![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
My hypothesis is this:
There is nothing more to outplaying your opponent at low limit poker than knowing when you are beat and getting away from a second best hand early.
I feast on low limit stud games by playing this way. I am not a great player, but I can evaluate a players betting pattern in relation to his board, compare it to my hand and the number of players in the hand and usually know exactly where I stand.
I am completely at sea in a low limit hold'em game. I am a buffet to my opponents. I dare not play higher until I can do something about it, but I must because there are so many more hold'em games than stud games available to me.
Here's the problem: I have no idea when I am beat, and am unable to get away from second best hands. I am unable to discern the strength of an opponents hand from the betting at any point in the hand and am further unable to compare the strength of my hand to what my opponents may be holding using that information and the board.
I have read and studied the texts of Sklansky and Malmuth, Lou Kreiger, Lee Jones, Abdul Jalib, and Izmet Fekali. I read everything Jim Brier, Rick Nebiolo, skp and all the other outstanding contributors to the forum share here. I have a Ph.D. in molecular and cellular biology. For chrissake I am capable of learning!
Aside: By now you have discovered the true nature of my post. I am ranting and raving because I have had another losing session.
Here is what I propose to do. Given my hypothesis that there is nothing more to outplaying your opponents than getting away from losing hands early, that is what I propose to do.
I hereby resolve to give up all semi-bluffing unless I am driving a pot with a draw to the nuts. I further propose to not defend my blinds unless I get hit over the head by the flop. Finally, I will not get bored waiting for a hand and for the flop to hit me.
I will also post some hands on the low limit board so I can learn from my mistakes.
By the way, Vince Lepore is my hero.
David (molecular desperado)
The probability of a check-raise bluff in low limit poker hovers just above zero but not too damn far. Unless you hold a major rock crusher then just dump it when check raised. You'll figure out the rest a C note at a time.
-Fred-
You don't know what they have. Try this: analyze their betting compared to what YOU would do in their shoes; or figure out what YOU would have if you played the hand that way. Once you can do that then you can start making deductions about THEIR play once you see their hand.
Be advised NOT to fall into the trap of PRESUMING they have what YOU would have in their spot. This is just a start for getting used to analyzing their hand.
Once you can put them on hands then the occations for outplaying them will stand out and you will have the confidence to do something about it.
- Louie
Coyete -
I think you are arriving at an important idea.
A player's emotional state has a serious and direct effect on his expected profits. Of course, we all aspire to play like an unshakable poker machine, with unlimited attention span and discipline. But if someone has not attained these qualities yet, it is important that he REALIZES IT and takes a break, switches games, or does whatever he needs to do to regain focus.
The rational portion of his brain believes, that the cards are shuffled to complete randomization. But, after a few tough beats and a google of 72o starting hands, he cannot help but FEEL that today is "not his day". So, he stops concentrating on the important tasks like developing a profile of his opponents, and he starts looking for the lucky seat or lucky table or lucky dealer or whatever.
Personally, I have noticed over the years that I seem to be able to tolerate terrible cards for about 6-8 hours. After that, if I am not sitting at a very profitable game, I need to take a walk. I like to find a $5 crap table to play for about a half-hour or so to clear my mind.
This brings up a question that I am always asking myself. It seems when I get good cards during a session, I win. When I get a run of bad cards during an entire session (which seems to happen about 1 out of 4 sessions) I lose. So my question is, what makes a good poker player good? Is it the fact that they get good cards? Can great poker players win with bad cards?? I have read numerous books on Poker and I understand that it is a skill game over time. It just seems like peoples winning or losing sessions are directly proportional to the good or bad cards that they get?
Any thoughts or am I completely off base?
One game not on the lists yet is mississippi 7cs, which is 7cs with the 4th and 5th cards dealt together and the last card face up. If mississippi had been invented first then conventional 7cs would probably never have been played, since it is simply a slower less exciting version of mississippi.
Mississippi is playable - in fact excellent - at NL betting, so it's in effect the NL championship form of 7cs. Not that many have noticed that fact yet: mississippi gets some play in a few home games and at BARGE, but it's spreading slowly.
(I should disclose that I'm the inventor of the game, but hey, try it for yourself and see if I'm wrong.)
David Z
sounds intriguing...I'm a home game player mostly myselfm hold'em is my fave, but we goof around with omaha and 7-stud every once in a while...I'll have to bring this variation up...
by the way, are you in Mississippi? I'm stuck in Stark Vegas for another couple years, just looking for new players for our group, if you're interested...
One other thing, I heard a crazy story the other day about a guy who lost $30,000 playing indian poker, hehehehe
Well, specifically:
P{Drawing at least one "9" with zero "K"}= P{Drawing at least one "9" in five cards}*P{Drawing zero "K" in the other four cards}
P{Drawing at least one "9" in five cards}= 1-P{Drawing zero "9" in five cards}
Since there are 48 unseen cards with three "9"'s:
P{Drawing zero "9" in five cards} = (45/48)*(44/47)*(43/46)*(42/45)*(41/44) = (43*42*41)/(48*47*46)
Thus:
P{Drawing at least one "9" in five cards} = 1 - (43*42*41)/(48*47*46)
With at least one "9" drawn, there are 47 unseen cards which contain three "K" to spoil the day for our suckout:
P{Drawing zero "K" in four cards} = (44/47)*(43/46)*(42/45)*(41/44) = (43*42*41)/(47*46*45)
So finally:
P{Drawing at least one "9" with zero "K"} = (1 - 43*42*41/48/47/46)*(43*42*41/47/46/45)
To six decimal places, this number is .218038
Of course, this does not represent the complete chances that the underdog has in this scenario. The most obvious flaw is the omission of the outcomes with 2 "9" and 1 "K". An omission that opposes the underdog is when two middle pair (QQ, JJ, or TT) or a middle pair and an ace hit the board, the pair of nines is nullified. Also, if two aces and two kings hit the board, the players split the pot. And, of course, there is the backdoor chance of a straight, flush, or even a straight flush to influence the outcome. Therefore, for a precise solution, the suits of the players cards must be known. (Does the "9" match the opponent's "A" in suit?, etc.)
All told, 27% seems to be just about correct as the underdog's chances in this scenario.
Hope this helps.
Or you could send Mike Caro $69 for a copy of Poker Probe
Where can I get information on the odds it takes to make certain hands after the flop?
THE IMPORTANT ODDS (IN MY MODEST OPINION) ARE: A POCKET PAIR AFTER THE FLOP IMPROVE TO AT LEAST A SET UNTIL THE RIVER 1 TIME IN 5,2 A SET ON THE FLOP IMPROVE AT LEAST A FULL 1 TIME IN 3 (ODDS 2:1) A POCKET PAIR IMPROVE TO A SET WITH ONE CARD TO COME 1 TIME IN 23 (ODDS 22:1)
AN OPEN-END STRAIGHT DRAW ON THE FLOP IMPROVE TO A COMPLETE STRAIGHT WITH 2 CARDS TO COME, 1 TIME IN 3,2
AN INSIDE STRAIGHT DRAW ON THE FLOP IMPROVE TO A COMPLETE STRAIGHT WITH 2 CARDS TO COME 1 TIME IN 6
A FLUSH DRAW (4 FLUSH) ON THE FLOP IMPROVE TO A FLUSH WITH 2 CARDS TO COME 1 TIME IN 2,9
I hope these simple probabilities help you!
That is why I said you could pick 56o or 45o, your choice.
Thank you for your explanation.
I guess your prior posts about avoiding drawing hands like the plague really meant avoiding them like a common cold--just most of the time. Good luck with all your drawing hands.
Look "M" - comments and advice on bbs like this are general in nature of course there are exceptions to every situation. Successful poker players have to be deceptive, resourceful and imaginative that means NO plays are out of the question.
I do avoid drawing hands - but I can and do get somewhat speculative in late position.
Your clarification is appreciated, Rounder.
What clarification?? Rounder says he doesn't play drawing hands, except when he does. Sounds like a politician to me -- wants to be all things to all people. Back away from CSPAN, Big R.
Correct answer: "It depends."
That's because his clarifications are quite clear except when they aren't.
Roger that. Words mean whatever Rounder wants them to mean....
Situation#1 Everybody fold to me on the button ; I know nothing about SB and BB , i'm new at the table.What hand should be raised , call and fold ? Situation#2 Everybody fold to me on the button ; SB and BB seem to be beginners and passive , They will call what ever I do .What hand should be raised , call and fold ?
The only comment I want to make here is that my advice is to assume that unknown players don't play very well. In my experience, they will prove you wrong only on rare occasions, and then you need to adjust.
raise with A8+ KT+ any pair. If you can't raise here I'd probably not just call - unless you have some strategy reasons for it.
I think you should review the odds that you are getting to 'flop big'. You are never getting the right price with these hands, period. More likely, you are going to end up chasing a gutshot, or trying to nail that second pair or trips, because the pot will be so huge that it will be giving you the correct odds.
Those plays will all SEEM like they are +EV - but if you factor in the original huge mistake you are making by calling with 56o in the first place, it is a losing play.
Check out Mike Petriv's book.
PS I have been making a lot more than 2 BB per hour over the last few months.
-SmoothB-
SB You didn't understand the 74 thing and I don't expect you to understand this ont eigther.
BTW the implied odds are huge when you hit this one and can mean giving you a better chance to win the tournament when you hit it.
Stepfords and cookie cutter players won't try this one and that is OK by me.
Ok rounder, let me walk you through the math. I'll approximate here.
10% chance you'll flop an open ender. That includes the times you flop the dumb end of it.
2% chance that you'll flop 2 pair. (And there's a good chance it won't end up being good with all these players anyway.
1% chance you'll flop a straight.
1% chance you'll flop trips.
0.1% chance you'll flop a full house or better.
14.1% chance that you'll flop something you can continue with, and BY FAR the largest % of that is the open enders. And you'll get there less than 1 time in 3.
Now factor in the times that you flop and your hand doesn't hold up.
72 offsuit may be the hand that loses the most, but 98o, 87o, 76o, 65o - these are the hands that cost the MOST MONEY.
That play with 74 offsuit is a total loser too. Don't get me started on that again.
Fact is I make around 2 times or more than what most experts agree is the most you can expect to earn from poker. So do yourself a favor and listen. Or don't. It's up to you. But I am pretty damn positive you aren't making 2BB or more per hour.
No more free lessons - I'm charging from now on.
You're welcome.
-SmoothB-
PS I have played against you in live games on 4 occasions. You have a few leaks. Want to discuss them? Send me an email.
Smooth B-
I think you're a very valuable contributor to these forums. Much of what you say is insightful and stimulates good discussion. But don't you think comments such as, I make around 2 times or more than what most experts agree is the most you can expect to earn from poker. So do yourself a favor and listen." and challenging skp to compare notes , is being just a tad bit too full of yourself?
If you are making much more than 2 BB's/hr., you are running outside of your standard deviation. Period. Probably by a lot. Wait another 1000 or so hours and you're likely to be much more humble when addressing other poster's ideas.
= Raider
Although you may have a point. The advice I've received from requent posters like skp, Jim Brier, Rick (can't spell his last name), Vince Lepore, Loui Landale, and many many others, IS worth money! But I've never heard them tell someone they're going to charge them next time. Ironic...
= Raider
Sorry, I reread that post and it makes me seem like a total jerk. Wow - I am ashamed of myself. Gotta learn to tone things down a bit. It's just that this darn internet is so anonymous - it's tough to maintain civility sometimes.
You might find it hard to believe, but people I play with in live games would describe me as one of the most polite, pleasant, friendly guys you'd ever meet at a poker table. I have NEVER thrown cards (or anything else), slow rolled, insulted another player, etc. Ok, that's not true, I have insulted plays by my friends, but we have that kind of relationship.
I apologize again for my rude behavior.
The real shame of it is that I really like Rounder and think his posts are (usually) great.
-SmoothB-
SmoothB & Rounder:
I like Rounder too, and I once said he was cool because he says what he thinks and wears cool shades.
However, Rounder does not shy away from addressing others in an insulting manner sometimes, so I don't think I need to treat him with kid gloves either. After all he is a real man so he can take it.
I agree M, that Rounder is a big boy and can take of himself. In fact, when I post I actually look forward to criticism in order to test my thoughts and ideas. But there are ways to do so without also being condencsending.
There is a response from a guy named Stu, regarding the "AA I trapped myself" thread in the mid-limit forum, which is a case in point. There is a difference between critiquing someone and trying to embarrass them.
= Raider
Well, Raider, you are correct. There is a difference between debating various points of poker strategy and trying to embarrass someone.
Rounder does not try to embarrass those with opposing views who try to debate strategy with him. He just tells them they can't play and they are talking out of their ass.
Hmm. I guess I haven't read enough of Rounder's posts. I still don't think it's right.
= Raider
Well you might if you merely tried to debate some poker content with him and he told you to first go get some experience then come back and talk to him, and that you were clearly talking out of your ass. Among other things. This was in a discussion on heads-up play, perhaps on the Internet Forum because playing heads-up on paradise was suggested (in fact Angelina challenged him to a play money match on Paradise).
In this thread on Which is it, Rounder? it really did appear to be an inconsistency in his position. He stated that he avoided drawing hands like the plague. Later when I criticized Championship Hold'em on RGP for the advice to sometimes play hands like 45o in a certain spot, he took the opposing view on and went so far as to say that people who took my view or played like me weren't worthy of carrying a real player's suitcase.
Now I have never once insulted Rounder nor done anything but debate ideas with him. If I now choose to emphasize the occasional debatable idea that might make his position look silly then I think I am actually treating him with more respect than he treated me. If he can't defend his positions logically maybe he should rethink them.
people I play with in live games would describe me as one of the most polite, pleasant, friendly guys you'd ever meet at a poker table.
I think they can also add "of good character" to those descriptions. It takes a successful person to look within and admit he may have erred. Thanks SmoothB-
= Raider
The great thing about this book is that it tells you exactly what the odds of FLOPPING something are. That is tougher to evaluate.
For example, it tells you what the odds are that you will flop a straight or flush draw when you have a hand like 78 suited. These calculations are more complicated than simply having to say 'I have 9 outs so I have X% chance of making my hand.'
On second thought - don't read the book. No sense making the games tougher than they already are. :)
-SmoothB-
I agree. Unless you're REALLY into poker math, you don't need the book. I found the book to be mildly interesting, but don't feel it improved my game very much.
Even if you ARE into poker math, isn't it more convenient to just read the book than to spend many hours doing the calculations yourself? Why reinvent the wheel when someone has already gone to the trouble?
Plus you could use the book to make sure that you got the correct values.
-SmoothB-
Can someone tell me where to find some good info/advice on shorthanded (3-5) players and heads up play? Thanks
There are very good articles on the ancient copies of the revues Pokerdigest and (better)Cardplayer magazine
What we really need is a treatise on heads-up HE play as opposed to general short-handed. E.g. what are 'general' preflop guidelines against various types of opponeents? Include game-theoretic randomizers, etc...
ok 2 maniacs(seats 3&4)and 5 calling stations! the maniacs are actually not absolutely delerious but they are both on tilt now and they are buddies so they keep raising each others hand thinking they are "protecting" each other. Here's the scenario:
I'm in BB
S2 opens(very loose station), S3 calls, S4 raises, only 1 mucker to me(9 handed table). I hold Qc9c, and figure it's worth a call for 15-1 pre flop. S2 calls, S3 raises, (shit!), S4 re-raises, everyone calls to me, I say damn to myself for getting involved, but I call anyways, S2 calls, S3 caps it. So all call. excuse me we were 7 handed, not 8 to see the flop.
105 bets in the pot.
Flop: Jh,6c,6s
I check of course, S4 bets, everyone calls to me. I figure to take one off for 1 bet with these pot odds for a backdoor flush draw. S2 & S3 call.
112 bets in pot.
turn: 3c
I check, S3 now bets and S5 raises. All fold to me. I take my time and listen to the smack talk from S3. Is he trying to suck me in with JJ or get me out on my draw?...I dunno...But I figure S5 for a 6. Looks like S2 is calling, I call, S3 just calls, S4 mucks.
65 big bets in pot.
Now before I post result check this out. I don't even look at the river. Instead I'm intently studying the reaction of S3 when the river hits. AHA!!!! A very noticeble tho minor letdown appears from him. I am absolutely sure that a club hit the board. Even tho I have'nt seen it yet. Ok supposed you have seen it...Board is paired, what do you do? You've made your hand.
35 bets
42 bets
50 bets ? (I'm not sure exactly what the action was)
On the river, if it's the A, 5, or 7 of clubs, check and call. These are the most likely cards to be played along with a 6. Any other club, bet it out. If raised, make a crying call.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
.
It sounds like you know better then to get involved with your hand, but you did. In this particular instance you are THE calling station.
You called a bet on the flop when the board completely missed you. You may already be drawing dead, someone may have a better flush draw then you, or someone may have a fullhouse. You may have gotten lucky, but that is exactly what it is luck.
I hope you hit your hand and it held up, but don't expect this to happen too often.
Derrick
I agree with Derrick but sometimes It's my play when I'm totally in tilt... Marco
You called a bet on the flop when the board completely missed you. You may already be drawing dead, someone may have a better flush draw then you, or someone may have a fullhouse. You may have gotten lucky, but that is exactly what it is luck.
Wait a minute - Larry says that there are 111 small bets in the pot when it comes to him on the flop. I don't know how the pot got so big, but if that's right then he's getting odds to call the backdoor flush draw.
There's also the call he'll have to make on the turn, which is 2 more small bets. But still, he's risking 3 small bets to gain about 120 if he calls on the turn too. If there's reraising on the turn, then he may well be beat and he can fold. But look, it's one more bet against a 120-bet pot! Assuming the odds for the flush are 25:1, he's still got odds to draw.
There might be one on the turn or river, or a better flush might beat you, but look at the arithmetic: He's getting 120:3 (40:1) odds on a 25:1 prop. He only needs his hand to hold up 63% of the time that he makes it to show a profit (1/26 times he wins, but he only needs to win 1/41. 63% of 1/26 is 1/41). With such a wild table there doesn't seem to be much reason to slowplay, so I wouldn't put anyone on a full house at this point. If S4 caps it pre-flop, then this flop probably didn't hit him. And if S4 is a maniac, then you can't necessarily put him on a full house or any hand anyway. So I wouldn't assume that Larry is drawing dead.
I don't know what's right, but folding is not /that/ clear.
ABSOLUTELY!!!
You make your money on these hands. With all the money in the pot already you should have RAISED the FLOP!
See Izmets RAMMING and JAMMING! When everyone is going to call anyways you should get as much money in the pot as possible EVEN on a GUTSHOT.
Abdul talks about capping his draws pre-flop, post-flop, and turn, AND THEN showing down his missed draw! You still have plus EV the whole way (as long as your not losing people when you raise.)
Yes this creates a ridiculous variance, (So you might want to limit it to just RAMMING ;),but when your draw hits you take down a ridiculous pot instead of the semi-ridiculous one in Larry's example ;)
See Izmets RAMMING and JAMMING! When everyone is going to call anyways you should get as much money in the pot as possible EVEN on a GUTSHOT.
Never on a gutshot, sometimes on a straight draw, usually with a flush draw and overcards, always with a baby flush draw and zillion callers.
Abdul talks about capping his draws pre-flop, post-flop, and turn, AND THEN showing down his missed draw! You still have plus EV the whole way (as long as your not losing people when you raise.)
Not on the turn. Abdul not that crazy.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Ok, I got a little carried away with the Ramming and Jamming. ;)
Thanks for the clarification.
The problem I have with this is when to let go. Say you have AsJs on the button with 6 limpers and you raise, all call including BB. Flop comes Ks Th 9s. Someone bets out early, 5 callers to you, what to do?
Say turn is a Jc, what to do?
Feel free to interject better minimum scenario.
I lose money in situations I shouldn't be in, and I don't win money in situations I should have stayed in. Sometimes no matter how big the pot is you still have 0% chance of winning ;)
Thanks
The problem I have with this is when to let go. Say you have AsJs on the button with 6 limpers and you raise, all call including BB. Flop comes Ks Th 9s. Someone bets out early, 5 callers to you, what to do?
You ram and jam, this is a monster. You don't care how many people call or fold, you can jam it even headsup for value. The best scenario is if everybody folds to your raise (but it ain
Say turn is a Jc, what to do?
Doesn't really matter, as long as you don't fold. You have to call down a single remaining opponent on the river.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
...it ain't gonna hapen).
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Happen! (two p's!)
I'm drunk. Sorry.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
A grammarian on this forum, drunk even! I'm more than impressed, especially with the prevalence of "your" instead of "you're," incomplete and run-on sentences, and other casual violations of the written language. And on top of it, the poker content of your posts is always first class. Excellent !!!
Here is Abduls quote BTW.
"A lot of people think I'm a maniac and overplay my hands when they see me do something like the following: I raise in the big blind after 6 loose callers, cap it on the flop 5 way, cap it again on the turn 4 way, and then I can't beat a small pair in the showdown. What's going on is I'm pushing a small edge with something like KQs, raising preflop on immediate value, capping on the flop with immediate value from all those callers facing my flush draw, perhaps picking up a straight draw on the turn and capping it again with immediate value from all my callers, and then quite often I'll miss and announce "king high" in the showdown after possibly making a nearly futile bluff attempt and getting called. I still made EV, despite appearing maniacal"
Thanks
With a flush AND a straight draw (as in Abdul's example) AND four opponents jamming on the turn is profitable, but it's a *very* rare occasion you get into fishfight like this. Generally, you won't be jamming on turn, it is not profitable with a mere flush draw.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
it was capped again on flop...with everyone calling... S5 bet, all call to S3 who raises...now I'm stuck...or muck...I know S3 is tilting...anyways, thats why so many bets counted but missing in original thread. I got stuck in the middle.
There's still no way to get up to the number of bets you were citing. 7 players times five bets each is 35 small bets preflop, not 105. If it got capped again on the flop without losing anyone, that would bring it up to 70 small bets (35 big bets) going into the turn. The only way to get the pot anywhere close to 105 bets is either to have the house dump a chunk of money in the middle before the hand, or to still be counting small bets on the turn and river.
Well of course your right. I remember counting the bets in the pot...this was 4 weeks ago...as I went along...I dunno what the hell it was...other then huge and I was getting over 25-1....on the flop and turn bet...jesus guess I should take note after a hand like this!!!! what a flake.
Hello this is not a important questian just wondering a little bit!! i lay tournaments at pp and have finished 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 the last 7 tournaments!! Wondering whats the odds is for that..its ok but i CANT WIN did i play it wrong??? read somewhere that when you are 2 left J 7 is a average hand to bet on is that true? take care!!///swedish boy
Read the short-handed section of Holdem for Advanced Players.
Full table games is mostly about what good hand YOU have. Short handed games is mostly about what hopeless hand the OPPONENT has.
So long as the lesser player didn't know it, a reasonable handicap heads-up is to have the superior player never look at his hand until the last round. SKILL dominates even the short run at heads-up play.
- Louie
Rounder - My posts below are very jerk-like. Sorry. I don't know what it is, but the anonymity of the internet makes me forget my manners sometimes. You are a good guy. And a sharp player.
-SmoothB-
Haven't read them but is't OK SB - call me anything except late for dinner.
I am just dying to get out of this god forsaken Chicago and get back to "real" poker country.
Soon as I get back my health completely I'm back to the tournament circuit out west hoping to make the Reno Hilton pot of gold my 1st stop.
Cheers,
Rounder I live in the God forsaken town of Chicago. I was wondering if you play at the Hollywood Riverboat? If so how would you rate the competition? availability to get in a game? other comments? Thanks in advance, Poindexter
Hollywood is one of the worst run card rooms I have encountered and I have played in 27 different rooms - part of this is the silly Illinois laws and the other is the casinos lack of respect for poker players.
You may have to wait up to 4 hours or more to get in a game - with a huge board and empty tables you still have to wait they won't spread a new game unless they feel like doing it - they usually say there arent any dealers - Bull - you get dealers if youhave the players. Many of the dealers are way to slow and/or just incompetant and the day time floor gives me chills.
The card room os populated with plenty of nice friendly guys (and a few gals) some are good players others are not which is what you will find anywhere. By and large you will find yourself at a table with mostly middle aged or older guys but there are a few young bucks who will try to take your eye teeth if you give them a chance.
One note of caution the "regulars" there know each other very well - a little to well - they have been playing each other for a long time and sometimes it feels like a home game.
I'd suggest playing at harras but that's no joy eigther. It has sailing times plus you may have a long wait there too.
I think a place like Chicago metro area with 7+million people deserve a little more than 24 legal tables to choose from.
I find myself looking at Iowa and Michigan for alternatives and tournaments.
Hope this helps.
Had an interesting thought passed on to me by a knowlegeable player. A few assumptions to make the point. House gets $3 per hand + $1 jackpot. Dealer gets out 30 hands per hour and gets toked $1/hand. Nine table game and everyone bought $100 in chips and noone wins or loses any money. Everyone plays for 5 hours. A final assumption. On average, one player spends $1 per hand on drinks, food, keno or some other toke. If you add it up, there is no money left on the table. This is a huge hurdle for a player to be able to post a positive session. Most must be large and consistant losers. Is it really this tough to be a winner or is this logic flawed?
If you're talking $3-$6, then yes, it's really tough to be a winner. If you're talking a button charge, that's two big bets per hour juice. A world class player could probably beat the game, but not for much.
In $10-$20 through $20-$40, the time charge is usually beatable, but is always a big drain. Marginal winning players at this level will pay almost as much to the house as they make from playing.
Even in $40-$80 the time can be a concern. I once played a very live 9-handed $40-$80 game for 24 hours, with a $9 per half hour time charge - that's $3,888 going down the shoot, or almost 4 racks of $10 chips. It shouldn't turn a very strong player into a loser at that level, but it certainly is a drain and will make the bad streaks worse.
At Bellagio the time charge for $80-$160 is $7 per half hour, and it's taken in a time pot. There, you can finally not sweat the time.
-Abdul
Abdul-So let's say you were a 10-20, 15-30, or 20-40 player. Ignoring other factors such as climate, cost of living, smoke, etc., would you rather play a tougher LV game or a softer LA/Bay Area game with a back-breaking rake? Anyone else with opinions on this, feel free to share. Thanks.
The Vegas games are actually softer than the California games. There are more pros in Vegas, but only the $30-$60 and up pros are top notch. The important difference is that there are way more totally clueless players in Vegas (tourists.) So, with also the lower rakes, Vegas wins hands down.
A friend of mine had phenomenally high results on California $10-$20 with a $5 per half hour time charge. I've had phenomenally high results on Vegas $15-$30 with a $3 max rake. Both are very good games.
If the Vegas games were significantly tougher, then note that for $10-$20/$15-$30/$20-$40, you're not paying much less in rake in Vegas compared to time charges in California, so you should in this case prefer the California games.
-Abdul
Abdul, you wrote in the post above:
"I once played a very live 9-handed $40-$80 game for 24 hours, with a $9 per half hour time charge - that's $3,888 going down the shoot, or almost 4 racks of $10 chips."
Isn't the calculation $9/half hour x 2 x 24hours = $432?
Yes. Now multiply you're figure by the number of players at the table and you come up with Abdul's figure of $3,888.
Abdul-Here's hoping you get your 80/160 bankroll back. 21 can be a nasty game.
it's very tough to overcome the rake, but at the hotspots like the card barns in Southern California or in certain Vegas casinos, there is a sufficient supply of losing players to insure the river of cash doesn't peter out (like the Colorado River). were "attendance" a problem, then casinos would have to compete more to lure gamblers, and rakes would be lowered.
There are enough players who are willing to quickly blow their "daily stake" to make the game beatable.
Not true. They would close the card room.
Rakes will not be lowered anywhere anytime soon. There has been a lot of discussion here about how cardrooms are less profitable than slots on a 'per square foot' basis. If the games started to peter out they would close the room.
Casinos don't really make money from the poker room per se - they expect that some of the action from the poker tables will spill over into the pit - craps, blackjack, etc. IE a German tourist goes on a heater in a 30-60 game and wins 4000, or wins a jackpot, and then goes and blows it at the craps table.
-SmoothB-
Well, your logic is not flawed, but your assumptions are not quite right.
In many rooms, the third rake dollar is not taken until the pot reaches $40 and the jackpot dollar after that, so there will be pots with less than a full rake. I usually don't toke unless my profit from the hand is over $13 and I've never played at a table where every player is spending $1 every ninth hand on food and drinks.
Believe it or not, I've actually counted rake and toke dollars leaving the table in some low limit games and it was closer to $100 per hour or about half of your estimate. Still tough, but it can be beat. For one thing, while the average player may be losing $11 per hour, a tight player will pay less in tokes and rake.
DJ
DJ,
You wrote: "For one thing, while the average player may be losing $11 per hour, a tight player will pay less in tokes and rake."
Try playing in Los Angeles County. The $3 rake is dropped dead on the button in holdem and it is dropped even if there is no flop.
Stud is even worse. In a seven-handed 3/6 game (one player is out smoking or whatever), six of the seven 50 cent "antes" are put over the collection box before the hand begins. The $3 collection is dropped even if someone raised the bring-in and won immediately.
The good news is that this form of rake is like a death ray to tight players. Few tables can support more than a few (unlike a low limit Nevada game).
Regards,
Rick
I watched a 1-5 game at the Monte Carlo in Las Vegas where they took 10% up to $5 plus $1 for the jackpot. If the pot were $10, $1 to the Jackpot and $1 to the rake = 20%.
I was talking above about the 5-10 or 10-20 games at places like Mirage, Foxwoods, ....
DJ
It is about game selection.
Winning at low limits is tough, but it can be done.
If you are on a table with 8 other tight players, forget about it. The factors you mention will eat everyone alive.
However, sprinkle in a player or two who sees every flop and hangs in there if they catch the smallest piece of it, add one who tilts the first time his AA or KK gets cracked, add another who is just learning the game, add a kid who thinks he can outplay everyone because he saw 'Rounders' 9 times, add another whose favorite thing is to get a 'cappacino' preflop no matter what his hand is, add another who will 4-bet the nut flush with a pair on the board, toss in another player who thinks Ks 10h 9h is a GREAT flop for his Kd3d,.....
And you have a game that can be beat. Not for much, mind you. You would make more per hour flippin burgers, but you can come out ahead.
You're right - it is VERY tough to be a consistent winner at low limit. The SINGLE most important thing to consider is GAME SELECTION. As long as other people play poorly you can beat the game you describe. But even if you are the best player at the table, and the other 8 players are all capable but not great players, you will not make money. In order to make money at low limit you MUST have at least a couple of really bad players, and hopefully a maniac thrown in for good measure.
If you sit down at a low limit game like this and see that the table is very tight, get up and leave. You won't make any money.
-SmoothB-
What is the lowest limit that can be beat? 6-12? 10-20? 15-30?
$6-$12 with a $3 (maybe $4) button charge or $3-$6 with a $3 (maybe $4) 10% rake are the lowest games that are generally beatable, in my estimation. As others have pointed out, it does depend mostly on your competition. Against morons, you can beat considerably worse rakes/charges.
-Abdul
One point most people seem to miss when talking about whether low limit poker is beatable is the fact that most of the players are terrible. When I first started playing poker, after spending a couple of weeks studying the 2+2 Hold 'em books and practicing on Turbo Texas Hold 'em, my win rate over the course of slightly more than 2000 hours in the $2/$4 game at Palace Station in Las Vegas was $10.73/hr. As I moved up in stakes I did make more $/hr, but never again earned so many bb/hr.
As for online low limit being beatable : Look at this info that I posted earlier.
What it is, I think, is that when you are playing the $80/$160 kind of games, if you are making one mistake an hour the guys (jokingly?) start calling you the fish and you have seriously damaged your less than one bb/hr win rate. When you are playing $2/$4, if you are only making five mistakes an hour you are vastly superior to the rest of the players and are still making multiple bb/hr.
What I am going to tell you is true.The estimations are very close.If you think otherwise,save the argument,read no further.Case 1:A fine lady plays in a HD game for two & half years,mostly 5-10, little 10-20,plays poorly.Cashed out a winner 3 times.The games open only 8 hours a day.She lost about $80,000 to $120,000.Case 2:A good poker player friend made $140,000 in a 10-20 HD game with $10 max rake in Toronto.Case 3:8 top players(8-17 years of success making a living,players with their caliber are very few in this city,total about 15.)in this city ran very bad the last 4 to 5 years.Two of them got a job to support their family now.Case 4:A working man beats a 10-20 HD game for 450,000 to 500,000 in 4 years,only lost 3 sessions in a row once in 4 years.This man is beyond description,like an evil force. Plays very bad,now turns pro,plays better.Case 5:A very humble,intelligent friend of mine plays mostly 60-120,80-160 limit.To his own admittion,he is only a very average pro.Made$720,000 one year,2.5 to 3 millions in 10 years.Case 6:I witnessed and survived the last four years.I am a much lesser player than the top unlucky pros,yetI survived.In my 16 years of moderate lucky poker career,I've seen a lot of poker successes and failures due to luck.Rarely have we mention how lucky many of our poker greats are.We only heard how great they play.In the last decade poker been intellectualizd so much that any mention about luck seems unintelligent.The fine lady didn't deserve to lose two and a half years almost everyday.Do any of you notice many unlucky poor players around us?My humble friend didn't deserve to make $720,000 that one year.That working man is paranormal.To have half of the top players in a mid size city ran bad is mathmatically scarey.DON'T BE ASHAMED,LET'S TALK ABOUT LUCK!
Luck is governed by the laws of statistical analysis.
Does luck exist? Absolutely.
I was lucky to have found a table full of fish.
Or did I create that luck by being able to recognize the opportunity? hmmmmm
I think a lot factors into the luck equation.
Lets see: Luck =
Bankroll - sometimes we can afford to wait for luck.
Environment - sometimes we get stuck living in Ohio ;)
Personality - I don't want to read S&M because Abdul makes fun of them ;)
Women - they make your life 10x more difficult and 5x more enjoyable ;)
ETC, ETC,
Statistical variance of all of the above determines how much LUCK you have.
I'll be LUCKY if my wife doesn't see the part about women.
Get the Idea. ;)
I believe what you are describing is not as an unlikely a scenario as you may think it is. I am not a mathmetician plus I am also too lazy to calculate the math, but these results are probably all within one or two standard deviations for the size of the game and the number of hours played. It looks scarey, but shit happens.
Let's face it, we all have luck, either good or bad. Luck can extend for seemingly endless periods of time. I think most of us have seen numerous examples of the above and sometimes it seems like it lasts forever. I, when I see a poor player, go on what seems like a perpetual winning streak, have no logical explanation. Suffice it to say that it just happens.
Bruce
Once more, with paragraphs.
You are talking more about statistics than luck... In any large enough sample size there are sure to be statistical anomalies. Luck is like water. Eventually it will seek and (in the cases where mathematical edges are involed) find it's own level. So rather than talk about luck, let's talk about what can be realistically derived from your examples....
It is almost an impossibility that your fine lady friend is a winning player. The word "almost" is what gets most people. Is it 100% sure she is not a winning player? No. But the chances of her being a winning player are so infinitesimaly small, they are not even worth considering. Whether or not she deserves to be an 80 - 120k loser is not known. But it's unimportant (except maybe to her). Losing players cannot run bad since they have no edge to begin with.
The fact is that all of your cases can be summed up in two words... Standard Deviation. It's likely that all of your friends are running outside of their standard deviation. That's all. Nothing eerie about it.
= Raider
Losing players can not run bad? Come on, that's a pretty silly thing to say. If a winning player loses $20 less ( per hour ) than his expectation for a year, and a losing player loses $20 less ( per hour) than his expectation for a year, is it only the good player that is running bad? No, they are both running bad. It's that simple.
It's NOT that simple!!!
Put it this way:
If a winning player never picked up another playable hand for the rest of his life, he would be running bad. Whereas, a losing player could only be better off. If you put money at risk with a negative expectation enough times, you're gonna lose.
Now, THAT's simple.
= Raider
So, a good player is running bad if he wins less than his expectation for a long time. If a bad player loses the same amount less than his expectation for a long time, he's not running bad. You've got one weird definition of running bad. Not one that is normally used. You can still use yours if you want, it's just not normally what people mean, regardless of what you think.
You wrote:
"So, a good player is running bad if he wins less than his expectation for a long time. If a bad player loses the same amount less than his expectation for a long time, he's not running bad."
Exactly!
If a bad player loses less than his expectation, he's running good not bad. Example: He expects to lose 1BB/hr. but instead, only loses 1sb/hr. He has made less than his expectation, but this is good for him. No?
But I suspect you meant If a bad player loses the same amoung more than his expection for a long time...
Now he'd be losing even more than he figures to be losing, so yes, this would mean being unlucky. Of course I'm being slightly facitious in order to prove a point which is, what difference does it make? If he has a 100k bankroll he figures to lose it. It's just a matter of time.
= Raider
you wrote:
"If a bad player loses less than his expectation, he's running good not bad. Example: He expects to lose 1BB/hr. but instead, only loses 1sb/hr. He has made less than his expectation, but this is good for him. No?"
If his expectation is -1 BB/hr, and he only loses 1 sb/hr, he has made MORE than his expectation.
I suspect you meant to say " he has lost less than his expectation", since this was your original nitpick.
If you're going to nitpick ( when you clearly know what I'm trying to say ), you'd better proofread your own stuff a little better.
You are correct. It should've read "he has underperformed his expectation", not "has made less than his expectation". But I'm not trying to nitpick. You originally wrote:
If a winning player loses $20 less ( per hour ) than his expectation for a year, and a losing player loses $20 less ( per hour) than his expectation for a year, is it only the good player that is running bad?
The losing player who loses $20 less (per hour) is NOT running bad, he's running better...
= Raider
This is a good post. I'm tired of being going on, saying things like "Luck - that's where preparation and opportunity meet". Or people insisting that they weren't lucky when they semi bluff with 2 overcards and catch. Or that they didn't get lucky when they counterfeited a fish's 2 pair on the river. Luck is an entirely separate notion from playing well. Luck can favour the good players and the bad, let's all stop saying crap like "it all evens out in the end", because it doesn't. It's that simple. So what if luck is just a function of the variance of the situation? Maybe a player is only 2 SDs above his expectation for 10 years, but let me tell ya, that's a significant amount of money. Some get lucky, some get unlucky. That's the way it has to be. It doesn't even out in the end.
Jeez, what tired retreads of everything I've ever heard and read about luck since I first stepped into a cardroom.
GOLDEN RULES OF LUCK
1) You run bad for a night, for a week, for two weeks. It happens. You "run bad" for more than 30 days - IT ISN'T LUCK - IT'S YOU! Take a break, go to Maui, have a love affair, something. And don't come back till you get your head on straight.
2) You manufacture your own "luck" - good and bad: read, study, talk, and think about the game; sit down at the table well rested, happy, with your ego in check, and no raging overload of testosterone coursing through your veins.
3) Pay attention.
4) Repeat rule #3.
Jeez, I'm amazed I have to explain this.
If you've never run bad for more than 30 days then I suspect you haven't played much or you are incredibly lucky. The greatest players can have longer losing streaks than that.
Running bad for 30 days is nothing. The best player in the world can lose for 30 days. Even Sklansky and Malmouth have agreed that a good player can run bad for a year or two at a time.
That's right. No matter how good you are, you could go on a two year losing streak and get broke. That's just all there is to it. The luck of the draw has the final say.
Jeez, I'm amazed I have to explain this.
natedogg
natedogg-
Everything you say is absolutely true. But I think many people take liberties with these truths and apply them out of context.
The best player in the world can lose for 30 days.
This is absolutely true.
Even Sklansky and Malmouth have agreed that a good player can run bad for a year or two at a time.
This is also true, but unlikely. What people conveniently forget is that it would take a fairly severe statistical aberration for a good player to run bad for 2 years. And even when this event does occur, it will most likely mean winning less. NOT losing 80 thousand dollars as the lady in the original post did. People hear of these real possibilities and incorrectly assume this is what must have happened to them. When in reality, most are probably only running slightly off their standard deviation. Consider this:
A break even player can be up $6000.00 after 900 hours of 10/20 hold'em play, and not even be 1 standard deviation off his mean. Some would say 900 hours is a lot of time when in fact it is nothing more than a statistical blink of an eye! Now, when you also consider that it's possible for someone to run 2 or even 3 standard deviations away from their mean, it's little wonder why there is so much confusion over luck.
= Raider
But a good player couldn't "run bad" for his first 2 years because he would never have achieved the label "good," right? I mean, you have to have a solid baseline of wins in order to establish your mean and SD, correct?
For instance, the Cubs haven't just been "running bad" for the past 80 years, even though in light of an infinite future, those 80 years a blink of the eye.
The converse haunts me. I have been playing for a couple of years and have been winning. I shutter to think that I really stink and am awaiting a horrible regression toward the mean with more hours.
You actually respond to my post with a "You manufacture your own luck" line, and then say you're surprised that you have to explain this? If you read my post, you probably aren't quite clever enough to realize that luck and skill are separate. Skilled players get lucky, unskilled players get lucky. Some players do mistake some skillful play for luck, but luck and skill are different. The whole point of the damn post was that luck is separate from skill. It is. Saying " you manufacture your own luck" is a ridiculous statement perpetuated throughout the poker ages by the luckiest of all the players.
I thought I could provoke some insightful thoughts about LUCK.But,no.I expected too much.We poker players in general are so lack of humillty and self-centered that we become blind.We can't see the poor player lost $40,000 in a 4-8 game in a year got any thing to do with bad luck.We think with our poker knowlege,experience and strong will we can be at war with luck.We are way too cocky.
What I am going to tell you is true.
I don't believe your numbers, nor do I believe you could possibly have information that accurate about the players you discuss.
You are very lucky indeed that people read your posts, considering how lazy a typist you are.
David
Yes,I lied.You got me,David.Very lucky to get a respond from you.
Yes,I lied.You got me,David.Very lucky to get a respond from you.
What’s the correct strategy here ? It’s come up a number times for me in the past few months (A nice problem to have one supposes) 10-20 HE. Table is about average in terms of loose/tight with a few solid players on the left and a couple of looser players on the right. In the SB with a pair of Aces, a fairly solid (but not overly aggressive) player UTG calls and five or six limpers (including the rest of the solid players) trail in. Assuming the BB is about average on both the tight/loose and passive/aggressive scales, what’s the correct raising frequency here and why? Knocking out the BB if possible sounds correct, but the limpers are all likely to hang around. With 15 or so small bets in the pot before the flop it seems to me it would be correct for the limpers to draw to just about anything. Not calling means the BB gets a free shot. These Aces have been cracked for me with annoying frequency of late and any and all comments/advice would be welcome.
In my post above, I meant raising not calling in the second to last sentence. Sorry.
I would raise this 99.9% of the time. It is true that you will lose more then you win with this many callers, but you still are at a huge advantage. Also, when you win it will be a large pot making up for the times you lose. A's actually make more money with more callers.
Derrick Ashworth
The biggest problem with AA is selective memory and unrealistic expectations. People only remember when they are cracked and they expect them to win 100% of the time. It is still the best hand to have in any position. If you are afraid of getting cracked with AA I suggest that you consider tiddlywinks.
In the SB with an un-raised pot I would raise 99.99999% of the time with AA. If it were raised before me I would re-raise about 75% of the time, expecting to check raise the flop the other 25%.
Eeyor-
My memory isn't over selective, I'm not afraid of having my aces cracked, nor do I expect them to win whenever I have them. However, I am interested in maximizing their long term performance. Your second paragraph is therefore welcomed. As far as your first goes, thank you for sharing.
Good. Now you are aggressive again. The worst thing that you can do is become passive with AA. You can’t stop the suckouts from hanging around but you can make it expensive for them to stay. Make the implied odds work against them. I could tell from your post that you know the correct play but were starting to second-guess yourself after getting cracked a couple of times. Do what you know is right. In the long run it will be profitable. Of course in the long run we are all dead.
The accepted wisdom is that you should always raise with A-A regardless of position. Unfortunately, when you do that out of the blinds, the players that are "in the know" realize exactly what you have, making it easier for them to get away from their hands when they miss and to punish you when they hit. If I'm playing 6-7 suited on the button after a bunch of limpers and you then raise out of the small blind, I'm likely to call it just because I figure I can take you off for a bunch of bets when I hit.
I agree with you that this is a frustrating hand to be dealt in the blinds when a bunch of limpers come in because there isn't much way to protect yourself. Maybe one way to handle it is that if you don't mind the short-term deviation, to raise with it every time, but if you do, then just check and see what the flop brings. This will also add some deception to your game.
In a now classic essay, Mason Malmuth wrote that cardroom management should value the professional poker player as the glue that insures the games will be spread each day. While Malmuth was correct, the relationship between the cardroom and professional is much richer, complex, and multidimensional than described by Mr. Malmuth.
This can be seen by considering an example. Suppose there is a cardroom that spreads one yellow HE game daily composed only of unskilled or break even recreational players. No one player has much of an advantage over the other players. Because no one player is playing at much of an advantage, the money is happily pushed around the table according to the vagaries of the cards.
In this situation, the only drain on the recreational players poker budget is the collection. If the collection is not greater than the player’s budgets, the cardroom can look forward to an infinite stream of revenue from the table. In the absence of competitive constraints, the cardroom could even improve its bottom line by raising the collection.
In this situation, the cardroom has an incentive to treat its’ regulars very well. In present value terms, each regular would be worth thousands of dollars in collections. A player who plays 10 hours a week in a $20-$40 game with a $7 collection (standard in L.A.) will be paying $140 per week. The present value of this stream over a 10 year period at 7% interest is $12, 057.69.
In this situation, cardroom regulars can expect good food, courteous floormen, and pleasant dealers. Any reasonable request by the players such as being allowed to phone in and have their names placed on the list before arriving in the casino will be granted. In disputes, the cardroom can be expected to shade the rules to favor regulars over occasional players and take other measures to foster good will among the players.
Now suppose four skilled players begin frequenting the game. Now there are two drains on the poker budget of the recreational players—the collection and the amount of money being won by the skilled players. The cadre of skilled players put the cardroom’s revenue stream in jeopardy.
Each month, the recreational players not only lose their collections but also contribute to the skilled players. While it is true the skilled players are paying collection and helping the casino spread the game, they may also make the recreational players go broke. When this happens, the game will break, the professional players will move to another cardroom, and the cardroom’s revenue stream will evaporate—at least until word gets around the local poker community that tough players have left and the game has softened up.
Some insight into this phenomena and it’s likelihood of occurring can be gleaned with a numeric example. Consider a 9-player $20-$40 HE game with a $7 collection. Each hour, the cardroom will take $14 from each player. If a recreational player breaks even in the actual play of the cards and plays 30 hours a month, playing poker will cost $420/ month.
Now suppose 4 skilled players enter the game. If each skilled player wins one BB per hour, the 4 skilled players will be winning $160 per hour from the 5 recreational players. This causes a dramatic increase in the recreational players costs. Instead of $14/ hour, each hour will now cost $46/ hr.($14 +$160/5). Playing $30 hours per month will now cost $1380.The recreational player will either curtail his poker playing by 1/3rd, quit the game after losing “too much,” or take his business to another cardroom where the game is softer. If many of the recreational players do this, the cardroom suffers a financial disaster.
These “back of the envelope” calculations are illustrative but capture the essence of the cardroom’s problem. How much money the arrival of a cadre of skilled players will actually extract from the recreational players is more complex—the result of the interaction of several variables. The style of the players, their ability to adjust to loose games, etc. may make the drain bigger or smaller.
However. it is possible, if not probable, that the present value of forcing the recreational player to play fewer hours, stop playing altogether, or take his action elsewhere to exceed or significantly reduce the extra collection the skilled player pays the cardroom. From a cost/benefit perspective the skilled cardplayer imposes a net cost on the cardroom. The cardroom will not welcome the professional player as “the glue that allows them to spread the game,” but as a destructive force upsetting the quarterly profit reports.
If the casino has expert management (not always the case!) and recognizes what is happening how will they respond? I have some thoughts on this but this essay is long enough already.
I don't think that your game of equally skilled (unskilled) recreational players pushing chips about exists in the real world.
There will always be variations in any game. The weakest players leave the game but are replaced by novices. The less skilled players win from the novices and the experts win from everyone.
The key to cardroom success is new players and if a regular game is not running then it is harder to attract new players and passing trade.
"I don't think that your game of equally skilled (unskilled) recreational players pushing chips about exists in the real world."
You may be right, but for years this was the approach of many cardroom managers in Las Vegas. They wanted a room that was full of only low limit games where everyone broke about even. This way the only money removed from the system was the rake which they of course tried to push up as high as possible. In almost all cases these type of rooms have failed in the long run. The best examples were The Las Vegas Hilton in the late 80s and Bally's earlier than that.
Mason wrote: "In almost all cases these type of rooms have failed in the long run."
Note, however, that if a room fails after catering to almost-break-even players and increasing its rake, one cannot necessarily conclude that the failure resulted from catering to almost-break-even players.
What you say seems true in theory. But consider the following:
1) Let's say the game rakes 3 dollars per pot, and there are 33 hands per hour. That works out to a nice even 100 per hour. Ten handed, that's ten dollars per person per hour. But there's more -
Add one solid, tight player to the game. Now the rake is higher because the solid player is winning money, and he is also playing fewer pots, forcing the other players to pay the rake slightly more often. But that solid player is only going to be winning at a rate that is quite low compared to the rake. Even if he wins 10 dollars per hour, that's only 10% extra.
2) Players are recycled. After awhile, the really bad players just stop going in many cases. New ones come in and take their place. The worst ones leave the game. Now, if it weren't for new players, the games would grow increasingly more difficult over time. Rocks would survive to keep playing, and losers would tend to quit. This does happen sometimes - Vegas on a weekday afternoon in the offseason, for example.
-SmoothB-
Ken,
Welcome to 2+2! I saw David Sklansky’s invite on RGP a couple of days ago and wanted to second it but figured if I did I would be accused of being another 2+2 brownnoser so I was going to wait and talk to you privately next time we played.
As usual, you have written another well thought out essay. I’ve always wondered why card rooms often roll out the red carpet for the toughest players. But I do have a problem with a few of your numbers.
First, at 20/40 (or 15/30) holdem, I rarely have seen more than two or three players at most tables that average close to one big bet per hour. A lot of the players in our area that indicate that they are big winners are “trust fund pros” that barely break even. In addition, most tables tend to have one to three very live players that can lose several big bets per hour. They don’t play a lot of hours per month (unless they are one of the “compulsives” as you described in an earlier RGP post), but there are so many in the Los Angeles area that they seem to fill quite a few seats (why the regulars don’t treat them better is beyond me).
I also think Mason misspoke when he talks of the “professionals who hold the table together” (I can’t check because you know who borrowed my Mason Essay books – she loves Mason’s writing). In Las Vegas, there are quite a few mid and low limit players who are retired or semi-retired and play a lot in the major rooms, especially during the day. They play pretty good but not great. At the same time, they appear so comfortable in the room they look like pros to the casual observer since they at least play tight. But most break even or win just a little. Only the cream of this crop could survive on their poker income.
Of course, true pros and tough players that can beat games for a big bet per hour or more do exist (and I would guess you are one based on my experience playing with you). To an extent, marginal players look up to them and hope one day they can improve to that level. But I agree that no room or game can stand too many of these players. At the same time, I don’t know how a card club can exclude or discourage them for coming except for the fact that most pros tend to spread out because they know they can’t be playing against mirror images of themselves.
Anyway, I’m looking forward to your thoughts on this subject and hope you continue to post here.
Regards,
Rick
Why do cardrooms roll out the red carpet for top players? I think it has something to do with having heros. (This is something that is important to tournaments as well.) Heros create interest, and the hope among other players and potential players that they can be that successful someday. Thus it is good for a cardroom to have top players in action at higher limits. Put another way, it creates interest among the rest of the poker population and creates business for the cardroom in general.
I think most cardrooms don't care who fills the tables, as long as they are full. Pros play every day, and feed the alligator just like everyone else. Rec players don't play nearly the number of hours as the pros.
Also, it's amazing how much more welcome you become (and how often rulings are made in your favor) if you tip the floor people regularly :o).
Mason,
A agree. I was thinking of the middle limits I play at. Who cares about your solid, tough 10/20 to 40/80 player with the exception of some who play at this level who write for the magazines (perhaps you and Roy Cooke would be examples).
Of course at the highest limits the champions and superstars are very valuable customers. The big money recreational players can't wait to get in games with Huck, Phil, Scotty, Doyle, Ted Forrest, and so on.
Regards,
Rick
I understand your points. However, it is my experience, given your scenario, management would do nothing, because of an ever expanding base of players. There are always new players coming-in to replace those who go bust. (Some) management decisions decrease their own business, they aren't worried about "pros". "Kill pots" bust-out players at a more rapid rate, but some places allow "kill pots". If a joint has a strong base of frequent, and new players, they will be alright, despite the presence of "pros".
Timmy's post is simply excellent, Cardroom management is often deficient when it comes to decisions that affect their day-to-day operations, and these decisions frequently hamper the development of new players. The kill pot example is just one example of decisions that upset the balance of luck and skill that poker needs to survive.
I tend to disagree with the basic premises of Ken's argument. In my opinion, a cardroom needs regular players to start games and keep games going. Thus winning players are actually good for a cardroom. This is why an appropriate relationship between these players and cardroom management needs to be developed. It is also why cardrooms need to do their best to attract new players, and of course the regulars can assist in this.
Mason wrote: "I tend to disagree with the basic premises of Ken's argument. In my opinion, a cardroom needs regular players to start games and keep games going."
I think Mason misunderstood Ken's argument. I believe Ken argues that *professional* players might hurt cardrooms more than help them. There are many regular players who are not professionals. Some regulars are small winners. Some regulars even lose money.
Mason continued: "Thus winning players are actually good for a cardroom."
Regulars are good for cardrooms, therefore winning players are good for cardrooms. Wow. How does he make this deductive leap? Again, not all regulars are winners. Furthermore, it's possible that the smaller winners are good for cardrooms and the bigger winners are bad for cardrooms, for the reasons Ken mentioned.
Kenneth, There is a slight error in your logic that leads to a large error in your conclusion. Most rec players lose, that's the reality, most of them lose, and it doesn't matter who they lose to, somebody has to win. Maybe it's the better regulars, maybe a pro, but everybody isn't breaking even. The money only gets pushed around during the session, at the end of each session each player has lost or won. Even if they only lost due to the "vagaries of the cards" they're still losing. The real question is "How much money is leaving the game" If a pro wins it, it goes towards his income and expenses, but even if a regular or rec player wins it, it still leaves the game. Maybe he takes his wife out or buys the kids new bikes, or invests it, or gets a new TV, but you get the idea. Also the addition of pros to the game doesn't affect the rake, as long as the seats are full and the pots sufficently large, the house gets its cut. The pros only change who the money is lost to, not how much is lost. Even with only rec players, some folks will go broke and need to be replaced.
Joel,
There are some significant errors in your logic.
You wrote: "Most rec players lose, that's the reality, most of them lose, and it doesn't matter who they lose to, somebody has to win."
It usually does matter to whom rec players lose. If they lose to professionals, their losses are more likely to leave the "poker economy." If they lose to other rec players, their losses are more likely to be re-circulated within the poker economy.
You also wrote: "Also the addition of pros to the game doesn't affect the rake, as long as the seats are full and the pots sufficently large, the house gets its cut."
Ken doesn't claim that pros result in larger rakes. He argues that pros increase the losses of rec players.
You wrote: "The pros only change who the money is lost to, not how much is lost."
If the pros achieve significant winnings, then they also will change the amount of money that is lost by the almost-break-even players.
You also wrote: "Even with only rec players, some folks will go broke and need to be replaced."
True. But more folks will go broke more quickly if pros are present.
In the Los Angeles area let's say there are about a hundred top players who beat middle limit games (15/30 to 20/40) for about one big bet per hour and tend to split their time among the major clubs that offer games at this limit. Let’s call them “Rounders” (not our Rounder Mike G.). Thus any given day, the Commerce would figure to get about 40 of these players, Hollywood Park would get about 30, and the Bike, Hustler, and Hawaiian Gardens about 10 each (sorry Normandie, I forgot about you but it has been a while).
Let’s pretend Hollywood Park Casino hired a sorcerer who had certain limited magic powers. This sorcerer could make all the tough Rounders decide to split their time among the other clubs and avoid Hollywood Park altogether. The sorcerer could also change the mind of any about to be developed tough player from going to Hollywood Park and would turn him into a dot-com entrepreneur instead. Now Hollywood Park would still have its existing tough pros who play solely or mostly at that casino. Would hiring this sorcerer be good for Hollywood Park Casino’s top section?
Note that for the first day hired, the sorcerer would just have to decrease Hollywood Park’s business in top section. But I’m thinking one month, one year, or several years in the future. Any thoughts?
Regards,
Rick
Imagine a card room where you knew exactly how much each pro was taking out of the game. Further imagine that you had a really sharp staff of dealers that could juice the cards just enough to keep the pro from making too much or any money. Wouldn't that be exactly like Paradise Poker?
-Fred-
If what you say is true, then why would casinos PAY props to play?
The answer, bodies. The more bodies in the door, the more the casino makes. For example, if a table has all or almost all pros, the casino is making money they would not be making without the pros.
(I did not read the entire thread. Sorry if this is a repeat of another reply.)
Tommy
Tommy,
You asked: "If what you say is true, then why would casinos PAY props to play?"
Surely you understand the difference between props and professionals from the cardrooms' point of view.
Surely you understand why cardrooms might benefit from one group in their middle-limit games and might be harmed by the other group.
If not, I suggest you reread Ken's post.
Mark, you appear to be missing the fundamental flaw in the original post. Poker is a game of skill and there will always be variations in skill levels. Professional poker players are a bi-product of this skill imbalance.
The goal of a cardroom is to have all tables full at all times. As they cannot totally de-skill poker, discouraging any players will conflict with this goal.
However, they can introduce such things as bad beat jackpots which have a small de-skilling effect.
Dave,
You wrote: "Poker is a game of skill and there will always be variations in skill levels."
I'm well aware of this fact, as I'm sure Kenneth is as well. His hypothetical example of a table full of nearly-equally-skilled players was a thought experiment--not a case study.
You wrote: "The goal of a cardroom is to have all tables full at all times."
The goal of most cardrooms is to make money. Kenneth makes the point that, in certain situations, the presence of professionals at some tables might help a cardroom's short-term profits while harming its long-term profits.
You wrote: "As they cannot totally de-skill poker, discouraging any players will conflict with this goal."
Huh?
You wrote: "However, they can introduce such things as bad beat jackpots which have a small de-skilling effect."
Actually, there is a lot that cardrooms can do to emphasis luck and de-emphasis skill. They could, for example, introduce relatively large antes to hold'em games. The greater the antes relative to the betting limits, the greater the importance of luck compared to skill.
You agree that Poker is a game of skill and that there are imbalances in the skill level of players.
Presumably you will also agree that a professional player is merely a player who is skillful enough, in relation to his opponents, that he can win enough to make a living.
You said "in certain situations, the presence of professionals at some tables might help a cardroom's short-term profits while harming its long-term profits" When "skillful players" are substituted for "professionals" surely the flaw in the argument becomes obvious? As you cannot remove relatively skillful players, there are no long term profits of this nature to be harmed. The only thing a cardroom can do to ensure long term profits is to encourage new players to join their games.
Dave,
You wrote: "You said 'in certain situations, the presence of professionals at some tables might help a cardroom's short-term profits while harming its long-term profits' When 'skillful players' are substituted for 'professionals' surely the flaw in the argument becomes obvious?"
Obvious to you, perhaps, but only because you are overlooking an important distinction. Professionals generally are extremely skillful players (which is why they can make a living at the poker tables). Professionals drain a lot of money from the bankrolls of unskillful players. Less skillful players drain less money from unskilled players.
Let's assume a cardroom gains 20 new players each year. If this cardroom had an abundance of professional players, 30 unskilled players might go broke every year as a result of their losses to those professionals (and to other semi-skilled players and to the rake/tokes). This cardroom's long-term profits probably will decline.
But if most of the professionals left this cardroom, maybe only 10 unskilled players would go broke every year. In the short-term, this cardroom loses the rake it once collected from those departed professionals. But in the long-term, it gains from the rake it collects from its increasing player base.
You wrote: "As you cannot remove relatively skillful players, there are no long term profits of this nature to be harmed."
But if you remove the *most* skillful players, it could well effect long-term profits.
You wrote: "The only thing a cardroom can do to ensure long term profits is to encourage new players to join their games."
Wrong. Cardrooms also can improve long-term profits by reducing the number of existing players who quit their games (including those who go bankrupt).
I don't think that I am overlooking the fact that professionals are extremely skillful players.
I will concede that there may be a theoretical situation where one player is so much better than his opponents that it would cause a problem in a game. I think that it would be more likely that the other players would refuse to play with that person, rather than leave the game due to going broke.
However, I do not believe that the profits derived from superior skill increase exponentially and this would be necessary for the cardroom to bar players of a certain skill level. If the relationship between profits and skill level was broadly linear removing the beat players would only create a smaller game with the same "problem"
Dave,
You wrote: "I will concede that there may be a theoretical situation where one player is so much better than his opponents that it would cause a problem in a game. I think that it would be more likely that the other players would refuse to play with that person, rather than leave the game due to going broke."
Many ordinary professionals are quite capable of draining enough money from unskilled players to cause them to go broke. To a lesser extent, even semi-skilled players can eventually bankrupt weak players. It happens often in real life, not just in theoretical situations.
You wrote: "However, I do not believe that the profits derived from superior skill increase exponentially and this would be necessary for the cardroom to bar players of a certain skill level."
I'll say one thing for you. You're certainly confident of your opinions. Too bad there isn't much logic to support them. So what makes you believe some sort of *exponential* skill level is *necessary* for good players to bankrupt poor players? Seems to me that the relative difference in skill levels would be a more important factor, as well as the amount of losses the the weak player can afford to absorb.
I'm playing in a fairly loose 15-30 game. I'm 1 off the button. It folds around to a tight player on my right. He raises, and I reraise with 22. The BB calls, and the tight player calls. The flop comes up Q85 all hearts. Tight player bets and I call ( I have the 2 of hearts). The BB also calls. The turn is a 5. The tight player bets again. Well, now I'm kind of committed. I call, as does the big blind. The river is a 2. The tight player bets, I raise, and he disgustingly calls. He gets even more disgusted as he shows his A7 of hearts for the flopped nut flush, and I show him my 22 for a runner runner full. I know I played this hand poorly, but where, and how poorly?
This is a joke, right?
Well, basically, if you continue to call an all overcard flush board you'll lose more than you will win. 6.6% that'll you'll hit the 5 on the turn and 6.7% that you'll hit another 5 on the river. That's a 14:1 dog on the turn and a 13:1 dog on the river. You have a 4.5% that you would hit a 2 on the river after you hit the 5 on the turn. That's 22:1 against. There were 9.5 bets on the flop. This is, of course, depends that no one had a 5 or 2. Can you figure out from there?
~stephen
Unless you are a wealthy man having fun at the poker table, I would advice you to immediately stop playing 15-30, or any limit for that matter. Get some books, read the forum, talk to some people who understand the game. I'm not trying to be rude or condescending, but I am trying to save you a lot of heartbreak and frustration. You absolutely MUST gain a better understanding of this game before you start playing a 15-30 game regularly.
Otherwise you will go broke in a heartbeat.
A good litmus test will be when you can explain why you pretty much could not have played this hand more poorly than you did.
natedogg
Your first mistake was playing the hand at all, against a tight player who raised from your right, you should have folded, when the board came 3 suited and no trips for you, folding was again warranted, when the turn didn't hit you, again folding was the right move, but you hit the miracle card. It isn't possible to have played this hand any worse. Raising at any point would have been much better than calling, at least you would have had two ways to win.
Okay, I didn't actually play this hand, but a good friend of mine did, and I was a little sick watching it. I think he could have played it a little worse, since Ilike the raise on the river, but it's not completely automatic given the tight player's style. Actually, it wouldn't have been completely outside of my friend's bag to raise the flop, call the 3 bet, and have the hand play out the same from there. That would have been even sicker still.
you are a liar
I GUESS THE SAYING IS TRUE " SOME PEOPLE GOT MORE MONEY THAN THEY GOT BRAINS" actually you did alright, this is the same kind of suck-out play i see in the 3/6 holdem and they congratulate each jeeeze why am i typing this crap for
>> I know I played this hand poorly, but where, and how poorly?
You played poorly on every card except the river. And except for the river you played each round very poorly.
In my opinion and my opinion only none of your calls were correct. You should have mucked before the flop, on the flop, and on the turn. Of course when you hit your miracle card then of course you should raise.
Wouldn't ace king suited be a better hand than AA, if a million people saw the flop? My logic is that making the nuts is a lot easier with AKs. Of course to play a million handed you would need to be playing multi-decked and than you could have more than one nut flush, but I am ignoring this aspect.
keeping it realistic, you can have (52 cards - 5 board cards) / 2 = 23 players in a hand. In a 23 player game of hold'em would AKs or Axs be better than AA?
Correct question.
My GUESS is AA still does better since a set of Aces is going to win quite a bit.
- Louie
I remember some time ago this debate came up somewhere and it was kind of agreed that 56 (different suits than the AA) was the best hand to go up against AA with.
Some one ran sims to prove the point.
You will make a full house with AA more often than you will make a nut flush with AKs.
Of course, a full house with AA is never the nuts, but its close enough.
Even 23 handed, assuming the players are still playing reasonable AA is going to win alot more then AKs, however I'm not sure how you got your figures on making more full houses with AA then you will a flush with AKs, but you are incorrect. Its the other way around.
Doug,
At least do a little math and some research before you say I'm wrong. I dont mind being wrong, but I dont like it when somebody else calls me wrong when I have numbers to back it up and you obviously dont.
AA will make a full house or quads about 8% of the time. You will only make the NUTS with a flush (AKs) about 5 to 6% of the time. So obviously I was right.
On a side note, AKs will make a full house using both the ace and the king a little less than 2% of the time. This full house may or may not be the nuts.
In the future, don't insult people unless you actually know what you are talking about.
BTW, the numbers are from a monte carlo simulator.
JV, I usually like your posts. Have the doctor double-check your 'scripts.
Hello,
This is a question pertaining to the Poker Digest Article written by David Sklansky. I was wondering if the answer to the final odds question is that you have a 19-35 chance of winning the hand. Or for every 35 times the hand is played you win 19 times with QQ to 16 times for him holding AK. I may be wrong as math is not particularly my strong suit but that is what I think. All answers welcome.
Thanks, Chris
I was playing in a very loose 6-12 game of HE. I limped in in early position with KQ one raise behind me and I call(4 other callers). Flop comes 10-J-J rainbow. I check and the preflop raiser bets. What do I do?
What do the players between you and him do ?
Vis-a-vis the raiser: This is not a good bluffing situation. Unless the raiser may realistically have 99 he is unlikely to lay down his hand since he at least has a gut-draw (e.g. with AQ).
Vis-a-vis the callers: This is not a good situation since callers OFTEN have hands featuring T, J, and Q. If you make your straight the guy that has a J can easily fill up (AJ, JT, J9; or even TT or 99; and of course the raising can fill up with AA).
I would draw cheaply until one of the callers raised. If I MADE the straight on the turn for a single bet and THEN one of the caller raised I would pay it off.
Reluctantly draw. HOPE you get the last bet in when you make the straight.
- Louie
I would have led bet the flop.
One does not need to be a mathmatician or psychologist to play poker. Truck drivers can do just as well. This is because the approximate odds are easy to figure out. I apply the following mostly to stud, but it is applicable to other games as well.
Generally, Big pairs are a 2 to 1 favorite heads up against a lower pair. Three way, against two smaller pairs a big pair is only 50-50, but you're still getting 2 to 1 on your money. Against more than two your are likely competing against drawing hands.
Drawing hands are generally a 4 to 1 shot. A pair against one drawing hand is, therefore, a 4 to 1 favorite, but against two drawing hands, the pair is again a 50-50 shot. Against three drawing hands, the pair is a 4 to 3 dog, and against 4 drawing hands, the pair will lose better than 90% of the time.
Drawing hands against each other play the same as pairs heads up. The bigger drawing hand is a 2 to 1 favorite. This is because if the smaller draw wins only if the bigger draw fails to improve.
Once the underdog improves, the odds flip. The big pair is now a 2 to 1 underdog to two pairs, although possibility of improving on two pair is much slimmer than improving to two pair.
I say this to emphasize how important it is to make sure you enter the pot either with the lead or with the best draw and to be aware of the number of people iun the pot in order to determine whether you're getting the best of its.
Such a simple game. Well then, you must be an expert. Congradulations on mastering such a simple game. Although, congradulations hardly seem appropriate for mastering a simple game. I guess it's not a simple thing to find the correct salutatation to a master of a simple game. Dear me, I'm farclept!
"I say this to emphasize how important it is to make sure you enter the pot either with the lead or with the best draw"
Gee, you make is seem so, so.. simple. Now why didn't I see this before. Sometimes simple things are elusive to all but the simplest minds. Simply put of course.
vince (simpleton, par excellance)
What does "farclept" mean?
I didn't say poker is easy. I said it was simple. There's a difference. Your response should be more respectful. The biggest error you can make in poker is to become so arrogant that you underestimate your opponent. You step on that line.
Poker is also a hard game, because it's so simple. You have to read players and deal with incomplete information. There is a lot of complexity to it; but at it's heart, the game is a simple one. It is a mistake to forget that.
"Poker is also a hard game, because it's so simple. ...There is a lot of complexity to it; "
Are you serious?
"Your response should be more respectful. "
Are you serious?
"The biggest error you can make in poker is to become so arrogant that you underestimate your opponent. "
Are you serious?
"You step on that line. "
Are you serious?
"but at it's heart, the game is a simple one."
Jesus Christ! You are serious!
So much for intelligent discussion.
Vince
ARE YOU REALLY A "LIVE" SIMPLETON??
Very original ideas. You should write a book.
You could call it "Winning Low Limit Hold 'Em"
Yeah...that's the ticket....
Simply too subtle.
Not to sure about your odds but I like the simplicity in your thinking. One interesting note - most successful poker players I had encountered have other talents and have succeeded in other walks of life before making their mark in poker.
Look at this years final table in the WSOP I think there were 4 PHDS there plus a former pro football player.
Just a thought.
4 Ph.Ds at the final table at the WSOP? That's pretty amazing if it's true. Any idea who at the final table has a Ph.D., and in what subject?
Yeah a journalist, rabbi and CompSi (Jesus) Funny Jesus and a rabbi at the same table. :-)
I may have been wrong about it but I thought I heard there were 4 can't think of the other.
Actually, I think it was 3 post-grad degrees, only 1 of which was a Ph.D.
Ph. D. - Chris 'Jesus' Fergusen in Computer Science (Artifical Intelligence)
Steve Kaufman, a rabi from Cincinati, has a master's in ancient languanges. Jim McManus, the writer on assignment from Harper's Magazine, has a master's degree in writing.
Cazz
This was probably one of the funniest posts I have ever seen.
I don't mean to insult people by saying the game is simple. I do, however, think people should take responsibility for how they respond. If some people think this was a silly or stupid post, maybe they should reevaluate whether their game is really built on a solid foundation. If not, one day they will pay.
Most peoples games are not built on a solid fundamental foundation. Props to them because money couldn't be won if everybody played well.
You better stick to low-limit stud if you think a big pair is only 2-1 favorite over a smaller pair in hold-em. In regards to stud, the odds on the drawing hands change significantly based on the number of cards showing and what street you are referring to. Quite often a flush draw is even-money on 4th street.
Furthermore, even if I could agree with your numbers (which I do not), a person working with just simple concepts cannot make it past the low-limit nut games. In the big games, you'll be devoured because you'll not often get to sniff the antes and when you do try to enter a pot with what you think is the right hand, they'll know right where you are at and turn you upside down on the later streets when you don't improve. The best stud players in the world can practically see right through your cards and they aren't playing their hand -- they are playing YOU.
The only statement in your post that I can agree with is that you don't have to be a mathematician or psychologist to play poker. But those skills sure would help. Maybe a truck driver could become a great poker player (Johnny Chan was once a short-order cook). But no one is going to just fall off the turnip truck with a few simple concepts and become a great player.
Interesting post though. The one thing that makes poker intriquing is seeing the various levels of thinking of players.
The reason I posted this was to generate responses like yours. The insults are ridiculous, and simply show that they are not getting what I'm saying. Maybe the post is to subtle. I didn't include all the analysis and just left it up the the reader to fill in the blanks. For example, why a two to one favorite? It's simply because live pairs have the exact same chance of improvement. The difference is that the bigger pair wins unimproved. The main point of the post is sometimes we makes things too complicated and only end up getting confused.
The advantage of simplicity is that it is more easily applied. Fancy statistics and strategies aren't as useful as understanding the basics. THAT'S THE POINT OF THE POST. I don't doubt that good players can "see right through your cards" and play you not their hand. That, however, takes a lot of experience and perhaps even psychic abilities. You have to respect that, but you also have to respect the basic knowledge that the strentgh of your hand is relative to the other hands at the table and the number of players in the game. It may be simple, but its FUNDAMENTAL. Forget it at your peril.
I truely would like more specific comments on the issues. Do you think that drawing hands are generally a one in four bet. Is it accurate to say that with four callers (in stud) that your chance of winning with two pair is almost nil? What about the bluff and re-raise bluff? How do you read players so effectively that you can play them and not your hand? All of these rest upon a foundation of a good and solid game.
I don't mean to insult people by saying the game is simple. I do, however, think people should take responsibility for how they respond. If some people think this was a silly or stupid post, maybe they should reevaluate whether their game is really built on a solid foundation. If not, one day they will pay.
Rich,
If you look in most dictionaries it will list easy and simple as synonyms and hard and simple and antonyms, so I am sure that you can see why people are jumping on your post. Many players have struggled with the game inspite of having an outstanding knowledge of it. So your post might hit them the wrong way.<