocwork@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 28 April 2001, at 12:33 a.m.
Posted by: Daliman (clocwork@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 3:31 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 5:02 p.m.
Posted by: Daliman (clocwork@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 9:12 p.m.
Posted by: Cyrus
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 1:18 a.m."AA vs KK is an example of the higher pair being an even bigger favorite (~82%) - 33 vs 22 would be a situation where the smaller pair has a better chance (I don't know the exact %) but is still a very large underdog."
Posted by: jim browder (jbrowder@yotalzone.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 28 April 2001, at 10:41 a.m.
Posted by: Russ (rgarber@stanford.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 2:03 a.m.
Posted by: Scott V
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 12:43 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 29 April 2001, at 3:10 p.m.
Posted by: G. Ed Conly (econly@poweruser.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 4:38 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 12:40 p.m.
Posted by: Nick (nicholas.d.blaszak@state.or.us)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 5:54 p.m.
Posted by: Cyrus
Posted on: Monday, 30 April 2001, at 4:22 a.m.
Posted by: Edgar
Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 12:26 p.m.
Posted by: 12 Volt Man (vailpoker@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 30 April 2001, at 2:41 p.m.
Posted by: John Cole (jcole5044@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 8:45 a.m.
Posted by: Steve Murray (endvolatility@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 30 April 2001, at 4:43 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 10:42 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 12:32 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 2:42 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 5:26 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 9:00 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 12:13 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 12:57 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 1:00 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 2:07 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 3:33 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 4:06 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 4:27 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 5:58 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 6:58 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 2:22 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 1:13 a.m.
Posted by: Maven (neomaven@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 6:14 p.m.
Posted by: JQ
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 7:26 p.m.
Posted by: Steve Murray (endvolatility@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 1:57 p.m.
Posted by: Muffin
Posted on: Monday, 30 April 2001, at 6:51 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 2:13 a.m.
Posted by: Muffin
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 12:34 p.m.
Posted by: zzzzzz (ray@shano.com)
Posted on: Monday, 30 April 2001, at 8:04 p.m.
Posted by: Mike (mikedahl@gate.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 2:25 a.m.
Posted by: Shawn Keller
Posted on: Monday, 30 April 2001, at 11:27 p.m.
Posted by: jim browder (jbrowder@yotalzone.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 2:24 p.m.
Posted by: Luke
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 9:11 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 10:45 a.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 11:06 a.m.
Posted by: Russ (rgarber@stanford.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 3:59 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger1@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 10:58 a.m.
Posted by: Muffin
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 1:35 p.m.
Posted by: Luke
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 5:34 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 3:34 p.m.
Posted by: Sammy Lalonde (sammylalonde@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 4:36 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 1:58 a.m.
Posted by: Sammy Lalonde (sammylalonde@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 2:26 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 3:40 p.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 6:49 p.m.
Posted by: Sammy Lalonde (sammylalonde@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 3:16 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 8:14 a.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 1:02 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 4:25 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 10:10 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 2:16 p.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 6:01 p.m.
Posted by: Anon (zarchan@fas.harvard.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 7:28 p.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 7:55 p.m.
Posted by: Anon (zarchan@fas.harvard.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 8:34 p.m.
Posted by: Shollenbarger (expectedvalue@cs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 8:43 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 8:52 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 10:00 p.m.
Posted by: Russ (rgarber@stanford.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 3:51 a.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 10:05 a.m.
Posted by: Anon (zarchan@fas.harvard.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 2:47 p.m.
Posted by: Steve Murray (endvolatility@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 1:42 p.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 10:17 a.m.
Posted by: Steve Murray (endvolatility@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 1:21 p.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 1:39 p.m.
Posted by: Steve Murray (endvolatility@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 1:47 p.m.
Posted by: Steve Murray (endvolatility@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 1:33 p.m.
Posted by: Steve Murray (endvolatility@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 1:39 p.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 2:18 p.m.
Posted by: Muffin
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 5:11 p.m.
Posted by: Boris (hiboris@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 3:36 p.m.
Posted by: Steve Murray (endvolatility@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 3:39 p.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 9:48 a.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 12:59 p.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 1:19 p.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 1:22 a.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 3:09 p.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 9:43 p.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 11:49 p.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 11:52 p.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 11:24 a.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 12:42 p.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 1:02 p.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 3:55 p.m.
Posted by: Kim Lee
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 4:23 p.m.
Posted by: Steve Murray (endvolatility@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 5:57 p.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 9:51 a.m.
Posted by: Paul R. Pudaite
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 3:55 p.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 4:35 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 7:53 p.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 2:32 p.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 10:49 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 12:48 p.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 3:17 p.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 7:05 p.m.
Posted by: JQ
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 2:03 a.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 10:37 a.m.
Posted by: JQ
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 3:41 p.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 5:29 p.m.
Posted by: JQ
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 9:14 p.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 11:15 p.m.
Posted by: JQ
Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 2:59 p.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 4:53 p.m.
Posted by: JQ
Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 7:19 p.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 11:37 p.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 8:32 a.m.
Posted by: Muffin
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 10:12 a.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 10:16 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 12:21 p.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 12:36 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 8:29 p.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 11:40 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 12:37 a.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 1:36 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 8:14 p.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 10:21 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 12:08 p.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 4:59 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 4:13 p.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 10:10 p.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 2:23 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 3:54 p.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 10:40 a.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 10:07 p.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 1:40 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 7:44 p.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 10:42 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 12:30 p.m.
Posted by: Cyrus
Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 12:10 p.m.
Posted by: Edgar
Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 11:42 a.m.
Posted by: Daliman (clocwork@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 5:04 p.m.
Posted by: admirer
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 11:03 p.m.
Posted by: GD (boopotts@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 11:12 p.m.
Posted by: Daliman (clocwork@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 1:27 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 10:50 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 12:41 p.m.
Posted by: Phat Mack (phat_mack@bigfoot.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 2:06 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 3:18 p.m.
Posted by: Joe (joe1876@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 6:15 p.m.
Posted by: natedogg (nate-web@thegrovers.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 6:20 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 3:50 p.m.
Posted by: Daliman (clocwork@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 8:56 p.m.
Posted by: Daliman (clocwork@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 10:28 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 4:01 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 1:30 p.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 2:04 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 2:55 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 3:12 p.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 3:25 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 3:49 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 3:09 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Sprung
Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 9:51 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 3:22 p.m.
Posted by: Craig H
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 5:46 p.m.
Posted by: Russ (rgarber@stanford.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 9:15 p.m.
Posted by: jim browder (jbrowder@yotalzone.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 12:43 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 2:15 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 11:19 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger1@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 3:40 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 7:15 p.m.
Posted by: Even Stevens
Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 1:41 a.m.
Posted by: Buzz (PacPalBuzz@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 6:57 p.m.
Posted by: IowaMatt (Regents7@interl.net)
Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 10:29 a.m.
Posted by: zzzzzz (ray@shano.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 1:14 p.m.
Posted by: Big Slick (Danny44@thegrid.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 7:36 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Z.
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 11:57 p.m.
Posted by: Kim Lee
Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 10:34 a.m.
Posted by: Katarina
Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 6:14 p.m.
Posted by: Bill T (wctom1@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 12:58 a.m.
Posted by: Phat Mack (phat_mack@bigfoot.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 2:20 a.m.
Posted by: Bill T (wctom1@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 3:14 a.m.
Posted by: Anon (zarchan@fas.harvard.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 3:52 p.m.
Posted by: Phat Mack (phat_mack@bigfoot.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 11:29 p.m.
Posted by: Ricky Diamond (ace2ten@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 2:34 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 4:34 a.m.
Posted by: Cyrus
Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 8:22 a.m."Playing ring game, limit poker, against good player [Stu Ungar] would be as much of a sucker on drugs as anyone else."
Posted by: Ricky Diamond (ace2ten@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 11:26 a.m.
Posted by: JAWZ
Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 1:35 p.m.
Posted by: Cyrus
Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 4:21 a.m.
Posted by: Russ (rgarber@stanford.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 12:17 a.m.
Posted by: Joel
Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 10:47 a.m.
Posted by: Bill T (wctom1@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 6:37 a.m.
Posted by: Howard Burroughs
Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 8:30 a.m.
Posted by: Bishop
Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 12:37 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 10:57 a.m.
Posted by: Big Slick (Danny44@thegrid.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 7:44 a.m.
Posted by: Mike Cunningham
Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 8:13 p.m.
Posted by: Ricky Diamond (ace2ten@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 8:12 a.m.
Posted by: jim browder (jbrowder@yotalzone.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 11:04 a.m.
Posted by: sucker
Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 3:23 a.m.
Posted by: sucker
Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 3:29 a.m.
Posted by: Charles Mahoney
Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 4:57 a.m.
Posted by: jim browder (jbrowder@yotalzone.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 10:48 a.m.
Posted by: Charles Mahoney
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 3:16 a.m.
Posted by: Bunhead (douglas.fox@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 2:39 p.m.
Posted by: pokertek (pokertek@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 10:36 a.m.
Posted by: pokertek (pokertek@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 10:43 a.m.
Posted by: Gremlin
Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 11:20 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 12:56 p.m.
Posted by: JV
Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 5:07 p.m.
Posted by: Gremlin
Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 11:04 p.m.
Posted by: Russ (rgarber@stanford.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 12:11 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 2:14 a.m.
Posted by: Russ (rgarber@stanford.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 12:36 p.m.
Posted by: sucker
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 2:07 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 2:29 a.m.
Posted by: sucker
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 3:32 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 2:17 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (codesavvy@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 5:41 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 2:26 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 2:07 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 12:48 p.m.
Posted by: pokertek (pokertek@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 8:30 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 12:21 p.m.
Posted by: Jim (jcirill@austin.rr.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 7:57 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 12:45 p.m.
Posted by: Larry (bigfishead@neteze.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 8:33 p.m.
Posted by: JV
Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 10:49 p.m.
Posted by: Robert H
Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 10:49 p.m.
Posted by: Derrick Ashworth (djashworth@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 10:05 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 12:37 p.m.
Posted by: Larry (bigfishead@neteze.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 9:10 p.m.
Posted by: Eric
Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 10:43 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger1@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 12:30 a.m.
Posted by: Larry (bigfishead@neteze.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 1:04 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 11:37 a.m.
Posted by: Derrick Ashworth (djashworth@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 9:59 a.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 4:51 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 12:23 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 5:25 a.m.
Posted by: Dave Waters (davewaters@rocketmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 11:43 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 12:53 p.m.
Posted by: Tacky.
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 1:51 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 2:06 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 5:34 p.m.
Posted by: Dave Waters (davewaters@rocketmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 10:24 p.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 12:12 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 2:12 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 2:35 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 4:00 p.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 3:32 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Weideman (zwishi@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 6:20 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 11:19 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Weideman (zwishi@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 11:52 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 9:39 p.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 9:44 p.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 12:38 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 3:12 p.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 4:21 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 7:51 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 9:47 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 11:24 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Weideman (zwishi@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 2:58 a.m.
Posted by: John Cole (jcole5044@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 6:37 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 9:29 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 9:55 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Weideman (zwishi@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 1:22 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 8:05 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Weideman (zwishi@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 11:21 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 1:05 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 11:47 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 5:43 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 8:34 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 8:46 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 11:17 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 1:46 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 12:02 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 1:26 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 11:43 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 11:51 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (codesavvy@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 10:05 a.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 12:24 a.m.
: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose - col·lu·sive /-'lü-siv, -ziv/ adjective - col·lu·sive·ly adverb
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 9:57 a.m.
Posted by: Bobby (impollon@fas.harvard.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 8:42 p.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 10:48 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 12:40 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 1:03 p.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 10:40 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 10:59 a.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 4:47 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 10:47 p.m.
Posted by: Phat Mack (phat_mack@bigfoot.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 3:06 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 12:41 p.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 1:36 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 10:16 a.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 11:19 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 1:11 p.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 1:39 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 7:53 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 11:44 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 11:42 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 1:41 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 12:18 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 12:56 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 3:03 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 4:14 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 11:07 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 1:22 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 4:06 p.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 5:21 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 11:29 p.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 12:25 a.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 12:36 p.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 11:29 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 11:53 p.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 10:09 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 10:40 a.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 3:38 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 6:56 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 11:44 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 12:20 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 12:57 p.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 3:29 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 4:42 p.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 7:20 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 1:47 a.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 9:56 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 12:03 p.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 1:12 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 3:26 p.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 3:37 p.m.
Posted by: Phat Mack (phat_mack@bigfoot.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 5:23 p.m.
Posted by: Buzz (PacPalBuzz@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 6:31 p.m.
Posted by: JQ
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 4:01 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 4:28 p.m.
Posted by: Phat Mack (phat_mack@bigfoot.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 2:59 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 10:51 a.m.
Posted by: KJS (kscullin@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 5:24 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (codesavvy@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 7:37 p.m.
Posted by: jim browder (jbrowder@yotalzone.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 12:09 p.m.
Posted by: J D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 6:02 p.m.
Posted by: Tacky.
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 7:09 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 12:15 a.m.
Posted by: IowaMatt (Regents7@interl.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 8:58 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 10:57 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 12:34 p.m.
Posted by: mississippi gambler (jrbobdobs@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 2:10 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 7:38 a.m.
Posted by: Ratt
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 7:47 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 10:59 a.m.
Posted by: dk (daivdked@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 5:23 p.m.
Posted by: PokerSthlm
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 8:07 p.m.
Posted by: anonymous
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 3:47 a.m.
Posted by: dk (daivdked@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 9:50 a.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 2:47 p.m.
Posted by: Dan C (dannyc12@bitstream.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 3:08 p.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 3:37 p.m.
Posted by: Dan C (dannyc12@bitstream.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 3:58 p.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 4:06 p.m.
Posted by: Ricky Diamond (ace2ten@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 4:03 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 3:49 p.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 4:04 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 7:36 p.m.
Posted by: Craig H
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 9:46 p.m.
Posted by: brad (bradley_abc@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 11:29 p.m.
Posted by: anonymous
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 3:57 a.m.
Posted by: anonymous
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 4:09 a.m.
Posted by: Nagypablo (nagypablo@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 2:11 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 3:00 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 4:04 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 5:19 p.m.
Posted by: G. Ed Conly (econly@poweruser.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 7:34 p.m.
Posted by: RFL
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 5:20 p.m.
Posted by: G. Ed Conly (econly@poweruser.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 7:54 p.m.
Posted by: scalf (ae11@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 5:26 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 5:34 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 7:40 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 3:31 a.m.
Posted by: GD (boopotts@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 4:28 p.m.
Posted by: jim browder (jbrowder@yotalzone.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 7:02 p.m.
Posted by: GD (boopotts@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 12:32 a.m.
Posted by: RFL
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 7:21 a.m.
Posted by: RFL
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 6:24 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 7:04 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 5:00 a.m.
Posted by: RFL
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 8:57 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 9:43 a.m.
Posted by: jim browder (jbrowder@yotalzone.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 1:27 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 7:49 a.m.
Posted by: Howard Burroughs
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 5:57 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 6:50 p.m.
Posted by: jim browder (jbrowder@yotalzone.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 12:18 a.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 6:01 p.m.
Posted by: jim browder (jbrowder@yotalzone.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 6:52 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 12:33 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 1:28 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 7:26 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 8:11 p.m.
Posted by: jim browder (jbrowder@yotalzone.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 12:08 a.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 6:29 p.m.
Posted by: jim browder (jbrowder@yotalzone.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 6:58 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 5:08 a.m.
Posted by: jim browder (jbrowder@yotalzone.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 1:39 p.m.
Posted by: jim browder (jbrowder@yotalzone.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 1:37 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 1:48 p.m.
Posted by: jim browder (jbrowder@yotalzone.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 7:20 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 8:16 p.m.
Posted by: Ken Dav
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 5:36 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 6:18 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 6:30 a.m.
Posted by: just curious
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 7:04 p.m.
Posted by: brad (bradley_abc@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 9:39 p.m.
Posted by: Bishop
Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 10:50 p.m.
Posted by: Derrick Ashworth (djashworth@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 10:34 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 11:19 p.m.
Posted by: Dan C (dannyc12@bitstream.net)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 11:14 a.m.
Posted by: Daliman
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 1:08 a.m.
Posted by: ohKanada (ohKanada@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 2:55 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 11:00 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 12:40 p.m.
Posted by: Jeremy D
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 1:59 a.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 6:15 a.m.
Posted by: jim browder (jbrowder@yotalzone.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 11:45 a.m.
Posted by: Phat Mack (phat_mack@bigfoot.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 4:03 p.m.
Posted by: Jeremy D
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 10:14 p.m.
Posted by: dk (daivdked@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 12:19 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 1:19 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 4:48 a.m.
Posted by: Erin
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 7:41 a.m.
Posted by: jim browder (jbrowder@yotalzone.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 1:03 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (codesavvy@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 1:22 p.m.
Posted by: Matt Kirisits (matthew.kirisits@verizon.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 10:23 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 3:50 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 12:05 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 3:27 p.m.
Posted by: Elliot (epan61@optonline.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 8:49 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 6:49 p.m.
Posted by: Bobby (impollon@fas.harvard.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 4:02 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 8:20 p.m.
Posted by: Dave Waters (davewaters@rocketmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 12:40 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 1:02 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 6:39 p.m.
Posted by: walk
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 1:10 p.m.
Posted by: Ben (bencu00@yahoo.om)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 2:18 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 2:34 p.m.
Posted by: Alec (AlTang67@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 2:57 p.m.
Posted by: JV
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 5:55 p.m.
Posted by: Anon
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 5:26 a.m.
Posted by: Ben (bencu00@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 5:27 a.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 4:08 a.m.
Posted by: Dave Waters (davewaters@rocketmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 3:22 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 6:37 p.m.
Posted by: Mike Norton (nicerivercard@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 2:28 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 12:47 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 1:13 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 2:15 a.m.
Posted by: Russ (rgarber@stanford.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 3:27 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 9:30 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (codesavvy@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 10:32 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 12:32 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 4:45 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 3:31 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 6:01 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 10:28 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 10:43 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 12:50 p.m.
Posted by: Russ (rgarber@stanford.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 3:33 a.m.
Posted by: Cyrus
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 1:59 p.m.
Posted by: :-)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 9:24 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 2:24 p.m.
Posted by: JOHN
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 2:17 p.m.
Posted by: MS Sunshine (jbuchan3@midsouth.rr.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 2:29 p.m.
Posted by: Scott V
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 4:18 p.m.
Posted by: Larry (bigfishead@neteze.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 5:18 p.m.
Posted by: jim browder (jbrowder@yotalzone.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 6:36 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 9:20 a.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 5:52 a.m.
Posted by: Larry (bigfishead@neteze.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 5:14 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 11:08 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Weideman (zwishi@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 8:41 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 11:54 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 10:47 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Weideman (zwishi@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 12:28 a.m.
Posted by: Phat Mack (phat_mack@bigfoot.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 2:19 a.m.
Posted by: jim browder (jbrowder@yotalzone.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 8:08 a.m.
Posted by: Dave Waters (davewaters@rocketmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 9:48 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 9:01 a.m.
Posted by: Dave Waters (davewaters@rocketmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 10:18 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 11:21 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 5:19 a.m.
Posted by: David Ottosen (dottosen@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 11:59 a.m.
Posted by: Eos
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 11:03 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 11:33 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 5:37 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 11:59 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 11:41 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 3:25 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 8:26 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 10:57 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 9:18 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 11:14 a.m.
Posted by: The Gunner
Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 11:46 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 3:18 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 3:21 p.m.
Posted by: JimfromNYC (jstoker@owc.com)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 10:11 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 11:13 a.m.
Posted by: JimfromNYC (jstoker@owc.com)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 11:30 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 12:12 p.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 1:18 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 2:53 p.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 4:31 p.m.
Posted by: the pokerplayer formerly known as Jack (pppecanu@ayhoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 9:37 a.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 11:49 a.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 11:09 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 12:44 a.m.
Posted by: Dave Waters (davewaters@rocketmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 10:27 a.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 5:34 a.m.
Posted by: wes (weswirun@hotnail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 1:09 a.m.
Posted by: Bobby (impollon@fas.harvard.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 10:29 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 12:34 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Weideman (zwishi@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 1:41 a.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 1:03 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Weideman (zwishi@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 2:14 p.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 2:34 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 3:03 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 2:47 p.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 4:09 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 5:02 p.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 9:13 p.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 12:01 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 7:02 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 11:01 p.m.
Posted by: Ed R.
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 2:27 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 2:33 a.m.
Posted by: Ed R.
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 2:42 a.m.
Posted by: Paul Feeney
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 7:08 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 11:17 a.m.
Posted by: Fat Ass Farley
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 2:35 a.m.
Posted by: Daliman
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 3:47 p.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 5:14 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 6:11 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 11:06 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 12:43 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 1:05 a.m.
Posted by: Pro
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 5:36 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 6:46 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 6:14 a.m.
Posted by: Pro
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 5:17 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 6:34 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 12:51 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 1:32 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Geary (jaygee@netaxs.com)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 6:40 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 11:58 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 12:04 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Weideman (zwishi@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 1:16 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Geary (jaygee@netaxs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 12:51 p.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 1:08 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 2:59 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 3:05 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Geary (jaygee@netaxs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 3:11 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 3:42 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Geary (jaygee@netaxs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 4:15 p.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 3:27 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 11:21 p.m.
Posted by: Big Willy (pocketaces80@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 6:37 a.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 3:55 p.m.
Posted by: Sneaker
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 9:35 a.m.
Posted by: rolf slotboom (rslotboo@nl.packardbell.org)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 11:46 a.m.
Posted by: Pro
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 4:53 a.m.
Posted by: MS Sunshine (jbuchan3@midsouth.rr.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 11:07 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 4:01 p.m.
Posted by: Daliman
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 1:18 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 6:49 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Wang (jimmywanger@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 4:11 p.m.
Posted by: keenan (keenan.p.healey@ca.abb.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 12:56 p.m.
Posted by: Dave Waters (davewaters@rocketmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 10:57 p.m.
Posted by: IowaMatt (Regents7@interl.net)
Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 11:06 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 4:03 a.m.
Posted by: Pro
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 4:21 a.m.
Posted by: Pro
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 4:36 a.m.
Posted by: GD (boopotts@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 10:53 a.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 2:28 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 6:51 p.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 4:44 a.m.
Posted by: Buzz (PacPalBuzz@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 7:23 a.m.
Posted by: Ohnonotagain
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 9:12 a.m.
Posted by: Ohnonotagain
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 9:23 a.m.
Posted by: chris downs (chris.downs@bridge.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 11:37 a.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 1:05 p.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 1:34 p.m.
Posted by: chris downs (chris.downs@bridge.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 3:42 p.m.
Posted by: Scott
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 3:51 p.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 2:41 a.m.
Posted by: chris downs (chris.downs@bridge.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 4:59 p.m.
Posted by: Scott
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 6:05 p.m.
Posted by: chris downs (chris.downs@bridge.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 11:43 a.m.
Posted by: Ohnonotagain
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 9:32 a.m.
Posted by: Scott
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 3:56 p.m.
Posted by: mississippi gambler (jrbobdobs@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 2:42 a.m.
Posted by: Dave Waters (davewaters@rocketmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 11:29 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 12:35 p.m.
Posted by: Dan C (dannyc12@bitstream.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 3:24 p.m.
Posted by: Dave Waters (davewaters@rocketmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 3:34 p.m.
Posted by: MS Sunshine (jbuchan3@midsouth.rr.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 5:27 a.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 20 May 2001, at 2:05 p.m.
Posted by: golfnutt (orphana@ssd.loral.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 11:38 a.m.
Posted by: Pro
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 2:28 p.m.
Posted by: mississippi gambler (jrbobdobs@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 2:31 a.m.
Posted by: golfnutt
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 9:42 a.m.
Posted by: Pro
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 12:40 p.m.
Posted by: Dan C (dannyc12@bitstream.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 4:32 p.m.
Posted by: Pro
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 4:53 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 7:48 p.m.
Posted by: natedogg (nate-web@thegrovers.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 8:17 p.m.
Posted by: Pro
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 9:20 p.m.
Posted by: natedogg (nate-web@thegrovers.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 2:08 p.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 5:20 p.m.
Posted by: Pro
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 5:57 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 6:58 p.m.
Posted by: Pro
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 9:01 p.m.
Posted by: counterfieter
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 1:27 a.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 1:14 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 18 May 2001, at 2:59 p.m.
Posted by: Cyrus
Posted on: Friday, 18 May 2001, at 10:28 p.m."I'll take a [poker] table that rakes over $100/hour any day and happily assume all associated expenses."
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 1:12 p.m.
Posted by: Boris (hiboris@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 3:13 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 7:02 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 7:25 p.m.
Posted by: Matt (mflynn3@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 8:11 p.m.
Posted by: andy fox (andy@frenchcraft.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 9:09 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger1@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 11:01 p.m.
Posted by: counterfieter
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 1:29 a.m.
Posted by: brad (bradley_abc@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 12:03 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 4:34 a.m.
Posted by: Dan C (dannyc12@bitstream.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 10:23 a.m.
Posted by: Eeyor
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 5:02 p.m.
Posted by: the pokerplayer formerly known as Jack (pppecanu@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 5:38 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 6:50 p.m.
Posted by: the pokerplayer formerly known as Jack (pppecanu@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 7:49 a.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 18 May 2001, at 3:33 p.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 19 May 2001, at 1:11 a.m.
Posted by: the pokerplayer formerly known as Jack (pppecanu@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 19 May 2001, at 8:16 p.m.
Posted by: dirk
Posted on: Monday, 21 May 2001, at 5:58 p.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 21 May 2001, at 11:53 p.m.
Posted by: dirk
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 May 2001, at 2:12 p.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 May 2001, at 7:52 p.m.
Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 23 May 2001, at 9:46 a.m.
Posted by: dirk
Posted on: Wednesday, 23 May 2001, at 5:41 p.m.
Posted by: the pokerplayer formerly known as Jack (pppecanu@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 May 2001, at 3:57 p.m.
Posted by: dirk
Posted on: Wednesday, 23 May 2001, at 5:22 p.m.
Posted by: J.P.
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 6:04 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 6:19 p.m.
Posted by: Dan C (dannyc12@bitstream.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 6:43 p.m.
Posted by: MS Sunshine (jbuchan3@midsouth.rr.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 20 May 2001, at 12:49 p.m.
Posted by: Ikke
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 6:41 p.m.
Posted by: Ben (bencu00@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 1:03 a.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 2:48 a.m.
Posted by: MS Sunshine (jbuchan3@midsouth.rr.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 5:14 a.m.
Posted by: Ricky Diamond (ace2ten@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 19 May 2001, at 1:14 a.m.
Posted by: Ben (bencu00@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 20 May 2001, at 4:17 a.m.
Posted by: Ben (bencu00@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 5:37 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 6:16 p.m.
Posted by: Ben (bencu00@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 6:49 p.m.
Posted by: you sure are a nut case
Posted on: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 8:37 a.m.
Posted by: Ben (bencu00@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 9:01 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 7:47 a.m.
Posted by: Ben (bencu00@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 1:37 p.m.
Posted by: you are a weak whiner
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 8:08 a.m.
Posted by: Ben (bencu00@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 1:28 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 11:28 a.m.
Posted by: Ben (bencu00@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 1:32 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 12:38 p.m.
Posted by: Paul Feeney
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 1:07 p.m.
Posted by: Ben (bencu00@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 1:38 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 6:03 p.m.
Posted by: Ben (bencu00@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 6:20 p.m.
Posted by: Bishop
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 5:02 p.m.
Posted by: Ben (bencu00@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 5:31 p.m.
Posted by: Bishop
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 11:22 p.m.
Posted by: Ben (bencu00@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 12:09 a.m.
Posted by: Bishop
Posted on: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 1:14 p.m.
Posted by: Shollenbarger (expectedvalue@cs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 5:40 p.m.
Posted by: Ben (bencu00@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 9:42 p.m.
Posted by: Shollenbarger (expectedvalue@cs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 11:16 p.m.
Posted by: Ben (bencu00@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 1:19 a.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 11:32 p.m.
Posted by: Ben (bencu00@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 11:54 p.m.
Posted by: Jeff Biship (jayesbee@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 2:28 a.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Saturday, 26 May 2001, at 3:10 a.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Sunday, 27 May 2001, at 3:07 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Roy (jimroy@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 5:05 a.m.
Posted by: David Ottosen (dottosen@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 5:00 p.m.
Posted by: berya
Posted on: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 1:39 p.m.
Posted by: Bruce K (bkeaton@juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 2:11 p.m.
Posted by: Ben (bencu00@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 3:24 p.m.
Posted by: MS Sunshine (jbuchan3@midsouth.rr.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 3:44 p.m.
Posted by: andy fox (andy@frenchcraft.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 7:52 p.m.
Posted by: Ben (bencu00@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 11:21 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andy@frenchcraft.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 19 May 2001, at 9:08 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin J
Posted on: Sunday, 20 May 2001, at 1:09 a.m.
Posted by: Ben (bencu00@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 20 May 2001, at 4:23 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 12:01 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 12:43 a.m.
Posted by: dk (daivdked@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 12:06 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 12:28 p.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 12:33 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 6:25 p.m.
Posted by: Russ (rgarber@stanford.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 3:01 a.m.
Posted by: Ricky Diamond (ace2ten@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 19 May 2001, at 12:56 a.m.
Posted by: Swedish boy (unbeaten@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 18 May 2001, at 5:16 a.m.
Posted by: Bishop
Posted on: Friday, 18 May 2001, at 1:33 p.m.
Posted by: Ricky Diamond (ace2ten@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 19 May 2001, at 2:07 a.m.
Posted by: R. Limbaugh (ace2ten@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 19 May 2001, at 1:55 a.m.
Posted by: Ben (bencu00@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 20 May 2001, at 4:13 a.m.
Posted by: R.Limbaugh (ace2ten@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 20 May 2001, at 6:45 a.m.
Posted by: Bishop
Posted on: Sunday, 20 May 2001, at 3:10 p.m.
Posted by: Bishop
Posted on: Sunday, 20 May 2001, at 3:17 p.m.
Posted by: Ben (bencu00@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 20 May 2001, at 4:42 p.m.
Posted by: Ben (bencu00@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 21 May 2001, at 5:25 p.m.
Posted by: Bishop
Posted on: Monday, 21 May 2001, at 11:00 p.m.
Posted by: you sure are a nut case
Posted on: Thursday, 24 May 2001, at 2:16 p.m.
Posted by: Ben (bencu00@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 24 May 2001, at 10:26 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 19 May 2001, at 1:14 p.m.
Posted by: DaveMcG
Posted on: Saturday, 19 May 2001, at 2:15 p.m.
Posted by: nate foster (nate7out@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 19 May 2001, at 5:28 p.m.
Posted by: DaveMcG
Posted on: Saturday, 19 May 2001, at 5:48 p.m.
Posted by: Pro
Posted on: Saturday, 19 May 2001, at 4:51 p.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb_llb@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 19 May 2001, at 8:46 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mph@acm.org)
Posted on: Saturday, 19 May 2001, at 10:53 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger1@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 19 May 2001, at 10:05 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 19 May 2001, at 11:19 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 19 May 2001, at 11:24 p.m.
Posted by: stocksnaces (stocksnaces@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 19 May 2001, at 11:38 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 19 May 2001, at 11:56 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 20 May 2001, at 12:43 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Sunday, 20 May 2001, at 9:27 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (codesavvy@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 20 May 2001, at 12:50 p.m.
Posted by: Bishop
Posted on: Sunday, 20 May 2001, at 2:41 p.m.
Posted by: Bishop
Posted on: Sunday, 20 May 2001, at 2:37 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 20 May 2001, at 3:54 p.m.
Posted by: Alden Chase (tyro) (tyro@socal.rr.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 20 May 2001, at 6:55 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 20 May 2001, at 7:46 p.m.
Posted by: Alden Chase (tyro) (tyro@socal.rr.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 20 May 2001, at 9:27 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 20 May 2001, at 9:43 p.m.
Posted by: Alden Chase (tyro) (tyro@socal.rr.com)
Posted on: Monday, 21 May 2001, at 1:26 a.m.
Posted by: G. Ed Conly (econly@poweruser.com)
Posted on: Monday, 21 May 2001, at 7:18 a.m.
Posted by: jim browder (jbrowder@yotalzone.com)
Posted on: Monday, 21 May 2001, at 10:21 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 21 May 2001, at 12:43 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 21 May 2001, at 2:53 p.m.
Posted by: pokertek (pokertek@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 21 May 2001, at 6:37 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 May 2001, at 12:48 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 21 May 2001, at 4:18 p.m.
Posted by: Craig H
Posted on: Monday, 21 May 2001, at 7:46 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 May 2001, at 2:16 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 May 2001, at 3:09 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 May 2001, at 4:17 p.m.
Posted by: Brian (bpskiles@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 20 May 2001, at 2:03 p.m.
Posted by: Buzz (PacPalBuzz@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 20 May 2001, at 8:07 p.m.
Posted by: PokerPL (Davepoker1@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 21 May 2001, at 12:10 a.m.
Posted by: Buzz (PacPalBuzz@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 21 May 2001, at 6:41 a.m.
Posted by: Brian (bpskiles@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 21 May 2001, at 9:15 a.m.
Posted by: Rich P. (Rich_Procida@Lycos.com)
Posted on: Monday, 21 May 2001, at 5:46 p.m.
Posted by: G. Ed Conly (econly@poweruser.com)
Posted on: Monday, 21 May 2001, at 7:31 a.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 21 May 2001, at 11:22 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 21 May 2001, at 12:50 p.m.
Posted by: Ray R (Fireman92@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 20 May 2001, at 5:36 p.m.
Posted by: Ray R (Fireman92@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 20 May 2001, at 5:46 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 23 May 2001, at 11:40 a.m.
Posted by: jim browder (jbrowder@yotalzone.com)
Posted on: Monday, 21 May 2001, at 10:05 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Monday, 21 May 2001, at 12:21 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 21 May 2001, at 12:59 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Monday, 21 May 2001, at 6:06 p.m.
Posted by: ohKanada (ohkanada@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 21 May 2001, at 6:13 p.m.
Posted by: jim browder (jbrowder@yotalzone.com)
Posted on: Monday, 21 May 2001, at 10:12 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 May 2001, at 1:45 a.m.
Posted by: jim browder (jbrowder@yotalzone.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 May 2001, at 8:41 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 May 2001, at 3:13 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Wednesday, 23 May 2001, at 12:27 a.m.
Posted by: JAWZ
Posted on: Monday, 21 May 2001, at 10:43 p.m.
Posted by: G. Ed Conly (econly@poweruser.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 May 2001, at 9:15 a.m.
Posted by: jim browder (jbrowder@yotalzone.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 May 2001, at 2:30 p.m.
Posted by: Phat Mack (phat_mack@bigfoot.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 May 2001, at 6:23 p.m.
Posted by: jeff norman (jeffnorman2000@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 May 2001, at 12:04 a.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 May 2001, at 12:33 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 May 2001, at 3:00 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (codesavvy@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 May 2001, at 10:08 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 May 2001, at 1:51 p.m.
Posted by: jeff norman (jeffnorman2000@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 25 May 2001, at 2:19 a.m.
Posted by: G. Ed Conly (econly@poweruser.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 May 2001, at 4:20 a.m.
Posted by: MercuryTide (radontide@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 May 2001, at 12:12 p.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 May 2001, at 5:06 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 25 May 2001, at 3:57 p.m.
Posted by: The Baron (x012358@icqmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 11:48 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 May 2001, at 1:01 p.m.
Posted by: Dick in Phoenix (Dick@annabelles-treasures.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 23 May 2001, at 8:14 p.m.
Posted by: Cyrus
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 May 2001, at 7:23 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Weideman (zwishi@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 24 May 2001, at 1:38 p.m.
Posted by: Ray R (Fireman92@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 May 2001, at 8:51 a.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 23 May 2001, at 8:57 a.m.
Posted by: Ray R (Fireman92@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 23 May 2001, at 2:42 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Friday, 25 May 2001, at 6:14 p.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 25 May 2001, at 6:33 p.m.
Posted by: johnny walker
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 May 2001, at 10:50 a.m.
Posted by: natedogg (nate-web@thegrovers.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 May 2001, at 5:33 p.m.
Posted by: 12 Volt Man (vailpoker@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 25 May 2001, at 6:59 p.m.
Posted by: Goat (PunkRok777@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 25 May 2001, at 9:04 p.m.
Posted by: Boris (hiboris@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 May 2001, at 6:52 p.m.
Posted by: walk
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 May 2001, at 1:51 p.m.
Posted by: andy fox (andy@frenchcraft.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 May 2001, at 2:35 p.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 May 2001, at 5:19 p.m.
Posted by: MS Sunshine (jbuchan3@midsouth.rr.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 May 2001, at 5:43 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 May 2001, at 5:54 p.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 May 2001, at 8:39 p.m.
Posted by: natedogg (nate-web@thegrovers.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 May 2001, at 9:47 p.m.
Posted by: walk
Posted on: Wednesday, 23 May 2001, at 11:40 a.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mph@acm.org)
Posted on: Wednesday, 23 May 2001, at 7:47 p.m.
Posted by: bunhead (douglas.fox@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 23 May 2001, at 8:21 p.m.
Posted by: jim browder (jbrowder@yotalzone.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 23 May 2001, at 8:35 p.m.
Posted by: Russ (rgarber@stanford.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 25 May 2001, at 2:39 a.m.
Posted by: jim browder (jbrowder@yotalzone.com)
Posted on: Friday, 25 May 2001, at 8:57 a.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 23 May 2001, at 9:27 p.m.
Posted by: GD (boopotts@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 23 May 2001, at 11:08 p.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 24 May 2001, at 2:17 p.m.
Posted by: GD (boopotts@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 24 May 2001, at 2:38 p.m.
Posted by: Alden Chase (tyro) (tyro@socal.rr.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 24 May 2001, at 2:38 a.m.
Posted by: TPR (trobertson1@cfl.rr.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 23 May 2001, at 9:53 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andy@frenchcraft.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 23 May 2001, at 11:41 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney
Posted on: Thursday, 24 May 2001, at 1:59 a.m.
Posted by: andy fox (andy@frenchcraft.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 24 May 2001, at 5:37 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 25 May 2001, at 1:34 a.m.
Posted by: andy fox (andy@frenchcraft.com)
Posted on: Friday, 25 May 2001, at 12:53 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 25 May 2001, at 3:33 p.m.
Posted by: Larry (bigfishead@neteze.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 24 May 2001, at 10:37 a.m.
Posted by: KJS (kscullin@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 24 May 2001, at 5:20 p.m.
Posted by: MercuryTide (radontide@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 24 May 2001, at 12:20 p.m.
Posted by: bunhead (douglas.fox@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 24 May 2001, at 8:33 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 25 May 2001, at 3:07 a.m.
Posted by: Goat (PunkRok777@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 25 May 2001, at 7:08 a.m.
Posted by: andy fox (andy@frenchcraft.com)
Posted on: Friday, 25 May 2001, at 12:56 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 25 May 2001, at 12:27 p.m.
Posted by: Dan D.
Posted on: Thursday, 24 May 2001, at 6:11 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Thursday, 24 May 2001, at 12:47 p.m.
Posted by: Dan D.
Posted on: Thursday, 24 May 2001, at 4:21 p.m.
Posted by: Alden Chase (tyro) (tyro@socal.rr.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 27 May 2001, at 2:03 a.m.
Posted by: Dan D.
Posted on: Monday, 28 May 2001, at 4:49 a.m.
Posted by: the pokerplayer formerly known as Jack (pppecanu@ayhoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 24 May 2001, at 6:23 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Thursday, 24 May 2001, at 12:39 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Weideman (zwishi@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 24 May 2001, at 1:13 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Weideman (zwishi@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 24 May 2001, at 1:23 p.m.
Posted by: the pokerplayer formerly known as Jack (pppecanu@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 24 May 2001, at 5:33 p.m.
Posted by: Kim Lee
Posted on: Thursday, 24 May 2001, at 5:02 p.m.
Posted by: Dirk(MildManneredMathMan) (vertigan@math.lsu.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 25 May 2001, at 3:22 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 25 May 2001, at 7:47 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Saturday, 26 May 2001, at 1:34 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 26 May 2001, at 5:51 p.m.
Posted by: the pokerplayer formerly known as Jack (pppecanu@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 26 May 2001, at 6:07 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 26 May 2001, at 9:10 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 26 May 2001, at 8:02 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 26 May 2001, at 8:59 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 26 May 2001, at 11:14 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 27 May 2001, at 12:35 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 27 May 2001, at 11:42 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Sunday, 27 May 2001, at 1:12 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 27 May 2001, at 2:26 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Monday, 28 May 2001, at 9:20 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 May 2001, at 9:59 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 May 2001, at 7:33 p.m.
Posted by: Cyrus
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 8:32 a.m."Yesterday (at 11:42 a.m.), you asserted: "Mark gave a goofy answer in which he effectively claims that I and I alone on this forum am incapable of grasping the connection."
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 2:31 p.m.
Posted by: the pokerplayer formerly known as Jack (pppecanu@ayhoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 May 2001, at 7:53 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 May 2001, at 9:54 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Sunday, 27 May 2001, at 10:29 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 27 May 2001, at 11:54 a.m.
Posted by: dieter
Posted on: Sunday, 27 May 2001, at 7:02 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 May 2001, at 1:00 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (codesavvy@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 May 2001, at 10:36 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 May 2001, at 1:59 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 May 2001, at 3:29 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 May 2001, at 6:48 p.m.
Posted by: dieter
Posted on: Monday, 28 May 2001, at 8:25 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Monday, 28 May 2001, at 9:25 p.m.
Posted by: dieter
Posted on: Monday, 28 May 2001, at 10:33 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 May 2001, at 11:04 p.m.
Posted by: John Cole (jcole5044@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 10:38 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 3:33 p.m.
Posted by: dieter
Posted on: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 5:36 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 7:25 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 8:16 p.m.
Posted by: GD (boopotts@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 24 May 2001, at 3:47 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 25 May 2001, at 11:59 a.m.
Posted by: the pokerplayer formerly known as Jack (pppecanu@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 24 May 2001, at 4:03 p.m.
Posted by: Stephan (claque@gmx.net)
Posted on: Friday, 25 May 2001, at 3:26 p.m.
Posted by: David Ottosen (dottosen@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Friday, 25 May 2001, at 3:51 p.m.
Posted by: andy fox (andy@frenchcraft.com)
Posted on: Friday, 25 May 2001, at 6:06 p.m.
Posted by: Stephan (claque@gmx.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 26 May 2001, at 1:30 p.m.
Posted by: Phat Mack (phat_mack@bigfoot.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 26 May 2001, at 10:55 p.m.
Posted by: Craig H
Posted on: Friday, 25 May 2001, at 6:41 p.m.
Posted by: jg
Posted on: Saturday, 26 May 2001, at 9:39 a.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 May 2001, at 4:08 p.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Saturday, 26 May 2001, at 3:01 a.m.
Posted by: Eric
Posted on: Saturday, 26 May 2001, at 11:00 a.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Saturday, 26 May 2001, at 4:52 p.m.
Posted by: Eric
Posted on: Monday, 28 May 2001, at 3:31 a.m.
Posted by: Alden Chase (tyro) (tyro@socal.rr.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 27 May 2001, at 1:28 a.m.
Posted by: Fast Corky (ctower@cybertrails.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 26 May 2001, at 3:40 a.m.
Posted by: Eric
Posted on: Saturday, 26 May 2001, at 10:51 a.m.
Posted by: Ray zee
Posted on: Sunday, 27 May 2001, at 12:09 a.m.
Posted by: Russ (rgarber@stanford.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 27 May 2001, at 3:49 a.m.
Posted by: Fast Corky (ctower@cybertrails.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 27 May 2001, at 3:06 p.m.
Posted by: Russ (rgarber@stanford.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 27 May 2001, at 4:23 p.m.
Posted by: Fast Corky (ctower@cybertrails.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 May 2001, at 12:06 a.m.
Posted by: Fast Corky (ctower@cybertrails.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 3:20 p.m.
Posted by: nate foster (nate7out@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 26 May 2001, at 1:06 p.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 26 May 2001, at 8:23 p.m.
Posted by: The Baron (x012358@icqmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 26 May 2001, at 6:56 p.m.
Posted by: JAWZ
Posted on: Saturday, 26 May 2001, at 10:20 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andy@frenchcraft.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 27 May 2001, at 12:02 a.m.
Posted by: Big Willy (pocketaces80@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 May 2001, at 8:20 p.m.
Posted by: Russ McDermott (scrollkey1@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 May 2001, at 11:31 p.m.
Posted by: David F
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 12:42 a.m.
Posted by: Russ McDermott (scrollkey1@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 10:52 p.m.
Posted by: the art of war n/t
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 4:40 p.m.
Posted by: Etowah
Posted on: Saturday, 26 May 2001, at 8:48 p.m.
Posted by: Etowah
Posted on: Saturday, 26 May 2001, at 8:58 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andy@frenchcraft.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 26 May 2001, at 11:55 p.m.
Posted by: Goat (PunkRok777@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 27 May 2001, at 2:31 a.m.
Posted by: jg
Posted on: Sunday, 27 May 2001, at 8:42 a.m.
Posted by: Mike Norton (nicerivercard@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 27 May 2001, at 2:34 a.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 May 2001, at 10:40 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 27 May 2001, at 4:48 a.m.
Posted by: backdoor
Posted on: Sunday, 27 May 2001, at 11:32 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 27 May 2001, at 11:49 a.m.
Posted by: backdoor
Posted on: Sunday, 27 May 2001, at 1:47 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 27 May 2001, at 2:24 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Monday, 28 May 2001, at 9:33 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 May 2001, at 10:08 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 May 2001, at 8:03 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 May 2001, at 10:28 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 11:16 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 11:51 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 May 2001, at 10:10 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 May 2001, at 10:21 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 May 2001, at 10:52 p.m.
Posted by: PokerPL (Davepoker1@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 11:54 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 1:27 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 11:14 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 1:29 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 1:36 p.m.
Posted by: Ted D.
Posted on: Monday, 28 May 2001, at 3:50 a.m.
Posted by: Boris (hiboris@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 May 2001, at 3:22 p.m.
Posted by: Ted D.
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 May 2001, at 7:47 p.m.
Posted by: Boris (hiboris@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 May 2001, at 8:08 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 27 May 2001, at 3:30 p.m.
Posted by: Boris (hiboris@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 May 2001, at 3:17 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 6:09 p.m.
Posted by: ScottS (scottsuttle@mediaone.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 27 May 2001, at 3:01 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 27 May 2001, at 3:45 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 May 2001, at 11:04 a.m.
Posted by: scalf
Posted on: Monday, 28 May 2001, at 12:44 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 May 2001, at 4:53 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 May 2001, at 1:42 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 May 2001, at 2:32 a.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 May 2001, at 4:05 p.m.
Posted by: Just_New (keenan.p.healey@ca.abb.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 May 2001, at 12:22 p.m.
Posted by: scalf
Posted on: Monday, 28 May 2001, at 12:46 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 May 2001, at 4:49 p.m.
Posted by: Just_New (keenan.p.healey@ca.abb.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 May 2001, at 12:14 p.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 May 2001, at 4:13 p.m.
Posted by: Craig H
Posted on: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 2:22 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 May 2001, at 5:10 p.m.
Posted by: Bobby (impollon@fas.harvard.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 28 May 2001, at 6:01 p.m.
Posted by: Nigel, math Ph.D.
Posted on: Monday, 28 May 2001, at 7:15 p.m.
Posted by: zooey
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 May 2001, at 5:10 a.m.
Posted by: Nigel
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 May 2001, at 4:09 p.m.
Posted by: zooey
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 3:03 p.m.
Posted by: nate foster (nate7out@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 May 2001, at 12:02 a.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andy@frenchcraft.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 May 2001, at 12:22 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 May 2001, at 1:37 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 1:07 p.m.
Posted by: Donny (xyzghl@juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 May 2001, at 8:52 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 May 2001, at 11:31 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 May 2001, at 5:01 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 May 2001, at 10:32 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Geary (jaygee@netaxs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 12:10 p.m.
Posted by: Scott
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 May 2001, at 7:25 p.m.
Posted by: Rob Papp (papp99@alum.dartmouth.org)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 May 2001, at 7:41 p.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 May 2001, at 8:15 p.m.
Posted by: Donny (xyzghl@juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 May 2001, at 9:10 p.m.
Posted by: Muffin
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 May 2001, at 9:46 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 May 2001, at 10:37 p.m.
Posted by: Steve Fiete (sfiete@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 12:33 p.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 5:49 p.m.
Posted by: Muffin
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 6:27 p.m.
Posted by: Donny (xyzghl@juno.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 11:17 p.m.
Posted by: A9suited
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 May 2001, at 1:14 p.m.
Posted by: Chip Breaker
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 May 2001, at 2:36 p.m.
Posted by: JM (mr_jmac@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 May 2001, at 3:05 p.m.
Posted by: ChrisVWH (cjvinall@dingoblue.net.au)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 7:04 a.m.
Posted by: Alec (AlTang67@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 May 2001, at 4:23 p.m.
Posted by: mississippi gambler
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 8:50 a.m.
Posted by: Dave Waters (davewaters@rocketmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 May 2001, at 11:18 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 29 May 2001, at 11:45 p.m.
Posted by: Dave Waters (davewaters@rocketmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 12:15 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 12:34 p.m.
Posted by: counterfieter
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 12:44 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 1:08 a.m.
Posted by: counterfieter
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 9:52 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Oster (chris.oster@sympatico.ca)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 11:26 a.m.
Posted by: JM (mr_jmac@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 1:43 p.m.
Posted by: Steve Fiete (sfiete@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 2:19 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 5:12 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 5:13 p.m.
Posted by: JM
Posted on: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 11:16 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 2:44 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 3:55 p.m.
Posted by: two bad beats
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 4:37 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 4:49 p.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 6:12 p.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 3:51 a.m.
Posted by: Derrick Ashworth (djashworth@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 1:07 p.m.
Kh, 3h, 7c, (heart not 7h), (rag) Kh, 3h, 7c, (rag), (heart not 7 or rag) Kh, 3h, 7c, (heart not 7), (heart not 7)
On the turn there are 7 known cards (KK and hh, and 3 on the flop)... 8/(52-7)
13 hearts - 2 hearts on the flop - 2 in hand - 7h = 8 outs not a K(1), not a 3(3), not a 7(3), not the heart on the turn(3), and not hearts 7 others = 17
odds are: (52-7-14)/45 * 7/44 = 217/1980
not a K(1), not a 3(3), not a 7(3), not a heart (7) = 14 a heart not pairing the board 7
odds are: 8/45 * 7/44 = 56/1980
any heart but the 7h... 8 outs any heart not 7h 7 outs
Posted by: Derrick Ashworth (djashworth@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 5:21 p.m.
1. A Q J T X1 2. A Q J X2 T 3. A Q J T T 4. A Q J J X3 5. A Q J X4 J 6. A Q J J J 7. A Q J K X5 8. A Q J X6 K 9. A Q J K K 10. A Q J 9 8
Let us assume that on the flop all cards are face up: Therefore there are 9 known cards on the flop and 10 known cards on the turn.
X1 = 37 cards are rags (against you) X2 = 37 cards X3 = 37 cards X4 = 37 cards X5 = 36 cards T everyone splits X6 = 36 cards T everyone splits
Summing these together you get: 462/1806 = 11/43 or 2.9:1
P(Board 1) = 2/43 * 37/42 P(Board 2) = 37/43 * 2/42 P(Board 3) = 2/43 * 1/42 P(Board 4) = 2/43 * 37/42 P(Board 5) = 37/43 * 2/42 P(Board 6) = 2/43 * 1/42 P(Board 7) = 2/43 * 38/42 P(Board 8) = 38/43 * 2/42 P(Board 9) = 2/43 * 1/42 P(Board 10) = 4/43 * 4/42
Posted by: Folding Pete (tourmalet1062@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 7:02 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 12:47 p.m.
Posted by: brett (user609919@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 9:29 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 11:41 p.m.
Posted by: PokerPL (Davepoker1@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 12:00 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 12:21 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 1:56 a.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 2:23 a.m.
Posted by: andy fox (andy@frenchcraft.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 1:48 p.m.
Posted by: IowaMatt (Regents7@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 11:49 a.m.
Posted by: Dave Waters (davewaters@rocketmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 12:12 p.m.
Posted by: TPR (trobertson1@cfl.rr.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 5:50 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Springfield
Posted on: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 12:27 p.m.
Posted by: counterfieter
Posted on: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 2:07 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Springfield
Posted on: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 4:03 p.m.
Posted by: Dick in Phoenix (Dick@annabelles-treasures.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 12:53 p.m.
Posted by: GD (boopotts@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 8:17 p.m.
Posted by: JAWZ
Posted on: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 2:22 p.m.
Posted by: andy fox (andy@frenchcraft.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 4:56 p.m.
Posted by: Anders the Swede (pa_primus@yahoo.se)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 5:19 p.m.
General Poker Theory
May 2001 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo