![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
First of all, I actually only paid for the down payment on the condo. :) But that is still pretty steep where I live.
Furthermore, I don't just play 6-12. I play anywhere from 6-12 to 40-80. I am willing to 'slum' in 6-12 games if they are really good. The MOST important thing in poker is game selection.
To answer your questions:
Of course, if you are going to win 100BB, you must get lucky. Absolutely no question about it. I have a 100BB win every 2 months or so playing 2-3 times per week. Ok, some of those wins might be 80BB - but some are more like 120BB.
It all has to do with the games you play in. If you can find a game with lots of loose passive calling stations, these are the best.
Also, if you can get in a game with one maniac (not 2 - those games are tough if you don't know what you're doing) and get him immediately on your right you are bound to make money. I three bet these guys with hands like ATo, TT, and get the hands heads up. I know I have a hand that stands to be better than his random hand.
Over the last year I have averaged around 1.3BB/hr at limits ranging from 3-6 (where I started) to 40-80. I actually had a 'cold' spell of 2 months in there where I only broke even.
Note - these 100BB wins are usually long 12 hr sessions.
I do know a few reasonable players who have never had a win this big. Of course, I know many loose aggressive types who have a win like this every couple weeks or so (but they always give it back later.) I think those players who don't book the really big wins have some leaks in their game.
For example. A dealer friend of mine fashions himself as a great player, but he has a lot of leaks. He tries to steal the blinds too often. He overvalues small pocket pairs (like 6's). He doesn't bluff enough (except for the blind steals). He might be a bit too passive.
The other player, the female dealer, has a lot of leaks. She plays too many hands and goes too far with them. She'll call a bet and a raise with marginal hands. She won't bet an overpair when she's first to act.
There are some people I have seen that almost NEVER win, much less win 100BB. I think the biggest losers are the passive calling station types. They will call all day long but they never bet their hands and get vaue when they have good ones.
I'm sure that if I started playing in tough tight games all the time my 100BB wins would all but vanish. But that's why I seldom play in those games.
Ok, so what are the ingredients for a 100BB win? The key is getting dealt more playable hands than usual and having them win more often than usual. If you throw in a few calling stations then CHACHING!
One night I won about 70 BB - I got pocket aces 6 times and they held up every time. I don't care about anything else - you give me AA 6 times and let it hold up every time in any session, I'm going home a winner.
As for luck - I am renowned for having AK hold up at a far greater than usual rate. This is probably true. But I can honestly say that I hardly EVER win with suited connectors. I can't remember EVER dragging a pot in a showdown where I started with JTs. Ever. One time I raised preflop with 87 of spades to mix up my play and managed to make a straight flush on the river.
-SmoothB-
100 BB's every 2 months.
At 5-10 I've won 1000 $ 1 time in 5 years.
Where do you play again?
By my count there is $120 in the pot and it costs Roy another $20 to call. It is a save bet that the woman will call the raise so in effect there will be $140 in the pot. Roy is getting 7:1 then to call with a suited triple gapper. A very marginal call but probably right. You will see this a lot in Roy's columns where he frequently comes in pre-flop on the most marginal of holdings. In his recent column he limped in early with Ten-Eight suited. In a column a few weeks ago he limped in early with pocket Fours. I posted a hand where he raised an early limper in middle position with Ace-Little suited. When Roy knows he has a good read on the table he frequently "pushes the envelope" when coming in pre-flop. He is one of the few players around that can get away with this on a consistent basis.
I have been kicking this around and mentioned in a related post. Seems to me there is nothing wrong with playing XXs as long as you have the correct odds.
True, XXs isn't a hand you want to play beyond the flop unless the flop hits you pretty hard, and possibly your deviation goes even higher, but if you are a regular winning player, you have the bankroll to play the odds.
Now, if you look at XXs as not having a pair, straight possibility, top card, good kicker or any other normal criteria, it's a bad bet.
But if you flop a four flush, five flush, two pair, suddenly you have a pretty nice hand. If you don't hit the flop hard you throw it away.
Ty
Sharon,
After thinking about the 3 suited cards problem, I'm fairly sure that the number is less than 60%. I was remembering the number for when a low comes. If you are still interested in the correct number (which I feel is actually a superfluous number to know) I will do the math for it.
He alerady has. It's called Hold'em Poker For Advanced Players, Part Four -- Playing In Loose Games.
That should be enough for the lower limits. Add to that liberal use of hand histories and a dash of record keeping and you should be cooking quite the stew.
1. I've found internet play both free and real $$ invaluable in improving my palying skills including card reading and pot odds calculations.
2. As to M. Rice comment about loose play this is very true for almost all free games but most of the real money games are tighter than any I see at the casinos I play in Loiusiana and Tunica.
"any two cards of the same suit seem to be okay"
"you have to have at least three players to see the flop with you"
T3s with three others seeing the flop = ok? Sorry, I donīt buy it.
Long....
For greg,
Okay, you don't have to buy it. It works in TTH $3-6 with average line up, I am not sure about the real world at a table in LL. You need at least three players to see the flop with you.
For arguments sake, what difference does it make on a flush draw whether you have AKs, Q2S, or 32s? And how sensitive is position for a flush draw? You are playing these two cards solely for their flush potential.
If you flop a four flush you have the same odds of making a flush no matter what two flush cards you hold? If you make the flush you make the flush, right?
Now, I am not advocating that every two flush cards be played; you have to use some common sense. However, in the right game you risk one small bet in early position to gain 11 BB. You can miss a lot of flops and still be ahead for this type of play.
Then there are the good things that happen because you played those two cards. Your competition thinks you are a bad player and play any old two cards, you are harder to read, etc.
Once again, at least in TTH, and not yet in the real world this seems to be an okay play. If there are any math whizzes out there who can handle multiple variables and come up with an answer, I sure am curious. But this goes beyond only the flush potential, and that's beyond my math skills.
There are some offsets too. The biggest is you increase your deviation, and for some type of players you send it to the outer limits.
Mike
Anyone here play anywhere in the Akron-Cleveland area?
No legal card houses in the area.
Call Las Vegas Nite Hotline @ 216.676.4500 for a weekly listing of games at churches/VFW Posts
I have a theory. I believe that there is a correlation between the way people drive automobiles and play poker! I recently tested my theory and it proves to be true! Foe example an aggressive driver is an aggressive player at the table, and a conservative driver is a conservative player at the table. Another example is older people, some drive slow and cautious, they also play cards slow and cautious. Anyhow I think this idea needs some research by a statistics major! Try it out yourself, if your friend is a clumsy uncareful driver, that causes accidents all the time, he probably doesn't do to well at the table. "Just an idea". I bet all world poker champions are great car drivers!!
This certainly agrees with my own personal experience. I haven't had a automobile accident in weeks.
As I've said for years, playing NL hold-em in the WSOP is analogous to driving a racecar around the Indianapolis Motor Speedway at 230 mph. But in either case, fast and aggressive doesn't have to be the same as rash, impulsive and out-of-control.
There are several Asian regular players in my cardroom who play very well. ;-)
SmoothB bragged about his brilliant laydown with a perfect read in a big pot. There was wild action. He held 77. The board was K-7-10-10-K. He had a perfect read and found a way to release the hand to a raise. FISH. You want another. "A winning player has to have the discipline to lay down three jacks into a four flush four straight board." Good Einstein. GUPPY. RESPECT ME.
You have provided some sort of support (?) for your original statement, but you have not gained my respect at all. I do not care what you think of me as I have been posting here for several years and I think my posts speak for themselves. I have the respect of those I wish to respect me, and I could care less what the rest think. The forum is about intellectual discussions, not trash talk or belittling other players. My guess is that the real guppy here is not me nor is it smoothb.
I will be skipping your posts from now on so there is no need to respond here.
You have your stuff confused. You obviously are referring to a "time"/collection, per half hour. That is still cheaper than a $5.00 "rake" on every pot. (Usually, 10% to max. $5.00.)
Yes, I mean time charge (not rake for 10-20 AC HE). The time charge is $5 per half hour for AC 10-20 HE. It is by far cheaper than the 10% max $4 that you get in AC 5-10 HE. Sorry for the confusion.
Rahul
Haven't seen Frenchy (Roland), Marty or the "Pooper" at Turning Stone. Are they playing at Rama?
WHAT'S THE TURNING STONE? IS THAT A CLUB IN TORONTO???/ I PLAY AT CINCINNATTI KID NOW, AND AT CHURCH CLUB, does anyone know of any other games?
Hi,
I haven't been there but I've heard that they charge 10% rake for games up to 10-20. In the higher limits they charge a session fee. In the 20-40 games, they usually play shorthanded.
It's encouraging to hear that at least they have 20-40.
I'M LOOKING FOR HOME GAMES AND WHAT NOT IN TORONTO, if you have info, please drop me a line. I really am looking for some poker in Toronto, just started playing and I would like to play more. Thanks, -Yaseen
When I do the calculation I get the following results.
1) Suited and unsuited hands: = 0.1020408%
2) Pocket pairs: quads: = 0.2448980% full: = .7346939%
My results for pocket pairs are exactly twice as high as yours, if youīd show me how youīve done the calculation we could probably find the mistake.
quads: 6(2*1*48)/117600= 0.4897959
I already know that your results are half of mine, so if Iīve made a mistake (and I think I did) itīs most likely that there should be a 3 instead of the 6 in above calculation, but I donīt know why.
Letīs assume my hand is 7h7d. I need the remaining two sevens for making quads (-> 2*1) and any other card (-> 2*1*48). Now there are six variations (-> 6(2*1*48)) in which these three cards may appear on flop:
1) 7s7cX 2) 7sX7c 3) 7c7sX 4) 7cX7s 5) X7s7c 6) X7c7s
Still Iīve got the strong feeling that there has to be a 3 and not a 6 in the calculation. Could you please tell me why?
I have a slightly different approach. I am not sure if I can explain clearly, but I will try.
First I start with the total number of possible unique 3 card flops given the remaining 50 cards irrespective of the order they appear:
(50 * 49 * 48)/(1 * 2 * 3) = 19600.
If you are dealt the 7h 7d you make quads only in the following cases: (7s 7c) combined with any of the remaining 48 cards. Obviously there are 48 of these.
Therefore the probability of flopping quads is 48/19600 = .0024490
In this simple case you can actually list the 48 different ways you can flop quads.
It seems to me that it is not the 6 in the calculation that is the error, but the 2. I think it should look like this:
quads: 6(1*1*48)/117600= 0.0024490
6(1*1*48)/117600= 0.0024490
Yes, youīre right, itīs either 6(1*1 or 3(2*1
another example for illustration:
flopping a four-flush: 3(11*10*39)/117600= 10.9% 55*6(1*1*39)/117600= 10.9%
11*10/2 = 55; thatīs why there is a 6 one time and another time a 3.
I think I know how this works now. Basically, there should be 6; a 3 if there are two unspecified cards from a group;
flopping a four-flush: 3(11*10*39)/117600= 10.9%
and a 0 if there are three unspecified cards.
flopping a flush: (11*10*9)/117600 = 0.84%
Rightyright?
Coming to LA later this month. I'm a 20-40, 30-60 HE player. I only have 3 full days to play. Should it be HP or Commerce? Thanks
I recommend Hollywood Park because they only charge $7 per half hour as opposed to $8 per half hour charged by Commerce. I have played $20-$40 at both places and the Hollywood Park game is just as soft as the Commerce game so why pay the extra $2 per hour?
However, Commerce has 30-60 as well. I don't think HP does (though they have 40-80).
You are correct and Hollywood Park does not have $30-$60 but they have $40-$80. Their $40-$80 game is $9 per half hour.
I am just curious, what is the casino's rationale for charging more in a 40-80 game then in a 20-40 game. I mean, it costs the casino the same to run eather game. I understand that if they can get away with it, there is no reason for them not to do it, but how do they explain the higher price to the players? I think i'm missing something.
Guy, you have struck a nerve here. I feel it is totally unfair for me to be penalized for playing higher by being charged more per half hour than a $10-$20 player. As far as I can tell, a $15-$30 player, a $20-$40 player, a $30-$60 player, and a $40-$80 player get nothing extra for the extra charge they are incurring. I believe the card room rationale is that since they are offering a higher limit game, the guys have more money to gamble with so they might as well charge more since no one objects. It is whatever the market will bear. I think the higher limit players get a discount on food orders but it is hardly worth the extra hourly cost.
Jim,
In Hollywood Park the 10/20 game practically runs itself. The 15/30's and 20/40's are pretty easy on the staff. The 40/80's need constant attention with the never-ending forced move and whiners who make up the bulk of the game. But it is what the market will bear and the fact that it is a closed market contributes to the high prices. - Rick
Commerce is $1 more per 1/2 hour but it's a little nicer, has better food, and you're less likely to get mugged in the parking lot. If you are only here for 3 days I would recommend playing at the Commerce because your playing experience will probably be a little better.
n/t
I am also planning a short trip to LA.
Is getting mugged at HP a serious risk? If so, what should I do to make sure it doesn't happen?
Use valet parking. The muggings I've heard of have all been in the parking lot. Then watch to make sure no one is following you home. That has happened (actually the victim doesn't usually make it home I don't think), but is, I think, fairly rare. Just be aware. Best to keep your money in a safe deposit box (at the casino) or players bank while you're there.
Commerce has a much better reputation for security..
This might sound like a silly question to you veterans but here it is: I know that there are 16 ways to make AK and 16 ways to make AQ. How many ways are there to make either AK or AQ? Thanks.
Well if there are 16 AK hands and 16 AQ hands, there are 32 AK or AQ hands ("or" generally means that you add something up; "and" that you multiply sth)
What I mean is that if you put a guy on either AK or AQ how many ways does he have?
There are 32 ways for someone to have AK or AQ. Suppose you have pocket Jacks and call an early position raiser who would only raise on AA,KK,QQ,AK,or AQ. What is the likelihood that you have the best hand? There 18 ways for him to have an over pair to your Jacks and 32 ways for him to have just two over cards. Therefore, the likelihood of you having the best hand before the flop is 32/50 or 64%.
Thanks Jim, I really appreciate all of your posts. You have helped me to understand the game. The AK, AQ ways confused me because I thought there would be less than 32 ways. I thought the A would be duplicated with the Q, making less than 32 ways. Similar to the A being "blocked" like in the Roy Cooke article.
The "blocked" phenomnenon only occurs when you have one or more of the needed cards. For example, if you had KJ then there would only be 12 ways for your opponent to have AK but still 16 ways for him to have AQ.
Isn't the 64% chance of having a better hand against RANDOM hands and not typicaly to be used in a live game? Holding JJ and when any A,K,Q falls on the flop your value goes way down. Not to mention you may be up against AA, KK, QQ before the flop. How do you apply the 64% knowledge in actual play? Thanks!!!
Yep, thats the rule at Casino Arizona, as I just found out today. If you show one of your cards at any time, you must show both.
I could almost understand showing both after the hand, when nobody calls and a player flashes a card, but we put the rule to the real test. On the river, one player bet, after betting and raising throughout the hand. The other player hesitated, and the bettor said, "here, I'll show you one," and turned up one card.
The entire table screamed: SHOW ONE, SHOW BOTH! And the floorperson was called. She made him turn up the other card, and the other player didn't call. The move cost the bettor, since the other player surely would have called if he didn't see the hand.
Craziest rule I've ever heard of.
It's amazing how many cardrooms come up with quirky rules and think they're good.
He should have been forced to show them after the hand, if at all.
Heheh. That was pretty goofy but I still can't wait to call a string raise on a few select people when I'm not even in the hand, as this was pointed out to me as being legal as well.
This rules take away the element of doubt to the would be caller, especially when the caller is hesitant on calling , this is a tactic I like to use to entice would be callers, especially in stud/8 where they dont know which way you are going, and you gain an extra big bet onlong the way. This is also seen in the higher limit games after they win the pot, opponent shows only one card, always leaving the element of doubt in his opponent mind, psycological warfare I like to call it. These are stupid rules by these up and coming smucko casino managers who are to help the fish from the sharks.
I agree with the Show 1 comments (excepting Tournaments). This seems stupid to me.
The string bet however is a breach of rules and anyone can point this out. Much the same as anyone calling hands that have been laid down.
New year, new ideas. Here's one that hit me today at the table. I play tight starter standards and almost never play advertising garbage. I will, however, play every single unraised blind that can't be chopped. These are my only trips into Any Two Card Town. These also account for 1/3 of the interesting hands that I discuss with my Coach.
Today's idea was to isolate for study just the unraised BB hands this year and see just how they stack up financially. In this group would be every free play that I didn't raise to see if these turn any reasonable profit. The idea that follows is if these are profitable hands then I need to play more hands in general since I'm able to outplay my opposition.
What is an unraised big blind worth? You obviously have some equity when you post that small bet but roughly how much is it worth? How does it change in various games? Aggressive games make it worth little but we're interested in its worth in unraised pots. With this number I could later asses my play over many hands during the year.
Comments?
-Fred- ...still a winner 3 days into January!
I think one problem with this idea is that in the BB you always close the betting pre-flop in an unraised pot. The zero risk of a raise after you could easily make playing garbage here more profitable than from any other position. No matter how well you play.
But I still find the idea intriguing. :-)
David
Since the pots are unraised, you're generally facing relatively weak holdings in the other players' hands. But a good post for discussion. It would indeed seem likely that such hands are a major part of one's "interesting" hands because it's a lot harder to play Q-7 than A-A.
Do most players lose a lot of money over the course of their poker careers from the blinds? My guess is yes.
[e.e.cummings: Anyone lived in a pretty how town, with up so floating many bells down]
This is indeed a very interesting topic and one that I've often pondered. It would be great if more people provided some of their thoughts.
I agree that most players do end up losing money from their big blinds. It's even worse when you get something like 95o in the big blind (in an unraised pot) and flop something like 992 that forces you to play. Then you end up losing a reasonable sized pot to a flush or an A9. Of course, sometimes we get lucky with a garbage big blind hand and win a good pot.
I remember a few years ago when I was the big blind in a 3-6 game and a middle postion player (MP) raised and a late position player (LP) called. Everyone else folded and I looked at my hand and had 27o. Don't ask me what I was thinking, but I called the raise. I know is is an absolutely moronic move, but I had only been playing a year or so and was caught up in protecting my blinds. I was also up quite a bit that day so I decided that another 3 dollars wasn't going to kill me. I would never make that call again today. Anyways, here is how the hand played out.
Flop: 227 (suites are not important in this hand)
I check, MP bets, LP calls, I call
Turn: K
I check, MP bets, LP raises, I call, MP calls
River: the 4th 2!
I check, MP bets, LP raises, I reraise, they both look at me and one of them asks "what do you have?", and they both call my 3 bet.
Of course, I turn over my 27 and take the pot. MP had AK and LP had KQ.
In retrospect, I should have never been in the hand, but like I said, I didn't know what the hell I was doing back then, which also explains why I lost more often than I won. However, I've now moved up in limits and play tight/aggressive and with the help of many of your insights and advice, I've been able to consistently walk away a winner. Thanks guys (and gals).
A question for those with more experience than me...
I play regularly at Paradise, mostly 3-6 but occasionally 5-10.
I have a winning record but I have a major problem with dealing with AKo and AQo when I miss the flop.
The problem being of course, you can't get a read on a player online, so you have to basically play the board.
My usual strategy with AKo and AQo is to raise preflop from anywhere except the SB or BB, then to continue to bet the flop and turn when I am against 1 or 2 opponents (usually just check the river if they don't fold by the turn), check and fold if there are more than 3. (4 people seeing the flop is not uncommon even with an UTG raise). Of course, I am much more likely to bet with the high cards to a board of 832 than Q98, but I guess my question is, what is the best way to play a hand like AKo if you don't really have any information about the players hands other than they are usually trash?
I think the way I play it is the biggest leak in my game and any advice would be appreciated.
Sam
Why invest money in a hand where you are likely beat. Any idiot with small pair A kicker has you beat and is likely to bet. You end up drawing very thin. If you hold AK and the flop is 832 you likely only have 3 (K's)outs. The pot odds make this an unprofitable hand.
I think its a very simplistic approach to say if you don't flop a pair you are beaten and your overcards are probably dead. Against an early position raiser most players (even those on paradise) will not call Ax or Kx to a raise but they do call small pairs and will often follow them to the river without improvement... I think however your strategy with AK and AQ seems to be very similar to the way I play them... I think another big factor to consider is that many players on paradise like drawing hands so you have to watch carefully for any connected or suited flops... Hope this helps
Also when an Ace hits the board. it can be aces-up in this level of holdem, meaning you are way behind, save your money for better hands as this type of flop probably helped A,x, let alone any two-card town and I call to hell freezes over mentalities(maniacs).
Normally with overcards, depending on position, I'll check/bet early, or raise late to buy the free card. If I don't hit the turn then I check/fold early and check/fold late. It will definitely save you money in the long run.
~stephen
I'm looking for some help on finding the video tape of the WSOP (I believe it's 1998). Ed Norton and Matt Damon are in the video. Any help would be great!!!
Vin
get the number of the gambler's book club from the "favorite links" category at the left. they carry many videos, including recent wsop's. and you're right - it's the '98 kevin mcbride-scotty nguyen final.
I was almost sure it was the johnny chan/eric siedel final, not sure the year...
In Rounders, Matt Damon's character Micke McD watches the WSOP -88 final with Chan/Seidel. But -98 is the year when Matt Damon and Edward Norton participated in the WSOP.
The videos are available from www.conjelco.com/video.html, at the bottom of the page.
Conjelco hosts this website, and their customer service is nothing short of amazing. Their prices tend to be good too.
I have the video and it quite good. Would be interested in trading for a video/book etc.???
Getting a pot limit holdem game together on a regular basis. Looking for more players. The blinds will be 2 and 5. Please direct all responses to----------
eslmn1@msn.com
Thank You Eric
post these things on the exchange forum(other topics) and then become a regular poster and get your questions answered and answer some yourself. good luck
Greetings,
Here are two hands where I was in trouble and was doubting my play in the hand. On the river I could say I thought so...
20/40 not a great game with alot of blind stealing.
An over aggressive player raises (3rd hand in a row) in early position, two seat down cold calls. (The cold call confused me as I thought he'd reraise AK AA KKetc to get it heads up). I look down and see AQo. What do you do? (My plan was to reraise the aggressive player and didn't take the cold callers hand into consideration).
I 3 bet. (comments).
All fold and the initial raiser and cold caller call.
The flop comes A K Q.
Check bet I raised. only the cold caller calls.
The turn is a small blank.
Check bet call.
(By now I suspect he has AK but is afraid I have AA, KK, QQ).
The river is another blank. He checks, and I checked. (I know weak....) However he turned over (as I suspected) AK.
(I should note I have watched this game many times and had only been playing for a short amount of time (at this table) and many of the players made comments about my wathcing the game for weeks before actually playing).
5/10 game. I open raise 3 off the button w/ KTo basically hoping to play heads up against the blinds. 3 players colds call as does the BB. (I only know the player on the button an exceedingly tight woman who doesn't put alot of pressure on other players when she flops a strong hand).
I very pessimistic about any flop I could like and then I see...
A K T.
BB bets I raise and 2 players cold call (including the tight woman).
The turn is a blank. BB check I bet, tight woman calls, and BB calls.
I keep wondering if she has AK and still can't believe some people actually play this way.
The river was a T I bet tight woman calls and BB calls.
I turn over my hand and say I think i got lucky. Indeed she had AK. But I have a hard time playing this hand any other way.
All comments appreciated!
First hand I would consider folding because of the EP raise and the cold caller, but if you are going to play AQo here reraising like you did is the right move.
flop raise. duhh. When he checks/calls the whole way I would keep betting till the river even if he winds up having AK.
Second hand you knew you were weak BTF but after that you pretty much had to raise and then keep betting. That one was pretty much a no brainer (except for BTF) where you got lucky but what can you do.
When you play against overly passive players sometimes the results are surprising. they may have stolen blinds BTF but after that they were pretty passive, thus allowing you to win hands that you might have folded had you realized what you were up against..
dave in cali
Well, if you thought CC would correctly 3-bet with hands better than yours then YOU should 3-bet. Its possible, I suppose, that he has AJ or AT going for the gut shot but a reasonable player is going to have a LOT of trouble paying you off on the river. If you played this one "incorrectly" it was only by pennies.
Again, it matters if tight lady is going to jump in there with AQ or AJ. Checking the turn makes sense only if you can confidently FOLD to a bet from the lady. If not, you might as well bet and get the money in when she doesn't want to. Check-raise the river doesn't look good against her. Again, if this wasn't played well it only costs pennies.
Make mental notes of these players, especially if there are other sorts of hands they'll play this way.
- Louie
The following occurred in a local 10-20 casino game.
Here goes:
I have Qh10h and am in the in the cutoff seat. 6 limpers to me and I call, button raises and there is 8 way action to see the flop.
Now the board comes 4h-6h-9c-Kc-Jc. The cards came down in that order.
I call all the way through and bet out on the river when I river my gutshot straight, hoping no one else had made a backdoor flush. Everyone folds to this one guy (I believe he was UTG) who cry calls. I turn over my rivered straight and am just about ready to scoop the pot, when the dealer tells me that the person seated to his left still has a hand and hasn't called. So after exposing my cards, the dealer asks him to either call, raise or fold.
Now, any goddamn poker player with any brains would either raise or fold their hand. However, this fellow was extremely new to the game, so he called me. So, I thought we were going to chop chop since he didn't raise. To my surprise, right after he calls my bet, he mucks his hand into the river.
The whole table looks in utter shock at him. He told me that he was going to call anyways because he had hit his King on the turn.
Now, I must say that I truly admire him for his honesty, but I still felt that because I didn't see his hand still in play on the river (he hid his hand beside his chips which I couldn't see.) and had exposed mine, he didn't need to pay me off.
He told me that he wasn't familiar with the rules and that this was the first time the cards were exposed before he had a chance to make a decision on whether or not to call.
I scooped up the pot, along with the extra $20 that he pretty much donated. But as I sat through, I felt extremely uncomfortable taking the $20 of his. I later gave 20 dollars in chips back to him while the floor wasn't looking.
I like to catch fish mind you, but not this way.
What do you all think?
The Flopper
i think you are a nice person flopper. it was neither right or wrong to take his money as he voluntarily put it in with all the information available to him. he was being nice and so were you. good luck.
the first poker book I ever read was by oswald jacoby.
in it he list a supplementary law called "the 'imposible call' a situation in stud that where the last player to act is beaten in sight but calls by mistake should be given his money back, since there was no concieveable manner in which he could gain by his call."
Of course mr jacoby came from a time much different than we live in today but I've played in games where the bet would be returned to you and in others where you would just be laughed at
Now of course your situation is different and the fellow could have been an angle shooter but of course he wasn't as he wouldn't have called your bet and he just made an hopnest mistake
I'd like to think I would have given him back his bet as well Flopper. Hats off to you
I used to play draw poker when it was played at 10-20 and 15-30 at the Normandie Club in Gardena, CA. There was a rule that if the last player to act called the opener (who had to have at least a pair of jacks) with a hand that could not beat a pair of jacks, he would get his money back.
But eventually the rule was changed because a few angle shooters were making the call in the hope that the opener, believing himself to be bluffing, would soup once he was called. And this indeed happened a few times, prompting the rule change.
I agree with mr. zee. Mr. Flopper owed the caller nothing, but was a gentleman for returning the money, which was obviously put into the pot by an inexperienced gentleman. Good things do, at least sometimes, happen to good people and therefore I know Mr. Flopper won $10,000 in this particular game.
haven't you seen the chain letter...? I'll email it to you!
Actually, I wonder where flopper got his name. I would have chosen Flop-Master, but that's me.
Huh?
"Good things do, at least sometimes, happen to good people and therefore I know Mr. Flopper won $10,000 in this particular game"
chain letters often make similar claims. actually I hate chain letters and delete them asap. ray was being sarcastic and so was I
It's your money. You have to answer to your own conscience; no one else's. I would have done the same thing. Of course, here in Canada, most of the casino's have politeness clauses listed on the House Rules and you would be expected to return the money.
OTOH, someone like, say, Poker Veteran, would have probably mocked you and/or the other player at the table for being such a weak kneed wimp.
A guy playing 10-20 who doesn't know what he is doing deserves to lose the $20 bucks mayby he'd learn to pay attention - giving back the $$ was a nice jesture on your part but I probably wouldn't do it - how else would he learn the lessons of life.
On the other hand if a guy is that dense maybe I want him beholding to me.
Toss up.
I applaud your code of ethics. I would say "honesty", but there would be nothing dishonest in keeping it.
I would have kept the money and here is why: My read is that you are a recreational player. That does not mean to say you don't like to win. If you are an active recreational player, I'm sure you are familiar with the feeling of leaving a Casino short a few hundred or so - eventually the feeling goes away - but I'm sure you hate this feeling nonetheless. So as a recreational player you say, "Hey, they guy is new to the game, give him a break." Well, if he is new to the game, he shouldn't be playing 10-20. And it is not your job to somehow wrong the rights at a poker table - that is not your function - and neither is educating the other player - that is his function. Unfair stuff happens all the time in poker - where do you draw the line? Ever flop a set of kings, turn a full house, and lose to four of a kind with a "newcomer" playing K-3 offsuit? Ever flop a set and lose to runner, runner straights and flushes? Or whatever - go to any poker room and you can hear 50 different bad beat stories in 10 minutes
The point is that giving the money back takes away the edge you have to maintain at the table - even if it is the tiniest of fractions - because if you really think of it - consistent winners are separated from consistent losers by the tiniest of fractions.
Keep the chips and keep your edge. It's not a matter of good/bad, nice guy/asshole - or any of that black/white analysis - to be honest it shouldn't even be a consideration.
Maybe you or someone else reads this and says he's hardcore or too severe or whatever - but if you understand that such analysis/justification/behavior does not belong at the poker table - then you put it out of your mind forever.
Fact is, I'm very nice at the table, don't throw cards, blame the dealer, etc. - I understand the rules, have learned many lessons regarding the rules and behave as a gentleman at all times - but I can't worry if some newcomer made a bonehead play - I just want to leave the casino with more cash than I came in with, and not with that feeling that we all know and hate.
I could'nt agree with you more. Excellent response.
say you feel bad about taking his money and buy him a beer. keep buying for him all night long. if 10/20 isnt your top limit, have *one* with him.
brad
although you could have kept the $$, I like your giving it back. you have left him with a good impression that will likely keep him coming back for more even though he doesn't play well, obviously. he won't mind losing to you in the future either. I think it falls under the category of "it's not always correct to extract the maximum out of every opponent".
damn, that guy is toooooooooooooo honest!
dave in cali
now it will be interesting to see the other responses
.
4-8 HE game a couple of weeks ago. Can't recall where the button was, but I was first to act after the flop - so let's just say I was the SB in the 8th seat out of 9. One or two limpers to me and I raise it to 8 with AJo. BB, in seat 9(duh), who is low on money and has been visibly giving it away the last few hands just to gamble - calls. Flop J-7-2. I bet 4 and BB calls. Turn is a second small heart. I bet 8 and the BB is just throwing his money away to me and he knows that I know that he is drawing thin(obvious visual tell). River is another undercard heart(I didn't notice the suit) - I bet 8 and he mucks. I turn over my AJ off just to show him I had a legitimate hand and the dealer says, "hey, seat 1 still has a hand.", "And now he's gonna raise you." What? Another player? Raise?(I now notice the flush possibility). I thought it was heads up and was just concentrating on what seat 9 was gonna do and I didn't realize that seat 1 was calling along(he was mostly concealed by the dealer). I don't remember the dealer saying, "three players", or seat 1 *say* "call". Seat 1, before actually pushing a raise forward, turns over KQh. I was embarrassed for what I felt was a lack of concentration on my part. I apologized to the table and especially seat 1 for turning over my hand because I didn't want it to look like I was angle shooting a potential flush board. Everyone started giving the dealer a hard time for not announcing the number of players in the hand(kiddingly) and the dealer said he did make the announcement(probably in the fear that either I or seat 1 goes nuts). One guy looked at me and said, "hey, we don't mind - you can turn over your hand whenever you want." And then smiles. Anyway the table laughed it off and took my apology as genuine(most probably didn't care), seat 1 was probably just happy to make a runner-runner flush and I didn't feel guilty because I wouldn't have paid his raise off anyway. Now if the river is the ace of hearts.......do I feel guilty and pay off after all the cards are turned up? I might have.....if I felt it was my error. Comments?
TripKings
.....an interesting side note making me agree with Dave in Cali's post..... Although I didn't feel obligated to pay off the raise in this case, but the way things unfolded with no controversy whatsoever and the conduct by seat 1 and myself had an unusual affect on everyone. I think that everyone at the table(about half locals and half tourists) were so shocked at the above stated sincerity/noncontroversy that the table loosend up and was overall *happier* as a result. Maybe everyone is so used to card throwing, dealer cussing, someone else's fault, antics that it was a relief to everyone and we all just had fun. After a few fish left I stood up and said g'night to everyone...the respect I was shown by eye contact and good wishes was unusual at a poker table and felt good. I booked a modest $70 win and grabbed a bite to eat in the cafe and two people including seat one stopped by to chat. I'm not a saint by a long shot, but I think even the poker community is ready for less cut-throat bitching at the table. Don't get me wrong, I'd bust my mother at the table, but I realized that a little kindness goes along way - even at the poker table. The upside could be huge.
@
.
@
.
There was a similar post on this topic made a while ago in the "Medium Stakes" forum. I was just wondering about where most of our profit comes in hold'em. I seem to have come to the conclusion that most losing players lose most of their money PREFLOP, by coming in with trash hands or dominated hands. Here are some questions:
1 Who loses more, the player who plays any Ace, any suited cards, but then plays competently after the flop, or the player who doesn't play as many "trash" hands, but often plays QJo and KJo type hands in raised pots and loses money when his second pair doesn't hold up or his kicker doesn't hold up?
2 What is the maximum losing rate of any player, given he is playing trash hands but gives up on the flop if he completely misses?
3 Is the definition of an "excellent" game different when considering a 5-10 game vs. a 20-40 game? Do you expect less any 2 card type players in a 20-40?
I am asking these questions because I have noticed that my win rate has fallen off dramatically lately online, and I suspect that part of it is due to a negative fluctuation, but part of it is also due to the fact that the megafish "any 2card" type players have dried up. True, there are many who will cold call raises with implied odds type hands or dominated type hands like KJo, but how much profit can really be made off these players if they play competently post flop? Can you realistically expect to make 1BB per hour in a game that may have poor players, but consistently lacks the megafish? Are there any players out there who play in games with "just poor" players (no megafish) and consistently make 1BB/hour? Comments please.
hetron
nt
1. trick question as KJo and QJo ARE trash in a raised pot. you will lose lots of bets coming into raised pots with these hands though.
2. I would not know how to answer, but I bet that the worst players lose several big bets per hour, especially if they DON'T give up after they miss the flop.
3. if you have the $$, and the choice between two equally great games, then the 20-40 would be better. but for the most part 5-10 players do not play 20-40. in the end a great game is a great game and the stakes have little to do with it. the players and how they play are what determines whether a game is excellent or not. in general you will find fewer poor players at 20-40.
you make most of your $$ off the really bad players, not the marginal ones. this is discussed in several 2+2 books, I believe poker essays I or II but possibly others. I do not think you need megafish to make 1BB/hour if you play well. I would think that most of the higher limit games are not commonly stocked with megafish, yet people still make 1BB/hour at them. games with several megafish may yeild considerably more though.
dave in cali
I don't know if this thread is far enough down that anyone still cares, but this is a big issue with me.
I can only afford to play low-limit poker. I play a tight/aggressive game, something I've learned reading 2+2 and RGP. My win rate is approximately $1 per hour playing 1-4-8-8 or 4-8. I don't understand how people make more than this.
It's frustrating to sit there, hand after hand, getting 4-8o, 2-5o, K-3s (early position), etc., etc., only to finally pick up AA, raise, get 3 callers and have them flop two pair, an open-ended straight draw and a flush draw. The next hand, you see a flop of Q-5-5 and you threw away the Q-5o.
I find there are simply too many good players even in the low limits to overcome the rake any more, at least in Biloxi. Three years ago I had 28 winning sessions out of 30, but now it's a real chore.
I guess I'll stick to tournaments, which seems to be my strength.
Mark
I have played a fair amount in Boloxi and the 1-4-4-8 is very hard to beat with the 10% rake and 1$ jackpot, the strait 4-8 game is a little better but tough to keep going and ussauly has the 10-20 players in it waiting for a seat.
I personly decided not to move there because you have almost no game sellection, so i plan on moving to vegas instead.
I would try and play only 4-8 or 10-20 if i was forced to only play in Biloxi. That or make trips to Tunica.
Does anybody know a good place to play in or around Portland, Oregon?
Thanks in advance.
When I visited Portland last summer, we had to go up to Washington to find any games. I think the town was called La Center? The games were good. Hopefully a local can tell you more.
Greetings! Welcome to Portland. DeadBart is correct. LaCenter is approx. 20 miles north of Portland (exit #16 on I5 North - Washington). It is the closest to Portland. There is a room there called the Last Frontier. They have 10 tables, I believe. 3/6 - 4/8 & 10/20 HE. They also spread Omaha if there is enough interest.
There are also Indian Casinos. Closest to Portland are Spirit Mountain (68 miles, non smoking limits up to 20/40) and Chinook Winds (100 miles, only 2 tables).
Email me sometime, and I'd love to go with you. I also may be starting a LL home game for fun with some friends. Enjoy! Thanks, Tim
Thanks for the response. I'm going to Portland next Wed. for a few days on business. Is it far from the airport?
Tim,
What's the rake for 10/20 and 20/40 HE?
-- Manzanita
For the first time in two years I was in the black. My total poker results were positive by about $1000. A few weeks ago the cards started running cold again but I didn't let it bother me. It was all part of the normal fluctuation of poker. I could see that for what it was, now that I'd actually WON some money for once. But the cards stayed cold, and got colder. I lost 7 seven session in a row, including a brutal session of huge no-limit suckouts and dry runs.
I was back in the red but not by much and I still didn't let it bother me. I was destined to continue with the upward trend I had finally experienced for the first time.
New Year's came and I made a resolution to be a winning player, and to believe in my skills, that they would prevail at the poker table, despite my usual experiences.
My first session of the new year, down $1000 after several suck outs.
I went home and said screw it, I'll play some online poker even though I highly suspect the integrity. What the hell.
One of my first few hands is AA. Flop comes 666 and I lose to quads. Now I remember that I've been suspicious about this online site because I've seen more quads than you would believe while playing on it. I have a feeling the algorithm for distributing the cards has some flaw. I've seen it too often, quads made by 1 card in the hole. I play a little longer, run into quads again, and quit.
By the end of the night I'm down $1400, about 25% of my recently rebuilt bankroll and I stop to think about what I did wrong. I always do this after a losing session, try to identify the major mistakes I made or general flaws in my playing style.
Nothing. I played well all night. I even knew when to get up and quit the no limit game after a brutal beat because I knew I wouldn't play that well if I put more money on the table. My losses were NOT because of poor play.
I get an email from a friend who tells me he tallied all his results and he won $18,000 this past year playing poker recreationally. I personally witnessed him win about 3k of it making 2 outers on the river in no limit hold'em in one amazing session. This is NOT what I want to hear right now, especially from a guy who I know needs those 2 outers.
I've had several conversations with different pro and semi-pro players lately and it dawns on me that there's a common thread among them. They have ALL had incredible, astonishing, monumental winning streaks. One of them informed me he once won $6000 in a weekend playing 6-12 hold'em. Another told me that for the first five months of being a poker pro, he averaged almost 4 big bets per hour playing 30-60 and 40-80 full time. Another tells me that in his first year of poker he won so much money that he progressed from 6-12 all the way up to 200-400 and now plays that limit regularly.
Phil Hellmuth! My god, the lucky streaks. I quote from his latest column:
I caught my first break when Jason Lester opened the pot on the button with 10-10 and I moved all-in on him (a significant re-raise) with A-7 in the big blind. He had been raising my big blind quite a bit, but he made a stand at the wrong time. He quickly called my re-raise and the flop was J-J-3, the turn was the most beautiful looking ace I have seen in awhile. ... Nice break for me, and bad break for the rest of the field.
Only a player who is totally accustomed to sucking out and getting lucky could write about this hand the way he did. Lester "made a stand at the wrong time"? Yeah, if you believe in fate. Otherwise he brilliantly outplayed you but you got lucky anyway.
Then I remember the biggest one of all: Doyle Brunson. In his book Super/System he claims that he believes in rushes, and that a significant portion of his winnings have come from rushes. He says that he only knows of ONE winning pro who doesn't believe in rushes. This goes against EVERYTHING that is written by the foremost poker theorists. Paraphrase: "Sometimes I'd be playing so fast and rushing so hot that I'd break every player at the table". Has anyone ever done this? Busted every player at the table? He also says in his bio that after recovering from a near-fatal illness, he went on a mad hot streak and won 55 sessions in a row! And he even has the gall say that those who complain about how lucky he is are dead wrong. Excuse me? There's no denying he's a great player, but there's also no denying he's had his share of luck. In fact, if a player as good and as successful as Doyle will say he believes in rushes and that you have to cultivate a rush by playing every hand after you win a pot (which he does claim), I can only assume he believes in luck, which is usually the mark of a terrible player. What is going on?
I'm sorry folks, but if I ever win 55 sessions in a row at ANY limit, I'll never be in the red again. But I'd have to get lucky to do it.
I made the wrong new year's resolution. I should have resolved to get lucky.
natedogg
I hear ya! See my post under General Theory.
There is no question that luck plays a huge factor in this game and streaks or rushes (good and bad) are one of the most frustrating parts of the game... when they are bad anyway. You even have huge swings in one session... who hasn't had a situation when they were up $500 hundred and two hours later they were down $500 or vice versa. Anyone who says that luck or rushes is not a part of the game and that it all evens out in the long run is fooling themselves. It may all even out in the long run but what is the long run... could be 20 years or more, sorry but I'm not waiting 20 years for luck to even out.
A number of months I wrote a post on changing seats and was lambasted by most people on this forum. I beginning to think I was right all along. I wish I had an answer for you... I'm trying to find my own right now.
"Anyone who says that luck or rushes is not a part of the game and that it all evens out in the long run is fooling themselves."
Of course, luck is a part of the game but skill is a more dominant factor than luck. Otherwise, I would play Roulette, it's a lot quicker.
I can sit in a game and after a few hours predict with a fair degree of accuracy how much money each player at the table is likely to win on an hourly basis over a period of say a 1000 hours at that given limit. That to me indicates that skill is a more dominant factor than luck.
Man, why do we even bother reading hold 'em books, participating in the Forum etc. if Lady Luck is the most important part of poker.
Skilled players (and I believe that both Nate and you are skilled players based on your respective posts) can suffer extended losing streaks or break even streaks but that does not mean that luck is a more important factor than skill. Clearly, players like you guys are less likely to suffer losing streaks as compared to your unskilled counterparts.
2 years ago I won 40 out of 42 sessions of 3-6 poker in a home game with no rake and no tips.
Was i just lucky or more skilled, I like to think it was 90% skill and 10% luck.
A quote I heard from a friend of mine:
"Some people were lucky and got born smart.
Other people were smart, and got born lucky."
Anyone know where it comes from?
-solublefish
So what has happened lately? Has the 10% luck become more important or have your skills eroded?
At 90% skill you should expect this on a regular basis if your a strong skillfull player.
This is an example of "I'm the greatest player who ever lived!" syndrome. This is often followed by many sad tales of beats and bad luck.
3 or 4 winning outings in a roll I feel real lucky. 55 is unbeliveable (just like the 100 big bet winning day)
Exactly what Jim Brier has been saying (on the lines of: You can be a positive EV player, but unless youīre playing for an infinite amount of time, it may never show!) and I think itīs true. Good luck ;)
Natedogg,
I feel your pain, but the sting is gone. I quit poker late aug. 2000 and have been glad ever since. The game has its suckouts alright, I cannot tell you how many times I flopped a set and had it beat by a straight or flush on the turn or river. Many times I would flop the nuts (straight) and get creamed on the river by a flush/full house. Poker is the only gambling game I know of where you can have the best of it and still come out the worst. There is no solace when bad players suck out on you, you still lose. Screw that crap that you will win all their money in the long run, who knows how long that will be?
I am not suggesting that you quit the game, but do consider it if you are playing recreationally. I have personally lost thousands of dollars (around 7 to be exact) spent countless hours at the tables and had visions of becoming a pro. It is not worth it if your heart is not fully in it, and even if your heart is fully in it ask yourself why. Are you playing because you really enjoy it or are you playing to try and chase lost money or are you hooked? Hooked to the game is always a possibility, I am pretty sure that I was hooked. I craved the action of the game. I ran hands through my head at night considering what plays were right and wrong. I showed up early at the clubs I played at and sometimes played all night. I got a thrill when work was done because I knew I'd be in action soon. All the evidence of being hooked.
Whatever decision you make is probably the best for yourself but do consider the resolution of giving up the game, even if not forever. You may have a harder time than you think in giving it up, I can't know that though.
Keep this thought in mind: You can be a winning player and still lose for two years straight. Mason Malmuth said it in his book Gam. Theor. and other topics. Do you have the stomach (and cash) for that kind of swing?
Sincerely,
Joe
@
nt
.
Natedogg,you talk my laugauge!Remember my post quite a few months ago?I am 99% agree with you about Brunson & the rest.These guys at 2+2?Well,they mean well,but,save your breath.You are talking Greek here.
Don't get me wrong about Brunson and the rest of the great name players. You'll never find me saying that they are just simply lucky guys (except maybe Phil Hellmuth he he). They are the best players in the world, but I personally believe they are good AND have been lucky. Which is the combo required for making a ton of money playing poker.
natedogg
Someone calls a bet in the river with two pair, with the flop showing a possible straight. He wins with the hand with the two pair and while collecting the chips tells the losing player: "I though you might had a straight". The losing player then says: "If you thought that I had a straight, why did you call me? I don't understand this answer. I don't understand what the losing player thinking is. ???? Thanks.
The losing player's thinking is that he thought he ran a good bluff but it didn't turn out as he had hoped. Judging by the comment, I suspect the losing player made a hopeless bluff afainst someone who was sure to call.
I've said it many times - a guy says I thought you had------- (a better hand) I always ask then why did you call me.
but of course what really is meant is
" i thought (it was 90% probable) that you had a straight (but of course im getting 10 to 1 and ive got pretty much everything else beat)"
brad
p.s. of course the guy could also just be dumb.
Well, bad players call because they came to call. They didn't come to fold fold fold. They want to throw money around.
So let them call -- you'll get the best of em in the long run.
No big deal.
This conversation is repeated thousands of times a day in cardrooms throughout the country.
The losing player is just steaming because he lost. I have been on both sides of that type conversation myself when I was starting out, but quit taking part in them long ago.
When someone says "I thought you had....", they really mean "I was AFRAID you had....".
A similar situation is when someone calls your bet on the river and says "I knew you had...." they really mean "I suspected you had....but I had to call to make sure.".
@
The variation on this theme that I love is when the weak, passive calling station calls or checks at the river with the virtual nuts and doesn't bet or raise, (s)he says while picking up the chips,..."I couldn't (bet/raise). There was a possible (flush/str8/board was paired/fill in the blanks), when any sort of basic analysis of the hand would indicate that the chances they were beat were almost impossible given the inferences available and the betting patterns.
The money left on the table by missing value bets and raises in LL is absolutely astounding sometimes. If I have improved one thing in the past year, it is making a much more conscious effort to pick up these bets. They add up.
.
I've made some Big Laydowns, and I've paid a few off. There are one or two of the TOM's so predictable and easy to read that when they raise on the river, it is only with the stone cold nuts. Period.
My point was not so much my own strategy heads-up with these types, but the advantages of playing in games with them when they do not fully extract what they should from you when you are stuck with a 2nd best hand. What you don't lose is just as valuable as what you win.
is when the PCS doesn't bet the virtual nuts and shows down the winning hand, the losing hand inevitably complains because the guy didn't bet
Even if the winner wasn't intending to needle it will usually look that way to the loser; so the loser is just retorting.
The losing player is telling YOU, since you are intellegent and paying objective attention, that he doesn't really understand pot-odds. (As Brad suggests above, even when you are probably beat you should usually call.) I suggest, therefore, that this player may be a good target for a rare bluff in a big pot.
A mistake you may be making is presuming the losing player IS thinking.
- Louie
Greetings Yall:
Alright, this is really starting to bug me so I have to bring it in for a little discussion. As well all know, Pocket 10's are looked up to with great admiration by many of our notable poker authors (HPFAP, Jones, Abdul)as a hand that should be played from early position. Now I'm talking low-limit here, nothing else. What bothers me is that so much can go wrong and so little can go right after that. Here's what I mean. Let's say you call, and then somebody raises behind you with the assumption that the cards are higher than 10's. You call, and the flop comes with paint on it. How confident can you play after that. Or there is no raise and the paint comes, how confident can you play? Or the flop holds everything smaller than 10's but now you've got cards crunched together creating more likely straight hands or straight draws, or lets say their all one suit and you have the 10, but then what, so another flush card comes and your still only 10 high. Or, as usually happens, the flop didn't catch a face, but the turn does which will normally hit some moron on in the low limit games. I mean really when can you really play these confidently unless you flop your 7 to 1 trip card. Let's even say you raise them pre-flop and get the typical 2 or so callers after you plus the big blind calling. Still any damn overcard, or 2, is bound to hit someone making you the automatic 4 to 1 dog. Okay, so 7-8-9 flops and you have the open-ender, pre-flop raise or not. How often have you seen a jack come and you get beat by Q-10??? See my point...
Instead, at least with T9s you've:
1) Dipped a little further south in the field so now your opponents can't completely discount you when a middle flop comes with you as the early bird.
2) If you get raised, hence somebody is claiming vertical seniority on you, you have the ability to go lateral on them with a straight or flush, and also able to to work with lower card flops which is going to suck in the raiser no-matter if he was raising with a true pair or working high cards.
3) You can now check raise him on the flop with confidence and really turning the tide.
4) You can get out easily with an unworking flop, to minimize the losses not having to worry if your pair was the best.
5) You know where your opponent is but they don't know where you are.
6) Overall, you can play your hand more confidently and with better results.
Alright, What do you think??
Critical analysis like this is the first step to becoming a winning poker player. TT is, indeed a tough hnad to play, especially in early position. In fact, it is probably a loser if you don't play well after the flop.
However, if you can't even play this hand in the first 2 or 3 seats, hold'em will be an awfully dull game and the blinds will eat you up.
And T9s is an equally difficult hand to play. If you only proceed when you flop two-pair, an open-ender or flush draw, it is probably not worth calling preflop in all but the loosest games. And when you only flop a pair, the hand has almost identical problems as the pocket tens.
This is not theory but i just want to vent some and get a little direction. I've been playing for a couple of years and am now in the middle of my first real bad losing streak. the cards are bad, when i get some decent starting cards the flop misses me, lots of second bests, etc. then i might start to press when i shouldn't, stuff like that. i play 10-20 to 20-40 so the bad sessions can add up. in the past month i'm only about 1800 down so it may not seem like much to some, but it's getting pretty frustrating for me. anyway, need a little advice, support, feedback whatever on how to get through this. thanks ya'll, steve
1800 loss in a month is nothing if you are playing 20-40. Hell, that is a bad session or two if the game is aggressive. I have lost that much in a good game when I was running good.
If this losing "streak" is really that hard on you, I would respectfully submit that you are overextending your bankroll. You should seek out some archived threads on bankroll requirements. You would be surprised at the recommended bankroll for playing as low as 5-10 hold'em.
Other than that, tighten up a notch preflop and on the flop. You may give up some EV, but it will also reduce variance.
Good luck.
it sometimes helps to change something in your game. if you've been playing only 20-40 HE or 4-8 stud for several years it's easy to lose a bit of your edge, get mentally stale. i've always found it helpful to change games (hold-em to stud or vice versa) or just back down in limit for a while. i spent two months playing nothing but 2-4 stud in '99 in a successful bid to crack a bad run caused by (pick one)variance, poker gods, or stale-poker-mind.
I completely agree with your Bankroll statement. I have also noticed that a lot of the better poker players talk about playing a variety of games.
Another reason for switching games is that maybe you have someone who has a really good read on you and they are following you around. (That is my favorite excuse ;)
$1800 isn't what I would call a bad month. I've had a 2 month session where I dropped over $5000 in $10-20 alone. But I won't go into the bad beat stories here. Let's just say I rarely sucked out on anyone, but everyone else managed to suck out on me.
I like going back to the books constantly whenever I lose a great deal. I try to find where I played wrong and give myself re-assurance that I am a good and solid poker and that even when I lost a certain hand or hands, that I played it right.
Losing streaks can be harst because it hits your confidence level so hard and you start to question whether or not certain plays were done right and how come some lucksack managed to hit their 3-outer and you missed.
What I also like to do is hit the lower limit games to change things up a bit. I remember dropping down to 4-8 for about a month and then returned back to the 10-20 and 20-40 scene. Winning lower limit games gave me the confidence I needed. The confidence gave me the smarts and reassurance to tackle the mid limits.
Right now I'm amidst another bad losing streak. This week, I haven't gone out a winner for all 5 days I've played.
Been lots of wild action, but no luck whenever I'm in the pot. The EV is getting high for me. Time for me to tighten up.
thanks for the responses. i know it's not a lot of money and it's still comong from last year's winnings so it's not real bad. it's just so frustrating to see pot after pot going to players who seem to have more money than sense. i believe good, solid play will win in the long run but right now it ain't fun. so, i know to expect times like this. i have the poker players optimism that it's gonna get better soon. thanks for the help, i've learned a lot on this forum.
You may have missed the point.
It can get much much worse than this and if this current situation bothers you then moving down in limit is a good way to go.
If your BR is large then stay and play because it sounds like a good game.
Get John Feeney's book"Inside the Poker mind" and Alan Schoonmakers "The psychology of poker" They will help with the mind game. Review your technical material. Focus on important tecnical things plus such things as pot odds and opponents styles. Do not think about winning or losing and winning will take care of itself.
Vince
Does anyone on these posts use StatKing from Conjelco? Any other recommendations?
Thanks
Stork,
I've noticed a number of reviews here and especially on RGP that seem to give a favorable impression, especially compared to the product sold by Card Player. I ordered a copy today from Conjelco so I might know more in a few weeks.
Rick
Why don't you guys just use Mason's formulas in conjuction with Excel?
The only things that seem to be important in tracking wins and losses is: Date/Time; Hourly Rate; Hourly STD; and game played. You can add all the comments you want in each cell.
A#1
A#1,
I use Excel to keep a running tabulation of propping (House Player) results but since I really don't know the program (my Hero/Poker Student set it up for me) I haven't had the time to figure out how to extract data in the same manner one would from a pure database. For example, my older records were in DOS based dbase. I never calculated SD but I could tell you how I did on (TUE)sday's in sessions started in (EE)early evening versus sessions started in the allegedly more wild (FRI)day evenings. Extraction of data from one large database in Excel seems beyond me.
Perhaps Excel allows that and if StatKing dissapoints I might buckle down and learn it.
Regards,
Rick
Maybe because StatKing is a lot cheaper than Excel.
Excel is usually comes bundled with Windows and has more applications than said Poker Tracking program.
A#1
All spreadsheet programs have some (limited) database functionality, but if you want to generate reports (called queries) based upon a multiplicity of charactoristics, you have to use a database program. It depends how much you value your time. You can closet yourself for most of a week and create an information monument to yourself in a database language you possess, or spring for a few bucks and have proven functionality immediately.
It doesn't take a report to tell you that the better games are on the weekends.
A#1
A#1,
That may be true in Las Vegas and Atlantic City but it is not neccessarily true in some other spots. But I am intending to trim down some of my computer based data keeping that is extractable in database format. For example, what does it matter that in the nineties I averaged more at the Bike than the Commerce when so much has changed since then.
Regards,
Rick
For the cheap price, if it makes life easier then go for it. I just wish I had learned Excel before I bought my first Quicken progam.
A#1
A few comments on using Excel for a poker log and other things mentioned in this thread:
Excel does not come free with Windows.
Excel does just about anything a database program does, including generating reports with multiple queries (e.g., show me my 6-12 hold 'em results for the last 13 weeks), but performing these functions is more awkward than they are in a database program.
Really, Excel can do everything you might imagine, but like many things, it's easier imagined than done. For example, my Excel log calculates total standard deviation and hourly rate standard deviation, plots session results and bankroll, plots my session hourly rate and overall win rate with a +/- 2 SD envelope. It displays results by month, for home games, casino/cardroom games, by game size and structure, by year, the last x weeks, etc. HOWEVER, I had to do all the work myself, it took some considerable time and I have about 12 years' experience with the program. For those that already have Excel and experience with it, it can be a satisfying project and, depending on how you value your time, save the expense of buying a new program. For those who do not, can afford the (relatively inexpensive) price of a dedicated log program and/or just don't want to hassle with the work, I expect a dedicated log program would be much easier.
Zig,
The reason I wouldn't attempt to have a spreadsheet perform as a database is the time and tedium of nesting Boolean tests. You had to have created a library of them and import them as needed, of course modifying cell references each time. And Excel doesn't, I believe, accept nests past the seventh level, which may be insufficient. This may be overcome by intermediate presentation, and then restarting the priocess. But the real problem is time. If I have a question, I'd like the answer the same afternoon, not sometime later in the week.
It's nice to see someone master an application thoroughly, but I'm not looking for a hobby that looks like an obsession.
I have had it for about 2 months now. I like it and recommend it. The only thing it does not have is the ability to enter comments about individual sessions. I have written the manufacturer and suggested that he consider adding this capability. But otherwise I have been very pleased with it.
i love the product. it is small, quick, and very user friendly. the only thing about it is that it makes me much more neurotic about my losses. no more telling friends "i'm winning a little or breaking even."
:)
I'm considering it for myself. I have been keeping all my records on Excel, but an acquaintance told me he learned some things after a dozen weeks results were put in StatKing. Could I write it for myself in Dbase or Access? Yeah, but I'm more lazy than heroic. I'd rather have someone else do the programming. I'll just play.
I've been using it for a few months and I think it's great. It does a lot more than you would expect, such as tracking weekday vs. weekend sessions, long and short sessions, allowing you to input your monthly "nut" to find out how often you have to play and a lot of other stuff.
The fulcrum decider? What is it? Well, I just made that up because it sounds good to me. The fulcrum decider is the information that you use to make a decision in poker. This terminology is my own, and I make no claim that it is a perfect description of what I am describing. But it works for me.
Ill give you an example of a fulcrum that is pretty basic yet illustrates the point. In a ten handed game, limit holdem, what is the minimum offsuit ace hand that you can play UTG in a typical game? Well, for the sake of argument, lets say it is Ajoffsuit. I would call that the fulcrum hand. Meaning, in a typical game (whatever that means) it is usually a break even hand UTG. There are some games which it is probably profitable, and others not. The point here is not to argue AJ as a hand, if you disagree that this hand is the fulcrum thats fine, substitute your own hand, although I doubt it is far off this. So we have a basic fulcrum, that allows us to make an easy decision. Its yes or no. I either have AJ or better or I dont. Furthermore, this analysis can be further utilized as a decider on its own, as a tool for game selection. Is this a good game? Perhaps substitute that question with the fulcrum decider here. Would Ajoffsuit UTG make money in this game? If yes, it is probably a good game. This streamlines the process. To make a decision about game selection, you could use a serious of fulcrums, if the question was not obvious. The point here is to make it clear to you what I mean by a fulcrum, not to prove any points.
Now what of fulcrums? Preflop fulcrums are actually fairly simple. This really is what hand charts are. Sklanskys groups are really fulcrums in a way. The best method of going through fulcrums is to class hands and make decisions based on this and the action beforehand. This makes learning holdem a lot easier than it would be without fulcrums. I am assuming the typical poster is fairly well versed in preflop play, and hence fulcrums preflop.
Where more value can be derived from establishing fulcrums is post flop. I, over a long period of time, have developed my own set of decision criteria about common situations in holdem I call them fulcrum deciders.. I dont even know for sure that they are always correct, but as I put a lot of thought process into them and based them on poker theory, they cant be too bad. And the process alone helps you enormously. There was a thread a while back that involved one of my fulcrum deciders that I am not certain about. The post was by Jim Brier on Friday December 15th at 0330hrs, titled $20-$40 Problem: Bad Semi-Bluff?
Reprinted here:
It is the $20-$40 game at the Mirage and I am in the big blind with the Kh4h. An early player limps, a middle player limps, and the small blind limps. I take a free play. There is $80 in the pot and 4 players. The flop is: 5s5h3d The small blind checks. I check. The other two players check. The turn is: 7h The small blind checks. I bet $40 having a flush draw, a gutshot straight draw, and an over card. I could win the pot outright and I have a ton of outs if I am called. No one has shown any interest in this pot so I feel it is my duty to not allow the money to just rot in the center of the table. Only the small blind calls. There is $160 in the pot and two players. The river is: Td The small blind checks. I bet $40 having missed everything as usual with no hand to showdown. The small blind goes into the tank and reluctantly calls. He wins with AhQh. A friend told me my semi-bluff was a poor one because the pot was not large enough to spend $40 on the turn and another $40 at the river when I miss. I should have just checked the turn, happy to get a free card and then check-fold the river if anyone bets thereby saving $80. Was the pot too small (only two big bets) to bother with a semi-bluff and was it right to follow through with another big bet on the river when I missed?
Ok my fulcrum decider here was based on the questionable river bet. David Sklansky posted along the lines that not to bet the turn as a semi-bluff was insane. I will take that to mean that no fulcrum is required there. My fulcrum here was that I believed that the bet on the river could be made if you felt your opponent would fold ace high. Simple, but it focuses your decision. Now whether you agree with this fulcrum or not again is not my point here, and about this one I am not sure at all. (I am not sure about many of my fulcrums, as some of them or a little bizarre.) So in this case, we see, that the decision of whether or not to bet here could be delegated to the fulcrum decider. If you come up with an excellent set of fulcrum deciders, your playing becomes easier.
Ok, this post is way too long. I appreciate if you got this far without falling asleep. Now am I going to give you my fulcrums? No. But this is not cruel or greedy. Go out and think about the decisons, and you will often find that they can be made using one or more fulcrum deciders. The process of thinking through the fulcrums deciders will serve you much better than being fed them. Most good players already have fulcrums, whether they know it or not.
One more point. In the future, perhaps the forum intelligence could get together and determine the correct fulcrums in threads that are posted. I have little doubt the braintrust here couldnt come up with brilliant, highly effective ones.
This is a primer on fulcrum deciders. There is nothing profound here. The clever stuff comes in making up the fulcrums. I have more on this.
Regards
backdoor,
Before I comment in depth, let me ask a simple question. Would the following statement be an example of a fulcrum?
In a mid limit holdem game with a 15/30 or 30/60 structure, I want two typical callers in front of me when I hold a baby pair (22 thru 44) in order for me to call.
Note on my fulcrum. If the callers are very tight and do not tend to pay me off when I hit a set I might want three callers. If I have blinds plus a limper that will tend to pay me well then one limper may be enough to make calling worthwhile.
Regards,
Rick
Yes, you got it. I would change the phrasing, although this has neglible bearing. I would say if you have two limpers what is the fulcrum hand? The baby pairs then would be part of this fulcrum hand group. This is the kind of thing done all the time here on the forum. The idea blossoms when you get into more complex post flop situations, however.
Your post also jumps ahead to things I didn't post yet. The idea that there are adjustments to be made, given prevailing conditions. This goes to the terminology I refer to as a fulcrum. It is the baseline, upon which adjustments can be made. This inherently ensures that adjustments are not too farfetched or emotion based. If you develop a reasonable set of fulcrum deciders, then there is a clear foundation with which to make adjustments.
Well lets look at an old idea, much discussed. When to bet on the end against a single opponent in limit hold'em. The basic guideline is to bet both very weak and very strong hands, checking the medium ones. But look at how vague that is. You could be even more specific and assign a percentage when called criteria. But there remains ambiguity. What is a very weak hand? How do I know what hands will call 55%? So you set up a fulcrum hand heads up which seems to meet the standard of both very weak and very strong hands. And now you have a fulcrum decider. Adjustments to be made, theoretically, but not too far off said fulcrum. If your fulcrums are not far off, this will be an excellent guideline for decisions.
In the beginning the fulcrums seem difficult to come up with and there is much doubt as to their validity. But what you are really doing is just formalizing something you are doing every hand anyway.
Shoot this is tiring.
Regards, R
Backdoor,
I'm still a little stuck on the perspective thingy (with Bush as President, this becomes a valid word ;-) ).
You wrote: Yes, you got it. I would change the phrasing, although this has neglible bearing. I would say if you have two limpers what is the fulcrum hand? The baby pairs then would be part of this fulcrum hand group.
It seems a lot of hands would be in that group and right now I think it would be hard to work with your concept in practice. I mean FIRST I get dealt a baby pair in late position (BTW, in a ring game I think you can look at your hand as it is dealt (I like Badger's argument that this allows more time to make the fine line decisions). Now if my fulcrum point is two limpers and three have already limped then I know I can limp. But if two have limped then I need to get into my fine line analysis. Are the limpers the type to pay off my set? Are they rocks who won't chase? Is the small blind an auto caller and a chaser?
When you put hands into groups (let's say the minimum hands that can call two typical limpers in late position) you are going to have hands with vastly different playing characteristics. Some examples of calling hands from late position after two have limped in front of you might be Ax suited, AT offsuit, K9s, KJ and QJ offsuit, QTs, any pair, 65s and so on.
Now with two limpers and both blinds playing (usually the case in a 15/30 structure) a pair of fours wants a completely different type of lineup than 65 suited. The small pair wants opponents who will lead into the flop and turn with very marginal hands or draws and call raises and reraises. The 65 suited wants players who play the flop and turn meekly but can't stand being bluffed and will call down the river when you make it. Note that in BOTH cases four opponents is not the right number of opponents to bet the flop or turn when you miss your set (someone will surely call you with a bigger pair) OR when you flop a draw (since you will almost always get one (negative EV) or usually two callers (neutral EV)).
I'm not sure where I'm going with this myself. I've never liked seeing vastly dissimilar starting hands put in the same groups. Of course, I haven't wasted time in the endless RGP debates over JTs versus KTs either (why OZ spends so much time on this is beyond me). Anyway, I agree with S&M that they are about the same in strength or expectation overall but they play differently and the advanced player would know that. I would prefer a book that puts starting hands in different classes (e.g., baby pairs, small pairs, medium pairs, trouble pairs (QQ, JJ), big pairs, medium suited connecters and one gapers, etc.) and then discusses how they should be played pre flop from varying positions. First you get the hand, then you play it.
Anyway, if this post seems to ramble a bit I apologize. I had about the roughest last fifteen minutes of a workday in my life and I need to kick back a bit so I'll probably wait till tomorrow before adding any thoughts.
Regards,
Rick
Thanks for all your effort on this. I realize you had a bad stint there and picked a bad time to impose on you.
Regarding your fulcrum in the case of the baby pairs, you are already there. You don't need this concept at all. But be realistic, through a serious of thought processes you have come up with a good preflop plan. If you default to your two limper fulcrum you shouldn't be too bad off, regardless of opponents. If you would be bad off defaulting to two limpers, adjust it so the default is break even or slightly profitable. Now you can use fulcrum adjustments (and sometimes these can be derived from other relatively simple criteria, like making the adjustment based on the fulcrum hand you think your opponent might hold.) Another fulcrum adjustment is what percentage of the big blind money is "live", meaning the blind money is more or less valuable under different players control.
Regarding your thoughts on hand charts, I agree, but such a chart would be for very advanced players. It would be fairly easy to come up with such a chart (you could probably do it half asleep). But it would be complicated very much in the explanation. Look how long it is taking me to try to get across the fulcrum idea, and I'm just touching the surface. The what ifs of said chart would be enormous. But they would be valuable if properly done.
Anyway, I hope everything is alright. Don't let fifteen minutes last longer than fifteen minutes.
Regards
Interesting post and terminology. I have used fulcrums for a long time but have never thought of assigning a term to them. Adjusting fulcrums, or handicapping them according to prevailing conditions, is something better players than myself seem to have a great instinct for. I have noticed that I am much better at doing this when I feel sharp and am in the zone. The fine line here often turns out to mean more than I would have thought it should, and on a bad day I find I am rather poor at adjusting fulcrums well.
I agree with your thoughts on the adjustments. But, if in your personal case, you think about the criteria you are using to make decisions, the baseline foundation is probably excellent. Post flop particularly is a pretty complex game, and the use of fulcrums allow you to play a pretty solid game in themselves. The proper adjustments will turn a small winner into a solid winner.
Just imagine a very simple, common occurence in poker. You raise from middle position, limit hold'em, and only the big blind calls. The flop comes 3 J K with two suited and the big blind bets into you. Now what? See here, in this situation, I didn't tell you what cards you have. But nonetheless, I am betting the second you looked at the flop you had a good idea what you would do with various holdings. So in this spot what is the baseline fulcrum with which you can continue? If you are in doubt, just plug in some hands: 66, whats your answer? 99? JTsuited? AA? So after some thought, you have a fulcrum. Now comes the adjustment phase regarding the opponent. And so on. When we are at a simple stage like this the idea seems elementary, but as the situations become more complex the proper fulcrums are often tricky.
Thanks for your input, I know the fulcrum decider post was a bit dry. The more interesting part is the adjustment phase, which requires a good fulcrum to begin with (whether you call it that or not.) I believe there many situations post flop that lend themselves to fulcrum deciders.
Very nice post - I'd be interested in hearing more, esp re post-flop play. Unfortunately, right now I'm too tired to think intelligently about more specific questions, but would hope this thread continues...
I've been fighting some sort of cold or flu for the past few days. It seems to come and go, so I keep going in for short sessions.
Today, I sat throught a must-move game for about 3 hours, which was about as exciting as watching paint dry. Then I got moved to the main game.
There, I found at least 4 players who had been playing for 24 hours or more, and were stuck who-knows-how-much. One of them admitted to me that he was in $3800. This is 20-40. He pointed to another player, and said he thought he was in $5000-$6000.
These players were playing, well, not thier best games. In about 2 hours, I won over $1000 off of them. They weren't showing any signs of backing off or leaving. Then it happened.
My fever kicked up to the point I couldn't think about anything else. I felt horrible, and I had to leave the game. That was over 6 hours ago, and I still feel real bad. I bet they're still there.
What a bad beat.
I'm a big fan of toothpicks also, and if they won't help, then it is definitely time to go.
Was brad one of them?
youre a smart guy. of course i was!
if you guys want to know, i played almost 30 hours and left stuck almost 1100 dollars.
in those 30 hours i played from extreme to extreme and everything in between. it was fun, it was terrifying, i laughed, i cried ...
brad
p.s. when i left i had to cash out in stages to avoid the 3k thing :)
( is it just me, or doesn't everyone think that this country was founded on the principle of shooting the tax collectors?)
Does Casino Arizona report any transaction over $3,000 to the IRS?
Carlos
What I was told is that they start tracking you at $3000 and they have to report it if your total transactions are over $10k in a 24 hour period.
I thought this was just for cashing out but floorman Joe being the asshole that he is took it to the extreme on me the other night. In the 40-80 game I bought 2k in chips then a few hours later I rebought for another 2k and he asked for my ID so they could write it down. I really do not like Joe.
Another good Joe story. Last night the must move holdem game broke so they made the main game 10-handed, and the guy who was first on the must move list had lost the last of his chips a few minutes earlier in the must move game. So Joe fills the 10th seat in the main game with the 2nd player on the list. About a minute later the 1st guy on the list came back with chips and asked why someone had taken his seat in the main game, to which Joe cordially replied, "I just assumed you went broke." What a superb floorman he aspires to be.
I don't think I remember Joe. Though I don't play enough at Casino Arizona. Thanks for the tip, though. I'll be watching out for him :)
Carlos
im reminded of something boris spassky said (he was chess world champ before fisher), something like "i had to learn to be a fighter" because he was such a nice guy.
i mean im a real nice guy but ive verbally taunted players before (well, kyle, whos a real jerk and he started it), and even looked for players in the parking lot (well, kyle, whos a real jerk and he said he'd be waiting for me in the parking lot).
i wouldve just told joe never mind and went and got chips myself.
when i cashed out in stages (went to a different window 2nd time) the first guy told the 2nd guy that i had just cashed in at his window and that i was over 3k and to get my id. i just looked at him and said oh, no , these (chips) are somebody elses. i find very few people argue with me since i seem to always have a big s*** eating grin on my face :)
brad
p.s. joe played holdem a week or so ago and i (helped) clean(ed) him out :)
p.p.s oh, dont worry about offending me by pointing me out; you were already on my list anyway :)
Hey brad I apologige for the post I didn't mean to point you out like that. I hope you weren't bothered by it anyway, and I have a feeling that you weren't. I ended up losing close to 4000 that day mostly in the stud game though, so who am I to point that out about you anyway.
On a lighter note that whole cashing out 3k thing is just insanely stupid, although I've hardly had to worry about it this week. Heh.
In 34 hours so far this year I'm averaging -$26/hr. Is that a good win rate? But I did book my first win of the year last night.
Hey I'm the best there is at sleeping at the table. I just position my hands to feel the cards when the deal em....peak, muck, sleep. when I wake they fold!!!! it's that easy!
most players, when they refer to themselves, usually classify thier play as "tight aggressive." i think that in poker it is vital to every player's success to constantly re- evaluate their abilities. although i have only been playing seriously (nearly every day, usually online) for about five months, i know that i'm tight enough, but i worry about losing pots because i'm easy to read/ run over, and because i really don't have a sense of when the time is right for a semi- bluff. i do semi- bluff, but i fear that my timing is not always strategically sound.
in the latest issue of card player, there is an article about this very issue. the author suggests that the "weak tight" player should take the initiative in heads- up and especially three way situations when on a drawing hand. this way, your bets on that hand and more importantly, in future hands, are more puzzling for your opponent. although this seems like good advice, i wanted to run it buy some of the gurus on this forum. additionally, i would appreciate any advice about how to increase the aggression in the appropriate places in my game. thanks in advance.
-captain marlow
Good concerns.
If you want to try to change your style you must experiment. Here is one thing that is worth trying if you want to experiment with being more aggressive.
If you are in a hand, and there is a bet to you, do this. If you have a 'made hand' as opposed to a draw (ie top pair questionable kicker), and you are thinking about calling, don't. Either fold or raise. A tell tale sign of a weak player is one who is bet into, and has a hand that he kind of likes (not a draw), but since he isn't sure if it's the best hand he'll just call call call. That is a stupid way to play but it is a very common mistake for starting players.
Lets say you have JT of spades on the button. 2 limpers to you, you limp.
Flop comes J 8 2 with 2 of one suit on board. UTG bets, fold, what do you do? Calling is stupid. Either fold if you think he has a J with a better kicker, or raise if you think he has a draw.
If you raise and get reraised, you can probably fold with a good conscience unless it is the type of player who would play a draw like that. This way if he has a set or something worth 3 betting it, it only cost you 1BB. If you had just called all the way, it would cost you 2.5 BB.
Likewise, your raise may get a gutshot draw or some other hand that could draw to beat you out, like KQ etc.
This kind of play seems reckless to 'rocks' and weak tight players but it is definitely to your advantage in many situations.
Now, suppose you KNOW that that player will not bet a draw into such a thin field, and only plays quality hands from that position. You can fold and save some money.
-SmoothB-
Weak-tight players waste their energy on how much they fear the opponent's hand. Aggressive-tight players cause their opponent's to waste energy on how much they fear the aggressive-tight player's hand.
You need to bet "enough" that the opponent's fear you more than you fear them. You can judge this fear by observing their hesitation when you DO bet or raise. When you bet or raise too often or with too little they will no longer fear you.
- Louie
How do the games at Foxwoods (specifically 5- 10 and 10- 20) in Connecticut compare to places like Vegas, AC, California, and midwestern casinos? My impression is that the game at Foxwoods is tougher than normal.
Any thoughts or observations about this would be greatly appreciated.
-captain marlow
Agree, AC is much better
Some fine fish in these waters, but too many boats. I have found it better offshore lately.
Don't you know you're supposed to erase your email address when using a pseudonym, Cap'n?
take another look at my email address.
i'd be happy to have anyone on this forum email me.
Actually, Captain Marlow, I was responding to Cap'n Snow. By the way, 5-10 games at Foxwoods aren't bad lately, although sometimes you'll be up against a tough lineup. 10-20 games usually very tough.
ha! it's first thing in the morning, and i didn't even look at the name when i read your post.
LOL.
-captain marlow
I don't think the games at Foxwoods are any tougher than the games at AC or LV. During the week at Foxwoods, the games are usually dominated by regulars and a fair amount of good players. The weekends are better when the tourist show up.
Keith C.
The 40-80 Stud game at Foxwoods is a bad bet. The same players playing each other every single day. They soft-bet each other and only lunge for the tourists because they know they'll have to face each other the next day. Between them tossing red birds to each other every time they take down a pot and checking out to the river when it gets down to the regulars, it is a poor decision to take a seat in it. The 15-30 or 75-150 Stud games are much better choices, in my opinion.
I will be in San Francisco this weekend with some time to kill, and I was wondering if anyone could point me in the direction of a bay area card room where I can find a good 3-6 game. The closer to the actual city of San Francisco, the better.
Thanks in advance for any responses.
NotQuiteDead
Try Lucky Chances casino which is in Colma, about 10 miles south of San Francisco. You can play their Sat morning holdem tournament at 10:30am $55 buy-in, no rebuys. It usually has a pretty good turn-out, 80-90 people, with $4,000 guaranteed.
Their web page is:
http://www.luckychances.com/home.htm
CaptainQ
AJ's is probably the closest. Before I lived in the bay area I traveled to SF several times. The cab ride to AJs was less then $35 as I remember.
Run distances from you hotel and LC's, AJ's, and the Oak's (see http://www.pokerguide.com/ba for addresses) if you want a more definitive answer.
Lucky Chances is at the end of the BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) line. They have a shuttle from there up the hill for free about every 15-20 minutes. The ride on bart from downtown is $3.25 I think. It is in fact closer then AJ's. Many more active games there too. Very very loose. Expect fluctation.
AJ's is easiest by cab. It's 4-5 minutes from the airport. It IS a $35.00 ride from downtown. Fewer games, but just as wild. Hey this is northern California. Everything they say is true, fruits and nuts!
Enjoy your trip. If you need any other info just ask. I'm an expert on the area. Now I need to puke...
Lucky Chances is a very well-run poker room, with lots of games. Also lots of loose players to take money from and some good ones to learn from, too. It is poker heaven, in my opinion. Also it is surrounded by graveyards, which is cool in a spooky kind of way. Colma has historically been SF's graveyard.
The food at Lucky Chances is better than average, if a little greasy. The Filipino dishes are the best, in my opinion.
There's nothing much wrong with Artichoke Joe's but the wait for a table can be signifcantly longer and there are far fewer mid and high limit tables. Some people complain that the management is poor, but I haven't had any problems personally. About the only time I go there nowadays is if my flight at SFO is delayed and I have unexpected time to kill -- great for that.
Flipping through a magazine(FHM I think) and came across a general "how to gamble" in Vegas section. Under poker, they suggest sitting to the left of tight players and to the right of loose players. Is this correct and if so what is the rationale?
Players who routinely call one bet but not two belong on your RIGHT so they call before you show your strength. Weak-tight players belong on your LEFT since they pose little danger, and especially in holdem since their propensity to fold generally gives you better position most of the time.
Its much easier to out-play opponents who act before you (those on your right), so put players on your right who [1] you NEED to outplay such as aggressive or good players, or [2] those who play lots of hands since you will have the opportunity to outplay them often. Notice that maniacs belong on your LEFT since they will predicatably bet or raise effectively giving you position almost all the time.
Those that you fear belong across the table since you will confront these players less than those sitting closer to you.
- Louie
Thank you for your response. That definitely sounds like it has merit. I've played the opposite way however, which might explain why I've only been moderately successful. Maybe you could correct my logic.
I've thought that when you have a maniac (M)on your right raising loosely preflop, you can dump your marginal hands. However, if M folds or just calls you can play them, assuming you don't have likely raisers behind you.
e.g. one limper, M limps and you've got J10s on the button. Whereas if M had raised this hand you don't have proper odds to call with a primarily drawing hand.
Is this thinking way off? And are you implying the ability to outplay a rock post-flop is more valuable by having him on your right vs. the maniac?
e.g. Raising the rock out with a coordinated board.
thanks Jamie Collins
I prefer the rocks on my left, they will often fold when you raise unless they have the nuts, in which case you will find out soon enough. But they play so few hands and fold so easily I just prefer them on my left.
Despite Louie's comments, I still prefer maniacs on my immediate right if possible. I want to get out of the pot with marginal hands before they cost me too much. I reraise them with pretty good or premium hands. There is something to be said for the maniac on your left theory, you can use their raises to drive others out of the pot. But I still prefer them on my right so as to avoid playing marginal hands for several bets.
Dave in Cali
I'm sure you've all read this essay in "Gambling Theory and Other Topics", so you know that the basic idea is that predictable players should be on your left and unpredictable players should be on your right.
Therefore, this would place maniacs on your right and rocks on your left.
...funny, I remember reading that FHM article and I didn't remember it contradicting my beliefs...
~DjTj
no, maniacs are very predictable. they should be on your left. they are a great tool for driving people out of a pot. Also, if Louis Landale say put maniac on left, you should probably put maniac on left.
If a maniac is just a loose-aggressive player, then he is rather unpredictable. However, if he is a guy who never looks at his cards and just raises everything, you could consider this rather predictable - However, I rarely meet maniacs who are quite this crazy.
~DjTj
you have just identified what the probable reaction of the maniac is going to be if you bet into him. most of the time he will raise you and sometimes he might actually fold.
lets look at two examples of how you can use a maniac on your left to make money. the first is when there is a fairly solid but somewhat weak-tight player opposite you. For whatever reason you put the solid player on top pair and you have the second pair. if there is a bet to you, you can raise. The maniac, who will raise with any sort of draw and even bottom pair will re-raise. when it gets back to the solid player he must now call 2 bets with only his top pair. He will fold and now you are heads up against the maniac. with a relatively strong hand.
the second situation is when the flop comes and you have 4 cards of the nut flush. If there are several callers you can use the maniac to, correctly, jam the pot. Usually this is done with a check-raise and instead of getting 2 small bets from everyone you can get 3 or 4.
just my 2 cents
Basically a maniac uses his cavalier attitude towards money as his major weapon. By betting out, raising and reraising they force many players to release hands that would beat them. It is a strategy of buying pots. Some maniacs are excellent card readers and constantly represent hands made possible by scare cards appearing on the board.
Boris is correct in that you can sometimes use them to force other players to call double bets cold when this wierdo sits on your left. You can also raise him yourself when he is on your right; just be prepared for the automatic reraise.
...having a maniac on your left gives you a rare opportunity in limit hold'em to control the pot odds you give to potential callers. you will now be able to drive good players out and magnify the mistakes of bad players.
Having a maniac to your right provides you with the [frequent] opportunity to raise (or re-raise if he has already bet) and drive others out of the pot; this is often referred to as "isolating" and it's a very useful tool - if you don't abuse it.
If you do it too often, the others will catch on and pay almost no mind to your bets; worse still they may start letting you "bet their hands for them" - a very expensive hobby.
If you use this gift in moderation, you will often have the best of both; opponents (if you have a decent read on them) will fold holdings of moderate strength while calling with hands that are better than average, but not as good as yours.
Example: You have "JJ" [on the button] and call a pre-flop raise from a maniac [to your immediate right]. Several others have already limped in so 3-betting would be unlikely to accomplish much; most players, once they come in for one bet, will show a tendency to call for two more bets (I don't know why this is so but in this particular instance they would probably be playing correctly, even if it were by accident) and I don't know that I would want to build a monster pot with "JJ" - it's going to be a nice pot with or without my raise, I think I'll take a look at the flop before adding more $ to this one (plus, if I re-raise I may talk the maniac out of betting out on the flop and I DON'T want to do this).
If the flop is kind to you - 9,5,2 rainbow for example - and they all check to the maniac who bets, your raise is very likely to result in just the two of you playing out the rest of the hand; you could hardly ask for more. (It's not very often you'll get called by overcards or by a pair with an Ace, and you don't want these hands calling.) If someone does call two bets cold on the flop, be wary - he may have a big hand. (In this case it would almost have to be a set.)
If the flop is VERY kind to you - A,J,[7-2] with or without a flush draw - and the same betting sequence occurs, your opponents may leap at the chance to call the double bet; one of them might even make it three to go since you could be holding any of a number of hands, even a weak Ace. Were this exact flop to come, I might even consider just calling the flop, but that's another topic. Now we'll put the maniac to your left and give you the same hand, only this time your in the cut-off (he's the button). Again we have some limpers. Usually "JJ" is a raising hand in this situation, but the presence of the maniac changes things some. If you limp and he [predictably] raises, you are in "poker heaven" if you happen to catch a big flop; in this case that would pretty much have to be a set.
When the limpers check to (and through) you and the maniac bets, well it just about doesn't get any better than this. If you feel like raising when it gets back to you, go for it. If you are almost certain the maniac will bet the turn, you probably wait until then to "lower the boom", with all those helpless victims - who are already in for one bet - trapped in between you and him.
Bottom line: There is [in most cases] more "sure money" to be made with a maniac to your right, but there is a MOUNTAIN of $ to be made with the maniac to your left - the only problem being that you are going to have to pick up [one or more] BIG hands.
My personal preference is to have him to my left; it may be greed - if it is, so be it. I took just under a thousand dollars out of a THREE-SIX game by having a lunatic to my left; I lost count of the # of times I check-raised him two or even THREE times in the same hand. I kept waiting for the others to catch on - they never did. It's true I did pick up more than my fair share of cards, but honestly, not that much more than my fair share.
And even if the deck had landed on top of me, do you have any idea how hard it is to take more than 150 BIG BETS out of any game in an eight or nine hour session ?
I am not even 100% certain that I was the best player at the table; fortunately the other seven - eight if you count the maniac - were close to clueless.
Still, I couldn't have done it without him.
J-D
In my minds "maniacs" routinely raise so predictably you can expect them to do so. In my mind the player you describe is more "very aggressive" in which case you may want him on your right for the reasons you suggest, summarized: put unpredictable players on your right.
As for the rocks, you end up playing against them much less often than the loose players (since THEY play so in-frequently). With them on your left you do lose the ability to get out with your cheese when they are in.
- Louie
Semi-bluff raise
I limp in middle position with Th8h after a couple limpers. button raises and we see the flop six handed.
Flop is As Jh 3c. checked around.
Turn is 7h. Picked up a flush draw with one to a straight flush. checked to me. I decided to check because I didn't think betting would win me the pot against this many players, whichs takes away an important aspect of semi-bluffing and reason for betting. Checked to the button who bets. all fold back to me, I decide to make a play at it and raise him. He can be made to fold so I thought it might be worth a shot. He calls.
River is the 2h, I bet and he folded.
Analysis of my semi-bluff:
My pot odds on the turn were 7:1. My odds of hitting a flush on the river were 4.1:1. I was getting more than enough to call, trying to hit a flush. Now was my semi-bluff raise a higher EV move than just calling? To decide this, you have to assign a probability to my opponent's folding. This is somewhat arbitrary, so I will assing him a 20% chance of folding, or 4:1 against. When I raise, I am paying 2 bets to try and win 7, I am getting 7:2 pot odds. So my semi-bluff needs to work at least twice in seven tries for me to break even. It's 20% that he will fold, about 20% that I will make my hand and win the pot anyway, for a combined total of about 40%. That's the same as 3:2 against this happening, so in this case I expect to win twice out of five times. Remember my pot odds were 7:2, so this is definitely a +EV play. But was it the best play? If I just called, I was getting 7:1 pot odds on a 4.1:1 shot. If I semi-bluff raised, I was getting 7:2 pot odds on a 3:2 shot.
EV calculations:
Raising: Twice I will win 7 and five times I will lose 2, so that's:
2 x 7 + 5 x -2 = +4 big bets
Calling: Once I will win 7 and 4.1 times I will lose 1, so that's:
1 x 7 + 4.1 x -1 = +2.9 big bets
So here, raising is better than calling by just over a big bet. The reason is that winning the pot an extra 20% of the time increases the EV dramatically.
Of course there are some other possibilities that should at least be mentioned.
First off, I might make my hand and lose anyway. What if he has two pair or a set, if a heart fills him up then I will lose. Or he could have a bigger flush draw. Both are pretty unlikely, but possible. Also, he might call and then I miss my hand and decide to bluff the river. Or he might reraise me. Or I might miss, then check/fold the river. All these things lessen my pot odds somewhat, exactly how much I am not sure.
Plus, my analysis above does not consider any additional bets he might put into the pot, including the call of my semi-bluff raise. This improves my pot odds somewhat. I am going to estimate that the combined chance of losing more bets is about equal to the combined chance of winning extra bets. If this is true, then my analysis of the EV of my turn raise applies as is. In otherwords, my decreased effective odds are offset by my improved implied odds.
I think this shows that sometimes a check-raise semi-bluff can wind up being a better play than just calling. But there HAS to be a chance of your winning the pot OUTRIGHT. Against a calling station, this play would simply charge me more to try and make my draw. So you have to use this type of move with reserve and only do it when you have TWO ways of winning: making your draw OR winning the pot outright.
Comments / further analysis / corrections welcome.
Dave in Cali
eom
I have your odds a bit more in your favor given the gut-shot to the straight, more like 3:1, and you'd rather see a 9 on the river than a heart anyway. I also think your odds of winning are obviously improved by your check-raise if you both miss and you lead out on the river. I think your hand was well played. Given the buttons actions, I'd have given him/her a pocket pair no higher than 10's until the call of your raise on the turn. After the call, I'd more suspect KQh with lesser chances of KK or QQ. The heart on the river is a bit scary to me, but your river bet was obviously appropriate. I'm curious what he/she had to act in that manner. Was the hand exposed?
Steve Keith
the button's hand was not exposed.
also, you are right, I did miss three outs as I was only considering the straight flush, not the three more outs to a straight. I guess I thought about it too long and too hard and missed the obvious.
dave in cali
You calculated your chances of winning a show-down incorrectly. You have 12 outs to make a straight or better out of about 48 unseen cards, resulting in 36 bad cards or 3:1 against; not counting the times you lose when you make your hand nor the times you snag a pair and accidentally win.
Lets consceptualize this a little differently. Surely you have enough to call. Therefore, a raise only costs you ONE (extra) bet. If he'll fold 20% of the time outright then you are getting 8:1 (counting your call) for a 4:1 shot, not counting the equity you retain to make your hand. Since your investment is one bet and your pot odds about twice your chances, you earn about 1 bet when you raise. If you do not have enough to call THEN it costs up to 2 bets to raise.
Other things to consider: He surely has almost nothing since he didn't bet the flop. Your raise looks suspicious unless HE thinks you may check-raise TWICE with your apparent pair of Aces. Your turn raise increases the chances of winning with a bluff on the river. You have the opportunity to bet out on the river no matter what comes and represent trips (if the board pairs) or perhaps hit your weak Ace-kicker.
The main consideration here is it appears the opponent doesn't have anything. It doesn't take much else to raise such opponents.
- Louie
the turn spiked his pocket-pair -
it nailed his kicker -
LESS LIKELY...
he did check a big hand twice -
he was making a move at the pot -
I have to run an errand; I should be back in 10-15 minutes to check the math but off the top of my head I would say it was an excellent play - it would have been a good play if not for the fact that it makes a river bluff much more believable; this fact makes it an excellent play.
P.S. The button may have been on a draw of his own, but would he have bet it into a field this large ?
You might have to work on your "poker-face" a little if the button laid down anything better than second pair after calling your turn raise. Come the river, he only has to call one more bet; if he has anything at all, he probably calls. The pot's pretty big to fold for one more bet unless he's "got your number".
Good job,
J-D
I suspect he was on a draw or stealing even though it was not a very good idea with so many opponents.
I was a little nervous as to what people would think, but I knew my analysis was at least pretty close if not perfect (missing three outs was a bit less than perfect, to say the least). but anyway, I think I will look for a situation with several possibly correct choices and try analyzing it in a similar fashion in the future.
thanks to all who responded.
dave in cali
I have never calculated EV, and thought I might give it a try. Unfortunately, my answers were different than yours and was wondering where I went wrong. I went with your assumptions, that you needed to make your hand, only 9 outs were good and no additional river bets. Could you please take a look.
Raising: (.20)(7)+(.8)(9/46)(10)-(.8)(37/46)(2)=1.68
Calling: (9/46)(8)-(37/46)(1)=.77
Gain in EV: 1.68-.77=.91
Any help would be appreciated
I tried it again. This time I did not include my bets in the pot, which I believe is correct, but still received a different answer. Oh well... It looks correct to me. If anybody could check it, it would be appreciated.
Raising: (.20)(7)+(.8)(9/46)(8)-(.8)(37/46)(2)=1.36
Calling: (9/46)(7)-(37/46)(1)=.80
Gain in EV: 1.36-.8=.56
your math is foreign to me, but the basic EV calculation is as follows:
# of times you will win times the amount you will win minus the # of times you will lose times the amount your will lose.
so for a 3:1 shot getting 5:1 pot odds:
1 x 5 - 3 x 1 = 5 - 3 = 2. So your expectation is +2 units or bets.
same if you have a negative expectation:
pot odds 5:1, odds of winning 8:1 against
1 x 5 - 8 x 1 = 5 - 3 = -3. So your expected value here is -3 bets.
skip all those fractions, I don't know what they were doing in your calculations. Find a statistics book and there should be a chapter on expected value. there is little need for fancy math in poker, it usually just complicates things and is really not needed.
Dave,
Thank you for the response, I do appreciate it. I think I understand your method, and can see why our results are different.
Thanks again.
Even against players who can lay down hands, you will often have to follow up with a bet on the river in my experience, so that reduces your odds. However, I think it is still a good play.
Nit:
"...I am getting 7:2 pot odds. So my semi-bluff needs to work at least twice in seven tries for me to break even."
should be:
"...I am getting 7:2 pot odds. So my semi-bluff needs to work at least twice in nine tries for me to break even."
Mr Nit here is being a little picky but he is nonetheless correct. I didn't screw up the calculation but I stated it incorrectly.
But I DID in fact screw up the calculations! I forgot to count three outs to the gutshot straight. I was so focused on the flush draw I missed three outs. So I was getting somewhat better than I thought, making raising an even better play than I originally concluded. Exactly how much, I am too tired to calculate right now, maybe tomorrow if someone is really that desperate to haggle out an extra few tenths of a bet!
You know, I missed those outs with my analysis and I totally missed it at the table as well, even though I normally recognize a 12-out situation instantly. This type of thing is one reason why analyzing away from the table is such a good way to build your poker thinking. You see things that you missed.
Anyway, despite the flaws, I think my post more than made its point. In cases where raising (or betting) can win you the pot outright, the extra chance of winning the pot can make the play well worth the extra risk in chips. This is especially true if the pot is large. Keep in mind that in this example, I do not win the pot (outright) four out of five times that I raise! But that extra one in five makes a BIG difference when added to my draw, with the pot so large. Notice my hand equity actually increased by my putting more $$ into the pot just by the increased chance of winning the pot.
And one final thing, don't take this too far. Semi-bluff raises on the turn should be used selectively against opponents who will fold, not against calling stations.
Dave in Cali
I'll be traveling on business/pleasure to Houston and Phoenix/Scottsdale and was wondering if anyone would offer any card room recommendations that would spread $5-$10 to $15-$30 Texas Hold'Em?
Steve Keith
No poker in Houston. You need to travel 200 miles east on I-10. Lake Charles, La has several small river boat casinos. The next would be a land based indian casino another 60+ miles farther in Kinder,La. Lots of billboards around Houston so you won't get lost. If you are a really bad player I'd be happy to take your money. Good Luck!
To get above 4-8, you must go to Casino Arizona, on McKellips just east of the 101 freeway east of Scottsdale. Very easy freeway access.
They usually spread hold'em at 3-6, 4-8, 6-12, 10-20, 20-40, and 40-80. I usually play in the 4-8 game, and it is almost always extremely loose. The 6-12 game looks promising to me (I have tried it once, but that day it was tight). Others have said that 10-20 is often rocky-tight but that 20-40 is often a fisherman's delight. Maybe 3 Bet Brett or George Lind will get on this thread and tell you more about the bigger games.
Look me up! My picture is on my poker page, and so is my phone number. I am at Casino AZ many evenings.
Dick
Yes the 20-40 Hold'em players like to gambool it up and the games are usually excellent. I however, play stud (30-60 to 75-150) most of the time (because I find those games much easier to beat) so I don't have as much to offer about the quality of the games as someone like Brett would.
The holdem games are all loose-passive and can be beat for large sums but also have high variance. If you want to meet Dick or George, just look for the goofiest shirts in the casino. I swear these guys must shop at the same store.
To get above 4-8, you must go to Casino Arizona, on McKellips just east of the 101 freeway east of Scottsdale. Very easy freeway access.
They usually spread hold'em at 3-6, 4-8, 6-12, 10-20, 20-40, and 40-80. I usually play in the 4-8 game, and it is almost always extremely loose. The 6-12 game looks promising to me (I have tried it once, but that day it was tight). Others have said that 10-20 is often rocky-tight but that 20-40 is often a fisherman's delight. Maybe 3 Bet Brett or George Lind will get on this thread and tell you more about the bigger games.
Look me up! My picture is on my poker page, and so is my phone number. I am at Casino AZ many evenings.
Dick
x
I play in a lot of private games in a city where poker is illegal. The rake in these games is very high, and I was wondering if they are beatable.
1.) The main game I play in is a 10-20 game with a $7 rake, and you are expected to tip $1 every hand you win. The rake is actually 10% to a max of $6, and they drop $1 for a bad beat jackpot. There are usually at least three total live ones in this game, and sometimes there are five or six. However, there are also a couple of good players who are very adept at reading hands.
2.) I also play in a 10-20 game once a week that has a 10% rake to a max of $5 with a $1 drop for the jackpot and the same tipping procedure. There are usually no good players in this game. The only possible exceptions are the game runners, who soft-play to appease their customers and keep the games running. That is, they play very straightforward. The bad players in this game are not as aggressive as the bad players in the game above.
3.) I occasionally play in a 15-30 game with a 5% rake to a max of $7, again with $1 tips. This game is often played 11 or 12 handed. There are often several very aggressive/tricky Asian players in this game, some of whom play better than others. There are usually a couple of live ones, a couple of loose/aggressive players who play fairly well once the flop comes, and a couple of tight/aggressive players who play well in general.
Are these games beatable by a player who is capable of making $20-$25 an hour in the 15-30 games at the Bellagio?
The way I see it is this: a selective solid player will win a little more than 2 hands/hour. Now if one game costs about $4 more per winning hand then another game, then the first game costs a little more than $8/hour than the 2nd game. With identical opponents, if one can win $20/hour in the second game then you can expect to win $12/hour in the second.
That 2nd game sounds like the best deal. Expect games 1 and 3 to disolve after a few months.
- Louie
The game 3 seem to be the best , that is the smaller rake , and to play with 11 other player is a great advantage , especially with few asians players who like to gamble .
These games are beatable despite the high rake if the players are loose enough. The problem is that eventually they break up because so many players lose money over the course of a year that it stops being fun for many of them and they find other things to do.
Philly,
This sounds like the Executive Game featured in an episode of HBO's "The Sopranos" last season. I couldn't figure out how they made so much money off one table but if these are the rakes then in all adds up ;-).
Rick
and the rake was $2.00 per hand...I'd pull 1 more on bigger pots say over 100.00 This is a spread limit up to 6.00....till late nite when it usually goes to 10.00. But you get all the free booze for those that want and a great spread of home cooked food by people in the restaurant business in San Francisco, one of the finest cities for food in the world. They may add a 10-20 or higher game soon and the rake MAY go up $1.00 but for what you get in service it is well worth it.
Any game that has as high a rake as you desribe is a complete rip-off in my opinion.
I am "part of" a private game; it runs from Friday night [8pm] until Sunday afternoon / evening [usually around 7pm when the second football game ends].
We are able to spread three tables at one time, but two is the norm. About the only time there are three going is on a Saturday night, especially if the weather is bad and nobody wants to drive to A.C. or Connecticut.
The "main game" is 4-8, but we use a somewhat different structure than you see in a cardroom. There is a $1 ante per player with only one blind [$2]; the 1st raise is to $6, (it's not spread-limit) and the game is usually pretty lively - partly due to the structure (it costs $12 a round to see cards so the "rocks" tend to go elsewhere) and partly due to the nature of the regulars. Also, it's pretty rare to see a hand without a flop; the blind is getting 3-1 even if he is the only one contesting the raisor. We will seat as many as twelve at a table, but only ten are dealt in. If there are more than ten, the extra(s) are rotated out. It actually works out quite well - it gives people chance to "answer the call of nature" without missing any hands. Also, it allows us to keep the tables full; if 24 people are present we can have two full games (and no waiting list) instead of three short games. If three or four more show up we can have three [semi]-full games.
The only other limits spread are 6-12 (with the same dollar ante but a $3 blind), and 10-20 (with a $2 ante and a $5 blind). The 6-12 is rarely spread; the 10-20 goes about half of the time - when it does go it's often a shoot-em-up.
The rake is handled in the following manner.
There is no rake, so to speak. The winner is "expected" to donate a certain amount of the pot. (It really is an expectation, but if you habitually "forget" you are reminded once. If your memory doesn't improve, you are politely asked not to return. In two + years THREE people have been asked to take their business elsewhere; all three were asked by OTHER PLAYERS, not the house.)
The "expected amount" is: $1 on all pots, another $1 if the pot reaches ten BIG bets, and a third dollar if you drag a "monster". (This refers to ~ 20 big bets.) There is NEVER a fourth dollar.
The customary tip is $1 on all but the smallest pots, but even on these, the dealer is usually tipped. If the pot is "large" (this is totally up to the player) the normal tip is $2. Players who are by nature abnormally generous are encouraged not to tip in excess of this; it tends to make the others feel obligated to do the same and this is the last thing we want.
Summary: Since [in his game] almost everyone wins the same # of pots in the long run, it winds up costing each player about eight or nine dollars per hour to play 4-8 or 6-12; 10-20 costs about $12/hr. For this they are given all they want to eat and drink; alcohol is served but excessive consumption is firmly discouraged. If you want to get drunk, we have a nice sitting area in which to do it, free of charge. Drunks at the table cause all sorts of problems, not the least of which is an extremely sloooow pace.
Bottom line: The "drop" for an average weekend runs in the neighborhood of $5,000; expenses take up around 20% of this. (~ 50 hours, two tables most of the time, three some of the time, $80 per table/per hour at 4-8/6-12, $100-$120 at 10-20.)
MEMO TO THE GUY WITH THE $7 RAKE - GET WITH THE PROGRAM. YOU CAN'T RAKE A GAME ONCE THE PLAYERS GO BROKE OR "GET WISE". YOU MUST HAVE THE ONLY GAME WITHIN A 500 MILE RADIUS TO BE ABLE TO CHARGE THIS AMOUNT.
On second thought, keep it up - we keep getting new players whose first question is, "how much do you charge to play ?" If your game is anywhere in the NYC area, they may be your old customers.
As to the question of how much can a player earn in such a game, I suppose an expert playing against rank amateurs could still do pretty well.
But I doubt he or she would get the chance to do so for very long; even people of sub-par intelligence catch on sooner or later.
And it's usually sooner.
P.S. Please don't post and ask where the game is; I'm pretty sure this is not what the operators of this forum had in mind.
Also, two clubs in the NYC area were closed down recently. I wonder if the fact that one of them had the brilliant idea of ADVERTISING ON THE INTERNET had anything to do with their closure(s).
Frequent, I agree with everything you stated. We too do not allow drunks.....well not bad ones anyone...theres a couple that get a little wasted but they never get outta line.
Also as you mentioned discretion is the better part of valor. I can't even remember what state that game was in.
Is it true that Bridge size cards are used when you play poker in a casino??
(n/t)
I'm new to this. What does (n/t) mean?
n/t means "no transmission". In other words, there is no need to open the message because there is nothing inside. This is usually done in providing very short answers to questions such that only a few words are needed and are shown on the subject. It saves time since occasionally it can take a long time to open a message.
10-20 Hold-em --------10 players
I am in a game where a situation developed that became very frustrating. There are 2 bona-fide maniacs sitting next to each other and a pro sitting to their immediate left.
The typical scenario went something like this: Maniac 1(M1)bets or raises, (M2) raises , Pro raises. I am 2 seats to pros left. All night I was facing 1,2 or 3 raises to me. I played about 10 hands in 5 hours and lost a small amount. I knew pro was just trying to isolate the nuts but still I only played QQ/AKs/AK and tossed in a couple J/10s,10/9s, on the button and cutoff. Usually 4 players saw the flop.
Is there a strategy to handle this?
in front of maniacs. always limp, punish all three when you make your hand but get extra bets from the pro but letting him "try" to isolate. I like to say that if you have the patience to wait for the hands, this is "getting the best of it"
You can easily pick up 7.5-15 big bets extra on every hand you win if the pro keeps this up. But you must pick your times correctly.
I had a similar situation come up this Monday in 6/12. I found myself just out of the game for a while. I was in Seat 6 in a good game.
A player sat down in Seat 1 and raised every hand he was in preflop, then bet all the way to the river no matter what his cards were. He turned over losers like Kxo with no pair at least twice.
The player in seat 2, a very conservative player, of course immediately noticed this and began 3-betting the maniac preflop to isolate him.
However, a total calling station player was planted firmly on my left in Seat 8. He would routinely call the 3-bet, then call whoever was in the pot down to the river. A couple times, the maniac would keep firing, the rock in Seat 2 would wilt under the heat, and the CS in Seat 8 would call with Q7o for second pair no kicker and take down the pot against the maniac's no pair.
I felt pretty bracketed by this situation. I had the maniac on my right, a guy who plays pretty good cards raising to isolate right behind him, and a calling station on my left.
I reacted by just staying out of the way for the most part. I basically conceded Seat 2's position on the maniac, and the calling station's position on me and decided to let Seat 2 battle the two others.
The calling station kept wrecking Seat 2's attempts to isolate the maniac (by using his secret 'never bet, never raise, call every bet' strategy) and the CS cleaned up for about a 1/2 hour. It was one of the few times I have seen him win, even though he was playing non suited one and two gaps every hand - more power to him.
Later on, the maniac ran out of ammo and the table came back to normal, the calling sation gave back the maniac's money and I finished out a pretty good session.
"Speculative" hands like 98s do poorly when few people take a couple raises to see the flop.
Your real consern is whether your trouble hand is better, on average, than the Pro's raising standards. A ball-park reasonable benchmark would be to play half as many hands as the Pro. This will result in your minimum hand being as good on average as the Pro when he 3-bets. So if the Pro is 3-betting 25% of the time then you need to call or 4-bet about 13% of the time when the Pro raises.
If the Pro is willing to 3-bet with QT then you should have NO difficulty justifying jumping in with KQ.
If you make a pair show it down.
Larry is right that you want the maniacs on your left so you get to see what the field does after the Pro 3-bets: Lets not gamble with KQ when the rock suddenly jumps 3-bets.
- Louie
Are there good 15-30 and up games in FL (Hold em). I understand that there may be some boats that run them.
Tks
Flop is Kc-Jd-6c. You hold Qc-Qd against just one opponent. Can anyone tell me what are your odds of winning the hand if you know your opponent holds 1) Ac-Kd; 2) Ad-Kd; 3) Ah-Kh. Assume both players will go to the river.
Thanks for the help.
you need to catch a queen, thus giving you a maximum of two outs. The first player will sometimes have a flush draw going into the river, same as the second opponent's hand. You have two chances to catch a two outer. The chance of you MISSING by the river are:
45/47 x 44/46 = 0.957 x 0.956 = 0.923 = 92.3%.
Given the fact that you are beat and you will sometimes be up against redraws even when you hit, I think it is pretty obviously a FOLD. The pot is just about NEVER that big, especially against one opponent.
Dave in Cali
I asked the question because, in retrospect, I thought I should have folded on the flop; but I didn't, and in fact I called the flop, the turn and the river. I'm going to post this hand on the Medium Stakes section.
AcKd: 8.3-1
AdKd: 5.7-1
AhKh: 5.5-1
Via PokerProbe
First the Q's don't need to hit the Q to win, they co could make a straight!
1)P(Q's win)= P(trips and no straight or flush for AK)+ P(straight and AK still loses)=
P[ one Q no T]+[2Q's]+ [AT] + [T9 (not bothclubs)]=
[ 2(39) +1] + [3(4) + 16-1]/ 45C2= ~ .107
or ~8.3 to 1.
2)P(Q's win)= P(trips and no win for AK)+ P(straight and AK still loses)+ P( club flush)
= P[ one Q no T]+[2Q's]+ [AT] + [T9 (not diamonds)] +[two clubs but not {AcTc} or {Tc9c}]
= [ 2(39) +1]+ [3(4) + 16-1] + [10 C2 -2]/45C2
=~.15
or ~ 5.64 to 1.
3)P(Q's win)= P(trips and no win for AK)+ P(straight and AK still loses)+ P( club flush)=
P[ one Q no T]+[2Q's]+ [AT] + [T9 ] +[two clubs but not {AcTc} or {Tc9c}]
=[ 2(39) +1]+ [3(4) + 16] +[10 C2 -2]/45C2= ~.15
which is exactly 5.6 to 1.
I hope you can follow all this. I'll explain these figure more if you like.
I'm wondering if the super system book is worth the price tag. i have the s&m hold-em books, gambling theory, and inside pp's mind and some others. my qustion is, will brunsen's book add anything new? i play exclusively mid limit hold-em, not pot limit etc. what do ya'll think? by the way, Jim, the guys at the weekend 10-20-40 game say hello and hope you're doing well. thanks all. steve
The strategic limit hold'em stuff from S/S is not worth the price. If you play pot limit or no limit (even in tournies), you can't afford NOT to own it. Even if you don't, the whole book offers great perspectives on a winning poker mentality.
I am doing fine here in Vegas but I miss the Lake Charles games especially the $20-$40 game on Wednesdays. I do not own Super System since I believe it is out of date and there are better books available on limit hold'em which is the game you and I play. I recommend the following books:
1. "Hold'Em Poker for Advanced Players-New Edition" by David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth. A mandatory read.
2. "Improve Your Poker" by Bob Ciaffone. A highly instructive text with a lot of practical advice.
3. "The Cooke Collection" by Roy Cooke. Cooke is one of the best middle limit hold'em players in the country in my opinion. His book offers unique insights into the mind of an outstanding limit hold'em player.
4. "Inside the Poker Mind" by John Feeney. An outstanding book.
Of course there are a lot of other books but the four listed above I think are the most recent that apply to full tabled limit hold'em which is the game of choice for the vast majority of poker players who play in public card rooms throughout America.
Jim
Why not get the updated "Guide to Super/System"
Howard
The "My Story" chapter in Super/System is a great inspirational piece. The life and poker "bad beats" that Brunson describes in it make any of my bad beats look, sound, and feel like mere hiccups. When I'm running bad, I always look to that chapter for inspiration.
The "General Poker Strategy" chapter will help you to get a sense of the inner workings of the mind of a poker legend better than anything you'll ever read. It will also convince you about the important role that the intangibles - heart, courage, the power of concentration and observation, demeanor, discipline, the power of belief in oneself - play when it comes to achieving the outcomes of surviving and prospering as a full-time poker professional.
As for the chapters that deal with specific games, I believe that the 7-Card Stud, Jacks or better, Deuce to Seven, and no-limit holdem chapters still hold up.
Can't you get this book in a library and find out for yourself.
Where in Lake Charles is there poker? I prefer tournaments and low limit. I hear you have to go all the way to the indian place in Kender. I'm new to the Houston area. Thanks for any advise on games in the area.
The Isle of Capri casino has a 12 table poker room just off I-10 Louisiana exit #29 I believe. They spread $3-$6-$12 hold'em every day, $10-$20-$40 hold'em on weekends, and $20-$40 hold'em on Wednesdays.
Is it worth the price tag ?
You can aford io play 10-20-40 and you are worried about $50 to buy a book that Mason Malmuth gave his highest rating to.
Howard
Where do I find Mason's reviews?
Scott
They are in the back of GAMBLING THEORY AND OTHER TOPICS(a must have, for any serious gambler). Get the new expanded edition if you can.
Good Luck
Howard
The TTH advice feature seems to be much improved but still not great. Do any of you experts have an overall critique of this feature for the latest edition. It seems to consistently play overcards very aggressively, i.e. never fold with them on the flop and usually raise.
For the most part I ignore the advisor in TTHE. I especially do not like the new version where it gives you an choice for "suggest multiple options" or something like that. Sometimes the advisor says "either fold, raise, or call". Well Duhh. Not to rag on TTHE, it really is a great program. But I'm sure Bob Wilson did not design the advisor for people like me. the only reason I even look at the advisor is for curiosity, just to see if it agrees with me. The advisor is sometimes dead wrong, but I have not noticed that as often in the latest version. It tends to get it wrong on things like gutshots, recommending folding when implied odds more than warrant calling one bet on the flop. Overall though, TTHE is a pretty good tool if you know how to use it and don't overvalue it.
Dave in Cali
These hands have been giving me trouble lately and I think I need to re-evaluate their playability.
Call fold or raise pre-flop?
1) Ace and 8-2 suited early to middle position.
2)K 9 suited late position.
3)A 9, A 10 unsuited in early to middle position.
As always it depends on the game (or does it?) so let's assume my typical game structure is 1 limper in front of me with a 50% chance of it being raised pre-flop with only one loose-aggressive pre-flop raiser in the game.
Thanks in advance
Jamie Collins
you should posts hands like so:
A8o = Ace and an 8, 2 suited
ATo, AJo, AQs, AhJh, 88, 76s Kd4c, QhQd, JsTs, etc.... Makes it much easier to read.
most of those hands you mentioned should just be folded.
ATo raise if first in in middle position, otherwise fold if in early position or if it's raised in front of you.
A9o is weak, only play for cheap and fold for a raise. You can raise it if you are very late and first in. In early or middle position I recommend folding A9o.
K9s limp after several limpers if you are late. Raise if you are late and first in. Fold for a raise.
All these hands are pretty marginal and should be played pretty cautiously. ATo and K9s have the most value but that does not make them powerhouses or even good enough to call a raise with.
Dave in Cali
throw them all away unless you have a lot of callers, then you can play the k9 suited and only on the button. I will also play A-10 but only from middle position or better, and only in a loose enough game to get some good implied odd from it
I disagree with your analysis of ATo. With ATo, you have little chance of winning the pot with a lot of limpers in. Only come in with ATo for a raise when you are first to open in later position. Otherwise dump it. With K9s, the only possible reason to see the flop is if you can limp on the button for one bet after several limpers.
natedogg
I play in a loose hold em game at limits of 15/30 or 20/40. i am a tight aggressive player. I have many years of playing the game however latley I sem to be either hot or cold. nothing in between. I played last night and only won one hand in eight hours. The game is losse withe many bookies playing. Pocket pairs are a dog against five or six players calling from any position. A raise from early position merely brings in others with additional raises to build the pot odds for them. Great skill does not seem to help one win . We have frustrated many players from several states. My problem seems to be that I can go for hours without seeing a flop. And three of the regulars get cards to play 85% of the time.
Is this post a prank - if not geesch!
If you are playing that trash and anything like it from any position under any circumstances (except short handed) you can't be a winning player.
I'm sorry if I have offended the delicate sensibilities of the great Rounder. I believe I stated I'm only moderately successful. I post these hands because I suspect they may be leaks in my game. Most experts would suggest to raise with AQo, and some AJ but to suggest that it is farcical for me to have doubts about what to do with A-10 is unjustified. I thought one of the points of the forum was instruction.
For the other posters who responded with honest evaluation, thank you.
Jamie Collins
I tend to think Rounder's right (altho' I'm a relative Hold 'Em minnow compared to many posters here).
1) Ace and 8-2 suited early to middle position:
- Clear fold.
2)K 9 suited late position.
- Fold: only if I'm trying to steal the blinds, or SEVERAL limpers are in
3)A 9, A 10 unsuited in early to middle position.
- Again, a fold. I might play AT in late position.
What I think he meant is that most of those hands are pretty trashy, as reflected in various other posts
Just trying to be helpful. If you are laying crap like that you are probably in more than 1/2 the hands and that is way to much cut down your starting hand requirements to the 15-20% level and you will be a lot better off.
So I make my point and ruffel a few feathers - next time youare sitting there in mid position with 82s you will think - that asshole Rounder says this is trash and if you are smart you will just quietly muck the hand and wait for a real hand to play.
You have to consider what hands do I call raises with.
"Ace and 8-2 suited" was perhaps supposed to mean A + 8-2s (e.g. A6s), not 82s.
Jamie, tho this is addressed to you, it is for the whole forum. There are too many people here, who when given good advice, think they are being personally attacked. Rounder states what he believes is smart poker, and is giving faceless people the benefit of what he believes is sound advice. The same is true for the other posters here..when they give advice, it is sharing something of value with a faceless being. Now, rather the advice is right or wrong, thats for you to sift through and make your decision on. BUT, this is for everyone to think about.......just because a person responding to your question doesn't reply in a manner you find appealing, it doesnt mean they are personally attacking you. It does however mean they are trying to correct what they see as very poor poker play. I have read many posts on 2+2 accusing someone of "flaming" yet, when I read the "flame" it isnt flameing, its just people trying to share the benefit of their knowledge. Buckcp
Rounder, have you forgotten about luck? Of course he could be a winner to this point!
Before reading the others
1)Ax suited. Call only in loose passive games. Raise in middle position occasionally if first in with A8s.
2)K9s call if unraised and multiway. Raise if first in.
3)AT and A9 in early position. Muck them.
1) absolutely dump these unless you are in a very passive low-limit game with very few pre-flop raises but with everyone and his mother seeing the flop and lots of calling stations; then, if an ace flops with no flush draw, usually check and fold if anyone but the button bets.
2) again, a borderline call if you can get in cheap with many limpers and you're 95% sure no one will raise behind you; there are games (no fold'em) when the 9 has about a 60/40 chance of being the best kicker should a king flop, but it sounds like those aren't the type you attend.
3) easy folds against a full table.
I will be in San Diego for several days in March. Please suggest the best local cardrooms for low/medium limit hold'em action. Also any comments regarding the rooms themselves (smoking/cleanliness/friendliness, etc.) would be welcome. Thanks.
Try to make it to Oceans 11 in Oceanside. Games are 3-6, 4-8 kill, 8-16 kill, and 20-40. Very clean, friendly staff and excellent food.
Lucky lady at 55th and el cahon
3$/half hour time charge on all games no matter what limit. lowest I have seen anywhere.
commonly spread 3/6, 4/8, 6/12, 8/16, all games are kill pot games.
staff is very friendly, atmosphere is very relaxed.
few skilled players at any limit, but many have been playing for a long time and are pretty good at reading hands.
all games are more aggressive on the whole than the softest vegas or AC games
9 handed games
non-smoking, though that means usually at least one person at a time is up smoking. playing 7-8 handed is common.
only open 9am-2am
food is decent
also viejas is about a 20 minute drive east on the 8
large cardroom, biggest I have seen almost anywhere except taj in AC and maybe mirage in vegas.
games are easy and soft, but they charge a drop and jackpot drop out of the blinds which is much higher than lucky lady. despite the high drop the games are so easy you can probably still beat them anyway. also, all holdem is kill. non-smoking
f
in November I agreed to become partners in a local poker club. As I was the best dealer of the new partners (10), I agreed to deal half the games while the club established itself. As the club had yet to profit, I also agreed to work for free but keep the tips. I reasoned that the club would soon turn a profit and everyone would be happy...hey, we all dream.
It is now January, we are turning a profit but the other members are unhappy with me (sob sob). I've doubled my investment through dealing (tips only) and out-playing my partners (eight of the other nine are brutal players). We are now fairly busy with lots of customers and don't need to put so many hours into keeping the games going. The partnrs are pissed because they've all lost, and lost, and lost. And they will continue to do so. They complain that it isn't fair for one owner, me, to make money and take it out of the game. I should be willing to put money back into the 'system'.
As I am not going to suddenly stop playing well, and they are never going to improve their games (I did provide them with starting hand and basic playing instruction as well as directions to this web-site - two tried playing tight for an hour and declared the experiment a failure), should I just accept that my situation is doomed? As I see it, my options are to ignore them and hope they go away, or offer to let them buy me out.
I only bring this to the forum because I suspect that there are folks out there who've had to deal with similar situations i.e. jealousy over your ability to earn money playing poker has caused problems. spitball
All in all this is, from the outside, a rather amusing post. I know you are looking for a serious response but I can hardly be serious right now. I just think it is funny because they can't play and won't bother to learn how. Do whatever you think best but don't stop making money. If it were me I would be having trouble not laughing at them over the table the more they complain. I would tell them I put my hard and honest work into it and that's all I ever expected from them as well. I would also consider hiring Poker Veteran as a shill or prop player if they think they've got it bad with you right now. By the way, it strikes me as a bit odd that there would be so many owners--it sounds more like a club than a business.
*
All in all this is, from the outside, a rather amusing post. I know you are looking for a serious response but I can hardly be serious right now. I just think it is funny because they can't play and won't bother to learn how. Do whatever you think best but don't stop making money. If it were me I would be having trouble not laughing at them over the table the more they complain. I would tell them I put my hard and honest work into it and that's all I ever expected from them as well. I would also consider hiring Poker Veteran as a shill or prop player if they think they've got it bad with you right now. By the way, it strikes me as a bit odd that there would be so many owners--it sounds more like a club than a business.
it is rather odd. normally you'd see 3-4 guys starting a club. they had eight, asked me to join, then got a tenth. thinking being that we'd always have a game to offer customers. that part worked, today we've got three going. you'd think there would be enough cash for everyone to be happy...
perhaps as the cash realy starts to roll in they'll 'go away'. that or eat each other up as their tabs grow:) shitty poker players are a strange breed. spitball
If they can't appreciate your free labor and the fact that poker is a game of skill, you probably should buy them out or be bought out yourself. Maybe you could make them happy by offering a piece of your action when you play in the live games.
I would offer to let them buy you out first, but you should not have to suddenly stop playing winning cards just because the club is doing well. however, if your winning at poker is REALLY hurting the club, then you should perhaps focus more on how to improve your profits from the club without playing so much poker and taking so much $$ out of the club. however, I am not convinced that your playing is hurting the club that much, I would need a lot more info. but it's something to think about. also, tell them that there really is a science to poker, you follow it and obviously win, they do not and obviously lose, and if they are never going to learn how to play correctly, then they will always be losers, and you wish they would shut up and quit whining because it is interfering with your counting the $$.
just a two minute hastily rendered opinion...
dave in cali
Hey so maybe ya got to do it one at a time. Or bring someone in that can buy two of them out. Whatever but make it work to YOUR advantage. Hell it is a rather high profit business. Go for it!
this is the answer. ty
There is never a problem with business partners until the business gets started. I suggest you all sit down and write up a contract. I am sure there are more issues going on than what you posted.
If there is no contract, no one will ever be happy. If there is a contract, nobody can complain.
In a 3/6 game the other night I was on the BB and was dealt 5/6o. Six players called, no raise. The flop came 3c/4h/7h giving me a straight. I bet, four call and the SB check raises. I reraise and he calls along with 2 others. The turn reveals Kc. He bets, I raise, one other calls. A 7s comes on the river pairing the board, killing the flush draw. SB checks. I bet, others fold, SB check raises, I call. He shows pocket 3's for a full house. I had him on a larger pair or the nut heart flush draw. Did I bet this correctly?
I started a thread earlier this week in the Small Stakes section about Good Value River Bets vs. Just Plain Greedy. In my case, it appeared that I may have caught up on the river, had the blind check to me, and I bet out, falling into a check-raise full house.
Somewhat different situation here because you are obviously in the lead throughout. It certainly appears that the one remaining opponent on the turn other than the SB is on a draw, but you would have to ask yourself when the board pairs on the river, "Will a worse hand call?" If you put both of these opponents purely on a draw, there can be no positive expectation for a river bet. They missed, and barring some sort of hopeless checkraise bluff into a protected pot, a missed draw cannot win this hand. So why bet when the board pairs?
On the other hand, if you think someone will call with perhaps the heart King in their hand, or maybe something like A-7s, then bet for value. The SB correctly judged that you were on a made str8, and made a somewhat risky check on the river. IMO, he should have bet out, and you would of course call. So getting checkraised here for 1 additional BB is peanuts in the big picture. You could have done nothing to prevent losing this hand. Next hand, please.
Recently played a hand where I bet the draw and I thought it brought up some interesting points.
I limp first in, early position with KhJh. Fairly loose game with a couple tight, a few calling stations, and a couple loose aggressive. Plus me, whatever category that may be. five take the flop for no raise, both blinds in.
Flop is Qh Td 2s. Checked to me. Since the two downstream players remaining to act were basically calling stations, I would probably not win the pot by betting. However, there are 5 bets in the pot now, and likely to be 8-10 in the pot if I bet out. I have about a 31% chance of hitting my open-ender by the river, and the board is rainbow so all of my outs will likely be good. If it were bet into me, I would definitely call, so I decide to bet. The chance of winning the pot outright was slim, let's say <5%, so I'm not even going to calculate what good that does me in terms of EV. This is strictly a value bet hoping that I get lots of callers. I bet and the button and both blinds call.
turn is the 8h, giving me a flush draw to go with my str8 draw. 15 outs. I bet here without hesitation, and I would pretty much do this every time. I am close to a 33% chance of hitting my draw by the river, and the pot has 4.5 BB in it. I would be getting more than enought to call if someone else had bet, so once again I bet. I estimate my chance of winning the pot outright here to be <10%, so while that adds some value to my bet, it really doesn't add that much. I pretty much expect to be called here once again. I should mention that there is some chance that I might win if a king hits as well, but it's not a major deciding factor. I bet and the button and both blinds call.
River is the 9c giving me the str8. I bet when it was checked to me and they all folded!! Go figure.
Anyway, did I make the right decisions? Was my logic correct or flawed?
Comments welcome.
Dave in Cali
It being Friday nite and I'm dissolving brain cells so I can't do the math. I think you played it fine. Check on flop. check on turn. Bet on river. They still fold on river. I read on this forum that a bet/raise is worth 4 outs. This is perfect example. If you add 4 outs to your bets on the flop and turn, I think you find that your play was correct.
I would have play it the same way as you
The big advantage(s) of betting on the flop is of course deception: opponents could easily put you on a pair of queens, and perhaps raise you with Q9, T9 hands on the river whereupon you can 3-bet. You also gain more information by betting out rather than calling.
The problem as I see it occurs when only one or two people call your bet because of your tight image, but itīs a loose table. You played it well, I guess.
What were these goofballs calling with? Were you going to bet if a blank came on the river? Based on how you presented this post I don't think you were planning on, but it sure makes me wonder, based on how nobody called on the end, if bluffing on the river is the correct play. I know in low limit hold-em it's tought to accomplish, but based on the play of this hand who knows.
Bruce
I don't think I would have bet the river if I missed and still had three opponents, it would be futile as I would be called most of the time. I cannot even fathom what these players were calling with! I don't think the pot was big enough to warrant bluffing into three players though, especially given that they were basically calling stations.
Your play was spot on. All your bets gained you value. Also by taking the lead, you have extra bluffing outs on the river if you miss.
Didn't read the responses. This seems like a routine way to play this hand.
Some points:
[1] when better strictly for value the size of the pot has little to do with your decision. But in your example with a 67% to miss, a 10% chance to steal, and 4.5bb in the pot, your "steal bet" gives you .3bb profit; which can be added to your profit the times you get called and make it. This is quite a significant amount.
[2] If the callers are calling stations then they are likely to call in situations where YOU have the best hand, such as 87d. By all means bet for value here with your high-card straight draw.
[3] When you don't get raised snagging a Jack will also probably win it for you.
[4] Notice you MADE money betting for value on the turn; getting 3:1 for your 2:1 draw.
[5] Sure looks like a bluff on the end would have been called for.
- Louie
I think I would have bluffed had I missed. The pot would have been plenty big enough to try a bluff, it doesn't have to be successful very often to make the attempt correct. And the way my opponents played, it would not surprise me if they folded for a bet on the end. it didn't seem like they really wanted to win the pot very bad!
dave in cali
Thus, you have correctly responded to your "go figure" statement, which disturbed me quite a bit when I read it.
Here's my humble thoughts on your play. If you put it in a different perspective you know you played it right. You know you have calling stations, you have a flush and a straight in the making, your hand keeps looking better each round.
If you checked and raised all the way through because your hand kept improving, and got stomped on the river, you would know without doubt, you didn't play the hand very well. On the other hand, if you checked all the way through and so did the other players, you would know you could have done better.
That being said, I don't know what you could have done differently when your hand was improving, but iffy.
I am in a typical lower limit holdem game and raise with pocket jacks in middle position after one person limps. Button cold calls as does limper and we see the flop three handed.
Flop is Kd Td 3s. Limper checks. I bet with the intention of folding for a raise. button calls as does the limper. I am not sure where I stand as both players are somewhat passive and fairly difficult to read.
Turn is 2h. I figure I am still in the exact same boat. Again it is checked to me. I bet again, planning to fold if it gets raised. I figure no one will raise me with less than a king (which I would correctly fold to), but if they have one pair less than kings or queens then I am way ahead. Button calls and SB folds.
River is Qc. I check, planning to make a crying call if the button bets. I figure if he was calling with one undercard (queen) or if he had a pair with a queen kicker, or if he hit a gutshot, then I am just going to have to pay off. otherwise I may induce a bluff. or he may have just been playing kings passively, in which case I will either pay off or be happy he checked it down.
results in second post. they are for the people who can't stand not knowing, but they are irrelevant to this post.
dave in cali
he checked and showed 7h3h. go figure!!!!!
10-J won
Sorry 10-A
I won the hand with pocket jacks. are you sure you responded under the right post?
My standard play with a big pair and a over card on the flop is bet if i am checked to , then bet the turn if i only get 1 or 2 callers then check the river.
Dave,
I suspect this happens more often than we realize in lower limit games, except that the players chasing with bottom pair fold to a bet on the river or wait for the lead bettor to reveal the hand first. Well played against two opponents.
John
Obvious not! Sorry my pc is retired :)
I had a similar hand recently, I raised one limper, but both blinds and the limper called, making it 4-way action.
The flop came A K 5. All checked to me, and I checked as well. I imagined someone must have an A or K out there, and the blinds were good players and would likely check-raise me with top-pair, so I preferred to check and see how it played out.
Turn was a 6, it was checked around to me again, I bet believing I have the best hand. Only the loose limper called.
River a 3. Limper bets out! I call, she shows 4-7 for a straight. I suspect a bet on the flop would have won me the pot. Comments?
You are probably right that a bet would have won the pot for you, but I still would not do it. There were several people in the pot who called a raise and there were two overcards to your jacks, so I think checking is the right play. When checked to you again on the second round, I would bet, then probably make a crying call on the river. I think you played it OK.
Dave in Cali
Hello,
Could someone please inform me about the limit holdem action near San Francisco? I am really interested in playing 20-40 or higher. Which clubs spread these games regularly? Also, since I am not familiar with the area - a quick description (i.e. half hour south of San Fran) would be great.
Thanks all, Puggy
Lucky Chances in Colma (near Daly City) - they always have a 20/40, sometimes 40/80, and sometimes $1000 buy in No Limit.
...also Bay101 (in san jose) spreads 30-60. one of the local pros said this game has not broken for about 2 weeks so I think the action must be pretty good.
After 3 years of playing about 500 hours per year of casino (and recently, internet) hold'em, keeping meticulous records, studying most all the books, reviewing my play, reading rgp and 2+2, I am ahead but not progressing in my game as well as I would like. Unfortunately, I have never found a poker "buddy", someone who shares my passion for the game and wants to improve himself through dialogue and poker discussions of mutual interest. According to Feeney, one thing I have not done that he recommends highly is personalized lessons/critique/instruction.
So I'm now investigating this option and wonder how to do it. Who is there who does this? How do you know if they are qualified? And how does it work?
I live in MA, play at CT casinos mostly, occasionally other parts of the country. I play mostly $5-10, a little $10-20, usually with a half kill. I'd like to be able to move up but know that I haven't put my game "together" sufficiently yet.
Appreciate the responses!
A tolerable substitute/suplement is to find a poker-literate friend with whome you can review hands and exchange ideas. While this really isn't "lessons" it really helps if you can clarify your thoughts and receive different perspectives. Or you could post interesting hands here and RGP and see what other's have to say.
Reviewing interesting hands after a session is a GREAT way to get better.
- Louie
Aside from driving to Vegas to consult with Sklansky, where can you get poker lessons if you live in L.A.? Do any of the high limit pros like Lee Salem or David Oppenheimer give lessons?
Thanks, Sonny
I doubt either of the guys you mention gives lessons. (Most pros actively avoid doing so.) But you don't need to drive to Vegas to consult with DS. Just email him and arrange a time to talk on the phone.
does anyone know of any other clubs or home games in toronto? i am also looking for a small to medium sized tournament if anyone is having one, ( or a poker party, i hear that there are a few of those going around). Anyways, please email me. Thanks, -Yaseen
In the Second Edition of Lee Jones' Winning Low Limit Hold'em (2000), he recommends calling JTo for one bet from any middle position but never from a late position (except possibly to steal blinds against players who never protect). This appears contradictory to me.
In the "Playing from the middle" section, he describes how most straights with JT are nut straights and how there is usually a lot of action.
In the "Playing from a late position" section, he simply says to stay away from unsuited connectors (including JT) unless they are big.
Each section's summary (The Blackjack equivalent of a Basic Strategy table) reinforces those recommendations.
If you can call JTo for one bet for it's straight merits from the middle, why can't you from a late position?
Numbers,
I'm not familiar with the book and its strategy recommendations. But due to superior position, as you suggest, you would prefer to play this hand in a late position versus middle position.
Here are my thoughts on the question of playing JTo from either a middle or a late position in a low-limit game for a single bet. My predominant concerns are twofold: (1) how many people have called in front of me? and (2) the nature of the players behind me.
JTo is usually a drawing hand that I want to play against many opponents for a minimal price. To be specific, I'd like to play this hand against at least 4 opponents. This is a good hand to have in a passive, loose game. But in a tight game (which is less common at low limit) you frequently end up throwing it away.
-- Manzanita
I suspect he suggests you are more likely to be in a multi-way pot if you open from middle than if you open from late.
This logic has SOME merit and CAN be used sparingly in special situations, such as against particularly passive opponents.
- Louie
It sounds like you're opening the bet with this hand, eh? I've never read the book so I don't know.
Basically, JTo is a drawing hand so by calling in middle position you're eliciting action behind you to get the odds necessary to play the hand. You do not want to be heads-up with this hand. If you flop a Jack then most likely you're outkicked. Same goes for the Ten. That's the main reason that I can think of why you wouldn't want this hand in late position unless there are callers in front of you. I would open raise this hand on the button if the blinds never defend.
If UTG was the only caller and I was on the button with this hand I would fold.
~stephen
backdoor,
I liked your new term very much. I was wondering if it could also be used in teh following way.
You have flopped a gutshot straight draw. There is a bet to you. The fulcrum number of bets in the pot in order for you to call is "X" (I don't care to argue about this number X; it is not the point of the post). Depending on the likely action behind you, how likely the players who will see the turn are too pay you if you hit, etc, you will adjust the number X accordingly.
Is this a legitimate use of the term?
To reiterate, I really like backdoor's term and think that it could be helpful in our discussions.
You got the idea quite well. The adjustments that are made with regards to the players remaining are fulcrum adjustments. Most players are just sort of winging it when they have this type of decision to make. I have tried to formalize it more. I make a typical mathematical fulcrum adjustment, based on the number of players, the board and the positions of the players. If the pot odds are now close (after adjustments) then further would be required.
This helps ensure that when you are putting your money in there, "because these guys are idiots" or whatever rationalisation you have made, that the decision is otherwise mathematically close. If it is not close(in the negative), I believe all but the most extraordinary players will not be able to overcome this.
In order implement a fulcrum, it must be based on good poker theory. It can't be pie in the sky. So the first order of business is to study poker theory inside and out and then over again. So when you make a fulcrum up, it has a solid foundation. Further, you are able to see its weaknesses. This is why I don't believe just giving out a set of fulcrums to people is very useful at all. Many will not even see the value in them. And if they don't see the value, they will not be able to properly apply them.
Remember above all that most poker decisions are fairly routine and require no special fulcrum. It's those special cases that make the game fun, profitable and the great game that it is.
I'll post some more on this in the future for those 3 or 4 people that are interested.
Regards Anon.
Be assured there will be alot more than 3 or 4 of us.
I've been trying to figure out how to properly adjust to differing sizes of the small blind. I think I can play out of the SB fine at different sizes, but I'm wondering how it effects steal attempts. I've found a paradox.
The 1/3 SB. A steal attempt should be more likely to be successful since at only 1/3 of a bet, the SB is less likely to play. Therefore, you should be able to reduce your starting card requirements for stealing. However, since the SB is only 1/3 of a bet, you are risking 2 bets to win only 1 1/3 bets so your steal requirements should go up.
The 2/3 SB. A steal attempt is less likely to succeed since the SB is more likley to play (and when he does it may be three bets). Therefore you need to tighten up your starting hand requirements for stealing. However, there is more money in the pot so you win more when successful so you should make more steal attempts than when the SB is lower.
I know that in general you should play losser as the antes go up and tighter as they go down, but I'm not sure of the proper application to the situation here.
So I'm a little confused. Am I overthinking the situation? Missing something?
What do you all think?
Thanks,
Paul Talbot
What if you are playing 5-10 with blinds of 2 and 5?
Just kidding, we don't need to go there... we can figure it out...
but as for your post, I think the likelyhood of success with 1-1/3 bets vs. 1/2 bets is very close, and the difference in bets is only 1/6 of a bet, so it's probably close to a wash. the thing is, when the SB is 2/3 people often treat this just about the same as if they had a full bet it and defend the SB too much. therefore your likelyhood of success is probably less than the value of the extra chip you will win when you succeed.
dave in cali
Is there any written information on texas hold-em variations. i was involved in a game this week were the first 3 cards were dealt down, the next two flopped up with a bet and flop and a bet and the river card.
this is a very unusual variation on holdem. these types of variations are probably just about never seen in a casino, so there is very unlikely to be any books written on them. the best book to read to help you with games of varying structures is theory of poker. it does not address non-casino variations of poker, but it teaches you how to think about the game and you should be able to apply this to any game you play no matter what the structure.
dave in cali
This is in reference to my thread below "Trouble Starting Hands". I posted here because threads that far down the page tend to dissolve and I wanted to clear the confusion.
I was a little upset at Rounder for his response but I think he misinterpreted my original post because it had some confusing vernacular.
For hand #1 I wrote "Ace and 8-2 suited" meaning A8s, A7s, A6s...not 82s or 73s.... So I can understand why you thought it was a joke that I was successful and played 82s.
That being said, I think the consensus was that these marginal hands are just that, marginal, and should be treated accordingly (i.e. fold in most cases).
Thanks
Jamie Collins
As someone said, tact is not my srong suit - my point was ment to be strong as I have strong serious feelings about playing marginal hands out of position.
Just trying to help if I can.
In Rounder's defense, it's much better to be slightly obnoxious and interesting than to be totally polite and a deadbeat bore. We wouldn't want the forum to be boring now, would we....
Plus those hands mentioned in that post did suck eggs.
I with you, Dave in Cali, in Rounder's defense. I find Rounder's honest and direct responses quite refreshing compared to the technical, wordy, boring stuff.
I'm glad someone likes to have a little flair in life even if it sometimes winds up offending someone. Hell, Rounder has offended me lots of times, but I still read his posts.
I will be giving tact lessons next week, but somehow I don't expect rounder to sign up!
dave in cali
4-8 game last night. I am one seat before the cutoff.
I have Jc-Tc. BTF, 2 callers to me. I call, CO and button fold, SB calls, BB raises, all call and 5 see the flop.
Flop is Th-6c-2c. SB checks, BB bets, fold, fold, I call, SB folds. Now it's heads up.
Turn is 3d. I check, BB bets, I call.
River is Ts. BB bets. I'm thinking he has AA, KK, QQ or AK or even AQ suited or maybe even unsuited. The 3 low cards on the board can't have helped him. So I raise. He hesitates, so I know he's thinking of a reraise or call, then he just calls.
Was this a bad read? Should I have raised?
Results in lower post.
Papio
Sorry about posting here. I thought I was on Small Stakes page.
Anyway, BB had ATs, which really surprised me. I never even dreamed that he would have the case T.
Papio
Before reading the result...
On the flop I think you should have raised with top pair, OK kicker, and a flush draw. you should get callers and get value on your raise, plus you might wind up getting a free card on the turn.
on the turn, checking is OK but betting would be OK too
On the river, your raise is OK.
Like Dave said your flush+pair is strong enough to raise either the flop or the turn: except if the BB is a BIG favorite to only bet with the big pair.
Raise on the end only of the BB will bet his over-pair; which is common for most opponents. Some weak types are almost sure to have you beat (since they will unreasonably fear trip Ts) which turns your hand into a crying call.
- Louie
Haven't seen the results yet, but whenever I have top pair with a flush draw, I raise every chance I get, as a combination value bet/semi-bluff. Of course, anyone who knows me knows that "I love top pair!"
David
Thanks guys for your replies. I can see now that one of the weaknesses in my game is that I tend to wait until I make my hand before making my move. I should be looking to bet on the come when appropriate.
Papio
Hello... new poster! I'm just wondering what UTG means and any other abbreviated poker slang here is. Sorry to bulk up this forum but I don't know where to post this question and I can't find any directory on these abbreviations.
Thank you,
UTG means Under The Gun. It refers to the player just to the left of the big blind who is the first to act. There is an abbreviations section under the "Directory" listing on the left in the green shaded area.
I was wondering what other people thought. What would be your most productive line up when you are looking for a game? Where I play you you don't have the luxury of picking your game. You just get on a list and take the first seat available. But if I could choose, I think I would like to have two passive fish,a few players tring to play well, and one or two other strong players. Of course in this dream I would have to be the bast player at the table. What would your line up be and why?
All I need are a bunch of loose, passive players who avoid raising before the flop. That is why low limit poker is so easy to beat.
I like about 4-5 loose passive fish like calling stations, and one or two rocks just downstream of me so I can get someone to fold now and then. If the table is all calling stations then I like a maniac to help generate giant pots.
Having 2 rocks to the left of you can often mean that you have the button 3 times every round....not a bad deal!
When walking into the room and you know the players you must have some Idea what the players average loss per hour is. Lets say you got one player losing at 300 an hour that is a good game. Or 6 Players loosing at 50 dollars and hour also a good game. But if no one is lossing or 1 player is loosing at 50 dollars and hour it is best to move on.
The paper below was prepared for and published on rec.gambling.poker in late December after I stumbled upon a question on slowplaying that nobody answered to my satisfaction, IMHO. So I spent some thought on the subject and wrote an essay in a pre-holiday-celebrating stupor. I cleaned it up a bit, corrected a few mistakes, polished it up, removed some attempts at humor and cut down on the f-word quota as not to piss off Mason again. Anyway, I got no responses to it and felt a peculiar emptiness as a result. I'm re-publishing it over here on 2+2 in hopes of getting some feedback. I need it, it's getting harder and harder for me to learn this Mefisto's game of hold 'em...
Acknowledgments: I thank Allah for support.
Don't. That's the best rule of thumb. Don't slowplay. You should be playing against the fish anyway and fish don't dig the moves. They will be unimpressed and unaffected. They will call you down when you don't want them to, don't they? They will call down your sets too.
But there are higher limit games where slowplaying will be needed, essential even against some players. A wise player here will slowplay not only for immediate profit, but to boost profits of his other hands, the monsters, HAAARRRGGGGHHH!!!!. Balance.
By default, the don'ts come first:
in the blind and the flop comes
who will you nail when the turn brings another jack?... What if the five hits (and another on river) or the flush draw hits??... Boy, are you fucked, ROTFL, am I amused to watch your cramped face while you are getting the Fekali enema administered, eat this reraise, punk, bwuahahaha...
You must play two pair hard, hoping to lose hands like
, 
, 
,
or maybe 
, 
.
These are all threats to your bottom two pair and you can only drive them out raising or at least charging the full ammount. We are talking basic hold'em strategy here, bet and raise away on the flop, you have the best hand and you simply must collect the toll right there and then. The weaker draws will fork over on the flop but not on turn, so what's the point of giving away cheap tickets to the nasty show? I play all twopairs hard even though there are situations to go easy, but slowplaying the weak ones is a BIG mistake.
Yet, I see slowplays like this everywhere. Allah, I throw myself into your arms, you will feed me always.
(BTW, I created the ace above for my sister's enjoyment, she actually uses it when playing on Paradise, if you want to use it yourself, simply right-click in Internet Explorer on the ace icon and save it as file Ah.bmp into Paradise Poker program folder, there are no security risks doing it. The ace will show next time you start Paradise client.)
on a board of
will get you lots of action on the flop, the board will not scare the tough players nor the fish. Get the money now, you are a favorite on the money going in and you might knock out a middle singleton of hearts. You are in deep shit if another heart turns and hits you in the softflesh extremities. If bet into on the screwed turn, you will have to call against tough players and you want a big pot to make it worthwhile. Build that pot while you are ahead, jam it up on the flop and don't you be seeing the monsters under the bed. A higher flush will be there on occasion any you will utter "Nice hand, sir..." and it's all a part of growing up as a player... Some battles will leave you in the gutter. What doesn't kill me, makes me stronger.
BTW, if you are often folding on that scary turn, you are not a friend of mine, not at the hold'em table, not when I bet, bet, bet, when I bet my middle pair, no, I want you to fold then, you are an opponent, I can see you are weak... I WILL ROB YOU BLIND! Siddhi Abdul Jalib M'hall spoke to me and my sis Ange once: "Folding is a disease!" She took those wise words to heart and eventually became a professional bluff slayer on Paradise Poker (note it takes a very tight play to nurture this kind of tenacious style).
A check-raise with a baby flush is fine on the flop, though, if you are sure somebody is itching to bet. A check-raise is a form of slowplay, do we agree on that? Typically, any hand will bet here from late position, hoping to steal on scary board or to protect a pair. You check-raise both for value and squeezing out opposition. The funny thing is, you don't know who you want to keep in and who you want out. Just play it hard.
When two broadway cards flop, your hand is vulnerable no matter what you hold. You will be losing to higher boats and gutshots. Bet while betting is good. Jam on the flop, turn can (and will) bring sorrow. You *will* get action on a flop like
,
don't worry, hold'em players like the big cards. So bet your sets. And beware of the fish. The idiots can suck out a golf ball thru 100 yards of garden hose. They will suck out on you A LOT, don't you be fooling yourself. Make them pay. NOW!
about small sets and he will say it doesn't really matter what you do with them. He's right, I think. I prefer to uncloak immediately, though, I will check-raise at most. It's a good spot to boost some EV of your other plays. If you are timid with your draws, you should be somewhat timid with your monsters too for balance. My style is to push anything, therefore I need to push the big hands too. The close decisions are where you shape your style, as you aren't making a mistake if you go the alternate way. I say push, move on.
I replied without thinking: "No, I always bet my top pair. If I don't, I can't push my draws."
"Right, I thought so." I think he was happy to see he's not screwed alone if his hold'em ideas turn out to be mad eventually. The question is perfectly valid, of course. If you have a different style, if you can't semibluff in your game, you can (and should) slowplay a lot headsup. Can you say "balance"?
And now, for something completely different:
"Say I limp on the button with QJ, the flop comes jack high and they check to me. Often, I will check behind, because no matter which card comes on the turn, one of those two guys will bet it and I will call them down. I don't mind losing to a free card, it's a very, very small pot."
I will leave you to extract the logic of this kind by yourselves, fellas. For those not in the know, if you open the Webster under "aggressive", there's Doug's and the other guy's picture right there.
An example from Bellagio $30-60, a month ago:
A tough looking pro tries to steal from the button, I defend with
.
Flop comes:
and I check-raise him. Turn is a rag. I check again and he checks behind. River is a rag and he thinks and thinks and calls my bet. "He checked a ten???" he goes when I turn over trips. I think he must've called very weak hoping to catch my obvious bluff...
A young player next to me patronizes me saying I shouldn't give a free card with that flush draw on board.
And I'm thinking, are these people fucking nutz or am I from some other planet... That aggressive shades-wearing pro would be pounding on me again on turn with any pair, any draw and maybe even a good ace, as he thinks I'd be limp as a noodle on the flop with a ten (the popular slowplaying move) and I'm only bullshitting him in want of a free card. He was drawing dead against me, dead as a roadkill. If not, he'd get some Fekali enema on turn, where I'd be check-raising him again.
My point is, you can slowplay the turn when there's a good chance the free card won't screw you. Here, if he's on a flush draw, the free card isn't disastrous as he won't fold to a bet, I am not risking the pot here. Bah, headsup the chances of him being on club draw are remote anyway...
Now I'm not saying this was the best way to play that hand. I'm saying it was safe to go for a check-raise on turn. It was a special example... against passive players you are probably better off betting your hands and checking your draws when out of position. Anyway, the play has a name in Ljubljana:
The Liver Removal
An example, an interesting one that I found reviewing Ange's Paradise hand histories, trying to fix a supposed leak in her game, this woman is a pain in the ass. Anyway, the hand number is 44754845, check it out:
Of course, the lucky snotnose gets dealt
in early middle position. She opens with a raise and a player who seems to be solid reraises her next, everybody folds. As they are heads up now, there's no need for a preflop reraise, as that extra bet can be recouped with a check-raise on the flop and aces can lay low a bit, maybe inducing a raising war on the flop off another overpair. With another player in, she gotta reraise and bet out on flop. So she flat calls here, the Liver Removal Prep Call. The flop comes
and she check-raises according to plan. Turn card is
.
Now if you are against a solid opponent that's not too wacky in this spot, he's drawing to a two-outer at most here, right? On the other side, Ange could have anything here, say QJ, JTs, TT, AQs or A8, trying to push the guy off his hand or buy a free turn card. So she check-raises again, gets called and beats AK in the showdown. The Liver Removal. She is a trained professional, don't try this at home, kids.
---
Nut flushes fall into the category of quite a robust hands too, you can finely slowplay as long as you are sure not to give a free card to two pair (a set will probably be betting). Say you have AKh and you jam it up on the flop with your nut flush draw and overcards. If your nuts hit on turn and you are second to act facing a bet, you gotta flat call, let people in and hopefully you'll get raised behind by a smaller flush or a pair and a second-nuts draw or sumthing. There are sick people at the poker tables. Headsup you have to raise on the turn, tuff opponents may put you on a single ace nut draw and will often reraise back... First to act headsup, you can go for a check-raise, they will put you on a flush when it's too late.
When I *flop* a nut flush, I prefer to uncloak right there, though, if the pot is multiway. But I do it sneaky, you know the routine, I check, check, check, somebody bets, call, I flat call along, some smart-ass raises, they call around to me and now I raise. Tough luck for the dead-drawing fish. The beauty of this move is that you will do it too with the single ace of that suit, when you get enough callers (ram & jam). They simply cannot fold on you when your balance is right.
Abdul will do it to me on sumthing like Q52 headsup flop, he will check-call and then bet out on turn when a rag hits. This will confuse me just enough into raising him there with virtually anything subreasonable, on river he will show QT and I have to call him down with a bare ace. Finesse.
in the big blind. Flop comes
.
If you bet out here, you'll lose customers unless they beat ya. Notice that tiny pot? OTOH, if you play like a maniac, you must fire away this time too.
Eh... I probably overlooked sumthing ... not good at being thorough,... I did polish it somewhat though... see if I missed anything...
--
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Why don't you send it Cardplayer or Poker Digest...I thought it was a great piece.
Only if they ask.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
.
Best poker read I've had in a long time. I've taken a few Angelina enemas at 20-40 on Paradise, but I learned my lesson.
Add boy do I heed your Never Slow PLay with Two Broadways advice. When you play pot limit this one is really driven home. I just love PL hands that go like this:
live one limps along after two early callers. Tough guy raises from the cut-off seat and loses everybody but live one.
Flop comes AKx. Live one checks. And now tough-tricky guy checks??? Shouldn't he have a piece of that board?
Tutn coms a J. Live one bets and tough guy raises only to get reraised as he grumbles to himself "did this calling station just hit a gutshot on me." only to pay off on the the river only to be shown the inevitable QTo.
Live one free card enema.
For all of you out there refusing to use Microsoft Internet Explorer (which has no trouble displaying .bmp images) I prepared the .gif graphics version of the essay that Netscape users might enjoy. It is archived at http://www.fekali.com/slowplaying.html.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Great Post print and save {N.T.]
"BTW, I created the ace above for my sister's enjoyment, she actually uses it when playing on Paradise, if you want to use it yourself, simply right-click in Internet Explorer on the ace icon and save it as file Ah.bmp into Paradise Poker program folder, there are no security risks doing it. The ace will show next time you start Paradise client.)"
Yes that's exactly what I want, those few aces I get to say "Angelina".
You posted this on RGP and got no responses? Well that says something. You should have posted it as "Neal Ross".
What about a low paired board when you have trips. You don't slowplay that either?(I don't) (Medium pot not heads up, as in the T9 hand above.)
Anyway, glad to see you post again.
Regards
I cannot see the cards whatever if I use Netscape or Explorer , but , I can see the picture of Sklansky .
The paper below was prepared for and published on rec.gambling.poker in late December after I stumbled upon a question on slowplaying that nobody answered to my satisfaction, IMHO. So I spent some thought on the subject and wrote an essay in a pre-holiday-celebrating stupor. I cleaned it up a bit, corrected a few mistakes, polished it up, removed some attempts at humor and cut down on the f-word quota as not to piss off Mason again. Anyway, I got no responses to it and felt a peculiar emptiness as a result. I'm re-publishing it over here on 2+2 in hopes of getting some feedback. I need it, it's getting harder and harder for me to learn this Mefisto's game of hold 'em...
Acknowledgments: I thank Allah for support.
DOS AND DON'TS OF HOLD'EM SLOWPLAYING
Don't. That's the best rule of thumb. Don't slowplay. You should be playing against the fish anyway and fish don't dig the moves. They will be unimpressed and unaffected. They will call you down when you don't want them to, don't they? They will call down your sets too.
But there are higher limit games where slowplaying will be needed, essential even against some players. A wise player here will slowplay not only for immediate profit, but to boost profits of his other hands, the monsters, HAAARRRGGGGHHH!!!!. Balance.
By default, the don'ts come first:
DON'T SLOWPLAY...
... bottom two pair
Bottom two pair is a big hand on flop. But it's also an epitome of a vulnerable hand. If anything, an aspiring hold'em player should learn to protect the vulnerable hands. Oh yes, the bets double on the turn and it's tempting to nail the bastards when it really hurts, sure, yes, yes, but say you have
in the blind and the flop comes
who will you nail when the turn brings another jack?... What if the five hits (and another on river) or the flush draw hits??... Boy, are you fucked, ROTFL, am I amused to watch your cramped face while you are getting the Fekali enema administered, eat this reraise, punk, bwuahahaha...
You must play two pair hard, hoping to lose hands like
, 
, 
,
or maybe 
, 
.
These are all threats to your bottom two pair and you can only drive them out raising or at least charging the full ammount. We are talking basic hold'em strategy here, bet and raise away on the flop, you have the best hand and you simply must collect the toll right there and then. The weaker draws will fork over on the flop but not on turn, so what's the point of giving away cheap tickets to the nasty show? I play all twopairs hard even though there are situations to go easy, but slowplaying the weak ones is a BIG mistake.
Yet, I see slowplays like this everywhere. Allah, I throw myself into your arms, you will feed me always.
(BTW, I created the ace above for my sister's enjoyment, she actually uses it when playing on Paradise, if you want to use it yourself, click here and save the image as file Ah.bmp into Paradise Poker program folder, there are no security risks doing it. The ace will show next time you start Paradise client.)
... small flopped flushes
Do I have to waste disk storage here? Isn't it friggin' obvious?
on a board of
will get you lots of action on the flop, the board will not scare the tough players nor the fish. Get the money now, you are a favorite on the money going in and you might knock out a middle singleton of hearts. You are in deep shit if another heart turns and hits you in the softflesh extremities. If bet into on the screwed turn, you will have to call against tough players and you want a big pot to make it worthwhile. Build that pot while you are ahead, jam it up on the flop and don't you be seeing the monsters under the bed. A higher flush will be there on occasion any you will utter "Nice hand, sir..." and it's all a part of growing up as a player... Some battles will leave you in the gutter. What doesn't kill me, makes me stronger.
BTW, if you are often folding on that scary turn, you are not a friend of mine, not at the hold'em table, not when I bet, bet, bet, when I bet my middle pair, no, I want you to fold then, you are an opponent, I can see you are weak... I WILL ROB YOU BLIND! Siddhi Abdul Jalib M'hall spoke to me and my sis Ange once: "Folding is a disease!" She took those wise words to heart and eventually became a professional bluff slayer on Paradise Poker (note it takes a very tight play to nurture this kind of tenacious style).
A check-raise with a baby flush is fine on the flop, though, if you are sure somebody is itching to bet. A check-raise is a form of slowplay, do we agree on that? Typically, any hand will bet here from late position, hoping to steal on scary board or to protect a pair. You check-raise both for value and squeezing out opposition. The funny thing is, you don't know who you want to keep in and who you want out. Just play it hard.
... flopped straights
The catch with the straights is they get counterfeited a lot. You have the nuts on the flop, but have to split by the river. Sounds familiar? Jam it up on flop, raise the suckers out or collect the fees. America did not grow strong by giving away free rides. At most, you can go for a check-raise. You want people out, but you don't mind them staying in. Again, you can't tell who is drawing dead here and who is not. Fuck this, I RAISE!
... on a two broadway board
Abdul beat this one into my brain with a stick (well, actually, he said it once but it felt like a stick those times I violated it), it's a simple truth when you think about it.
When two broadway cards flop, your hand is vulnerable no matter what you hold. You will be losing to higher boats and gutshots. Bet while betting is good. Jam on the flop, turn can (and will) bring sorrow. You *will* get action on a flop like
,
don't worry, hold'em players like the big cards. So bet your sets. And beware of the fish. The idiots can suck out a golf ball thru 100 yards of garden hose. They will suck out on you A LOT, don't you be fooling yourself. Make them pay. NOW!
... small sets
You ask 
about small sets and he will say it doesn't really matter what you do with them. He's right, I think.
I prefer to uncloak immediately, though, I will check-raise at most. It's a good spot to boost some EV of your other plays. If you are timid with your draws, you should be somewhat timid with your monsters too for balance. My style is to push anything, therefore I need to push the big hands too. The close decisions are where you shape your style, as you aren't making a mistake if you go the alternate way. I say push, move on.
... big pairs headsup
Abdul asked me some weeks ago: "You think it may be good go check AK behind on ace high flop headsup?"
I replied without thinking: "No, I always bet my top pair. If I don't, I can't push my draws."
"Right, I thought so." I think he was happy to see he's not screwed alone if his hold'em ideas turn out to be mad eventually. The question is perfectly valid, of course. If you have a different style, if you can't semibluff in your game, you can (and should) slowplay a lot headsup. Can you say "balance"?
And now, for something completely different:
DO SLOWPLAY...
... when pot is small
I watched David play fourhanded $60-120 hold'em against Toothpick Doug and an Asian looking top-notch professional (plus a tourist fish). As I was checking out his play (holecards and all), he mused to my ear:
"Say I limp on the button with QJ, the flop comes jack high and they check to me. Often, I will check behind, because no matter which card comes on the turn, one of those two guys will bet it and I will call them down. I don't mind losing to a free card, it's a very, very small pot."
I will leave you to extract the logic of this kind by yourselves, fellas. For those not in the know, if you open the Webster under "aggressive", there's Doug's and the other guy's picture right there.
... when there's little or no chance to lose the pot
A hold'em expert in a tough game needs to recognize the situations where a free card can't hurt him and he is likely way ahead. These are the times you can do outrageous slowplays that can send opponents home tilting.
An example from Bellagio $30-60, a month ago:
A tough looking pro tries to steal from the button, I defend with
.
Flop comes:
and I check-raise him. Turn is a rag. I check again and he checks behind. River is a rag and he thinks and thinks and calls my bet. "He checked a ten???" he goes when I turn over trips. I think he must've called very weak hoping to catch my obvious bluff...
A young player next to me patronizes me saying I shouldn't give a free card with that flush draw on board.
And I'm thinking, are these people fucking nutz or am I from some other planet... That aggressive shades-wearing pro would be pounding on me again on turn with any pair, any draw and maybe even a good ace, as he thinks I'd be limp as a noodle on the flop with a ten (the popular slowplaying move) and I'm only bullshitting him in want of a free card. He was drawing dead against me, dead as a roadkill. If not, he'd get some Fekali enema on turn, where I'd be check-raising him again.
My point is, you can slowplay the turn when there's a good chance the free card won't screw you. Here, if he's on a flush draw, the free card isn't disastrous as he won't fold to a bet, I am not risking the pot here. Bah, headsup the chances of him being on club draw are remote anyway...
Now I'm not saying this was the best way to play that hand. I'm saying it was safe to go for a check-raise on turn. It was a special example... against passive players you are probably better off betting your hands and checking your draws when out of position. Anyway, the play has a name in Ljubljana:
The Liver Removal
An example, an interesting one that I found reviewing Ange's Paradise hand histories, trying to fix a supposed leak in her game, this woman is a pain in the ass. Anyway, the hand number is 44754845, check it out:
Of course, the lucky snotnose gets dealt
in early middle position. She opens with a raise and a player who seems to be solid reraises her next, everybody folds. As they are heads up now, there's no need for a preflop reraise, as that extra bet can be recouped with a check-raise on the flop and aces can lay low a bit, maybe inducing a raising war on the flop off another overpair. With another player in, she gotta reraise and bet out on flop. So she flat calls here, the Liver Removal Prep Call. The flop comes
and she check-raises according to plan. Turn card is
.
Now if you are against a solid opponent that's not too wacky in this spot, he's drawing to a two-outer at most here, right? On the other side, Ange could have anything here, say QJ, JTs, TT, AQs or A8, trying to push the guy off his hand or buy a free turn card. So she check-raises again, gets called and beats AK in the showdown. The Liver Removal. She is a trained professional, don't try this at home, kids.
---
Nut flushes fall into the category of quite a robust hands too, you can finely slowplay as long as you are sure not to give a free card to two pair (a set will probably be betting). Say you have AKh and you jam it up on the flop with your nut flush draw and overcards. If your nuts hit on turn and you are second to act facing a bet, you gotta flat call, let people in and hopefully you'll get raised behind by a smaller flush or a pair and a second-nuts draw or sumthing. There are sick people at the poker tables. Headsup you have to raise on the turn, tuff opponents may put you on a single ace nut draw and will often reraise back... First to act headsup, you can go for a check-raise, they will put you on a flush when it's too late.
When I *flop* a nut flush, I prefer to uncloak right there, though, if the pot is multiway. But I do it sneaky, you know the routine, I check, check, check, somebody bets, call, I flat call along, some smart-ass raises, they call around to me and now I raise. Tough luck for the dead-drawing fish. The beauty of this move is that you will do it too with the single ace of that suit, when you get enough callers (ram & jam). They simply cannot fold on you when your balance is right.
... you can rope-a-dope
A special case of slowplay is flat-calling with invulnerable hand that is not sure to be best. Abdul covers this stuff in lots of his posts so go dig into the archives. An example: You steal from the button with A5s and get reraised by the small blind. The flop comes ace high, you simply call down all the way and bet only if it is checked to you (if you are contemplating a fold you're beyond help). You are not vulnerable if ahead and you certainly don't want 44 to fold. If you are drawing thin, you want it cheap.
Abdul will do it to me on sumthing like Q52 headsup flop, he will check-call and then bet out on turn when a rag hits. This will confuse me just enough into raising him there with virtually anything subreasonable, on river he will show QT and I have to call him down with a bare ace. Finesse.
... when you flop a mean bitchass mother of a hand
You have to check the quads twice. You should wait for turn with 88 on 855. 55 on 885 is not so spiffy.
... when you can turn them into bluffers
A classic example: Button limps, sb calls, you check your
in the big blind. Flop comes
.
If you bet out here, you'll lose customers unless they beat ya. Notice that tiny pot? OTOH, if you play like a maniac, you must fire away this time too.
AFTERTHOUGHTS
The true key is balance. If you can steal a lot from them, you need to cover those steals. If so, you need to slowplay less and probably bet out even in the last example. I'm sure you can work out the balance yourselves if you put some thought into it. Do you understand what I'm talking about?
Eh... I probably overlooked sumthing ... not good at being thorough,... I did polish it somewhat though... see if I missed anything...
--
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
$$$
.
"cut down on the f-word quota as not to piss off Mason again."
Besides the standard "F" words, here's a few others that I found.
fish for few felt first flop five flush face full fork Fekali (is this a real word?) full fork favorite friend familiar fees free fooling four feed file folder fine form from funny fellas...
I'll try to get back to this a little later with some real comments.
ROTFL Mason, you DO have a sense of humor. I knew it!
---
Izmet (I like it) Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Here are my comments:
1. While I agree that bottom two pair is a vulnerable hand, there are many spots where waiting to fourth street to play it hard is well worth it because this will increase your chances of knocking players out so they can't catch on fifth street to beat you. This usually happens in large pots.
2. If you flop a small three flush in a multiway pot it is often better to wait to the turn to get those raises in. This is because someone holding a high flush card won't fold anyway. Now if the a fourth flush card hits you can save money, or perhaps make someone with lets say a Kh (for the above example) put in two double size bets when he is a 4-to-1 dog. So I strongly disagree with much of the advice here. Hold 'em is more complex than what you are giving it credit for.
3. I have similar comments for when you flop a straight, but I do not feel as strongly about them in this spot.
4. As for two pair on broadway, again my comments are similar. You are faced with a dilemma. By waiting to fourth street you can force players out who you want out, charge the draws a real premium, or save a little money if a terrible card comes. On the other hand your raise may get a gutshot draw out on the flop (or at least give him incorrect odds to call). Much of this is dependent on the size of the pot which you never mention.
5. I agree with your comments on small sets.
6. Suppose you raise and the blind calls. Now the flop comes ace high and the blind checks. If you always bet when you don't have it but slow play some of your better aces observant players will gain an advantage on you. However, I agree that against very aggressive players or some very bad players slowplaying a hand like ace-king is probably correct.
7. I noticed that Toothpick Doug has been playing $10-$20 at The Mirage. I don't really know why but perhaps his maniac aggressiveness has finally caught up with him. This is consistent with my comment above.
8. I agree with your comments on "when there's little chance to lose the pot." This is an excellent idea. (But your mouth needs a good soap job.)
9. I also agree with the liver removal, and your comments on the nut flush draw.
10. I have no comments on your rope-a-dope.
11. I agree with you on quads.
12. I agree with "when you can turn them into bluffers."
All comments are welcome.
1. While I agree that bottom two pair is a vulnerable hand, there are many spots where waiting to fourth street to play it hard is well worth it because this will increase your chances of knocking players out so they can't catch on fifth street to beat you. This usually happens in large pots.
Could you elaborate on this a little?
Do you agree that protecting your hand is generically the right thing to do (with bottom two pair)?
If so, how do you identify situations where you wait until the turn?
Why large pots?
David
Because it's almost impossible to lose even AK no pair facing two cold on flop in monster pots. Mason says you have better chances of knocking threatening hands out on turn. There are exeptions to every rule.
However, I still prefer jamming it up on flop, chanting "Value, value, value, sweet Allah will nail you...". I would have to be very sure to have a turn bettor on the button to lay low on flop and try to pull a big turn check-raise off (I'm playing my 68s and friends from the blinds only, so I'm usually up front in this situation).
Also, there is a question of balance, again. I understand Mason's need to slowplay a bit more. The raving Albanian Lunatic OTOH is forced to push his good hands to cover the steals and draws.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Well, OK, but you don't really want to lose AK no pair, do you?
The hands you'd really like to lose are the flush draws and the like. But you aren't going to make them fold no matter what, even waiting for the turn (if the pot is large). Although I suppose you stand a better chance of knocking out inside straights and the like when you wait.
In any case I'm definitely going to have to give the balance of my own game some serious thought...
Thanks for the excellent post.
David
7. Sorry to hear about Toothpick Doug. Although many have taken credit for it, including Vince and John Bond, Doug is responsible for my nickname. He gave it to me during a rather brutal session (for him) of 30-60 where I never let him breath for several hours.
7. You're ASSuming too much, perhaps.
I heard (first hand from Doug) that he got "rolled" by a dancer. I don't know if I have the details exactly correct, but apparently he got really drunk at a strip club, went for a private dance, woke up with his pockets emptied, and lost a significant portion of his bankroll that way. I believe it.
It's a shame that Bellagio doesn't provide boxes to all the regular upper limit players. This shortcoming puts some players at great physical and financial risk. You would think they would take a hint from all the upper limit players who have gotten killed in Los Angeles.
-Abdul
Salam Aleikum, sir. I hope you are well on your return from your hijrah to the holy city. Now this is a slight tangent from the main theme of your excellent essay. But the idea of balance that you and the rasul Abdul speak of is an interesting and most assuredly profitable one to think about. Relatively speaking, I would venture, "Haddah jadeed." It is an idea which I am certain will be discussed much more as time goes on. Against whom it is most necessary, against whom it is less so, how one might focus more upon it versus certain of one's opponents, less versus other in the same game, or even how one might consider maintaining different sorts of balance (more passive approach, consistently aggressive approach...) simultaneously against different opponents at the same table will all undoubtedly come under scrutiny.
These twists are fundamentally exploitive, really. So maybe at some point you and the reejal Abdul will examine their place (if any) within the "optimal" play approach with which he has been working. Maybe I am just messing up the whole consistency/balance concept by looking at this notion of simultaneous, parallel approaches. Or, maybe there's something there. I do think players approach something of the sort without necessarily thinking of it in those terms. Then, maybe I have just spoken only the painfully obvious.
Just a few thoughts before I sleep.
Ma'assalama,
John F.
nt
Great post, but as for this customizing of the cards - if I do this it would only affect the cards that I see, not what the other players see right? I believe the cards the other players see is a function of the bitmap files on their own computers. If it didn't work this way, then I could change the cards I show down with and make you fold a better hand!
One spot where slowplaying is commonly done by good players is when it's folded around to the blinds, the small blind calls, and the big blind checks. Now when one of the players flops a pair of queens or better, he may let the action go check-check until the river. The pot is so small preflop, just one big bet, that it's worth risking the pot to suck the opponent in for an additional big bet or two. Also, the chance that your opponent has even one overcard to your pair is low, since there was no raise preflop.
A variation on this is to bet the flop with your biggish pair to build the pot a bit, even at the risk of your opponent folding then. Then, on the turn you give him a free card. Finally, when you bet the river, he's getting 3:1 to call, and will have to call with very little.
-Abdul
"... small flopped flushes Do I have to waste disk storage here? Isn't it friggin' obvious?
5h4h
on a board of
AhQh8h
will get you lots of action on the flop, the board will not scare the tough players nor the fish."
The question here really is: will players with a lonely mid-sized heart call your 2-bet on the flop?
If the answer is yes: wait for the turn to raise and do so if a non-heart hits. If the turn brings a fourth heart, strongly consider discarding if there are many opponents or the action is too heavy.
greg
Izmet great post. A lot of descriptive language as usual. I Vote for Angelina Angelina
Are there times when you should fold a small flush draw? For example you get a free play in the big blind or you call in late position with 89s (multimple callers). Flop comes with 2 of your suit and by the time it is your action, there are multiple callers to a raise. In this situation I have found that there is often a bigger flush draw present and you are drawing dead. Even though you have what you wanted, is the correct play just to fold and await a better opportunity or am I playing too timidly.
Thanks, Calvin
It depends on the specific board cards, the number of players, and the betting action. Here is an obvious situation where you should fold a flush draw on the flop. You get a free play in your big blind with 3h2h as 8 players limp including the small blind. The flop is: JsJhTh. The small blind checks. You check. The next player bets. It gets raised, re-raised, and capped back to you with everyone calling. I would fold every time. Not only may you be up against a bigger flush draw but you could be drawing dead.
In general, you should play your flush draw on the flop even if the pot gets raised on the cheap street. However, if there is an open pair on the board, especially a high pair in the playing zone, with a lot of betting and raising going on you need to consider folding your flush draw since the possibility of drawing dead is quite real. Furthermore, if someone has trips, this kills some of your outs and there still exist many redraws against you.
Greetings:
Here's the story. Last night I'm on the big blind in a 3-6 hold'em game which is given a pretty good pre-flop price even though I sat down thinking the players in were for the most part rather good (that soon changed, but that's another story). Anyway, about 7 or 8 people call to me holding a 10-9s (hearts) at which I raised to really prime a good pot. Everybody calls. The flop comes Ah Kh and something small and black, 4 or 5 if I recall. I bet with using the A-K guise as If I've made trips or two-pair, picking up about 4 callers if I remember right.
Okay, here's where it gets interesting. The next card is the Qh giving me the flush. One blue-hair calls and the other folds. The next card is the Jd so the final board is:
Ah Kh 5c Qh Jd.
I bet, she raises, and I'm logically?? guessing she has a ten for a straight and she's thinking I'm on for trips or two-pair. I re-raise and she calls turning over Jh 7h for unfortunately the nut flush. Not to mention she was sitting 4 to my left in a 10 handed game, or middle position in other words.
So, it's the next day and my blood has cooled to 98 degrees allowing me to pose this mathematical question as to somehow soothe my bad beat blues:
What are the odds of getting beat by a higher flush when the Ace, King, and Queen are already on the board and your cards are the 10 and 9. Furthermore, what should be the odds(and I know the answer to this one I think) when the only real hand you could play with the J of hearts and beat me would be the 8 of hearts, though in middle positon????
That's all,
One for the Money
I don't know the odds but I will say that I don't think this is a bad beat. playing J-8s in a loose passive game is probably an ok play. I don't know if you were serious about being pissed off after the hand. If you were serious you have a problem with your game. you probably won't win and you definitely will not have any fun when you play. Good luck in the future.
In the 3-6 game there are 2 relevant percentages that come into play.
1.)probability is 100% according to Murphy's Law or...
2.)probability is 50%...She either has it or she doesn't have it.
ps. Your heading said humor you.
I guess I'm not in a humorous mood. I think you played the hand badly, though no matter how it had been played you would have lost money.
First, why the preflop raise out of the blind? There's no chance of knocking anybody out, there's no chance of "representing" a big hand in a 3-6 near family pot. And it's also pointless to "to really prime a good pot" since you are going to have to show down the best hand and it will be a nice pot anyway without you manipulating it.
On the turn, she suckered you good. And blue hair got you for extra river bets (though I don't know why she just called your last raise, I like re-raising with the nuts.)
So I guess you got lucky on the end.
In low limit 3-6? The odds of someone playing J-7 suited are about ... 100%
Last night, I was playing 10-20 and lost to a runner-runner flush and the guy had J7s and I had raised pre-flop and he called 2 bets cold. It is not just a 3-6 occurence.
And I posted a similar depressing story a few days ago about flopping a flush and losing to a higher flush. As they say s*** happens,
Ken
your game has more leaks than the Titanic
Sometimes you have to wonder.
Some weeks ago I was playing $10,$20 HE on Highlands (just before the shutdown) and twice capped the betting early with AA. Both times I was called all the way by a player with a Chinese name (I still have it in my notes). On the first hand he held 4h6h. The flop contained a 4, the river was a six. The second hand he held 9d2d. The flop held a duece. When the river was another duece, I was snake bite from the prior hand and checked. He bet and I (foolishly?) called. Both pots were over $300.
Was I playing against a lucky moron, or did he know the cards were coming?
Under the condition that all of your opponents are playing any hand, the probability that there was a higher four-flush on the flop (Q or J) is 0.69% (?) --> 5.52% (?) for eight opponents.
And skip the preflop-race next time.
the odds of getting your flush beat are the same as the odds of any second nut flush getting beat by the nut flush. but let's see, you didn't get reraised when you three bet against the nut flush, and you have a player in the game who plays J8s even though some tighter players would fold in the same spot. I wouldn't worry too much about the odds, once in a while your flush gets beat so move on and forget about it. it sucks to lose a pot like that, but it sounds like you were in a good game so take your licks and get on with the next hand.
dave in cali
After discussing the ramifications of playing QTo in the BB on the Small Stakes board, and once again perusing HPFAP, I'm really at a loss as to when to play this hand.
According to S+M, ATo, KTo, and QTo are all Group 6 hands. ATo is considered a weak hand, so therefore QTo must also fall into this category. When, pray tell, do people feel comfortable playing this hand? What game conditions need to exist to play it?
Up until now, I would limp with it behind any number of limpers (ditto KT and AT), and recently called a loose raise with it in the BB. I don't think I'll do it again, but other than playing it in the BB, am I playing it too much? Thanks for any input!
GB
King-Ten offsuit and Queen-Ten offsuit are good blind stealing hands from late position (cutoff or button). It is okay to limp in with these hands behind others from the cutoff or button or from the small blind. Neither of these hands should be played if the pot is raised unless you are in the big blind or you are in the small blind and it is a steal-raise.
Ace-Ten offsuit is a much better hand than King-Ten offsuit or Queen-Ten offsuit. You can limp in behind others with Ace-Ten offsuit since the absence of a pre-flop raise means your Ten kicker is likely to be good if an Ace flops. If everyone folds to you in middle position, you can open with a raise having Ace-Ten offsuit. You may drive out the remaining players and get position over the blinds if they choose to play.
I raise with it as a steal in late pos. or call with it if only 1 or 2 callers are in, if i am in late pos. or in the small blind.
With lots of callers i ussually just throw it in the muck b/c it just gets you trapped most of the time.
Is there a consensus on how to play pocket Qs from the blinds when there's a bunch of callers, say 6 or more?
I normally raise for value in this situation. However, in one of his essays, Mason suggests that you may want to call rather than raise, as this will give you a better chance to win if the flop comes and you have an overpair. Also, he does say that you should of course raise w/Aces in these situations, and also w/smaller pairs as there are more than enough players for you to build a pot in case you flop a set. As usual, he makes several excellent points. However, I just wonder if you are giving too much up by not raising w/Qs and also Js from the blinds in these family pot situations. Should your decision hinge on how tough and observant your opponents are?
Caddy -
If I had a bunch of callers, I would not raise from the blinds because of my horrible position. QQ is a hard hand to play because it almost always needs help (usually a set.) It makes more sense to me to see the flop for a single bet, because if an Ace or a King shows up without a Queen to make my set, I've got almost nothing. The flop could also come out with a straight or flush draw. If I do have overpairs or if I flop a set, then I can come out swinging. My opponents will figure me for top pair or something like that. I don't think you're giving up too much by just calling, and you're giving up even less with wired Jacks (a hand I've grown to hate.)
To give you an idea where I'm coming from, I remember this hand I had with wired Queens. I was up front in a 4-8 Hold'em game, I called, two players called, a guy on the end raised, the blinds folded, and the rest of us called. Four handed, the flop came K Q 7 rainbow. I bet, the two callers folded, and the preflop raiser raised me. I reraised with my set, and he capped it. Turn was a blank, I bet, he raised, and I called because I suspected he had pocket cowboys. River came a blank, the pot was so big I checked, he bet, and I called. Sure enough, he had KK, and I lost a big pot. But I would have lost even more if I had reraised preflop and had continued to raise throughout the hand.
Another hand I remember is when I had KK in the small blind. There were six callers and a button raiser. I reraised it up, four players called, the button capped it. We took the flop five handed, and the flop came K Q 6 rainbow. I checked, intending to check-raise because I figured someone would take a shot at betting. No one did, and the turn was a blank. I bet and I got three callers, including the button. The river was another Q, giving me Kings full and second nut to quad Queens. I bet, they called, and I took it down. In my opinion, KK is much stronger than QQ, and it can always be raised or reraised in the blinds.
Having said that, if I'm on the button or next to it, and especially if I think a raise will knock out several players (tough to do in a low-limit game,) then I will go for it and raise. Raising can also be used as an occasional deception play, but my opponents have to be paying attention to me in the first place. The main problem is position in the blinds, not the Queens in my hand. With QQ, I would suggest just calling up front, calling in the middle, and possibly raising in back (preferably on the button.)
Simply calling in the blinds has the added benefit of disguising the strength of my hand (something I will occasionally do with AK, AKs, or KQs.) I don't know about your games, but a raise in the blinds attracts a lot of attention at my tables.
That's my take on the hand.
I try to restrict my raising from the blinds to only two hands: AA and KK. I may raise with QQ from the small blind to fold the big if there are few callers, or reraise with it if the button or cutoff raised and I suspect a position/bluff raise.
Queens look like big cards, but really aren't; only Aces and Kings meet the big standard. Too often QQ is overcarded and loses value. You mostly must flop a set for a real fighting hand. It's expensive to do a lot of raising with QQ, only to have an Ace or King come turn or river.
I would raise with pocket Queens every time from any position against limpers because the majority of the time I will flop an over pair to the board or a set. With Jacks this would not be true since most of the times an over card will flop.
Caddy,
The first question to consider is: Are most pots in this game 6 handed or more, or just this one? If the former, you should raise against 6+ callers. You are getting implied odds for the set, and in quite a few hands, you will have an overpair. You are acting last, and AA or KK would have already raised, so you should be pretty comfortable that you have the best hand at the moment. I would recommend looking at izmet's web site for some good essays on how to play no fold'em hold'em, as he states his ideas much better than I state mine.
If the latter, it is probably still correct to raise.
Note: I am defining correct as a play that will increase your EV in the long run.
Jay
While Mason does have a point in his essays regarding queens in the blinds, I usually will just raise anyway with that many callers. when you are getting enough callers to raise on set value alone, plus the chance of flopping an overpair that holds up, I would just go ahead and raise every time.
dave in cali
About Mason's essay: Being in California, I have played in very few games where the concept of keeping the pot small so that players are more likely to fold is applicable. This is even more true with six limpers. I think you should raise for value.
Family pot is the key here IMHO.
Now the question for me is do I want to build a pot or not. I won't get anyone out as there is way too much implied odds and obviously it's a loose game. These players won't even know what "implied odds" means but they see the potential for a big pot.
Therefore I usually don't put in the first raise from the blinds w/o at least KK. I would much rather check-raise the flop if I have the over pair. even If I'm making it 3 bets when it gets back around to me. Often a top or middle pair will bet and a top pair A or K kicker will raise. This is a perfect time to try to limit the field when it's 6-9 handed. If my hand is suspect to being 2nd best or worse I may just check call. If I believe I can get a raise from an early position player THEN I want to bet out. And if I flop a set, especially with and overcard on the board I will check call the flop, and pick WHEN I want to raise on the turn or river or both according to the action. Now if this causes me to lose a big one oh well. Most of the time my hand will be hidden and will pick up many bets from so much action. In the few instances I lose a little my wins will certainly make up for it in a big way.
Also, If (and this happens often)the overcards hit the flop, I check and there is too much action and it's from the players I know to stay with strictly better hands at this table I can eaily muck on the flop and be very happy I only lost 1 SB with QQ!
All of the above only refers to LOOSE games with the family pot.
Is the Grand the best place to play on this night? I am interested in 10-20 Holdem but mainly Omaha Hi-lo 10-20. I remember they had a good 4-8 Omaha hi-lo half kill game there but had a hard time keeping a 10-20 omaha game going(this was in april during the tunica tourneys). How late do the games go into the night on a monday night? I will be there this coming Monday night. Thanks.
When playing hold'em, what are the chances of seeing three of a kind up against three of a kind?
Thanks, Ben
You need to be more specific: DO you mean what are the odds of set over set (w/an unpaired board?), w/a paired board (and does the person who holds a rank of pair on board count as a set?) ? on the flop? by the river etc....
It's hard to calculate because you have to make assumptions about how often your opponents will see the flop with their pocket pairs. But if you have bottom set and all of your opponents would have played any every pocket pair, my guess is that you'll see an overset about 4% of the time, about half that if your set is in the middle.
If you flop a set and lose - you had better lost a lot of money or else you played your hand wrong.
So whenever I have trips, I will be up against another set(whether bigger or smaller) only 4% of the time. That's good to know, so I can play them with even more confidence than I do now. I thought it would have been much more often.
Thanks Chris
It's actually less than 4% for the average set. I figured it by taking into account the chances that your opponents have a pocket pair, assumed they'd play them all, and have 2 outs on the flop to hit a bigger set. So it's around 4% only if you have a set of deuces.
Lets assume that everyone plays all pocket pairs.
1st calculate the probability there are n pairs in the opponents hands.
Then calculate the probability that only you flop a set given that there are n pairs out.
Multiply the 2 figure together.
I should add this assumes set over set, that is the board is unpaired, though we can figure out set over/under trips also.
I of course am suspicious of those who quote answers w/o any calculations or reasoning. And thus am a bit leary of the 4% figure.
I want to get some computer software to improve my hold'em game. I am a middle limit player who needs some practice without having to risk the money, so I thought a program would be my best bet (no pun intended). So, I was looking for suggestions as to which is the best. I have heard a lot about Turbo Texas Hold'em, but that is it. I know the recent Harpers article spoke of another program, but I think it might only be for no-limit folks. Any suggestions and/or thoughts about which would be best (if any) is appreciated.
Thanks, Jason Stahl
TTHE is the best that I know of and it is the one most of the experienced players on this forum are likely to recommend to you. It's expensive (90$) but worth it if you learn how to use it properly and most importantly how to interpret your results with it. IMO, it is primarily useful to represent hypothetical situations that might arise at the table and to practice counting the pot, deciding if you have the odds to continue, whether to call, raise, fold, semi-bluff, etc.... It is not the same as a casino game however, so you must take your results with a grain of salt. But it's worth the $$ and the upgrades are about 20$.
I have been playing less then 3 months and can beat it on a regular basis.
However - I swear by it that it's made me a better player.
Using Turbo Texas Hold'em 4.0 I've been playing with starting hands and have noticed that there are MANY hands that have an overall winning record that are not played.
My question is "why not play a hand if "in the long run" it's a winner.
Most of the "published" starting hands are in the $1 per play range. However, there are many many starting hands in the 0.35 to 0.75 range per hand.
If a hand has a winning record, why not play it. You will be playing 30% of the hands overall but by playing all the low win rate hands you will win more - correct?
Where am I wrong ? ? ?
I KNOW - less is more and this is why I'm confused.
For instance - at the type of table I hame programed in ($4). Under the Gun you still play hands like A3s or A9o. The A3s wins 0.58 per play and the A9o wins 0.78 per play. Even T9s is 0.58 per play. AND it's all UTG ???
opinions?
BTW - this is 1 million hands sims!
When a person plays all those extra hands UTG his win rate for hands are higher because many players are folding because of the "assumed" strong hand.
Looking at some numbers a player that plays A4s UTG will with the hand 45% of the time for 0.64 cents.
However if he is in the middle he is winning 37% for 0.61 cents per play.
???? I have to assume more people are folding then go up against a better UTG!
I COULD BE TOTALLY OFF THE WALL!!
I am guessing it may have something to do with the environment those hands are played in.
Personally, I don't use TTH for simulations. I like to use it more to set up different environments and work on adjusting my play to that setting.
Check out Mason's "Ace-Eight Suited Under the Gun" essay. It does a pretty good job of addressing your point.
(and I agree) that simulators can not think (unless they have a very very good AI) and change the way that play. The simulator will not see that you are playing loose early and adjust it's play to counter.
Very interesting.
This is why I have fallen in love with poker after becoming pretty darn good at counting BJ. BJ has not depth! Once you learn the numbers, tables and so forth you are done.
Poker just get's better with age.
You should be able to use the loose strategy early in the game and then move back to tight once everybody get's comfy.
this topic is probably best described in Super/System by Brunson. At least that's my favorite discussion of it, but not the only time it's been addressed. Keep in mind though that changing gears only works if your opponents are observant enough to tell the difference. I usually don't change my strategy at al during a session because most of my opponents are totally oblivious.
Mason's A8s UTG essay hits the nail on the head with simulators which is one of the reasons I only use them for curiosity, and not very much at that.
I would add that you would need opponents observant enough to be paying attention to your play, but unskilled enough to see through your strategy.
You also need more than a little help from the cards.
Rod, I would think that playing the hands you mention in your post UTG often is going to give you a negative result and add to your swings.
The proof is at the tables, though. The surefire way to learn not to play those hands UTG is to try it.
That's what learned me!
TTHE will not accurately represent how REAL players behave in a casino. Real players, no matter how bad, still do not just make their decisions randomly. Plus, is the betting action being taken into consideration with your simulations? TTHE is a great tool, but 15% is much closer to reality than 30% will ever be, no matter what a simulator tells you. My useage of TTHE is to sharpen my thinking about possible hypothetical poker situations that might arise in the future. I don't use the simulators much because they are just not that applicable to the casino. I just use them for curiosity sometimes, like the difference of playing 89s UTG or on the button, but once again it's more of a curiosity than something useful I can take to the table.
Dave in Cali
For instance - at the type of table I hame programed in ($4). Under the Gun you still play hands like A3s or A9o. The A3s wins 0.58 per play and the A9o wins 0.78 per play. Even T9s is 0.58 per play. AND it's all UTG ???
T9s and A3s is certainly playable in most games. A3s probably requires a loose passive game. I believe HPFAP backs this up. You might want to give the starting hand section another read. In most low-limit games where the players are often playing any ace, A9o is probably playable also. This is especially true if you are playing with predictable opponents.
40% see the flop? TO be honest I'd rather play tighter then a virgin then play loose games.
Plus I was just using an example.
Here is a good example. I too used to be confused over this issue.
You have A3o UTG and you come in for a raise. So on and so forth and you have 6 plus big bets you alone have put into the hand with four players and you lose on the river - of course.
The second time you have A3o UTG you come in for a raise, you again have your own 6 big bets in the pot, but it's heads up and you win - of course.
The third time you have A3o UTG and you just call, everyone folds, and you made 1 BB +/-.
Now mix up the above results and which result is most likely? Not the one where you win a huge pot with A3o. Not even the result where you pick up the blinds and six big bets from going head to head.
Hope this makes sense....
SLOVENIA Casino Cheat Goes Free Melanie Banks, Gambling Newsletter Slovenian police caught an Italian citizen January 16 using a miniature video camera and a mobile phone to cheat in a game of poker in a casino in Ljubljana, which borders with Italy.
"We had a couple of attempts to cheat in casinos before, but none of them was as technologically advanced as this one," said Ivan Maras, police spokesman. The man put a bag with a mini video camera behind the dealer so that images of the cards could be transmitted to a hotel room nearby where an accomplice advised the gambler by mobile phone via a tiny receiver mounted in his ear. The cheat was detained for six hours but the police had to free him when they couldn't prove how much money had been won by the scam. The accomplice also went free.
Do you have anybody in mind?
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Right!
Vince
I'm a 20 y/o currently living with my mother and step-father. The three of us have been playing a lot of hold'em in the past few weeks, usually 5,10 (cent) blinds, PL. My question: Are Sklansky's hand groups accurate for such short handed games? It would seem to me that in a 2 or 3 person game (which is all I play), whether your hole cards are suited and/or connected would matter much less than the table in Sklansky's "Hold 'em Poker" seems to imply, and the value of your hand would be almost completely dependent on how high both of your cards are (since you will almost never get correct pot-odds to stay in with just a straight or flush draw).
If one were to construct a Hand Groups table representative of 2 or 3 handed games, what would the differences be, and would they be major? For example, I know from a simulation I coded that a pair of twos and AKs are about 50/50 before the flop in a two person game. Does this mean that all of the wired pairs would be at or near the very top of the table, even 22?
Also, all of the books I've read so far seem to deal exclusively with large games. Can someone recommend a book to me that might be more applicable to 2 and 3 person games?
Read the short-handed section of HFAP-21. If there's anything else useful out there, I've never seen it.
Your observation that the relative hand values change is quite correct. You also need to be playing alot of hands. Short-handed hold'em is a very different game.
I'll stop there and see if the experts chime in.
David
You're on the right track.
Keep this up and we'll buying your book!
Short handed - pairs and big cards go way up in value and so does aggression. Of course you must properly evaluate your opponent to be successful.
In the last few months I have found playing poker somewhat boring. I don't play alot of hands(maybe 10% of the hands out of the blinds). In the last few months I haven't been getting many good starting hands and have spent up to three hours folding pre-flop. I started playing in more passive games( on advice corresponding to another post). But still found it difficult to play many hands. Is this just the grind that is good poker ? Are there any suggestions that people can make that can help keep the game interesting? Or is it possible that im just weak-tight?
I certainly hope this doesn't sound like I'm whinning. I just assume that others have gone through this when they first learned to play "tight".
Thank you in advance for all your input BTW-When I play in tournaments or NL, I don't have the same problem.
If you are playing in a passive game you should be able to play a lot more hands than in an aggressive game where pots are getting raised. In a passive game you should be able to play suited connectors, small and medium pocket pairs, and big unsuited cards. It helps to play in a game where they are getting 30-35 hands per hour. You may want to keep track of how many hands are being dealt in an hour. If it is less than 25 hands per hour, that might be why you are getting bored.
x
I think you may be approaching it the wrong way. If "playing right" is a challenge, then you may not be making the "right" decisions for the right reasons.
Are you folding certain hands because a book told you that was the thing to do, or are you folding hands because you KNOW that calling would be unprofitable? If you don't truly believe that certain decisions are unprofitable, then you can't expect to keep making those decisions long term. Why keep doing something over and over if you don't truly believe in the reasons for doing it? That would be insane.
The key to EVERY decision in poker is whether or not you have a reason for believing your move is profitable. So playing "right" or "tight" should not be your goal, which may be why you're getting bored. When you hold KJo and someone up front raises, you KNOW you should fold, but it's exciting to think you might hit two pair on the flop. In fact, you may actually believe that you can play KJo for two bets cold preflop and be a winner long term. In that case you should play the hand. After several dozen (or hundred) such situations, you may change your mind and play differently. But until you fold that hand for reasons that you KNOW yourself, and that you truly believe, then you won't feel good about being "tight" and folding that hand in the right situation.
You should play each hand, each round, make each and every decision based on ONE criterion: If I do X will it be profitable? If that is truly how you evaluate every decision, then folding for two hours in a row (which I do on a regular basis) won't be so agonizing, because you'll be doing a LOT more thinking on each hand.
natedogg
Natedogg thats a good response... also if you are getting bored at the table you should keep in mind that you should constantly be following the action to pick up on how people bet different hands, to watch for tells, to see who is on tilt, to determine how loose/tight/aggressive/passive your opponents are.
Shawn Keller
I muck about as many hands as anyone but never get bored - I spend my time watching the other players. Looking for anyhing that might tell me how they are playing there hands.
Jim is right about the passive games where you can play a few more hands in late positions as you are pretty sure you can see the flop for 1 sb.
I guess I am a people watcher so it helps with the boredom.
This may be total naivety on my behalf, but what do other people think of the idea of only playing "maybe 10% of the hands out of the blinds" ? To me this seems unbelievably tight - unless the games are so aggressive that it is *never* possible to see the flop cheaply.
I am interested in what percentage of flops people see generally. I recall Nolan Dalla writing in Card Player that he saw about 25 percent. Personally I am seeing about 40 percent but this is in very low limit online games.
I thought we aere talking about poker not that on-line rubbish.
"10% our of the blinds."
That threw me at first. Maybe you too. I think he meant "10% of the non-blind hands."
In any case, my way of looking at percentage of hands played is more of a seat by seat thing. My total is about 20%, but I play the button about 50% of the time. I almost never play the small blind and very rarely play the BB if it's raised (estimate: 10%). And in the first few seats I often only look at one card before folding so as not to even be tempted by A-x suited and small pocket pairs. I just take some of that unused money and sling it around from the button, and so far so good!
Tommy
Thank you Tommy, I did mean to say the hands that are dealt to me outide of the blinds. I also play tight up front, folding after seeing just the first card dealt to me in many cases. I have another question. With no knoledge of the other players how would one loosen up in late positon? In what situation would one call a raise with a hand like 10/9s or 66?
"In what situation would one call a raise with a hand like 10/9s or 66?"
(To Target: I'm oh so leary about pretending to be an authority. All I know is what works for me.)
"Late position" comes in two forms. The button, and anything else. I play the button drastically different than any other seat including the cutoff seat. With the hands you mentioned, and anything else for that matter, I will only (merely) call a raise from the button if two or three soft spots are already in for two bets and/or the BB is ultra-stubborn. And I'd surely call with 10-9 and 6-6 in those situations.
With a thinner field, if I'm going to play, I reraise. If a late position aggressive player opens with a raise, I'd reraise both of those hands from the button if I'd been folding a lot of hands lately, especially if I just folded both blinds (as usual). If I'd gone a couple laps without playing, I might reraise here with all hands, sometimes in the dark so as not to get distracted by the cards and lose my nerve.
The reraise puts me in the best possible spot to win the pot without a showdown. That's the main reason I reraise. Second comes free cards. Third comes general intimidation. Fourth comes getting an early read on how well the raiser likes his hand. Fifth comes blasting out the blinds. The bread and butter hands for me are heads-up and three-way pots from the button when I was the last preflop raiser. The reraise creates this situation, a lot.
Quite a value, I think, for four chips.
Tommy
I think that this may only be valid in the tighter games (typically higher limit).
In the looser and weaker games (typically lower limit) this type of play may only lead to your demise.
Is a disclaimer for the type of game required or am I way off base here?
Don't fold without looking at both. You give away that you play very tightly. After all, the other guys are going to play if their second card is suited.
Tommy, every minor, offhand comment you make about position teaches me something. When you actually go into it somewhat (such as your post to target about how to be a big bet player), it's pure gold. Please please please write us a full exposition of the subject based on your experience and how you play in each position.
natedogg
If you are getting 40% playable hands pre-flop (even raised pots), then you are playing way too loose pre-flop.
Well played poker can soemtimes be a very boring game.
Some interesting responses.
1. good point that its more of a seat-by-seat thing and of course you will play more in later position
2. Yep, seeing 40 percent of flops seems mighty loose, but as I said its v low-limit online games I am talking about. In many of the games there is almost never a pre-flop raise.
40% is just too much to be maximizing expectation UNLESS there is something wrong. 25-30 against weak opposition with most of your play with drawing hands out of the last 3 positions may be more appropriate.
Get headphones and listen to music while you are folding your hands.
carlos
If you can, try playing shorthanded, or at least in shorter games than full table. (Like 6 handed.) It'll be correct to play a higher percentage of your hands on account of the blinds coming around more often.
-Sean
I need a little advice on this one. I have trouble when calling stations are behind me. I try to play aggressive at all times, but sometimes it bites me in the ass. I try to raise in late position when I want a free card etc. The other night I was two off the button with two calling stations behind me. I had a decent middle pair top kicker with a flush draw. There are bets in front of me so I raise to try to fold these two guys out and take position. Well no luck, they just call forcing me to play a little less aggressively until my hand hit. It turned out they didn't have anything as usual and I won, but I couldn't punish anybody in front of me because these guys will call with anything. I know this is a low limit problem and you want calling stations in your game, but sometimes it doesn't work to be aggressive and raise to get info because there is no info to be provided by someone who just calls and doesn't raise when they have a decent hand but is not the nuts. The reason I'm whining about this is because I eventually want to move up to higher limits and want to prepare myself for it.
I try and try to raise and be aggressive with my hands, but I never seem to get the correct info from people because they play their hands so erratically anyway. I'm worried that people in the higher limits will fool me by playing like they are a calling station and luring me into deep water before setting the hook. I hope this post makes sense, but its early in the morning so sorry about the ramble.
Any advice will be appreciated.
Regarding calling stations:
Among other reasons, you bet/raise 1) to make others fold or 2) to extract more money from them. If they donīt fold, you only bet/raise for value. Tadaa!
So I am rereading parts of John Feeney's book including the controversial "Do you pass the AQ test" essay. Later in the day, I wind up at the tables playing holdem. I am 2nd UTG and there is a fairly solid player to my right who is UTG and open-raises. I look down and see AQo.
Now Mason has advocated either reraise or fold. Jim Brier has in the past advocated "certain positions" in "certain circumstances" that might (somewhat controversially) differ from Mason's viewpoint. John Feeney's position on this matter is clearly and irrevocably forever permanantly etched in stone thanks to that essay he may have wished he never wrote. I don't know what Rounder's position is, but I'm sure he will be blunt and to the point. Vince will probably go off on some sarcastic tangent that will wind up being the best post in the thread. And Sklansky will probably throw in a one-line Sklanskyism but allow others to elaborate. (Vince will probably also have to comment on Sklansky's Sklanskyism). Rick will make good comments but be too tired to do the math. And some idiot using all caps will probably tell everyone what a bunch of morons they are and how they should all give up poker and play go-fish because he is definitely going to win all the money and there's no point in all you magoos trying to beat him and his stuperior intellect.
I (of course) have this whole thing completely figured out beyond the shadow of a doubt. AND... Since all the possible choices are controversial, I elected to go with the controversial play.
In this case I folded, mostly due to the reasons stated in John Feeney's essay. I thought that AQo was the bottom or second to the bottom of the barrel of hands that I would raise with, so against this player's raise UTG I would probably be either a slight underdog (if he had a pocket pair less than QQ), or a huge underdog (if he had AK, AA, KK or QQ, or a favorite those times when he had AJ, AT, or KQ. I really don't see this player raising UTG without one of these hands, and there are a lot more ways for me to be an underdog than a favorite. So I FOLDED.
However! There are times when I would RERAISE!!!!!!! Against a weak raiser, maniac, or moron who uses all-caps to post on the forum, reraising would be the (albeit controversial) best play.
So as I said, I have it all figured out beyond the shadow of a doubt. The answer is:
It Depends.
Dave in Cali
By the way the raiser won the pot with AK when an ace flopped and his top pair held up. Good read....
Good post, I agree with you completely. Against certain players I will fold AQ if this person raises under the gun. Against many other players I will three bet and against some players I simply call. Although I have to admit that the number of players in the first group, is pretty low. In my game there are not many people who play that solid, however, there are a couple. If you thought this player was such a type of player then you made a good lay down.
Calling is not out of the question. In fact it may be the prefered choice if the game is loose and the UTG raiser could be raising with AJ or TT. If you dont think the reraise will severely limit the field, then calling or folding are the best options.
Calling is totally out of the question because this is purely a re-raise or fold situation.
Definitely re-raise (in order to isolate)if on the maniac scale of 0 to 10, the raiser is at least a 7.
Definitely fold if on this same scale, the raiser is a 5 or less.
If he is a 6, then you will have to put in more factors into consideration (Is he on tilt? Is he overconfident? etc.) in order to determine whether you want to round him up to a 7 or round him down to a 5.
I wouldn't characterize this as a reraise or fold situation just because you can occasionally isolate a notably aggressive raiser.
In most cases when you play AQo against an early open-raise, you'll do so because the raiser will raise with a fair number of hands -- KJs, AJo, 99 -- in addition to AA-TT, AK/AQ. In this case you're faced with 24 hands where you're a big underdog, 18 where you're a slight underdog (and therefore want to play) and 28 hands where you're substantially ahead. But since you'll lose a lot more when you lose I wouldn't 3-bet unless my opponent also liked to limp early with big pairs.
Which is pretty much what I said in the essay. :)
But I'll tell ya, the interesting thing is how people's responses to the "test" were, in some cases, more telling than the test itself. I'll let David elaborate.
This article sparked a big thread on this forum awhile ago when the great Steve Badger was posting here. All the great minds on the forum got their oar in the water on this one. I believe the consensus was that Feeney is basically correct and this hand is a fold against a decent player. To routinely call here is a serious mistake. At the higher limits you start running into decent players more often and you should be frequently folding. At lower limits, where the typical player is a loose, goose calling or re-raising could be right depending upon how loose the player is and whether or not you think you can isolate him by 3 betting. But these would be exceptions not the norm. Under the circumstances discussed in your specific situation with a solid UTG raiser, folding has to be right.
Jim,
You wrote: This article sparked a big thread on this forum awhile ago when the great Steve Badger was posting here. All the great minds on the forum got their oar in the water on this one. I believe the consensus was that Feeney is basically correct and this hand is a fold against a decent player.
If memory serves me (since the deleted Badger archives won't grr) the essence of that thread was a bit different. Badger discussed calling a field from the button or late position with AQ offsuit after a solid player had raised UTG and there were several typical cold callers in between him and the UTG raiser. His argument that the typically weak field and his position would make the call worthwhile even if the average hand of the UTG raiser was stronger than AQ offsuit. I think he also extended the thread to cold calling (or perhaps reraising) from the button when head up with the UTG raiser (i.e., no cold callers), arguing that the probable dead blind money and position made up for the deficiency in hand strength.
I don't think Badger had an argument with folding when you are on the immediate left of a solid UTG raiser and there are players yet to act.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
In those threads (There were some spin offs from the mother of all threads.) Even after I corrected some mischaracterizations about what I had said in the essay, Badger never retracted his statement about the advice being 'terrible' or whatever he called it. And after I restated the observations from the essay very clearly, and David S. even weighed in with his opinion that it was correct, Badger continued to try to argue a contrary position. (Have you ever seen him say, "Gee, I guess I was wrong. You've got a point there." in any debate on the Net?) Come on, Rick, lemme hear you say, "Yeah, Bager was wrong on that one!"
John, I'll say it: Badger was wrong!
Whatever the furor, I knew how I played it here was correct, and before I read your essay I would have probably reraised without question. Now I will evaluate the situation more thoroughly before deciding what the play is.
I still think calling is usually the worst play though, especially if both you and the raiser are early.
Dave in Cali
Though his posts are history, I pretty clearly recall that his overall view was that AQ was a hand you should routinely/usually play against a raise in middle limit games. He saw folding, I think, as quite the exception, perhaps just reserved for play against especially tight early raisers. Well, I dont think I'm splitting hairs to say that the correct view sees folding as more routine than that. Yes, there are plenty of exceptions, but the opp need not be ultra tight and UTG, say. It's really not an unusual fold at all. And I think learning players are better served to think of this fold as the norm against a raise, and THEN to start filling in all the exceptions.
.
I haven't thought about it this way before, but I think example illustrates why I do something that at least some people consider wrong.
I'll raise UTG with AJo pretty close to 100% of the time. I'm just now rationalizing this policy like this: I want to be a person that you can't be sure about how to play AQ against. If you know with 100% certainty that you should raise or fold or call your AQ against my UTG the raise, then you are playing correctly against me. If you don't, then I'm gonna get some extra money somewhow out the situation. Sort of like an optimal bluff situation.
BTW, I don't really expect AJo to make money in and of itself when I raise UTG with it. I hope to break even it with it, but get more calls later with better hands. Maybe you should actually still fold AQ to me, but at least I'll get a few steals in with AJ.
Can anybody talk me out of this?
you may in fact be onto something when it comes to decent players calling your raises, but the majority of the time the players will be so unaware that this is merely an academic excercise and won't make much difference in your bottom line. It might have some effect if you play against decent players fairly often. If I noticed that you ALWAYS raise with AJo UTG, I would be SLIGHTLY more likely to three bet you with AQo.
I wouldn't be so willing to raise with AJo UTG. If you are playing low limit, not only do you have to contend with the occasional player who is better than you [a rare thing I know], but you also have to contend with every other possible hand. Then you add in the preponderance of calling stations, and loose players, and you are losing money. My opinion anyway....
I am in the BB and all fold to the button who raises. I hold QcJd. I might have three bet his possible steal raise but I decided to call and see what the flop brought. This player was fairly aggressive and somewhat loose.
Flop is Jc 3c 8d. I suspect that my opponent will bet here virtually every time if I check, so I decide to go for a check-raise with my top pair, decent kicker. I check, he bets, I raise, he calls.
Turn is 2c. I bet. The reasons for betting here:
1. not wanting to give him a free card if he is drawing to beat me. 2. Semi-bluffing with my third nut flush draw.
He raises me. For some reason, I just don't believe that he has me beat. Even if he does, I very well may still have outs against him, possibly as many as nine clubs, two jacks, and three queens (14 possible outs).
I reraise him.
Reasons for reraising:
1. I do not think he has me beat, therefore I want to charge him extra for his excessive aggressiveness. (This is pretty much what I was thinking at the time and the main reason for my reraise). 2. As a semi-bluff (albeit the chance of his folding is probably pretty slim, so the actual value of this semi-bluff is questionable). 3. it might allow me to win the pot on the river with a bet. It's not really a bluff bet on the river either since I have top pair, but he might fold a better hand some of the time.
Comments welcome.
Rest of hand to follow.
Dave in Cali
Result: he folded to my reraise and I won the pot! I don't know what he had (probably NOTHING).
You probably cost yourself a bet, then. If you called, he would have had to fire again at the river if he had nothing.
And if he has you beat, you might have to invest 3 more bets to find out.
I can't hink of any hand he will fold to a 3-bet that you WANT him to fold. He is likely drawing dead or to a 3-outer and the pot is quite small.
I don't know why you are jamming this pot against a single loose player. I would tend to let him hang himself and just call down.
Fancy play syndrome can be hazardous to the bankroll when the maniac actually has a hand.
I don't like the raise on the turn. If he is bluffing he may just fold now, granted if he does have a higher club youd like to raise but he is more likely to have you beat with hands he will continue with (and thus reraise).
If you just call he may just bet on the river as a bluff, if you reraise and he has a reason to continue he will fold on the river.
I agree with M7. Heads-up play differs greatly from 3 or 4 way action. One opponent can only have a limited number of outs against you. In this exaple, it is either 3 or 8 (if he has the Kc or Ac). There really is very little need to go to war here. Often, the best play is to checkcall the flop and turn and then bet the river.
Pre-flop, I don't believe Queen-Jack offsuit is enough of a hand to 3 bet a potential button steal raise from your big blind. You are still a dog to an Ace or a King along with a lot of other hands he might have. Your flop play is fine. Your 3 betting on the turn I think is over playing your hand. If he has a better hand than you, you are costing yourself money. If he has a worse hand, he doesn't rate to catch up and you may lose your market.
The consensus seems to be that I overplayed it on the turn. In hindsight, you are all probably right and I will consider that in the future, especially against this particular opponent (a regular).
Seat 1, while dragging the pot he won with 45o: Whenever I play good cards, I lose.
Seat 9, a little later: I'm too rich to play yellow chip games.
"Brett, your 40-80 stud seat is open", followed by "Lock it up for Brett." is one of my favorites.
Heheh.
Along the same lines, I ran into an old friend I hadn't seen in years. He lives here now. He said "Whenever I think about the old days, I remember you were always a good loser."
Made my day.
My favorite thing to hear at the table:
"Are you leaving? Dealer, I want that seat..."
This invariably means that I have had a great session and am racking up lots of chips.
Unfortunately, I don't hear this EVERY time I play, but I sure wish I did.
--Mike
If you hold pocket 10's and you're up against A-K, and then the flop comes with no ace or king, how much more of a favorite are you now than before the flop?
Thanks
After the flop without an A or K you are a little less than 1.5 times better than you were pre flop.
The flop is 3 cards the turn and river is 2 cards 3/2=1.5 but he is now drawing from 45 then 44 unknown cards wheras preflop he was drawing to 48,47,46
Hmm..I'm no probability expert but I feel fairly sure that you can't answer this question by simply saying 3 cards versus 2 cards means you are 1.5 times better off. Sounds highly flawed.
Come on experts.
Well you really should say what the flop is, if its rainbow, 2 or 3 flushed, whether you or he has a straight draw are all relevant in figuring who is a favorite and by how much.
You could figure out the probability the T's have more pair(s) than AK (that is we disregard flushes and straights) then P(T's win)= P(no Ak or falls) +P(an A or K falls and a T falls)=
((39)(38)/2) + 12) /((45) (44)/2)=
753/ 990.
About 3-1 favorite for TT, assuming no flush or straight draws for AK.
Of course Joe M and Suspicious are right with the odds on winning the hand But the question was how much better is he now than before the flop. Everybody knows if no AorK but 3 of suit or QJT come that will change things as will ANY 3 cards . I stand by my answer to his question.
If the AK sees it through to the river, you are a 3.1 - 1 favorite (41/47 * 40/46).
Joe's answer is incorrect, he is forgetting when the AK improves and the T's also improve.
How much bigger of a favorite is T's? Well aren't they about 55-45 fav preflop?
But as I stated before this is somewhat of a generalization, and one would prefer to have a specific flop, and the answer I gave was assuming straights and flushes don't count.
I just read a post by Jim Brier where he says that AKo should fold if its 3 bets cold against two tight players.
I am posting this because I have thought about this before, and I also think calling 3 cold could be a mistake.
So lets say a tight-aggressive player (AA-TT,AK,AQ) open raises from early position. Then another tight aggressive player re-raises. For a normal tight-aggressive re-raiser, this second re-raise means AA-JJ,AK/AKs to me. And maybe not JJ or AK.
So the odds are that at least one of the raises is going to have an Ace, which takes one of your outs away. If one has AK then not only do you only have 4 outs, but your drawing for a split pot. The best case scenario would be an early raise with QQ-TT and a re-raise with QQ-JJ. This would be a huge money maker. But the second best scenario would be an early raise with AQ and a re-raise with QQ-JJ. This will still be profitable for AK, but not huge.
Then you get into really bad scenarios. Such as when your dominated or tied. Such as when either of your opponents has AA, KK, or AK.
I agree with Jim here and think AK is a fold against 2 tight players. But if either of these "tight" players relax their raising standards a notch, then AK becomes playable. Such as if one will open-raise with AJ or KQ, and the other one will re-raise with slightly lower hands of TT or AQs. Even in this scenario I think it might be best to err on the cautious side and fold, since a mistake could cost you quite a few bets.
Any thoughts?
On a side note, I think AKs is playable under any conditions.
Now, if somebody raises I will 3 bet with AK because the odds of my opponent having AA or KK is slight, so I either will dominate him (when he has AQ) or I will be about 50/50 with him when he has QQ-TT.
I think AKo is sort of overrated. Fold for 3 bets cold in most situations unless you are against maniacs. Even if you are against a bunch of loose players the hand doesn't play well multiway so I don't think you would be giving up terribly much by mucking.
I play in pretty loose 5-10 and 10-20 holdem games now and then with several people limping most hands. I find these people will play any 2 face cards, any pair, and any suited connector or one-gapper from any position, some will also play A-rag. Pre-flop raises are usually big pairs or AK (some will not even raise AK). However, the players are not terrible and play fairly well from the flop on.
I'm having trouble with offsuit hands like A-10, KQ, KJ, K-10, QJ, Q-10, etc. If only 1 or 2 limpers play, should I raise thinking I have the best hand? If there are 6-7 people in, should I just call and hope to flop a straight or other big hand? Are these hands worth playing in a loose game? I've found that flopping top pair means very little in these games, as a bigger hand is frequently winning. Often there are several draws chasing and getting there. Thanks for the help.
I have been offline for the weekend and was quite frankly stunned at the volume of responses to my "Warning: Student at Work" post from last week. That is certainly the most responses I have seen to one of my posts. It pushed a lot of threads right into the Archives very quickly. I doubt this little questions will have the same effect, although the theme is somewhat the same.
Loose, passive, 3-6 game. You are in SB with Ah-Qh. Five limpers, and BB will defend his blind virtually every time.
Question #1: Do you ever raise with this holding/position into a big field? If so, what percentage of the time?
Question #2: Flop comes down 9c-9d-4c. Do you bet out, or assume the no hand/no draw posture and wait for a bet so you can fold?
Question #3: If you checked, and there was a bet from middle position and a couple of callers, would you peel one off or quietly muck?
Raise every time. Geeeeezzzzze, don't you think you have the "best" hand and are SURE to win this one more than one time in 6?
Bet if I raised. Often bet if I didn't. Consider check-raising a late-position better.
Fold to a bet and a couple callers.
- Louie
#1: Yes 100%. Not raising is a BIG mistake.
#2: Check and see what happens.
#3: Pot odds of forteen to one. (you did raise pre flop did'nt you?) If your top pair excellent kicker is good only half time it appears, its still a clear call.
The thing to remember with AQ/AK and the like is that the worst that can happen to them is that you get a draw to top pair top kicker. So you virtualy always have some interst in the pot after the flop. Most of the other hands don't and will have to give up after seeming the flop. Think about it.
would raise preflop every time.
against a large field, I swear by the motto: when pairs flop, drop. the higher the pair, the greater the chance someone is holding another.
since I would have raised preflop, I'd check and probably call with the backdoor flush potential. without that, I'd check-fold most of the time.
#1=Raise it all the time in any game ! #2=You miss the flop like someone would have miss his bus , wait the next bus . #3=5 limpers , great chances that someone hold a 9, keep your money for better flops
nt
x
I raised out of SB. No-brainer, I felt, as did everyone else who has responded so far. So far we're all on the same page.
Flop was a complete airball. I checked, hoping against hope to get a free look at the turn. I 'missed the bus', as someone said. Everyone checks. Doh!
Turn is a Ten. Now at this point, I am sure the flop has to have hit someone, right? Nope, they all check again. Double Doh!
River is a Jack. Now my hand is certainly dead. All check again, and somebody who had limped in from middle position with 54o takes 'er down. Aiyahh!
Now my Student is sweating my game after getting his head handed to him at the other table. He mutters to me about being a gutless wimp, raised but wouldn't follow through, yada, yada. While a results-driven analyst could make a justification for blasting away at this flop, and maybe the 54o guy would have gone away (yeah, right), I still felt strongly at the time that checking this flop was the right thing to do. I told smarty-pants I'd post this hand and test the opinions of the masses. There was a beer riding on the comments, and from what I've seen so far, he's buying.
I think you played the hand correctly based on the information posted. The only think I would add is showing your hand. Let them know you raised with good cards. Let them know you don't bet when the flop misses. I think it would be great advertising for future bluffs. Better Skill leads to Better Luck. I wish you both!!!
At the river, I didn't think there was a chance in the world my hand was good. But there was a couple of seconds delay before anyone voluntarily turned their hand over. I certainly wasn't trying to slowroll anyone (I hate that practice), but I turned it over, and then the 54 was turned up. Everyone else mucked, so I never did see any of the other hands.
Kinds of makes you wonder what the rest of them were calling on, doesn't it?
I might have missed something somewhere. Weren't you obligated to turn over first?
You're right, Tommy. It was just that it seemed like so long since anyone had bet on the hand, that I forgot who had initiated the last action.
Interesting! Are you saying that the rule where you play is "last action" turns over first even if one or more streets are checked? I've never seen that before at limit.
Tommy
That's usually how it goes, I think. Most often, though, there has been some sort of action on the river, and of course the last bettor or raiser is obligated to turn over first. Once in a while, the turn and/or river gets checked, and the remaining players get into a staredown at the showdown, with no one wanting to turn over their cheese first. In that case, the dealer will go back to the last player who bet. Is it normally the practice that when the river is checked, the showdown goes from the earliest position still left in the hand?
It's the same rule in Vancouver... last person to bet has to show first.
To your last question, yes. Everywhere I've played in California, Nevada, Atlantic City and riverboats, if the river is checked, the worst position shows first and the last position shows last. Of course oftentimes people show out of turn, usually as a courtesy when they think they have the winner. But when a staredown battle ensues with rule-sticklers involved, it goes as above.
The only exception I've seen is in the local no-limit games. Let's say one player raises and the button comes over the top and the initial raiser calls and someone is all-in. Even if more cards are to come, the final raiser is obligated to show first if there's a dispute. I think this is a fair exception because of the nature of no-limit.
Tommy
I like your rule better for no-limit and pot-limt, but usually see it the other way in practice. I hate it when some guy raises me all-in on the turn, I call, and then have to show my hand first in he river when the everything card gets there.
1: Tough decision. It would depend on the limpers. The problem will be that when I raise preflop, I want to be able to bet out practically regardless of what the flop is. In this case, out of position, I may not want/be able to do it. Still, I probably go for it, but while doing so, I fear in the back of my mind that it is fishy play and hope no one from 2+2 is watching me. 2+3: Check and fold. Even a loose game someone will have a pair already here so you are drawing to (at best) 6 outs, if you are lucky and no one has a 9. This relates to the comments in 1 (out of position, very difficult to lead the betting, especially given that any observant player will realize that at most you have an overpair and may choose to raise you, representing trips, at which point, you have a very difficult call)
David "Do as I say, not as I do" Ottosen
I would never raise that hand before the flop in that game in that situation. Betting first bites.
Tommy
1. Raise approximately 1000% of the time.
2. Usually bet for the purpose of increasing my chance of winning the pot. This is a scary board to check-raise multiway and I don't want to lash anyone to the mast. If I can expect to see 5 faces on the turn no matter what I'll probably check.
3. For 17-1 from the pot? I don't like my chances much but I'd wait for the turn to fold.
To all,
I never imagined I'd be the odd man out on a pre-flop decision on 2+2. I'm the only one (so far)who would never raise with this hand in this spot, and everyone else says for sure they would raise.
So just now I called two other full-time pros and read them the initial post and asked what they'd do. They both were unhesitant and emphatic. They would never raise.
I'm certainly not claiming there is an absolute right or wrong. I'm just fascinated by the firmness on both sides, and that we play a game in which serious students can disagree so strongly on a fundamental situation.
Mason? I'd love to hear where you place this decision. Is it a close call, one that doesn't matter much which way we go? Or do you think that raising is by far the better choice? Thanks.
Tommy
What are the reasons for not raising with what is probably the best hand?
You are going to like the flop about 40% of the time. You have 6 opponents (maybe it was 5 but it doesn't matter). I don't see how you cannot raise here but I am eager to hear your rationale.
Doubtful my rationale will pass 2+2 scrutiny, but here goes.
First, my primary goal behind every preflop raise with a non-group-one hand is not to get money in with the best hand, or to build a pot for when I flop a set or make a big draw, but to put myself in the best possible situation to win the hand without a showdown. That doesn't mean I always or usually bluff after raising and missing. It just means that by playing (or earning) the button, and always coming in with a raise or reraise, they are reacting to me, so I get the best reads, and if they miss the flop or I sense that they are in the "I must improve or fold" mindset, I win chunks of chips.
Second, I think of a poker round as starting with the button and being pretty much over by two hands later. When I raise from the button, they don't know where I'm at. When I raise from the blind, they know TONS more about my hand than I do about theirs. By not raising from blind with AQs into a large, loose field, I retain the benefits of their uncertainty.
Third and most important. Being under the gun in a limping-multi-way field literally turns my stomach. My flag goes way up. It says, "this is not a good thing." So in general I either fold, or take a look at the flop for cheap with group two hands.
Further, if it could somehow be proven beyond doubt that not raising costs me immediate +EV, I suspect the loss would be slight compared to the later +EV I gain by reinforcing a steady yet unpredictable image. But there's no way to know.
But ya know what? The next few times this comes up, I'm gonna pop it, because of this thread. Who wants to go come-come?
Tommy
"The next few times this comes up, I'm gonna pop it, because of this thread. "
Good luck. Just remember that when you do this you are going against the way you believe the hand should be played. The reasons given here must make sense to you and you must have confidence that the play will work. If you make the move and it is unsuccessful the first few times you make it you will revert back to they way you have always played before trying this.
To play situational poker correctly one must rely on their own good judgement. If playing this type of hand out of the SB in a loose game is not to your liking and if the reasons given are not strong enough to change your beliefs don't change. It will hurt your game more than help it.
Vince
While I agree with you, I'm forced to recall that many things I do now I initially did because they were suggested, even though they went again "my own good judgement" at the time.
Tommy
"I'm forced to recall that many things I do now I initially did because they were suggested, even though they went again "my own good judgement" at the time."
Tommy,
If this is true and I have no reason to think otherwise, disregard my advice in my previous post. I am just the opposite. I do not try "suggestions" unless I think about them and can logically justify in my mind the reasons behind the change or play.
Vince
But Vince, don't you ever change a behavior because you have faith in the source? If you take a golf lesson and the teacher says, "do this," you do it, right? You don't necessarily have to understand exactly why the change might improve your game, do you?
Same with me and poker. If I trust the source, I'll experiment with their advice. Sure, I'll think it through as I go and hope for understanding. But an initial lack of understanding didn't keep me from, say, using the S&M hand rankings LONG before I understood why they work.
If we have a differing view on this, I suspect it is slight.
Tommy
"But Vince, don't you ever change a behavior because you have faith in the source? "
No.
I first began playing Casino poker in 1993 at the Taj Mahal in A.C. I played 1-5 Seven Card Stud. I was a a small winner for a while. I met my buddy "Dangerous Dan" during the first few months I played there. I respected his play very much when I first met him. He gave me Seven Stud for Advanced Players to read recommending I follow the advice in the book. I did not take his advice nor Sklansky's and Malmuth's without thoroughly going over each concept in my mind and trying to determine if the advice was correct and if I should follow it. The only time that one should blindly take advice from even the most respected source is when they find themselves confused in a panic situation. Otherwise challenging anyone and everyone is the best way to advance.
Vince
In the loose game section of HPFAP-21 we have a discussion of why a hand like this goes up in value in this type of situation and why you should raise with it.
Mason,
Make it AQo instead of AQs, holding all other factors equal. What is your answer in this scenario?
-Anon
basically when i read the initial post i thought it was probably a toss up depending on game conditions.
i think the 2+2 attitude with this pot building raise is very similiar to raising with a small pair to tie players on.
so if you flop a monster draw, like T 9 2 , Q 9 2 with 2 hearts, id think youd bet out (because youd want everyone to call), but if the flop was like A 9 2 rainbow i think youd be more inclined to check raise to narrow the field.
brad
p.s. personally, i think that to be consistent with this strategy, youd have to check and fold to the posters flop of 99x.
i also think the principle would be more starkly illustrated by Ax suited, and also (obviously) indicate check folding a missed flop.
Tommy what makes it a raising hand here is the suited aspect of it as well as the high card strength coupled with having many opponents who have shown no strength but merely limped in. Make it AQ offsuit and I would call and not raise in this situation against this many opponents. However, reduce the number of opponents to one or two limpers and I would raise with AQ offsuit in the small blind because I have the best playing hand and I want to drive out the big blind.
Interesting. For you, the suitedness is enough to tip the scales. For me, the bad position has the same scale-tipping effect.
Just so you know, if there had been only one or two limpers and a BB player that might fold, I'd raise for sure. Heck, even in the original scenario, having a BB player that might fold to a raise might be enough to tip my scales in favor of raising. All this scale talk is what made me think that this might be a nearly 50-50 choice, the kind that David and Mason say don't matter much.
Tommy
In a full tabled limit hold'em game with lots of players and a jammed pot position as well as deception means very little. It will take the best hand to win and it is important to pound the pot at any stage when you feel you have the best playing hand under the circumstances. When you have AQ suited against a field of limpers you should raise regardless of your position. Pre-flop, it makes little difference whether you are in the small blind or on the button. One can construct a theorectical argument that says that having the better position may increase your chances of winning the pot downstream by being able to raise someone else's bet thereby driving out a hand that could have beaten yours but I remain unconvinced that from a practical standpoint this would be true. In the meantime you are giving up a lot of pre-flop equity by failing to raise with a premium playing hand like this.
Wow, great post, Jim.
Perhaps my stubbornness results from the specific nature of the games I play in, rather than really thinking about a lose 3-6 game.
Even when a 20-40 or 40-80 game around here is all revved up, I'm not convinced that the following quote from you is true:
"In a full tabled limit hold'em game with lots of players and a jammed pot, position as well as deception means very little."
I'll grant you deception, but not position. My fear about hands like AQ from the blind in a five-limper pot is that I WILL lay down the best hand, especially if I double the size of the pot before the flop by raising, thereby giving extra incentive for, say, A-10 to raise me on the turn (this is presuming an ace flopped), and for the next player with a pair and a good straight or flush draw to REraise the turn. Now I muck the best hand. I simply got outplayed. If I were on the button, I'd have likely postured heavily enough already to not be faced with two-cold bets on the turn when I have the best hand with top pair.
Perhaps it's the fear of getting bushwacked that keeps me timid up front. At least I make up for when I'm in back. :-) In any case, good food for thought.
Tommy
"when you feel you have the best playing hand under the circumstances. "
I'm wondering how many caught this little gem of a remark. The distinction between the "best hand" and "best playing hand" is of primary importance when "Playing" poker.
Vince
I disagree about it not mattering much. According to TTH not raising here costs you a full Small Bet. That is huge. Against 6 opponents, AQs is going to win 26% in a showdown (TTH says 30% in simulated play). That is a HUGE overlay when your getting 6-1 odds on a raise. Not to mention when you do flop your nut flush draw with at least one overcard, your going to get tons of action because the pot is so big. Imagine how much profit your going to rack up capping this draw on the flop.
The only bad thing about this hand is that when you do hit your top pair, your giving everybody odds to draw, which reduces some of your EV.
Joe
The fact that you are suited and the straight potential combined with the high card strength gives you implied odds from weak limpers, especially if they are offsuited. You have a drawing hand here in addition to high card strength so you don't mind getting more $$ into the pot. it gives you more of a reason to chase if you flop a draw. Plus you more than likely have the best hand, another reason to get more $$ into the pot. Unsuited I would never raise against that many limpers from either blind.
I've thought about this one a lot for the past couple of days, and I agree with Tommy. I don't think this is an automatic raise.
I would raise if there were only one or two limpers, but with five? I don't think so. You're not going to lose anyone, and we all know who is going to win: Whoever hits the flop, of course. So why waste an extra bet when you don't know what's coming. Plus, you could face a reraise BTF from a sandbagger.
You say this is the best hand? Well, maybe and maybe not. Lots of players limp with small and medium pairs, so I think it's likely you are not the best. This hand is only a monster if you hit it.
I would definitely raise with AA, KK, QQ, and sometimes JJ. If I felt the conditions were right, maybe AKs or AQs, but very rarely. I'm glad to have this hand in this postition, but I would just as soon see the flop for two chips and get off it if I miss.
And they say I'm overly aggressive. I must be getting old.
I thought about the pocket pairs too. 3 Bet Brett wrote about this hand winning 26% of all showdowns against five opponents on TTH. Are those five random-hand opponents? Or is the assumption that they have hands in the top half of all hands.
I'd think it's likely to be up against at least one pocket pair over half the time, given that one out of 13 hands is a pocket pair, and these people did willfully put chips in the pot.
A mute point though, in this fiber of this thread, since I must confess that I missed the dandy wording that Vince pointed out in Jim's post, about "best playing hand."
Tommy
I too would not even think of raiseing in this postion. I say "too" because I just read Tommys post. This happens to me all the time in 6-12, and 9-18. I have the worst position and I have nothing, why pot build. I'd rather see a flop If I don't hit I don't worry about it and go on to the next hand and no one knows. Whereas if I hit no one expects and I make more $$. Hell last week I made extra bets up to about 15 doin this.
Hi All,
Hopefully this is the correct section for this type of question.
Any advice on where to find Hold'em tables in Reno? I'd be looking for low-limit tables up to 6-12.
Thanks,
Marc
In order of preference:
Reno Hilton
Peppermill
Nugget
El Dorado
Good Luck.
Also, the Cal-Neva has low limit hold-em on third floor (and a good gambling book store in the old Virginian Hotel lobby where I bought my first 2-plus-2 books).
minnow...looking for a whale!
What is a limper?
Thanks!!!
2 definations - a man in dire need of viagra and someone who just "calls" the blind preflop.
I'd say a limper is someone who is just calling hoping for a draw.
Where there is a good card showing and a person should either bet or fold, he calls hopeing to get a free card.
In Hold'em vernacular, "limping" refers to the pre-flop round of betting where a player merely calls the blind bet as opposed to folding or raising. A "limper" is a player who "limps" or "limps in" pre-flop. Once the flop comes the term no longer applies. A player is either checking, betting, calling, raising, or folding.
Sorry if this has been posted before. Just wanted everyone's opinion on this one, as I disagree with his answer:
You are dealt pocket Aces under the gun in limit hold-em and bring it in for a raise. A solid player raises again and another solid player puts in the 3rd raise. There is one raise left and you decide to cap it, and everyone calls. The flop comes King- Queen Five of different suits. You decide to bet and get raised by both opponents. What is your play?
Call
Fold
Raise Tom's answer to follow
Your Answer: Call Correct Answer: Fold. It is almost a cinch one of your solid opponents has flopped a set. All you can beat is Ace-King and it is highly un- likely that they are both holding that.
I like the call to see what develops. I don't think that two big slicks is too rare to rule out.
I've played a lot of poker with McEvoy. I guarantee that he would never lay a hand down in this spot.
You have to think about why if someone had flopped a set they don't wait until the turn to raise. Many players would do exactly that. So while you're not too happy with the flop or the action, the pot combined with the fact that you have two aces means you are usually there until the end. (The action, and this includes the cards that hit, on fourth street or the river may convince you to fold.)
In a good field with "thinking" players isn't it a good play to bet the flop with a big set - considering they would expect you to slow play it - confusing the opponent would be my mission here.
If the players were indeed solid and currently rational, I would fold too. I can't see a "solid" player making it a third raise without at least QQ (also considering how the flop action went). Its impossible for them to have AA and AK (at the same time), and would they behave that way with JJ? So all your hopes rest upon AK for both of em? Not only are you probably drawing to two outs, one or both might be blocked. While many players do wait for the turn to raise with a set, with this much money in the pot, many players would just blast away, expecting (and rightly so) that they will get plenty of action anyway.
And believe me I hate to fold.
I took that quiz and even got the simplistic no-limit questions correct (I never play no limit). His hold'em limit knowledge is suspect, although I think it may be correct here.
What about king-queen. Couldn't one of your opponents have that hand, and if that was the case would you want to fold two aces against KQ?
I would not normally consider someone who three or four bet an UTG raiser (or three bet and subsequently called the reraises) with KQ (suited or not) to be solid. Personally I would not call a tight UTG raise with KQ even from the blind.
Perhaps this is a mistake of misreading the type of player he meant. Against typical opponents I would be much less likely fold (but still might), although even typical opponents flop sets.
If I'm wrong, I post my blind for the next hand and move on.
Do you strongly disagree? Should I think this through more?
This is a very difficult situation, no question about it. McEvoy is trying to use poker sense to evaluate the situation. That is, one looks at his hand and how things have developed and thinks "Why I must be beat" and makes a "good lay down". There is no such thing as a good lay down only correct laydowns. When you find yourself in this situation you will always be in some doubt about what your opponents actually have. One of the worst things that can happen in these situations is that you fold on the flop and then another opponent folds on the turn. Or one player raises the flop with A,J to get a free card and he gets rerasies by an A,K and you fold and the A,K wins the pot.
Now I know that these are unlikely scenarios but there are a number of other scenarios that come to mind that fit this situation such as an A,K and K,Q out there which still warrant a call with A,A. Unless you know that one of these opponents will not raise with less than a set then calling the flop is IMO the only play.
Vince
Why is it good to call with AA if your opponent has two pair? This doesn't make any sense to me. You will be paying a lot of bets, ESPECIALLY in the above scenariou where you are squeezed between two raisers. A running pair is not highly likely. You've got 5 outs basically and you pick up another 3 outs on the turn, giving you 8 outs. I don't like it.
Against two players I can't imagine how this would be a good play since their collective outs to improve diminish your chances to win once you make the hand. If I'm holding AA, and my two opponents hold KQo and J9s with a flop of KQ2, I'm OUT of there.
Even a less drastic scenario, say the flop is T87 and my opponents hold A6s (for a back door flush and a gut shot) and T7. I'm STILL not going to put money in that pot with ANY overpair.
natedogg
Natedogg,
See my answer to Sklansky below.
Vince.
BTW - The scenarios you mention are unlikely in a capped preflop pot as described here.
Why bet the flop?
Why not?
Vince
O.K. That doesn't answer the question. But you must remember I answered the questio from the original poster that had the A,A bet and get raised and reraised. So my answer to that question still stands.
Now David asks :"Why bet the flop?"
1) Gain information.
2) Do not give a free card.
3) Get more money in the pot with the best hand
4) Win the pot right there.
5) Induce a raise by the second player to try and limit the field
Are these reasons enough given the action taken preflop to bet out on the flop?
There are a little more than 6 1/2 big bets in the pot at this point. When first to act in a pot this big, against exactly 2 opponents, betting with Aces is probably correct and even more so if the second player is aggressive. If the third player is the aggressive one then an argument could be made for checking but I tend to think that the A,A position is so terrible that the positives associated with betting out weigh any checking considerations.
Natedog questioned whether calling here against 2 pair is correct.
Let's say that you give yourself 5 outs and you have to call 1 more big bet then you have a pot of 9 1/2 big bets when it comes to you. More than enout with implied odds to call. If you pick up 3 mor outs on the turn you then have 8 outs in a 11 big bet pot before any betting. On the turn you correctly call a single bet to you.
Vince
I'd bet the flop too, for all of Vince's reasons, and in this scenerio I'd bet mainly to attempt to figure out if anyone flopped a set.
I think this quiz question, like many, has no correct answer. Against some players I could safely lay down on the flop. Against others, I wouldn't be convinced I was beat unless I bet out on the turn and got raised twice again.
One thing I appreciate about David when he writes in quiz format is that he carefully devises scenarios that contain the minimum amount of "it depends."
Tommy
"Against some players I could safely lay down on the flop. Against others, I wouldn't be convinced I was beat unless I bet out on the turn and got raised twice again."
There is also another thing to consider here which no one has mentioned and is very important. It is even though you might be beat by a set, an ace may still come. Given the size of the pot this is not insignificant.
I may not have mentioned it but I certainly considered it in my answer.
Vince
Good point, Mason. I thought of that too and then thought, hmmm, and ace makes a straight for J-10, and if these are spunky players, one of them could certainly hold that hand. But I'd still like my chances if an ace peeled off. Seeing the turn for four small bets and then mucking to two-cold on the turn (if an ace does not hit the turn) looks like a viable plan.
Tommy
You are getting 17:2 at that moment. I will assume that it will cost you another six small bets to show your hand down and that your opponents will put in another 16 combined small bets from here on. This means that your effective odds are about 3:1. Your decision of whether or not to continue with your hand thus comes roughly down to whether you think you have a 1 in 4 chance of holding the best hand (and it holding up) or improving to the best hand. If you think that that it will cost you another six small bets but that neither opponent will realese his hand, your effective odds are 3.75:1, so you'd need more like a 1 in 5 chance.
(I think raising is out of the question.)
P.S. I apologize if this message was posted in duplicate.
You cannot lay this hand down against overly-aggressive types who think any 2 big cards is a good hand against a tight UTG raiser.
Capping pre-flop and betting the flop is TELLING the opponents you have the real-goods. This makes sense only if they will react normally and only raise when you are SURE to be beat. Soooooo, if 5-betting and then betting out is correct so is laying it down; so long as they are SURE to have solid hands out of respect for the UTG raiser.
When against reasonably aggressive folk ESPECIALLY those who think you may lay down Aces, you are better off letting them take the lead, flat call B4 flop (he-he-he) but then checking-and-calling this hand to the show-down (oh-oh-oh).
- Louie
In a game that is somewhat aggressive, I've been folding this hand UTG. The players will raise in midposition with a pair 88 or better, big aces AT or better, or even any two suited broadway cards. So that means that about half the time there'll be a raise, and about half the time there's a raise, my KQo is in bad shape, losing to a big A if not AK or even getting free-rolled by KQs.
They are bad players, and raise too much with borderline hands like Q9s but nonetheless, they raise. I don't like coming in with a hand like this, partially because it'll cost me two bets to see the flop and partially because it's a hand that's pretty easily dominated. When I started playing I ranked KQ as a great starting hand and now I see it as a big-time trouble hand that can trap you and is not worth playing in early position. My results have not been too great with it up front. From around back its different of course.
Position and number of limpers have everything to do with it when I play a hand like ATo, KQo, or KJs and the like. If I'm in one of the last three positions and there's one or no limpers, I'll open-raise with it. I want to get rid of the blinds if possible and I'm assuming the limper has a hand like Axs or QTo, or a speculative hand like 87s, so I raise. If there are several limpers and I'm not on the button, I'll muck KJo and ATo for sure. K-big suited and A-medium suited I'll limp with the rest but I really prefer to limp with JTs and T9s or a middle pair.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure that in a moderately aggressive game, you should dump KQo UTG. Anybody?
natedogg
I agree with mucking KQo UTG. It is a trap hand. But in late position I will limp with ATo and also KJo after several limpers (if only one limper I play them like you do and raise them). I'm not sure if limping in with these hands with good position after several limpers is the right play or if these hands should be mucked like you do. My experience has shown that these hands can be profitable from late position after several limpers, but I haven't kept records for this.
My thoughts about ATo, after several limpers, is that there is a good chance that you have the best Ace and obviously the best Ten if the flop is Ten high, so I enter the pot because I think my hand is strong enough to see the flop. Also there is a chance to make a straight with both of these hands (ATo and KJo), so I play them in late position after several limpers. Any thoughts from anyone?
If there is a lot of limpers 4 or more i muck, if there is only 1 or 2 i call or raise.
I have found that A10 or KJ tends to get dominated with a lot of callers in even if there has been no raise.
"But in late position I will limp with ATo and also KJo after several limpers (if only one limper I play them like you do and raise them)."
You need to take into account how well the limpers play, particularly the first one in. If you are looking at a tough player in early I would strongly consider folding these hands -- particularly the KJo. Also, if the first one in is someone who likes to limp with very strong hands you should again consider folding.
On the other hand, if these are players who will come with many hands, then you do want to call.
Actually Mason, I have played these hands EXACTLY how you describe. My limping in preflop is dependant on the opponents that have limped in, just as you mention. It feels good to know that at least one aspect of my game is correct (and since my logic is on par with your's then I might really have something going for me).
I agree that you should know the playing standards of the limpers, and if it is a tough player throw these rags away and wait for the fish to just limp in and play them.
I think you are giving up too much by always folding this UTG. True you have to play well after the flop but I think you are up to it based on your posts. At least if you flop your K or Q you don't get 2 pair against you very often. Judge how good your pair is by the heat of the raiser. If nobody raised you are probably best if no A hits. If you flop 2 pair just be aware that the 3rd broadway card will probably make the straight for someone in the games you describe. In my typical game I like it better than AJo. Even without a raise some pain in the butt hits his A4 2nd pair to bet you.
I think you are giving up too much by always folding this UTG. True you have to play well after the flop but I think you are up to it based on your posts. At least if you flop your K or Q you don't get 2 pair against you very often. Judge how good your pair is by the heat of the raiser. If nobody raised you are probably best if no A hits. If you flop 2 pair just be aware that the 3rd broadway card will probably make the straight for someone in the games you describe. In my typical game I like it better than AJo. Even without a raise some pain in the butt hits his A4 2nd pair to bet you.
sorry
Funny you should mention that specific hand. An annual recap of one aspect of my life goes something like this:
(Assuming the "somewhat aggressive" game you described, and assuming mid-limit.)
1)1991, stopped playing Q-10 UTG 2)1993, stopped playing Q-J UTG 3)1996, stopped playing K-J UTG 4)1997, stopped playing K-Q and A-10 UTG
I'm still a sucker for A-J. But then, I'm not dead yet. :-)
Tommy
Yeah its funny that you say that Tommy because I routinely fold KQ UTG in a 10 handed game (thats aggressive) but I'm still partial to AJo... perhaps they have clinics for people like us who are addicted to playing AJo utg (although intuitively the results seem positive).
Shawn Keller
Wow! I feel lucky. It only took me two years to stop playing KQ UTG.
However, I normally don't play AJo either unless the game is so tight I think there's a reasonable chance for me to steal the blinds with it. I HAVE played in games where that's valid.
I think AJ is probably at or near the cutoff point with this issue. People seem fairly in agreement about KQo UTG but I bet we'd have a lively discussion over AJo. Limp raise or fold? I normally fold.
natedogg
Well, I like to think I would have figured it out sooner, except that in the house games back home where I played for years, KQ UTG was probably a good hand to go with. Those games were squeezably soft.
I agree that AJ is the cutoff. This implies that it doesn't much matter either way what we do with it. I love that concept from S&M. And I really like knowing some various cutoffs and use them to vary my play with no risk. Plus, we can look toward other paremeters and info to tip the scales, meaning, idealistically, that we play the AJ when it rates to be a slight +EV and muck it when it's a slight -EV.
Tommy
I usually play it in the type of game that you describe, but it is a marginal hand and if it is wrong to fold, it isn't wrong by much. By the way, in these games you should probably fold AJo and KTs up front. At least give them a higher folding priority than KQo.
n/t
I would rather have Ace-Jack offsuit as opposed to King-Queen offsuit. In those cases where no one makes anything, especially in an unraised pot, an Ace-high with a Jack kicker will usually get the cheese. King-high hardly ever will.
But in a loose game where you have to hit top pair, KQ is better. For one, if you get a K or a Q then you only have to worry about one overcard coming or somebody having AA. If you flop J high with AJ, then you have to worry about two overcards coming plus somebody having KK or QQ.
Also, if you hit top pair with KQ you always have second best kicker. If you hit an Ace with AJ you have 3rd best kicker.
KQ also makes a better straight draw.
In a loose game where you have to improve to win I would rather have KQ.
Sure, those are good reasons why you'd like to have KQ or AJ in a loose passive game with lots of people seeing the flop but I don't think either hand, AJ or KQ , is worth limping UTG in a moderately aggressive game.
natedogg
"Limping?"
Yeech!
Let us take your arguments one at a time and then I will add some others:
"But in a loose game where you have top pair, KQ is better. For one, if you get a K or a Q then you have only to worry about one overcard coming or somebody having AA. If you flop J high with AJ, then you have to worry about two overcards coming plus somebody having KK or QQ."
But if an Ace flops you don't have to worry about any overcards. Furthermore, when you flop a Jack-high board with AJ you will betting and raising and someone with just a King or a Queen is unlikely to hang around. If someone has KK or QQ they would have probably raised pre-flop and you would not be in the hand to begin with in many cases.
"Also, if you hit top pair with KQ you always have second best kicker. You you hit an Ace with AJ you have the 3rd best kicker"
But someone with AK or AQ would have raised before the flop and in many cases you would not be in the hand. If you were, you are unlikely to get burned because you will recognize that a guy raising behind you will frequent have a big Ace and you can get away from the hand earlier. In an unraised pot, your Jack-kicker will usually be boss among any other Aces you are up against.
"KQ also makes a better straight draw."
With both cards working, KQ can make an extra straight that AJ cannot make, namely a King-high straight. The probability of making a King-high straight when you start with KQ and assuming you take all five boardcards is about 3.4%. Since many of the cases involve runner-runner and gutshots, from a practical playing perspective, I think it is worth less than 2%.
Suppose you are in any game, loose or tight. You are in middle position or late position and everyone folds to you. Which hand is better-AJ or KQ? I believe AJ is far superior and I will open with a raise every time.
Bottom line is that when viewed across the full spectrum of outcomes in a full tabled limit hold'em game, AJ offsuit will make more money than KQ offsuit because the situations where AJ offsuit is superior come up more frequently. When a situation arises where KQ offsuit might be superior, it is only superior by a very small amount.
why is KQ better in games where either would be marginal? in loose games where people play weak aces in limped pots, i am almost certain AJ is better. however, since i limp with both in those games, it doesnt matter at all which is, in truth, better. in tighter or more aggressive games they seem to be very close in value but i'd rather have the A in case i get to a showdown unimproved or if 4 of my suit come or two pair on board etc. it's just while both hands are sometimes dominated and have suspect top pair value, all the tie breakers, so to speak, go to the AJ.
i know it is super unimportant which hand is better here. but, if KQ is better, i am missing the reason and that displeases me.
scott
No brainer. Dump it.
Before reading the other responses:
I think you are onto something here. I also feel KQo is a borderline hand early, same as AJo, except I'd rather have AJo. If you raise with KQo UTG, you will likely get played with or reraised by better hands. And if you limp, you are allowing the blinds a possible free play and allowing drawing hands that are getting implied odds from you to get in cheap. I will SOMETIMES muck KQo or AJo UTG or 2nd UTG. The more aggressive the game, the more likely I am to muck, especially if a decent player is the aggressive one. I think both hands are a clear fold to a raise from anyone less than a maniac.
Dave in Cali
I definitely prefer AJ to KQ anywhere anytime, mostly for the reasons Jim gave about winning heads-up pots with ace-high, but mainly just because I have an ace. I find ace-hands to be the easiest to play which is especially handy UTG. Plus, it's one less ace for them to have (a mild variation on the benefits of having, say, A-2-2-2 in HL-Ohama.
Tommy
A little while ago there was a large discussion about whether it is best to raise with 99 on the button after several players have limped in. One argument was that after many people have limped in a raise gives you an immediate +EV, since it is only 7.5 to 1 against you flopping a set. Another argument was made that the hand may have an overall higher EV by not raising preflop. This was the argument made by Mason Malmuth and John Feeny (at least this is how I understood it).
Everybody aggreed that the worse your postflop play the more correct the preflop raise is, but Mason and John argued that it is likely that a higher EV can be achieved post flop by not raising preflop. One of the examples of this is when the 99 is an overpair to the flop, you are giving your opponents a better chance of making a mistake by keeping the pot small. Another example was when an overcard flops, it may be easier to play the 99 (or any middle pair I guess) by having not raised preflop. Of course, both of these examples directly relates to your post flop playing abilities.
Ok, now that I have set this up, I have another thought that I would like opinions on. If you are in the type of game where your oponents will routinely check to the raiser on the flop in this type of situation (when there is an overcard to the middle pair you hold, specifically 99) you can an extra card to use to try and make a set. I think this is important. In a large mulit-way flop (say 7 or 8 people see the flop), if there is an overcard to your pair (say a King on the flop) chances are good someone has one. So if they check to you and you check then you have increased your chances of winning the pot (4.2% chance of making a set if you didn't make one on the flop).
Here are some calculations. I calculate the probability of flopping a set or better (a set or quads) is 11.755% (odds of 7.51 to 1). The chances of making quads on the flop of being 0.245%. So you have an 11.51% chance of flopping exactly a set on the flop (odds of 7.69 to 1).
But, if you have 4 cards to use these are the numbers I get (the case where all of your oppenents check to you and you also check). The probability of making a set or better increases from 11.8% (7.5 to 1 against) to 15.5% (5.45 to 1 against).
When this increased chance of improvement is taken into account (based on your opponents checking to you on the flop on almost all flops) then is this enough to change anyone's mind about not raising preflop to raising preflop?
(I hope this makes sense and isn't too jumbled)
Mark Dodd
...as I mentioned a number of times in that thread, I was not arguing that 99 would achieve a higher EV by not raising in that spot. I was just trying to clarify the argument for not raising, whether or not it applied in this case. In fact, I talked more of JJ and QQ in the big blind after 8 limpers. The case for 99 on the button may be a bit closer.
Now, your point about getting a free card if they will likely check to the raiser is a good one. But there is also the counter argument that then you have an overpair on the flop, then if you didn't raise someone will more likely bet INTO you, allowing you to raise and knock people out. Obviously, you'd like that bettor to be just to your right, to have the best chance of making this work. If someone wants to look at the math, they might be able to offer a little insight with regard to how the free card point and this point might be weighted.
John F,
A basic idea is that whenever you have people already in, you can profitably raise whenever you win more than you "fair share" against that number of opponents. If you are facing 6 limpers and you hold a hand that will, let's say, on average win 20% (4-1) of the time, said raise is therefore immediately profitable and correct. This argument does not necessarily take into consideration the complicated questions of post flop fundamental theory.
Most of the theorists arguing this idea are normally from the TTH (or other) simulator camp. This of course brings into question the validity of the software and a whole host of experiment related parameters et cetera.
In general, are you questioning the validity of the above argument? (Apologies if you have covered this in that mega thread).
Additionally, there are post flop fundamental theory considerations in your favor after the flop. For example, you may now be able to correctly chase a hand that may be beaten on the flop (2 outer for the set, gutshot straight, drawing to four outs on a paired board and apparent made flush on the turn...). This is not including the obvious pot-tied considerations. This idea was too quickly dismissed when brought up in the other thread.
Do you believe these considerations, along with the "check to the raiser" idea that was brought out above, are sufficient to make a case for raising?
As far as the math is concerned, as you have pointed out, the assumptions are what sway it.
"...idea is that...you can profitably raise whenever you win more than you "fair share" against that number of opponents... This argument does not necessarily take into consideration the complicated questions of post flop fundamental theory... In general, are you questioning the validity of the above argument?"
Yes. I'm not saying that it's wrong, but I am questioning it. As I have most often seen it used, "fair share" refers to the percentage of times a hand wins the pot. (or the percentage of the preflop pot that it wins, I think) Now, a hand may win more that it's fair share of times when played for a raise preflop. Does that necessarily mean that it will not win more often, and perhaps for more total EV, if one does not raise? And that final question about total EV is really what counts, no? As you point out, fair share does not take into account the effects of scores of postflop variables.
For some past debate of this concept see a thread in the archives (Texas Holdem - General) which included this post by small caps scott:
Re: random hands??? posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu) Posted on: Wednesday, 26 January 2000, at 5:02 p.m.
Unfortunately, they were apparently talking about showdown simulations using random hands, not TTH. Clearly, the concept would be more meaningful when derived from a simulator which simulates poker play very realistically. So that leaves some open question regarding TTH. I mean, if we knew that TTH simulated poker extremely well - even just a baseline, before anyone has adjusted to anyone else - then we could just run the 99 for a raise, and for a limp, maybe using a few representative lineups, and see which way wins more. (Who needs fair share then?) Then we could look at subsequent considerations about players adjusting to one another. But, though I've only seen the second to latest version, I fear it's just not THAT good yet. (If the difference between limp and raise shows up as really big, then it may be enough to tell us something. I haven't run the relevant sims.)
"Additionally, there are post flop fundamental theory considerations in your favor after the flop. For example, you may now be able to correctly chase a hand that may be beaten on the flop (2 outer for the set, gutshot straight, drawing to four outs on a paired board and apparent made flush on the turn...). This is not including the obvious pot-tied considerations."
I'm not sure how to evaluate the factor of having created one's own odds so that one can draw to more hands postflop. In isolation, I don't think it's a valid concept. (e.g., we wouldn't say you should always raise a bunch of limpers with 22 even when there will be no tie-on effect just so you can draw to your two outer after the flop.) But as an ancillary benefit, I'm not sure how to weigh it. The pot-tied considerations you mention help you when you flop a set, hurt you most of the rest of the time. So, again, a double edged sword.
I get your point John. I understand the difference between the EV gained by raising preflop vs. the EV gained postflop by not raising preflop. Well, I don't understand it, I understand the argument behind it, but this whole concept of pot manipulation seems fairly difficult to my simple little brain. What do you think about the benefit gained by getting the flop checked to you if you raise preflop? I believe that if this condition existed the preflop raise may result in a larger overall EV (and this is really what we should be talking about, overall EV, instead of immediate EV gain [ie. gaining EV immediately preflop]) then not raising preflop. But, I'm not smart enough to prove this kind of thing.
One thing I would like to look at is your example of not raising preflop but raising the flop when you have an overpair. Let's assume 8 people see the flop, you are the button and hold 99, which is an overpair to the flop. Everyone checks to the cutoff who bets (the perfect situation for you, as you mentioned), you raise. The first person who calls the 2 bets cold is getting 11:2 pot odds, but depending on how many people are still left to act behind him his implied odds (on this single betting round alone) may be very large (schooling?). Let's say the first guy to act after your raise holds JTs. He has 6 outs, which means he is around a 7:1 dog. Well, you didn't raise preflop and were given the perfect situation post flop and are still in a position where your oppenent is getting pretty close to the proper odds to call your raise. It doesn't look too good for the pot manipulation concept in this example (obviously he is getting better pot odds if you had raised preflop, but you have the most equity in the pot at the present time in this situation so I think you would have the most equity in the pot in this situation, so the raise would have benefitted you, plus if you want you can check and see if you can get a nine for free.)
I think this is a difficult subject that doesn't really have a black or white answer, but sometimes, these are the types of questions that we can learn the most from (at least I learn from these types of questions). This is simply because they require a little independent analysis which is a +EV play in my mind.
I found that old thread and read it. I noticed some other good threads that month too. Feeney #1 looks like I'll have to go over that one.
The truth is out there...
Regards
In this example (the pocket 9s example) I think its a clear cut raise. The profit you gain with 8 limpers is to large for post-flop considerations to bring it down.
But lets take 99 against 5 opponents. Now its not so clear cut. Because raising doesn't give you near as much profit pre-flop as it does with 8 opponents. So now pot-manipulation becomes very valid. By raising pre-flop, your not gaining that much equity. Yet, now your tying people to the hand with odds to draw. This could very easily reduce your profit enough to where you would have made more money not raising.
So I agree with you that there is a line, but there are so many factors making up that line that it would be almost impossible to calculate it. I think TTHv4 is the best thing we have to go by, so that is what I use. I am not sure how accurate it is, but it does give me some ballpark figures.
If your interested, I could post some numbers from TTHv4 about different hands if you want.
Joe
"If your interested, I could post some numbers from TTHv4 about different hands if you want."
Sure, anything would be worth looking at. (say, JJ in the BB for a raise versus no raise with 8 or more limpers preflop, 99 on the button in the two scenarios you mention above... using maybe a couple of different lineups) It might be interesting at least to see how BIG a difference TTH comes up with for playing it one way versus the other. Unfortunately because of the kinds of issues Mason brings up it will be hard to draw any clear conclusions. But it will generate thought and discussion.
I want to throw in a caution which I have written about before. I think we all agree that programs like TTH do a better job of simulating real poker than "hot and cold" simulations do. But there is also a problem. Assuming you are an expert, you should have a reasonable idea how to interpret the "hot and cold" simulations because you understand the errors that they make. This is why when I first began to see data years ago that showed that K2o was a reasonable hand I knew it was wrong.
But what about a program like TTH. It still makes errors, and they may or may not be quite substantial. The problem is that unless you are quite familiar with the code and the precise decision process that it goes through you won't know how to adjust the data you receive. For example, from some of the results that I have read, I don't believe that TTH does a good enough job taking into account position. How it errors and why it makes this mistake (if it even does make this mistake) I don't know. Thus I don't have a good idea on how to interpret the data. In addition, I suspect that because of its program structure, as it goes through its decision matrix errors can build up and compound. By this I mean that if it makes a small error in an early step this error may produce another error in a later step, and so on. Hence by the end of the decision steps you may have a significant error.
Again, the problem is that you don't really know. The errors may be substantial or they may not be. But how you adjust your results is a problem and beccause of this I have and still do discourage their use for serious research.
The "fair share" argument applies well to hands that hit the flop often (e.g. AK) and that don't necessarily need a flop like (e.g. QQ) but not to nines in a multiway pot because, especially when the pot has been raised, nines usually need to both hit the flop, which they will do rarely, and have a set hold up on the end. (Against only 5 random hands played to the river, pocket nines are bigger underdogs than all the other hands if the other two nines are out of the deck. This is not the case with JJ.)
If you take into account the frequency that a set (or better) can get cracked, somewhere between 20-30% of the time, the chances of nines winning overall by flopping a set are about 9.5 to 10-1 against. This means that a preflop raise in a family pot is not, as others insist, "immediately profitable." It's the "immediately" part that's wrong.
I have no doubt that raising with 99 in a family pot is profitable. That's why cold-calling with nines in a family pot is correct. The issue isn't whether raising is profitable, but whether it's more profitable than just limping. If you limp, you need to only win a bet or two after the flop to break even on your preflop risk. With a set you'll win many more bets on average for a fairly huge profit. Furthermore, if you limp you'll need to flop a set less often.
If you paid 2 bets preflop, however, you'll virtually always have to flop a set to win and usually need to win several more bets post flop to make the same profit as limping. Perhaps against most lineups you will, but your ability to do so will vary according to how aggressively your opponents play and how inclined they are to pay you off, compared to the profit you'll make when nines hold up unimproved.
To me, it's a question of a guaranteed profit from limping vs. a speculative profit from raising. But I could be persuaded otherwise.
This is a good point. On page 37 of HPFAP-21 we state:
"If you have a small pair and are against four or more callers, the correct play is to sometimes raise. This is another example of making the pot larger so that if you hit your hand, your opponents may be more inclined to call you with just overcards on the flop. In addition, they all may check to you, thus giving you a free card and another (small) chance to make your set."
I remember reading that now. So, I think I am starting to understand some of this pot manipulation stuff. With medium pairs and a few limpers you may make more postflop if you don't raise. Of course, this is dependent on your skill level (or more importantly, your skill level relative to your opponents skill level. But, no matter what pair you have, if enough oppenents limp before you (like let's say everyone limped in ahead of you), then a raise yields an immediate +EV that outweighs any EV that could be gained postflop. Is this correct?
you wrote: "In addition, they all may check to you, thus giving you a free card and another (small) chance to make your set."
Since when is a 30% increase in the likely hood of making a hand "another small chance"? sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
In the games i play in if a lot of people are in and someone flops top pair they bet 90% of the time, and it is almost never checked to the button raiser.
I personally do not see this as a realistic argument to raise in late pos. after many callers if part of the reason to do so is it will be checked to you, and you will get another free shot to hit your set.
I was wondering relative to your seat position where it would be best to have an aggressive or a very loose player who keeps raising. Do want this type of player to the right or left of you? Does it matter how many over he/she is?
Thanks in advance
Walker
I generally play at low limit tables (4-8, 6-12) with one BB (Hustler in LA) where there is usually at least one Wild/aggressive player at any given time at the table. I prefer to have him a couple of seats to my right, as I can then see how the players between us act before I decide to try and isolate the wildman.
I go into a fair bit of detail on this in an essay in IPM. In a word, typically, put him close to your right.
John, What is IPM?
Thanks for your help.
Glad you asked. :) _Inside the Poker Mind_, a book I wrote, published by our very own Two Plus Two, and included among those offered for sale under "books" or "order form" to the left. (scroll down if necessary)
You only see fish turn over winning hands when they call a raise with QT. You don't see their hands the many times they lose with it. So, your perception of how often QT wins against a preflop raiser may be skewed.
As for calling with a pair against a preflop raiser, often pots odds dictate a call (on the flop at least). Plus, many preflop raisers go too far with AK/AQ and the fish know that. So, many times, the preflop raiser is playing 6 outs (or less) twice postflop which puts the fish in the driver's seat.
I am not saying that it's correct to call a UTG raise with T6s from the bb. Far from it. But one thing I have noticed is that many "good" players who correctly play tight preflop incorrectly play tight postflop. Playing tight preflop should give you the license to play a little more loosely postflop. Many don't use that license.
Also, good players are more likely than bad players to always fold on the flop against a preflop raiser. While it is incorrect to always call on the flop when you have missed, it is also incorrect to always fold when you miss particularly if the raise comes from steal position and you call out of the bb with something like Q7s. Sometimes, you need to bet or checkcall on the flop even when it comes A54 with say one heart. Use the 2+2 suggestion of turning the Ace into a deuce on the flop and then consider whether you would play on with a 542 flop.
with regard to point #1, you wrote about calling down a preflop raiser with with middle pair when rags flop
"It's almost ALWAYS a losing play and I've long since learned to stay away from those situations."
whether or not this is a losing situation depends entirely on the person's raising standards. I think you would agree with me that here in the Bay Area most players have loose raising standards and thus it is imperative that you do call the person down and maybe even throw in a check-raise when you flop a pair from the big blind and rags also flop. also think about how you would play against a person who would always fold on the flop against a pre-flop raiser if they didn't have 2 pair or better. You would be correct to raise and bet every big ace no matter what the flop was.
with regard to point #2 and hands that you will call raises with, It sounds like you are following too strict of a formula for deciding whether or not to call. I agree that with K-Jo you should never call, almost always fold and re-raise the rest of the time. IMHO, with J-10s and 44, cold calling a raise is correct depending on your position, how many other people are in the pot and how many players are going too far with their hands.
Anyways, it sounds like you are running really bad and hopefully the shit will end soon. I'll be at artichoke Joe's tonight if you want to BS about poker for awhile. I'll be wearing a blue sweater. Boris
1) Don't bluff. If you have AK and the flop misses you, maybe bet the flop but give up betting if your hand doesn't improve.
Don't ever play AQ if a solid player raises preflop. Muck it.
Don't play KJ offsuit in loose games.
Be far more willing to play JT suited than KQ offsuit in a loose game.
Never call a raise with AX except when X is a king. Or if the raiser is a maniac.
Focus on position - don't play small pairs, JTs, KJ, AT and those other crap hands in early position.
Play tighter until you start winning.
The fact that you are getting top pair beaten by overpairs means you are playing too loose and you aren't laying down hands when you know your beaten.
If you choose to play KQo be very careful with it.
Again - don't bluff.
Raise draws in late position for value. If you limp on the button with AT and get 6 way action, and flop a 4 flush with no pair on board, throw a raise in.
If you have QQ and have 6 way action on the flop, and the flop comes AT2 rainbow, and you bet and get 4 callers, check on turn and fold if there is a bet and a call.
Don't get too married to your hands. If you have AA and the flop is J62 rainbow and you get bet into, raise. If the turn is another jack, and you are bet into again, you are usually beaten. Don't raise whatever you do.
Remember, these guys are using their 2 volt brains to try to figure out what YOU have too.
If you get checkraised by any reasonable player, except perhaps a VERY good player, he has at least top pair top kicker. Or better.
Be careful of this -
If a mediocre player checks to you and then calls when you bet, but then bets the turn, either his hand just improved or he flopped something big and is slowplaying it awkwardly.
Food for thought.
-SmoothB-
The plays you have described strikes me as low limit games: $3-6 or $4-8. Those games, from my experience, are the toughest to consistantly beat. 60 -90% of the participating players stay in a hand up through the river, and do so playig practically any two-card combination. In most cases, you cannot blame them the way they play, for they do not know any better. That is the way those games are played, especially on the West Coast or in the South.
The way you rate your play, it seems that your game might be better suited for a mid-level games such as $8-16, 10-20 or even 15-30. You might want to consider moving up to playing these games.
However, it is absolutely critical that you master the skills of your starting hands and their relative value vis-a-vis the number of players in the hand and your given position in each hand. Likewise, be sure to quickly re-evaluate the strength of your hand once you see the flop. Lots people lose money by chasing 2nd or 3rd best hands even if they hit. But when flops hit you, make them pay for chasing "miracle" cards.
Good luck!
The debate about whether or not to raise "medium" pairs after limpers is not wholly settled. Within this debate the idea that small pairs can profitable raise after limpers has, from my understanding, been accepted as a given by many (not me). I question this.
The point is this. I question the validity of the S & M (and Ciaffone) ideas that small pairs can be profitably raised after limpers.
Does anyone have any proof one way or the other?
Regards.
Aside:
In researching this topic, I began conducting simulations to test these ideas out. Unlike others, who use millions of hands and computer players, I have been using tiny samples and played the object hand myself. This of course does not have any statistical validity, as the amount of hands I have played are very small. But the advantage to this method is the simulations are smart. I am thinking about what is going on. I am trying to use poker theory to understand the variables. I am using the computer to deal out cards and I use my brain to draw conclusions. I believe this is far more profitable experience for the tester.
backdoor,
This one is fairly easy to play with mathematically, perhaps less easy to really nail down though. The problem is partly that it again comes down to the assumptions that go into the calculations (e.g., how many more opps calling how many more bets is realistic in representing being tied on to the pot? Just what percentage of the time does a set lose?), and partly that it's tough to factor in a number of little "extra" variables. By that second part I'm referring to how a small pair can win by making a straight, or you may steal the pot, etc. I'm not really sure that it's crucial to bring such things into the equation really precisely as long as you factor in some reasonable estimate. But it's been a point of contention in the past.
Here are two archived threads that contain a LOT of debate on this between Izmet, Andrew Prock, scott, myself, and others:
A thread that contained this post: Re: small pairs and preflop raises Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu) Posted on: Tuesday, 2 November 1999, at 7:32 p.m.
A spin off that contained this post: Re: Implied odds Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com) Posted on: Thursday, 4 November 1999, at 5:53 a.m.
Both of those are in the "Poker - Older" section down at the bottom.
I think there may have been some other spin off threads too.
Anyway, in my view this question boils down to whether your raise will generate *enough of a tie-on effect with the lineup you're facing. If it's enough to overcome the extra preflop investment plus the times you lose to added longshot draws that opps will be induced to stay in on, then the raise is right. But some simply feel that it's rarely going to be enough. Also, I'm not sure to what extent such an effect can be simulated with TTH.
(btw, if you look at that old "AQ Test" thread, be sure to look at two or three subsequent follow up threads that it generated in the same month or maybe the next month. They consolidated a lot as I recall.)
Dear John F.,
I will look up all the threads in time. When I play online I have quite a good chance to do it. I spend three or four hours a day in poker research.
My "feel" TTH tests (which the strict scientists don't like), are leaning me in the direction of just calling with small pairs. I am racking my brain to attempt to come up with a conclusive test, but I can't. The other type of sims tend to rely on the strengths of the field, what cards your opponents hold (when I equip the opponents with strong limping hands instead of trash, the 99 even loses money), and some other factors. And to be honest, I just never trust the results unless I personally have played the hands, looked at the situation, et cetera.
One thing my slow, unscientific testing has shown is that limpers are far more likely to have your pair card in their hands. For example, mediums pairs such as TT, JJ, QQ, are far more likely to be half blocked from their set potential with typical limping hands such as JT, QJ et cetera. While dominating them is great in a short handed situation, that loss of one of your three of a kind potential is significant multiway. Keeping the pot small here is a good thing.
Just thought I would throw that apple into the barrel.
Regards.
backdoor -- I think that in that one post of mine that I referenced I did some simple math on the question. (I don't think I used the standard EV formula.) Scott did some more involved math in looking at it. But you can capture much of the "small pair tie-on" question fairly simply with a bit of arithmetic. It's easier, IMO, to come closer with math to answering this question than the question about limping versus raising, and the chance of winning unimproved, with certain medium-biggish pairs and lots of limpers.
That said, there are still factors that are difficult to account for. Your point about limpers being more likely to have your (middle pair) set card in their hand, for example, is a very good one, and may be enough to swing a decision, as you suggest. (lending further support to the notion that a raise with a small pair can make sense in creating a tie-on effect [and noting that such pairs have very little chance of winning without improvement anyway], while pairs around TT and JJ are often best not raised in these multiway pots)
If someone like scott, who can really use math more expertly, wanted to construct a big, mother of an equation, incorporating all factors which would seem to be of significance they could probably come up with something quite meaningful. But it would be tough for others to follow. And sometimes it seems you find that just tweaking one assumption a little can completely swing it one way or the other. I guess if that means it's close, it does come down to "feel" in practice after all.
I said, "I guess if that means it's close, it does come down to "feel" in practice after all."
Just want to be clear that I didn't mean that this question IS close (It depends on the game.), just that the assumptions you use in setting up an analysis can make it close in that analysis. And when live play happens to mimic those assumptions the decision will be close, necessitating a judgment call ("feel").
Maybe mixing up the play could see you a bit better off. Say, limp sometimes with AK. Maybe A6 will give you more action on the flop then, and on the 'few' occasions (according to you) AK holds up, you maybe win an extra bet.
Play more high suited connectors. When you flop top pair with good kicker, play it strong. When you flop a good draw, play it RIGHT (bet and raise for value, at the same time, try keep people caught in it). As you mention too, TT could be some sort of monster in these games, raise liberally with TT and JJ vs any number of opponents.
Also remember, that playing you could be a goldmine, if you bet strong all the way whenever you holf AK or AQ. Opponents will start noticing, and begin calling all the way whenever they flop at pair.
Another thing: Don't call a loose opponents raise (unless you've already limped) with A9o, even though you KNOW he will raise on any ace. Rather re-raise him when you hold AKs/o, AA, KK and QQ. Limp silently with hands like AJs, get in the big number of opponents a hand like this thrives on.
I've been through all the stuff you're mentioning here, but believe me...there comes a time when this is all distant memory. Believe me.
Lars
A lot. We added over 100 pages to the text. This includes some new sections as well as new material embedded all the way through the text.
Natedogg,Natedogg!Confuse no more!There's very little you need to know about poker that you don't know(or will know).You've already pocessed a great deal of top qualities as a winning poker player.I wish I have more of what you have.You're just LUCKLESS!May the bad karmar be leaving you soon!
It seems to me that you are looking at the other nine players as one person. You need to rate each of there games individually and taylor you strategy to the ones that are in the pot with you. Don't forget about standard deviation. Yesterday A-K was not a good hand for me either.
(1) If the BB thinks that the raiser is an aggressive player who will continue to bet with no pairs, he's perfectly entitled to make a calldown. Plus, against overpairs, he's drawing live to at least 5 outs (two pair or trips). This, combined with the fact that nobody EVER lays down their hand to a raise, makes it possibly profitable, or at least neutral-ish, to check/call. Generally better not to defend your BB in the first place, though.
(2) Calling QTo, etc, to raises is horrible play, and a lot of your profit in the game will stem from plays like this. However, you should realise that it's only bad for them if they are dominated or overpaired (ie you hold AQ, KK etc). If you hold AKo, for example, they are on about even terms given position. Calling a small pair is less bad, as there's a lot of profit to be made by flopping sets against loose players. If I can be assured the hand will be 5-way, I'll consider cold calling a small pair, depending on what I know about the raiser.
You probably know the "be tight and aggressive" mantra, so if you find you're losing, either:
- Tighten up. Make more laydowns to turn raises, they generally mean business.
- Get more aggressive. Don't check when the flush falls, bet out and fold to the raise.
Chris
Are any posters aware if there are any places to play Texas Hold-em in the Boca, Del Ray, Boynton Beach area. I like 10-20 but would go a little less to find a good game.
You didn't say how long you have been playing. It's unusual for players to win consistently until they've been playing for several years.
Sometimes I wonder how bad players survive also. But I've been playing for a long time, and I can tell you that even though they can run good for a long time, eventually they lose everything they have.
I recommend you step down in limits until yo start winning consistently. As you get more experience, you'll understand more why you lose and why you win. And a little luck doesn't hurt either.
Overcards are one of the big holes in my game. If i am in a tight game i raise any two face cards from late position if i am first to enter. If i have Ak i will usually reraise a raiser to thin the field. if I am in a loose game i change from the "two big cards and bet'em" philosophy. Overall pre-flop i am tight. I do not call raises with any of the trouble hands and if the field is big i don't even call the blinds w/ trouble hands. It is the flop and beyond that is my problem.
If the flop doesn't hit me i almost never bet and i will not call a bet. I feel like i am loosing in many ways by not betting: 1) i am geting out-played when I have the best hand 2)i am missing opps. to pick up pots from people that have better handsd than me 3) I have an opp. to catch up on the turn 4) my game becomes even more predictable than it already is and 5) people have less fear of my raises because they know if I don't hit they can safely bet w/ nothing and pick up a pot.
How do I change this. I am sure that this is one of the differences between tight play and "solid" play. Any input would be appreciated Thank You, Eric
The solution to your problem is simple: switch from generally checking or folding your overcards on the flop to generally betting and calling or raising with them. And by "generally" I mean more or less routinely in a short-handed pot. Over time you'll develop the instincts and judgment that will tell you when to push these hands and when to back off, but pushing them when the betting is cheap and the pot has been raised is rarely far from wrong.
Another thing to consider, though slightly, is the highest card on board. If the highest card is nine-or-lower, I'm less likely to get into big trouble by hitting a card that pairs me and gives another player two pair.
Those times when the decision to pound away with no pair is a close one, the above consideration can be the deciding one.
Presuming I raised preflop and noone reraised, my decision to bet the flop depends mostly on how many players are behind me. If one player, I tend to bet. If two or more, I tend to check. If I'm last to act and all check to me, then it's a feel thing.
Tommy
I have no doubt that Ak is the most misplayed hand most players "over" play it costing them lots of bbs.
I for example: I usually don't reraise with it but will usually raise with it. If late position with a limper or 2 will limp sometimes with slick. If I hit it then my hand is disguised a bit if not I can quietly muck it depending on the action.
I will often dump it if I miss the flop.
Some players just fall in love ith their big drawing cards and can't under any circumstances dump them.
They don't call it walkin' back top Houston for nothing.
:-)
Mike
UTG folds. Next guy limps. You are next with AKo. You raise. One guy cold-calls in a middle pos. Limper calls. Flop comes JJ2r. Limper bets. What is your play?
The correct play has to depend on how you think your opponents play. So really the question is who do you fold agains and who do you raise against here.
I don't think i have a good understanding of this situation.
In the above situation, if the player is one that I know can read me (and will try to outplay me)I might make a meak call once--thereby giving away the weakness of my hand. If it is a player that seems straightforward or even weak the move is to fold (some will call a raise w/QJ), which is usually the case.
Eric
Giving away the weakness of your hand? Are you suggesting that you'd always raise on the flop with KK or AJ? Maybe sometimes if you raise with a lot of hands here, but not usually.
Also, no one is going to fold QJ or any jack to a raise.
Chris,
Excuse me, if I am missunderstanding something but, are you suggesting that calling a raise with QJ is ok? I thought that it would be a totally dominated hand. Or are you speaking of the blinds only?
eric
Sorry. I thought you were referring to QJ calling a raise or folding postflop.
Fold against a straightforward inexperienced player; take a card off and fold or raise on the turn if you miss unless he's a frequent bluffer in this situation, in which case calling him down with overcards probably works best. The harder part is deciding what to do on the turn, although few players are going to toss a medium pair head-up here. Calling on the flop will also sometimes get you a free card against a small pocket pair.
It would of course depend on your opponents. I'd lean towards folding. The fact that there is someone left to act after you is not insignificant. If this person might have cold-called your raise with QJ or JT, I'd probably dump. The bettor is representing a jack, and there's a very good chance he has one.
AKo, AQo.AJo, etc. Don't fall in love with these cards. To me is a hit or miss thing. Raising is up to you. I like to raise with AKo only, specially to a large field. And I "never" play them as over cards. I know that is somebody flops a small pair I am a dog with these cards. I love to see player in my table raising with AKo, they miss the flop and they keep betting like they have AA, Then they catch and A or a K in the river, the win the pot, and feel like champions. I love to play with people like that. Are you one of them? Or you want to be one of them. AKo is great hand, I love it, but when you miss, fold and wait for the right flop, you make money that way. The best advise in poker I have received from this forum wonderful friends of mine is: You are earning money when you are saving money. Don't fall in love with AKo, it will take you to the poor house. In my HO. Good luck.
Chris Alger advise is not a good one. IMHO, because you are gambling with these cards when you bet or raise when you miss the flop. You have nothing and want people to fold on the flop just because you raised preflop, and now you bet the flop representig somethig you don't have. A lot of people know that most of the raises come from AKo, and if they hit the flop in any way they are going to call you if there are no Kings or Aces on the flop. Knisch wants to win with this hands all the time no matter what. The only way to do that is to know what the other player are holding. Good luck. And I would like my friends in this forum please to tell me if I am wrong, don't forget, I am the most ignorat player here. I just don't know when to shut up.
You must bet when checked to at least SOME of the time, if not most of the time, when you have AK and the flop misses you.
Here are some guidelines -
If you raise preflop with AK and get several callers, and the flop misses you, check and fold. Heads up is a different matter, but at least one of your opponents must have at least a pair by now.
If the flop is all disconnected and you only have 1 or 2 opponents, go ahead and bet most of the time. Proceed carefully if you get a caller and the turn doesn't improve your hand.
Also check some of the time when you have AK and the flop misses you. But, to prevent people from stealing against you when little cards come, CHECKRAISE with AA sometimes.
I was starting to get a bit predictable with AK - I would usually bet if checked to, and I would get raised or checkraised with nothing.
I fixed the problem with betting out with AK on the flop less often, and checkraising with big pocket pairs more often. That fixed the problem.
Like all things in poker, you can't play the same hand the same way all the time or you become too predictable.
-SmoothB-
Somewhere in the archives is an excellent post by Jim Brier discussing this subject. I cannot remember what the title of the thread was (help Jim?). Anyway, as I recall the post was about overcards when you miss the flop and how to play them. There was a bunch of discussion and many good ideas posted.
As for your problem, you need to recognize when the correct times are to continue with overcards, and when the time is right to fold...
If you have AcKc and the flop comes 8d 9d 10s, you should get out IMMEDIATELY, if not sooner.
Say you have AKo and raise on the button after one player limps, BB calls, limper calls, 3 way action. Flop comes 8 J 3 rainbow. If it's checked to you, bet.
Say you have QsJs on the button, mulltiway potand the flop comes 8d 5s 2c. SB bets and two call. you might peel one off here, as a Q or J would very likely be good, plus you have a backdoor draw.
These are some extreme examples, but use them to help decide what the right play is in less clear-cut situations.
Dave in Cali
"...Say you have QsJs on the button, mulltiway potand the flop comes 8d 5s 2c. SB bets and two call. you might peel one off here, as a Q or J would very likely be good, plus you have a backdoor draw..."
I don't think I agree with this. I am still a beginner so I would like to hear what everyone else thinks. With one bet and two calls you are surely beat. You are a long way from a flush or a straight (which may not be good even if they hit) and with 3 people in, if someone hasn't paired already, surely someone has an ace or king. I really don't think you have much and it seems you are a big underdog to win the hand. Pretty much the best you can realistically hope for is a Jack or Queen, with NO Ace or King, and it may not be enough. I would fold that without hesitation every time.
Leafsfan
"With one bet and two calls you are surely beat."
Obviously, you have queen high.
"You are a long way from a flush or a straight (which may not be good even if they hit)..."
If you make a straight, it will be the nuts. If you make a flush, you will VERY RARELY lose to a bigger flush. VERY RARELY. is that point made? Fearing skeletons in the closet that most likely aren't going to be there is just plain paranoid.
"...and with 3 people in, if someone hasn't paired already, surely someone has an ace or king. "
An ace or king is irrelevant to you, if one of them hits, you will no longer consider a jack or queen an out.
I really don't think you have much and it seems you are a big underdog to win the hand. Pretty much the best you can realistically hope for is a Jack or Queen, with NO Ace or King, and it may not be enough. I would fold that without hesitation every time. "
This is not an automatic fold by any means. The more $$ in the pot and the less likely you are to be raised, the more likely calling would be correct. If I was the last person to call and knew there would be no raise, I would call here EVERY time. As Jim stated in his post, it is often better to have a Q or J as an overcard than an ace, because someone playing A8 who has paired can make YOUR ace a false out. There are many cards which could come here which would increase the value of your hand tremendously, so folding automatically would be silly. What if the 9s comes? Jd? Qc? Th? Ts? Any spade?
NOT an automatic fold.... Pot odds, implied odds, position and likelyhood of being raised are all considerations you should make when deciding whether to call here or not.
Dave in Cali
I am going to be writing for CardPlayer magazine and my first article is entitled: "The Play Of Overcards". I think it should show up in one of the March issues but I am not sure.
/
Congrats. Hmmm, let's see now, for Brier Problem #1... ;)
Jim:
The Card Player Magazine management was certainly smart to hire you to write for them. We all enjoy reading your posts on this forum and are looking forward to read more of your writing on the hard copy.
I wish you the best. I am sure you'll do just fine.
Re. 1) The mistake is of course to call the raise preflop, but it becomes less of a mistake the more people see the flop, and it is even less of a mistake to call on the flop with any pair if it has been raised preflop (and if they know that the raiser has got an overpair if at all).
Re. 2) Yes, correct, but when a typical low limit player raises this doesnīt have to mean that he/she has got a good hand, so calling a typical raiser with "trap hands" does not create trap situations for the KTo caller as often as you might think. Failing to fold when you raise is just a failure to adapt, you being the exception among opponents (if we are talking about loose low limit games).
How they stay alive? Donīt know, but just because they are playing doesnīt mean that they are not indebted somewhere or living on a lower level of subsistence than you do, does it?
Point 2; Cool call a raise with TJsuited , is not so terrible when those conditions are there .I have put it in order of priority : #1-The raiser is loose-aggressive and it's comming from a late position . #2-Your in a late position #3-Many players allready in the hand #4-Players allready in the hand are loose and call when they are drawing dead very often .
I am having trouble with the concept of checkraising to protect my hand. I have re-read the sections in my books, but I can't seem to get it going in real life.
Could some of you give me some example hands that you would check raise, raise, or bet to protect it?
thanks for the help
Say you are in the BB with AJ. There are two callers and the button raises. you call and so do all the limpers. Flop comes J72 with two hearts. You are pretty sure that people will check to the button who will bet. This is a great spot to checkraise.
If you bet out, even gutshots are getting the correct odds to call. However if you checkraise and make the field face two bets cold you have cut their odds from 8:1 to 5.5:1. Now a gutshot doesn't have the odds to call and the flush draws have to pay the maximum. You may also get out Jacks who are worse than yours now but have backdoor staright and flush draws. You will also probably get out two overcards which you really want to do since any Q or K could beat you. By showing strength you also now have a better chance of winning on the turn with a bet.
Another example of a place I like to checkraise is with top pair weak kicker. Say you have K6 on the BB and see a flop of K84 for free. You could bet here but if you are called or raised what can you do? you will probably have to drop on the turn. However if you check raise it will be hard for even other Kings that may be better than yours to stay in. On your best days you will even get hands like KJ and KQ to drop on the turn for a big bet.
Both of the above examples are check-raises to get people OUT of the pot. you may also want to checkraise to keep people in.
You have A8h in the SB. 5 people see the flop of KT6. you check and the BB bets. It is called around to you. you can check-raise here for profit if you are pretty sure that your bet will not be raised (or that if it is, everyone will still call). Since you are a 1.9:1 dog to make your flush by the river, you want players putting in bets on the flop here when playing multiway. Not only are you bettign for value, but you might even get paid off more if you hit your flush because the pot is so large.
Regards,
Paul Talbot
"Say you are in the BB with AJ. There are two callers and the button raises. you call and so do all the limpers. Flop comes J72 with two hearts. You are pretty sure that people will check to the button who will bet. This is a great spot to checkraise."
I disagree. your hand is weak. flush draws are happy for you and everyone else to put money in the pot here. check-raise the turn is better play.
"Another example of a place I like to checkraise is with top pair weak kicker. Say you have K6 on the BB and see a flop of K84 for free. You could bet here but if you are called or raised what can you do? you will probably have to drop on the turn. However if you check raise it will be hard for even other Kings that may be better than yours to stay in. On your best days you will even get hands like KJ and KQ to drop on the turn for a big bet."
again I disagree. I have only come across one player who would lay down KJ or KQ in this situation. depending the size of the pot you may have odds to hit your kicker or you may even have the best hand. better play is lead on the turn and if you get raised again you can fold.
just my 2 cents.
When you're planning to use the check-raise to protect you hand, don't think of it as "I'm going to protect my hand". Think of it as "I'm charging the draws and underdogs a high price for continuing to play theirs".
This tactic is the exact opposite of the slowplay. Do this when you have a good but not great hand (in early position), it doesn't look like the draws will fold if you merely bet, and the likelihood that a late/last postion player will bet - if everyone just checks to him - are reasonably high.
This technique requires a lot of art. The art of reading the late position players (is he loose? is he a kleptomaniac?). Your success is very dependent on how likely the late position player will bet if checked into.
An example of a check-raise to protect your hand:
Say you are in the BB with AKo. Four limp and the button raises, you call because you know reraising will not thin the field, and you want to see what develops on the flop.
Flop comes Ks Js 8c. This is a good time to try for a check-raise. The limpers will usually just check to the raiser, and most players are likely to bet with anything in this situation. When the button bets, you raise, forcing everyone to call two cold if they want to continue. This is likely to make hands like gutshots or bottom pair fold, which is what you want here. you will not make anyone with a flush or open-ended str8 draw fold anyway, so you want to charge them double to play on. Big draws are sucking equity out of your hand here if there are several players chasing with weak hands, so you would rather the weak hands fold.
Sometimes you might check-raise the turn as well. Say you have JJ and raise UTG. Two players call and the cutoff reraises, all call and you see the flop 4 handed.
Flop is Ad Kc Jc. A good flop for you, but with danger abounding. You bet and two call, cutoff raises, you reraise, he caps, still four players. Turn comes a blank. This would likely be a good time to check-raise to protect your hand. It is very unlikely that the button will raise, then cap, then NOT bet the turn, so your attempt at check-raising here is very likely to work. Of course if he has AA or KK you are screwed, but them's the breaks. I would still check-raise anyway because set-over-set is very unlikely.
An example of a raise to protect your hand:
You are in late-middle position and limp third in with 9d8d. It winds up being 5 way action with no raise. Flop comes 9c 8c 2d. The player on your right bets. Now you raise to drive out other players, or at least charge the str8 and flush draws the max to play on.
A bet to protect your hand is called for anytime you have a vulnerable holding, such as top pair, and you cannot be sure anyone will bet behind you, and everyone checks to you. Although the bet might not really be big enough to "protect" your hand, you still must bet because NOT giving a free card is the most important thing here.
Dave in Cali
"An example of a raise to protect your hand:
You are in late-middle position and limp third in with 9d8d. It winds up being 5 way action with no raise. Flop comes 9c 8c 2d. The player on your right bets. Now you raise to drive out other players, or at least charge the str8 and flush draws the max to play on."
I really don't think you can protect your hand on the flop with 5 way action and two big draws against you. wait for turn.
I don't think this is an automatic "wait for turn" situation. Most of the time you should raise now and make sure you charged them to see the turn. I think on the whole you will win bigger pots that way, especially with two pair or small sets. If someone catches a gutshot on the turn who would have folded had you raised the flop, you will wish you had. Often times those hands will fold the turn anyway though. Also, it's two big POSSIBLE draws, which will not always both be there. Good response though, worth debating....
Dave in Cali
The reason I don't like to raise in this situation is because if I had the open ender or the flush draw I would be very happy if everyone put two, three or even more bets in the pot. you are not really makeing the big draws pay to see the turn when they already have an overlay.
I havn't given serious thought as to how the equity is divided between the two pair/set hand the flush draw when there are other hands putting money in the pot. This is a good question that I (and you) should figure out. I think there is something in TOP about this.
Dan Hansen wrote an article in last year's july poker digest discussing this, and I wrote a post about his article a few months ago entitled something like "the mysteries of multiway pots, by Dan Hansen". If you haven't read it, you should.
One important point here is that the big draws don't mind putting in two bets IF everyone else is putting in two bets, but they suffer if several weak draws fold and they alone have to put in several bets. Even if you cannot raise enough to make the big draws have the wrong pot odds to call, you still have to make their pot odds as poor as possible. And if there are several weak hands drawing to beat you, the big draws like open-enders and flush draws are sucking equity away from YOUR hand by those weak draws being in the pot. It's in the article and discussed in my post.
Dave in Cali
As far as what round to checkraise with the type of hands described above...
If there was just one raise pre-flop and only a few callers (medium-sized pot), you may want to try for the checkraise on the flop. If there were a couple raises pre-flop, or even just one raise but with many callers (large to very large pot), you may want to check-call the flop and wait for the turn to checkraise. Force your opponents to face 2 big bets.
With the modern structure of relatively large pots on the flop, opponents are generally getting the right odds to chase for one bet (such as a small pair or a gut shot) but are NOT getting the right odds to call two bets. Thus, check-raising has considerably more merit now than it did with small blinds and small pots, where these same opponents shouldn't call even a single bet.
However, these hands that should call one but shouldn't call two are not really earning much when they call one bet. They are earning for YOU more than they are earning for themselves when you bet and they call (assuming you have the real hand). You should therefore not check-raise unless you feel it will succeed, since checking-around is a small disaster.
Common check-raise criteria are:
[] You are in the blind and checking looks natural.
[] Late position betters are reasonably aggressive.
[] The pre-flop raiser routinely bets the flop.
[] You have a weak hand (such as 2nd pair) and check-and-see, but are relieved when early opponents check and a late opponent bets. This is a VERY common check-raise.
[] You have a strong hand and suspect an early opponent will bet, trapping prospective callers.
[] You want the opponents to fear your checks.
Notice that check-raising has much more to do with you and the opponents and much less to do with your exact holding.
- Louie
Louie provides a very good generalized check-raising criteria here.
comments
"You have a strong hand and suspect an early opponent will bet, trapping prospective callers. "
This is a reason for check-raising that really isn't for the purpose of protecting your hand. Sometimes you might even do this with a big draw, such as if you had AcTc in the BB in a large multiway pot, the flop was Kc Qc 9d, and you suspected that UTG would bet. Now if UTG bets and gets a bunch of callers, you can raise for value.
Also, I like the check-raise with second pair play mentioned here, it is a great play IF the circumstances are correct. Don't overuse though, in general you don't want to be raising with second pair all the time.
Dave in Cali
I almost never go for a check-raise in these situations because I think of flop-betting as the info-gathering, posturing, position-earning round. By betting out with draws, second or third pair, top pair-bad kicker, top pair good kicker, they can't put me on a hand, but I CAN put them on hands by their betting and reactions.
And it's amazing how often I win the pot for one bet when it comes scattered with one high card. Those times earn me free-roll probing chips. So I just pop them out there, routinely, and see what happens.
Back to the AJ example, one short-sighted variation. Ideally I'd like to get it down to heads up against a three-outter that will pay off: someone with J-worse-kicker. How best is this achieved? By betting and having the other top-pair player raise. But I have no idea who holds that hand! So I must give him a chance to raise and thin the field. In order to do that, reliably, I bet out. If the J-x hand is right behind me and I check and he bets, I cannot put two-bet pressure on the others by checkraising. But if I bet out, and he raises, all is well. If a late seat raises me on the flop with J-x, I can always three-bet to apply two-bet pressure.
The best chance of J-x vs J-x to apply two-bet pressure is for the first one to bet and the second one to raise.
Tommy
You wrote: By betting out with draws, second or third pair, top pair-bad kicker, top pair good kicker .....
What's the difference by you and a Maniac ?
Maniac=Loose/aggessive
