![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
I'm holding JJ in a low limit ( 2 - 4 ) and I'm in mid position. I raise the preflop and both players call.
Flop comes Jd 6h 7s.
The blind bets, I raise and my friend calls cold in late position ( I consider him to be a good player. Figure he is on a staight draw. ) and the blind calls.
Turn comes 8c.
The blind bets, I call crying and my friend and in late position calls. (?)
River comes 7d
Blind bets, I raise, reraise behind me, reraise by the blind.......
Since there was no cap, we had about 15 bets each before the big show down....
blind was holding 54s. (Which I believe was a poor play because the board paired up. He should have known his straight was no good.)
I had J's full and had 2nd nut which lost to quad 7's which my friend was holding. (which on the raising war I figured someone had it.... but I had to know)
What is the chances that with a three person holdem game that all three of us have great hands with both cards playing?
See you tonight Andy for another weekend show down!
any comments?... This is my first time writing in so please don't rip me apart.
What is the chances that with a three person holdem game that all three of us have great hands with both cards playing?
100%, it seems. I don't really consider idiot straight with the board paired to be a great hand, and top full vs. quads isn't all that rare in hold'em due to the community cards.
100%, it seems. I don't really consider idiot straight with the board paired to be a great hand, and top full vs. quads isn't all that rare in hold'em due to the community cards.
For future reference,for your opinions to be respected online, you might consider using proper English in your messages.
Playing in loose games I'm forever deciding which flushes to play. How would you play 87s differently than 86s preflop? I notice S&M have many starting hands between them. But all I can see favoring 87s is the one extra dumb straight. Let me thank the 10 or 20 of you who regularly contribute answers for us newbies. I've been following for months.Without your generous advice I could never have afforded to learn the hard way. Now I see the light at the end of the tunnel and it's not a train.Rounder, they should pay you for your unique perspective. (BTW I'm up $1200 after 110 hrs. Was stuck $600 before reversing.)
The one extra straight possibility will add up in the long run.
RD & Mike
It just isn't the extra straight it is the nuts I am after any straight you use both coupled cards is a nut and I love nuts. I get bashed for this thinking but I'd still rather have 89o than 97s - for alot of reasons.
Hey I have been preaching this for months now.
Play the mid coupled cards weather suited or not in late positions hell the 8 high flush is probably a loser anyway.
The connector is the nuts, except for when 9TJ hits the board, in which case there are two different straights that could beat you. There are three different ways (discounting overcards) to hit the nuts with the connector. There are two ways, with the one gapper, one way with the two gapper, zero ways with the 3 gapper. Just adding my two cents worth.
You have 8c6c in the SB, BB has 8d7d, the two of you see the flop of 7h6s2s...
I'd be very interested to hear from some of the expert players on this hand. I don't just want to know whether I could have made a better play, but rather if I could have had a better thought. I feel that I could benefit greatly to hear how an expert would have thought this hand out differently.
There was a straddle button in this 10-20 game and it was in play for this hand. A somewhat loose but experienced tricky player (tp) made it $30 from UTG, and a strong player (sp) to his immediate left capped it at $40. Everyone folded to me in the LB and I called with KK.
My thoughts: I'm not crazy about my position and I'm not sure if the fact that I didn't get a raise in hurts me. Although my calling $35 cold should say I have a big hand. (especially to the strong player)
The flop came Qh,7c,3s. I bet out.
My thoughts: I want it known that I have a hand. I'm sure tp will raise regardless of his holding and this allows me to see how sp reacts.
tp raises, sp re-raises, I call.
My thoughts: I don't think I gain much from capping here and I want to see now what tp does.
tp caps, sp calls, I call. Turn is 5s. (Qh,7c,3s,5s) I bet out.
My thoughts: Obviously, we all have big hands. I fully expect tp to raise me here (and I think that tp and sp know I know that also) which should put sp to a tough call with many holdings (including AA,KK and AQ). If he even calls I will seriously consider mucking!?? I don't want to fear monsters under the bed, but AA has been a concern from the beginning as well as QQ. I'm willing to pay one of these hands off, but not both.
tp raises, sp thinks for a long time and mucks, I call. River is a 7s. I feel I have forced my hand as far as possibible. I check, tp checks and my KK wins. Turns out both tp and sp had AQ. I found this hand to be pretty intense and would appreciate comments. Again, not just how the hand was played but what a a good player would've thought differently. I feel I was weak at least in my thinking. I was very concerned about AA and QQ and if sp even calls the raise on the turn I would have seriously considered mucking. I definitely muck if he re-raises? Thanks again!
Ask yourself exactly what range of hands are consistent with the actions of the strong player (4-bets preflop then 3-bets on the flop)? The very worst possible holding is exactly AQ, don't you think? It's also the only one you can beat. Tricky player is a little harder to put on a hand but again it's hard to imagine a hand worse than AQ and easy to imagine a few better than that, 77 for example.
I think you were fortunate to get the money but I'm no expert.
Your thinking here was incorrect. You gained tremendous advantage by not making a move prior to the flop. You should have checked the flop and let the game come to you. You are not letting anyone know anything by betting out. You could be betting Q with a K kicker and since they both have top pair with top kicker they are going to jump all over you. You should have checked the flop and reraised after tp & sp bet and raised. Now you put pressure on them to figure out your hand, or just call and wait to 3 bet the turn. You also lost a player on the turn who would have paid you off, if you had checked. The board was very favourable to you all the way and you should have played it as if you had the best hand (which you did). If you had waited and 3 bet the turn with a check, neither player would cap it on you, because you have now annouced that you have a strong hand, but if they cap, then and only then should you consider that you might not have the best hand, but you would still call. I know it's easy to analyse the hand since we know what the players were holding but if you had check raised, your opponents are now under pressure instead of you and they could make a costly error as well.
I liked your play till the turn. Because the flop was not dangerous I would have check-raised on the turn. Then bet the river unless I know I am beat to possible AKs, AQs, Ax,KQs. If the flop would have been dangerous such as 2 suited card or open-end straight draw then I would have bet the turn hoping to get raise to limit the field.
If I check the turn, most likely, it gets bet and raised back to me. Now what do I do? I have an almost impossible call and may very well lose the hand now since I have to put one of them on AA or QQ.
Would you call 2 bets cold here, or cap it? I'm pretty sure I'd muck for 2 bets cold on the turn.
You're wrong about one thing, AKs -- the idea that your thinking was weak. I think you played the hand great! Against most players I would be uncomfortable with this amount of action, but you seemed to know how aggressive tp was and how he would react to your bets. The normal play on the turn would be to check-call, but your bet into the previous capper followed by tp's raise (which you thought he might make without a great hand) may have made sp throw away even AA. Bravo!
I would have capped the pre flop action and had the last bet on the flop I feel in charge here unless an A hits the board.
You just can't put good players on AA, a rock yes but a good player is tough to put on a hand in this situation. The hand would have played out differently if you had capped the pre flop so maybe you were better off just calling. But folding an over pair in this situation is wrong.
The pre-flop betting was already capped before the action got to Aks according to his post.
Unless Aks is a nut, tp and sp should know that he has a strong hand to cold call the flop and then bet into the raisers after the flop. If mistakes were made, then they were made by sp and tp by over-valuating or over-betting their hands given the pre-flop calls and post-flop action from Aks.
Aks's mistake is contemplating a muck on the turn, and possibly not check-raising the flop which is when I think a check-raise is the most effective in this situation.
It is debatable how to play this hand. The one comment you made that worries me is that you were ready to fold on fourth st. if you thought you were beaten. I wonder if you realize that the pot was almost big enough to call one bet simply to try and snag a king. I have often seen good payers incorrectly fold an overpair in these situations. Don't forget your implied odds either. Also even if you had no intention of calling on the end, if there was even a tiny chance (1%) that you could win (or tie) a showdown without putting more money in, a call is clearly right on fourth st.
There is a fading thread far down the forum in which David Sklansky single-handedly attempts to belittle Lee Jones and his book 'Winning Low Limit Hold'em'. David's stated goal in knocking down Jones is to benefit all of us that might be duped into believing this book was written professionally by a professional. He further seems to believe that the advice of Jones is likely to be dangerous or at least lead players astray on their way up the hold'em ladder.
I believe that if you buy this book because you're currently not beating low limit hold'em AND you have the desire and discipline you will beat low limit hold'em damn quickly. That's all the book promises. It's not promising to make you a poker professional. There is no suggestion that you'll succeed at mid limit games, just low limit. The book delivers. It may not be the most complete or most correct but it's a very efficient tool to learn how to win.
That said, I'm wondering why 2+2 never took the opportunity to fill this niche? It's my guess now that there is so much jealousy and dislike that a 2+2 book that improves upon Jones is out of the question. Working with Jones is also out. But why, oh why attack Jones you unthinking business man?
Every book that Jones sells keeps another player "in" the game if he succeeds. This is your future customer, David Sklansky. This is the guy that will buy $1000 in poker books with his expanding bankroll. I know I did.
You and Lee jones are in the same figurative boat. If you make the effort to belittle his work and poke a hole in his end of the boat, his end will go down while yours rises. In the end however, the boat sinks with both of you aboard.
Lastly, Lee Jones is a really nice guy. He may have moved on from poker author to other things in life, I don't know but his work has made a lot of losers into winners. For that you should be grateful.
Post deleted at author's request.
Post deleted at author's request.
Do you seriously believe that I could not almost instantly beat a small limit game for more money than any player who does not routinely play 20-40 or higher (assuming we know the specific players in the game equally)? Thinking I couldn't, is like thinking An NFL football player wouldn't almost instantly be the best player at a high school rugby game. Even Lee Jones himself, I am sure, would agree with that. There are some higher limit players who would have trouble with small limits, but that is because they play by the seat of their pants and don't understand the underlying theory and the strategy changes that are necessary. But that wouldn't be the case for me or most of the successful high limit players. Furthermore with a mere ten or twenty hours of experience and a few hours of relection afterwards, any possible edges on some aspect of the game that a more experienced small limit player would have would be quickly eliminated. (The very best players such as Chip Reese didn't spend much time playing small, not only because they started with more money but rather because when you have this much talent, beating small games badly is a piece of cake and they quickly move up.)
This also brings up another bone I have to pick with you Badger, regarding The Theory of Poker. When I mentioned in another thread that an aspiring studious player could quickly move up to 6-12 if he read that book, you replied that I was being disengenuous because we admit that our books are for higher limits. Well that is true for some of our other books but the Theory of Poker is by definition for ALL limits since it tells you what to think about depending on the situation. Since you haven't read that book you wouldn't know.
Getting back to your initial comment. I don't suppose you would like to take the other side of me crossbooking Lee Jones or any small limit pro, playing 3-6 holdem. We would of course have to play at least 50 hours at a minimum of 10X stakes. Most of your disagreements with me cannot be definitively resolved. But this one can, if you make it worth my while.
Post deleted at author's request.
It is becoming clear to me that you have a distorted view of both my opinions and writing talants and that this could be fixed if you only read The Theory of Poker. So I up my offer again. Order the book. Read it. If you can honestly say you are not glad you did, I will send you $400. Period.
Badger's original point, which is valid, is that most poker books--yours included, valuable as it is---tend to convey the impression that there is a "fixed" viable strategy for low-limit Holdem. Of course, this is not the case: there are so many variables: game structure, quality and style of opponents, amount the house charges to play, etc. In addition, there is the matter of definition. I don't consider 5-10 or 6-12 "low limit". I'm sure someone who normally plays 20-40 or higher, does. So if you make a generalization such as "3-3 can be played profitably in a low limit game" the natural question must arise, HOW low of a limit? against rocks? nut cases? In CA where the rake is prohibitive? In WA where the rake is affordable? etc. etc. etc. It may be impossible to truly convey a thorough strategy for low limit holdem in any book less than 2000 pages long. I've read your book. It's one of the best poker books I've ever read; the exposition is clear and lucid; the points made are valuable; the coverage is thorough. As a FOUNDATION it is unparalleled. However, it falls short of arming the novice against all variations and all situations--but then, no single book can be expected to do that. I would like to see, in fact, a book devoted to just the above topic---how to change one's playing style(s) to adapt to conditions, and how to recognize beatable (and unbeatable) games, and how to evaluate poker venues. And re your offer to Badger: send ME a copy of your book, and I'll read it and profess to hate it for only $300--a 25% saving to you! (I'll do anything for a few extra buy-ins :)
Post deleted at author's request.
I already read The Theory of Poker and thought it was great...but I'd be willing to say I didn't like it for as little as $50. You can e-mail me for my street address. :-)
Post deleted at author's request.
Undertanding the problems associated with low limit play, especially for relatively new players is not about what you play preflop for one bet, 2 bets, 5-6 players or more. Most of the money will be lost on later streets when the situation has changed for the worse but the novice doesn't see it. Example
Late Position. Hero calls early position raiser with KQs.
Flop is KcQd4s. Okay he's flopped top two pair and raises the preflop raiser. The river is a 4c. In the seasoned player's mind warning bells are now going off. The novice still thinks he's got a great hand and gets into a raising war with the preflop raiser who he knows couldn't posssibly have raised preflop with a 4 in his hand.
Most beginners and non studying players don't lose their money by not knowing when to get in, they lose their money by not knowing when to get out. They can calculate pot odds and implied odds and percentages of hands that can beat them in a flash but they have no experience to let them know that AT with a flop of AQ4 is a loser when a solid player raised UTG preflop. They've got top pair with a decent kicker. After all some of the players at the table play any ace. They've thrown away 20 hands in a row. They've got a pair of aces and they're playing them.
It takes a lot of experience to know that when you flop bottom set and your raises are not respected that you just might be in trouble. In the Fundamental theory of Poker Sklansky points out that if your opponent is playing his hand in a different way than he would play it if he knew what you held then he's making a mistake. So, it would seem that when you've made it clear what you hold and you're still getting raised it might be time to give your opps some credit. Beginner's don't do this, novice's do this right after they call the last raise and then say, "I knew I was beat!!" Most of the hands I win at low limit are because I'm playing AQ and raising, typical low limiters ae playing QT and they call all the way to the river. After all, they read somewhere that top pair is a decent hand. Just reading books and reading these posts are not the whole answer. Many of Abdul's posts and Izmet's posts are clearly titled as questions that should be thought about, not necessarily answered. Thinking, thinking and more thinking is required. Getting a read on someone as impossible as it is at low limits is essential. Being able to reraise UTG in early position with AJs because you know UTG would smooth call with any real hand is where money is made. Only the player at the table at the time can best know when to fold or raise when his flush hits on a paired board. But, that's only if that player even knows how to analyze the information at hand. It's much much more than whether or not you play small pairs preflop. You can't just memorize a table and odds charts and expect the chips to flow your way. You have to know how to play poker, and no book in the world can teach you that.
Bravisimo! Very well said, Sammy.
But... Don't you think that knowing the odds, charts, et al is a very important foundation for learning to play poker properly?
I think it's indispensable. But it's not enough to make you a long time winner.
While I agree with with this post with respect to the point of "experience is the best teacher", I'm not so sure I agree with the rest of it. Can low limit be beaten without ANY previous experience, just based on reading? Probably not. But most low limit poker (again MOST) is played by people who don't know ANYTHING about odds or odds tables. You are going to tell me that a 3-6 table where 7 out of 10 players consider J4s a decent hand knows about odds? I really hope not! If most players knew about the odds and charts and tables, low limit, high raked games would be unbeatable. No way. At a typical 3-6 table most players don't know and frankly don't care about the odds of hitting a flush with one card to come or whatever. Sort of like a $5 blackjack table where someone hits a 12 against a 6 showing. In these games, you make most of your money off your opponents bad plays. Thus a low limit book should attempt to prevent you from making these plays. Give them starting hands to play so they don't play junk. Let them know that when 3 flush cards are on the board to consider that someone might have a flush. When there are four cards in a row, having the lower card to make the straight is not as good as having the higher card to make a straight. This alone should be enough to make low limit a winning proposition for people who read the text.
Mr. Sklansky seems to be a big fan of sports analogies, so I will give him one. Nobody is saying you can't beat low limit. You probably just can't make winning at low limit holdem as easy as possible, which is what you have to do to reach novices. An NFL coach is probably a much better tactician than a PeeWee league coach. However, if an NFL coach was assigned to coach at the PeeWee level, he might not get as good results as the best PeeWee league coach. Not because he could not come up with a strategy to blast every PeeWee league team out of the water, but because the strategy he devises can not be implemented successfully by his PeeWee league team. A good PeeWee league coach may only understand football at the most basic level, but yet may be able to get the most out of his players using a simplified strategy that works well for his PeeWee league team.
This is a poor analogy. You cannot compare coaching with participating. Sklansky is a poker player not a poker coach. Take an NFL player and put him in a PeeWee league and a lot of other coaches will be PeEing their pants.
Vince.
Huh? Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I said no one is doubting he can't beat a low limit game. Coaching and participating is not analogous. Giving advice in books to low limit players and coaching small time players is. When you are writing a book you are not playing poker, you are helping teach others how to beat it.
Yeah, well maybe you were clear enough and I just blew it! Did you ever think of that. Huh! Sure, sure, Vince is always the brunt of the joke. Well you won't have me to kick around for a while. In the future, please be a little less clear in your anaolgies so I can at least come up with an excuse or maybe even make it look like you screwed up.
Vince.
is that someone who knew the subject better, would necessarily be a worse teacher of beginners. This might be true in some cases, but certainly not in mine or many others. Making the book cookbookish and not too intimidating, while at the same time EXPLAINING THINGS without logical errors, or giving downright wrong information (not because you are trying to simplify but rather because you don't know yourself) is not that hard. I really don't want to belabor the point but I have no choice when you guys don't get what I am saying. So I will say it again. To write a good simplified book for neophytes that goes beyond extreme basics, takes both a decent teacher and a relative expert in the field. The top texts on almost all serious subjects are written by authors who pass this criteria, and they must necessarily be better than books written by those who don't. Poker unfortunately is an exception.
Though the point made is very valid, I'm not sure if my sixth grade science book was written by a PhD, much less a Nobel prize winner. For all I know, 2+2 could come up with the best LLH book of all time. The rest of the books are certainly great. I was merely trying to convey the point Mr. Badger was attempting to get across. Writing a good low limit book does not involve only the strategy needed to beat the game, but the simplicity in order to get your points across to those who may not as of yet have a strong grasp of the fundamentals of poker.
Post deleted at author's request.
The athlete analogy doesn't apply since I write as well as play. I agree many highlimit poker players would write bad books although some wouldn't. The Vince Lombardi analogy is better. But I would change a few things. First of all, peewee football is not analogous to 3-6. Those who play 3-6 in public cardrooms are at least equivalent to junior high school players. Secondly I agree that an NFL coach may not do quite as good a job as junior high coach who was especially good at his job. But that would be true only if that guy knew football ALMOST as well as the pro coach.
There is no doubt that a Phd may not be able to teach high school physics as well as a great teacher with a masters. But there is also absolutely no doubt that the best high school physics teachers do not include people who didn't graduate college and merely got a B when they themselves took the course. That is the better analogy to what we are discussing.
Post deleted at author's request.
Uhoh, I actually aspire to be a highschool physics teacher after I make my millions. Seriously.
(Nobody's gonna read something this far down in the thread, but I'll post it anyways.)
... And while we've invoked professional football coaches, I would like to say that someone with a world-class understanding of physics or biology or foreign policy or a lot of fields would probably make better coaches than the majority of those who do so now. The experiential lore isn't that daunting compared to say law school or medical school. What's at the core is applying this experience plus reasoning skills and solving problems. With a modest investment of time to acquire the lore, great analysts and decision makers should fare best. Granted, there are managerial and psychological issues, but these are no different than those faced in a variety of fields.
The reason you don't see more crossovers is probably aritificial barriers to entry erected by those who perceive the incorrect set of skills as being necessary for the job. Fields without these barriers (like poker) bear out that the lore aspect is overrated as intelligent new crossover entrants surpass the less intelligent.
Probably preaching to the choir here, but this is kinda germane to the question about those who can and cannot.
JG
TOP deals with "what to take into consideration" not with specific recommended plays. It is, IMHO, the most complete general strategy poker book ever written - with concepts that can be tailored to ANY LIMIT, to ANY GAME, ANYWHERE. I believe that any player with at least average intelligence and less than 6 months of hands on experience but who has fully comprehended the theories in TOP can outperform a player with at least average intelligence, has 30 years of hands on experience but who has never read TOP.
That said, I'm wondering why 2+2 never took the opportunity to fill this niche?
Mason posted recently that 2+2 were approached about publishing WLLHE but declined. I'm not really sure what their objections are--I've seen criticism of Lee's suggestion to use the "raise the button with medium-sized suited connectors" play (I think David said that play isn't terribly useful because loose players will call too much anyway), but that's a relatively minor point because the only drawback is that it increases your variance; it shouldn't lower your EV.
The only real "objection" I've ever had with the Jones book is that it's often referred to as "The Bible of Low Limit Poker" when it's really a relatively simple guide, and I don't know if Lee necessarily referred to it as such.
Sean,
Your use of runon sentences is excessive. Please correct this poor style in order to develop respect in poker "fora" (as you put it).
Though I don't own WLLH, I did skim through it at a bookstore once. From what I saw of the book, it advocated a very straightforward approach to LLH, almost a "cookbook" approach. This is as opposed to the more theoretical advice given in 2+2 on how to play DEPENDING on the situation. I think the approach in LLH makes it much easier for the beginner to understand. A lot of people dont want to be doused in heavy theory. They just want to play winning poker, and from what i have heard the jones book helps them to do that.
I don't really know David but so far I've never seen anything that I would attribute to spite. I think he really believes he is helping the world by pointing out weak poker thinking and from what I can tell is useing LJ as an example (most likely because its shoved in his face so often). His metric for book value appears to be correctness above all. I can easily see this attitude. For example in a thread on the Theory forum a CS PhD candidate (name elided to protect the guilty) suggested somebody read some total piece of tripe produced by Sams in order to get an intro to the programming trade. My initial reaction was much as David's might have been about LJ's contributions to poker education ignoring the fact that effective communication to newbies is a positive value add (actually I think the Sams cr@@ is far worse then John Patrick on BJ but pretend its a lot better and the comparison stands). David's metric doesn't include the communication aspect so we're going to disagree. Such is life. Its good to have people with all viewpoints commenting.
One thing that has puzzled me lately is 2+2s pulling away from low limit. In the "bankroll" threads one of Mason or Dave made the comment that playing at those levels really isn't worth their time to worry about much. In those threads up through 3-6 was clearly low limit and 6-12 seemed to hover on the edge (personally I think its clearly low limit). Since they state their books are for games through 30-60 they seem to really be limiting their market. As somebody else pointed out the majority of players exist below 10-20. It may be that 2+2 thinks the majority of players willing to buy a 2+2 book really exist between 10-20 and 30-60 but I would think the low limit threads that seem to premeate this website and RGP would argue against that.
Whether the reason 2+2 chooses to ignore LL games is truely because they don't understand low limit games as Steve suggests or because its not of interest to them doesn't really matter to me. It opens up a market for the LJ's Izmet's, etc. of the world to fill up. If as David suggests there are a lot of people who could do better thats great. Until they do its a moot point.
FWIW, just buying LJs book probably has about the same probability of making you a successful low limit player as only buying one of DS's book (say TOC to make the example extreme). The probability is very low. The ability to think analytically is probably a bigger indicator then what books you pick up (David's comments in RGP about SAT scores would appear to support that).
Our target market is mostly those players who are interested in making real money playing poker. This could be someone just starting out and playing at limits $3-$6 or lower, or someone struggling at $10-$20 or higher. That is the main market for people who are willing to shell out $30 or more for a poker book.
My guess is that if you go into a large poker room (Commerce or Hollywood Park would be good examples) and do a survey of people playing $3-$6 or lower the majority of them will tell you that they have never read a poker book and have no interest in buying one. So just because you see many players in low limit games it doesn't mean that that is where the market is.
With this being said we do have some material targeted for players at the level that you are talking about. First is the FUNDAMENTALS OF POKER written by Lynne Loomis and myself which targets players who are brand new to the game and is recognized today as the best beginners book. Second, is our book GAMBLING FOR A LIVING (written by David and myself) which is an overview of all those casino games which are beatable. (The poker section in Gambling for a Living uses some material from the Fundamentals of Poker.)
You make the assertion that if you go to 3-6 tables most players have not read and would not be interested in buying a poker book. Most likely true. However, I think you miss two points. 1) There are many more players at LL, and therefor a larger potential pool of customers to draw from. A smaller percentage interested in book learning than at higher limits, but since there are more players, a fairly good size crowd. 2) Those of us who are (currently) playing lower limits would jump at having another book written specifically for this type of game. Since 2+2 is probably the most respected name in poker publishing, I think you are missing a huge potential market. The success of Lee Jones' book points to this. The length of this thread and the emotions stirred up also points to this. My 2 cents: if you don't want to write it, invite some of the more knowledgeable LL players on this forum to submit proposals for a book outline, or outline a book and ask for contributors for various topics and chapters. You could even have authors offering different points of view on the same subject, explaining their strategy and rational. LL players also need advice on the emotional aspects of the game, such as dealing with loosing streaks, which only comes from years of experience that most LL don't have yet. Yes, it will require a good deal of editing, but I think the financial rewards will be worth it. Toss in that making winning players out of losing players is great karma (putting odds in your favor you won't be reincarnated as a garden slug or lawyer) and you have a complete winner on your hands.
We are actually willing to do most of the things that you suggest. But we are not willing to step a new writer through a book. I have stated many times that if anyone on this forum has a completed manuscript we will be glad to look at it. If accepted, David and I work with the author to make sure that the book meets the standards that Two Plus Two has established. We currently have two new books in this process right now and they should be released this coming summer.
But I am not interested in seeing just a proposal. For our purposes and limited resources this is not enough. Perhaps if we had a large staff of people and did not care as much about complete accuracy as some publishers do we would do things this way.
So let me state it again. If any of you out there are putting a book together we at Two Plus Two would be more than happy to look at a draft manuscript, If it is very good with the potential of becoming terrific, we just might accept it.
Post deleted at author's request.
Luckily for Mason, John Feeney didn't see this warning until it was too late.
Post deleted at author's request.
I have no idea Gary. In any case Mason has him in his clutches now.
Post deleted at author's request.
I understand that as part of the deal, Feeney has to provide free psychotherapy to all the other 2+2 writers. The opportunity to avail yourself of John's services might be just the incentive you need to reconsider your stance and submit your book to Mason. Unless of course you think John will be too busy for you.
My door is always open for Gary. But he'll have to go off the meds and check all weapons at the front desk. First we'll work on resolving his Oedipus-Malmuth complex. I notice that it flairs up along with signs of oral sadism whenever father Mason reprimands him. Yet, it is often calmed by supportive distractions from the kindly uncle David figure. With any luck the transference will put me in the David role, allowing the therapy to progress smoothly, resulting in the publication of Gary's book with a new title, "You're Just Wrong (But I'm Okay Now): Raise that Draw!"
Than maybe I can cure the "Mad" Genius.
But seriously, I thought Mason's simply telling me, "I'll let *you* post on the Forum for FREE, for a WHOLE YEAR. For you, no subscription fee!", was way more than enough compensation for a book. What am I missing??
Post deleted at author's request.
Uh, hu... Go on.
I'd suggest the concept of dueling authors is more appropriate for an advanced book. Maybe as a collection of reviewed papers on coordinated topics.
You don't want to confuse newbies on their first outing. Giveing them a consistent party line and plenty of pampering (how to hold cards, how to buy in, etc.) is as important as anything else. If they have the aptitude they will get to the right stuff quick enough. If they don't it doesn't really matter.
Isn't Lou K. and others working on a "Poker for Dummies"? That may give the community another viable low limit poker book.
Mike wrote:
For example in a thread on the Theory forum a CS PhD candidate (name elided to protect the guilty) suggested somebody read some total piece of tripe produced by Sams in order to get an intro to the programming trade. My initial reaction was much as David's might have been about LJ's contributions to poker education ignoring the fact that effective communication to newbies is a positive value add (actually I think the Sams cr@@ is far worse then John Patrick on BJ but pretend its a lot better and the comparison stands). David's metric doesn't include the communication aspect so we're going to disagree. Such is life. Its good to have people with all viewpoints commenting.
I, of course, am the PhD candiate in question (guilty as charged). I find it humerous that you chose this context to mention this old thread. I also have to say that I have no clue who Sams is. I recommended an O'Reilly book. I'm not a big fan of them myself, but I do think that the Learning Pearl book is pretty good.
The metric I was applying was based on several things. First, if the person doesn't want to take the academic route, they are probably very practical, thus I picked one of the most practical programming languages for people who are not software developers. Second, since they are most likly smart and a self-starter, I felt that an O'Reilly book would probably hit them at the right level.
If I really did feel that said student was interested in getting into the the "programming trade" I would advise them to go to school. On the other hand if they just want to have fun and be productive, I think that my suggestions weren't outlandish.
Maybe it is like the DS vs. LJ debate, one cannot write (or recommend) a book without considering the audience.
- Andrew
It wasn't you. ORA is a well respected technical publishing house. Sams is a crappy "learn perl/java/buzzword du jour in 10 easy lessons" kind of publisher. I didn't even realize you were a CS PhD candidate.
All hope is not lost. There is another ;)
woo hoo !
"woo hoo !"
Andrew:
You sound like you went to the University of Virginia. I have real trouble with that.
WOO HOO !
"That said, I'm wondering why 2+2 never took the opportunity to fill this niche?"
The Lee Jones book was offered to us first. I turned it down.
Mason wrote: "The Lee Jones book was offered to us first. I turned it down."
Reminds me of a record producer who turned down The Beatles in '61, good move!
David says in thread "In Defense of Lee Jones"
(I would suggest, however that it might be a good idea for Lee, now that he has evidently improved his understanding and his play to, come out with a new edition and run it by me first.)
It seems he ran it by David the first time. Okay, maybe Mason didn't want to publish it for conflict reasons, but certainly it must have been in your hands. Did you offer to look it over then, as you are doing now? If your first allegiance is to make sure the poker public is getting the best product, that was the time to do it.
Okay. I am going to tell a couple of things that I have always kept private. When the book was first offered to me all I saw was a proposal. It was obvious from the proposal that this text would not meet our standards unless we did a great deal of work on it. If my memory serves me well there was even suppose to be a fictitious character named Davon which the book would feature. In a letter to Lee Jones I turned the text down and recommended to him that he drop the ficticious character which to his credit he did. (I even received a letter back from Mr. Jones thanking me for my time and effort.)
Perhaps a year later Chuck Weinstock was in town with a draft copy of the manuscript. He asked me if I would look at it and give him comments. I worked my way through the first four pages of strategy and marked those pages up. I also told Chuck:
1. It just wasn't worth my time to work through the text at a detailed level. 2. That now having seen the manuscript I would still have no interest in publishing it.
If you find this book helpful to you then that's great. I believe that following its advice will make you a small winner at the low limit games since it will have you playing much tighter than many of your opponents. For some people that's a big improvement.
I also believe that our limited resources here at Two Plus Two (and this includes both my time and David's time) were better spent elsewhere.
I'm not going to offer any opinions here - I just wanted to say that Mason's recollection of my offering the book to him first is 100% accurate as far as I can recall (it's been about six years now). I did drop the fictional character idea, no doubt at least partially because Mason thought it was a bad one.
Happy new year y'all.
Regards, Lee
Lee:
I'm happy to see this post. I understand that you have become quite a good player. I hope you realize that the points we made about your book was nothing personal, but simply to let people know that many of the books that compete with us were written by excellent writers but who had less than a firm grasp of the subject as compared to writers in other fields. I am sure that you yourself upon rereading your book find things that you would like to change or either explain differently. We look forward to seeing a new edition and now that you have reached a greater degree of expertise we would be happy to add our input to any perspective new edition you decide to put out.
And finally, both David and I hope that you become a regular participant on this forum.
Mason,
I'm curious. Upon rereading your books, do you find things that you would either like to change or explain differently?
I know what the book did for me, it enabled me to play safely and sanely with positive EV while I learned to play a stronger game.
I watched last year's WSOP on ESPN and was hooked on poker. I bought Hold'em Poker by David Sklansky read it and headed off to the casino.
I really was not ready for that book or it's teachings and it showed. I read Lee Jones book, and started having good success in the 3-6 games (averaged $10.50 per hour for 145 hours in Atlantic City). As well as running over a 1-4 home game I play in ( I average over $90 per 5 hour session in this game. I intentionally give money back if I get much over +$100 so as not to disrupt this game).
Anyway I moved up and tried 5-10 a few times and got clobbered! I went back and read David's book again and it made much more sense! Now when I read Lee's book I see the obvious failed logic in some of his writing. But Lee's book enabled me to get to this point without going broke!
I equate it to skiing... you teach people to ski in a wedge, and then once they gain some confidence you explain that the wedge is useless and teach them to ski properly.
Sean
And wouldn't you agree it doesn't take Jean Claud Killey to teach you how to ski in a wedge? As a matter of fact anyone who has skiied in a wedge could teach it!!
NO I wouldn't agree. See my Vince Lombardi post above,
Perhaps there is another element here we are overlooking and that is one of communication. If the pupil doesn't get it it sometimes has little to do with the education or credentials of the teacher.
An NFL coach thrown into the middle of a jv season would certainly be a fish out of water because he has no reference as to what his new team is capable of. He can't possibly know the competition because he didn't play 8 games against those kids last year. So, in this analogy it comes down to who would do the better job if the experiences are equal. Now, given equal experience and two coaches, one with pro credentials and one with jv credentials, communication would then be a major factor. Who will the kids respond to, who will get the most out of the kids at practice, who will teach the play book in a way that 10th graders can understand. Well, chances are the high school coach teaches other courses in school so he can relate better. As for you not accepting the skiing analogy, I still feel the best person to teach a youngster how to wedge down a hill would not be Jean Claude Killey or even the instructor at the slopes. It would probably be the kids older sibling who was wedging the previous season. There's communication there that supercedes a PhD.
Why are you not understanding what I am saying? Your points would be valid if 1. We were talking about absolute beginners which is not the case here. Jones was not calling his book a purely beginners book. Rather he claimed his book teaches a very good way to play small limits. Furthermore 3-6 players are not total beginners. (If he was instead showing a movie star who had never played poker, enough to keep from embarrasing himself in a celebrity tournament he might indeed be the best for the job.)
2. A great teacher must know his subject rather well for his teaching skills to matter. Jones did not at the time he wrote the book.
I will try one last analogy Sammy, and then I am done with it. I will use golf. You are a beginner. You shoot 130. It is time to take lessons. Unquestionably you might find that the best teacher for your specific circumstance may well be a less than pro golfer (maybe a 78 shooter) who understands your specific needs. The question is how far down can you go? Assuming he is a young coordinated man he could not be a great teacher, even for a beginner such as yourself, if he only shoots 90. The fact that his score is that high means his knowledge about the game has some serious flaws though he is still much better than a duffer. And there is little doubt that those flaws will translate into worse instruction than you would get from a much better player who knows how to teach adequately even if your only goal is to break 100. Though it might have been good enough to win, Lee Jones could not break 90 even playing only 3-6 at the time he first wrote the book. This is my last post on the subject.
Your phrase, "knows how to teach adequately" was essential to this argument.
I'm on the button,with AA.3 limpers,I raise 2 callers.Flop 4,4,9 rainbow.SB bets,2nd calls,I raise,both call.Turn is A,I win pot with boat,SB had set of 4's. After hand over regular says to me why would you ever raise on flop theonly thing SB could have was set of 4's.My logic:if he re-raises I know he has 4 and can proceed with that info. I'd rather error on the side of being aggressive.Comments?
Although some may argue for the merits of simply calling all the way with this hand, I'd like to say something for playing it straightforwardly and raising on the flop. The problem is that a mere call may fool one of the players in the middle into thinking something like two 10s are good. If they subsequently raise the initial better on the turn, having put him on two nines, it puts you to a tough decision. It is often much easier to play a multiway pot if the oppentents have some idea where you're at.
I'd like to add that if the two callers are good players, who would be likely to raise on this flop with a hand such as 10s and fold a weak hand, raising the flop may still be correct. Even though the aces are weaker in this spot (because a four is more likely out), they are still too good a hand to fold and you don't have to bet if it's checked to you on the turn.
Finally, as to what the regular said about the small blind having a four, my experience tells me an unknown player will not have one far more often than he will.
I have found in poker as in most of life it is the aggressive that prosper.
I really like these "regulars" asking questions after the hand is over.
Post deleted at author's request.
good raise. the sb could have a 9, a wired pair, or he could be pure bluffing at a "blind" flop. there are tons of hands you would have riased with preflop that are not wired pairs or include a 9 or a 4, so they think they can push you off overcards. your raise is not for information, per se. i think it is a raise for value. he might reraise with just 2 pair, thinking you are taking a shot at the pot or that he can get a better two pair to fold. assuming you don't fill out, i would call the sb down if he raised or bet again. but if he never took the lead back i would bet the turn and the river.
scott
Pre-flop your narrative is a little confusing to me. I gather 3 people limped in and then you raised. It sounds like the small blind called your raise and only one of the three limpers called. This means that two of the three original limpers folded rather than call a single raise back to them. Is this right? What a bizarre game!
When the flop comes with a small pair and a medium size card, this is a good flop for you. The small blind betting out could be done with just top pair, not necessarily trip Fours. He might even be betting an over pair. After the bet is called by one of the limpers, of course you raise. You beat top pair or any other pair the small blind could have led with.
The "regular's" comment about the only hand the small blind could have was a set of Fours is obviously coming from someone who doesn't understand poker. Many players would lead with a top pair of Nines against only two opponents in case you were raising on over cards. Similarily, when the board flops Nine-high, many players would bet out with pocket Tens or Jacks. Some might even bet a medium pocket pair if they think they have the best hand. If you are re-raised then you will just call and take off a card.
All your plays and thought processes were correct.
As an aside, the small blind did not have a set of Fours. The small blind had trip Fours. A set is specifically a pocket pair with one on the board. If you have a set of Fours then no else can have three Fours. When you have trip Fours someone else can also have trip Fours. Huge difference between the two.
Seems like you played for about 36 hours straight before you posted this. I hope this was not a no-limit game. How could you possibly as Jim pointed out loose 2 out of 3 limpers in any limit hold-em game. And did you see the SB 3 fours. If you did one of you needs some serious work to do.
P.S Vary your play as you like here it won't matter much. Do not listen to so called regulars.
if this was a no-limit game forget everything I said.
If you want to play poker in the Western US you HAVE to play limit HoldEm. Ecch. This is like only riding bicycles equipped with training wheels, or only eating oatmeal for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, or if every channel on cable showed Gilligan's Island 24 hours a day. Nonetheless I accede to reality. So I sit there, hour after hour, throw a hand away throw a hand away throw a hand away throw a hand away aha! get AK suited, raise, flop comes 678 of spades, my AK is diamonds, throw that hand away, etc etc etc etc etc etc. Limit HoldEm has to be the most dull, unimaginative poker game on Earth. It's less skillful than Old Maid. You can't put any moves on because the bet size is so small relative to the pot that the lemmings just call, call, call. You play KK for the last raise, Gilligan hangs in with J5 suited, rivers a flush, and there you are. Nothing to do but throw away the hand. It's IMPOSSIBLE to sneak up on anybody. I win at this game--don't get me wrong--but it bores the living CRAP out of me to do so. I'd rather be ironing my laundry. The only thing I can try to do is as they say, "switch gears", but playing crap cards costs me money just as it does anyone else, and it makes no impression on the zombies at the table anyway. Can anyone offer an insight on how this game can be beaten without boring oneself to death in the process?
Sounds like you ought to find another hobbie.
I play most of my poker in the west and I don't find it boring at all - I like tossing hands in - :-)
I played ofver 1200 hours of ring poker last year and over 89 tournaments - mostly NL HE and I an no less the worse for wear.
I think you need to review your priorities for life.
Post deleted at author's request.
I know your backround from reading your messages on other boards.I also make money from a variety of casino sources,as you do.I found out a long time ago if you don't enjoy at least some aspect of something its not worth it.In my case VP,bores the hell out of me an I don't play much anymore.I played FT BJ for awhile and when the luster wore off it was time to expand.In poker its even more important,if your personality does'nt match there's a problem.I think it is far more complex and challenging(assuming you are moving up)than any other casino game.
Get a walkman and a tape of Rage Against the Machine.
It seems to me that your boredom is derived from the fact that you're just plays "cards". You're focus is on card rank and suit only, not on the breath and depth of the overall challenge. Frankly, I agree - the game is a bore when you play with blinders on and just see your pocket cards and the board cards. I'd suggest getting much deeper into the game, i.e., develop strategies, employ psychology, and win with style. The game will come alive!
Deep in a thread buried below Mason Malmuth says that one of things wrong with Lee Jones book is that he doesn't emphasize the importance of playing small pairs more liberally.
Badger then states that this is horrible advice. (I'm paraphrasing.)
Badger is completely off his rocker. Not only is knowing when to play a small pair ESSENTIAL to winning at holdem it is vital to your overall bottom line. Sets, are one of your biggest money makers at holdem.
I don't see anything wrong at all with teaching a new player the value of playing small pairs in certain situations for the sole express purpose of trying to flop a set. No set, out you get.
Mason 1. Badger 0.
Post deleted at author's request.
On the other hand, if you gave the advice to ALWAYS play any pocket pair in any position in a typical low-limit game for one bet you couldn't go far wrong either, and these are just the types of hands that inexperienced players should play, since it's a lot harder to get into trouble with them.
When I'm in a loose passive game, I play small pairs from anywhere. I call raises with them if I think I'll get 5-6 way action or better.
I rarely play small pairs in NL HE in a full table as they won't stand a raise but in limit & PL I play a pair from just about anywhere I put alot more value in a 44 than a 78s - they are easy to get away from (no set no bet)and if you flop a set or a 4 straight say 3 5 6 you have taken one of the outs out of play and the 44 is probably good anywhy at this point.
Post deleted at author's request.
A set is a set. Set over set is rare enough that you don't have to expend a whole lot of effort thinking about it. I did the math a while ago on the frequency of losing a set to a bigger set (it's in the archives), and I've forgotten the exact numbers now, but it was rare enough that I decided it wasn't worth worrying about until I was actually in a hand and had heavy evidence that I was against a bigger set. In terms of overall EV, it doesn't make much difference.
And if you want to improve the flop advice for small pairs, instead of 'no set and out you go', it's simply a matter of saying, "If you think the pot, plus implied odds, plus a chance of a raise behind you, equals enough equity to warrant drawing for two outs, call. Otherwise fold." That is still a lot simpler for novice players to understand than a situation where you have something like 89s, and the flop is K93. Here, it's all about judging your opponents, the live aspects of your kicker, whether you have the best hand, whether you have a 3-flush or 3-straight to go with your pair and how much value that adds, PLUS everything else that the small pair player has to worry about (pot odds, chances of a raise behind).
Where weak players lose money with small pairs is when they blindly hang on to them all the way to the river, wildly hoping that they'll hit a set and/or their hand will be the best at the showdown. THAT is expensive, but it's an easily correctable error.
In tough games like you and I normally play, this isn't the case at all, and small pairs can be tough to play, simply because we're often heads-up or in 3-way situations where our small pair has a good chance to be the best hand, but it's expensive to call when it's not. That calls for a lot of judgement, and maybe that's coloring your responses to the low-limit game.
Just for the record Dan, you forgot open end straight drwas and occasionally gut shots as well.
Post deleted at author's request.
Are you sure about that? Given the hands that other players are likely to play, it seems to me that a set of Queens is more likely to lose to a straight than a set of 3's. And I would think that a set of 3's would make more money than the queens, simply because of their hidden nature and because they'll get more action from overcards, higher board pairs and overpairs, etc. I think this would more than offset the added risk of set-over-set.
Add to that you would probably raise preflop with QQ putting everyone on notice that there's a hand out there.
Post deleted at author's request.
Agreed, but the other side of the coin seems just as strong to me. For instance, action that you get on a Qxx flop when you have a set of queens is likely to be low-EV, or even action that you don't want (4-flushes, open-ended straights). Action that you get on a 3xx flop when you have a set of 3's is more likely to be high-EV action that you do want (overcards that are drawing dead to your hand, for example).
I'm not completely sure how it all comes out in the wash, and the difference is going to depend largely on the types of players you are facing, but it's close enough that I'm not going to worry about it too much. Gimme a set, let me put in my chips, and I'm happy.
I would appreciate some expert advice on the best play in this situation often encountered in low-limit games. Let me describe a particular hand to facilitate discussion. You are one of 7 players to see the flop for one bet each. You have QT and must act first after a flop of Td-9d-4c. Your opponents are likely to call a single bet on this flop with hands like 45, AQ, or even Ac5c (backdoor flush draw). The line-up includes a couple of loose-passive players who will limp before the flop with big pairs, and a few loose-aggressive players who routinely bet (or raise) on the come. Therefore, a check-raise opportunity is very likely. Should you bet, check-call, check-raise? If you go for a check-raise, would you prefer the pot to be opened by someone on your left (perhaps allowing you to trap callers for an extra bet) or someone on your right (perhaps allowing you to thin the field by forcing opponents to cold-call two bets)? If you decide to lead bet and are raised by a late position player (after a couple players call), should you reraise? [I would usually lead bet and call one raise in this situation.]
Would the optimal play differ if you held KT or AT rather than QT? What if everyone put in two bets before the flop?
One thing is for sure: you ain't a gonna' win this seven-handed pot unless you get SOME players outta there. However, one bet isn't going to do the job, as you point out. I would check, hoping someone in the latter positions bet, angling for a check-raise to squeeze out the middle-position hands. After that, assuming I was successful in reducing the field to two or three players, I would still consider that I would probably have to improve to win, or at least survive a flush draw or a straight draw---in short, still a dog to win but perhaps with pot odds to compensate. All in all, I wouldn't exactly fall in love with this hand or this situation. This is PRECISELY why the intermediate face-card hands (KJ, Q10, K10, QJ, etc.) are so dicey.
I assume you are BB as to play this hand early without being BB is probably a big mistake to begin with.
This is realy a situational play - as are most in poker - but in the situation you describe. Early position with QT and top pair with nice flop for your hand I would lead bet and call raises hoping to thin the field.
I believe at this table, in this situation, I would check and call one bet on the flop, and go for a check-raise on the turn if no overcard hits. Your opponents are much more likely to fold for two big bets rather than two small bets.
The situation you have outlined is one of the more difficult in hold-em, specifically flopping top pair/mediocre kicker in an unraised, multi-handed pot. I believe 2+2 and John Feeney have discussed this situation. The key is anticipating where a future bet might come from and then how to use that to thin out the field. If you think it might come from someone in late position, then a check-raise could be highly effective. If you think an early position player will lead, then the check-raise won't be as effective. On the other hand, do these players bet and raise with come hands? Given the coordinated flop, this is quite possible.
My own preference is to simply bet out in these situations and see how the field handles it. An early player might raise with a weaker kicker or on a come hand which would help thin out the field. I would then call a single raise back to me. I normally would not re-raise given that coordinated board except for perhaps Ace-Ten (Top pair/top kicker).
If the pot had been raised pre-flop it might depend upon where the pre-flop raiser is. If he is in early position, I would probably lead into to him. If he were in late position, I might "check to the raiser" and then check-raise but this is very dicey. The problem is that if his pre-flop raise was based on just over cards he may decide to check along and take a free card after everyone checks to him.
To me, check-raising is a bit like being in a Catch 22 situation. If someone bets, your hand is not worth nearly as much as it would be if nobody bet. (If everyone checked, you would certainly want to play the hand over and bet the next time.) I prefer to bet the flop, since what I am hoping for is that nobody else has enough strength to bet. Maybe some of you play in games where someone always bets, regardless of whether anyone hit the flop. If so, I am truly envious. In most of the games I have played in over the years, betting into five people shows a certain amount of strength, even if you are in late position and the field has so far checked. My point is if someone bets I do not like my hand as much as I do right now.
Thank you for sharing your views. My own approach to such situations has evolved over the years. Influenced by S&M's emphasis on thinning the field, I used to favor check-raising with top pair in multiway pots--especially when loose-aggressive opponents were sitting on my right (I generally attempt to select a seat where this will be the case). If someone on my left opened the pot, I usually just called and reassessed the situation after the turn card.
More recently, I've been influenced by Mike Caro's argument that early raises in loose games primarily drive out the longshot hands from which you would have otherwise profited. However, I suspect that letting the fish linger in the pond contributes more to one's variance than one's expectation. In fact, I'm really not sure whether it adds anything to one's expectation. Nevertheless, I usually lead bet these days...unless I expect the maniacs on my right to bet!
If I bet my judgement often failes. If I check and see what happens my judgement also often failes but not as often as when I bet.
May I suggest to try to sell your hand to a player next to you for $3. Maybe he or she can have better luck with it.
I'm posting this to both our forum at www.TwoPlusTwo.com and RGP.
In a previous post Mike Caro challenged someone to count the combinations of hands that his PROFESSIONAL HOLD 'EM REPORT says to play when someone else has raised in early position and there are still many players left to act behind you and no more than one person has called between you. This I did. (I needed to take a weighted average since some of the hands he only plays two-thirds of the time, and some of the hands he only plays one-third of the time.)
The bottom line is this. When there is an early position raiser, Mike Caro's charts have you play about 15 percent of the time — 13 of this 15 you are just calling.
Let's compare this to HPFAP. We on the other hand depending on the game recommend playing (often reraising) 4 to 6 percent of the hands (plus very occasionally an off beat hand for deception). Furthermore, many of the hands that he plays that we don't are those that are in danger of being dominated.
All comments are welcome.
On RGP Gary Carson pointed out that against a very tight player the "liklihood of being dominated is dependent on the hands that the raiser likely has."
He then gives an example where you would be worse off playing KhQh than 6c2s against a tight early position raiser.
Here is my response.
Gary:
You have just made a very strong argument that against a tight early position raiser you are better off calling his raise with 6c2s than with KhQh. I happen to agree with you, and in HPFAP we give a warning that "Against an extremely tight player in a tough game it may be correct to throw away some Group 2 hands such as: AsJs and KhQh," See pages 20 and 21 of HPFAP-21.)
As for where these hands are ranked, they are ranked on how well they do overall assuming you play them correctly. In the situation that you describe, they both should be thrown away. However, in many other spots the KhQh should be played while the 6c2s should be folded. For example, suppose the very tight player that you describe throws his hand away, and now it is your turn. You would certainly want to play the KhQh but would probably fold the 6c2s. On page 14 of HPFAP-21 we state "However, there are many exceptions, which will be discussed in the text. In fact, the starting hands actually move up and down the hand rankings depending on the circumstance. Because of this, it can be a mistake to rigidly adhere to the hand rankings. Again, make sure that you understand all the discussion concerning how the individual hands play."
By the way, I want to congradulate you on raising a very important point. Even though some hands are clearly better than others if played properly, they can become suicide to your bankroll if you begin to routinely call raises with them and will actually hurt you more in the long run if you call these raises than other hands which appear far inferior. This is because hands like AJ, KT, QJ, suited or not, can easily make second best hands against a raiser.
The following is a post I put on RGP that responds to something that Mike Caro wrote regarding my original post. Please note that Mike did not dispute the 15 percent figure. He did however continue to claim that in the hands of the right players his strategy is at least reasonable. I would be very curious to know which of our learned forum members agree with him, and which ones agree with me. (My position being that it is far from reasonable. If I thought it was close I would have never made such an issue out of it all these years.) (Keep in mind that he did call it a "Professional Hold 'em Report" with the implication that it would therefore work well in the middle limits or higher.)
Mike:
Even if you can play more hands for profit than I could, there is no way in my opinion you or anyone else can play as many hands as your chart recommends (15 percent of the time against an early position raise) and do anywhere near as well as if you played far fewer hands in this situation. I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE HANDS THAT YOU KNOW WILL LOSE MONEY FOR THE SAKE OF OVERALL PROFIT. However, the number of hands you play in this very precarious situation is outlandishly high. Maybe the world's greatest player would be well advised to play up to 10 percent of the hands. The 15 percent that you recommend (again in middle position against a raise) virtually guarantees that even a great player will lose in all but the easiest games. And those games where your strategy shows a profit, he would show a far greater profit if he played fewer hands against the raise.
Now that I have at your request Mike counted the hands, and posted it on RGP and Two Plus Two, I have no reason to say much more. (At this point I am curious to know what others think of my conclusions about calling raises COLD this often.) For those who are not sure of what 15 percent entails, this includes his recommendation to call with Q9 suited and J8 suited all of the time, AJ offsuit and 97 suited two-thirds of the time, and KT offsuit and 95 suited one-third of the time.)
In my opinion if Chip Reese had to play this way before the flop, he would be hard pressed to beat a typical $10-$20 game. And if he could beat it it would be much less than if used the before the flop strategy of S&M, Abdul, or Gary Carson.
By the way, what exactly did you mean when you wrote:
"Please don't do this anymore. You'll feel better if you don't. And I really do care about your well being."
Mason Malmuth
The most potentially dangerous or at least one of the most potentially dangerous situations in Hold'em poker is cold calling a raiser. Habitually making a call with mediocre hands in this situation can turn a winning player into a loser. I am not a fan of the term dominance, but it does apply here, and it should be relatively easy to see the potential disaster when holding a hand like Q9s or J8s in mid position against an early or even a mid position raiser. Obviously the "Mad" part of Caro's handle applies to his advice here. That said, an arguement can be made for calling/reraising with a hand like 45s
Vince.
I found the recommendations in the Professional Hold'em Report confusing. Just so it does not sound like I'm slamming Mike Caro, I'll tell you what I like. His Draw Poker and Statistics section in Super/System and his book of tells. Now, I think that his Professional Hold'em report is just a scam to make money, and I do not see how he can honestly defend it. He says that it will confuse your opponents, well the recommendations confused me. I do not understand how anyone can win with this strategy, unless they are plain lucky.
Caro wrote: "Please don't do this anymore. You'll feel better if you don't."
Reminds me of the comment he made to you in response to some criticisms you were serving up on this same topic at Deja.com months ago.
He finished defending his hold'em report to you by saying something like, "Now go to your room."
Plain & simple, I think he's an overly sensitive control freak who can't figure out how to get you under control.
Keep up the good work Mason, GTO
GTO wrote (in part): "Plain & simple, I think he's an overly sensitive control freak who can't figure out how to get you under control."
GTO --
Your accusation is outrageous and it triggers something inside me so primitive that I am actually trembling as I type these words. I am neither sensitive nor a control freak, and I will do everything in my power to prevent you from ever posting anything like that again.
Straight Flushes, Mike Caro
Mike,
I've been reading everything you've posted here and on rgp, recently and archived. You seem to take an incredible amount of flack for someone so helpful and warm hearted. The question of who's the best poker authority will never be answered definitively, but there's no doubt you are far and away the nicest guy, and every where else but 2+2 that means a helluva lot more.
Regards,
SammyB
IMO the Professional Hold'em Report by Mike Caro is not a scam. I don't believe that it is sold anymore and I believe it was written in the mid 1980's. The starting hands section of this report is very poor IMO. I was very disappointed way back when with my purchase and have moved on. I will say that I agree that Mike Caro has made quite a few contributions to poker which include:
1)Draw poker section in Super System.
2)Poker tables in Super system.
3)Draw and Lowball charts that he used to sell.
4)Book of Tells
5)ORAC
6)Many good essays on poker.
7)Poker Probe
to name the ones I can think of off the top of my head. I find a lot of the hold'em advice to be obscure and I would guess that Mike would say that it is too sophisticated for me to understand. Maybe it is. I will post this on RGP as well.
Tom,
I know, I was the one that called it a scam. I purchased this report over a year ago. Now, I am strickly speaking as a consumer. What makes it look like a scam is the way it is packaged. But, a lot of players are attacted to books that say "Professional" and "Advanced". It was marketed as a Professional report, but does not have the appearance of one. People judge things by the way the look, not the content. The value of the report could be argued for a long time. I'll refrain from making any comment about anyones books or reports in the future. I regret I even said anything.
Mason writes: "All comments are welcome."
Looks like being right is the most important issue and you win there. Congratulations.
Trivial! Did you say Trivial, Badger. O.K this is between me and badger and with a little luck SKP will help me. So Everyone else that doesn't see any value in what I write. Bye. Of course this is my last post for a while so.. so.. so what. Then bye. no not you Badger you gotta read this. Yes you do! Tell him David.
As I was saying Trivial. You called Tactics trivial. That was bad but not as bad as me letting you get away with it! I just got out of the shower and I was steaming. No not because of hot water because I let you get away with Trivial! Trivial. Look mr World Chgampion. Yeah I know you know poker stuff. O.K. I'll give you taht. But there is obviously something missing in yoyr game. Oh! Now I remeber. Aren't you the guy that said "I hate poker". Don't deny it I read your interview. Which brings me yo the thrust of this thread. (that's pretty good, Thrust of the Thread) Tactics are trivial, huh? Well let me tell you that if you pay a little attention here you may just rurn you hate for poker into love. Trivial. Listen, is there anything better, anything at all better, anywhere anytime any place anything better than, (well maybe a night with Lady Gambler mgiht be right up there, no from what she's implies it's gotta be better, o.k. let's discount that type of better thing); as I was saying is there anything better anywher than, O.K. SKP this is where you come in. Get ready to yell with me. Let me digress one moment. speaking of the interview you, oh Mr. Steve "Badger" (I won't reveal your last name here, ettiquette) gave to CP or PD about your victory in Omaha. I recall a certain hand that included an A,5,x,x. That play has a direct bearing on my attack on You. Oh Badger. I know what a badger is by thwe way. Get your teeth into something and you never let go. How well Sklansky knows that. Anyway, Badgerinio ( just incase you got some Italian in you). The little trivial message I have for you is, yell it with me SKP:
RAISE!
It's so beautiful that I had to leave it on a line by itself. It is poetic poker all in one word.
RAISE!
Still think tactics are trivial. When you RAISED with that A,5,x,x did you use that silly little California term . Poop it up! No way you said RAISE! Why because you and I and SKP know just how beautiful RAISE sounds.
Now if that is trivail then throw me in that briar patch!
Whew, I'm glad I got that off of my chest. Thanks for the help SKP.
Vince.
This post is to thank David, Mason and Specifically Ray Zee about advice that they gave me in this forum.
I was playing in a 4-8 game the other day and was doing well. ( I had just won a large pot ). I noticed that almost everybody in the game was playing very straigt-forward. If they had a hand; they bet, and if they didn't have a hand they'd check.
About 3 hands in a row I had playable hands in late position. I'd limp, the flop would come , and I'd bet if no one led out. I must have stolen about 3 pots when a player at the other end of the table said, "Do you always bet?"
My first instinct was to be a smart aleck and say "If you don't think I have anything , raise me." However I remembered Ray's advice in a previous post which was to never let your opponents think you know anything about the game. I said absolutely nothing, which is a hard thing for me to do. Needless to say the game continued on for a couple of more hours and I was able to steal a few more pots because :
I KEPT MY MOUTH SHUT
Keep up the good work and thanks for all that you do to help poker and poker players.
Tom B.
Tom B.,
Ray's been telling me to keep my mouth shut for months both on and off the table. But I always answer him with something that sends him back to the cave. FOADZ
paul
I've had a similar experience, but I tell them "Wouldn't you bet Aces if you had them." "I must be lucky today."
this is a hard lesson that I still haven't mastered. I'm making progress
Keeping my mouth shut at the table was my new years resolution for last year. I held to it well and had a nice year at the table. I preach to my friends that play that running your mouth does nothing but negative things when playing poker.
I was playing in a "rock-em/sock-em" $20-$40 hold-em game over this past weekend at the Horseshoe in Bossier City, Louisiana which is closing their poker room on Monday January 3. I am on the button with the King of Hearts and the Nine of Hearts. Keith Lear, grandson of Bill Lear(founder of the Learjet Corporation), is worth millions and is playing in this little game because he is bored and has to kill some time before going home for the evening. Keith promptly sits down under the gun so he won't miss his $40 straddle. Two middle players limp in. Dominic, a speeder from Dallas who usually blows off a couple dimes in these sessions, calls from the cutoff seat. I call from the button because it looks like I will get good multi-handed play here and I have good position. As expected, both blinds call. Keith glances at his cards and raises to $60. Everyone calls. There is $420 in the pot and seven players.
The flop is: Ten of Hearts, Three of Hearts, Deuce of Diamonds.
Both blinds check. Keith bets $20. Both middle limpers fold. Dominic raises to $40. I call with my big flush draw since it looks like this pot will grow to about a grand. Dominic is probably raising on top pair or even middle pair. Keith of course could have anything. Both blinds fold. Keith re-raises to $60. Dominic makes it $80. I call. Keith caps the betting at $100. Dominic and myself call. There is $720 in the pot and three players.
The turn is: Three of Spades
Keith checks. Dominic bets $40. I call with almost $800 in the pot. Keith raises to $80. Both Dominic and myself call. There is $960 in the pot.
The river is: Six of Diamonds
Keith bets $40 and Dominic calls. I fold. Keith wins a $1040 pot having the Ten of Diamonds and the Three of Diamonds for a full house on the turn. Dominic had the Ace of Hearts and the Ten of Clubs for top pair/top kicker on the flop.
I lost a couple of stacks of red on this one. Is there any way I could have gotten away from this hand?
no
thanks
Let me add my two letters worth.
no
Vince
David,
I'm glad to see you are back to your old self. I was starting to believe some imposter took your place that actually had typing skills for the last few weeks.
Regards,
Rick
Drawing to non-nut holdings is a sad necessity at limit hold'em in pots that have been jammed preflop. You are even forced to to things like drawing to a flush with the board already paired, and so forth.
Drawing to non-nut holdings is a sad necessity at limit hold'em in pots that have been jammed preflop. You are even forced to to things like drawing to a flush with the board already paired, and so forth.
Yes but Bob, my question to YOU is would YOU have even entered this pot with the Kh9h on the button in the first place?
...
Jake I posted my response before reading the others and I am suprised more didn't question Jim's calling with the K9s to begin with - once there, he was stuck in the hand even with the board paired under the circumstances.
Rounder:
Good job for posting your response before reading the rest. Your opinion was in the minority, this is true. But if we all were in total agreement, then there would be nothing to debate.
Therefore I encourage other readers to do the same thing. Sometimes you may say what you think and then get totally blasted by the rest of the readers. Sometimes this will cause you to re-evaluate your thinking and change your mind, perhaps learning something in the process. Other times you may steadfastly defend your position despite all opposition.
At other times it may be appropriate to read all the responses and then reflect back upon them, this is true. This type of post has value as well so I just had to throw this paragraph in....
At any rate we are all entitled to our opinions in this country, and the minority opinion is to be protected (despite any unpopularity). Without someone to disagree with, there will be no debate (and no reason to post poker hands on 2+2). Good job Rounder for saying what you really think.
Dave in Cali
An argument could be made for not entering the pot in the first place (as Carter and Jake alude to). The biggest problem that I see is that you are probably only going to feel good about drawing to the flush. Any pair you hit in a "rock-em-sock-em" game is going to be hard to defend, and is going to be vulnerable to disguised garbage.
That said, I think that calling on the button is probably better than folding, as long as you can handle the inevitable "bad beat" and acompanying swings.
As for the play of the hand, the only thing I *might* have done would be to raise on the flop in hopes of buying a free (or cheap) card on the turn. The raise is pretty close to even value-wise, and probably gets you some ev in deception.
It all depends on wheter Keith would respect a second reraise from the button or not.
- Andrew
Good point Andrew! On the turn, Keith checked when he filled up. However, if I had capped it on the flop, since I knew that Keith would probably cap it anyway, Dominic might have also checked to me on the turn. This would have saved me $80.
i have nothing interesting to add but i agree.
no.
scott
Just be happy that a rag heart didn't show up on the river, Jim. That would have cost you at least a couple of big bets, I suspect, as it would be hard to put Keith on T-3. It's nice to take down those big pots, for sure, but to make them big you've got to put in the bucks, and as we both know, they don't always come through.
P.S. Tough luck on losing your card room. Does this put a big hurt on local poker, or are there other rooms nearby? Or does this mean you are now on the weekend shuttle to Vegas every week?
This puts a big dent in local poker in the tri-state area of East Texas, Southern Arkansas, and Northern Louisiana (called the "Ark-La-Tex") because there are no other public card rooms. This means that there will be more home games springing up which is illegal in these states resulting in more raids, more robberies, more scams, etc. The problem is that in Louisiana, the river boats are only allowed so many square feet for gambling so while the poker room made money, it was decided that slot machines will make even more money given the limited floor space.
Since I was averaging about $30 per hour in their $20-$40 game based on about 700 hours of play, this really hurts my annual earn. When I retire, I will probably move out of the area.
Jim consider Phoenix - the 20-40 at Casino Arizona is populated by several very rich people and is as loose as any Southern Cal. 3/6 game. Since I don't play that in game I'd welcome you to Arizona. :-)
Jim the problem is in the quality of the cards you played. K9 just is to weak a holding to be trapping maniacs with. Once you were in the pot you have to play it whe way you did.
Last night in an aggressive 10-20 game I was in BB with Qc2c flop was 8c9cQ - next two cards were blanks.
I was leading the betting and it cost me 1/2 stack of red to see a QT - guy on my right says. Weak kickers cause a lot of players to lose alot of money. DUH - how could I have gotten away from this hand? - answer is I couldn't - had to play it out strongly and that is what I did.
I'm not quite sure I agree - I think calling a straddle raise with K9s on the button is reasonable, then calling the three bet is necessary due to pot size. I would not have called with K9s in early or middle position, but I think it was OK on the button. I think Jim got trapped but did not really make any mistakes, including BTF.
That is a matter of opinion - the K9 is a dog of a trap hand and I avoid it most of the time. He knew if he hit the flop, like he did, he was in for a long expensive ride to the river so that is what happened.
Guess a grinder like me just doesn't like long expensive rides like that.
Actually Rounder you make an excellent point. I was not just limping in for one bet here but rather I was paying two bets despite the fact that it was due to a straddle. In addition, knowing who the straddler was meant that there was an excellent chance the pot would get raised again so I was looking at three bets to take a flop. The real issue is that while K-9 suited plays well on the button against a large field, is it worth paying 3 bets to take a flop?
Jim,
I think you just answered your own question. The answer is NO.
Paul
Rounder:
You do make a good point so perhaps I will re-evaluate my position on the matter. The main thing is that it probably WILL be expensive to go to the end in this particular game, and a re-raise BTF is a good possibility.
I would never take a flop for three bets cold with K9s, but I would gladly call a maniac straddle raise (most of the time, if I had position). However, given the aggressive nature of the game, one could conceivably consider folding this holding in this situation.... If Jim could REASONABLY expect that one of the blinds would raise after he called the straddle raise on the button, then folding would have been in order. That may have allowed Jim to avoid the trap.
But in Jim's defense, I would have probably played the same way and lose the same amount of $$ on the hand. I guess I'm just a loose lucy compared to you Rounder!
At any rate Jim's original post generated great debate so good job Jim.
Dave in Cali
This is going to be a strange one so bear with me. the common theory is that when in loose games, "play more hands that can make big hands", such as you played. It makes sense, but the problem is that unless you play in these games on a regular basis the wide downward swing you experience when you pick up a draw, and lose will end up being a large spike on your earnings graph. My only suggestion would be to play more conservative until you are ahead for the session before you start chasing with draws, unless this is your normal type of game you play in,(which is rare). I know that this will get poopooed, since you never know when you are going to make the draw, but you need chips, and you need to have confidence, which is what you lose when you lose a couple of racks. So what I'm saying is you have to take into account the mental side as well as the odds. Obviously, losing so much on one hand even though you had the best of it bugged you(as it would with most of us)otherwise you wouldn't have wqriten about it. seeya
You make a good point Al. I don't know if I played the hand correctly although I think I did. But in games where you have a couple of maniacs like Keith and Dominic, it can get expensive and for many players it may not be worth it. This is something to consider when you sit down in a game where you think you have the best of it. It really goes beyond bankroll. A single session and sometimes an entire weekend can get severly impacted by the outcome of just a few hands such as these.
However, I did manage to win about two grand over the weekend in this game.
Jim,
It seems that the underlying sentiment in all the responses was sympathy. We've all been there and we all know it hurts. Knowing how disciplined you are I would gather if K9s came to you on the button later that night you'd be playing it, though. I think your fans here on the forum would appreciate a couple of hands where you reamed these guys. After all, if you took two grand from them it couldn't all have been bad beats.
Happy New Year,
SammyB
Jim:
From the action you described, I somewhat suspected that you might see a boat by the end. Two pair on the flop vs. top pair was a perfectly reasonable possibility, given the action and aggressive nature of your opponents. Another suspicion would be that one of them flopped a set, especially since it went to five bets. Caution should be in order if the board pairs.
However, there is no way I would have folded your hand even with the 5 bets on the flop. The pot was big and you had a draw to what would probably be the best hand if you hit.
It even seems reasonable to suspect a possible full house on the turn. However, if we expect these worst case scenarios on every hand, we would all go bust from folding the winner too often. I think you have to make a crying call on the turn and still try for the flush.
On the river, I would simply skip the raise if your flush gets there, due to the possibility of being reraised by a full house. Just call if you make your flush.
This is one of those unfortunate situations where the worst case comes true. But if you replayed the hand over and over again, I still think you would have a positive overall expectation, and therefore you made the correct play.
This message was posted before reading the other responses, so let's see who agrees with me!
Dave in Cali
Dear 2+2ers,
I stopped by The Hawaiian Gardens Casino at around 2:00 am sunday morning(saturday night). One 6-12 hold'em game, and easily one of toughest game I've ever seen for that limit. I can't believe I sat down in it, but I had just spent 2 hours waiting to get into an incredible 6-12 game at a near-by casino that was locked up tight before giving up, then it occurred to me to come down and check out the Hawaiian Garden casino.
The game had four regular tournament players, two very aggressive players, one fish who was doing pretty well cold calling raises and re-raises pre-flop with 10-3 suited, then making his hands on the river. And one knew guy who I'm about to play a hand with. I played one hand from a position other than the one and only blind(no small blinds here)in the two times the button had gone around before leaving(collection is an awkward pain in the ass $3.50, because of the 50cent chips).
I had pocket aces(both black) two positions before the button. I raised the two people who had already limped, blind calls, four people in pot(the fish folded on the button, damn!)
Flop: 10-8-4 w/2 hearts.
Everybody checks to me, the UTG player threateningly holds up 3 chips to let me know he means business(that's always a relief to see), I bet, blind drops, the other two call.
Turn: 7 hearts
UTG bets out, the guy between us drops, I call.
River: black 8 (the fish lets the table know he would have made trip 8's, he's stunned), Final board, 10-8-8-7-4 with 3 hearts.
Under the gun bets out, I call. He eagerly/smilingly turns over his Pocket Queens and loses.
Question: How big of a pussy was I for not raising on the turn when the 3rd heart hit? It reminded me of how powerful The Protected Bet or Raise is(Caro's betting with impunity). But latter it occurred to me, that even though the under-the-gun's bet into me was protected with the possible flush(and to a lesser degree, a straight), I could have raised with impunity using the same damn board! When that occurred to me, I felt like a Big Pussy(about 2 hours latter). Sure, I would have raised on the turn if I had had the ace of hearts, but that doesn't take any guts.
Any advice appreciated, Martin D
utg strikes me as a very bad player. with AA, you are not getting a better hand to fold. you may be able to slow the betting down, but you probably don't want that. there are lots of pair/draw hands like T9 that he could have. also, JQ. one card flush draws etc. i am not conviced this guy has a made hand, but it could just be hindsight bias. in the future don't post the result in the same post as the question.
anyway, as i don't think this guy has a made hand and i think that a player this weak would call a raise here with top pair, pair/draw, or an overpair, i would raise. the pot being protected would push towards the raise, but i think it is a raise anyway. what the protection allows for you to do is fold to a 3 bet. this guy limped and did not reraise preflop. he check called an overpair on the flop. he needed to see 4 cards not A or K to feel comfortable with his pair of queens. this passive guy thinks he's so clever bluffing the flush. a lot of guys would have bet the flush on the flop. or raised your bet to get it heads up if his flush draw was overcards. this guy reraises i think you are beat. that you are able to fold here, makes your raise even more correct.
i just skimmed through my post and i don't think it was written well. my thoughts don't seem to flow logically. sorry. my point is that you should have raised. but you are not that big a pussy. a big pussy would have folded.
scott
Re-reading my opening post, I realize it might be a little confusing since I misspelled the word 'later' more than once, and the word 'knew' when I meant to say 'new', as in "new player".
Sorry, Martin D
I think your play of calling on the turn was correct and raising would have been bad poker. First of all, if the guy has the flush you can easily get re-raised costing you even more money. Secondly, by just calling you induce him to bet on the end which may not happen if you re-raise and he was fooling around with something like bottom pair and a Heart flush draw.
Martin you really didn't know this table yet. I think you played the hand well eneough on the flop (you could have check raised the UTG) turn and river are scarry cards for sure and it isn't about guts - to much guts will get you in trouble - it is about making good decisions - you made the right decision here so don't worry about it.
I think calling the turn was correct. You would make that raise if you had outs to gain an extra bet if you get there on the river. For instance with a set or if one of your aces was the flush suit, with the three suited cards turned.
D.
Has anyone taken Phil Hellmuth's course on how to play texas hold'em from www.hungryminds.com. If you have, I would like to know what you thought of it.
Post deleted at author's request.
Mah,
You will find what you are looking for on RGP. I think if you do a search for Phil Hellmuth you might come up with it. The course got bashed, so did Phil.
I'll assume its bad. Thanks for the info.
A couple of months ago ray zee stated in a response that if you only win with good cards you'll be a loser.
I played this over the weekend at a #5-$10 table at tbe Taj. The table had been pretty passive up to this point. The hands I had won that went to showdown had been with AQ, TT, KK, ATs, QJs. For most of the two hours I had folded.
I got dealt T9s one right of button. 4 limpers, cutoff raised. I decided to chance it. I reraised. Button & blinds fold, everyone else called the dbl raise. I figured I was sunk. Flop was J32 rainbow, not even one card in my suit. Check to cutoff who bet, thank you, I raised. cutoff and 1 other call. Turn is an Ace. Check to me, I bet, all fold. As I'm stacking cutoff said, "Nice strong betting" I told him it was easy when you have a strong hand. My point is, regardless of the prevailing opinion that low limit is "No fold'Em" there are opportunities out there. I didn't bluff again the rest of the day except for semi bluffs with lots of outs, but that one hand taught me a lesson about what it means to play the people and not always the cards.
SammyB
Timing is everything with this kind of move. The trick is to knowing when to bail when it starts to go bad. Also the times it works must be balanced with the total lost when your caught. It sure is fun when you can pull it off though.
Best of it !!
MJ
Sammy,
The trick is knowing your players and your table image.
It isn't important what your image is so long as YOU know what it is not what you think it is.
Last night I was in a 10/20 hand early position short handed just 6 players with 9T called flop came jj9 I bet it out quick and got a caller a guy who knows I (play a lot of tournaments out west) turn a blank I bet he mucked A9 and asked me was it JQ or TJ I said 9J - But it is situational isn't it.
It's a myth that you can't bluff in low-limit poker, because bluffs rarely work. However, when they do work you win bigger pots than in tighter games. If your opponents don't adjust their calling frequencies properly when considering the size of the pot, you should be bluffing more often on the river. Also, in loose games the players play weak hands, which often means they wind up with weak hands.
I was in a hand in a 5-10 game a while ago when I flopped an open-ended straight flush on the flop. There were something like 7 callers, raised pot. I bet the flop, it was raised in late position, I re-raised, and about five people called. I bet the turn, there were four callers. On the river I missed, but the pot was huge, and I bet out again. Everyone folded, and I dragged a pot with something like 40 small bets in it. That one play paid for an awful lot of bluff attempts.
When you are in a multi-way pot with a big draw and pump it hard, your opponents will put you on a big hand. In a tough game, they'll fold and get out of the way. In a weak game, they'll still call you with bottom pair, gutshots, 3-flushes, and all sorts of garbage, hoping to improve. If they don't improve on the river, they'll have nothing at all or a weak hand that they may fold for a bet.
Don't go nuts with this idea, but pay attention to situations where it may be correct to fire that last bet out on the river.
For example, pay attention to what the last player or two to act may have. If you think he's on a draw, you may be setting up a good bluffing situation. If you bet the river, the other weak hands will be less likely to call you to 'keep you honest', because they figure the players behind them will. But if the players behind have a busted draw, they can't call.
>When you are in a multi-way pot with a big draw and pump it hard, your opponents will put you on a big hand.
I thought this was about "low limit bluffs"! If anybody is thinking at all, one extremely common thought would be like "since he bet, he must be on a draw".
If your image *at*the*moment* is someone that only bangs at the pot with a big hand, then the bluff may well work often enough to turn a profit. If you've ever been caught without the goods, you'll find 4 callers.
It all depends, like everything else in poker. Use your best judgement. Just don't exclude the possibility of winning with a bluff, just because it's low limit.
Next time you are playing, count the number of pots that are won uncontested, or are checked out with no one having a pair at the end. I think you'll be surprised at how often it really happens, even in low-limit.
Notice how being 3-handed on the end might have increased the chance of the bluff suceeding. If you had the choice of bluffing one opponent that had a 50/50 chance of having a mediocre pair or a busted draw, or two opponents each with the same 50/50 chance, you'd often prefer two opponents instead of one because (1) opponents holding mediocre pairs will tend to think less of their hands when you bet into two people and (2) one of them has the threat of a possible overcall, and knows they may have to beat two opponents. If these factors make an opponent with a pair half as likely to call (note that half is a lot), you're probably better off with two such opponents instead of one on the end, although both situations would clearly warrant a bet.
But I like how this post illustrates the requirements for bluffing in a low limit game.
To even think about bluffing in loose limit hold 'em game, you first need an image of playing quality hands and not bluffing. Many players think they have this image when they don't because they underestimate just how long their opponents remember.
Second, your opponents must be capable of folding. The old saw about never running a bluff against a calling station is more of a good rule of thumb than an axiom. However, when you have two opponents that play until the play until the river to see if they make a pair, and they both muck after you bet on the end, well, that's not really bluffing, is it?
More precisely, your opponents must be capable of folding and the board must encourage them to fold. Boards that have a dual character of being threatening but unlikely to hit anyone are good candidates. The J32 flop in the example given is perfect for this because it was unlikely to give anyone a good pair or draw while the single facecard would give Sammy's opponents something to worry about, namely an overpair or a big set. Then, when the ace lands on the turn, they know their chances of being beaten have increased. It was Sammy's image and his betting in conjunction with the board that made them think: if I wasn't beaten before I probably am now, if not by Sammy then by someone. Although a rag on the turn is less likely to help someone, you need the ace (or other high card) to convince the guy holding 66 or K3s that he doesn't really have a chance. It's much easier for an opponent to talk himself into calling when the board looks like xxJxx.
The final thing that made this play work was Sammy's consistency in betting and willingness to follow through. Many bluffs are ruined merely because the bluffer slowed down or blinked for a second when the turn didn't help them. You need to remember that your are, after all, bluffing, and not hoping for some miracle. (Some players go for the "resurrection" bluff on the river after checking/calling the turn. The miracle here is that this move succeeds at all. Against unusually thick opponents, it sometimes does, but it more often wrecks what could have been a perfect play).
I was just left of the BB (first to bet preflop) and had pocket K's. I raised (as I would always do) and everyone folded (full 5-10 table). I "stole" the blinds from 3rd position. My "stupid" question (from a relative beginner) is: would it EVER be right to just call in this position and not raise? Do you purposly allow lesser hands to try and draw in order to get more money in the pot, or do you ALWAYS raise to get those players out (Ax, etc.) ? Is there any advantage in the long run to just calling? I'd be curious to know people's thoughts on if you would win more money in the long run or you're just allowing lesser hands to out draw you. Thoughts?
I would virtually always raise with a big pocket pair under the gun. You probably have the best hand and have the most to gain by raising. Furthermore, you don't want to give the blinds free plays. Suppose the flop comes Nine-Five-Deuce and the big blind has Nine-Deuce which he would have thrown away had you raised? Instead of winning the blinds you end up losing a stack.
The only time I would even consider just limping in would be if I were in a home game where I am playing against the same line-up players week in and week out over the course of a year. I might limp in occasionaly with say the black Kings (or some other random combination) so that my play wouldn't be so predictable. But in a casino or public cardroom where the cast of characters is constantly changing, I simply always raise. The other thing to consider is that unless the hand goes all the way to showdown, no one will ever know that you "varied your play".
If you had a crystal ball you could tell the future.
Bet the KK for value and to clear out the T3 bb that may hit 2 pair on the flop and cost you money.
I love people that don't bet big hands when I am in the blind giving me a free look at 3 cards. WOW - what a gift.
Raise, raise, raise.
In the low limit games in which I play, I constantly see players limping in early position with big pairs. Once in a while, I get surprised when they show down AA or KK with no pre-flop raise, but usually one of three things happens:
1. They leave bets on the table by not raising when players who limped in would have called the raise anyway, and their hand holds up.
2. They play the hand passively after the flop, and seem happy to show down a big hand when someone else leads the betting, and they leave money on the table post-flop.
3. They get run over by hands that correctly limp in for one bet, or blinds that get a free look at the flop and hit a split two pair or something like that. Then the KK bitches and moans about "never winning with KK, so why raise?"
I would sooner vary my play by occasionally raising with 98s, or a small pair on the button, than by checking KK UTG. I just can't bring myself to do it.
With a big pair like AA or KK, your objective is to make people put as much money in the pot as possible before the flop. You don't want to force people out of the hand, but you DO want to make sure that if they play against you it is as expensive as possible for them, because you have much the best of it going in. In a very tight agressive game, where you are almost guaranteed a raise behind you if you just call, it may be correct to sometimes call and go for a re-raise. I like this play more with AA than KK, but it can be done with both.
If the game is tight enough that there is a reasonable chance of just winning the blinds with an UTG raise, you should consider raising with more hands from this position, until your opponents stop giving you as much respect.
Come on Dan do you really want 5 or 6 shooting at your pair with all the junk out there. Unimproved Big pairs just don't play well in multi way pots - I want to get heads up as soon as possible with a big pair.
Maybe I have had KK & AA snapped to many times but I am sure my thinking is clear here.
Rounder,
Let's say you raise UTG and everyone calls anyway. If I'm in that position I want to have AA, KK.
Yes, I want nine callers, provided they are playing for as many bets as I can make them pay.
I'd rather be up against 3 players paying two bets than 6 players paying one, but I'd rather be up against six players playing two bets. This applies especially to AA, which is just a HUGE favorite over any amount of callers. Even against nine callers going all the way to the river it wins 30% of the time. Any time you have this hand, you should be happy that anyone else is willing to pay money to play against you. Just don't let them in cheap.
Dan, does this also apply if I am in the BB and everyone called? Is it too obvious to raise from the blinds? I am assuming a game where almost no one will fold after calling the first bet.
Forget about being 'too obvious' in a game where everyone calls. The deception is going over their heads.
Even in a game with very good players it would be correct to raise if you have more than a couple of callers, because of the opportunity cost of not raising. Remember that the flop misses most people, so if they are going to fold on the flop anyway, you've lost any chance to make them pay.
I will sometimes slowplay aces or kings out of the big blind if I am heads-up or three-ways against tricky players. The basic equation is simply, "How can I extract the most bets from these guys?"
This happened last night in a 15-30 game. I'm in the big blind with KK. Everyone folds to a late position player who limps. The next player raises, and everyone else folds. I smooth called. The flop was jack-high, and I trapped a guy with AJ for 3 big bets.
Post deleted at author's request.
Gary, I think Rounder means that big pairs are less likely to win the pot against a lot of opponents versus fewer opponents. However, I agree with you that big pairs get more than their fair share regardless and raising is for value here.
The point is "unimproved" big pairs - I guess I am playing a lot of NL HE and in that game you want to get heads up with a big pair.
I also prefer and strive to get the field thinned out when I am on a big pair. It pays off for me to knock out the guys who will draw out to beat my me or the Ax who may flop an A.
Big pairs win fewer pots with more callers, but they win more money. Your objective should be to win more money. But you have to be able to stand the variance, and I know you are very variance-averse. Still, these big pairs make up a good chunk of your profit in holdem, and it's important to play them correctly.
On the other hand, your strategy of always raising with them before the flop is very close to being exactly correct anyway.
I don't think I said "always raise big pairs" but if I did it was a mistake I don't "always" do anything at a poker table.
My objective is to win money and I do. All I am saying is Big Pairs play better (win more - a lot more) against smaller fields - I can prove that you can't prove they will win more money against larger fields because of the situational aspects involved.
And you're simply wrong. We can analyze this three different ways:
First, the simple one - run a simulation with all players going to the river on every hand. You'll find that as you increase opponents, the EV of Aces and Kings continues to rise, with a possible plateau at 8 or 9 players. This, BTW, is about the worst-case scenario for Aces.
Second - run a simulation in Turbo Texas Holdem. Again, as the number of callers goes up, the EV of Aces and kings climbs.
Third, do a logical analysis - Remember that Aces and Kings also make big hands and win huge pots - they flop sets, and they make a strong two pair when the second or third board card pairs. They also win their share of flushes and straights. But even just one pair is a pretty good hand in Holdem, especially if it's an overpair to the board. Your opponents with a pair are drawing to five outs, and you have a redraw to beat them if they improve.
Also remember that in large multi-way fields there are often some players drawing dead to others, and some that are drawing very thin. The hidden nature of an overpair makes this more likely.
Finally, you can ask the other authorities on the board, who I believe will agree with me. I know Gary Carson does, as he has added his comments to this thread.
Post deleted at author's request.
Post deleted at author's request.
Gary,
I read your posts and get the sense you know what you are talking about. However, when you put Rounder and EV in the same sentence all that goes out the window. :-)
Sammy,
I don't get it. These guys are making my point for me they want to win a bigger pot 30% of the time and I want to win the pot 85% of the time - maybe I just like winning more than they do. I am out to win money without big variences. Does that make me a bad person.
:-(
Rounder,
They will never understand your point of view. I got it the first time I read one of your posts. Play good cards up front and it should be painfully obvious when the flop has missed you or hit you. I'd say you should write a book but you could probably explain your philosophy in 2 pages so how much could you charge? I read everybody's opinions here and I've learned a lot. But when I'm at the table I bet my money with stuff I've learned from you and Jim Brier. Solid cards, lower variance. Maybe I'm not winning as much as others would win with my cards, but I'm not losing as much as I used to lose with my cards.
Sammy fact is I have written a book it is about 100 pages and covers 4 groups of starting hands for limit HE and 3 groups for NL HE tournaments are covered too (last group is the muck group in both). I plan on (self) publishing after I win a Major tournament. My system is a lot more complicated than it may seem at 1st. I can tell you this there are not a lot of long dissertations about calculating pot odds when going for "back door" hands. I simply suggest getting out of the hand if you don't hit the flop. Gee what a concept.
Well Gary you bring up an interesting point. Is it better from an EV standpoint to have 6 opponents each putting in one bet or having 3 opponents each putting in two bets? In both cases the pot size is the same. However, it could be argued that the 3 opponents putting in a double bet means you are up against better hands than when 6 players put in a single bet. But then 6 players may have more "collective outs" to beat your big pair. Does anyone know what the answer is?
I like the 3 player scenario 2 better - with any luck you are dominating other pairs and maybe AK-AQ. It may not be the right answer but all those collective outs scare the beejesus out of me with an unimproved big pair. I have showed down a big pair on the river with 3 drawers and I was drawing stone dead -had no chance any card beats me including a set making one.
Not the kind of poker I like to play HUH!
Post deleted at author's request.
Thank you. Good answer.
(P.S.-How can I get your book? I have left messages but no one returns my call)
People who tell you to never limp with big pocket pairs are, IMHO, falling into the trap of focusing on winning pots rather than winning money. It could be correc to limp if the game is tight enough that an early position raise has a good chance of winning only the blinds and aggressive enough that you will usually be able to reraise preflop.
With that said, I would very very rarely choose to not raise with KK. If you decided to never limp with KK you certainly could not be costing yourself very much. With AA you can limp-reraise more, because you don't have to worry about someone limping with a weak ace such as Axs and then calling you down with top pair.
David
Although you may wish to occasionally limp-reraise with a big pocket pair (AA), I wouldn't bother in this case. If you are a beginner, you are probably playing low-limit where no one is paying attention and varying your play has little use. The limp-reraise play may work better if you are playing against decent players (rarely found at low limit). In no-foldem games, simply ALWAYS raise with big pocket pairs early. You will steal the blinds from UTG (once in a blue moon), but you will be called by worse hands quite often.
Also, you cannot let anyone in for cheap in this situation or you will wind up regretting it. Charge them extra to see the flop with those trashy hands! Don't take a chance on the blinds getting a free play (as Jim pointed out).
Don't hesitate to raise and don't try to get fancy, just play your hand....
This is a classic example of a what my friend Gary calls a "high class problem" -- you have the nuts and are just trying to get the most money possible from your opponent.
10-20 game. I have KK. On the turn, the board is 3-5-Q-K rainbow and I am heads up against an aggressive and decent player. I bet, he raises, I reraise, he caps.
River is an 8.
Do you ever try to get an extra bet by check-raising or do you always bet out? It's strange to me that someone rational would cap the turn but then check the river when a total rag hits, but I hate to miss a bet. The player raised preflop, so he could easily have a set of queens. I am sure he has at least KQ.
The way I come out is you should bet because you might even get really lucky and get raised, and you know he will at least call with such a big pot.
Note that in this hand, my opponent could not put me on KK so easily because I did not put in a raise preflop (I was a blind and called 30 -- I did not cap, and it was 4-way preflop).
Thanks.
SW
It's 1 or 3 (if you bet and he either calls or raises and you reraise) versus 0 or 2 (if you go for a check raise). I would definitely bet in this situation.
Really not a big problem. It isn't missing a bet what ever you do on the river. You mised the bet preflop but since you may have had your reasons for that it is OK.
Unless you are up against a hyper-aggressive player who will bet on the end almost 100% of the time but will hardly ever raise your bet on the end, betting is almost always right in this situation.
I think that if this guy has been betting and raising all the way then bet out. He capped the turn !!
1.) He was not betting/rasing on a drawing hand. I would have to say he has a piece of the Q or flopped trips.
Bet out and hope for the raise. Your going to get at least a call. (but I think he's gonna raise, he did last time)
Nothing worse than going for the river check raise and getting nothing on a strong hand.
Best of it !!
MJ
Scott,
Another Scott! Why do so many Scott's participate in the forum and so few Rick's? Anyway, this is my two cents without looking at the other responses (I would be surprised if they disagree).
First, why didn't you cap with your kings pre-flop? You are giving away too much EV here. If you are worried about giving your hand away, then add a few hands that you would cap pre flop that are only marginally worth doing it with.
On the river I would bet 100% of the time (unless I had a tell that indicated he would bet for me). You would be hard to put on kings (since you didn't raise pre-flop) and most players will raise one more time with a good set with this board.
The times to consider checking are when you have been putting in last action and a scare card comes on the river. That isn't the case here.
Regards,
Rick
Thanks. There are too many Scotts, and too many Canadians, in the poker world.
I agree with your advice and was just making sure -- it's pretty obvious. I cap w/ KK just about every time, but I threw this in -- I got lucky, but it did make me some extra dough.
Would you ever cap with JJ in a multi way pot, against decent opposition? AQs? I like the idea of setting up your opponents so they can't lock in on AA or KK every time you cap. Do you always cap w/ QQ?
Hopefully, we won't be playing in very many games where pots are getting capped otherwise it could get expensive. I cap with AA and KK. I will 3 bet with QQ and AK suited and of course call if capped back to me. Frankly, deception is not worth much in big pots that are jammed and capped since anyone with any hope at all will stay through the river once they pay to see the flop.
In the $20-$40 game this past weekend at the Horseshoe in Louisiana I played in a four-way capped pot with the black Aces. On the turn, Keith Lear announced that I had specifically the Ace of Spades and one other Ace (Three Spades flopped). I got paid off by him and one other player at the river anyway since there was over $700 in the pot.
Scott,
At least I can keep the Canadians straight in my head on the forum. The same can't be said of the "Scott's" :-).
Anyway, you wrote: "Would you ever cap with JJ in a multi way pot, against decent opposition?"
Keep in mind I play in California where the cap is one bet and three raises. I would tend to cap with JJ against weak opponents when I have less then four or more then six opponents. With less then four I figure to outplay them and with more than six I get good odds when I hit my set. I will throw away jacks against a very solid early raiser and an equally solid mid position reraiser. Few others do.
" AQs?"
I would cap in a volume pot and also against a small field. I may only smooth call an early position solid raise with a couple solid cold callers.
"I like the idea of setting up your opponents so they can't lock in on AA or KK every time you cap."
I agree.
Do you always cap w/ QQ?
No. I like HPFAP 21st Century advice on this hand. But I will mix it up here since it is close.
Regards,
Rick
Chalk it up to my lack of experience if this is a dumb question, but why is your opponent's 3rd raise considered "cap" on the turn when you were heads up, and why didn't you keep reraising until he quit, considering that he has only a 43-chance of drawing ou(the 4th Q)?
Yours is an excellent question. In some casinos if three or more players are in the hand at the start of a betting round and one drops out, the cap of one bet and three raises is still in force.
It would make sense to raise until someone runs out of money on the turn when you have the nuts and know that your opponent cannot even tie you. Some players fear that if their opponent gets lucky and draws out on them, they don't want to lose their entire session bankroll.
The casino (online in this case) only allows three raises, even heads up. I wish that were not the case.
Badger stated on RGP that the main difference between our cold calling raises in middle position strategy and Mike's Holdem Report chart, stems from the differences between California and Vegas games. We address LV, Mike addresses California. This is why I say that Badger needs to read our books (and Mike's holdem report for that matter) before he writes this stuff.
We take great pains to distinguish between Vegas style games and LA style games in some of our writings and point out how that changes your strategy. In the ongoing debate, Mason said we play between 4 and 7 percent of hands for a double bet against a rational early raiser when we are in middle position. The 7% basically applies to California games. Mike Caro plays more than twice as many. But he also wouldn't appreciate your charge that his strategy is for one type of game only.
In any case while it is true that you can loosen up somewhat in certain situations in the looser games of California, the fact is that you should not loosen up that much in the specific situation where you are just to the left of an early position raiser. The reason has little to do with domination. (In fact, as Tom W. pointed out, there is an upside to being dominated when it is headup and you have position. That is that it is easier to steal when it is less likely he will pair.) The reason you can't play alot of hands in this spot even in looser games is that the calls from the people behind you are often unhelpful when you have a merely good hand and are already facing an often better hand on your right.
Of course you already know this Badger. You wouldn't play many of the hands Mike suggests, nearly as often as he suggests in Las Vegas, California, or Madagascar. In any case I stayed from the original point. And that is that we frequently mention what we consider to be the appropriate stategy changes based on the size, type, and structure of the game. You may not agree with all of those strategy adjustments but please do not imply that we do not advise them There are still people out there who have not read our books as you well know.
Post deleted at author's request.
Is it just me or is Badger never wrong?
"Is it just me or is Badger never wrong?"
The sun rises in the morning, death, taxes and Badger is never wrong.
Biggest -EV game I know is getting heads-up against Badger in a game that uses a keyboard.
Post deleted at author's request.
What kind of idiot are you? I say in the post I was wrong! I shouldn't have done something. Eat paste, jerk.
World class defined.
A World Class what? Oh yeah, it's in the suject title.
Post deleted at author's request.
Badger:
I think you are out of line and owe an apology. Yes I know I am holding you to a higher standard. But I think that if you think about it you will agree that you should be held to a higher standard.
Best wishes, Mason
Post deleted at author's request.
Anger Management Classes are cheap and starting sometime this month or early Febuary. Check out your local Adult Education class schedule.
Post deleted at author's request.
Badger:
There have been so many personal attacks made against me -- some on our forum, but mostly on RGP -- that I couldn't come close to counting them all. This even includes threats on my "well being." Since you are now entering our arena, you are just going to have to understand that most of these attacks are just people taking shots because of your success, and you if you continue to react to them in this manner, it will only hurt you.
Post deleted at author's request.
"...you are just going to have to understand that most of these attacks are just people taking shots because of your success, and you if you continue to react to them in this manner, it will only hurt you."
The number of shots is squared when successful and egotistical, as in Mason's case.
The number is cubed when you add in Badger's attitude. He deserves all he gets.
Post deleted at author's request.
"Badger deserves all he gets"
You can say that again! He makes me ashamed to admit I'm gay!
Butch
Mason,
And to what kind of standard should we hold you?
You accused me of misquoting or misrepresenting hands. Three times, I asked you to offer even a single example to substantiate your charge. Three times, you ignored my request.
I never really thought you had enough class to apologize for your false accusation. But I still hope you have enough shame to admit you made a mistake.
reminds me of a nietszche quote: " you are not great enough not to know hatred and envy; be great enough, though, not to be ashamed."
(just adding to the noise) brad
why is he so cool?
"i do not want to be a saint. rather even a buffon. perhaps i am a buffon."
scott
When Mike Caro wrote the original version of this report which had similar advice, the year was 1984. Hold 'em did not become legal in California until 1987. (By the way, I was there when hold 'em was legalized. So I am fully aware of what those games were like.)
1. The fact that the report is ten years old is not relevant as long as he is still selling it. Besides, many of MY books are that old and have stood the test of time with little or no revisions. (Two of them were ADDED to greatly but only slightly revised) 2. The fact that more people will cold call raises behind you does little to rescue the chart's recommendations. Some hands he calls with such as T9 suited are now OK. Others like 95s are merely less bad. But other hands like KT offsuit are even worse to play in these games (unless people are calling cold raises with truly horrible hands, which is not the case in most decent size games, even in California.)I do agree as I alredy strated that you should play more hands in LA but not nearly as many as Mike suggests. 3. So you took me up on my offer about the Theory of Poker did you? Where I am essentially laying 400-30 odds. And in order for me to win you have to publicly admit that there was somehing in the book that you consider worthwhile that you didn't already know. Uh Oh. I wonder if Izmet would be willing to cancel our bet in return for taking on this one.
David wrote: "Besides, many of MY books are that old and have stood the test of time with little or no revisions."
In some cases, that could be a weakness rather than a strength.
Playing in an online $2/$4 game. I have the button. Get dealt QdJd. 5 call and the guy in seat #9 raises. I call him and 3 others call. Flop is 2c8d6d. Checks around to me, I bet. one calls everybody folds but the guy in seat 9 and he raises. I call and the other guy left folds. Turn is Ad. He bets and I call. The river is 3d. He bets then I raise and he calls. I show my flush and he flops over 2hKd to take the pot with the higher flush. Should I have done anything different? This what happens in a lot of loose games I play in...
I would have played it differently and still would have lost. Since I had no hand but a draw I would check the flop and take the free card saving myself two bets. I would have raised and reraised the turn when I made my hand, and called the river.
This guy seems/is a big idiot since he had the nuts on the river and did not raise you back (well he has got other leaks as well but this one just shows that he is just completely out of it) That being said I don't think you should have raised on the river. He is either bluffing and will fold or will reraise (Oh yeah it appears he can call too).
The way I see it.
He was not in the mood for any more donations.
I would have raised his bet on the turn when I had the second nuts. It is highly unlikely he has specifically K-little of Diamonds. There is no point in making it any less expensive for him to draw against you with a set or two pair or even the lone King of Diamonds. You raise on the river was bad poker when there is 4 Diamonds on the board and you don't have the King of Diamonds. I am amazed he only called your river raise and did not re-raise with the nuts.
Seat #9 is a joker and in 2/4 your going to get alot of people playing junk cards. Just know that this guy plays junk and wait your turn, you will get that money back with interest ( - the rake of course)
Best of it !!
MJ
P.S
Rasie with K2o from a blind .....ROFLMAO
You should have raised on the turn when you hit the flush - to charge anyone with the bare Kd the maximum to try and draw out on you. There were really no other draws on the flop but a straight draw or a flush draw. Since the board didn't pair on the turn, the only way you are beat at this point is if someone has specifically Kd with another diamond.
On the river the Kd beats you and the 4d5d makes the straight flush. On the river I would just call if bet into again, since you can pretty much expect to be beaten at this point. You stand only to lose by raising the river. It is highly unlikely that your raise will be called by anything other than these two hands, but you will certainly be reraised if one of these hands is out there! Raising on the river is suicidal. You stand absolutely nothing to gain but everything to lose.
Bottom line: RAISE THE TURN AND CALL THE RIVER!!!!
I think you should have considered more carefully what your opponents might have held and you would have lost less $$.
An example of this is illustrated by a hand I played in my recent tahoe trip. I was going to post it separately but it goes with this post so here it is:
I had Qh2c in the BB and no one raised. 5 player see the flop which is Jh 9h 10h. I flopped the open ended straight flush draw.
The SB bet into me. I just called since I didn't want to drive out players (I might have raised if I had better position). To my left, UTG raises. I read him for having flopped a flush already or maybe two pair. At any rate, I knew he had a vulnerable hand and was going to charge people to draw out on him. Another player, a VERY tight player, called the raise. I pretty much knew he could only have the bare Kh or Ah. With a flush, set, or two pair he would have certainly reraised. Anything less he would have folded. I call and UTG calls.
On the turn the 3h hits the board, giving me a flush. The SB checks to me. I really believe my read was correct about the tight player, so I check. Sure enough he bets. I call and UTG calls.
On the river a blank hits. I check, UTG checks, tight player bets, I call, UTG folds.
This was a case where I could not fold a good draw, then I could not fold a really good (but non-nut) hand. But, since I considered what the other players must have had, I lost far less $$ on the hand than I could have. I strongly considered folding on the river but the pot was big enough to force me to call. Raising would have been suicidal for me since I still would probably be forced to call (with a losing hand).
Dave in Cali
Curiously, when UTG tossed his cards in the 7h flips over. A dealer told me that the jackpot there is 4 of a kind or better beaten, only one card has to play in each player's hand. Assuming the dealer was correct, then If the 8h would have hit on the river, we would have hit the bad beat jackpot (my straight flush beating his straight flush). Even more ironic is that someone had just won it a couple days before and it was relatively tiny, only about $1,500.
Not to nitpick Dave but the Five of Diamonds and the Four of Diamonds does not make a straight flush. The Deuce on the flop is a Club and there is no Seven of Diamonds on the table. I agree with the rest of your analysis. Good Post!
m
Having put the tight player on a big heart, the better play might be to bet the turn and throw away if raised. This only costs you one bb rather than the 2 bb it cost you to keep him honest.
In hindsight (which of course is 20/20) I think you are probably right. Bet the turn and fold if raised. Since I would have only had two outs (assuming he had the big heart) It would not be worth it to draw. If I considered the possibility of a bad beat jackpot, it might be worth it, but it would usually be a waste of $$ to chase jackpots so I was not even considering that at the time.
yeah, yeah. raise the turn and call the river. blah blah.
reraise the flop. shake things up. this punk check raised a late position bet. your reraise will convince him he has to hit to win. (maybe he has a flush draw or a straight draw or what he will percieve as a 5 or 6 outer. if comes back at you with a 4-bet on a likely overpair, two pair,set, then you have to hit to win and you're sorry you raised. but make him convice you he has a hand.) he will call to take a card off. when he misses the turn, he will fold to your bet. and if he hits, you still got outs.
say it with me vince (if you're still out there)
RAISE!!
by the way, taking a free card is a bad idea. 10 sb in from preflop. you have 15 outs against anyone with a not great hand. (and 9 against the 2 pairs etc.) don't give a free card, take the pot. i play these real thick semibluffs, with position no less, very aggressively.
scott
Raise the turn. You have made a big flush. You must make anyone pay to see the river here. You were a 5 to 1 favorite to win the pot. When the 4th diamond came on the river, just call as he could have either the lone ace or king, as he did, and which happens. But you must call the river, in any event.
Just thought I'd spark another inferno here on 2+2 My delima is this: I'm a novice Hold'em player, Only played a few times in the casino. I also consider myself a student of the game, that is I enjoy reading the books, learning different tactics and stratagies etc. Being a novice with a limited bankroll and little experience I am forced to play in the LL tables. I haven't done poorly but also am not crushing these limits yet--I'm about break-even at this point (about 20 hrs. of play). I'm considering buying LJ WLLH to help my game at these tables. I have read many of Caro's and have a firm understanding of the concepts given, specificly in Fundamental Secrets of Winning Poker.
I'll quit rambling now and get to the point.
1. Will WLLH help me win at LL without destroying my ability to adjust when I move up in limits?
2. Are the concepts described in WLLH any different (better suited to LL)than the ones in Caro's FSOWP and Book of Tells?
3. Is it worth my 20 dollar investment when I already understand fundamentals?
4. IS the only thing I need at this point more experience and dicipline rather than WLLH.
I have read only good reviews of this book (with the exception of this forum) and would like responses to the questions above. I also fully intend to buy Hold'em for adv. players; I've also heard nothing but good reviews.
thanks for your coments DocMartin
With regard to your questions:
1. Yes, it will. However, Sklansky's Hold-em poker and the loose games section of Hold-em poker for Advanced Players will also help you.
2. I am not familiar with Mike Caro's books. I have read his articles in Cardplayer. My impression is that he is knowledgeable but you should not be worrying about "tells" at this stage of your playing career.
3. When we as poker players wager hundreds and in some cases thousands of dollars playing poker over the course of a year, whether or not to spend $20 bucks on a book seems like a small decision to me. I recommend you buy Lee Jones book and any other books that you can read which will help you with your game. Books are a very modest investment. If you learn one thing from a book that allows you to win a pot you have usually paid for the price of the book.
4. I think you need the books I mentioned plus a lot of playing experience. I also recommend you start posting problems on this forum for review and comment.
Jim B writes "1. Yes, it will. However, Sklansky's Hold-em poker and the loose games section of Hold-em poker for Advanced Players will also help you."
I have it str8 from the horse's mouth that the "Loose Games" section of HFAP is not for clueless, low limit games. That advice will cost you money if mis-applied to typical no-fold'em CA style low limit poker.
The advice is specifically for games that have a few players that are too lose pre-flop and play well thereafter. Some CA 20-40 games might fit this model but very few CA 9-18 games or below will.
Regarding WLLH by Lee Jones, buy it! It'll get you to the winners circle by the fastest route.
By all means buy and read these books and Brunson's bible too, if for no other reason than knowing what your opponents have read and are thinking about. One pot you might otherwise have lost usually pays for any book out there, two makes a definite profit. WLLH is a good text, I found Sherer's No Fold'em Hold'em very profitable, but be warned, misaplying the info therein can be hazardous to your bankroll.
I also have read and understand the basics of poker. My question is do I have to read a LL book for LL games or can I get by with what is recomended for the higher limits? Thanks in advance.
'
Employing techniques that work in higher limit games while playing at low limit tables is often a big mistake in my opinion. This is especially true in the case of deception tactics. Many times you'll represent a strong hand and employ strong betting tactics in the hope of pot stealing. Usually the players at low limit don't recognize this and are therefore immune. They will then procede to draw winners on the river and you'll be left looking at them, thinking to yourself "I can't BELIEVE they stayed with that junk". What I'm saying is, in low limit the winner of the pot is more often than not the person with the best cards, not the best poker skills.
So, I think it's important to understand the difference between low limit and higher limit and play the two with very different strategies. Again, this is just my opinion.
By the way, I've been reading all of this debate about 2+2 vs. Lee Jones. I've read both sides, and I'd like to commend Mason and David for their integrity. When they were presented with the original version of WLLH, they turned it down because they didn't feel it worthy of their name. Despite the great success that the book has had, they have stood by their decision that it wasn't 2+2 material. That's worthy of praise in a world where the bottom line is usually the arbiter of quality. Regardless of the number of copies sold, they did not believe in the quality of the book itself, and did not accept it.
I've read both HPFAP and Winning Low Limit, and have found both to be helpful in increasing by bankroll. So, I'm not taking sides for one or the other.
shooter
"...I found Sherer's No Fold'em Hold'em very profitable, but be warned, misaplying the info therein can be hazardous to your bankroll."
This is a dangerous book. Of all my 40 or 50 poker books I wish I'd never seen this title. I can't put my finger on exactly why but I've done some serious losing after the two times I've read it. I won't be reading it again any time soon.
I agree with Jim Briar's post.
I would just add that before you start to play higher limits you make sure you understand the differences and know how all the plays in HFAP can be used. I would also get a firm grasp on "running bad" and other bank roll issues as everyone here seems to ask about that.
I would also argue for buying all the useful poker books. There are more but here is the starting list.
After Jones:
HFAP, Improve Your Poker, Poker Essays I and II, Theory of Poker.
D.
Since I am the worlds foremost authority on everything I think I'll chime in here.
I haven't read a poker book in quite some time but when I first started learning to play, many, many moons ago, before I became the undisputed king of poker that I am, I read EVERY SINGLE BOOK I COULD GET MY HANDS ON!
Now, I couldn't tell you Lee Jones from Tommy Lee Jones from Indiana Jones or James Earl Jones but if I were just starting out playing poker I think I would have to give it a little look-see. Know what I mean?
That being said I think a word to the wise should be sufficient.
On a somewhat lighter note. I will be at the Rio Carnival of Fun in a few days. I will have a booth set up there and would love to meet and talk with any and all poker players from all over the world. For $5 you will even be able to get your picture taken with me, BobA928674. (Just doing my part to help promote this wonderful game of poker.)
Here's my list:
1. Hold'em Poker--Sklansky 2. Theory of Poker--Sklansky 3. HPFAP 21st C--Sklansky & Malmuth (read Wild Games and Loose Game sections). 4. Super/System--Brunson (His general poker strategy and his analysis of flops is great, but some of his betting stategies are outdated since the game he refers to is a single blind game). 5. Poker Essays I--Malmuth 6. Poker Essays II--Malmuth 7. Improve Your Poker--Ciaffone
Greetings and Happy New Year to all: I was back east to see my family for the holidays, and this hand came up one late night at the Taj. 3-6 loose passive HE. I am BB. Dealt 7-9 spades. 5 limpers. I check.
Flop: 8 spade, 2 spade, 4 I bet. 2 callers.
Turn: 10 I bet. Call. Raised! I call. Other guy folds. Heads up.
River: x spade. I check. Bet. I call. I am scared of my baby flush. I think I am up against a higher flush.
1. Curious to see what you all thought my opponent had. 2. I do not think a re-raise was in order on the turn. Is the check-call ok on the river, or do I come out firing.
I'll post results later - Probably tomorrow. Thanks, Tim
Hi Tim!
Pre-flop you got a free play in your big blind against 5 opponents.
On the flop I am assuming that you flopped a Spade flush draw and not a Spade flush. The "4" I assume to be a non-Spade. You bet your flush draw into 5 opponents and got two callers. I don't like betting flush draws into a large number of opponents unless I have some over cards or other drawing possibilities to go with it. I am not interested in getting raised and having to pay more money to pursue my draw, especially when it is not to the nuts. Reduce the number of opponents to fewer than 4, I would bet because I could win the pot outright given that board and I still have my draw if I am called or raised. If on the other hand, you flopped a made flush then by all means bet it vigorously because your hand is vulnerable to being outdrawn by someone with a big Spade and you want to make them pay to play.
On the turn, I assume the "10" is not a Spade. You have now picked up an open ended straight draw plus your flush draw. This is about 15 outs (9 Spades plus 6 Non-Spade straight cards). You have only two opponents plus the turn card is a Ten which is an over card to the flop. I like your bet under these circumstances because your opponents may fear you have a pair of Tens beating their pair plus you have a lot of outs if they call or raise. When raised, I would assume the raiser is not on a draw but rather has a made hand like two pair. Of course you call and are heads-up.
On the river, I would bet figuring that my Spade flush was good given only one opponent who raised on the turn.
I put the raiser on a Tx maybe an 8-T. Turn call OK. I think you missed a bet on the river, you should have bet or check raised. If you bet and he raises then you just call.
You probably just missed one big bet - an hours work for some guys.
guy has 2 pair. i bet 10's and 8's. check raise the river. he'll bet and call with his 2 pair.
you're right about the turn. i'd reraise a 15 outer on the flop or on the turn with position. not on the turn out of position.
sorry again about just missing you in ny. we'll have to catch the jazz club sometime.
scott
Thanks folks for your responses. Jim, I mulled over the betting on the flop for a while. Since this game was so passive, I did not really fear a raise, and since my flush draw was so small, I wanted to try to get out others. On the other hand, in thinking about it more - who would drop a 4 flush on the flop? Duh. Live and learn, but again, I did not fear a raise, and Rounders "Good things happen when you bet" adage was going on in my head.....
The raiser had a set of Tens.
Scott - Sorry we missed each other too - I'll be back there at the end of Sept, and probably spending a lot of time in Manhattan. Try to see you then....
Rounder - I agree with your advice. I think my largest ongoing error is not being agressive enough... I am ususally fairly agressive, but I think I fall short sometimes, which costs me some bets... I'll get there!
Thanks again folks...
Best Wishes for a great New Year, Tim
Passive when you don't have a hand and aggressive when you do. :-)
Tim, I see you posted the results about an hour ago after getting responses from Rounder, Jim Brier, and scott, so I will give you my 2 cents worth before I look at their comments and the results.
I like the bet on the flop. You have 5 opponents, and a draw to the flush. Gives you a chance to get some money into the pot if you hit, disguises your hand a bit, and puts pressure on the overcards.
Turn bet is automatic. You have now picked up the open-end draw in addition to the flush. Raise puts a crimp into things though. I would not re-raise heads-up. You are likely looking at at least A-T, or even a set, and a re-raise from you is unlikely going to get the opponent to fold.
On the river, I would bet out. You can't be sure that he will bet, but once you check and he bets, I would check-raise. If you get re-raised by the A-T of spades, congratulate him and move on. I would not expect to see that type of hand because you probably would have been raised on the flop by a big spade draw hand.
Greetings,
Here is a hand I played recently where I think i played it correctly but wasn't sure.
I call on the button w/ AJo 5 others see the flop w/me.
The flop comes J 8 8 rainbow. Check, check, bet call raise to me. I call i understand the raiser may have trips but there is a very good chance I hgave the best hand. the initial bettor calls and 3 see the turn.
The turn is another 8, now I'm pretty sure i have the best hand though I may be splitting the pot. (He may have an 8 but I thought that very unlikely and i didn't want a K or Q to draw for cheap.)
The action went check bet and i raised. call and the bettor reraised. I thought about folding and now wished I hadn't raised. I called and the other palyer folded.
The river was the Q but considering the size of the pot a mistake would be catastrophic so i called and saw the last 8.
Seems I have gotten into troulbe thinking it was very unlikey someone had a particular hand , and it turned out he did...
Here is another example: (I won't give allthe details but I have A J Q 8 in the BB in O/8 the flop comes A J J and then two low cards fall. after check calling the flop and betting the turn and nto getting raised and then it got capped on the river after I iniatially bet I called 3 bets to see AA).
Seems most of the time in these situations one is better off playing aggressively as possible or am I playing too riskily?
Thanks in advance.
Yeah the 88 on the flop would slow me down a lot. You hit the flop and played it OK the turn was hard to play and I think I would have played it the same as you did BUT you could have raised pre flop on the unraised button with AJo it may have cleared out the junk that beat you.
Similar hand: Last night I had KK raised with 4 callers. Flop 877 - I bet no raises so I think I am clear of trip 7's turn is another 7 I an certain I have the best of it now so I raise the pot with 1 caller. River is a 2 - check to me I bet and am raised - what is going on here? - I reraise - she hits me back so I call. I call full house 7's full of K's she shows 88 for 8's full of 7's. This old battle ax slow played her full house on the flop and turn - fooled me all to hell. Oh well that's poker.
I dont think the raise preflop w/ AJo will get rid of anyone except maybe the blinds...(It certinaly wouldn't have clear out the 89s ) A pb with a raise in late position is it hardly ever gets rid of anyone. I think a raise is good if it is AJs but off suit I usuaully dont'. TOo tight?
Thanks for the response.
Not raising with AJo on the button is not too tight IF you are certain everyone will see the flop anyway.
You probably should have three bet the flop. You had position, and this would have likely driven out the overcards. If you are reraised, then you have a decision to make - it certainly helps to know your player here.
If the player just calls you, you still need to proceed cautiously on the turn, especially if the 8 doesn't come. You have set yourself up to be trapped with the additional aggression on the flop, so I would tend to check behind my opponent if he checked to me on the turn.
When the 8 falls though, its hard to avoid losing chips here. If your opponent checks to you, its way too conservative to check. The most likely scenario is he calls and then tries to check raise on the river. If he bets into you, you're just going to lose two more big bets. Tough to avoid.
I do not think that raising before the flop would have helped you in this particular case. With that many players already in the pot, if you raise it should not be with the objective of limiting the field. Its not going to happen.
Good luck.
Recently took a short trip to lake tahoe and wound up playing 2-6 spread limit at Harvey's casino.
As far as the structure, the rake is the same as atlantic city casinos but the limit is 2-6 on every round. this effectively makes the game much bigger than 2-4 and somewhat bigger than 3-6.
There was only 2-6 holdem at low limits. (As an aside, there was also 1-5 stud but I did't play it very long.) My observations on the holdem were based on about 12 hours play.
My observations regarding the strength of the competition: There are many local regulars who are fairly strong players at tahoe. it was fairly easy to pick them out after playing with them for a while and starting up some conversation. One local (who plays very well) told me that the games are very tight during the week when only the locals are there! Fortunately, this was a weekend and it was crowded so there were plenty of weak players. My estimation was that there were an average of 2-3 very bad players and 3-4 weak-tight players in the game at any given time. There always seemed to be at least one competent player at the table at all times (other than me). All the competent locals pretty much bet 6$ all the time so it was more like straight 6$ limit holdem than spread limit.
There were some hands that stood out:
First hand: I get AA in the BB (blinds 1+2). Two limpers plus the SB call, I raise the full 6$. I want any caller to be making as big a mistake as possible by calling. The button and the SB call. Flop is Q 10 4 with two spades. I know the loose player on the button will call to the end with any draw no matter what. SB checks and I bet 6$. button calls and SB folds.
Turn is offsuit 3. I bet 6 and he calls.
River is a K, no flush. I somehow know that I am now beat so I check. Sure enough button bets 6 and I am forced to call. He has K10. Although he beat me on this particular hand, I played it correctly - I charged him the maximum possible to draw at his 5-outer. Those are the breaks - and I'd do it again.
Second hand: I have KK in the BB. 6 players limp and I raise the full 6$. five players call.
Flop is Ks Qs Jc. I like flopping a set but I hate the straight and flush draws against me! SB bets 2$ and I raise to 8$. To my dismay, four people call! I hope my hand holds up!
Turn is an ugly 10d. SB bets 6$. I am certain that he must have an ace, probably AK or AQ. He is a pretty good player but has not always raised with these hands. I am certainly beat for now and may even get raised again and possibly reraised if more than one player has an ace. I just call the 6$ and decide to see what my pot odds are when it gets back to me. I do have ten outs to make a boat or quads, and the pot is big, so I will probably be going to the bloody end on this one! No one raises but two other players call. My read is that one or both has a flush draw.
The river is the beautiful Ks, giving me quads. I bet 6$ again. Neither of my opponents raises but both call. SB folds. Before I laid my hand down he says "pocket kings" (looking at me) then throws his own hand in saying "AQ". Let me just say that there is at least one local regular who is a great card reader! To both our surprise, one of the other players has an ace! Why he didn't raise the turn is beyond me! the other player had made his small spade flush.
third hand: I get KK again in middle position. I raise to 8$ after two limpers. Loose player on button calls, SB calls, both others call.
Flop is 10 5 2 rainbow. SB bets 6$ and I raise to 12. Button cold calls, other player folds, SB calls.
Turn is 3, no flush possible. SB checks, I bet, button calls, SB folds.
River is the Qh. I get a pretty clear read that the button has just made two pair, so I check. Sure enough he bets. I actually considered folding, but he has bluffed before so I have to call due to the size of the pot. Button has Q10 and made two pair on the river. Once again I played it right and charged my opponents the maximum to try and draw out on me. Only problem is they sometimes get there anyway.... I know if I made this play many, many times I would make lots of money in the long run, which is the real objective of playing winning poker.
Overall I would say it is probably not worth going all the way to tahoe just to play at harvey's, but if you happen to be there anyway, perhaps you should check it out!
Comments welcome.
Dave in Cali
Dave
Have attended 3 Sierra poker classics for ~3 days each time and action was nearly identical to what you describe. What has changed is comps/or lack there off. No more casino rates on rooms and food accumulates at .25$/hr. Formerly was a good bargain but I suspect lack of competition has played a role in decreasing fringe benefits. Best of luck, Gary
Loose/passive (seemed to be when I was watching the game from the rail) nine-handed $4-8. I am on the button with 77. UTG folds, everyone calls, I raise to build pot in case I hit. SB folds, BB calls, everyone else calls.
(I had just joined the table and was not familiar with any of the players)
Flop is 6s Qd 7c. BB bets, three callers, I raise. BB reraises, one caller, I cap it, both call.
Turn is 10d; two diamonds on board. BB bets, player between us folds, I raise, BB reraises, I call.
River is 5s. BB checks, I bet, he raises, I call.
BB turns over 8s 9s for the straight. Why he reraised on the flop with that I'll never know I had put him on AQ or 67.
Did I play too aggressively...am I gonna get killed if I keep playing like this? Should I have just check-called on the turn and river? And is there any way I could have known I was beat? Thanks in advance
You raise with a hand like 77 "in case I hit" and you wonder what the guy with 89s is raising for?
Did I play too aggressively...am I gonna get killed if I keep playing like this? Answer is yes - aggressive is good but controlled aggression - you were guilty of looking at what you had not what the others had, when entering a game it is prudent to see a few hands before getting into full war mode - I like to see 20 hands and play very few before that - sets me up as a tight player and I get a good look at the opposition.
Q: Should I have just check-called on the turn and river?
A: call the turn and check call the river.
Q: And is there any way I could have known I was beat?
A: Since you didn't know this guy he could have had QQ (that is what I would have put him on if you had not told us the result) in the hole and not reraised preflop. He may have put you on AA KK AK - who knows. Good to know the opposition I think it is very important part of winning poker.
sucker,
I would have put the BB on a set of sixes, or possible straight draw if he is very aggressive. From his betting on the flop, I would not think he had AQ, otherwise he would have raised preflop. It's possible that he had 67, but since you had two sevens with one on the board it's not a likely holding. The queens are very unlikely, otherwise he would have raised.
On the turn I would have called his bet since the other player dropped and it appeared that the completed straight did not worry him (did he hesitate at all or did he come charging). Then if he bet on the river, I would have called.
The way I see it is the straight becomes more of a likely hand on the turn, and now you are drawing for a full house to beat him. If you did make a full house on the river I would bet and/or reraise depending on what he did.
The anti-hero was in the Big Blind. From this position, many players wouldn't raise with AQ or even QQ's, especially with all the pre-flop callers. Many, maybe most, players would cold call the raise from the big blind and hope to hit big on the flop.
Big Blind could have also been playing 66's, 67s, or even Q6s/Q7s, given all the pre-flop calling, and possibly even KK's.
Of all the possible hands, the only ones that beat the hero are QQ and 89. I would have raised the turn as you did, and if re-raised then I might slow down on the river. When I raise pre-flop with 77's (something I would rarely do), and flop my set I'm not going to slow down on the turn.
PRC
I made my conclusions on the BB and I'll stick to them unless some expert says I'm wrong. A person this agressive on the flop would be three betting QQ and AQ preflop.
Yes, I'll agree it's possible he could have called a raise preflop with Q6s, but I'll say the Q7 and 67 are unlikely (if you do the math you will see why I say this).
I agree that the re-raise on the flop by the BB is a stinker to figure, with his draw, making it two bets to those behind him. When he comes out betting on the turn after you had capped the flop, is when I might back off with the raise, just call. He was definitely aggressive, and capable of a check-raise, also. I'm sure you will know him better next time.
I agree with an earlier post that you should have know the players better before jamming the pot, especially after the turn. After the flop, there are 14 big bets in the pot (plus the small blind post). Had you smooth-called the turn, your pot odds are 14:1. But since you raised the BB's turn bet and got re-raised, you reduced your pot odds in half! When the BB bet the turn, I think you should have offered some respect and just called.
The BB sounds like a good player who raises after the flop with the nut straight draw so you don't put him on a draw. He jams the turn because he made the nut, and he has you pegged because he was able to check-raise the river (you may not have known him, but it seems he knew you'd bet into him on the river.) His river check was great because he presents a fear of the 567 straight draw.
I would not have put him on a set given the way he lead the betting on the flop and turn. Q6, Q7, and 67 don't sound right either. 89 fits though. You should not have known with complete certainty that you were beat, but you certainly should have known that you were facing a big hand, not 2 pair. Nevertheless, after the turn there are 20 big bets in the pots and your only drawing to 4:1 against for a full-house. So you had hang and pay him off regardless.
Properly played...hard luck.
>>>Loose/passive (seemed to be when I was watching the game from the rail) nine-handed $4-8. I am on the button with >>>77. UTG folds, everyone calls, I raise to build pot in case I hit. SB folds, BB calls, everyone else calls.
I don't really agree with the build the pot logic... By putting this extra money in the pot you are giving a lot of post flop draws pot odds to call. I think you are actually increasing the likelihood of being drawn out on if you do hit and throwing money into a pot you are not likely to win against this many callers. Unless I can seriously thin the field with this raise I just call. Also the raise leaks information I don't wan to leak against 8 callers.
>>>(I had just joined the table and was not familiar with any of the players) >>>Flop is 6s Qd 7c. BB bets, three callers, I raise. BB reraises, one caller, I cap it, both call.
Honestly I would put him on the str8 draw when he bets. If he has trips he probably wants to get a checkraise in here (or some folks like to slowplay them). When he reraises I think he is trying to slow you down on the turn if he misses. Your preflop raise and aggressive play here have to be screaming trips to this guy.
>>>Turn is 10d; two diamonds on board. BB bets, player between us folds, I raise, BB reraises, I call.
So he is completely unafraid of the str8 that just came out and he bets into you... I have to put him on the str8 here with QQ a distant second. Again he has to know you have a set at this point so what else makes sense for him to bet with?
>>>River is 5s. BB checks, I bet, he raises, I call.
>>>BB turns over 8s 9s for the straight. Why he reraised on the flop with that I'll never know I had put him on AQ or 67.
On the flop he had an open ended draw to the nut str8 (as well as a backdoor flush possibility) and he can feel pretty confident that he knows what you hold (some set or an overpair as a second). I think putting him on AQ or 67 is probably a mistake, if he has any sense he is afraid you have trips and neither of these hands has much hope of drawing out on your trips. Even if he gets the boat he has to be afraid that you have a bigger one. With the str8 draw he has 8 outs to the nuts (and the backdoor flush) and he knows with the amount in the pot you will have to call him down if he makes it, if he misses he can fold. You are married to the hand at this point but he will KNOW if and when he needs to get off of it.
>>>Did I play too aggressively...am I gonna get killed if I keep playing like this? Should I have just check-called on the >>>turn and river? And is there any way I could have known I was beat? Thanks in advance
I probably just call preflop, depends on the game. I like your reraise on the flop, but when he three bets I would slow down. I think I check call the turn and call the bet on the end. Especially on the river your bet does not make sense to me... he is only going to call (or raise) if he has you beat at this point.
Of course I have the benefit of hindsight here but I would be very afraid of the str8 in this hand.
Sean
There is a certain type of aggressive player, who does not like being raised, and re-raised. This player might be one of those. He says, if you want to gamble, let's gamble. With his draw to the nuts, it's probable that he jammed with his hand, on the come.
Ok,
I play at a table that usually has around 4-8 players on it. $5/10 holdem. The games are absolutley nuts to say the least. about 80% of the players are habitual bluffers. Normally this is a good thing.. but not when you're the only noe that isnt at the table. I normally wouldnt even play in these conditions.. but I work there so I have to.
Anyways.. my point is, this is an insane game and it is very,very difficut to make any profit here. I will give you to very typical hands at one of these games. I need all of you to give me your honest opinion as to how to play in games like this.. here goes:
1) On the Big Blind. 5 way game. Dealt Q4. The Big-big bluffer who we'll call Al, raises. everyone calls (alot of the time there is even a re-raise after that!)to me, I fold. Same thing happens on small blind... I fold. Thats $8 right down the drain in a matter of a minute. Its just about capped all the way to the end, only to real all of 3 players have nothing but Q or A High. Other %50 of the time, they have something decent, usually caught on the turn or river.
2) On the button with we'll say QJs. Al of course enters with his raise, maybe another raise behind him, 3-5 callers. So now its to me and its $15 to get in now. Of course.. Call. Flop comes out 2-8-5 Rainbow. Terrible flop, right? Well, apparently not?? Its capped before it even gets to me. Of course I fold. Same thing.. sometimes theye have great hands, sometimes they all have nothing at all. But either way they Raise,raise,raise the whole way.
This is making me pull my hair out.. But what can I do? How do I play this?
Thanks, Kman
K-man you need to read the "Wild Games" chapter in HPFAP-99 on how to play in these games. Basically the advice is to limit your play to AA,KK,QQ, and AK suited when you know every pot will get capped pre-flop and on the flop. Now this advice assumes a full table. It sounds like you are in a shorthanded game most of the time with less than 8 players. I would then add AK, AQ suited, and maybe AQ. You may want to throw in JJ although this could be dangerous if you are constantly facing 3 or 4 opponents. After having said all this, I would add:
1. If you play the recommended way you will not be playing very many hands and it will be very obvious to your opponents. If this is a home game there may be some social problems emerging.
2. In shorthanded games you are putting up a lot more blinds and frequently playing facing a lot more raises. Many players find themselves playing marginal hands to keep from being shut out of the game altogether. This increases your variance greatly and does little for your expectation.
3. You may want to seriously consider playing in another game.
I used to play in a game very similar to this. One of the things that worked for me was playing any pair and see the flop. I usually didn't have to worry about oversets because my game was not raising with AA, KK, QQ. With those hands they'd sit back and trap you.
You have described the absolute maniac game from hell. No matter what you do, your variance in this game will be VERY high compared to a reasonably normal ring game. You must play premium hands only when calling three or four bets BTF. You have to severely punish the maniacs when you get a good hand since you will lose so much $$ seeing the flop and then having to fold the rest of the time. No matter what you do, this game will probably be difficult to beat and frustrating. If you have the huevos to withstand the rollercoaster ride, and you read the wild games material, and you play with extreme patience and discipline, you can probably beat the game. But if you could find and easier game you will probably have a much better expectation. In my opinion the best "maniac" games to play in are the ones with 8 fairly typical players, ONE maniac, and one open seat for you. With several maniacs in the game it becomes much more difficult to decide what to do.... At any rate, I
Good luck
d
You have described the absolute maniac game from hell. No matter what you do, your variance in this game will be VERY high compared to a reasonably normal ring game.
You must play premium hands only when calling three or four bets BTF. You have to severely punish the maniacs when you get a good hand since you will lose so much $$ seeing the flop and then having to fold the rest of the time.
No matter what you do, this game will probably be difficult to beat and frustrating. If you have the huevos to withstand the rollercoaster ride, and you read the wild games material, and you play with extreme patience and discipline, you can probably beat the game. But if you could find and easier game you will probably have a much better expectation.
In my opinion the best "maniac" games to play in are the ones with 8 fairly typical players, ONE maniac, and one open seat for you. With several maniacs in the game it becomes much more difficult to decide what to do....
At any rate, I FEEL YOUR PAIN MAN!!!!!
Good luck
Dave in Cali
I've been lurking for several months and have benefitted greatly from the give and take.
I have been playing $5-$10 in AC for several months and have done pretty well. I feel I could also beat the $10-20 but have a limited bankroll and am worried about hitting a bad streak right off. My question is, should I play $10-$20 and limit my exposure to the increased variance by curtailing the types of hands I play? My plan would be to play fewer small pairs up front, play fewer suited connectors, and continue after the flop only on strong draws and top pair, good kicker stuff. I feel if I play my regular game without these hands I will increase my bankroll faster than playing my full game at half the limits.
Comments?
If you are a solid winning player, I don't believe you have to vary your play too much in going from $5-$10 to $10-$20. The big difference you may notice is that in the bigger game, more pots may get raised pre-flop and there will be fewer players taking the flop. When this is the case, then your observation about pairs and suited connectors is a good one. On the flop, while I think you may be correct in not leading without top pair or a quality draw, I think it will be frequently correct to call with middle or bottom pair and perhaps an over card if the pot was raised pre-flop and it only costs you one bet to see the turn. Furthermore, if you are in a shorthanded pot, you should frequently lead with middle pair or a good draw since you have a reasonable chance of winning the pot outright plus you have outs when you are called.
With regard to bankroll, if you are a winning player I think you need a playing bankroll of around 5 grand for $10-$20 and I would have a session bankroll of about $500 to $1000. Now you can get by with less than 5 grand if you are willing to drop back to $5-$10 if you start running bad. In Mason Malmuth's book, "Gambling Theory and Other Topics", he has an excellent discussion of bankroll requirements for various limits. I strongly recommend that you purchase this book.
Todd,
The thoughtful game you describe sounds like a winner except for the pairs it is a similar game I play and regurally beat 4-8 to 10-20 games 8.2 times out of 10.
I put a higher value on small pairs and Axs than most and less on mid/small suited cards coupled or not.
My thinking is flopping a monster or near monster for 1 or 2 sb's is a great way to make a huge pot. As far a I am concerned a set of 2's - 8's is as good as a set of anything else and is real easy to get away from if youdon't flop to it. If the board pairs your in for a full house - now that is the way I like to play poker - all the best in your new limit.
I still have trouble justifing moving up when the action and money is so good at the lower limit in the house I spend most of my time in. I am lookng to do the 15-30 thing later in the year but I am the sort of guy who likes the softest seat he can find.
You should not tighten up your game JUST because you wish to go up in limit - you should play every game (no matter what limit) according to the character of the game. It is true that the games tend to get more aggressive and somewhat tighter when you go up in limit, so perhaps tightening up is correct for that reason. However, I have played a bunch of poker in AC, and sometimes the 3-6 games (especially at trop) are so tight you can hear them squeak, while the 10-20 games are loose lucy. There is a large variation in the types of games found in AC. The type of game you are in should be your reason for playing tight/loose, not your bankroll or lack thereof.... If you are playing tight just because you have moved up in limit with a small bankroll then you are not playing optimal poker. I think Jim's comments about bankroll are right on the $$ and you should read Gambling Theory pronto if you have not already....
Dave in Cali
Todd:
You have actually hit upon a formula first proposed by David Sklansky. That is when playing a bigger game on a small bankroll play a little tighter than what you think is correct. This way you reduce your win rate a little, reduce your fluctuations a lot, but still win more in the long run than you would at the smaller game.
However, from your post you may be making a mistake as to exactly where you are tightening up. Giving up on some of the marginal hands before the flop makes sense in the situation that you describe. But giving up later in the hand, on the flop and beyond might prove too costly. For example, suppose you are in the blind, get a free play, flop top pair but don't have the greatest kicker. Quickly giving up here can easily cost you the whole pot and could be a major mistake. Of course if the action indicates that you should do so then that is another matter.
Good luck. Let us know how you do.
Mason Malmuth wrote: You have actually hit upon a formula first proposed by David Sklansky. That is when playing a bigger game on a small bankroll play a little tighter than what you think is correct. This way you reduce your win rate a little, reduce your fluctuations a lot, but still win more in the long run than you would at the smaller game
First proposed by David Sklansky? I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. Poker players have been doing this for years. Sklansky is not the first nor will he be the last to come up with this kind of idea. Obviously a person jumping up to twice the limit will play conservatively at first...especially on a limited bankroll. It's no different than staying at the same limit after a long dry spell. You cut down your variance and for the most part stick to the big pairs and big suited cards in multiways. I think your books are pretty decent but don't give yourselves too much credit.
The variance will occur no matter how tight you play. A bad streak of cards is much more than just a run of crappy starting hands. A truly bad streak of cards hits you by giving you second best hand over and over again. You can play tight as you want, a bad run of cards is irrelevant to your style of play. It's just a bad run of cards.
If you don't have the bankroll for a higher limit game don't play it because playing tighter or not will not change the chance of losing a lot of money in a bad streak.
natedogg
Post deleted at author's request.
All tolled I'm ahead $2600. at the 5-10 game. I started with 2000 so I guess I would consider my bankroll to be around $4000-$5000. I had thought if I tried 10-20 and hit a cold streak, I'd go back to 5-10 with 3000.
Post deleted at author's request.
Thanks Gary, sincerely.
I think your analysis of my situation is one of the most perceptive things I've ever read here. I won't move up till I know I can play my game, win or lose.
Thanks again.
This is a hand I played a week or so ago, I'm not convinced I haven't missed something in my thinking so I thought I'd see what you guys think.
4-8 Hold'em. I'm in middle position and limp in with QJs. 6 players see the flop. Flop is AKQ rainbow. It's checked to me, I bet, it's folded to the Button who raises, remaining players fold, I call. Turn is a K. I check, Button bets. I think for a moment and call. River is a blank, I check, Button bets, I call.
My thinking on the turn is that the Button likely has an A, possibly a Q but I'm fairly certain he doesn't have a K, AQ, or JT.
Assuming I'm correct about what the Button is likely holding, should I call the turn bet? How much should the small possibility of him having a Q affect my decision to call?
Is 8 big bets a sufficient size pot to justify calling at the end on the small chance he had a Q?
The decisions on the turn and river seem marginal to me, is there something I'm missing that makes these decisions more clearly correct or incorrect?
Pre-flop you limped in with Queen-Jack suited after other players limped in ahead of you. This is fine. Six of you took the flop.
Once the flop comes you need to realize a few things. It is highly coordinated and incredibly dangerous. All you have is bottom pair and a gutshot straight draw. Furthermore, even if a Ten comes you could easily be splitting the pot with someone else who has a Jack. If a Jack comes you have two pair but you could be behind if anyone has a Ten. Someone could also have a higher two pair and not have raised pre-flop. Don't fooled by the fact that some of the players checked to you. Betting into this flop is a very bad play with your hand especially with 5 opponents. You should simply check. At this point the pot is small with only 6 bets in it. You don't want to bet and get raised. When you bet and it gets raised there are 9 bets in the pot and it costs you one bet to see the turn. You are now in a tough spot. You called and took the turn heads-up.
A King on the turn does not help your hand. I think you should fold because your chances of improvement are slim. At this point there are 12 small bets in the pot and it costs you 2 bets to continue. I would fold. Not only are you badly beaten right now but you could hit a card on the river and still lose.
If he has an Ace you are badly beaten and I don't understand how you can be confident that he doesn't have a King. I think your decisions on the turn and river were bad but I believe your most serious mistake was betting the flop and getting lured into this hand in the first place once the flop came.
Thanks for your comments, they are helpful (as usual).
Point taken on the flop bet.
Clearly if there is any kind of chance he's got a King my call on the turn is horrible. To be honest I had no concrete reason for being confident he didn't have a King, it was just a feeling. That the feeling was correct is perhaps not enough.
This flop has you dominated in so many ways and your outs are thin..pot size not that big **fold** when you see the King hit the turn.
Best of it !!
MJ
I noticed on Abdul's page he values AA as 4 times the blinds. I would assume he would then advise not to raise the blinds out but to call. If this is correct, what other hands should you limp in on the button or 1 right of the button with rather than try for a steal?
Depends on what type of players are in the blinds.
MJ
Rounder and Gary Carson
although abdul has some interesting theories you cannot use this as a guide. If i have a player who seems to be defending his blind more than normal, I'm going to raise it. further if you are in late posistion, when you raise you are more likely to be on a steal, so when you actually have aa, you should be raising them. you have to be balancing the math with psychology. seeya
Post deleted at author's request.
I tend to agree with what al just said.
If the game is so tight that an early or middle position raise is likely to steal the blinds then a limp-reraise try may be worth it. However in very late position it will just look suspicious in that type of game so better to raise and hope someone puts you on a weaker hand stealing.
I think the major alternative to this limp-reraise strategy is just to find for more hands to raise with initially.
Also in the games I play in ( 15-30 in CA ) the strategy is not required.
D.
Okay, I'd like to take one more stab at this perennial subject. I'd specifically like to hear some responses from David Sklansky, Mason, Ray Zee, Abdul, and Gary on this, as well as anyone else who wants to chime in.
The question is this: If you have Aces, how many opponents are optimal?
My position has always been that the more callers you get, the more money you will make, provided they pay as many bets as possible. In other words, you'd rather have 3 opponents paying 2 bets than six opponents paying one, but you'd even more like to have six opponents paying two bets.
Or more simply, let's say you raise UTG with your aces. What's the most number of callers you want to see? My answer is nine.
Dan I think it has to depend upon what kinds of hands these callers will cold-call a raise with. If I had pocket rockets I would love to have all my opponents have big slick or big chick or KQ or AJ. I will have them so badly dominated that my chances of winning are excellent. On the other hand, suppose all nine opponents have a different pocket pair? I will be playing a two outer the vast majority of the time. Suppose they all have suited connectors? There are a lot of "collective outs" against me. Ironically, the truth may be that your EV might be higher against a table full of solid players in this situation than against a table full of loose geese who will call with any pocket pair, any connector, any suited hand, etc. as long as the whole flock is coming in. But of course I believe you will win money regardless.
Jim,
It took me over two hours to check out your answer as I got pulled away to do battle with my wife's HMO.
Anyway, if your opponents will play any two cards then I still want them all in there. After all, aces flop big sets and fill up like any other pair. Plus they will always be the best two pair if an board pairs a card no one has. Then throuw in your four flushes to either of your aces.
I also agree that you will be in even better shape if the majority of the field has high cards. Then you dominate. and will get action. But this would likely occur if you raised UTG then got a bunch of semi-rational callers (which would be a freak). And the later postions would have the odd ball cards which could hurt you (such as 65s).
I'm sure one could set up a poker probe were aces are almost dead. But that is of academic interest only.
Regards.
Rick
Post deleted at author's request.
Gary,
I agree completely.
However, in Jim's post I could imagine an unusual/freak case against decent opponents where you would completely dominate the early cold callers with hands like KQs, AK and so on then be a little vulnerable to the smaller suited connectors that would correctly play in back due to the size of the field. It would be so rare that I don't ever intend to go into the math or logic much further :-).
Regards,
Rick
Dan,
I won't look at Jim's answer yet.
You asked: "Or more simply, let's say you raise UTG with your aces. What's the most number of callers you want to see? My answer is nine."
I want eight callers since if I had nine callers there would be some sort of misdeal as in Los Angeles we only seat nine players to a table. Also I would prefer the betting get capped pre flop.
Sorry to disagree this time since I usually like your thinking -;).
Regards,
Rick
It depends on the table - solid players I want as many as possible - AA dominates pairs and premium hands. Loose table I want 2 or 3 - don't like all the collective outs shooting at my PAIR of A's.
I know I am in a minority here but I am swayed by my NL HE tournament experiences.
Post deleted at author's request.
All theory aside, I would want no more than 2 loose callers. If the table is tight, maybe 3 tight callers.
I don't have to inform anyone on this forum that aces win small pots and lose big ones unless you snag another ace.
Post deleted at author's request.
X
i agree with you and rick even though you two seem to disagree.
scott
how much standard deviation can you take?
While a case can be made for low-variance play, you'd better make real sure that your quest for low variance doesn't cut into your EV too much.
Aces and kings make up a significant chunk of your overall winnings. You should strive to maximize the profit from these hands. Any attempt to play them 'conservatively' is misguided, IMO.
yes, but i meant in a general sort of way, if you raise under the gun and everyone calls, is this the sort of game you want to be in?
Post deleted at author's request.
It would be instructive if someone runs some simulations on this question taking one ace out of the deck.
David,
I'll give it a try. Right now I'm surfing this website, about to write an email, litstening to some MP3s, and will try to run this on Poker Probe in the background under DOS. If I still have a machine left I'll get back to you with the results.
Regards,
Rick
David,
I just ran 1 million hands using Poker Probe. The game is ten handed and I took the ace of hearts out of the deck. The hand was two black aces and all of the other nine hands were random (i.e., redealt each hand). Since it was run in a DOS emulation window, I couldn't easily cut and paste the charts here (I know it can be done, I'm just too tired to figure it out).
Here are the numbers:
AcAs wins 25.77 % of the time.
Each of the other nine hands win 8.25% of the time.
I hope you find this of help. The aces did better then I thought with one ace removed. If memory serves me, they should win about 32% of the time without the ace taken out. I may run another probe and post it if I'm still up.
BTW, Caro's Probe ran flawlessly under DOS and didn't cause my MP3 player to hiccup once while I was also doing email. I wish I could say the same about many Windows programs.
Regards,
Rick
David,
I just ran one hundred thousand hands using Poker Probe. The game is ten handed. The hand was two black aces and all of the other nine hands were random (i.e., redealt each hand).
Here are the numbers:
AcAs wins 31.25 % of the time.
Each of the other nine hands win about 7.65 % of the time.
I might try it with both aces taken out of the deck and see what happens. Insomnia has its upside.
Regards,
Rick
David,
I just ran one hundred thousand hands using Poker Probe. The game is ten handed. The hand was two black aces and all of the other nine hands were random (i.e., redealt each hand). This time both the red aces were removed from the deck.
Here are the numbers:
AcAs wins 19.57 % of the time.
Each of the other nine hands win about 8.90 % of the time.
Once again, this is better than I expected. Could Dan Hanson and Gary Carson be right ;) ?
Regards,
Rick (who never complains when he gets aces cracked)
Post deleted at author's request.
Gary,
But what about a nine handed game :-) ?
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Years ago I remember a hand where a guy reraised my UTG aces out of the small blind and I had capped. We both knew we had to have high pairs or high cards to play this way. Anyway the flop came all small with two of my suit. The turn comes small again except now I have a three flush. We put in about ten raises on the turn. On the river I made my nut flush and got one more raise in. The guy went nuts and threw the cards at me. What did he expect? Anyway, I guess we agree on this one. But regarding Mason's play of the 4d 4c ...
But of course!
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Dan, since the percentages for aces are based on the hands being played to the river, then if you were up against 8-9 players everytime, you would have to play to the river to maintain profitability. Since this isn't going to happen in the real world I'm guessing that roughly half the amount of players is actually optimal for aces in the real world. 4-5 callers no math, simply logic. if it's flawed..... i'm listening. seeya
I don't think that idea holds for AA. For other hands where you need to make something more almost for sure it will be less clear to see the turn and river but it will be pretty easy to see the river on those hands you can win.
D.
Post deleted at author's request.
I agree with this advice from Gary. The fact that you can sometimes lay them down correctly makes them more profitable than the hot and cold sims indicate IMO.
dan, the funny thing about this crazy game is that things change from one street to the next. the odds say that aces wii stand up well against multiple players, yet when the flop comes you might not want them in there.i think aces would be the only hand where you would want many players in pre-flop.seeya
It occurs to me that if you want alot of players in against you with aces, then you must play to the river everytime to let the percentages workout for you. you would be the bettor until someone else shows strength, and then passively call. if you don't do this(andwho is going to), then you want fewer players against you which would probablybe about half as many, so 4-5 players is probably optimal.seeya
This doesn't make any sense to me. Could you elaborate?
flop 678 , 2 hearts, you hold AsAc. you bet, raise , raise, raise. sure , you might fill up, accounting for a certain percentage of win with AA.
Brad,
Obviously I'm on Dan's side here despite my tounge in cheek reference to only wanting eight opponents (since we only seat nine).
Pre-flop I'm willing to gamble with them. That doesn't mean that I will go the river with them every time when I have heavy heat, multiple opponents and a very unfavorable flop.
I remember David Sklansky saying during a seminar at the Commerce a few years back that the typical aspiring 6/12 player in California probably makes more from a medium pair than aces. He was implying that medium skilled players just don't know when to lay down aces. But almost all top players make more from aces then any other hand.
Regards,
Rick
im just elaborating why a few less players might be better, in relation to the percentage of aces holding up when going to the river. obviuosly you dont go to river here. ( so % would be less than theoretical, right?).
I'm still not getting you. If some players fold before the river, then the chance of winning with AA goes up. If Aces fold before the river, it's usually because they are drawing dead, or very thin. Pocket aces are not a hand that you typically are going to fold incorrectly unless you play pretty badly.
In the real world, the hidden nature of an overpair with Aces means it's more likely that your opponents will make errors against you, rather than the other way around. So any real-world situation should favor Aces even more as compared to a sim.
Aces only do worse than the sim if you're a weak-tight moron who raises before the flop and then folds to a bet every time there's a threatening board.
Quite frankly, if I have red aces and the flop comes Tc9c8c I am going to be relatively disattached to my aces, unless the pot is SO huge that there are pot odds for pairing the board AND spiking a set..
But you don't think you would fold those red aces for one bet? Curious.. this is a hand where I *usually* bet and fold at the first raise..
M.
The answer, as always, is 'it depends'. It's not a certainly that someone has a straight on an 89T flop. More likely, if you face a raise you are up against two pair, an open-ended strait, a hand like TJ, AT, JJ, etc.
When the pot is large, it's important to be able to figure out where you stand, because Aces have a lot of outs against two pair (5 on the flop, 8 on the turn), and folding incorrectly in a big pot is a large error.
So this is one of those judgement calls. If you are ALWAYS betting into the field and then throwing away your aces for a raise with a flop like this, you're playing them way too tight. Don't players in your game raise for free cards? Wouldn't a player raise with AT, TJ, 9T, 78s? Make sure you're drawing thin or dead before you lay down Aces in a large raised pot.
I you don't go to the river with Aces, you better have a very scary board, probably a 4 card straigt, 4 card flush, or 2 pair on the turn, with heavy action. And if you have any part of those draws, you still might have to go to the river.
Folding Aces on the flop has got to be even harder. I might fold on a KK2 board if there is heavy action, but I'm still might be going to see the river, just in case the other two bettors have smaller pocket pairs.
- Andrew
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 January 2000, at 10:46 p.m.
Posted by: brad
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 January 2000, at 10:49 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 January 2000, at 2:28 p.m.
Posted by: Mooselini (mooselini@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 January 2000, at 4:29 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 January 2000, at 7:35 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 January 2000, at 3:21 p.m.
Max it out to 9, no question.
D.
AA - 1 A out 5 callers with the following hands - KQs -99 - 45s - AT - 78o.
Id' be interested to see these more realistic results. As there are very few hands with everyhong calling with random hands.
A fellow imsominac - waiting for 5am to leave for the airport.
Post deleted at author's request.
You can always build a multi-way combination that will make any hand a loser. That's not the point. How about your real-world situation where you get five callers with hands like this:
1 - AQ 2 - QJ 3 - JJ 4 - KT 5 - 9T
Against that field, Aces are a huge winner, because the players are duplicating each other's hands and outs.
These exercises are pointless. As Gary was alluding to, any real-world situation would favor Aces over ten completely random hands because some cards are weighted more than others in terms of possibility of being in a caller's hand. If you get 9 callers in a medium-loose game, it's much more likely that they are duplicating each other's hands and outs than you would find in a completely random sim.
AA one out - 2 callers - one with KK the other with JTs - Thanks,
Rounder,
You get to fly to some fun destination and I have to work early tomorrow. I'll have to pass on this one but maybe some fresh troops can step in here.
Regards,
Rick
Dan,
I haven't done any simulations on this issue, nor have I read all the previous responses to your post...so I hope this is not repetitive. At first, your expected profit would increase dramatically with each caller; however, I think the magnitude of the increase would diminish with each additional caller (especially if your opponents call your raise with quasi-reasonable hands and not total garbage). If your EV were graphed as a function of the number of callers, I would expect the curve to begin to plateau...perhaps around 6 or 7 callers (though your variance would continue to increase with each caller). At some point (perhaps after more than 9 callers), the curve might begin to slope downward (reflecting diminishing EV). Of course, AA would remain the most profitable hand against any number of opponents.
It would be interesting--if not particularly useful--to explore this issue using computer simulations.
You're right, and against callers with random cards the EV curve with Aces starts to flatten. Call-to-the-end sims show a slight decrease in EV between 9 and ten callers (assuming an 11-handed game). Since the real-world should favor aces more than the sim does, I have to believe that the EV of aces continues to rise dramatically with each additional caller.
This consensus of all the expert opinion is frankly a surprise to me. Although I always knew that AA was a big favorite and a big positive EV even against a full field, I thought that it suffered from a degradation of EV if more than X hands were in against it.
Given the consensus: What should be the optimal pre-flop strategy? It sounds like, IF your reading of your opponents says that a pre-flop raise from your position and current situation will drastically limit the field, then maybe you should "slow-play" your aces. Example: UTG raises and you are next. And on the other hand, when most players are already in, you should always put in a value raise.
Can we possibly quantize this by saying, just try to maximize the pot size? Just a shot from the hip; comments welcome.
Dick
>It sounds like, IF your reading of your opponents says that a pre-flop raise from your position and current situation will drastically limit the field, then maybe you should "slow-play" your aces.
Only with an intention of reraising if somebody raises behind you.
Aces want more money in the pot, not more opponents. Each one is an additional problem to deal with, but you need his money. You want to raise, THEN you want callers (to get money in). Two callers for two bets are much better than four callers for one bet. Three callers for two bets is better yet. One caller for five bets would be a dream come true.
Limp reraise with aces is the best play of them all, if pulled off successfully, as you trap the field for three bets, those who bail out are leaving dead money in the pot which is very goot. If everybody calls, you are happy also. Variance goes up and you might dislike it.
With the best hand preflop, you are raising *for value*, NOT to thin the field (which is also ok, as it reduces variance). This goes for any hand, not just aces, if that hand is best preflop.
(I define the best hand preflop as the hand with highest win average with no betting after the flop).
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
I don't have time to read all of the posts but it seems that those I read missed the point. That point can be explained better by using this contrived example. You call with aces in first position. Everyone else calls to the button. The small blind puts his money in out of turn and the big blind checks out of turn. Before looking at his hand the button says he will either call or fold, it is up to you. Assuming everyone is all in at this point what would you have him do. In other words does the increased money make up for the the decreased chances even assuming his hand is random. My guess is that the answeer is no if there is an ace out.
I ran some sims using this contrived example. Everybody calls preflop for $10, there's no betting postflop.
In a 100000 run sim, with another ace out (possibly two), win rate for pocket ace drops from 32.2% against 8 opponents to 28.1% against nine opponents. This translates into aces winning $28.10 ($100 * 0.281) per hand against nine opponents, but $28.98 ($90 * 0.322) per hand against only eight. David is right, when at least one ace is out, it's a little better to have 8 than 9 opponents (if there's no betting postflop).
However, in the same situation with at least one ace out, it's better to have 6 opponents (win rate 42.6%, $29.82/h) than 5 (win rate 49.4%, $29.64/h).
If another ace is NOT necessarily out (but it might be, or both), aces win 34.9% of the time agains eight, and 31.3% against nine opps. This translates to aces winning $31.3 against nine people and $31.4 against eight. There is no significant difference if the tenth player calls or folds (again, if there's no betting postflop).
As these were no-fold 'em sims and the opponents held random cards, be careful in interpreting the results. It should be clear though that aces do not really mind a large field. It's essential to raise, though, as if the callers must pay multiple bets to see the flop, postflop betting will not compensate for their preflop mistake when trash hands hit it.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
I said in an earlier message that simulations with all players seeing the river shows the EV for aces peaks at around 9 callers. So with one Ace out, I would expect that EV peak to come somewhat earlier, as your results indicate.
I think all this contrived example proves is that there is a point at which you would rather not have any more callers, but that point is high enough that you just don't need to worry about it. If you call-reraise with aces instead of raising UTG, you're more likely to get something like 7 callers in a loose game rather than 3 or 4 if you had raised. And even if all ten players do call, the EV difference is pretty slight.
There are two far more important issues when deciding whether or not to raise with Aces. In a tight game, the probability of winning only the blinds with a raise, which costs something like half of your EV, and a much more important factor in loose games when deciding to call-reraise with aces is the possibility that no one will raise behind you. Missing a raise with aces can be a mini-disaster. If five people would have called a raise, but 7 go into an unraised pot, you've just lost a ton of EV. So small differences in probability of a raise behind you make much more difference than the EV loss on the small chance that you get ten callers instead of the optimal 8-9.
I know I'm going to reamed for this one but, what difference does it make how many callers you want when you raise under the gun? Does wanting 8, get you 8? Does preferring a limp reraise get you a limp reraise? Raise the Aces or limp in forget about it. It's out of your control!
Nothing is completely out of your control. You can somewhat control how many people call by limp-reraising, which would be a big no-no if you really wanted to thin the field. You can also control how many people call you by manipulating your table image. If I wanted to always thin the field with AA and KK, I would never bother to raise UTG with hands like TJs or 99, since the only reason you really do that is to improve the action you get on your premium hands.
I was reading the post 3-6 taj hand and was thinking about it. *Defense against trips*
Is there a good one?
We all know when we make trips that we hope to rake a pile of chips, but someone must be giving up that cash to us and we to them.
Any thoughts on defense against trips...?
Best of it !!
MJ
I tend to raise on the flop if no other real draws are possible and keep my eye on any disinterested callers that casually cold call two bets. These guys often hold the key card.
Because the entire world seems to think slow playing trips is correct I will usually bet out with them. Many players can not figure you to play in such an obvious manner.
With a set I will bet for the same reasons - no one puts you on them. I will continue to bet and reraise them until I know I am beat.
"cold call two bets."
I thinks this is also the key (as I paid to find out)
flop: 3h-8d-Qs
I had KK UTG and raised, to my left re-raised (AK as it turned out) the guy next to him cold called the 3-bet.
looking back this is the only hand he could have had. He floped trips..
I will watch for this next time. I got burned twice by trips that night and just can't seem to figure out why but now I see what to look for.
Any other ideas?
Thanks
MJ
MJChicago,
It doesn't have to be as obvious as calling a bet and raise with a rainbow unconnected board. Let's say several players take the flop for one bet. The flop comes a Q 7 3 rainbow. An early limper bets and a reasonable player calls with a few more yet to act. Ask yourself, what hand would he call with?. There are no draws and he would raise with a decent queen (or even A7 sometimes), If he pops it on fourth street whan a blank hits you can be pretty sure he has a set of sevens or maybe threes.
Regards,
Rick
it's just tough if you don't get the raise on 4th street (slow play)then what? It's a tough read when your opponent has trips. At some point ya you think what the heck can this player have by then it's sometimes to late. I was just trying to find out if there is a way to tell sooner that later.
Thanks
MJ
in small blind holding 99
theres an early raise from very good tight aggressive player.
folds around to me, I re-raise.
Is this a good raise? I tend to think it is.
flop: Q,rag,rag- no flush
I check, player bets, I raise, player calls.
River: insignificant
I check, player bets, I fold
Clearly I put myself in a bad situation with this hand. What should I have done differently?
Is this a put on or what? If I palyed this way I'd quit playing poker and get some professional help.
The hand was seriously misplayed. If you can't see that you ought to try craps or roulette it might be less expensive - BTW what was the turn card?
Thanks for the response Rounder.
by the way, if I ever see a guy that calls himself Rounder in a card room I will be sure to kick the shit out of him.
Sorry pal I thought your post was a put on. I should not jump to conclusions.
On the other thing - If you want a piece of me you better bring some friends.
A good player who raises in early position will have AA,KK,QQ,JJ,TT or AK,AQ, maybe AJ suited or KQ suited. There are 30 ways he can have a bigger pocket pair than you which means you are a big underdog. There are about 40 ways he can have one of the other holdings which make you a marginal favorite. So almost half the time you are a huge dog and the other half you are a small favorite making you an overall money loser in this situation. Couple this with the fact that you are out of position for the rest of the hand makes your re-raise a very bad play. I believe just calling because you are partially in is the most appropriate action at this point.
On the flop your check-raise is a bad idea. It would be much better for you to lead with your pocket pair and hope he has big slick or AJ suited otherwise you are beat. You learn a lot more about your opponent's holding when you get raised than when you are in a check-call mode or even a check-raise mode. If raised you should fold. If called you take off a card. I have been in situations where the pre-flop raiser actually folds but this will not happen very often.
The player calling your check-raise on the flop in most cases means he is worried about you having Queens.
On the river, I believe your fold was correct.
You should just call the pre-flop raise and then bet the flop and see what happens. If you encounter any heat, fold immediately in most cases.
Jim:
I agree with you completely, but let me ask you this -- in my experience, you will frequently get raised in this situation even when the raiser misses (i.e. he will semi-bluff w/ two overcards and/or back door draws, etc.). Should you always fold to the raise? Some players will even raise you on the flop and then check behind you on the turn. Plus you may catch a miracle card on the turn. These two possibilities warrant an occasional call in my book, depending on the player and his propensity to raise early with some of the lesser hands like AJs.
Retort?
SW
I think you are right. You really to know your opponent in these cases.
You(Jim) have an interesting post with the number of ways of AA, AK, etc. As for original poster, don't worry I'm not going to give you any more heat. except. with this opponent, you know he is playing big cards. So, why not wait to see what the flop brings. With this flop, it would be ok to bet out, to see where you stand. If he just calls, you are probably in the lead, if he raises he may have Q's or a bigger holding. Pre-flop you could raise with 99 when you have many opponents, hoping to hit a set, but you would have to ask yourself a question. Do I feel lucky? Well, do you? (hehheh.)
Jim,
After posting my own response I was pleased to see that you and I are pretty much on the same page. I have one question: Didn't you miss the TURN card or have I just woke up in a parallel universe where holdem is now a three round game?
Regards :-),
Rick
Actually Rick the original poster, Ivan Putski, missed the turn. His post went from check-raising on the flop to a blank on the river while never mentioning the turn. I guess I sort of over looked the turn as well.
Jim,
If you look at my post I ended up deciding what he meant was that he gave it up on the turn but wrote river. And I really did reorganize my sock drawer that night.
Regards,
Rick
I must agree that you put yourself in a bad situation with this hand.
I don't think I would call a raise with 99 in the small blind from a tight aggressive player in early position in a potential heads up situation as you described. This is the same old story. At best you are a slight favorite. At worst you are a massive underdog and you have the worst position.
If I had called, I wouldn't have played the hand like you did. I would bet the flop. Whether your opponent has a hand or not, you are going to get raised (remember you have bad position). On the turn I would bet and see what happens. If you get raised again, it's decision time. Is a tight player going to bluff raise you? If you get called, you are also had because he obviously will have a better hand than yours.
If you do get called on the turn, you can either bet or check and call but I believe the outcome will not change.
ps... I am a bit negative this week because I've had my ass kicked for the last two weeks so consider the source.
Happy New Year anyway
if this player tends to be weak tight then the re-raise makes some sense. but you should probably come out betting on the flop instaed of check raising imo. again, alot depends on the type of player your opponent is in situations like this. in general though, you want to have posistion if you are going to re-raise with medium pairs.The thing to remember is that this type of raise is a "fast" play, so you really need to be aware of who it's against more than any other factor. seeya
Where do you play? I'd like to play there some times....
Ivan,
I'll answer this one without peeking at the other responses yet.
"in small blind holding 99 theres an early raise from very good tight aggressive player. folds around to me, I re-raise. Is this a good raise? I tend to think it is."
It depends. What does your opponent think of you? Just how good is he? Will he cap (I'll assume a three raise cap) with big cards since he has position as well as capping with big pairs? Does he lay down overcards against pressure?
Anyway, keep this in mind. You are either a small favorite (against overcards played well) or a huge dog (against overpairs). These are the only cards your opponent is likely to have.
"flop: Q,rag,rag- no flush I check, player bets, I raise, player calls."
If you three bet the flop and he didn't cap you might as well come out betting. This puts a lot of pressure on AK and may fold the underpair bigger then nines (JJ or TT) with one more bet on the turn.
"River: insignificant I check, player bets, I fold"
What happened to the turn?! I'm answering this post and there is no turn card! OK, since I am already pregnant I'll assume you meant turn. Since you check raised the flop and were not reraised you must lead out again on the TURN. Now I sound like Vince Lepore.
"Clearly I put myself in a bad situation with this hand. What should I have done differently?"
First, proofread your posts and don't forget to include the TURN. Also, nothing is really a "rag" or "insignificant". Put a card in there. Make it up if you have to. Look at the way Jim Brier and skp (where are you skp?) write their lead posts. Clear, concise, complete.
Regards,
Rick
Note To Myself: Listen to Louie/Lucy Landale and never answer a post that contains the word "rag". Take an extra valium tonight. Take a jacuzzi and get off this stupid computer. Clean up the house a bit. Organize my sock drawer.
Good essay by Mr. Reber on this site where he talks about "soft steaming" -- that is, tossing in a loose call out of boredom. I know it's a leak for me at times -- inevitably you flop a draw or top-pair-weak-kicker and lose a bunch.
Related question though: in loose games, which I play in a lot, I think you are supposed to play a few hands like KXs, especially with position. Sklansky said one of the reasons you can play it is b/c you are strong enough to dump it if a king flops and you get heat. My problem is that some of these games are SO loose that someone will bet into you with middle pair or even a gutshot at times, so it's hard to release that king. How bad is it to pursue the hand for one bet after say a bet and one caller, if you have the button? It may just be better to always dump unless the bettor is a maniac and can be isolated -- you can't be giving up much in EV if you let these hands go if you flop a king only....
Comments welcome.
Scott,
Regarding "soft" steaming, don't forget to read John Feeney's articles in this and the next issue of Poker Digest. They are gems.
Kx suited (I hope you are reading my "student", since I'm still "steaming" about this one :-) ) can generally be played under the following circumstances:
1) When in very late position and attacking the blinds with a raise. You don't want tricky or aggressive blinds here.
2) In late position against a few passive predictable opponents for one bet. This is when you really aren't getting odds on your flush but should make money if you flop a king and you know what to do per HPFAP.
3) In late position against many opponents for one bet. Here you probably won't make money when flopping a king (without let's say the back door flush draw) but will make money on your flush draws.
You wrote: "My problem is that some of these games are SO loose that someone will bet into you with middle pair or even a gutshot at times, so it's hard to release that king."
This is a loose and aggressive game. Don't play the king small suited unless you are getting enough opponents to make money making flushes.
Regards,
Rick
Hey Rick,
When is your "student" going to win the WSOP so we all can stop hearing about the fact that u have a "student" . We are all students of the game so stop flaunting the fact that you have a "student" we get it.
TableGuy
Table Guy,
Look, she is a lurker and it just so happened she played this hand way out of position so I wanted her to wake up to this fact. I will avoid this in the future but you should also realize we post for fun here too and many of us are getting to know one another as people. Generally I'm not known for flaunting anything (you should see my wardrobe or lack thereof).
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
You're a real class act but I still think you should have let this guy know where to get off ( a la Badger). Whatever you do, don't change anything about the way you post. One day I'll get to Cali and I'm dying to meet your student. Keep us posted with her progress.
Best to you,
SammyB
Post deleted at author's request.
Rick,
I had a few moments and was lurking. This tableguy fellow seems to be another one of those non contributors that have a lot of pent up hatred inside. They look for nits to pick. Please, Please, Please do not listen to someone that wishes only to criticize. You and YOUR STUDENT and tales regarding your experiences are very valuable indeed. I wasn't going to post until after the COP but felt like adding my support to someone that has helped me with my poker playing.
Vince.
BTW - Say hello to YOUR STUDENT!
Table Guy -- Maybe you've just skimmed a few of Rick's posts where he mentions his student. I would think that if you were more familiar with them you'd know that he is not flaunting having a student or holding it out as some sort of sign of being a keewl poker dude. In fact he has usually come across to me as very humble, actually down playing his knowledge and ability. Ease up, take it in the spirit intended, then when his student does win the WSOP you'll be there cheering her on!
Table guy lurker,
How come you don't want Rick's student to be mentioned in this forum? She has done nothing to irritate you as I can recall. Who knows, maybe by Rick admonishing her on her mistakes while she's reading his posts might just put all the stuff straight into her head and accelerate her learning process. There's nothing wrong with that. I don't think he's a guy that shows off what he's got as your post implied. I've read all his brilliant posts and my thoughts are either he's a walking encyclopedia or he's got an IQ that borders on the genius line. Can you say the same about yourself?
Now, since you have no worthwhile contribution to offer to this forum except to incite in a negative way, why don't you either shut up or go back to your lurking mood, okay?
Rick, when your student wins the WSOP, can I be your student too?
If the action is loose and aggressive you do not want to be playing this hand. In a loose aggressive game, I ask myself what is this hand worth if it was not suited? Not much. Especially, if its K3 or K2. The problem with playing this hand is when you pair the K what's your kicker worth?
What you're really playing Kx suited for is its flush possibilities. You want a passive game where alot of people enter the pot and your oponents are docile. Because, you don't want players with smaller flushes like 67 suited to fold.
10-20 game, tight table. im on a run of bad cards (really!) and have folded somewhere around 30 or 40 consecutive hands (really!). tricky1 (strong player whos been raising for the past hour and buying pots on flop and turn) brings in for 20 one to left of utg. folded to me, see QQ, 3 bet, on my left tricky2(a loose readable player on a hot streak) caps it. all else fold and we 3 take flop. rag rag rag. rainbow nothing. t1 bets, i call(?) and t2 calls. tricky1 doesnt like it that im still in. turn rag. t1 checks, i check(?), t2 checks. river an ace. t1 bets out, i dont think he has it, but of course i have to call(?) anyway, right?, and t2 calls. i win showdown t1(pckt 7) t2(top pair T, hit on turn).
my thinking afterward is
1. a loose player gets callers, a tight player catches bluffs.
2. if i showed aggression and raised it, i might start a cascading tricky effect that could hurt me.( i raise flop, t2 reraises to drive out t1, and t1 rereraises to drive me out. now if t1 bets turn and river, how do i call?(even the turn?). )
brad
raise on the flop, bet out on the turn, and bet on the river. bet your hand until some tells you they have a beter hand, then call
Me thinks you missed a couple of bets. Ace on river bad though making AK good against ladies, proceed with caution. Bad runs make for bad play in me humble opinion, makes one overly cautious with good hands.
have you ever been sandwiched between 2 trickies with big, big stacks?
brad,
If you weren't running bad the position you indicated, *between two trickies with big stacks* is a wonderful place to be with QQ and all undercards on the flop. Raise until you are reraised then check and call all the way.
I agree with mark. You should raise the flop and bet the turn because you have to best hand and are playing with loose callers. You should try to get the most bets in that you can. Additionally, raising on the flop prevents t2 from correctly calling with hands that may beat you (AT or something like that). Betting on the turn does the same sort of thing. You don't want to give any free cards, especially with a vulnerable holding like QQ.
You shouldn't worry about being raised and reraised on the flop since you figure that you have the best hand (if you don't figure that, why are you playing QQ?). I would continue to think that (with these players) until an overcard came, at which point I would be merely calling.
It was capped before the flop and then everyone is checking. These seem like weak players to me and you seem to be overly cautious. You have a good hand , and when given the chance, you should put money in the pot. There is always "scary things" on the board, or players that are tricky, but when someone shows weakness....... they are usually weak. don't spend your time worrying about being check raised or whatever. it's going to happen and you can't do anything about it, but bet your good hands when you can and make them draw out on you if they are going to stay. I could go on here....goodluck, seeya.
Play your hand, if they are making a bunch of moves you have remember that and keep your eye on you hand and it's expectation as a winner. Dont be bullied around, and dont let fear of their bullying keep you from maximizing the return on your monsters.
You flopped a good hand and did nothing to protect it. This may induce a bluff sometimes, but will cost you a lot of money in the long run. The check on fourth street was very bad. It is one thing to play tight before the flop, and quite another to never spend a nickel to protect your hand after you get a good flop.
These guys aren't to tricky - you muck 40 hands and are calling their bets they have to put you on a monster. BUT if you were aggressive I think they may fold here. SO you probaly maxed out this pot by pure luck. You can't be giving anyone freecards when you have an over pair. You bet the turn I think these tricky guys fold like a cheap suit - A is scarry so your call here is OK but you missed the flop and turn and had a chance to lose the hand.
tricky1 went 11 (!!) raises on river without the nuts a few hands before this. (and he checked the turn.) (am i out of my league?)(sigh !?). they both had big stacks.
f
d
d
Where I play there are a couple of maniac players that seem to have an unlimited bankroll (they must have). One night in particular there were a couple of them sitting right next to each other and drinking. It was capped pre-flop about 50% or more of the time and there was an average of 4-5 players per pot (the other players seemed to be going along and playing their regular stuff plus steaming a little I'm sure). What is the correct playing strategy? What do you think my hourly rate would reasonably be in this game with proper play? (the maniacs also played and raised about 10% of their hands blind).
I'm also interested in how to play against maniacs post flop. Should I be raising and reraising with marginal hands (top pair weak kicker)? Should I call down almost any decent hand?
Thanks for any help.
Robin,
First you must realize the impact the maniacs have on your regular opponents. If they are normally a little too loose they will tighten up pre flop and become tougher since they realize it will cost them to see the flop. On the other hand, some will be on tilt and may join the maniacs.
Any hand you play is going to take a lot of heat. So stick to the better pairs and big cards. Drawing hands will cost you (do you want to pay four bets against three opponents with 87 suited?). If you can get head up with a single maniac then a hand like Ax suited will make money.
If you play well your hourly rate should be higher but not as high as you think. Your swings will be much greater. So for some players this may be a game to avoid.
Anyway, there is a long thread from a few months ago called "Playing against multiple maniacs" or something like that. You should be able to find it in the archives.
Regards,
Rick
I suggest you purchase some poker books, this kind of thing is covered there.
D.
Really? I own almost every 2+2 poker book but haven't seen anything my specific questions, namely proper pre-flop play. Perhaps you can give me specific titles of other books that cover this scenario.
Post deleted at author's request.
Have you read the chapter on playing against a maniac, and the one on wild games in the new edition of HPFAP? They should set you on a good course. Rick Nebiolo hit some key points in his post above.
Classic anti-maniac strategy if at a table where others will not readily call 3 bets cold is: sit on the maniac's immediate left and reraise him to isolate him with good hands that can be taken to the river on their own merits.
Yeah sorry I thought maybe you didnt have any. HFAP has it covered.
D.
Guys like this need a good thumping once and a while. They usually straighten up after you hit them for a few hands. It is impossible to assess your EV in this game but with 2 mainacs in the same game and the rest average players I am beginning to drool like my 110 lb German Shepard drools in expecation if a big T-Bone steak bone.
I'd tighten up a bit but play all pairs - looking for the set on the flop. If you don't hit your flop muck as it will cost you a bundle to see out the river.
Guys like this don't respect raises or position so you have to play smarter than they do - is there a chance they are "playing together" - if you play steady poker and don't tilt when they Bad Beat you (which they will) you should beat the pants off these guys ni the long run.
Two maniacs sitting next to eachother can be a very profitable situation--especially when you can snag a seat on their left. With this position, you can play more hands after the two maniacs have limped into the pot. Keep in mind that pairs go up in value and small connectors go down in value when loose-aggressive players are in the pot. When one (or both) raise (or have not yet acted), you must play very tight--especially when you are not likely to be able to isolate them by reraising.
After the flop, you can protect your moderately strong hands by raising the maniac's loose bets to thin the field. When you are isolated with the maniac(s), you can let them bet your hand for you: just call with your marginal hands; raise on the turn and/or river with your strong hands.
Where is this 10/20 game?
Hey Robin,
Is this in San Jose? Last time I was there 2 guys played in the 6-12 game (down from 20-40 or somesuch), raised most every hand pre-flop, about 30% while not even looking at the cards. They were drinking a lot, and they lost about $1 grand each while I sat there.
1. I sat to their left. If they had been on my right, I think I would have taken a dinner break. Even though I knew what to expect.
2. I tightened way up. Only played two cards of a, k, q, j, and pairs down to 9.
Maniacs are good for the game, I think, but you must be way careful.
Mark
This game is in Seattle. From reading the responses perhaps it wasn't clear enough exactly how this game was being played. I've read some material on playing against maniacs but this was beyond anything I would have imagined. Literally 1/2 the pots were capped before the flop. There were the two maniacs drinking next to each other but other usually normal players were raising and reraising on hands like AJ off and worse. I mean at least 50% of the players were playing worse than their normal game. At least one normally good player went on tilt and played every hand preflop, even if capped and he had 23 off. Post flop, most people tended to drop fairly easily (no surprise since they held crap) except maybe the two maniacs who would raise and reraise with anything from a flush or straight draw to middle pair of better.
The reason I posted this was because of the extreme nature of the game. Position hardly seemed to matter preflop. I would think that the correct preflop play would be to tighten up significantly. I mean you could wait an hour or more to play a hand because there was so much money in the pot before the flop in relation to the blinds. Perhaps group 1 hands plus medium pairs with many players in?
Post deleted at author's request.
I've been playing HE now for about 175 hours over 6 months and am a losing player, about -$3000 in ring games. I lost about $1200 in 4-8 and 6-12 when I just started out but had read HEAP. I've lost about $1500 playing 10-20 for 85 hrs. more recently and about $300 somewhere in between in 6-12 and 8-16. The thing is, all the games I've played in seemed beatable. I mean the players just sucked. You know how you look around the table and see some players that must be losing $50 an hour? That's the way it is almost every time I play 10-20 but I can't seem to win. I'm not talking about a long run of bad cards, just losing. I don't see any obvious errors in my play, but how can I know if I've never been a consistent winner?
Basically I'm looking for some responses on how I can better assess my play.
Nobody is a winner after a couple hundred hours. One reading of HFAP is only a scratch on the surface. STUDY it, along with other top poker books (the best list for good poker books is in the back of Gambling Theory and Other Topics). Then you will need all the experience you can get. Poker is so hard that it takes years to get good at. Dont be discourage by a rocky start. Study,thinking and experience are the keys to sucess.
Here is what you do. Remember exactly, the hands you've recently played where you might have some questions. Post them here and if we tear you a new ###hole then you suck (if you do truely suck). Don't fear though, because that is the fastest way to get better. It also helps us with our games as well. I've been playing 2 years now and I'm still improving on my fundamentals.
Later, CV
When I am losing I go back to basics. Like when I can't play golf as well as I know I can - Check stance, grip, back swing etc. Poker is the same - start with your hand selection - biggest problem suckie players have is playing to many hands and playing marginal hands from marginal positions.
If you are losing that much money consistantly YOU SUCK! But never fear your game can be salvaged. Get selective about what you are playing and where - are you calling raises in mid position with J9 are you raising loose players from early position with a couple of suited rags ect. Are you finding yourself calling on the turn looking for a miracle card on the river. If you are doing any of the above then you need to clean up your act.
Hope this helps.
From a low limit players perspective I feel if you have doubts about your game you shouldn't be playing 10-20.
A lot of people on this forum miss this point but the name of the book is hold em poker for ADVANCED players. Those are players that are already winning consistently but are trying to get a bit more of an edge and eke out another BB an hour if they can. It's a very difficult book if you are not completely versed in the fundamentals, because it is written from a perspective of adding to a strong game not creating one. Play 3-6 for 150 hours and post your results and some of the hands you played. You'll find out pretty quickly and cheaply where the holes are.
Good Luck
The most common error, and I suspect the one you are guilty of, is playing too many hands. If you are very tight and play only 10% of the hands or less, and spend the non-playing hands watching the play of others, you should do much better.
You must be patient and observant. When you get beat in a hand, do you think you just played poorly or did you telegraph your hand?
Play in a game with a friend who is a better player than you and take a break after an hour or so and discuss some of the hands you played.
A beginner trying to assimilate Sklansky's newest Holdem book for th 21st century is difficult. Start with a beginner books first, like his basic holodem book or Nelson's beginner book. Try a lower limit where you will not be intimidated. I play a lot and win alot, but I can be intimidated in the 10-20 games.
After playing to many hands, the second biggest leak is calling to much, mostly on the flop, but also all the way to the river.
I wonder if the number of showdowns on the river you win would be a good indicator of whether you are taking your hands to far.
In other words, when a hand reaches a river showdown, what percentage of hands do the good players out there win.
I have no idea what a reasonable percentage would be. Can the better players out there help?
I'm excited about the concept, but need more information before deciding if it is useful.
Jim, Rounder, Rick, Louie, SKP, John, David, Mason, Abdul, Dan, Andrew, and another dozen good names I missed: is this a useful concept, and what would the percentage be?
PRC
A- Take a look at what cards you start with. Make sure they're appropriate cards in relation to your position, as well as the type of game (loose/tight)
B- Position is a huge factor in hold 'em. Play only strong cards in early position. You can loosen up a little when you are off the button
C- Analyze the board and determine what possible hands people could be playing with or for
D- Analyze the play of your opponents and put them on a hand. Do this throughout the hand and game
E- Make sure your getting odds from the pot. Don't play K5s in hopes to make a flush if you don't think it will pay off
F- Try to seat the loose aggressive players to your right and the tight timid players to your left
G- Be PATIENT and do not go on tilt. When you feal your game getting away from you and you can't think straight then take a 20 minute break or leave outright
Remember there are players out here who have been playing poker for 3 years and 30 years. The player who has been playing for 30 years may suck and the player who has been playing for 3 years may be good. Poker is an artform that requires hours of studying, dedication, and commitment to be good at
Good Luck to you..
Didn't get a chance to read the other responses.
I'd be willing to bet (so to speak) that you have no idea what the other players have; these bad but experienced players know what YOU have; you do more paraniod calling then betting, and you often call the turn and fold you shit pair on the river.
Play less hands preflop. When watching the opponents, try to imagine what hand YOU would have if you checked/bet/called like they are. From their, you should be able to put them on actual hands based on how they play.
Play at home with Texas Turbo whatever until you are confident you can beat their good lineup.
- Louie
One thing that took me some time to realize was that noticing that my opponents played terribly was not evidence that I played well. I'd see someone take down a pot with 94s or raise with queen rag and think, what an idiot, and then go play ATo and KQo under the gun and call raises with JTo because "I had position" and remain flabbergasted that I was struggling to break even. The fact of the matter was that we all sucked, just differently, and while my opponents might have been losing a bit more them me we were all either getting creamed by the truly good players or just trading our money back and forth.
Here's my top ten list for how you can tell if you suck:
1. After playing few hand over a couple of hours, you fear your opponents won't give you any action unless you do something very soon.
2. After losing, the only hands you can remember losing with were high pocket pairs and sets.
3. You have the stamina to play poker for 13 hours straight, no problem.
4. You sometimes feel more miserable at the table when losing than you do anywhere else.
5. You know not to play a small pair under the gun but figure it's safe to limp with pocket fives after the first three players muck.
6. When the flop comes after you've folded, you first check to see what you would have made.
7. You find it frustrating that you sometimes lose hands that you were supposed to win.
8. After not getting a playable hand for quite some time, you breathe a sigh of relief when you look down and see Kh6h.
9. When you think about poker away from the table, you think about you'd play a straight flush against someone's quad kings.
10. You play ATo and KQo under the gun.
Chris,
Awesome list!!!
Mark
do i suck if i sometimes play KQo UTG, but never ATo?
In addition to this great list, here are what I think the biggest "drainers of cash" were back when I was a losing player. The first two "drainers" are related (for example, playing a lot of ragged suited cards often gives you longshot flush draws.)
1. Simply playing too many hands. Try not to call a lot of raises out of position. If you fold away hands for an hour or two, don't worry about it. Wait for your chance to play solid cards. This was by far the biggest drainer of money on my game. Avoid hands like Q-5s, J-6s, that may look good (hey you can go high, low and get a flush!)but are long term losers. Remember, you need a better hand than usual to call a raise as well, unless the raise is on a steal.
2. Going to the river on longshot draws. Figure out the odds of making different hands, and then try to figure out if you are getting correct odds for chasing your hands. There is a DRASTIC difference in taking a card off on the flop because of the small bet and taking one off on the turn with its double bet. You will very often be receiving correct odds on a non-raised flop for your draw on the flop, but should often abandon on the turn when your pot odds disappear (as an aside, also don't make the mistake of chasing to the river and always folding without bluffing. Many times your opponent is also on a draw and may have a hopeless hand as well. If they see you are going to the river and then folding when you miss consistently they will just bet out heads up on the river regardless.)
3. Getting married to hands like big pairs all the way until the river all the time. If you are calling several raises on a coordinated board with a single pair, it may be time to fold it. When to do this comes with experience.
4. Staying in a game that started out great but ended up bad. Often in public cardrooms ou will find yourself playing at a table that looks drastically tougher than it was when you first sat down. When you see this, pick up your chips and either find an easier game or leave. In a public cardroom you are undern no obligation to stay in a game that has become tough.
Hope this helps.
You say:
"Basically I'm looking for some responses on how I can better assess my play."
Here is how:
1. Buy texas turbo holdem. Make a strong lineup. Play against it. Slowly. With you 2+2 book(s) open in front of you! Beat it. Until you can beat a strong texas turbo, you are giving your money away.
2. Download gpkr and play irc poker. Play as if it were real money. Until you can win consistently there, against other humans, some of whom are good (some are terrible, just like in the casinos), do not play in the casino. You are giving your money away.
If you cannot beat both texas turbo and gpkr consistently, you should not play in a real 10-20 game. Period. If you can beat em both, you should hold your own against some real 10-20 games, but not all of them all the time.
Mark
Robin, can you give us an example of a hand, perhaps one which you've lost, so we can take a look at it, and then beat up on you?(just kidding.) (You would not be losing any money this way.) Perhaps then, we could find out if the cards are just running against you, or if you might be able to use a suggestion or two. Similiar situations come up all the time in Hold-Em, as regards hands and positon. Poker is supposed to be enjoyable, not a drag all the time.
I saw this 10-20 hand (typical action game).
Joe limps (hoping to reraise) OTG with AA, 4 callers. Flop is T42 offsuit. Player A opens and all except one "retiree" type caller in middle position fold. Joe bets retiree calls. Turn is a 2. Retiree bets, A folds.
Is this a totally ridiculous fold? Not a whole lot is known about the retiree except for the stereotype.
BillC,
I assume player A is Jim. Why didn't he bet the turn when the board paired small? But he checked and a rock bet. How often do rocks hold a duece? Note that even rocks will bet when someone shows weakness on the turn in an unraised pot.
Bottom line. There is no player on the planet I wouldn't at least call down in this situation.
Regards,
Rick
Bill tell Joe - You can't judge a book by it's cover.
He had to call here - the old guy was he in the bb. Even so it was a mistake to fold the AA.
I see no reason for AA to check the river except to go for the check-raise. Checking-and-folding is reasonable if you have SEEN the rock's better hand.
What was the turn card?
- Louie
Had a rancid session last night at 20-40. Tone was set by the first hand. I come in and post one off the button. Two loose callers to me, I raise w/ AQo, fold to the small blind who 3 bets. Big blind, both callers and I call. Although it was $40 more each, I cannot credit the BB or either caller with much necessarily. They are all loose, even very loose players. The reraiser I don't know well but I have seen her enough to know she is not a maniac.
Flop is Q-4-6 rainbow. Not too shabby. SB leads out, BB folds, call, call, I raise, call, call, I call. Turn is a 10 (fourth suit). SB leads out. Hmmm. One call, one fold to me, I call.
River is a 3. SB bets, loose guy calls, I call. SB shows 10-10. Caller mucks -- he had (get this) 2s3s.
Comments on my play? Would you/could you lay down on the turn? Her stop-and-go move tells me she can beat my hand, but I have seen some strange things in ths game, and I did not know her very well, as I said. I was of course well-prepared to see AA or KK, but not 10-10. Tough first hand.
SW
I would have had her at either: paired 10-10 to A-A, AKs/u, AQs, AJs, or KQs pre-flop since raised she raised it to three (considering she was a good player).
The fact that she merely called your post-flop raise, would have me eliminate AA, KK, and AQ as possible hands. That would leave her with either QQ, KQs, JJ, or 1010.
When the 10 dropped on the turn, I may have raised her. When she re-raised I would have put her on 1010 or QQ(slowplay but unlikely since I have a queen), and would have folded. However, by merely calling on the turn you gave yourself another card and were able to see her cards for the same cost as if you raised her.
I probably would have played the hand the same way though, since I was not familiar with her play.
I don't think you play the hand badly. In all reality, you probably couldn't have gotten away from the hand or saved any $$ on it, you were stuck to the end. If you think about it, you had the best of it on the flop, and she just got very lucky. Also, she probably should have check-raised the turn since you would have probably bet had it been checked to you (to avoid giving any free cards). Only if she had played this way could I conceivably see you getting out of the hand for one fewer bets, assuming you would in fact fold for the turn raise. At any rate, I think you played it fine and just got unlucky.
I hate it when a session starts of badly, but what can we do. Sometimes you lose the first hand or two and it takes forever before you even catch up to where you started. The mark of a good player is one who can get past this sort of thing and still play his best game despite losing the first few hands. During my last session I lost the first 3 hands that I went to the river, two of them to three outers and one to a five outer. But what could I do, the fact is I would have wanted them to call had I seen their hands, since I had way the best of it. Sometimes the fish just get lucky.
Next time you should try to get luckier! (haha)
Dave in Cali
You played correctly. Folding is not to be considered.
The small blind is a poor poker player. Pre-flop, 3 betting with pocket Tens against a legitimate raiser who raised after others limped-in is bad, especially when you consider the poor position. The flop bet was terrible poker when you have 4 opponents, one of whom raised and then a Queen flops.
I was playing in a loose home game (which, thanks to you guys I finally was able to beat with some authority) and I was purposly not betting on the river even though I was pretty sure I had a winner in a lot of cases. I would do this so I could be the one who called, and got to see what hands they were playing with. I think this helped me better read everyone which allowed me to win more pots (even though I missed a few bets by not betting or not check-raising).... I was consitently able to read their hands towards the end of the night (which is when I really was able to make my move) b/c I was able to see how they played each hand. If I were to bet, and they called, I would never know how they played a drawing hand, or how they played a small pair. What do you guys think about this practice, and is it worth missing a BB here and there in order to be able to win the next pot? I certaintly think it helped last night.
Thanks for y'alls help in improving my game.
SB
This could easily be a valid play in a home game with regular opponents. It's value in a public cardroom would be much less, perhaps negative.
When playing in home games you may not wish to extract the absolute maximum out of every single hand, mainly because you want to be invited back again. With this in mind, your tactic of not always betting or check-raising the river may have some usefulness, especially since you will often get to see their hands. In home games this may have the further benefit of inducing some bluffs when you have the winning hand, plus keeping up your popularity at the same time.
I wasn't quite sure about the title of your post at first, but it's a bit more clear now what you meant. Why would anyone purposely lose bets?
One more thing - y'all? Was this game in Texas or something?!?
Good luck in the future
Dave in Cali
Actually, I'm in Dallas, so yes... good call!
It might also help to know that this is a VERY LOOSE home game in which if anybody has the slightest chance of having anything, they stay in til the end... which "calling" seemed to help b/c I got to see almost everybody's hands.
Thanks "y'all"
SB
No SB I don't like missing bets like this at all. Instead, watch what these guys show down when you are not in the hand. Over time you will get a good read on their line of play. Some players have the habit of insisting on seeing their opponents cards at showdown even when they win. They are entitled to do this but it is annoying and can frequently embarass or humiliate someone which should be avoided.
Jim ,
Why can a player request to kill a winners hand in a casino. I never quiet understood this. I win a pot cause my 1 opponent did not call. Why is he allowed to ask to kil my hand then show my cards?
Thanks
MJ
If no one calls your bet on the end, no one is allowed to see your cards, period. I have never heard of winning a pot and having to show your hand when your final bet was not called.
The game is 4-8 (blinds1/2).I have Ac10c earlys position,I limp in.8 of us see the flop,no raises.Flop Jc,5d,7d,all check.Turn 2c,I bet 1 caller.River blank winner shows me As5.This was an uncharacteristic bet for me.When the table checked around interpreted as weak,I figured I'd knock most out and since I was on flush draw would build pot.(Semibluff?). Second question,with AJ suited 2 off button,4 in ahead of you,blinds that defend,would you always raise pre-flop,if not what % of time.
When a blank comes on the river you may want to consider betting again and taking a final stab at the pot although you do have a good Ace and can beat many Ace-high hands the caller might have. If the "blank" was a King or a Queen your river bet might scare him into folding his pair of Fives. When you bet the turn like you did, which was an excellent play on your part, you should seriously consider following this up with a river bet since from your opponent's standpoint you could have been betting two pair on the turn.
Sorry, I over looked your second question. I like raising with Ace-Jack suited when I have good position and multiple opponents. Since many of my opponents limp in on garbage I like raising when I think I have the best hand and a nut flush draw possibility. I will sometimes do it with Ace-Ten suited as well especially if I am in the cutoff or on the button.
The problem with your turn bet is the difficulty you have in representing anything. Would you have checked a Jack on the flop? Would you have not raised and then checked a pair of 8s with one overcard? Do you often check-raise the flop? Yes, there are SOME hands you can represent that can beat a pair of 5s but a whole lot, such as a flush draw, that you cannot. Now had the turn card been bigger than 7 its a different story...
If I had A5 I would pay it off on the river against most players capable of steals or semi-bluffs.
Your "knock most out or build a pot" rationale doesn't look good. You are unlikely to get 5 callers so "building a pot" has negative EV. Knocking most out doesn't do you any good unless you knock the rest out on the river.
Your inability to represent a reasonable hand coupled with your unwillingness to bluff again on the river heads up makes your turn bet a bad one.
In this situation, there are no "blank" river cards. EVERY card can easily make you or the opponent, neither of which probably have much, actually like it, appear to like it, or fear it. A river 2 can convince the pair of 5s that you just made trips, any middle card can make a straight or a pair, a heart makes a flush, etc.
-------------------------
With the exception of some really tight and predicatable early position callers, I would always raise with AJs 2 off the button with 4 callers. You PROBABLY have the "best" hand and are going to win more often than the number of callers you get.
- Louie
But Louie when everyone checks the flop, I have found that the first guy to bet the turn frequently wins it or at least gets it down to one opponent. When this move is followed up with a river bet, it has been my personal experience that I win a high percentage of the time. Typically, a guy in early position catches a piece of the flop but checks into a large field. Then on the turn, he catches a second pair and bets. Other times a guy in early position flops a monster and checks planning to slow play or check-raise. He then comes out betting on the turn.
I agree with you in that I would have liked to know what the river card was. But I like MS's turn bet here because he can win the pot outright and he has outs when he is called. Frequently anyone who calls him is just on a draw themselves. I just think he should follow it up with a river bet.
1. My problem is the card on which he chose to start betting. What is he trying to represent by betting out on the 2 for the first time? A set of 2s or a club flush draw? An overcard semi-bluff is also likely.
I think any pair is justified in calling right now, and any pair will win. I would have checked it through.
2. I like the raise with AJs 2 off the button with 4 callers.
You are correct Jon in that it is hard to represent something. However, it is also hard for your opponents to have anything as well given the lack of betting on the flop. Many of them will say, "this card didn't help me, might as well fold". It is not so much that you are representing a strong hand as it is the fact that they don't have one themselves. They may make a mistake and fold. Again, you have outs when you are called. This approach is highly effective when you have a small number of opponents in an unraised pot.
We have all heard how it is an advantage to act last. However, in hold-em there are situations where the first guy to get in a bet has the best chance to win the pot. I believe in unraised pots followed by no betting on the flop, the first guy to bet the turn usually wins.
Betting out 7 opponents happens rarely. You must expect to steal twice. Knocking players out really only helps when the opponent with a big Ace folds and then you catch an Ace; and increase of only 2 outs part of the time.
Also, in this game you can gain 14 for a risk of 8 or odds of only 16:8 = 2:1. In a normal 10/20 game with 4 callers you can gain $50 for a $20 risk or 2.5:1 odds and are much more likely to succeed since there are less opponents and they are less likely to check any pair in the 10/20. The 10/20 bet is MUCH more profitable and I make it often as do most players.
- Louie
Good point about the number of opponents. The value of my play declines sharply with 7 opponents. You are correct. thanks!
1. I don't like your bet on the turn at all. You are playing 4-8, well forget 4-8 you have 7 players so right away that should tell you something. Go for value here. Check.
2. I'd like to come in with a raise.
1-4-8-8. I am 2 before button. I have pocket 7's. I bet out. 4 go to flop. Flop 738 all differente suits. There is one bet and I raise. All get out except one guy in middle position. Turn is 8. We get into a raising war. River is rag. We raise and reraise. He has 83o. I have played with this guy and if he had had a pocket pair he would have reraised me on the deal so I did not put him on 83 - obviously. Comments and critisim appreciated?
Don't get into a raising war on the turn when the board pairs higher than your set especially when it is the top card on the flop. Go ahead and raise or re-raise but you need to realize that in the face of repeated raising your hand is vulnerable. At some reasonable point, just back off and call.
I wonder if you can consider each bet/raise/re-raise as demonstrating an exponential growth in the strength of your opponents hand. In other words, when he raises I am twice as wary, and when he re-raises I am 4 times as way. Maybe it is twice as wary and then ten times as way.
How much stronger a hand do you give your opponent as he raises and raised?
PRC
It is not linear. It is more exponential. This is especially true once the boardcards appear. When your opponent is looking at the same board you are and is willing to pound away it quickly means he has the nuts or a hand close to the nuts if he is at all sane. One of the classic mistakes I see made by players at all limits up to $30-$60 is putting a player on a hand early on and stubbornly refusing to adjust that evaluation in the face of repeated raising. I have twice seen players have over $1000 in chips in front of them in a $20-$40 game and raise themselves right out of money because they could not believe their opponent could beat them until they were shown the nuts.
In a big bet game like pot limit it is understandable to lose all your money at one time without the nuts. But in limit poker it is simply inexcusable.
Its OK not to put him on 83. Did you suspect 87? But what DID you put him on? What are the chances he's going to give you that much action with 3sFull? I suspect you failed to consider what he thought YOU had.
Generally, figure out how much action he'd give with the hand just worse than yours (the one you WANT him to have) and then raise once more than that, perhaps twice depending on his brain-dead aggressiveness rating.
- Louie
I have been playing hold 'em for less than a year. Following Malmuth's advice, I am trying to build a bankroll (which is sort of difficult as a grad student) and sticking to the low limt stuff in AC(5-10 and below) until I develop a better bankroll and develop as a player.
I was sitting on the big blind with AQo. Two weak players call and the button raises. After seeing this guy play for a bit, I know him to be a loose raiser, especially preflop. I call. I now think that I should have reraised, forcing the weak players to call two bets cold and given that the raiser was a loose raiser.
The flop was ten high, rainbow. I check. It is checked to the button and he bets. I raise to get it heads up. The two players in between fold and he calls. I bet out on the turn and he mucks his hand.
The end result was acceptable, but I am not sure I played optimally. I think I should have raised preflop? However, given my situation on the flop (i.e. that I hadn't raised preflop) is the check raise a good play? Here was my reasoning. I definitely want to get heads up to increase my chance of winning the pot. Forcing the players in between to call two bets was the best way to accomplish that. I also thought that there was a good chance that I was winning given that it was checked to the button and he was a loose preflop raiser. When the turn is a rag, a bet there is almost automatic, because if I don't he will, and I still don't think he has anything. I'm always looking to learn, so let me know what you think.
Thanks,
Carlos
You have very good reasoning skills for someone who has been playing for only a year. You must have been reading a lot. Keep it up. You're right, you should have reraised preflop in order to eject the two limpers out of the pot, thus isolating the loose blind stealer with your AQo.
Thank you much for the compliment :)
Pre-flop re-raising with AQ offsuit is risky when two players limp in and then the pot gets raised. Even if the button is a loose goose, these guys raise with their good hands as well and your hand is not worth spending two additional bets in this situation. The other problem is that you are out of position even if you can get it heads-up which puts you at a severe disadvantage. I would just call the raise and not re-raise. On the flop with 3 opponents, I would probably check although I would like to know the specific cards on the flop. When bet into, I would probably fold but it depends on the board.
Basically you are simply trying to "bet your way" to victory with no hand, no draw, lousy position, and three opponents. This seems to me like good, old fashioned gambling not playing with an edge.
>>Basically you are simply trying to "bet your way" to victory with no hand, no draw, lousy position, and three opponents. This seems to me like good, old fashioned gambling not playing with an edge.<<
On the other hand he may have had the best hand with his AQo. If not it was probably pretty close between the original raiser and AQo. Running the other guys out who may or may not have marginal hands doesn't seem like a bad play to me. It may have been risky but I would venture to say that it probably increased his winning percentage. He also may have 6 outs.
You are right Tom and I guess that is why they call this gambling. The way the hand played out "any two would do". It is just that when I start pouring a lot of dough into pot with multiple opponents especially with a re-raise and no position, I would want to have a little more than AQ offsuit. Of course I want to play the hand and take a flop but in those situations where the raiser or one of the other opponents may have a better hand, I am not interested in increasing my cost. It addition, it could get capped further increasing my cost. When the flop misses me completely, I figure I probably don't have the best hand (and may never have had the best hand) which means I have a drawing hand. But what I am drawing to with my measly 6 outs, a possible pair?
Hey,
If he's playing low limit games (I don't know about AC, but I imagine they're fairly similar everywhere) then he almost assuredly does not have the best hand. As I'm sure you know, some people in low limit games will call any number of raises with any hand but pure garbage, and so I wouldn't doubt that someone has a small pair already, or some kind of cockamamie draw (runner runner straight and flush draws seem to be pretty popular in 3/6 games =) that would keep them in the pot. Isolation is a tactic that I would say rarely works in low limit games.
The fact that he won the pot is nice, but I would say unusual.
I wouldn't describe this play as gambling at all. With the right line up players, I'm certain that it has a positive E.V., and isn't that the what "playing with an edge" means.
There are 9 small bets in the pot, when the hero check raises, giving him 4.5-1.
The only hands that absolutely dominates our hero's are AA and TT; against KK's or QQ's he has three outs. Against the host of other hands that a loose raiser raises from late position he has 6 outs or already has it beat. These include JJ, 99, 88, AQ, AJ, ATs, A9s, KQs, KJs, and I have seen much worse raising requirements than these. Lets fudge and give him 4 outs if already behind. That is roughly a 10% chance of improving to best on the turn.
Lets also give Carlos a 15% chance of having the best hand. I haven't bothered to figure out the chances of the above hands but I think 15% is fair enough.
Converted back to odds, Carlos is a 4-1 dog, getting 4.5-1 on the play.
Now, before I get completely flamed, a few caveats.
1) The above figures are very subjective, and are only for illustrative purposes only. Clearly there is the chance that one of the limpers is also waiting to check raise, or the pre-flop raiser may re-raise, etc. Knowledge of the players would obviously be important. I am also ignoring the chance the pre-flop raiser will lay down a better hand when Carlos bets the turn after the strong check raise on the flop. My point is you don't have to make to many outlandish assumptions to make this a decent play. 2) This is my first detailed post on strategy after lurking and asking questions for a long while. Tear me to pieces so I can learn even more, but be polite or my feelings will be hurt. 3) Finally, this play obviously increases your variance, as well. Given Carlos' concern about building up a limited bank roll, I don't think playing the way Jim describes would be a bad idea at all. The positive E.V. of the play can't be very high.
PRC
Actually, PRC I did not mean to imply that what Carlos did was bad poker. It is just different than the way I would play the hand. I guess a lot of it has to do with mindset. I believe that most of the very fine posters and players on this forum make a lot more bets and raises pre-flop and on the flop then I do. To me they are poker optimists. They look at a situation and try to see how they can win the pot. They view betting, raising, and check-raising as tactical weapons to be used in winning pots. The result is that they get into a lot more tough situations then I do and many of them are obviously very adept at "gunning their way out". But to straight-forward, simple-minded Jim, in general, I want to have the security of a real hand when I start committing a lot of money to a pot in the face of numerous opponents who are betting and raising and appear excited about their hands. Same thing on the flop. If the flop doesn't fit my hand, I am not real enthusiastic about trying to pour a lot of money into pot with bets and check-raises when faced with multiple opponents. I am reluctant to spend money trying to drive out opponents when there is a good chance I don't have the best hand. When I do this I am usually just helping the guy that has the best hand and locking up a good second place finish for myself.
Poker is not about winning pots. Poker is about winning money. One of the ways to win money is to lose less in marginal and bad situations then the other guy does. But to do this you need to recognize when you are in a hazardous situation. Being out of position with no hand, no decent draw, and lots of opponents is a hazardous situation. The mindset that says "maybe they will all fold, maybe I have a better hand, maybe if I keep betting I can win, maybe I can draw out, maybe they don't have what they are supposed to have", etc. is one oriented towards winning pots.
Jim,
I agree with virtually everything you say. I am sensitive to variance, and try to keep it low. In a full game with several bad players, I would never make the play that Carlos did. There are so many times when I have the best of it, I am hesitant to put money into a pot in marginal situations, even if I expect it is a positive E.V. play.
However, in short handed games, where image is more important, I would be very inclined to make this play even if I felt it had a neutral E.V. for that hand. The image of a tricky, aggressive player would add value to any hand I play later.
My one quibble is when you say "The mindset that says 'maybe they will all fold, maybe I have a better hand, maybe if I keep betting I can win, maybe I can draw out, maybe they don't have what they are supposed to have', etc. is one oriented towards winning pots." I was careful to say that under the right conditions, the play in question could easily have a positive E.V. To me, this means that you are trying to win money not pots though there is obviously some overlap. If playing a hand will show a profit over time you should make that play as it wins you money and pots, given that you have the bankroll and mindset to sustain the higher variance.
Thanks for your responses., I'll freely admit that I am a HUGE Jim Brier fan, and usually scan the board quickly to find your posts.
PRC
Okay, on the preflop play I'll split the difference between Kojee and Jim. I'd say make the reraise *if* you think there's a very good chance it will drive out the two in-between players. Otherwise don't.
On the flop you made a reasonable play. It's a bit of a tricky judgment call. You have to have a feel for the button's play. (Will he call you down all the way with any little pair? What is your current image with him?) But your AQ has a reasonable chance of being the current best of the two hands out (once you get the other guys out). If not, it has probable outs. So there's a grey area between value betting and semi-bluffing in this spot, in which you can legitimately play.
Just bear in mind that the ideal scenario -- which was what happend for you -- requires that you *both* knock out the two players and get the button to fold, or draw out on him. When you consider all that, it's close. But you were thinking well about it.
What about this catch-22: If he raised pre-flop with a poor hand the T-high flop might have given him best hand. If he had a legitimate raising hand he likely has the best hand pre-flop and post-flop.
Your AQ is a clear favorite over a loose raiser so 3-betting is certainly an option. But in a small spread game knocking out the other players isn't profitable, and is UNPROFITABLE if either has an A or Q. In a normal structured game (say 10/20) this is an easy 3-bet since knocking them out IS profitable as the pot is already relatively larger.
On the flop this sort of raiser is a big favorite to bet no matter what. Check-raise was excellent if the two in between will bet into the raiser if they make a pair of 10s. In this case, you have actually LAST action on the flop. Real players in their situation, however, will also check-raise when they make a pair of 10s, and may very well 3-bet YOU figuring their kicker was better causing you to put in 3 bets with just overcards. I hate it when that happens; DOH!. These sorts of players are better off if you 3-bet them out of the pot before the flop, thank you very much.
Sooooo ... In the spread games 3-bet the good players out of the pot but just call and keep the bad players in the pot. In structured games only keep the worst players in the pot.
Having said all that, there is no shame in calling and trying to win with top pair.
- Louie
Carlos,
This is another one I answer without peeking at the others yet.
I like just calling pre flop most of the time and reraising just some of the time. The nice thing about just calling is that the checkraise works so well on flops like the one you got since your hand could be anything (which means it could have hit a ten high flop). You also can get away from terrible flops more easily. When you reraise you are giving out a fair amount of information to your opponents and the hand is not that strong. Plus you really can't checkraise to narrow the field anymore since they expect you to lead out on the flop.
After the smooth call before the flop, you played well post flop IMO.
Regards,
Rick
When playing bridge many times there is one longshot of a distribution that must exist for a hand to be made. You therefore must play for that distribution. (Rubber not duplicate) If the only way the contract makes is for the outstanding trumps to be divided 3-2 with the player on your left holding exactly the QT, well, then to play it any other way is a mistake.
The hand that has caused so much controversy and was resurrected by Mason's column is a good analogy to bridge. You have T9s, the flop is A76 and the pot has about 12 small bets in it. (This part is vague so I am extrapolating) The authors say a bet here is mandatory and they are without a doubt right. It doesn't matter what hands are actually out there. The only chance you have to win this pot is to catch an 8,9 or T and at the same time get a weak ace and overcards out, in case a T,9 comes and then a K,Q,J. You must assume there is no big ace out there already and even if there is by betting out you might get to see the turn for 1 bet and catch the eight. Just play the hand as if the cards are as you need them to be, and the players will react as you need them to react, until proven otherwise.
By this reasoning, shouldn't I always bet with 52o, with a flop of AKQ, because I must assume that I will get runner runner trips?
- Andrew
SammyB unfortunately you cannot play poker like bridge without losing a ton of money over the course of the year. I am not arguing with the 2+2 logic line here about this particular case but I can tell you that our goal is not to win the most pots but rather to win the most money. If you are routinely betting in situations where you will usually get raised or otherwise have very little chance of winning you will be costing yourself money in the long run. The fact that you occasionally drag a pot once in a while because of an unsound bet or raise will not compensate for the numerous times you lose more than you should in your attempts to do this.
It is true that your best chance to win a big pot is to simply bet and raise at every opportunity because once in a blue moon you can literally "bet your way" to victory. The problem is that the vast majority of the time you will be losing more than you should and you cannot win enough when this works to make it profitable in the long run.
The play 2+2 is recommending may well be correct but not for the reason you mention in my humble opinion.
Jim,
You know how much I respect your opinion (humble or otherwise) but I am talking about this particular situation. From my understanding of 2+2's opinion a bet out in early position gives you the only chance to win this pot. By representing an ace, you could conceivably get KQs, KJs, QJs to fold if they have to make a decision with a few people after them yet to act. If there is a big ace out there you're not winning anyway. Hopefully the bet will be raised back to you and you can fold with insufficient odds for the gutshot. A bet out, in my humble opinion, presupposes that catching a nine or ten on the turn will give you a likely winner. Without that optimism, there is no reason to not check and hope you get a free card and catch an eight. So, because the pot is big, and there is a possible distribution of hands that might make a bet effective, betting out is the only possible course of action. Of course if no help comes on the turn or if it takes more than one bet, you are so out of there.
SammyB I believe the 2+2 position is that betting out does NOT give you your ONLY chance of winning but it gives you your BEST chance of winning as opposed to checking and calling. With a large pot, you clearly have an interest in the pot even with a gutshot so you would call anyway. (e.g.- 12 bets pre-flop plus more when you check and call someone else's bet so the odds favor going for the gutshot). By betting you may be able to get a secondary hand (a guy who doesn't have an Ace but King-Jack) to fold thereby increasing your chances if no one has an Ace or if the guy with the Ace folds downstream.
The debate we had on this a few months ago was whether it was worth the cost. The cost is simply that you will frequently get raised resulting in you having to pay more than one bet on the average to pursue your draw as opposed to checking and calling or having the hand checked around resulting in you getting a free card which will never happen when you bet. How does the increased probability of winning the pot tradeoff against the increased average cost? Sklansky maintains that we are only talking about a fraction of a bet so betting is the right play. But betting out is not the only way to win the pot and I do not believe this is the thrust of their argument.
The difference between this case in poker and your example in bridge is in the amount you can win verse the amount you can lose.
In the bridge example your potential lost is minimum. Your potential gain is very large compare to your potential lost. So you play it to make the contact or so many tricks in duplicate bridge or team competition. This happens very often in high level bridge competition.
In the case of this poker hand that is not true.
I am quite capable of representing AA and often do successfully but I just get queezy at the thought of drawing to an inside straight.
Not my style.
But when you hit it, cures that nausea right up doesn't it?
Hi
This is Jeff, by now im sure most of you know me, but if you dont, im only 15, so keep that in mind
Tomorrow Ive got a big heads up game. The other guy in the game always talks about how he could beat me, even though i know that i am much more skilled than him. Today, I told him to prove his skill at the table.
We've set up a 1/2 HE game, with a $50 buy in. I expect that i should be able to mop this game up. But I dont want to get caught in a trap where he will call anything, and make his hand on the turn or river.
Should I adjust my usually tight play? (Usually only playing AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AK, AQ, AJ, al suited) If yes, how should I adjust it? Any other important strategy? Any responses would be appreciated.
Thanks
//
Should I adjust my usually tight play? (Usually only playing AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AK, AQ, AJ, al suited) If yes, how should I adjust it?
if you play like this heads up im absolutely sure you'll lose.
imho your not ready to be playing for that kind of money at your age. read some more posts concerning short hand play and youll see what i mean.
brad
Jeff,
I agree absolutely with brad. I don't particulary worry about your age. If you have $50 to burn in an exciting, mano y mano heads up match, then burn it; but only if you have a reasonable chance of winning.
Given your question, "Should I adjust my usually tight play? (Usually only playing AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AK, AQ, AJ, al suited) If yes, how should I adjust it? " You aren't even close to being ready for heads up play.
If you insist on playing, I strongly urge you to immediately buy HFAP (21st Century edition) and read the short handed section. It is excellent. I won't try to offer you advice until you are closer to being ready.
PRC
I was playing for these stakes in the 60's as a 16 year old. I just hope he doesn't let it get the best of him I didn't.
ja , but look at you. you still only play AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AK, AQ, AJ, al suited
brad - if I understand you, you don't understand my game. I am far from a rock - I just have different values on suited cards.
just a joke. i know your a good/ maybe great player. to be honest when i start to choke i think of people i should be modeling myself after and youre one of them.
brad
15 year-old Jeff,
You're too young to be gambling for those kinds of stakes. Why, back in MY day we played nickel/dime/quarter poker. Wait a minute. . . I still play those stakes and I'm 25. Don't rush it kid. $50 bucks is a lot of dough for a 15 year-old (or at least it should be).
A good rule of thumb: If you can't legally DRIVE to the game, play for nickels.
First off set a time limit and dollar limit. This kind of game 'can' go on for ever. Make sure the rules are crystal clear. If you start to get killed know when to say when and walk away with stlye.
Now for the poker part of it. Be aggressive if you catch any part of the flop. Pocket pairs go up in value. Suited mid connectors go down in value. Big cards are ..well Big cards Raise'em up !! Don't try to out play your opponemt with bad cards stay with groups 1-4 . And most of all since you are starting with better cards that he is (I would hope) be aggressive. Check raise the turn if you flop trips.
Best of it !!
MJ
Thanks for the help so far
but the reality is that i can and am willing to put $50 into play, im nearly 16, and hold a part time job.
Any help though is appreciated, and thanks for the advice thus far
Jeff,
As I mentioned before, I'm not worried about your age or the $50. I'm sure there are probably a thousand things teenagers can do today that will blow off $50 in a single night; and I would rank poker as one of the most educational and enjoyable. I'm not sure why these guys worry so much about young people playing poker.
However, given your first question, I'm not sure you realize how different short handed play is from a full game. When is this game? Do you have plenty of time to study up, maybe deal out some practice hands to practice? Better yet, get a friendly buddy to play you for even smaller stakes, maybe .25-.50. That will make the lessons and experience bite a little harder. You can discuss what you each were thinking while you were playing. Make sure your buddy tries being very aggressive. There is nothing more difficult than a tricky, aggressive short handed player.
Some things that are important to learn quickly in the match:
1) What does the guy lead bet the flop with: medium pair with good kicker; medium pair, bad kicker; any pair; only top pair; flush draws; etc. This information is critical. 2) How often does he check raise, and does he check raise weak hands or strong hands or both. 3) What will he check with. Will he check middle pair on the flop and turn?
In other words, the most important thing in short handed (even more important than hand selection in my view) is knowing your opponent. With all the dead money in the pot, you have to play many more hands, and if you fold all of these hands when you have less than a pair, a good, aggressive opponent will slaughter you.
Hope this is of help. You seem determined to play, and what the hell? I would have played as well if I had known about this site when I was younger.
PRC
MJ,
I don't understand when you say: "Don't try to out play your opponemt with bad cards stay with groups 1-4."
Do you mean a) only get aggressive when you have group 1-4 hands, or do you mean b) only play group 1-4 hands?
If the latter, I think it is poor advice. You are putting an average of .75 small bets into the pot each hand in dead money as will your opponent, you have to fight for that dead money. Given such a limited selection of starting hands in a heads up match, your opponent can raise your blind with any two cards and show a profit.
If the former (only get aggressive when you have group 1-4 hands), I think that might be still to restrictive. In a heads up match, with one player, especially if a freeze out, you have to mix it up more than that. I played heads up with a guy the other day. He stayed with quality hands, and only got aggressive when he made something nice. I killed him, and it wasn't difficult. My strategy: raise more than half the time and bet the flop almost every time. When raised, fold; when called, don't bet anymore unless you are strong; when you have the nuts punish the hell out of him because he has been waiting so long to be aggressive he isn't going to give it up.
I, again, mention HFAP21st's short handed section. It will pay for itself many times over.
PRC
PRC,
I just think that you should start with better cards (than your opponent) and if you catch a piece of the flop get aggressive. You will dominate the hand if you get a piece of the flop with better cards. If you miss then get out and go on to the next hand.
Best of it !!
MJ
MJ,
You wrote: "...and if you catch a piece of the flop get aggressive. You will dominate the hand if you get a piece of the flop with better cards. If you miss then get out and go on to the next hand."
I think that is still to tight. According to the 2+2 books, in a short handed game, if you are folding when you get no piece of the flop, you aren't calling yourself.
In actual play, I think this is true depending on the opponent. Against MOST opponents, there are far to many steal opportunities in short handed. You have to bet when you have nothing. Of course, if you are folding when you have no piece of the flop, then your opponent is probably stealing from you. You need to call/raise enough with nothing so that you aren't an easy mark.
PRC
Jeff no - heads up Axo goes way up in value. You will be playing a lot more hands than you are used to playing - if this guy is an experienced heads up player you may be in trouble.
You want to be very aggressive and don't be afraid to go bust - don't let the blinds kill you.
all these people have played a lot more poker than I have so you should take their advice: basically, play a lot more hands - high cards go way up in value.
What I've found somewhat entertaining (I can't vouch for helpful) is downloading Paradise Poker and playing in the heads-up Hold'em play money tables - people don't play as stupid as they do at the full tables because at the very least there's some ego at stake. Try it out, it will atleast give you a good feel for the heads-up game.
And all you old-timers should lay off the kid - let his parents tell him what he can and can't do - save this postings for actual poker advice
It takes a seedy, decadent, corrupting gambler's forum to raise a child.
i wouldn't want any other kind.
scott
what's the ante/blind structure?
assuming it's normal be loose aggressive. mid suited connectors are fine. you don't want to have to give up every rags flop. pairs are good too. and Axo. be willing to semibluff reraise. when there is any action, the typical headsup situation is both people have mediocre hands and draws to good hands. you have to be able to convince him that he is drawing when in fact you are drawing. understand psychological momentum and be willing to change gears.
scott
Alright, first off I'm only 16 myself. $50 is about the most I have ever played. I consider myself an agressive player, and basically have intimidated the people I play with enough to the point that I haven't been down after a night in over a year.
I'm sorry if my inexpierianced advice sucks...but I just want to say from expieriance in a duel type game, the more agreessive player will win. You can only rely on yourself to put this guy in his place. He will take blinds/antes from you all night long if you wait for the perfect cards. If he knows your tight style maybe this is the night to switch it up a bit. Play a few tight and then start some heavy bluffing and chances.
Good luck to you, go for it!
Scott,
Pairs are great so is Axo in a heads up situation. Playing for drawind hands is a mistake "here" and If you don't hit your hand on the flop you are out of the hand.
Rounder writes: "If you don't hit your hand on the flop you are out of the hand."
This is twice that I've seen this advice on this thread, i.e. fold if you have no part of the flop. Maybe I am missing something, but I think this is very poor advice for a short handed game, let alone a heads up match.
This is view is based on reading the 2+2 books, and my own experience. I often play late at night on the internet, and frequently find myself in short handed or heads up games. When I find someone who only plays quality hands, and will only call/bet when he has a piece of the flop; I am looking at very easy money.
I certainly respect Rounder's thoughts (don't always agree), and would enjoy seeing Rounder expand his views here. Same goes for MJ.
PRC
your out of the hand .. IF YOUR ON A DRAW.
flop 9 T A, you hold 78. youre on shaky ground here, as a 7 or 8 giving you a pair may only lose you a lot of money.
brad
PRC,
If I remember correctly, I think HFAP21st Century recommends betting out with any draw, including gut shots! I'll try to look it up tonight to double check.
I will frequently bet out on a good draw in short handed, and sometimes a not so good draw. The chance your opponent will fold combined with the chance you will improve to a very good hand (a str8 is a great hand in heads up), make the play a good one.
In your example, there are many opponents that I would bet out if I had that 78. In a heads up match what if: your opponent checks to you and you are holding that 78 given your board? you are in the blind, in an unraised pot? I would almost always bet in both of those situations. What if you check from the blind, and your opponent bets? Well, you know you have to call him every now and then to slow down his steals. What better time than when you have an open ended straight?
PRC
well, you know, i meant let it go to pressure. checked to you, bet, raise, you call. checked to you on turn( turn no help to you), you bet, raised to you , and here i would almost always fold.
brad.
Let's say you have a Q9 a good hand heads up.
Flop comes 8 - K - 6 and you are bet into. I don't know about you but I can't call a bet here.
Rounder,
Most times, I would not call a bet here. However, as I'm sure you are aware, it would depend greatly on the opponent. And, I am certain there are times I would call this bet.
Also, there is a technique that Sklansky recommends in HFAP21st century. In it, he essentially take the highest card off the board (make it into a 2 or something equally non-threatening) when deciding whether to call a bet. Would you call with your Q9 then?
Here is what I would do. Lets say, I'm in the BB, and raised pre-flop with this "good heads up hand", and the BB calls. If you folded this hand every time on the flop, I think you are giving to much up. Against an opponent who is capable of bluffing at a king high board and will often check raise a decent king in this spot, then I would call this bet, or even bluff re-raise on the turn. Lets look at the hand: any Q or 9 could give you the best hand as they are the 2nd and 3rd highest cards giving the flop (does your opponent bet middle or bottom pair?). Any J, T, or 5, gives you a gutshot, and any 7 gives you an open ender. If you have a three flush with any of your cards, any flush card of that suit gives you a draw to a flush, and may slow your opponent down.
Now, I'm not sure how positive E.V. this hand is, but if I accept Mr. Sklansky's advice that folding every time when you have less than a pair or a good draw on the flop is folding to much; then I don't think this is the worst hand to make a play.
Again, I wouldn't call here all the time, probably not most of the time. But, depending on my opponent, and how my opponent perceives me, I would call here more times than you think, and I am reasonably certain this is correct.
Thanks,
PRC
ive played a lot of (very small stakes) heads up, with the blinds being very small in no limit, and some limit, and in my experience this is always a fold *in the absence of any read* . of course , by fold in heads up this includes raising the flop to see where you are, and only folding (for real) if youre reraised on the flop or bet into on the turn (assuming the turn didnt help you.)
brad
p.s. the main problem here is that queen high (unlike ace high) is not good enough to win by itself.
I WANT TO START THE NEW YEAR OFF WITH A NEW CAREER MOVE.PLAYING PRO. I HAVE THE BANLROLL;AND ALOT OF PLAYING HOURS.I PLAY 15/30-20/40 TX-HOLDEM ON A REGULAR BASIS. I KEEP GOOD RECORDS AND STUDY ALL OF THE LITERTURE. I MADE AN AGREEMENT WITH MY WIFE THAT I WOULD GIVE HER 15 DOLLARS FOR EVER HOUR THAT I PLAY. IS TO MUCH COMING OUT OF MY BANKROLL? SHOULD I MODIFY THAT AMOUNT ON WHAT I EARNED THAT WEEK OR GIVE A SET AMONT LIKE 500 DOLLARS A WEEK. ANY SUGGESTIONS? rcb s-cal
Reducing your bankroll by $15 per hour is a big cut and you are in mortal danger of going broke. Instead, make her the following proposition. She agrees to let you play 1000 hours on a fixed bankroll. Over this 1000 hour period, winnings go into the bankroll and losses come out of the bankroll. Otherwise the bankroll is left untouched. If at the end of the 1000 hour period you double your bankroll you will give her 25% of your larger bankroll if she agrees to let you keep playing. If she agrees and you double your bankroll, you can make a decision about whether or not you want to continue at your same level or move to a higher level like $30-$60.
If you make $30/hr playing poker, and take $15 out of the bankroll, your risk of ruin will double.
We just had a long thread abou this on the general theory forum, but basically if you are paying bills out of you bankroll, your risk of ruin starts to climb dramatically. Make sure you are always reinvesting winnings into your bankroll. Even if you have a reasonably large bankroll (say, $20,000) and you plan on playing 15-30 and 20-40, but you spend all of your winnings on bills and the wife, you are carrying a significantly high risk of ruin over the next five years.
Ray,
As others have said, paying out of your winnings makes a big difference. I think it's important to know how big your bankroll is. If your wife doesn't have a job which gets you health insurance etc, I'd also advice picking up some kind of part-time job that will give you benefits, preferable AWAY from a casino.
If you are a winning player and you have a large bankroll, say the $20K Dan suggested, AND you ONLY extract $15/hr from the bankroll, AND you make about 1 big bet per hour, you *should* do ok. But be careful, make sure you *always* have something to fall back on.
- Andrew
It is a rough proposition. You are lucky as I am to have a wife that would even consider letting their husband use family assets for a poker bankroll. Take care of her you have a gem. My wife said I could enter the WSOP this year and use $10K but I figure if I couldn't win my way in it via satellites I didn't belong but I am blessed to have a women that understands a mans dreams and goals.
As far as the $15 per hour - if you need the money to live on maybe it is not time to turn pro. I'd take the bankroll and whatever it is and make a deal with her that in 6 mos we would reassess the situation. But alot depends on your personal finances - I just hate to see local "pros" going around hitting people for loans or asking people to sponser them in tournaments. I am sure you are more thoughtful than that but there are alot of broken down card players who once had dreams of being a top pro. The probably play to many suited cards :-)
Don't forget the $15 to get a keyboard CAPS lock fixed.:)
a fair thing to do is give her say one half of each 1000 dollars you make over 4000. this way you get to build your bankroll alittle and she gets to recieve big checks. why did you write in all caps as thats kind of a no no on the internet.i always wonder if someone can be successfull if they dont grasp the obvious. i hope it doesnt apply here. good luck.
i'm new a this.fist time i ever posted, my bankroll is 13000 dollars. thanks for all the replys
You don't use proper punctuation and yet you criticize someone else for doing the same? Do you realize how hard it is to read something that is written without proper capitalization.
hes a soft spoken guy ...
Some of these guys think it is cute to not capitalize and run all the paragraphs together - scott - they are hard to read and an old man like me doesn't have the concentration to wade through the poorley written posts so I usually just skip them.
you don't think i'm cute? so you're not going to leave your wife for me? i'd might as well stop posting.
scott
Why do you ALWAYS use "to" where you mean "too"? This also makes for a difficult read! It puts pain and stress on the brain to read-->think "to" and have to mentally make the correction each time!
Please stop that sir! Other than that you are succint and articulate ... it's a pleasure reading your posts!
Michael
Michael,
Has it ever occurred too you that many of the posters here are not two concerned about their use of proper spelling or syntax. They just want two say what they want too say and not have two answer too anyone about it.
:-)
No and Yes ...
What you said specifically may not have occured to me, but if I had to think about it, I would assume it to be true.
Did you read the thread? Rounder is acting hypocritical. That's why I said something to him.
Anyway, I'd prefer if people who think well would write well too. It just makes it an easier read and it fits! When someone has something to say and can write it articulately, but uses poor grammar, it fits like a bad glove. :(
I was just saying it is hard to read the long long paragraphs with no capitals - big difference from my little to too two huh!
No ... I guess different people have different pet-peaves. The "no capitals" thing does not bother me. But if there's not a space after the period (preferably two spaces), then it does.
Oh well ... I'm not trying to win here. I'm just trying to make it less painful for me to read.
btw - what the heck is "pedantic"?
-Michael
I just looked up pedantic. Hypocritical again, eh?
You've come to the wrong place. I am sick as a dog and not in the mood - don't see why agreeing with little miss is hypocritical. But it is OK if you think so I have been accused of a lot worse.
Then you can have the last word.
Why Hypocritical:
You do not use correct grammar (even when brought to your attention) and then complain that others do not use correct grammar.
Then you call me pedantic when you could be accused of the same for your cap/no cap comments.
It should be clear that people are different and different people have different pet-peaves. Mine is your annoying mis-usage of "to" and "too" and yours is not putting caps where caps are called for.
Why do you not just say "foot" when you mean "too"? What's the difference? "too" and "to" are just pronounced the same - they mean totally different things. I could care less about caps!
Pet peeves is not hyphenated and is spelled as you see I wrote it. I, however, reserve the right to commit errors in typing without opening myself up to accusations of hypocrisy. Now, isn't it annoying when people pick on every little thing? And even if they do, does pointing out their annoyances make this a better world?
Now, I am giving you the perfect example of a hypocrite. I criticise you for misspelling, then say how wrong it is to criticise others for mistakes. Rounder was not being hypocritical, he was just exercising his right to complain. The fact that he complained does not mean he should have to be perfect.
On page 103, 2nd paragraph(heads up on 5th street)it says, "When you are planning to raise, you usually need to be about a 2-to-1 favorite to have the best hand on the end...."
Question: Can you give me a simplified example of where you might be considered a 2 to 1 favorite against one other player by fifth street(or any street for that matter)?
Is there a section in the book H.P.F.A.P. where they teach you how to mathematically pit yourself against another? If not, is there another book you know of that would teach me how to do this for hold'em, specifically.
Thanks, M.C.
They mean you need to be at least a 2-1 favorite if you are going to call when you are reraised and if your opponent is going to reraise whenever he has the best hand. If you raise and are going to call whenever your opponent reraises you, your raise will cost you money whenever your chance of having the best hand is less than 2/3, which of course is the same as being a 2-1 favorite.
Look at the arithmetic. If you have a 2/3 chance of winning and a 1/3 chance of losing, and your opponent raises you the 1/3 of the time that he's ahead, and you call that reraise every time, you will win one extra bet 2/3's of the time (+.67 bets) and lose two bets 1/3 of the time (-.67 bets). Obviously, you'll break even. Under these assumptions, you must be better than a 2-1 favorite to have a positive expectation. This also assumes your opponent will call your raise whenever he's beaten.
So instead of looking for cases where you are exactly a 2-1 favorite, think of it as need to have a substantial advantage over your opponent(s) which, under fairly normal assumptions, arithmetically translates into needing to be at least a 2-1 favorite.
Bottom line: if you raise on the river every time you think you're ahead you are making a losing play. The threat of a reraise requires you to be way ahead. But you don't have to think of it in mathematical terms when you're playing.
You can afford to be less of a favorite if you can (rationally) fold to your opponent's reraise or if your opponent will not reraise even when he's ahead.
.
Typical 2-4 game played by a friend that has me thinking.
Hero has T9o UTG (#3 seat). Calls, #4 calls, and cutoff (CU) raises. Both blinds fold, and UTG and #4 call. $15 in the pot for a three player flop.
Flop is QJ5, rainbow.
UTG checks, #4 bets, and CU raises. There is $21 in the pot when our hero has to act, and he could be facing a raise behind him.
How close is the decision to fold or call here.
Hero is getting almost 6-1 to call if #3 just calls the raise, and roughly 4-1 if it is capped behind him. He is drawing to the ignorant end of the straight against a board that could easily contain trips or two pair. I think it is a relatively easy fold, but there was some debate on the matter with my friend.
I can post the results later if anyone is curious.
PRC
P.S. FYI, I don't like the pre-flop call either.
Let's say we KNOW that it won't be capped behind the hero. In that case, I'd say it's an easy call. It's 6:1, and you are better than 5:1 to make the straight on the turn. But there is the possibility that it will be capped, so that should be factored in. If it is capped by #4, I'd say the chances are about nil that CU will fold here. So there will be $31 in the pot when it gets back to our hero. So on the flop, the hero would be betting $8 to win $31, which is worse than 4:1. Not enough to call on it's own. But what about the implied odds? If the straight comes on the turn, a check-raise is in order, and I'd say there'd be enough money in the pot to keep the other two around. The hero would need to get $9 additional dollars in the pot to make the call on the flop correct, and I'd say with two betting rounds left, and two raisers, that wouldn't be too hard.
So let's say it's just a borderline call. I don't see how it can be an easy fold. Would someone call 4 bets on the flop with a gutshot to the nuts(AT)? As for the comment about the board that could contain trips or two pair, we don't need to worry about that, because we're drawing to a hand that beats both of them. Sure, if it's trips, he's getting about 4:1 to make a full house by the river, but I don't really feel like fudging the odds down right now.
Mike
Your friend flopped an open ended straight draw with a rainbow flop. Any Eight gives him the nuts. A King gives him the second nuts only losing to specifically Ace-Ten. It is unlikely that the cutoff or #4 has specifically Ace-Ten. I would view this as having 8 clean outs with any Eight or King.
8 outs from 47 unseen cards is 39:8 or about 5:1 against. His immediate pot odds are $21:$4 which is a little better then 5:1. If #4 calls the raise, then his pot odds become almost 6:1 While he may get raised again, I think when you consider how the large the pot could get (implied odds) a call is clearly correct.
All,
Thanks for the responses,
After thinking about the posts, I think you are right, and that the call is good. I think this is a case when the negative results colored my judgement.
The Turn was the 8, giving my friend the nut straight. He bet out, was raised, and only called as he was out of money at the time. River was a 5, pairing the board. #8 turned over pocket QQ's for a full house and the pot.
In rethinking the hand, I realize that you can't put #8 on Q's here. He could have easily raised the flop bettor with AQ or KQ, or maybe even AJ or AK, or even a draw, as mentioned in one of the posts. That probably makes a call here a good bet.
I wonder, if for some reason, you knew #8 was raising with trips, would a call still be correct, given the number of redraws against you?
thanks again,
PRC
If you make the straight the set has only once chance to catch one of 10 cards or a 3.4:1 dog against your straight. The other player does not have a better redraw unless he has specifically AT. Since the pot is giving twice the price you need to draw, you should draw even if you KNOW he has a set.
Assuming the draw has lots of chips... Even if they both have a set and will cap it on the turn (which is very bad for you) this fact means you can expect excessive action when you make the straight, which takes most of the bite out of it.
As Brunson once pointed out, you are better off with your 8 card straight draw against a set than a 9 card flush draw, since two of your flush cards also pair the board so you really only have 7 outs.
- Louie
At best its $4 now and $4 on the turn with a reward of $21 +$2 call + $8 on the turn; or $31:8 or almost 4:1 for his 2:1 draw. There will have to be multiple raises on the turn or he'll have to lose almost HALF the time he MAKES the straight for this to be a bad call.
Good call on the flop; bad 2 calls of course before the flop.
- Louie
Since he plays T9o UTG (and suffers the indignity of compounding it with a second bet) he probably should just look at his hand and the board and forget about odds, etc. as well as what the other players might have.
His punishment will be to have the K make his straight on the turn and a T hit the river to make any A beat him Love.
As this hand description is a bit long, I'll ask my question up front. When heads up against a strong hand that you are pretty sure you have beat, do you want to always put the last raise in on each round? Or is it better to let the presumed second best hand think he is best and keep raising you, keeping the action going and saving money when your hand isn't actually the best.
Loose 3-6 game. I have 77's UTG (#3) and call. #5 raises which I don't like as there go my implied odds. However, things look up when #8, SB, and BB all call. I call and we take the flop 5 handed with $30 in the pot.
Flop is K74 rainbow. Checked to me, and I check hoping the pre-flop raiser will bet, allowing me to check-raise the whole field for one more bet. This may have been a mistake for two reasons: 1) Do I want to play the flop fast with my medium set? In which case I should bet and hope the pre-flop raiser raises to thin the field. 2) After me there was only the pre-flop raiser and the late position player to bet. If they had both checked I would have lost the chance to put money into the pot with my set.
In any case, #5 (pre-flop raiser) does check (uh oh), but #8 obliges me with a bet. Both blinds fold, I raise, #5 folds, and #8 reraises. I just call at this point, intending to check raise or bet out on the turn. I don't figure #8 for a set of Kings because he didn't raise pre-flop so I figure I am still best at this point.
Turn is another K, still rainbow board. I bet out, because if #8 has trip K's I think he will raise. I don't credit him with K7 or K4 as he cold called the pre-flop raise; I figure I am winning. He does raise and I just call, hoping to bet out on the River and get raised again.
River is a T, I bet out, #8 raises, and I just call. I don't know why I didn't reraise, but I probably should have.
I like my call of his reraise on the flop. If I cap it here, I might choke off later action. However, I think I made a mistake on the turn and the river. If he did have trip K's, he wasn't going anywhere, and we might have capped it on the turn for two more big bets. Even if he just calls on the river, I get 5 bets on the turn and the river vs. the 4 that I actually got. On the other hand, if I had played the turn just as I did, and re-raised his raise on the river, I would have ended up with the same 5 bets, and 6 bets if he capped it.
Of course, he might have filled up on the River (KT being a much more likely hand than K7 or K4), and I would have lost all those bets. Which brings up my final point. If he did have a set of KK's, and then quads on the river, not reraising saves lots of money on the turn and river because he would have been more than happy to cap it each round.
So, how do you play presumed best hand vs. a very good 2nd best hand. Get all the money in that you can, or slow down because you don't want to kill the action and you might not be the best hand!!
If you have read this far, I thank you!
PRC
I don't like your check-raise having flopped a set against four opponents one of whom raised pre-flop and a King shows up on the flop. You should bet out and you may get raised by the pre-flop raiser or some other opponent with a King allowing you to make it 3 bets.
When you check-raise #8 and he re-raises, you can smooth call. However, because you are out of position being first to act I think you should make it 4 bets and plan on taking control of the hand and betting it all the way to the river in this heads-up situation. The problem with smooth calling is that if a scare card comes on the turn and you check he may not bet. I think you should get your licks in while you can and not worry about trying to finagle an extra bet later. If you had position over your opponent than the smooth call on the flop would look better.
On the turn, I like your bet and I think you should re-raise when he raises. He has trip Kings most likely and you have a full house. Now if he makes it four bets than I would just call and check it down. If he just calls your re-raise, then I would bet the river unless the river card is a King or a Four.
the time to get cute with a hand is when its not so good and you may be able to knock out a player thats getting good odds to beat you. plus other reasons. when you have a strong hand, thats the time to get money in the pot and the reasons for being tricky go away.
I agree with what you say, but being a relative novice, I'm not sure what the best way is to get money in the pot when heads up, especially when out of position. I guess that was the main point of my long winded post.
Do you want to bet/raise every chance you get?
Not cap it on the early rounds, hoping to cap it on the Turn?
I suppose it has a lot to do with your opponent, but I am learning, and the responses help me learn faster.
Thanks,
PRC
In general, with a good hand, the time to take your foot off the gas pedal on the cheap betting round is when you have position, rather than when you have to act first. That way, somebody cannot back you into a shell on the flop round when they have position on you, and get a free card. There ar quite a few players who when drawing, raise on the flop to get a free card, and if you reraise, they continue the charade by raising again.
It took me a few reads (and some thought) to understand what you are saying, but it makes great sense now.
Does the same principle hold on the later rounds. That is, when out of position against a good but second best hand, bet out and cap it every chance you get?
Thanks,
PRC
10-20: (first hand just to show im not a complete weakie) i post, fold, fold , raise, button calls, i see AsTc call. flop comes K T 2 all diamonds. i check , check , check. turn is 4c. i bet, fold , fold.
my big blind again. UTG limps, all fold to me, QQ, i raise, he reraises i call(?). flop is JJ2 rainbow. i check (my mind is already semi made up to check call allthe way) and i figure if he checks im dead meat. he bets i call. flop is 4, no flush no straight possible for this hand.i check he bets i call. river is A. i check he turns over 7c8c and i thought i might have to muck(board had 2 clubs and a spade.) for a split second.
my question is, is check calling right here. i figure im way ahead or way behind. i was criticized yesterday for being too passive (i wholly agree) and was wondering if in this situation check calling is indeed appropriate. thanks, brad
In the first problem, pre-flop you called a raise with Ace-Ten offsuit which is okay because you were already half-way in with your post. I like your check on the flop when you flop middle pair and they are all Diamonds with you not having a Diamond. When everyone checks and a blank hits on the turn, your bet is excellent. This situation comes up frequently, and like I stated on another post the first guy to bet the turn usually wins after it is checked around on the flop.
On the second hand, the under the gun limper who now re-raises you could have AA or KK although this is an unusual play and you really have to know your opponent here. He may be fooling around because it is a heads-up situation and he has position over you. I would just call after being re-raised pre-flop like you did. Once the flop comes, I would bet out and see how he handles it. He may be fearful that you have trip Jacks and not raise with a better hand like KK or AA. The problem is that you don't want to miss a lick when you have the best hand. Once you decide to let him have control, you have no choice but to play it like a little girl and check-call.
What an idiot 3-betting a tight blind raiser with 87s; and for FAILING to bluff when he catches the perfect Ace on the end. Go figure. Perhaps he believed you are an easy to push around passive player.
If you knew he was this aggressive check-calling, hehehe, is a real option since there is so little chance of him outdrawing you and such a good chance he's going to put the money in anyway.
If you thought he really has a premium hand then check-calling, a-oh a-oh, is a real option in the hopes he's betting AK or TT.
- Louie
Man, this Forum is getting too big for me...no time to read even a quarter of the stuff. However, I did get through the "Aces-thin the field" thread. The consensus seems to be that when you raise with AA, you want as many callers as possible. Fine, I can live with that conclusion. I understand that this does not mean that you ought to routinely limp with them. The argument here being that while you don't mind having 8 opponents for 1 bet each, you would rather have 4 oppponets for 2 bets each or even 8 opponents for 2 bets each.
Now, suppose you are on the button and the cut-off guy is the first in and he comes in with a raise. Should you routinely just smoothcall and allow the blinds a chance to get into the fray?
Arguments pro and con please.
skp,
Where have you been lately? We miss you.
You are right about the forum. Threads are going by so fast you feel like you can never keep up. But it is great to see the new faces. We will just be fish in a larger pond.
Anyway, you wrote: "Now, suppose you are on the button and the cut-off guy is the first in and he comes in with a raise. Should you routinely just smoothcall and allow the blinds a chance to get into the fray?"
I'm going to say that it depends. Ha Ha. No, it does depend. Will the blinds call anyway? Will you get action from worse hands? This is an area where you can mix it up but your real profit comes from knowing your players. Remember, there are many worse hands you will three bet with so you are not really giving your hand away.
Anyway, I'd thought I'd get first in with a few licks.
Regards and welcome back,
Rick
Hey Rick, thanks for the welcome back. I missed the place as well. I may have to tune off again for a few days so if I don't respond to your next post, it's because I am not logged on.
Now, on this issue, I would like you to assume that if you 3 bet, both blinds will fold virtually always. Also, further assume that if you just smoothcall, the bb will call 80% of the time and the sb will call 40% of the time (I play in a game where many players take it as a personal affront to give up their blinds without a little struggle).
Given these parameters, what say you - routinely 3 bet or routinely smoothcall?
skp,
With those parameters I think I would smooth call most of the time. I just think you would want the extra blind action enough so that you would be willing to risk a slightly higher chance of losing a small to middling pot to get this action. But I would not want to make it a pattern in a game where my opponents play against me a lot. That is more true for you then for me.
BTW, I find that the blinds will defend more around here, even against a double raise so long as it comes from late position. So I really don't play in too many games with the parameters you describe.
In a tournament I think I would three bet it most of the time.
Regards,
Rick
I agree with Rick about the player/situational considerations. But consider just the simple scenario where if you just call the small blind will fold and the big blind will call, but if you 3-bet only the original raiser will call. Now, if you just call, you're up against two guys, with your opps having put 4.5 bets into the pot. On the other hand if you 3-bet, you're up against just one guy, with opps having put the same 4.5 bets in. (Of course you've invested more in the latter case. But the same is true of the other arguments about 4 opps for 2 bets each vs 8 for 1 bet...) I don't know that this really means the 3-bet is best here, but at least it's something to consider. Anyway, you also gain when the 3-bet with AA brings more respect to your other 3-bets with lesser hands.
John,
In your game I think you have to three bet for the reason you mention in your last sentence. You have to persue more of a "balanced strategy" since you are more often up against the same opponents. For a "rounder" like me, it is not so important.
Regards,
Rick
I say you re-raise routinely. Two good things come from this. You get heads up with the original raiser, in which case you're a big favorite over any typical person's late position raising hand (AX, Jxs, KT). Or you get 3 to 4 way action with a monster hand, in which case you're still winning way more than 1 in 3 or 1 in 4.
The only draw back to reraising with AA is if you only do it with AA (or KK). In most cases I would want to re-raise with as little as A9 or 77, esp. if one or both of the blinds are tight. If the blinds are esp. tough I still like a reraise with AJ or 99. You've got position and making it 2 1/2 bets to the small blind and 2 bets to the big is going to yield some information.
I think a better question is what's the weakest hand that warrants a re-raise in this situation? I think any big ace obviously and any pair 99 or higher, but other hands? You want to play tough not just play? Just because you know the original raiser has less than adequate hand value to raise doesn't mean you want to wade in there with anything. So how much do you loosen up? How often are you going to have to fold? Without articulating it fully, it will depend on the "looseness" of the raiser, the honor of the blinds and the vigor with which they defend that honor, your own table image, your hand, and (probably most important) your ability to play strong and read hands post flop. So I guess as in most aspects of poker the answers to these questions are subject to your own abilities and the particular situation that you find yourself in.
Chris,
I believe the kinds of things you mention would be very important in John Feeney's 40/80 game or in skp's 10/20 game in Vancouver. Actually, it is important in any game where your opponents may be observant. You need to keep a wide range of hands in your opponets minds while not giving up too much EV on the lessor hands in this range.,
Regards,
Rick
It depends completely on the players. A re-raise costs you not just in forcing players out of a pot where you have much the best of it, but also in deception, which may cost you bets on later rounds.
On the other hand, not re-raising hurts you if the blinds would have called anyway, and you lose the extra small bet from the original raiser before the flop.
In the end, you're just trying to make the biggest pot possible, because you're the favorite to win it. Against one good opponent, it might be worth forgoing a small bet before the flop if you think you can trap him for a couple of big bets later on.
I believe it is correct to smooth call if three factors are all present.
1. The blinds are loose enough before the flop to often call with weak hands for a single bet more.
2. The blinds are not so loose that they often call for a double bet extra.
3. The blinds are the kind of players who are apt to lose the max with one pair.
Another possible factor leading you to merely call is if the original raiser will play very cautiously if you reraise.
It is possible that even without these factors a smooth call would be correct but I doubt it. This is especially true in the big games where I virtually NEVER just call in this pre3cise situation but rather fold or raise. Thus calling would mark my hand.
DS:: "...in the big games where I virtually NEVER just call in this pre3cise situation but rather fold or raise.
BL: *fold*? Please explain what would make you fold AA on the button to one player who entered an empty pot for two bets? There are now 3.5 bets in the pot and the worst you have is a tie and you only have to risk 3 bets vs. the 3.5.
Love.
I believe David was referring to the situation not the actual holding. When sitting on the button and cutoff is first in with a raise David is going to fold or raise. If he just called it would be giving away too much information because he NEVER calls here.
I hope I got that right, David.
Thanks. You said what I was trying to say, only in a much more understandable way.
And people say you can't write. Sheesh.
I was going to say just what John Feeney said, that you may get the same size pot if the SB folds so the 3-bet is usually right.
Another advantage of the 3-bet is that many players will suspect you of not having the most premium hand for sure, thinking you are isolating an even weaker steal attempt by the original raiser.
I can imagine the Sklansky scenario in some really loose games but it must be hard to read the players this well unless you have seen them a lot and even then I suspect it is not that much of an error to 3-bet.
D.
I haven't seen anybody mention this specifically so far; wouldn't another significant factor in this decision be the number of callers prior to the cutoff's raise?
In other words, the more original callers, the greater the correctness of 3-betting? The fewer the number, the greater the correctness of smooth calling for deception?
Hi everybody,
I'm kind of new to this forum, but I've been lurking for a while.
A hand a week or so ago has been bugging me, and I thought I would get the opinions of some of you guys on it.
This was a 10-20, 9 handed game.
I hold AQs in middle posistion. The button is a player that I see in this game all the time--he's a bad player, and will call down with almost any pair.
Preflop, I raise, he re-raises (he will do this with almost any paint cards or pocket pair, down to about sixes), and I call (I think I probably should have re-raised him back, but that's another discussion).
Five players, including the two of us, see the flop of Q-Q-5. First player checks, I bet out, 3rd player folds, 4th player calls, Bad Player (BP) raises, first player folds, I call, next player folds.
Turn comes A. I'm almost absolutely confident that I have the best hand, especially heads-up against BP. I bet the turn, he raises. I re-raise, he calls.
River comes King. I bet, he raises. I ponder for a moment, trying to figure out what he has. I figure that the absolute best hand he could have would be KQ, and he was calling me down and caught a King. I re-raise. He raises me back. I re-raise. He raises me back. I finally just call.
He turns over KK.
Is there any way I could have put him on this hand, and lost less money with this hand? I think that if it happened again, I would play it the same way, against this player.
Comments appreciated.
Max
Max except for the river I like the way you played this hand. Pre-flop, you raised with your AQ offsuit which is good. When re-raised, a call is correct despite your suspicions that you may have the better hand. Keep in mind that a loose goose gets good cards like the rest of us and will re-raise with them as well. In addtion, you have three other opponents in the hand who may have better cards. Not all players raise or re-raise with big slick for example.
You caught a great flop. I like your bet into four opponents since you will probably get action from someone, like the pre-flop re-raiser. When raised, I love your smooth call since it looks like you will be heads-up.
Your play on the turn was fine. It is highly unlikely he has specifically AA.
On the river, you now have the third nuts. In addition, if he has AQ you split the pot. I like your bet. When raised I think I would now just call. It was very bad poker for you to keep raising. There is 1 way he can have AA, 3 ways he can have KK, 2 ways he can have AQ, and only 3 ways he can have KQ. He is actually more likely to have AA or KK then to have KQ given the board cards and your hand.
I think you got excited. The addrenalin was rushing through your head. It blocked you vision, your logic, your sense whatever you want to call it and you lost extra money because of it. When you get raised on the river the first time it might still be correct to raise back especially since you thought he had KQ but when you get raised the second time you should just call and pray he has KQ, AQ or maybe 55. I don't care how loose he plays and how bad deep inside you want to give him a taste of his own medicine all you have now is a crying call.
To answer your question/s. Yes you could have saved 1 big bet here. Failing to save a bet here is extremely bad.
I think after I bet the river and get raised I would just call. You show strength throughout the hand yet he pops you again.
It's such a lousy beat that I hate to say it but in retrospect I think you made a mistake here. Although you put him on KQ, remember that he stopped raising on the turn. The only reason he would stop raising on the turn was that he might be beaten. The only hands that can beat KQ on the turn are AA, AQ and two hands he can't put you on, 55 and Q5. When the king hits on the river, he still can't beat AQ if he's got KQ. Also, if he's got KQ the possibility that you have AQ can't be far from his mind. If he's got KK, however, the only thing he can't beat are AA or QQ and remember that you didn't put in that last raise before the flop. Therefore, after he raises you on the river, I don't think that you were better than a 2-1 favorite to have the best hand.
Assume you always raise with Aces. Assume further that:
- with 9 opponents, your Aces get cracked 7 out of 10 times. Each time you lose, you lose about 10sb. This yields a loss of 70sb. When you win, you gain about 35 sb each time. This yields a win of 105sb. Thus, your total gain over 10 trials is 35sb or 3.5 sb per trial.
- with 3 opponents, your Aces get cracked 3 out of 10 times (I don't know if I am right on this but it sounds reasonable to me). Each time you lose, you lose about 10sb for a loss of 30sb. When you win, you probably stand to gain an average of about 12sb for a gain of 84sb over your 7 wins. This yields a net gain of 54sb over 10 trials or 5.4 sb per trial.
Even if you brought the average trial win down to 10sb (which is very conservative), the math still yields a net win of 40sb over 10 trials or 4.0 sb per trial.
Thin the field! (or am I out to lunch with my assumptions, math or both?)
How do you figure to only win 35 small bets in a pot where you had to put in 10 small bets and nine opponents call you all the way to the river? It's gotta be at least 72. The assumption of winning only 3 in 10 requires that all opponents call all bets.
Winning 7 out of 10 with three opponents is close enough. But think about it logically - what would make you more money - winning 30% of the time when getting 9-1 odds, or winning 70% of the time when getting 3-1 odds?
Ya, but you are not getting 9-1 odds throughout the hand - just pre-flop. Surely, you can't expect all 9 of your opponents to call you all the way to the river.
I came up with my 35 sb estimate for an average win as follows:
You win 18 sb pre-flop. On the flop, let's say that there's a raise some of the time (in which case you will 3 bet). If that happens, you are probably looking at 2 or 3 oppponents sticking around for the turn. If there is no raise, you may have 5 or 6 opponents but all are in for just one bet.
On the turn (on hands that you win), you probably will not face a raise (in a big pot, no one is going to get very frisky on the tutn unless he can beat Aces). You will lose half of your opponents on the turn bet. On the river, you get 1 maybe 2 calls. I fudged a bit here and there and it seemed to me that 35sb was a correct estimate.
Now, you make a good point in that my 70% getting cracked estimate may be too high given that this assumes that everyone will call to the river (I hadn't thought of that). But it's probably not too much off. The flop is of course the defining moment in Hold 'em. In the sims results (of which I know nothing), I would guess that the vast majority of the 70% of the time that Aces loses, it would have lost to a hand that caught a little something on the flop which means that this hand would likley have stuck around even in the real world to ultimately put your Aces to shame:).
Anyway, gotta go to court this AM. You may well be right and I could be off my rocker on this one. I'll think about it some more later on. I should add that the discussion is somewhat academic though in that I can't remember the last time that I did not put in the maximum raises possible with AA or KK preflop.
No, the effect of having all nine players go to the river is significant, because of the possibility of Aces losing to a running two pair, running straight, running flush, or a running pair that makes someone trips.
Basically, your assumptions are using two different scenarios, and using the worst-case from each of them to make your point.
Well, I am not really trying to make MY point. I readily state that I could be a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic with my ideas on this one. However, I do have a "gut" feeling that 9 opponents is not the optimal number for Aces. That feeling is necessarily based on anecdotal experience which once again I accept could be leading me to an incorrect conclusion.
I played for approximately a year in a club where it was a common sight to have everyone see the flop (even for a raise). In my experience, Aces seemed to get cracked 2 out of 3 times depite the fact that half the field bows out after the flop. Again, anecdotal evidence ...but that's all I can offer.
On my assumptions, I was very conservative on the number of wins in the scenario where you only have 3 opponents. You might say that I was conservative in the other scenario as well. You could be right but I was certainly less conservative in that scenario.
There is one thing which is going to influence anecdotal evidence greatly. People tend to remember whether or not they won pots, not the exact size of them. When you start to lose more pots than you win, people probably start looking at that as a bad thing. With aces, this is not true. You will win less pots, but you will win more money.
Peoples perceptions are very deceptive things.
- Andrew
skp:: "In my experience, Aces seemed to get cracked 2 out of 3 times" (in 9 way action.)
This means they win 33% of the time but only put up 11% of the money. What's wrong with that?
Nothing at all. Aces make good money no matter how many people call. The question is "what is the optimal number of opponents". On that score, I am not convinced that it is 9 (at least based on my own anecdotal experience).
skp,
I am a bit whipped right now but it seems some of your assumptions are wrong. I would estimate you win quite a few more bets when you win (in both scenarios). Think about it, unless heads up, you always win far more bets when you win a hand then the bets you lose when you do lose.
On the other hand, I would say you would only win about 50% of the time against three opponents.This is just a seat of the pants, I'm too lazy to sit up and do the math, type guess.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
Take this question as completely tongue in cheek.
I'm sitting UTG with AA and I raise. I want all of them to call. I think and concentrate very, very hard on all of the players. I wish, hope and pray that all of them call the raise. 8 of them folded.
Several hours later at a different table I'm UTG with AA. I smooth call hoping everone else calls and the button raises so I can reraise. I hope, I dream, I meditate on this desire. All fold to the bb who checks. What did I do wrong?
Is there a particular method of hoping I'm not aware of that influences the opps?
SammyB,
Find a looser game or one where they don't read your mind :-).
Regards,
Rick
P.S. You don't by any chance move your lips when you pray? This could be a tell of sorts.
There was a thread a couple of weeks ago about reading at the table. They weren't referring to me reading the bible were they?
What you did wrong was to fail to understand the nature of your game. You should have a good idea of the rough probabilities of the pot being raised, of how many callers you're likely to get, etc. And sometimes you'll be wrong, because these are in fact just probabilities. But hey, that's poker.
Evaluate your situation, and take the best action your judgement and knowledge offers (and your knowledge now includes the fact that it's not desirable to limit the field with Aces). Then learn from the result so you can make better judgements next time. Repeat as necessary.
"I would estimate you win quite a few more bets when you win (in both scenarios)."
Rick, the 35sb estimate I explained above. I did take a very conservative estimate in the 3 opponents scenario.
skp,
As others have said, your assumptions are flawed. Your win rates are flawed, and the ammount won/lost are also inaccurate.
For example, in a live game, against 9 opponents, your aces should hold up at LEAST 35% of the time.
- Andrew
Hey you guys, Tom Weideman mentions in a post in his "Loosening/Tightening" thread on RGP that a few years ago he posted an analysis of a game called something like "Percentile Poker". He mentions that it may have served as part of the inspiration for Morton's Theorem, was similar to some work Sklansky had done on multiway pots, etc. He says it implied that there is a maximum number of players you want to play aces against. He mentions an observation that, "as the number of opponents increases, pot sizes grow linearly while probabilities of winning decline geometrically (assuming hand independence again)". I don't have time to look that up, but if someone could find it on deja.com and provide a link to it (if it's there), it looks like it could add something to this whole "aces" discussion. Maybe Tom could jump in. Given that analysis, I'd be interested in his opinion (well, even without it actually :).
independence is quite a strech here.
scott
You're probably right. I got the impression that in his current "guts" analysis there was assumed independence, and that he thought it wasn't too much of a problem, at least for drawing broad conclusions. But I may not fully appreciate what "independence" means.
I think in this case idependence would mean that every hand had the same chance of being dealt, or at least the same chance it would have without the prior removal of cards form the deck. Is that right? Anyway, it's unclear to me how big a factor that should be.
"... the same chance it would have without the prior removal of cards form the deck."
Heh, yeah, that part. One hand's being dealt would be assumed to have no effect on another's being dealt.
On the Cardplayer Magazine web site, there is an article by Mike Caro called "Preventing Errors in Poker Judgment That Can Destroy Your Bankroll". In it, he lists ten "errors" and explains each. The first error he discuses is "Raising players out in early rounds in a rake game"
I've posted an excerpt of this article. I just don't buy it. Granted, we once thought the world was flat, and we once thought JTs was the best starting hand out there. But now I know that I bet the early rounds to drive players out and protect my hand. Mike Caro disagrees, and I'd like to know what the resident experts here, and whomever else, has to say about it.
here goes:
1. Error: Raising players out on early rounds in a rake game. Oh, I know that this is controversial. There's a whole herd of people who strongly believe - deep, deep in their hearts - that it's better to raise in an effort to limit the field of competition. Well, let me assure you, those people's hearts are in the right place. It's their thinking that sucks. As I've said before, even in those instances when you have a significantly strong hand and you can prove that it would be better to play against fewer players, raising may not be the answer. Why? Because - if players remain to act after you - you often "succeed" in chasing away the weak hands that you wanted to call you, but not the strong hands that you were hoping to scare away. Many years ago, I began reporting to you that limit-the-field tactics often were less profitable when computer simulations were used than more-the-merrier tactics. Later, I was able to pinpoint the main factor contributing to this, and I've just told you what it is. In raising to limit the field of opponents to the right size, you're often eliminating the wrong hands. So, the limit-the-field strategy, in itself, often is an error in judgment - not always, though, and that's another story. In rake games, you usually should raise only to build pots, not to eliminate opponents. This advice takes into consideration both the loose nature of typical opponents in these games and the effect of the rake. As we just examined, even in nonrake games (for example, seat rental and button pays), the thin-the-field strategy often is wrong. But in a rake game, it tends to be wrong more frequently, because the rake is split among fewer opponents. This means that when the pot is raked, you often need a bigger edge than you might expect to justify betting. This is especially true before the rake is capped. Just to make this concept clear, let's suppose that you have a sure winning hand and only one opponent. The rake is 10 percent with no cap. You bet $10 and your opponent calls $10. That's a total of $20 wagered, and the house takes 10 percent (much higher than typical at most casinos, by the way). So, that's $2 in rake. This means that you have wagered $10 in an effort to gain $8. So, the "tax" on your winnings is 20 percent against a single opponent. But suppose that there are three of you. You bet $10, Player A calls $10, and Player B calls $10. The house takes $3 of the $30 total wager (still 10 percent), but the tax now is only 15 percent on your winnings ($3 out of $20 instead of $2 out of $10). So, the percentage of rake is reduced with every extra opponent you face. Even if the rake is capped, this concept is very important on the first round of betting, and often means that you should not raise in an effort to eliminate opponents. Violation of this concept is an error in judgment.
?!?!!??!?!???
Ryan wrote: "I just don't buy it"
What part of this do you find hard to believe? If you specifically state the part that bothers you most, and more importantly 'Why' you find it hard to buy, Mr. Caro himself might emerge from the shadows of lurkland and help you understand his point. It's worth a try.
-pdk
O.K. imho
I understand smooth calling with a monster hand, (nut flush, set with non-threatining board) since I'm better off with two or three overcalls, than just a call from the original bettor.
I understand smooth calling with a big draw. I want to draw as cheaply as possible. I don't want to drive anyone out, they'll pay me off when I hit.
But with a big hand (anything from top pair top kicker to a set when two big flush cards flop) I've got to try to narrow the field. When I have AA, and there's multiway action when the flop comes Jack high, I'm going to raise anyone who bets into me. Maybe that's raising to build the pot, like Caro says, but I'll still do it if the bettor is to my right. Anyone with a pair could trip up on the turn. If there aren't any draws out, someone could pick one up. If everyone folds, I'll take it. Unless I'm drawing, or I have a monster, I don't like a crowd.
I play in the low limit games Caro is talking about. With any vulnerable hand, I feel it is correct to drive players out when possible. We've all had our good hands beaten by flaky draws, but if we're not betting and raising to drive players out, we're just asking for it.
Now, having said that, I am a novice. He just seems to contradict too much of what I've believed to be "correct"
Ryan
You stated "I play in the low limit games Caro is talking about. With any vulnerable hand, I feel it is correct to drive players out when possible. We've all had our good hands beaten by flaky draws, but if we're not betting and raising to drive players out, we're just asking for it. " In the low limit games I play in no one with top pair,a 4 flush, or openended straights are going anywhere for any amount of raises after the flop. IMHO, Raising to thin the field is a useless tactic in these games.
Randy
"In the low limit games I play in no one with top pair,a 4 flush, or openended straights are going anywhere for any amount of raises after the flop."
I see these posts all the time on our forum and they are generally made by low limit players with little experience. If you flop a four flush or an open end straight draw, it is only rarely correct to ever fold even if it is several bets to you. The idea that if you make it three bets someone with a four flush will get out simply never happens. Furthermore, if you are rountinely making these folds you are probably giving up too much. (The exception would be if there is a pair on board and the cards are bunched together in the mid range.)
Similar advice applies to the fourth street bet. That is you may not like it, but you will sometimes have to put a lot of money in the pot to see if you card comes.
You wrote"I see these posts all the time on our forum and they are generally made by low limit players with little experience. If you flop a four flush or an open end straight draw, it is only rarely correct to ever fold even if it is several bets to you. "
I see this type of response all the time on your forum. It is generally made by high limit players with little concept of what goes on at a non-vegas 3-6 or 4-8 game. I didnt say that I folded to a raise with 4 flushes or open ended straights. I was commenting on Ryans mention that he raised with over pairs for the purpose of chasing these hands out. I still think that is futile. Here is Ryans quote again "I play in the low limit games Caro is talking about. With any vulnerable hand, I feel it is correct to drive players out when possible. We've all had our good hands beaten by flaky draws, but if we're not betting and raising to drive players out, we're just asking for it."
Thanks for your reply.
Randy
My point was that the type of hands that your raise will get out are hands like middle and bottom pair, and gut shots. When the pots are large it is important to try to get these hands to fold (or at least pay the wrong price for playing). However, as I stated, the better draws will virtually never fold and are almost always right to stay in there.
Post deleted at author's request.
If that was Randy's point, then he stated it very poorly. It seemed to me that Randy was puzzled by why the four-flushes, etc., stayed in for lots of bets. It seemed to me that he missed the point (originally) that raising to thin the field is meant to get out the longer shots, and make the legitimate draws pay a big price (though a fair price).
Eric
Post deleted at author's request.
There seems to be some confusion on my point. Maybe I havent expressed it clearly so here goes. In the low limit games I play in on the Gulf Coast(Houston,Lake Charles,Biloxi etc), raising to thin the field does not work. I acknowledge that it is the "correct" strategy to raise in an attempt to chase out the middle pair with overcards , the bottom pair with overcards, the gutshots straight draws and the runner runner flush chasers. All I am saying is that most low limit players here will chase to the river as long as the pot is big enough. I wonder if someone smarter then me could tie Mortons Theorem into this discussion. Finally Eric, I fully understand why 4 flushes and openended straights stay in all the way.
Randy
Randy,
Good to see you posting once in a while . You mean at Marks's place they don't fold those weak holdings either? Let's get that discussion group going if J.D. stays in town.
R
Don't spoil me incognito
Randy -- I don't doubt that there may be some games where players won't fold even for two bets cold with hands like gut shot draws, bottom pair, etc. I've certainly seen individual players who fit that description. And maybe low limit games have changed in just the last few years since I played in them. But when I used to play in them, two bets cold was -- at least much of the time -- enough to drive out many, though not all, of the weak draws. Also, I think Morton's theorem suggests that you need to raise to punish or drive out such draws in multiway pots. Even if they won't fold, as Mason said you still want to make them pay too much for their draws.
I dont know John whether the games I describe are unique to the Houston area or not. Razor up above works at some of the games I am talking about. I think he can back me up when I say that 2 bets is just a clarion call for the Majority of the players holding weak draws to call. They dont care how far behind they are or how thin they are drawing. All they can see is that if THEIR card falls they win a monster pot. Luckily for me my wife and I had a baby in November and I have cut back on my poker playing. Sanity is returning slowly but surely.
Randy Collack
Well, you can at least charge them to draw. Then you just live with the tradeoff of winning the pot less often, but its being bigger when you do win it. I'll let others debate whether or not this decreases or increases overall profit. Also HPFAP-21 has some plays for extreme circumstances involving waiting till the turn to raise in order to confront them with 2 *big* bets.
(btw, welcome to parenthood and having about 1/8 as much time for anything else as you had before. Hope you're getting some sleep.)
John said (to Randy):"btw, welcome to parenthood and having about 1/8 as much time for anything else as you had before. Hope you're getting some sleep."
As much as that; you lucky guy :)
Back to the thread:
My earlier post wasn't meant to knock Randy in any way, rather, I suppose, to state that my perception of what had been written seemed to differ from my perception of Gary's perception of what Randy wrote. As to what Mason wrote compared to what Randy wrote, it looks like Randy said "X is the case" and Mason said "often X is the right thing".
On to Randy's desire to merge Morton's Theorem with the discussion. In a nutshell, Morton's Theorem says that most of the money the longshots put in will go to the big draw(s), and only a little goes to the leader. Of course you should raise to knock them out, this helps you much more than the big draw. However, if your raises only succeed in building an even bigger pot, then it may be correct to forego the raise at that moment. It is situations like this where S&M's loose game idea of waiting until the turn to raise comes into play. To know for sure what to do, you would have to have a good estimate of the hands of the opps and the ability to estimate your pot equity quickly.
I'm sure there are others willing to expound on MT in detail.
Eric
Post deleted at author's request.
>Morton's Theorem says that most of the money the longshots put in will go to the big draw(s), and only a little goes to the leader.
No.
Morton's theorem says that for certain pot sizes longshot draws *take money* from the leader and hand it over to the best draw, while hurting themselves in the process.
Read the original Andy's post here.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Post deleted at author's request.
If I am not mistaken, Mike Caro's point was not that you should raise to get more money into the pot but rather that you should often not raise to entice worse hands to call you. This is a different kettle of fish. What say you to that Gary?
Caro's Tues. Night Session #28, titled "Avoiding Common Errors in Judgement". April 6, 1999
(1)Error: Raising players out in a rake game.
Usually raise ONLY to build pots, and not to eliminate opponents. Even in non-rake games(e.g., seat rentals and button pays), the thin-the-field strategy is often wrong. But in a rake game it tends to be wrong more frequently, because the rake is split among fewer opponents. This means you often need a bigger edge than you might expect to justify a bet against few opponents, if the pot is raked.
-Don
Post deleted at author's request.
Posting parts of articles now?
Post deleted at author's request.
I'd say that both reasons for raising preflop are valid, as long as you understand your motives and mechanics of the game. Raising to get more money in usually increases your EV, while thinning the field reduces variance (increases win rate), which is also good in some situations. Thinning the field can also increase EV, if a knocked-out player leaves dead money in the pot.
Also, thinning can be +EV in some situations (like very tight games), where your hand is weak (even if it is best preflop), you are opening the pot and are essentially fighting for the dead money (blinds) only. Naturally, you'd be happy to win the blinds, you'd be happy to reduce the field to zero. Note that opening with a raise is a completely different animal from raising limpers.
The important thing is knowing what you are doing, why are you doing it and what is happening while doing it.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Caro refers to "raising players out on early rounds"
I've been thinking more about on the flop than before.
At what point, on the flop, do you say "I've got a great hand, the more the merrier"? Say five players see the flop. I'm second to act with top pair, ace kicker. First guy bets, and I raise. Is this a bad raise? If three players call it cold, I'm going to be nervous. Even in loose low limit games, I expect people to fold. I'm making them call two bets cold because I don't want them to call. I think I have the best hand, but how much competition can I stand? I want to build the pot, I have the best of it, and I still want the players behind me to fold. Is my thinking flawed, or am I just misinterpreting M.C.?
Ryan
Ryan, Read T.J. Cloutier`s book, He states several times --- you have to know your apponets playing habits---and have that feeling, every hand is different.. After studing your opponets for a few rounds you should know what to do most of the time. I think that old feeling is way ahead of the math programs. But this takes years of playing to do this, and always go with your 1st decision.
Milt
Math programs are for every one to study, but mostly for beginers, be cause they have nothing else to go on.
Milt
Clearly the advice dealing with rake makes sense only before the rake is capped. In the games spoken of capping happens early.
It is extremely rare that in a no-fold-em game a raise *attracts* callers rather than "thins the field" and therefore Bro. Caro is only talking about a very limited situation when speaking of the effects of raising vs. the uncapped rake.
In the ususal low-limit game (in which there is no need to ask if people "chop" because the situation *never* arises that it gets checked to the blinds) the notion of not raising with AA UTG is clearly "mad" because if all ten call to the river the hand wins about 30% of the time for someone putting in 10% of the money and the other players see it as "those damn pocket-rockets lose 70% of the time!"
Love.
Caro is correct that you should tend to raise less in a raked game than a nonraked game. The pot is effectively smaller, and you're not getting as good odds for your raise. You would often prefer to gamble so that you do not get stuck paying the rake without much reward, similar to the concept of limp-reraising with pocket aces in a tight game. You should also call less often in a raked game. This is trivial, no?
It helps to think in terms of big rakes, and I think that's what Caro had in mind. For example, in a particular $4-$8 game with $1-$2 blinds, they drop $1 preflop and $1 on the flop (and a couple more after some action), and so you need about JJ or better to open on the button versus an already folded small blind and an all-in big blind. If the big blind were not all-in, you would still be less inclined to raise than normal, since there is effectively less than $1 in the pot.
Deciding when to narrow the field in a nonraked game is a different issue.
-Abdul
The general point Caro is making is correct, but I'm not sure how important it is. The decision to raise or just call depends on many things, and the EV difference from the rake is pretty small on that scale, IMO.
The more important point he makes is that you might not want to drive out players who are drawing very thin or dead, but this has to be balanced off by the error of not making the big draws pay for their draw. He says that a thin-the-field raise may force out the weak hands, but the big draws will call anyway. That's true, but now those big draws are paying two bets to draw.
There's an application here of Morton's law, too. The equity that the thin draws have goes partly to the big draws in the hand, which reduces the need to keep them in the pot from the made hand's standpoint.
I'm starting to understand where Caro is going with this, but I don't think it changes anything. Often, when I bet or raise on an early round to build the pot, I consider thinning the field as an added bonus. Like raising "to gain information". If that's my only reason to raise, I won't do it.
So maybe its not such a great bonus, but I still don't think I'll be putting many less bets in the pot now that I believe it.
Ryan
Post deleted at author's request.
At the Hold'em table last night where 2 players are betting on what will come on the flop...An older man is betting that either a 3, 7, or jack will hit and the younger guy is betting it won't. It seems to me that since there are only 12 cards(4 threes, 4 sevens, and 4 jacks) that can help the elderand 40 that can help the younger that this old man is a cook...Not so fast...The older gentleman was taking down the money and later stated that he is a heavy favorite in this scenario. Since there are three cards that can help him three times(The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd card on the flop) that he will win 9 out of every 13 tries which was about right. I still don't understand the math here since there are all those cards that he will lose this. Will somebody put in into words or a formula so that I will understand.
Thank you,
Matematically Challenged,
the chances of none of his 12 cards coming is 40/52*39/51*38/50 = 38/85 is about 45%. so the old man has a nice healthy edge.
scott
The old man has the best of it.
He has 12 outs and 3 cracks at it.
His odds of hitting are 1 minus the odds of missing.
The odds of missing work out to 40/52 x 39/51 x 38/50.
When you do the math, you will see that the old man has the best of it. It's an old sucker bet.
When you have AK, you stand to flop a pair approximately 32% of the time. Notice that you only have 6 outs. The old man has 12 outs. You can readily see how he has the best of it with this bet.
I can't get the other two responses to load, so sorry if this is a duplicate.
If the old man got paid for EVERY 3,7,J he'd win 9 times in 13 or be a 9:4= 2.25:1 favorite. As it is he doesn't get paid any more if two come in the same flop.
There are 52choose3 combinations of flops = (52*51*50)/(3*2) = 22,100 different flops. With 40 non 3/7/J cards there are 40choose3 flops that do NOT contain a 3/7/J = (40*39*38)/(3*2) = 9,880 bad flops; 22,100-9,880= 12,200 flops that DO contain at least one 3/7/J.
So the old man is a 12,200:9,880 = 1.24:1 favorite. He earns 24c for every dollar he bets.
- Louie
Stupid kid. No duh, never take the other guy's proposition. Don't believe me? I'll give you 5:1 that I can guess the color of over half the cards in a regular deck one at a time no tricks. Any takers?
Ha...you just pick "black" for every card. No thanks.
That would guarantee getting exactly half correct.
I would pick "red" until I was in the black then switch to "black" to stay out of the red. This makes me a winner (I would always get 2 more correct then incorrect) unless there are NEVER more red cards at the beginning of the deck than black.
If memory serves, and it probably doesn't, this would make me a [2^(n/2)]-1:1 favorite, where "n" is the size of a regular deck; commonly 52. If there are 2 cards in the deck [2^(2/2)]-1:1 is 1:1 even money (I win when the first card is red). If there are 4 cards [2^(4/2)]-1:1 is 3:1 favorite. I would lose when the first two cards are black (1/8) or when the first and 3 cards are black (1/8); or 2/8 or 1/4 or 3:1 favorite. With a regular 52 card deck [2^(52-1)]-1:1 is a very large number.
OK, I'll give you 10:1. Any takers?
- Louie
Greetings,
I remember a freind of mine told me a pair and on overcard is often an easy call on the flop. very often one can even riase, however in this hand I was wondering if I should have just folded...
In a loose game I call w/ K4s one off the button after about 5 callers come in. The SB raises and 7 see the flop of
Q J 4 2 suited (none of mine). all players check to the plyer to my right who bets. I called though as I thought (a) id like to see the next card as cheaply and i won't lose the many straight/flsuh draws). the sB check raises and 4 see the turn.
Its and off suit K. the player to my right bets again, and now i raised. only One player in Mid position calls as does the initial bettor.
The river is an offsuit K. Check bet and i called, seems the pot was so big the bettor could have been betting A x s or sometghing. W/the pot so large it seemed it might be a big mistak e to fold even though anyone w/ a T wins.
The other player folds and the intial bettor turns over K To.
Qs: 1) Should I fold on the flop? (Even if I hit 3 of my outs (the K's) Im in a very precarious situation (see next q).
2) Is the raise on the turn too aggressive? (I thought not as I was pretty sure i was a favorite on the turn (as I still do though KT has 11 outs which win the pot from me outright and 6 which split (the Q's and J's and i think it is same to assume no more than 7 others cards make a flush that don't make a baot for me).
3) Should I just fold on the river?
Thanks in advance!
Your pre-flop call with King-little suited from the cutoff is fine since no one raised and lots of players limped in. You need to realize that you are limping in with a weak hand and can be thrown into some tough decisions downstream when you catch a piece of the flop without a flush draw. The pot will be large but your outs will be few.
The flop gives you bottom pair, an over card, but a two flush is out there. A King or another Four in the wrong suit could give someone a flush while giving you a good second best hand. Even if one of your outs arrive in a non-threatening suit, someone on a flush draw still has re-draws to beat you. In addition, if a King turns that puts three cards in a straight zone plus opens up the possibility of someone having a better two pair if they started with King-Queen or King-Jack. Nevertheless, with this large a pot and one person betting into you after most of the field has checked makes a call mandatory. Right now the pot is too large and the cost to take off a card is too small to get out.
Your raise on the turn is right. You may well have the best hand although I would be concerned about being up against two higher pair however, you must make the rest of the field pay to pursue their draws.
1. No you should not fold on the flop. You have to call a single bet and take off a card.
2. Your raise on the turn is correct. You now have Kings over Fours which could be the best hand and you must put pressure on the draws.
3. Having filled up at the river with Kings full of Fours why on earth would you ever consider folding?
Jim,
I think suspicious meant an off suit ACE or Nine hits on the river. That's the only way this makes sense
"W/the pot so large it seemed it might be a big mistake to fold even though anyone w/ a T wins."
If as SammyB says you meant that the river card an offsuit Ace or Nine and not a King, then any Ten beats you as well as two higher pair. I think I would fold if that is the case.
If he's going to continue with the hand, then with the best coming immediately from his right, the correct thing to do would have been to raise, precisely to get hands like KT to fold. Raising also helps define your hand. Watching how the other players call will help tell you who has a draw, etc.
However, since the pot is smallish (6 or 7 small bets), I'm not sure I like either a call or a raise here. First, there are apparently check-raisers in this game, and it's a dangerous flop. Second, a King can make someone a straight. Third, with this flop a King could easily make someone a better two pair, which is what happened. Finally, a flush draw can beat you if you improve. I think folding here is the best play. But if you are going to call, it's better to raise.
I missed the fact that it was raised pre-flop and there were 14 small bets in the pot. In that case, you've got to take a card off. I think raising is still the best play here, though.
But Dan why do you want to raise with bottom pair here? If the bettor has a King or a better hand than you all you are doing is investing more money to ensure a second place finish. Suppose you get re-raised? Now you are obliged to call that too. Then it would be costing you 3 bets to take off a card instead of 1. With a weak hand and a lot of opponents I would think you would want to take off a card as cheaply as possible. Furthermore, your raise will not drive out players on good draws and it might not even drive out someone with a decent King. As I see it your raise is simply helping the guy with the best hand.
Change "if the bettor has a King or a better hand" to "if the bettor has a Queen or a better hand". Sorry.
You raise for several reasons: First, no one has bet until a late-position bettor, who could have a ten, a straight draw, a flush draw, or a pocket pair.
Second, this is one of those situations where it would be correct to raise even if you know you are beat. A raise might get a hand like KT, AK, AT, AJ, KJ, etc. to fold. This improves your chance of winning quite substantially.
And, there's a good chance that you might get a better hand to fold. Perhaps someone has 77, and was planning on a checkraise himself if the button bet. Now you raise, and he folds. If the original bettor was betting a weak hand or a draw, you've just set yourself up to win a very large pot, or at least have a good chance at it instead of a longshot. That's worth an extra small bet in itself.
Well Dan whatever works for you in these situations. Mason Malmuth wrote an article awhile back about playing King-little suited as opposed to Bob Ciaffone who recommends dumping it for a full bet unless it is King-Nine suited. But Mason cautions that to play a hand like this you have to play it well. He discusses what he means by "playing it well". In his discussion it is revealed that a player should be prepared to dump it fast when you fail to flop a flush draw but catch a piece of the flop. Flopping bottom pair and then raising with it against a lot of opponents I think results in you losing more money with this hand than you should. I would be interested in getting his opinion on this.
I think you missed my point. I'm only raising in this case because A) The pot is large, B) The player betting is immediately to my right, and bet in late position, and C) The flop is dangerous to my King should I hit it with lots of callers.
This is a pretty rare case. If the situation wasn't exactly right for it, I'd dump the hand. But in this situation I believe raising is superior to calling.
I agree that those are reasons for raising but are they compelling enough to overcome the fact that you don't have much of a hand, almost certainly not the best hand? You don't even have the best draw in all likelihood. Your raise will not allow you to win the pot outright and you could get re-raised. I don't see this as a raise or fold situation. However, this play might work out and it certainly would make you difficult to read in these situations.
Dan,
I'm kind of baffled by this approach. I realize I'm relatively new at this and I can certainly tell from your posts that you have an excellent grasp but this just doesn't seem to fit. The advice from S&M is to play Kxs if you are strong enough to get away from it when a king flops and there's action and no 2 of your suit. In this situation you pair on the weak kicker, the flop has 2 to a different flush and two to a straight, plus the fact that if you catch a king (only 2 available without the flush threat)you can't be sure if you even are third best. I would have thought before reading your post, which makes some excellent points, that it's a good fold. You cetainly don't have the best of it. Why bother?
The main consideration here is the size of the pot. There are already 15 small bets in this pot, which pretty much gives you a correct call just to hit a 4 alone.
Don't misunderstand me - if the pot were any smaller, I'd be out of there in a flash. And in fact, if you think there's even a reasonable chance that someone is slowplaying a big hand, I can't argue with a fold either.
But the worst option is to just call. If you've decided you should stay in then raising is a better play, in this specific circumstance.
Post deleted at author's request.
Five-outers are tricky because they're thin draws to begin with, the most likely hand you'll hit is only two pair, and the cards you need can often improve someone else's hand even more. Notice that in this case a king could have made someone else's straight and a king of the right suit could have made someone else's flush. Still, getting 15-1 from the pot (you're 8.4-1 to hit a king or four on the turn) without a lot of action and being in last position, I would always take a card off here and just be prepared to bail if the betting gets heavy.
On the turn, I'd also raise and figure my hand was probably good after my opponents just called. On the river, you should have raised because a better two pair probably wasn't out there on the turn and a player with only three kings would bet into your full house.
P.S. You write: "W/the pot so large it seemed it might be a big mistak e to fold [on the river] even though anyone w/ a T wins."
Huh?
Now I understand. The river was really an ace.
Should you have folded? No, but know your opponent and save a bet against the ones that won't ever bet without being able to beat you. Your 2 pair look pretty bad here but every now and then someone will think a pair of aces is good or will try a hail mary bluff. The pot is awfully large to let go.
I probably play too tight, but I would have folded on the flop. The SB raised pre-flop, and if he has any tendency to check raise, I would be considering that possibility, especially since the bet came from late position - SB would raise to limit the field. Just calling here is very, very thin, and the chance of a check raise would be my deciding factor.
Maybe that's why my win rate is so low :).
Thanks everyone for responding!
There was one or two typos. The river was an offsuit ace (not a K). Making the board A K Q J 4.
SOrry for the confusion.
I think the raise on the flop will not lose alot of people i want to lose (eg open ended straight draws/ flush draws, i doubt the KT wouldhave folded , even if I raised and the SB reraised. Some (Caro I believe) says to drop straight draws if a 2 flush is also present if you dont also have a pair , (but i think he was referring to gut shots (I'll look it up)) however most will stick to the board like glue if the flop any sort of draw to the nuts...
However the raise on the flop may get out small flushes and gut shots...
Post deleted at author's request.
KT is only 2nd pair with an overcard. There are a lot of players that will fold that if they have to cold-call 2 or 3 bets.
I'm a relative new player to T.Holdem. Played cards all my life and mostly a winner. Played at the Bike years ago mostly 7stud and Lowball, moved from 2-4, 3-6,5-10. Quit due to other interest. Getting back to playing. Moved to N.Calif., local card rooms mostly play T.H. I'm trying to learn this game and win on the lower limit tables. Playing mostly 3-6 & 4-8. Was about even after 20+ hours. Now after 30 hrs am down 360.
Ok boys will open up here to get the info to improve hopefully at a faster rate, before I lose to much money.
Oh my reading thus far include: 1. Super System, 2. Holdem Excellence (L.K.) 3. Winning Low Limit Holdem (L.J.)4. Texas Holdem (D.S) I am studying, not just reading! BTW, I was winning before doing all the reading! Go figure. I feel confident with the add knowledge, but need to get on the winners side.
Last Nights 3-6 session 4.5 hrs Table was very tight players. (Only 1 table to choose from, 4-8 list was very long). Intial buy-in $70 Started by waiting for good cards. Ended up in 3 showdowns within 1st 15 min. Won 1 small Lost 2 big. Down about $30 decide to be extra careful. One of the losing pots I should have got out on the turn. Had 2 big pair. Lost to straight. Didn't see it coming. Win and loose several more pots. But seem to be coming out on the short end. Was trying to figure out how to bust game open. Players were folding on any raise or if a bet came from early position, they seemed to expect a high pair, and would fold. The cards I was getting were mostly drawing type. I noticed that if I played these cards too often I wasn't getting decent odds to play them. So decided to wait for top pairs and big pairs. And wait, and wait. Was successful with 2 bluffs, but only getting blinds plus maybe 1 bet. 2.5 hrs gone buy have to re-buy $50 giving me a total of 60 Chips. Change seats. Finally start getting cards like KK,AK, AQ,KQ. Players are betting, but the flop brings junk. Or medium pairs on board. Fold some on flop, some on turn. Win a medium size pot, lose a pot. Get up to about $90. Thinking I would quit if I can break even. 2 hrs goes by, down to about $20, go all in on TT, beat 99. Next hand have KK in BB raise, 3 callers. Flop is 10d 7d 3h, check raise 2 callers. Turn is 6d. Bet, 1 caller. Worried about the flush or st8. River is a Q, check (he should know i have big pair or 2 pair), he bets, call he has 98. Down to about $8, Blinds coming next hand, get 7h6h, bet, call raise, flop is all diamonds with a 6. Put last chips in. Turn is nothing, river is no help. It go home time.
Questions: 1. Starting strategy Should I wait for only group 1&2 cards, for intial play. Especially in tight games. Hopefully win and be on plus side before playing more low odds drawing hands. Or should I play by the book, and let the odds work out over the long haul. It seems I could go home a loser very quickly if I don't catch the necessary cards to fill my hand. If all I am getting is drawing cards, in right situations.
2. I have a bad habit of not seeing the flop and all possiblities. The KK example is one, another is when I made a flush to beat trips, I at first was playing for two pair, and caught the flush on the river. I was actually the loser, bet 1st on the turn, and opened on river and called raise. Saw flush as I turned over my cards. The problem is occassional but still can be costly, especially in multiway action. Any thoughts or help is appreciated.
Just a working stiff dw
If you lost $120 in a few hours of 3/6 and think that's unusual you better get a new hobby. It's not unthinkable to get in a couple hundred at that level. You probably should be playing from a >$1500 BR and have $300 in pocket for a session. If you play 4/8 you should increase those amounts proportionately.
If you "didn't notice" a flush, you should concentrate more on what's the best hand possible with a given board. Then figure if the other players would be playing with the hands that make that possible.
Most important you said the game was tight and raises (even calls) from early positions caused folds. There is a simple solution for that: get out of that game. Games with few callers usually = small pots and that means the *only* winner is the drop (rake + tokes). Never play against the house; if the other seats aren't gambling, get out.
Love.
With regard to books, I would stay away from Lou Krieger but certainly the 2+2 books and Lee Jones should be helpful.
Spend a little time off by yourself dealing out boardcards until you can easily recognize the nuts, the 2nd nuts, etc. Take a two card holding and a three card flop and see if you can identify the various possibilities.
If possible, try to find an even smaller game than $3-$6 like $2-$4 until you are really comfortable with the mechanics of the game and have some wins under your belt. In addition, avoid games that have a lot of pre-flop raising.
Finally, start writing down hands and posting some of them on this forum for comment. In addition, try to find some experienced players to discuss hands with and get their comments.
$1-2 hold'em would be even better than 2-4 when learning the absolute basics(I played 1-2 for about a year off and on, usually while waiting for a Draw Poker seat at Commerce Casino). When you get to the point where you can make your 30 or 40 dollar buy-in last for 6 or more hours on a regular basis(let alone averaging some type of win rate), then I'd move up to 2-4. Once I was able to hold my own at 2-4(within 6 sessions), I basically skipped 3-6 & 4-8 to play 6-12.
IMO, 6-12 is the best next step in the process of getting your feet wet. In 6-12, people have a little better hand selection, especially when faced with cold calling a pre-flop raise or re-raise. Couple this with slightly fewer people chasing you to the end than in the lower limits, you end up suffering fewer bad beats. Granted, the difference is only slight, but noticeably enough to help a person stay optimistic during the learning process.
-pdk
I like your idea about playing $1-$2 rather than $2-$4 if they have such a small game. I think that jumping from $2-$4 directly to $6-$12 is risky because the bankroll needed starts to get substantial. At $2-$4 you might swing $100 in an 8-10 hour playing session. At $6-$12 you could drop $500 on a really bad day.
I can understand your point about the jump, but it worked for me, and I never looked back. Remember, this guy has been playing poker for years, before now learning hold'em(just like I did). So once he gets all the basics down cold for hold'em, everything he's learned from the other forms of poker should transfer over nicely to hold'em, giving him a big advantage in comprison to somebody who is an absolute beginner to poker.
Just a thought, pdk
Jim,
I'm curious why you would stay away from Krieger. I received his Hold 'Em Excellence for Christmas. While I haven't studied it extensively yet, I didn't find any obvious errors, and see how it could be of some value for a player who is absolutely new to poker.
My big problem with Krieger's book is it doesn't contain very much information and isn't very organized. There is little there for a player with some experience, and for the beginner, it would be a difficult book to use because he jumps around so much.
PRC
In Hold-em Excellence, Krieger recommends that with AA,KK,QQ, and AK you not raise out of your big blind after several players limp in. He gives a fallacious argument supporting this idiotic advice. I wrote him a detailed letter outlining why he was mistaken. I ended it by asking him the following question: "If it is not right to raise out of your big blind with these hands, what hands do you raise with or do you forsake raising althogether when you are in your big blind?" He never answered. His "start chart" is also problematic.
In More Hold-em Excellence, he has a ridiculous discussion about not betting top pair on the turn when you have position over a lone opponent who has been checking because, to quote Krieger, "A worse hand won't call and a better hand will". This concept was appropriated from David Sklansky and more importantly it applies when you are on the river not the turn when there are more cards to come. Again, I wrote him a letter discussing why I thought this was bad advice. He never answered. I posted this as a problem a few months ago and only a few regulars responded all of whom agreed with me but then they asked why I was even posing this as a problem since it was a "no-brainer". I dropped my set of "Krieger Problems".
All that being said I think Krieger is a nice guy who has done a lot for the image of poker and I am sure he is an excellent player. I occasionally read his columns in Cardplayer but most of them are so rudimentary that they are not very informative.
I used to like reading Krieger before he released his first book, then he just ran out of things to talk about. His first book was such a disapointment to me, I couldn't even imagine glancing at his second book for free at a Library.
Randy E
Well, I don't want to be too hard on Krieger. Reading his books are better than not reading anything at all.
"Reading his books are better than not reading anything at all."
That bottom of the barrel comment would be better suited toward somebody like John Patrick.
-Ralph
I have never read John Patrick. However, to me the real pits is "Foolproof" in terms of truly horrid advice. Krieger is much better than "Foolproof".
You attitude really bites. So does mine ...
You figure the books are doing you wrong since you've lost over the last 10 hours after reading them? 10 hours, whoopie do.
You figured (after the hand) that you should have folded your top two pair on the turn because it turns out someone made a straight? This sort of hindsight results analysis is very detrimental over all.
You want to "bust the game open"? This means you think you can put these tight players on tilt and get them to ram and jam when you have the nuts? Good luck.
If the opponents are respecting early bets and you seem to get draws early, then you should be betting them liberally. You may not be getting the right odds to call but I assure you you are getting the right odds to steal with them.
Buy into 3/6 with $50 and leave after losing $100? Sounds like the stakes are too high for you due to your psycological association with your bankroll.
You changed seats to change your luck. Good luck; so to speak.
Want to quit if you break even? Yuuuuuuck.
You are at least considering changing your strategy based on how the last hand went for you.
2+2 essay books and Winning Poker will do a lot to improve your attitude and profesional approach to the game as will Brunson's Super System. It seems to me this is more important to you right now than detailed technique adjustments.
You've got "losing" on the mind. Stop playing, read at least one of these books, build up $1000 bankroll from your job, then go back and play.
"Play well, let success take care of itself." <== Plagerized from I-don't-recall.
- Louie
I'm very hesitant to recommend Texas Turbo Holdem, because if you use it wrong, it can hurt your game. However, it will help you to overcome your problem of reading the flop.
I would also recommend IRC poker. Playing the 10/20 there is very similar to playing in wild, low-limit games, and the 20/40 is very similar to typical 10/20 real casino games. IRC helped my game and highlighted some leaks. It is very good practice, and you can chat with the players during the game.
Good luck.
Carl- you said "I'm very hesitant to recommend TTH, because if you use it wrong, it can hurt your game"
Can you elaborate? I use TTH, usually to play against computer opponents in a game that resembles the one I'll be playing in later. Sort of like a warm up. I also have been using it to practice playing short handed.
Sometimes I feel sure that this helps my game, and other times I find myself making a move against a real player that would've worked against Lollie La Rue, but didn't have a prayer in real life. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
Ryan
TTH is VERY easy to beat. Even if you know this, when you run strategies that work against those lames, there can be a subtle change in the way you approach the real game.
Example: Regular Rube is a very tight, passive player. You can always fold when he bets if you don't have a strong hand, and you always know what he's got. However, if he's in last position and everyone checks to him on the river, he will bluff. Now raise, and everyone folds. Clockwork.
Try playing like this in a real game, sayronaya(sp?).
I NEVER took TTH seriously as to win rate, but pure agression and other strategies work so well there it can spill over to your real game with disastrous results. I still play TTH, but I try to play the same as I would in a real game against strangers, for instance, I just fold in the above situation instead of raising. My win rate has dropped significantly in TTH, but is going up in the real game.
I'm not sure if this is a pure theory question, or if it is more a matter of personal taste. The scenario is the following: You are under the gun with a pair and you have raised pre-flop. It is safe to say that if your pair was Aces, you would prefer one caller to none. This is probably true for Kings as well. My question is "How low would your pair have to be before you are happier (or ambivalent) picking up the blinds rather than playing against a single opponent?"
Try to avoid discussing factors like the texture of the game, the wisdom of raising in the first place, etc. If it makes it easier, imagine that this is the very first hand of a no-rebuy, no-addon, Limit Holdem tournament and you do not know anything about your opponents, and vice versa.
or: how bad would your opponent have to be for you to be happy when he (and only he) calls when you have any pair.
brad
I believe that your question (although interesting) does not ask quite the same thing as my original question. Recall that in my scenario, you have no prior knowledge regarding your opponents.
Scroll down, you'll find tons of stuff on AA UTG preflop.
It depends entirely on who the callers are, and what hands they would call with. Unimproved small pairs are difficult to play heads-up, especially when you are out of position.
Of course, I agree. But, assume that you don't have that information. I personally would be happy picking up the blinds with pocket deuces (not that I would actually raise UTG with pocket deuces, but it's part of the scenario), but with pocket kings (or even queens), I'd prefer to play against a single "mystery" opponent rather than pick up the blinds. The question is would you or I feel the same way about pocket jacks, 10s, 9s ... ?
Okay, now the difference is how well YOU play.
If the question you're asking is whether the EV of a small pocket pair against a random opponent in showdown poker (both players go to the river) is higher than the EV of winning the blinds, I'll have to get back to you with the exact numbers, since I'm posting from work today and don't have time.
But this is one of those situations where showdown sims are just about useless, because neither you nor your opponent is going to play that way. For one thing, you have position, which is worth a LOT. But it all comes down to the players, which is why it's so important to pay attention at the table and try to get at least a rough handle on the nature of your opponents.
If your opponent is the type that will simply check to you if he misses the flop and fold to a bet, then you want him calling no matter what two cards you hold. On the other hand, if your opponent is agressive and might check-raise you with nothing in his hand if he think the flop missed YOU, then you'd rather just take his blind and move on if you have a small pocket pair.
"Okay, now the difference is how well YOU play. "
This indeed tells us when a person SHOULD be happy with a blind pickup vs. play single opponent. However, the key to how a person actually answers the question is:
"Okay, now the difference is how well you THINK you play. "
In other words, the better a player believes he/she is, the lower the rank of pair where the player is ambivalent to blind pickup vs. play single opponent.
Interestingly enough, when I presented this question to a friend whom I consider a good player, he answered