![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Hey, i love the new format!
Thanks
I usually play at a cardroom that uses the bug (the joker, wild only for aces, straights and flushes) in the game.
There is only one joker in the deck.
The games they play are Hold' Em, 7 High, and 7 Low. No split games and no Omaha or Tahoe. The joker is completely wild in the low games -- it works as the lowest possible card you need.
Obviously, with the joker in the deck, it changes the starting hand situation with Hold 'Em. For example. If you hold Joker/10spades, then it is really like holding the following hands:
A/10 spades 9/10 spades
K/10 spades 8/10 spades
Q/10 spades 7/10 spades
J/10 spades 6/10 spades
Plus the ace of every other suit (for flush purposes)
Plus any other straight card if the board is a 4 card
straight.
Going against the joker can be tough. My theory about why it's in the deck is because it creates "more action that God" (as one other play said). Obviously if you have the joker, the flop has to be almost terrible for you not to have at least a great draw.
I play very tight in this game -- in nearly all positions I tend to start with only class one or two hands plus pocket pairs. I also will play the joker from nearly any position.
Any thoughts on strategy (particularly hold 'em strategy) for this game?
Yeah find another casino to play in, SERIOUSLY.
The wild card has to screw up everything all calculations and odds are out the window. That is no way to play poker.
Rounder,
I play in many other games, but to be honest, this casino has the best game in town. The card tables are in the back of a high traffic bar which means many, many people sit down somewhat randomly. Often they ask, "Is this blackjack?" Clueless -- and therefore huge fish.
At the same time the game is also populated by a number of regulars who are in the near maniac category. There are only about 4 players who I'm truly wary of in this game (and rarely are they ever there together). For example, over the past three months, my average weekly win is over $300. This is playing approximately 15-25/hours a week at what is usually a $3 game (though frequently we play overs at 10/20/50 or no limit).
I also play in other card games in town but no one spreads above a $5 limit consistently and the $5 games against the old-timers who are rocks are not nearly as good -- you won't get much action and my hourly rate is not as high -- as the $3 game with the potential for overs.
I agree, the joker screws up the odds. For example: If you hold Joker/10 and the flop comes 7/8/9 then any 5/6/J/Q makes a straight -- basically it doubles your odds for openended straight draws. But it also can be dead weight. For example, if the board pairs (without an ace) then the joker is often a useless card.
I have compiled a table of odds to draws once you have the joker in your hand and the flop hits. I am curious about people's thoughts for starting hands?
Rounder writes:
The wild card has to screw up everything all calculations and odds are out the window. That is no way to play poker.
That's like saying that allowing an Ace to play both hin and low screws up everything. It doesn't screw it up, it *changes* things. Those who cannot adapt are doomed to failure.
It's not too hard to figure out how the bug changes the game. I think the poster was just asking about what he should do. Second, all drawing hands go up a bit in value, because there is another card which completes your draws. Third, you are pretty much correct to be liberal in your play of the joker, but as a general rule, treat it like a suited Ace, and use the same guidelines for playing Joker-x, as you would Axs. Fourth, unsuited cards go down in value, so you are pretty much correct to play only group 1 and 2 hands up early, but you still need to play a bit more than that in middle and in back.
- Andrew
A couple pieces of advice. First, suited kings lose a lot of value for obvious reasons.
Prock wrote: Third, you are pretty much correct to be liberal in your play of the joker, but as a general rule, treat it like a suited Ace, and use the same guidelines for playing Joker-x, as you would Axs.
Joker-x is much more valuable than Axs by far. Think of it as Axs plus the suited connectors x/x-1 and x+1/x. Plus it completes any four flush or four straight.
I totally agree with DeadBart, but I don't think you want to come charging into the game with Joker-x, when you are UTG.
One thing to note, while you do get more value for the fact that you are more "connected", this value doesn't increase the value of the hand to make it a head to head hand. The main reason is that it is still a drawing hand. If an Ace comes on the flop, you really can't like your kicker, so you are going for the straight/flush potential most of the time when you hold a small kicker.
It *is* strong enough that you wan't to be raising very liberally after three or four people limp in.
One key with the bug is that you do not want to give away the fact that you have the joker, so your style of play should be pretty consistent when you do have the joker as when you don't.
- Andrew
My advice was to find a real poker game and stay away from the wild card game - it was given in all seriousness ans it is exactly what I would do.
Why go find another game? Why not learn the game that is available? A good player adapts to the game, a bad player doesn't play.
- Andrew
Silly boy why don't you go adapt to roulette or craps.
The quality of the game is determined entirely by the quality of your opponents. If they are clueless, and there is money being thrown on the felt, one would be stupid to turn down the opportunity to relieve them of it. Yes, this is a very high-variance game, and we all know that some people don't like that. Too bad; those people are missing some great opportunities. If I can take a man's money because I play Anaconda a little better than he does, I'm happy to do it.
I hope your cardroom has a large reservoir of players.This can only burn up chips(players) From a business point of view it doesnt seem very smart. What is the rake?, limit? buy-in? How do you put players on a hand? discipline? In a cardroom setting the joker is for lo-ball.The joker is great for home games with old high school buddies.
I beg to differ. I play regularly in a cardroom that spreads five card stud with a *Joker*. They took out 12 other cards and allow you to take third, fourth and fifth street cards up or down at your option. It is, in my humble opinion, the easiest game to beat in the room. Wild cards tend to increase action and favor the better players. A good deal of poker skill lies in being able to recognize favorable situations and exploit them. The more complex the game is, the more a players skill will make a difference.
Encourage your local cardroom to spread complex, volatile games. The pots, relative to the size of the rake, will be larger and the "gamblers" will have a much better time playing. Cardroom poker is too staid and stodgy, we need to put more fun into it so that the contributors at least get some good entertainment value for their money.
A bug sounds like funnnnnnn!! What country do you play in?? I haven't played with a bug since my California draw days. But seriously, what state and town do you play in?
Sincerely, Zack
Poker is Poker. Bug poker requires a modified strategy from non-bug poker. Understanding hand strength is crucial in any poker game. In general, tactically, they play the same. Someone like David or Mason or other analysts will have to give you the strategy modifications (relative to hand strength). I don't know them nor am I inclined to develop them. I will give you the following advice, because you asked, Do not play in any game that you do not UNDERSTAND. By that I mean that if a game demands a definitized strategy to gain an edge and you do not know that strategy do not play in the game. Something to do with "looking around the table and not spotting the live one".
Vince.
Thanks for the replies so far. As I mentioned, I do well in this game, but am more interested in people's opinions about strategy. A few points:
(1) The bug is incredibly more powerful that Axs. Just it's any ace-suited when a four flush is on the board makes this clear. Same with a four straight. I'll play the bug from any position. Not so with Axs. In this game I'll only play them late with many limpers.
(2) I respect Rounder's skills, but I don't agree about his thoughts about this game. As someone else said, "Poker is poker." The bug modifies things (the game becomes more of a drawing game) and makes some things really wacky (for example, if you hold A/2 of spades with three spades on the board and any one holds the Joker/10 of spades then you don't have the nuts). The winning hand simply tends to be higher...a little like hold 'em vs. omaha, but less extreme.
(3) The game is a set limit of $3. Frequently people play overs. Up to no limit with people having $500 in front of them. Unfortunately, in MT, all poker pots are capped (this sucks).
(4) The game is at Stockman's Bar in Missoula, MT. Come down and play -- it's definitely a beatable game, especially if the limits go up. I'm curious if anyone else has played there?
(5) The joker is definitely a drawing hand -- it is way more valuable in a multi-way pot.
B.D.
Sounds like you have a pretty solid grasp of what the implications of the bug are when you hold it in your hand. If you have the same level of understanding of how it affects your play when it's *not* in your hand, then my money is on you.
- Andrew
Last night was the last time Bob Sherwood is getting any of my money. He is too lucky. Fifth time I've been at a 10-20 or 20-40 HE table and had him walk away with a bunch of my money. On top of that, I believe few people really make any serious money on any regular basis. Poker is just as much a gamble as blackjack. I quit. If you had any sense, you'd quit too.
BM - good luck - sounds like you need some.
Your wrong poker is a zero sum game which means if you lose someone wins (less the rake) it is up to you to be the winner not anyone else.
If your losing analyze your game - are you playing to many marginal hands in poor position or are you seeing and calling to many bets with no hopers.
There is no reason you can't be a winning player.
Rounder writes:
Your wrong poker is a zero sum game ...
Not when there's a rake. Everyone can lose at the casino. That is unless you count the casino as a "player".
- Andrew
Andy if your gonna quote me please do so completely.
I said "Your wrong poker is a zero sum game which means if you lose someone wins (less the rake) it is up to you to be the winner not anyone else.
I mentioned the rake and my comment is correct.
Oh well sorry, it's just that what you say makes almost as much sense as:
You get the second for free (if you don't count buying the first one).
Either it's free or not.
Either it's a zero sum game or it's not. Casino poker is not a zero sum game.
- Andrew
Andy when you grow up and understand the game come on back and talk to me.
Beautiful response rounder.
Why bother admitting that you're wrong when it is so much more effective to insult me.
- Andrew
There is no reason you can't be a winning player.
I'm sorry to disagree with you but your statement assumes that everyone can win which is obviously false. Everyone CANNONT win. There must be losers for there to be winners. Otherwise the house gets it all.As my father was very fond of saying, "If there is money to be made--you're going to have to get in a very long line before you start making any of it."
- Re: Poker is a losing game
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Sunday, 14 November 1999, at 7:11 a.m.
Brenda I agree for there to be winners there has to be losers but I said "There is no reason you can't be a winning player." There is no reason he can't - it doesn't mean everyone can just there is no reason he can't.
Your father sounds like a wise man.
- Re: Poker is a losing game
Posted by: Pierre (Therock27@buffalo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 November 1999, at 10:14 p.m.
There could easily be many reasons why any one individual could not be a winning poker player. It is surprisingly easy to make $$$ at the game, but many people just don't get it, or don't have anywhere near the discipline. It's tempting to say "anybody could do it", but this is just not the case.
- Re: Poker is a losing game
Posted by: Brad S
Posted on: Monday, 15 November 1999, at 4:45 a.m.
Strictly speaking you are correct, but I think that you are missing the point of Rounder's original post.
Sure, if you had some extreme mental disability and functioned at the level of a three year old, you could probably never play the game with positive expectation, but surely anyone with even the most modest intellect COULD aquire the skills neccessary to beat the game. And don't get me wrong here - By modest, I mean anyone that I have ever seen playing poker in a casino.
You say that not everyone 'Gets it' or that not everyone has the discipline. You then state that not everyone could do it because it is 'just not the case'.
Just not being the case has been true of many things at certain points in history including nuclear fission, manned space missions, and computers playing chess. The fact that these things were just not the case did not imply that they never would be the case. Similarly, that fact that many people do not have the discipline does not imply that they could not aquire it.
Granted, not everyone could play positive winning poker ALL AT ONCE, because some will always play better than others and this is what determines who wins and who loses. ie- It is impossible for everyone to walk away from the table a winner. BUT, any one individual could attain the requisite attributes to make himself a winner.
Now I know that a lot of people will argue with this opinion, but I firmly believe it to be true. I don't want everyone to improve their game, because it would be bad for me, but I have no doubt that they COULD do it. The fact that they DON'T do it is inconsequential to whether or not they are CAPABLE.
Maybe I am making a big deal out of a very small issue, but it has always bugged me how positive EV players think that they have some kind of completely different central nervous system than negative EV players. I don't mean to suggest that you are of this crowd and, in fact, poker players aren't even the worst ones for it. (Blackjack players are the absolute worst in my opinion. They think that they possess a kind of mathematical genius that only the truly gifted could ever hope to acheive. It is difficult, I admit, but I have never seen anyone who could count cards effectively who did not invest at least a couple hundered hours of practice. I think that the truly gifted would realize how boring it is to do that after only a few hours of practice.)
At any rate, I just think that it is arrogant to suppose that any given negative EV player is incapable of becoming a positive EV player. I've known my share of 'undisciplined' and 'ignorant' poker players who lost every session, yet who also ran very successful businesses that got that way through extreme discipline and carefull calculation. You would be surprised how many dumb players are actually pretty smart outside of the casino.
regards, Brad S
- Re: Poker is a losing game
Posted by: Frank
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 November 1999, at 4:58 p.m.
Brenda,
Your father was obviously an astute observer. I have to agree.
The only exception I would make is insider type things wherein most people don't know there's money to be made and thus don't form a line....but try finding one of those. It generally ends up being a "who you know" deal.
"If wishes were fishes and fishes were Fords, all the beggars could ride"
Or
"If dung became gold, tommorrow, all the poor folks kids would be born without butts."
- Re: Poker is a losing game
Posted by: Furious (RFloyd@Mindspring.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 November 1999, at 12:07 p.m.
Rounder,
Where were you in Vegas buddy? I'll post you a note on the exchange.
Russ
"If you had any sense, you'd quit too. "
Amen! Point noted! Point well taken. Oh! For a little sense.
Vince.
One wonders if Bob Sherwood feels this way.
I don't know Bob Sherwood, but I know a few guys who play mid and upper level HE and average from 25K to 40K a year. Maybe Sherwood is just a better player. Buy somebooks...Sklansky and Malmuth stuff. Calm down....Watch Sherwood's play, maybe you'll learn something.
Who is this Bob Sherwood ?? Maybe I can 'rub albows' with him. Notice he is not a regular poster - too busy making money. Anyway - I think you are alright and made a right choice I wonder if you can keep to it.... Seriously - I like poker now more than ever - now that I seldom play it !!!!!
Babaloo:
With all due respect: Poker is like screenwriting. A little art, a little science, a little craft. And the good, well, they'll get the goods. As I'm sure you know. I've long admired your work; now I can look forward to meeting you over a poker table as well.
Murray
Bye Bye Babaloo, hold the door for me because I'm right on your heels.
I've often felt the way you do and then I started folding. If I still had disappointing results I folded a little more. It got to the point where I would finally be looking for a reason to get out of a hand rather than looking for a reason to stay in. Then, I started winning. By the way if you are THE Babaloo Mandel I've got a great idea for a sitcom. A Taste: Sign in a deli
IF YOU DON'T LIKE SOMETHING YOU BUY
No Problem
JUST THROW IT OUT!!
Babaloo... I know you don't mean you're quitting th game. I'll bet youi're gonna write something involving poker, though. Who will you cast for Sherwood's part...Michael Douglas?
Hmmm, think about it.
You know, it's true. Almost everybody would be better off if they quit playing this game. It takes its toll on everybody. The losers go broke and get bitter. The winning players get a little nasty after all those years of getting run down. The luckiest of winning players generally develop a very annoying arrogance (eg. TJ Cloutier - "a few players limp, I decide to raise the 72suited. The flop comes 772. It's all a question of timing" [paraphrased from Championship NL holdem]). I still love to play the game, but I think that's mainly the addicted part of me more than anything. The world would be a better place if nobody gambled anymore. And yes folks, poker is gambling.
Get thee behind me, Satan.
But Pierre,
Didn't you say it was "suprisingly easy" to win.
So tell us your methods. :-)
Better yet, write a book and get rich.
seems you are focusing on short term results and not long term. You had a short term run of bad luck and Bob had a short term run of good luck. The long run is where it really matters who is the better player.
I had one stretch where I could not seem to win a hand, no matter what I did or how thin their draws. For 3 weeks, I proceeded to lose almost 700$ playing only the smallest games against the easiest opponents. All the while I couldn't seem to find the leak in my game! Extremely frustrating time since I thought I was playing well but was still losing. Then one night my short term luck changed and I won over 700$ in one night playing 3-6 and 5-10 HE! It seems that both cases were short term luck in action. Even though I went for a three week stretch without winning much of anything, I still am happy when I look at my results for the year!
The real skill factor is only evident over a long period of time. I know I am a better player than most of my opponents. They can only draw to gutshots and backdoors so many times before it will eventually catch up to them. My longterm results will ultimately reflect my skill level and how well I play. Keep in mind the long run can seem like a very long, long time!!!!
As for few poker players being long term winners, this is probably true. MOST players don't have the discipline or patience to do what it really takes to be a winning player. My guess is that only a small % actually put in any real time learning what it takes to REALLY be a winner.
As for poker being a gamble, I would say that If you can find any gambling activity that offers as big an edge as poker please post it on this forum so we can all quit and go play your new game. Otherwise it is pretty obvious that poker is THE game to be playing!
I'm 150 hrs into my rookie season,and this game teaches lessons daily.Im 10 minutes into todays session,flop top two pair,board is all same suit,6 players show weakness by cking to me in late pos.I bet 1 caller,who double cks his hole cards,I assume he needs 4th suited. I bet and he calls all the way out,he turns over 2,5 clubs for the flush.No problem,15 minutes later very similiar cards,diffent situation.I flop top two pair,board all 1 suit,early pos player bets,he is exper. player in for Sams tourney,waiting for higher limit game to open,2nd player calls,she plays every day always solid cards,I call.Turn blank #1 bets two of us call,river blank #1 bets,2 mucks,7 big bets in pot,I muck,giving myself the opportunity to 2nd quess myself all day.It doesn't help that he had smaal two pair.Should mention I rarely have thrown away best hand.Come home try to make sense of #s,he was 3.3 to 1 dog to have two suited.Comments?
MS last time I looked a flush beats 2 pair. If the board is all one suit and you ain't part of it 2 pair or not if there are callers and action you better get out or you'll be suckin' hind teat.
Hope you learned a lesson.
BTW if you never throw a winning hand away your staying to long in most games - it is no dishonor to muck a good hand if you think your beat. Takes a good player to muck a good hand.
As I have stated in several previous posts, whenever the board flops all of one suit and you do not have a card in that suit you are severely handicapped. Obviously with two pair you are not drawing dead but others have posted problems with top pair or an overpair as high as Aces and they insists on calling bets and raises even though they could be drawing dead. Furthermore, if another card of that suit hits the board on the river your hand is instantly dead.
All that being said, with two pair your play in the first hand was correct because no one showed any strength and you could have the best hand. Similarily, in the second hand I think you should call on the end even though you are probably beat. In these situations, two pair is much more playable than top pair or an over pair because you have some outs to beat a flush. In addition, no one showed any strength and you were not calling multiple bets and raises.
I like this post (and Rounder's) and would just like to add:
If you are going to call the turn (2nd hand) then why on earth would you fold the river when a blank hits? If you are calling the turn you have to call the river, otherwise fold after the flop and save the extra two big bets.
My thinking at the time was,I have 4 outs for the boat,if I catch it,I raise on the river.Do you happen to know the math of the liklyhood of one opponent having a flush with suited board,2 oponents etc.(I don't)The only #s I came up with are that he is 3.3 to dog to have 2 suitted cards.After flop,I've got approx. 16 % chance for boat(6to1 dog).Also he may have bet the flop representing the flush hoping to knock us out.
After re-reading Dave's message,realize to answer his question why bet turn,I had about 8% to catch on river after turn was blank. Was not getting pot odds to justify turn bet.Point well taken,only reason to bet turn would be if I thought opponent bluffing,which I did'nt know
I think the other comments were good but here are mine anyway.
Hand No. 1:
(I assume no preflop raise). I think you usually need to bet this flop. In a loose game against players that can't get away from their draws, and if your top two were aces up or kings up with little gutshot threat, you could have seen the turn for free and come out betting or raising when the coast was clearer. This both increases the value of your turn bets at your opponents' expense, but also (hopefully) increases the number of players that will draw to the flush. The idea is that if one of your opponents is going to draw to the nut (or near-nut) flush anyway, you'd prefer others to draw with lesser flush cards. Obviously it helps a lot if you can recognize a slow-played flush and jump ship when it attacks (your draw stinks).
Hand No. 2:
Remember that there are two things that can justify your calls on the flop and turn: you might have the best hand and you might draw out if you don't. On the river, you played it as if the first wasn't a factor when it should have been an even bigger factor. And of course you understand that you didn't have a big enough pot to play it for the second reason alone. So you probably should have either folded before the river or called on the river.
If your opponent will bet out with a draw or pair plus a draw as well as a made hand (as nearly all good players will), I would have raised somewhere, most likely on the turn. Against a rock or a timid player I'd usually fold on the flop. But even when you're making a mistake, a tendency to make things harder on your opponents has its own benefits.
I think this is an excellent learning exercise because so many difficult problems in hold 'em are similar. As your judgment in hold 'em gets better, you'll notice that you'll be doing a lot less calling.
(BTW, I'm just curious, where did you get that 3.3 number? It sounds familiar but I question its applicability).
You'd check the turn here? If this is a low limit game, I'd have to bet the turn and probably the river (assuming the fourth flush card didn't drop) unless the caller was a very, very timid player. True, you may be up against a made hand, but if your opponent is a live one you may just be up against top pair with something like a Q high flush draw. Or, as I've seen often enough, he could just have an underpair, a gutshot draw, or something else equally exotic. Anyway, my guess here would be that you've got the best hand, and will also probably have the best hand if you're called on the river (against a weak player).
Uh ... where did I suggest checking the turn? I suggested checking the flop as an alternative when you expect several players to call your bet (1) to avoid all losses due to the a flush card on the turn (2) to avoid some losses to the flopped flush by smoking it out and (3) to more severely punish or knock out a draw or two. You want to bet the turn, of course.
I suspect that you can make more this way whereas just betting/calling every round to the river is a bit better than break-even. You also might win a bit more than otherwise in the rare cases when your FH makes someone's flush. To be frank, I don't know which is the better play..
nt
For the benefit of this forum's readers, especially those new to poker, I offer a contest. Attempt to find one or more errors in the following HPFAP advice. I don't feel comfortable quoting the entire one-and-a-half pages of explanation without permission, but this should suffice to get you started:
"It's so important to increase your chance to win the pot that it can be right to bet a hand that you know is beat. For instance, if you have Ts9s, the flop comes Ad7c6h, and the pot is pretty big, it is almost mandatory to bet if you are in early position. You do this not only because you might make a straight, but because it is important to get hands like KdJh out." (HPFAP-1999, p. 168.)
What do you say, David and Mason? Can you post the remainder (or give me permission to do so)? Meanwhile, readers without HPFAP-1999 can borrow it from a friend, stop at their local library, or visit a bookstore.
The bad news is that I will not reward contest winners with cash or book prizes. Instead, they will have to be satisfied with the warm feeling they experience upon breaking free from the slavery of blindly following authority, the new vistas they will comprehend after exercising their independent minds, the inflated bankrolls they will accumulate when they understand the fundamentals of poker . . . well, you get the idea.
The good new is that this contest should have multiple winners. With so many bright participants on this forum, we should be able to enumerate at least a dozen problems with the advice. Even those readers who think about the advice but are unable (at this time) to articulate their concerns will benefit from the effort and will be winners in their own way.
Contest entrants might wish to review the discussions found in the "Another HPFAP 'Loose Games' error" thread (begun on 7 November 1999) and the "Check vs. bet: theory (was HPFAP error)" thread (begun on 11 November 1999).
I'll start the ball rolling with a sub-thread entitled "Error #1: Checking still could win."
"Once you've read all the best books, IMO you should still buy most of the others because it's a great exercise to critique them, to see if you can find their mistakes and misinformation as well as their good information." (John Feeney, 7 November 1999.)
[Disclaimer: The above quotation does not imply that John Feeney supports this contest; he might even object to it. But he's still eligible to participate.]
Suppose you hold Ts9s, the flop comes Ad7c6h, and the pot is pretty big. HPFAP-1999 suggests it is "almost mandatory to bet if you are in early position" because, in part, you might get hands like KdJh to fold. "Getting back to the above example, what's the chance that a ten or a nine will come in that spot? You have 6 chances twice which is about 25 percent, and if you bet out as we recommend you will win a decent proportion of those times when you make a pair, whereas before it wouldn't have won." Since your pair won't always win you the pot, the authors reduce the 25 percent figure down to probably over 5 percent. (See HPFAP-1999, pp. 168-169.)
There are several potential errors in this analysis. In this post, I'll object to the assertion, ". . . whereas before it wouldn't have won." Clearly this is wrong. If you check the flop and later catch a pair, there will be times when you still will win the pot.
Sometimes, none of your opponents will have hands like KdJh.
Furthermore, even when your opponents do hold hands like KdJh, you can catch your pair and find that none of your opponents' hands improve. The turn, for example, might put up the Td (giving you a pair), and the river might bring the 3c (not helping hands like KdJh).
Finally, by checking the flop, you do not forfeit your right to bet out on the turn. If you check the flop and catch a pair on the turn, you can bet the turn if you feel the benefits (such as probably folding hands like KdJh) outweigh the costs.
". . . whereas before it wouldn't have won."
Do you actually believe the authors think it is literally impossible to win here? Obviously they mean it is unlikely that you will win.
I object to your nitpicky confrontational tone. What exactly are you trying to prove? Why not just post technical objections or counterarguments to the particular idea presesented instead of acting like HPFAP is some kind of grand conspiracy.
First, the HPFAP authors are not idiots. If they meant to say "it is unlikely that you will win," then they simply could have phrased the assertion, ". . . whereas before is is unlikely to have won."
Secondly, it is not at all obvious that, if you catch a ten or a nine on the turn or river, you are much more unlikely to lose the hand if you check the flop as compared to betting out the flop. In either case, you still lose if an ace is against you at the showdown. And if the pot is pretty big because a few players paid multiple bets to see the flop, then the chances decrease that hands like KdJh are out against you. Even if they are, the turn or river often will not help them.
David protests, "Why not just post technical objections or counterarguments to the particular idea presesented . . ."
I thought that is what I did in the last three paragraphs of my post. Perhaps you didn't read that far.
Additionally, in reference to the general idea presented, I have offered several more detailed counterarguments and supporting theoretical concepts in previous posts. See the "Another HPFAP 'Loose Games' error" thread (begun on 7 November 1999) and the "Check vs. bet: theory (was HPFAP error)" thread (begun on 11 November 1999).
The final paragraph in my "Error #1: Checking still could win" submission contains the germ of an idea that somebody might be able to develop into a winning entry.
Mark - I think this makes about the sixth bit of advice from HPFAP that you've taken issue with. I fully support your bringing these things up for discussion. (Why you wish to do it with the tone you convey is beyond me. I think you'd do better to engage instead in genuine, cooperative discussion rather than this "prove 'em wrong" approach, if for no other reason than the old "honey/vinegar" proverb.) But when I think back on the points you've made, most seem to involve taking something the authors have written, holding them to a totally literal meaning with no room for exceptions, and proclaiming them, therefore, wrong. This rigidity seems (to me anyway) to be at the root of several of your disagreements with them. David Steele commented above about an example of this.
To summarize how some of your past objections involved this same rigid literalism:
1. In one thread you stated that a hand example used by David in _Sklansky on Poker_ was a poor example. You stated - seriously it now seems, though at the time I thought you were actually joking - that the example did a poor job of illustrating David's point. Ultimately, after some discussion, you came out with the revelation that the example showed the same card in two different hands, and that therefore whether one called or raised shouldn't matter because the casino would declare the hand dead, etc.
2. In another post, you took issue with David's commenting that, "if you check and allow someone who would not have called your bet to outdraw you, then you have allowed a 'mathematical catastrophe' to happen", followed by, "It is also a catastrophe to give a free card to someone who would have called your bet, and he fails to outdraw you. However, this second mathematical catastrophe is not as bad as the first." You asked how the second case could be considered a "catastrophe", as it only cost one bet.
3. In an earlier thread, I pointed out that the authors used the word *usually* in that piece of advice about betting a pair when the pot is big. But you found a quirky (IMO) way of interpreting it, suggesting that they instead meant *without exception*. This despite David's having acknowledged that exceptions can occur (but warning against "finding" them if you don't really know what you're doing).
4. Now you "…object to the assertion, '. . . whereas before it wouldn't have won'", insisting that 'if they meant it to be qualified they'd have qualified it'. Yet I think that most rational readers can see in the text that they did not mean it in the absolute, literal, 100% of the time, way that you think they did. As in any book, meaning here is partly conveyed through the whole, the gestalt, and the context. It appears to me that you usually lean toward very literal ways of understanding what you have read (or at least use them to support your argument), causing you to see "errors" where someone reading with a more flexible, in fact more typical, take on meaning would not. We all have our styles of thinking and comprehending. In the matter of understanding the meaning of some of the 2+2 advice, I wonder if yours might not have led you to disagreements which other intelligent readers would not share. David has stated again that exceptions are possible, but that it is a sound rule of thumb most of the time.
Your support for your arguments has usually been a listing of all the little factors which can work against the particular 2+2 advice. (These are the factors upon which the occasional exception would be based.) The counter argument is simply a list of all the little factors which work in favor of it. Playing experience, logic, math, and maybe even simulation can be drawn upon to decide how to weight the factors. If you believe their advice is *generally* wrong, why don't you just say, "I weight the first set of factors more heavily than the authors?" Then, if you provide some evidence for why one should weight them as you do, we might at least have something to work with. But if you're just trying to show that there can in fact be exceptions, you're attacking a straw man.
The 2+2 advice in these instances is based on concepts which "well schooled" players have known for years (e.g., that it is often worth taking some extra risks to win very big pots), in large part thanks to books like David's _The Theory of Poker_. These concepts have logical bases, if not lots of published mathematical proof to support them. They are even "intuitive", if I may say so, to many (most?) better players. (The current example is based on one of these concepts, though as David mentions most players had not thought of this particular application.) You have not provided compelling logic to persuade players to flip to your weighting of the factors.
There are of course some obvious exceptions to the advice to bet in the current scenario. e.g., say you have some extremely strong evidence that another player has AA. Maybe you've played a lot with this player and *know*, because he is virtually 100% predictable, that his preflop play indicates pocket aces. (e.g., maybe he limp-reraised, and always does so with AA, but never with any other hand. Or maybe you saw his cards.) Well, now you don't care about knocking out a hand like KJ. So the need to bet is greatly diminished. But as David points out, most players are probably best advised not to look for much more subtle exceptions. The cost when they're wrong is too high.
The idea is that when the pot is very large, and you have some realistic shot at it, winning it more *often* is usually worth FAR more than saving a bet or two. You have not shown otherwise.
I think these threads have been repeating themselves for a while. I just wanted to try once more to summarize and clarify some key points -- FWIW.
John,
"FWIW."
For what it's Worth! For What it's Worth, Indeed!
Mark,
John wrote:
"If you believe their advice is *generally* wrong, why don't you just say, "I weight the first set of factors more heavily than the authors?" Then, if you provide some evidence for why one should weight them as you do, we might at least have something to work with."
This is what I have been trying to say all along. But being a "silly guy" was unable to get my point across. This is the reason I started a thread trying to quantify mid pair betting/checking into a large field. Erin made an attempt to answer that question and then must have just given up. Scott, the boy wonder, said it was too hard. Even Fossil, the king of tournament EV decided there may be too many variables. Sklansky and Malmuth, as old and set in their ways as they are to my knowledge, have never preached "absolute" poker. In fact Mason has always been at the forefront of "thinking" poker. Evalute the situation then acact. That is not to say that they have not promoted betting when the pot is large. The basis for this discussion. They have. Are they correct? Even though I follow the teachings of these two I do not follow them blindly. Unlike John I do not feel that because we repeat ourselves over and over again in these discussions that we are wasting our time. We waste our time when we repeat for the sake of repeating. We have an issue. We have two thoughts that are diametrically opposed. How do we resolve the issue?
I play poker in these situations almost exclusively the way that David and Mason propose. Consequently I am biased towards that strategy. Quite frankly Gary and you, by challenging that strategy have made me think about my play. That's a good thing. One may question my "thinking" as being a good thing but we all have opinnions.
John wrote:
"The 2+2 advice in these instances is based on concepts which "well schooled" players have known for years"
I'm not sure I would take "well schooled" literally, but I have always believed that the Advanced series books were a compilation of "experience" of top (winning) poker players. Although experience is not the end all way of determining good poker strategy it does carry a lot of weight.
To get to the Bottom line. I say to you and Gary and anyone else that promotes a strategy that differs from the one I use. Show me. I'm listening.
Vince.
i said it was too hard. then i gave a partial answer. what did you think of the answer?
scott
Scott I posted a response to you. I agrred with some of your assumptions. Your response seemed more appropriately a point counter point aguement. I am looking for some way to quantify they stragey.
Vince
it's way down there now, but i did some math. it is a response to your agreeing with some of my assumptions. i don't claim it is complete, but i think it takes into account the important factors. look it over. what do you think?
scott
Not a bad post, John. Of cours, we wouldn't expect any less from one of our superstars :).
Seriously, I think that what most of us find the most valuable in the 2+2 texts are the general insights that the authors provide. I can't really remember the specifics of most of the 'examples', because I've never paid much attention to them. Wait; that's not true. When I was first learning the game I paid a TON of attention to them. But now that I've become older, wiser and fatter-- no, I mean savvier- I find that the basic ideas presented in the texts are what I find the most compelling and enlightening.
John wrote:
>>Now you "...object to the assertion, '. . . whereas before it wouldn't have won'", insisting that 'if they meant it to be qualified they'd have qualified it'. Yet I think that most rational readers can see in the text that they did not mean it in the absolute, literal, 100% of the time, way that you think they did. As in any book, meaning here is partly conveyed through the whole, the gestalt, and the context.<<
This is the second time John has suggested that I have taken a phrase from HPFAP out of context. As in the previous instance, however, I provided the full context so readers could determine for themselves what the authors intended.
It's easy to accuse somebody of taking phrases out of context, because this is very subjective.
Once again, I will repeat the passage, this time quoting an additional paragraph instead of paraphrasing it so as to provide even richer context. On pages 168-169 of HPFAP-1999, the authors give an example where you hold Ts9s in early position, the flop is Ad7c6h, and the pot is "pretty big." The authors suggest betting out the flop, in part, to drive out hands like KdJh.
"Getting back to the above example, what's the chance that a ten or a nine will come in that spot? You have 6 chances twice which is about 25 percent, and if you bet out as we recommend you will win a decent proportion of those times when you make a pair, whereas before it wouldn't have won.
"You also have about a 15 percent chance to make your gut shot. So you go from as little as 15 percent to probably over 20 percent because you bet that T9 and knocked out the over cards to your cards."
Notice that the two quoted paragraphs are an attempt to mathematically justify the advice of betting out on the flop. Most authors, when they perform mathematical analyses, deliberately use words and phrases in a fairly explicit sense rather than rely on readers to correctly infer their intended meanings. Of course, David and Mason are not presenting a formal "proof" of their advice, so they are not using exact numbers. But notice how they carefully qualify their approximations: "about 25 percent," "a decent proportion," "about a 15 percent chance," "as little as 15 percent," and "probably over 20 percent."
Yet John would have us believe that when the authors said "whereas before it wouldn't have won," they intended to imply "whereas before it only would have won about 15 to 20 percent of the time."
I'm using the 15-20 percent figure because that's my estimate of how often you typically will win with a pair if you check instead of bet the flop and none of your opponents has an an ace in their hand. Of course, the 15-20 percent probably would drop to 3-4 percent after you apply the author's estimates of losing to a better hand.
Infering 15-20 percent from a literal zero percent seems like a stretch. But the 3-4 percent figure certainly is closer to zero. So, perhaps John is suggesting that the authors really intended to convey something like: "You have 6 chances twice which is about 25 percent (assuming you are not against an ace), and if you bet out as we recommend, you will win a decent proportion of those times when you make a pair, whereas before you only win about 3 to 4 percent of the time (after taking into account that you might be against an ace)."
While this is a plausible rationalization, to suggest that the authors meant this borders on accusing them of intellectual dishonesty. It is extremely misleading to compare an adjusted 3 or 4 percent against an unadjusted 25 percent, and I don't believe David and Mason intended to do this. Nor do I think that John believes this either. So the question remains, John, how do you interpret the passage in question?
I think the authors simply were careless in their analysis and failed to realize that you also can win the pot with a pair when you simply check the flop. That's what I suggested in my post, and that's what I will believe until I have good grounds to believe otherwise.
I've answered John's relevant objections to this "Error #1: Checking still could win" sub-thread. To help keep the general thread organized, I will, in a separate post, later address his comments about the issue of whether you should bet or check the flop when you hold a mediocre hand and are involved in a pretty big pot. If I have time, I might even deal with his less topical concerns. However, I do have a life outside the Internet.
Mark writes: This is the second time John has suggested that I have taken a phrase from HPFAP out of context.
Not at all. I suggested that in attempting to understand the passage in question you missed its meaning, conveyed in context upon reading the whole of the text on that page. I elaborated on this, and others have mentioned it too. (I believe my other mention of "context" was in a similar vein.)
If some guy misinterpreted the advice on that page to mean you should literally do everything possible to win a big pot, no matter your chances, then that is hardly the fault of the authors.
Mark writes: I think the authors simply were careless in their analysis and failed to realize that you also can win the pot with a pair when you simply check the flop.
My guess is that they realized that.
John,
If you guess the authors realized that, then I ask you again: How do you interpret the passage in question?
Mark and John,
You two must have been watching cable tonite at the same time as me. Steven Hawkings was great. So was Ed Witten. But the part about String theory being the Theory of Everthing really through me. Funny you two would discuss it here on a poker forum. Gives meaning to everything now doesn't it.
Vince.
John noted: "David has stated again that exceptions are possible, but that it is a sound rule of thumb most of the time."
What David wrote was: "I for one don't have the time to check Mark's math and arguments to see how often the bet might be very slightly wrong given certain types of opponents. In fact it could be dangerous to your bankroll to even be aware that there may be exceptions if you don't know exactly when those exceptions occur."
As I noted in my response to Greg, I'm not looking for a good rule of thumb. And I'm certainly not looking for a "standard" play to apply whenever I have a mediocre hand in early position and the pot is big at the flop. In complex situations like these, I want to make my decision on a case-by-case basis. For each particular scenario, I want to evaluate the important factors and determine which betting action will be the most profitable.
John and I might disagree as to exactly how often you should bet out on the flop in certain situations, but I think we both realize the importance of making informed decisions.
John stated: "The 2+2 advice in these instances is based on concepts which 'well schooled' players have known for years (e.g., that it is often worth taking some extra risks to win very big pots), in large part thanks to David's _The Theory of Poker_."
I have never disagreed with the idea that, as pots become larger, it sometimes makes sense to bet (or raise or check-raise) with some hands that you normally would check, call, or fold. In fact, I pointed readers to an excellent Roy Cooke column in the 23 July 1999 issue of CARDPLAYER magazine. Roy explained why he check-raised with a drawing hand to knock out a player who easily could have AK, thus buying himself an extra three "integer" outs. He only used a single example, but he illuminated the underlying concepts very well and explained how he considered various important factors. Most of Roy's readers probably could figure out when this same concept could be applied in other situations.
My criticism of HPFAP-1999's "When the Pot Gets Big" chapter is that it does a poor job of describing the underlying concepts, uses bad examples, and does not discuss the important factors players should ponder when deciding whether betting or checking is more profitable.
John observed: "There are of course some obvious exceptions to the advice to bet in the current scenario. e.g., say you have some extremely strong evidence that another player has AA. Maybe you've played a lot with this player and *know*, because he is virtually 100% predictable, that his preflop play indicates pocket aces. (e.g., maybe he limp-reraised, and always does so with AA, but never with any other hand. Or maybe you saw his cards.) Well, now you don't care about knocking out a hand like KJ. So the need to bet is greatly diminished."
There are *plenty* of obvious exceptions to the advice to bet in the current scenario. Several of my stronger opponents will raise pre-flop from early position with AA, KK, QQ, AKs, AK, AQs, and a few "deceptive" hands, so I can be reasonably certain that my catching a single pair is unlikely to win me the pot at showdown. So my betting the flop to knock out hands like KdJh is pretty much a waste of money, especially since these opponents could well raise my flop bet. Other opponents might add hands like JJ, TT, AQo, AJs, and KQs to their early-position, pre-flop raising arsenal. I'll usually check the flop to them, too. If many of my opponents will call pre-flop with any hand that contains an ace, I will lean towards checking the flop. If the pot is big on the flop because there were multiple pre-flop raisers or if I have other good reasons to suspect that my flop bet likely will be raised, I usually will check the flop. If there are only a few players (who all paid multiple pre-flop bets) involved at the flop, I probably will check the flop. If many of the opponents still involved in the big pot usually will call a flop bet with hands like KJ, I will tend to check the flop. Enough already?
John explained: "But as David points out, most players are probably best advised not to look for much more subtle exceptions. The cost when they're wrong is too high."
Perhaps I was mistaken earlier. Maybe both of us do *not* realize the importance of making informed decisions.
Suppose you had 5s2s in the big blind and got a free look at the flop while facing seven opponents. The flop comes AhTd6d. Should you check-call or check-fold in this situation? (Presumably, betting the flop rarely would be correct.) If you check-fold, you might save a bet or two, but you could end up surrendering a big pot that would have been yours. Is the cost of being wrong too high in this situation? Or should players attempt to evaluate the most important factors and make an informed decision about which play would be more profitable? John and David seem to feel that most players are incapable of making these kinds of informed decisions. I beg to differ.
John continued: "The idea is that when the pot is very large, and you have some realistic shot at it, winning it more *often* is usually worth FAR more than saving a bet or two. You have not shown otherwise."
To a large extent, your correct play will depend on how realistic your shot at winning the pot is. If your chances of winning are so small that the pot odds are not offering you an overlay, you generally should check-and-fold. If you are getting an overlay, then you must decide whether it is more profitable to bet/raise or to check/call. Generally, you will want to bet/raise when the number of players you expect to call offers an overlay to your chances of winning. Sometimes, when you are close to getting that overlay, you can bet/raise if you think your action will buy you enough extra pot equity. And there are other factors to consider as well. But when the pot is very large and you have a playable hand, you usually will want to check/call rather than bet/raise. I showed this in the "Check vs. bet: theory (was HPFAP error)" thread that began on 11 November 1999.
"Calling stations" rarely make expensive mistakes, but they generally bust out quickly making many cheap mistakes. Ironically, if you understand why this statement is true, then you should understand why checking usually is preferable to betting when pots are big and you have a playable hand.
There's really nothing more to say. You contend that you've "shown" that checking is usually better in the situations discussed. I contend that you've listed factors that point in that direction, but which are usually outweighed by those which point the other way. Specifics have been discussed by various posters in this and previous threads.
I agree with some of your points. I agree that these decisions can be evaluated on a case by case basis. (The same can be said, however, for almost any poker decision to which a valid rule of thumb might otherwise be applied. And the more expert the player, the more exceptions he will find.) I agree that the variables you've listed in your posts do go into these decisions. I don't think they invalidate the book's advice.
(BTW, in his article Roy Cooke states the same principle that David and Mason do. I doubt they would have any problem with his check-raise, though a case could also have been made for betting out in the hope of knocking out the possible AK right then and there.)
I wrote: "I have never disagreed with the idea that, as pots become larger, it sometimes makes sense to bet (or raise or check-raise) with some hands that you normally would check, call, or fold. In fact, I pointed readers to an excellent Roy Cooke column in the 23 July 1999 issue of CARDPLAYER magazine."
John wrote: "BTW, in his article Roy Cooke states the same principle that David and Mason do."
Duh. That's why I mentioned his column--twice. If members of this forum are interested in reading a well-written and informative explanation of the "buying extra effective outs" concept, they should read Roy's article rather than HPFAP-1999's "When the Pot Gets Big" chapter. Better yet, read both. Then compare and contrast.
On the other hand, I hope my opponents at the table only read the HPFAP-1999 chapter.
In a prior post, John explained: "But as David points out, most players are probably best advised not to look for much more subtle exceptions."
In his latest post, John stated: "I agree that these decisions can be evaluated on a case by case basis."
It's good to see that John has regained his faith in the intelligence of this forum's readers.
Suppose you check the flop and everyone else also checks. Suppose further that the turn is a King and the river is a 10. Would you then agree that betting the flop (which you would have called anyway had someone else bet) may allow you to win the pot.
I guess what I am trying to say is of course you are correct in stating that "checking still could win". However, there is no question that betting increases your chances of winning and that's the whole point of the example (i.e. when the pot is big, don't worry about losing a bet or two; rather, do what it takes within reason to win the pot)
I agree that one can find "errors" in the excerpts you have quoted if one were to scrutinize every word in its literal context-void sense. However, when taken as a whole, I believe that the point made by the example is correct.
The book is geared for advanced players. I don't think one has to worry about players blindly following the advice given in the book. Good players know when the rules apply and when the exceptions apply.
skp asked: "Suppose you check the flop and everyone else also checks. Suppose futher that the turn is a King and the river is a 10. Would you then agree that betting the flop (which you would have called anyway had someone else bet) may allow you to win the pot."
Yes, I would agree. If I held Ts2s instead of Ts9s, betting the flop also might allow me to win the pot. So what?
skp told us what: "However, there is no question that betting increases your chances of winning and that's the whole point of the example . . ."
Actually there is some question, but skp probably didn't mean this in the literal sense. Some opponents almost always will pay a small bet to see the turn card, especially when the pot is pretty big. Even more will do so when they have a backdoor straight draw. But suppose you check the flop, the flop checks around, and the turn is a 9. Now, what will likely happen if you bet out on the turn? (Remember, when you check the flop, you don't forfeit your right to bet the turn.) That KdJh doesn't have a chance to make a straight. In addition, your opponent only has one chance (instead of two) to catch a king or a jack. Furthermore, that player is facing a big bet instead of a small bet, making the pot odds smaller. By checking the flop, you might increase your chances of winning against certain opponents. David and Mason refer to this concept as "manipulating the pot size" (see pp. 157-160 in HPFAP-1999).
More importantly, maximizing your chances of winning the pot is *not* the whole point of the example. At least it shouldn't be. Again, skp probably didn't mean this literally. He apparently was just parroting the authors, who wrote, "If a nine or a ten comes on the river you want to maximize your chance of winning." (HPFAP-1999, p. 168.)
Even when the pot is big, your goal in poker is to maximize your expectation--not your chances of winning. This topic was discussed in the "Another HPFAP 'Loose Games' error" thread (begun on 7 November 1999). There, Mason acknowledged that, even in large pots, maximizing your chances of winning is not always the same thing as maximizing your expectation. The authors apparently intended for their statements in this chapter to mean that you "usually" want to maximize you chance of winning in these kinds of situations. I contend that even this modified advice is wrong, though. See the "Check vs. bet: theory (was HPFAP error)" thread (begun on 11 November 1999).
skp adviced that "when the pot is big, don't worry about losing a bet or two; rather, do what it takes within reason to win the pot."
The first portion of this advice is merely another echo of a HPFAP statement: "The point is that when a lot of bets are in the center of the table you don't worry about saving bets." (HPFAP-1999, p. 169.) This, too, was a topic of discussion in that "Another HPFAP 'Loose Games' error" thread. Of course saving bets can matter, even when pots are big.
But skp didn't mean this literally, for he added the qualification that you should "do what it takes *within reason* to win the pot." (Emphasis added.) Which brings us back to the main purpose of the current thread. When the pot is pretty big, what are the important factors to consider as you attempt to determine if it is more reasonable to bet the flop or check it?
skp wrote: "I agree that one can find 'errors' in the excerpts you have quoted if one were to scrutinize every word in its literal context-void sense. However, when taken as a whole, I believe that the point made by the example is correct."
If the example's point is that, in big pots, it *sometimes* makes sense to bet out on the flop with mediocre hands that you normally would check, call, or fold, then I agree. And the authors should be commended for noting this. If the point is that you *usually* should bet out your mediocre hands in these situations, then I believe their advice is very debatable. I give my reasons for disagreeing in the "Check vs. bet: theory (was HPFAP error)" thread. If the advice is that it is "almost mandatory" to bet (HPFAP-1999, p. 168) or that "it could be dangerous to your bankroll to even be aware that there may be exceptions if you don't know exactly when those exceptions occur" (David Sklansky, 14 November 1999, at 5:38 p.m., elsewhere in this thread), then I believe this advice is misleading at best.
In any case, would it not be useful to discuss the more important factors? If you hold Ts9s and the flop is Ad7c6h, should you bet out the flop if a strong player raised pre-flop? What if that player raised from middle position? From early position? What if there was no pre-flop raise, but you face seven opponents, several of whom would call pre-flop with any hand that contained any ace? What if you expected your flop bet to be raised about 50 percent of the time? What about 75 percent? What about 90 percent? What if several of your opponents are unlikely to fold hands like KdJh to a single small bet? What if the flop had been Ad7c6d? AdJh7c? AdJh7d? AdJd7d?
skp, I believe you might have some valuable insights to offer in such a discussion, and I would be very interested to read them. You are, of course, not obligated to share your knowledge.
skp concluded: "The book is geared for advanced players. I don't think one has to worry about players blindly following the advice given in the book. Good players know when the rules apply and when the exceptions apply."
While the book is aimed at advanced players, I'm surprised how many poor players have read (or claimed to have read) HPFAP. In fact, I decided to start the "Another HPFAP 'Loose Games' error" thread after one such player bet out a big-pot flop with a nearly hopeless hand (i.e., maybe one percent equity). He lost, but he explained to everyone that S&M said that, when the pot is big, you "had to do everything possible to maximize your chance of winning." Another player laughed and said that couldn't possibly be what they wrote. The next day, the bettor appeared with a copy of the book and proudly showed us the passage he had quoted. Of course, the authors never meant any such thing. But you can see how some HPFAP readers could be mislead by the poor writing, analysis, and examples in their "When the Pot Gets Big" chapter.
Good players like skp might know when to bet and when to check if the pot is big and they hold mediocre hands. Less skillful players such as myself have not yet figured out where to draw the line. We have to think about these kinds of situations and possibly discuss them with other poker players. The questions I raised four paragraphs earlier present some difficult scenarios that are not at all obvious to me. If skp would be so kind as to help illuminate these matters, I (for one) would be very grateful.
It's an error if you make this play in the wrong games or the wrong situations. It's not an error in the situation the book refers to. The key is that this play costs you very little in most cases. You have four outs twice to make your gutshot, so you generally have 16% equity in the pot (adjust downward because of backdoor flushes and other hands that will beat you when you make your hand, adjust upward for those times when you'll make a pair and win, adjust for extra callers later in the hand when you make your straight on the turn...). There will be times when there is no ace out there and this bet wins you a pot you would have lost to a hand like KJ or JT or a backdoor flush (those pots far more than make up for the fractions of a bet you lose when you get raised and you would have only had to call one bet had you checked). A player with ace-weak might bet if you don't, but might just call if you bet, so you don't lose anything in that case. And when you make your straight, the larger pot will induce calls by hands drawing dead to you.
Dan, I'm not terribly concerned about hands like KJ (see my "Error #1: Checking still could win" sub-thread, above).
Hands like JT are somewhat more worrisome, but see my "Buying extra equity" sub-thread in the "Check vs. bet: theory (was HPFAP error)" thread that began on 11 November 1999. After reading it, you might want to revise you estimate that "those pots far more than make up for the fractions of a bet you lose . . ."
Break those shackles, Dan. Free your mind! ;-)
Mark,
I don't really understand your crusade, but the answer to every poker question is "it depends". Unless we know all the variables in a particular situation it is always relativly simple to construct counter examples to any piece of advice.
That said, you just have to take EVERYTHING you read with a grain of salt. When reading any poker book you have to understand where the author is coming from, what kinds of games the author is talking about, what implicit assumptions are being made.
Once you understand the author, you can better understand the advice, and then you can learn to apply it in the correct situations.
- Andrew
In his post, Dan suggests: "It's an error if you make this play in the wrong games or the wrong situations. It's not an error in the situation the book refers to."
In his post, Andrew notes, "the answer to every poker question is 'it depends'. Unless we know all the variables in a particular situation it is always relativly simple to construct counter examples to any piece of advice."
Andrew's above comments generally are right. The correct advice will depend on the specifics of the particular situation.
The HPFAP example on page 168 leaves out a couple important elements. (1) How did the pot get "pretty big?" Did lots of players stay in to see the flop? Was there pre-flop raising? Both? (2) What kind of players are involved in this pot? Are they loose players who will call (or raise) with any hand containing an ace? Are they solid players who will raise pre-flop with most of their starting hands that contain an ace? Other types of players? Some combination of the above?
Andrew, my objection is that the authors failed to mention which considerations might cause a player to prefer checking over betting the flop. When they pronounce "it is almost mandatory to bet if you are in early position," they mislead less thoughtful readers than you or me. Readers might conclude that other factors rarely matter in these kinds of situations. And if readers do wonder what factors might be important, the book isn't very illuminating. Which is why I've been discussing this topic on this forum.
If you aren't getting much benefit from these discussions, Andrew, I certainly can understand. Once you appreciate the basic concepts of poker, much of what I have explained should be reasonably obvious. Some forum participants, however, apparently do not understand these fundamental principles and apparently have no interest in learning them. That's okay. I hope others are getting something from these discussions.
Mark writes: "When they pronounce "it is almost mandatory to bet if you are in early position," they mislead less thoughtful readers than you or me. Readers might conclude that other factors rarely matter in these kinds of situations. And if readers do wonder what factors might be important, the book isn't very illuminating."
Much of the writing style I too find objectionable. It sometimes strikes me that the tone is a bit like pronouncements made from on high. When the accompaning ideas are controversial as well it makes for a disconcerting resonance.
I would really like DS or MM to elaborate on exactly what type of game conditons, limits, and mood they had in mind when they wrote this section on loose game play. Without that information, most of the advice is suspect and might be counterproductive.
Mark Glover wrote:
"they mislead less thoughtful readers than you or me."
Scott H Wrote:
"Much of the writing style I too find objectionable. It sometimes strikes me that the tone is a bit like pronouncements made from on high."
Both of these statements refer to Mason and David. So why do I feel they could apply to both Mark and Scott's very own statements themselves.
Am I the only one with true humility here?
Vince
that's VINCE!!!
scott
(the humble one who does not even capitalize his own name.)
Vince,
You ask:***"Am I the only one with true humility here?***
I answer: No!
My humility, which is not only authentic, but deserved, is far greater than yours. I am, for example, too humble to question whether Mark Glover should consider the possibility that David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth both play better than they write. I, and I say this humbly, write far better than I play. It is my reading comprehension which I fear is deficient. I have tried to keep up with what he is questioning, and so far have been unable to discern why it would amount to much more than nit-picking. I suppose that if I understood what Malmuth and Sklansky had written in the first place, I would be better able to understand the problems Mark is having with some of it. I do know that when he writes of the benefits to be derived by players less enlightened than he, Scott and Andrew, my ears prick right up and I fairly want to scream: "You mean Vince and I, don't you?" Unfortunately, my humility would never allow me to couple your name and mine together in the same sentence when it concerned poker enlightenment. I submit this last sentence as proof that I am the humbler of the two of us.
Vince,
I made a mistake. I am embarrassed and ashamed. And I apologize.
Let's see if you can get DS or MM to make such a mea culpa. ;-)
Please allow me to restate my point.
Many HPFAP-1999 readers are well versed in poker theory and carefully consider the advice in the book. Others, however, do not have a theoretical understanding that is as strong or do not take what they read in one portion of the book and carefully integrate it with what they read later in the book. It isn't that they are lazy or stupid; perhaps they just have better things to do with their time.
In my humble opinion, HPFAP does a disservice to these other readers. By stating that they always or almost always should bet out the flop in certain situations while not adaquately specifying those situations, I believe HPFAP misleads some of its readers. And costs them money.
Mark,
You wrote:
"I believe HPFAP misleads some of its readers. And costs them money"
Now I don't feel the same way that you do. Duh, pretty obvious huh. That is not the point. My problem with your statement is that you commit the same offense you accuse 2+2 authors of making. Specifically you claim that a check is a better play but never give any specific quantifiable evidence. I'm still waiting for that. You may ask Why do I not ask 2+2 the same question? I do now. When I read HPFAP and every other poker book by Mason and Skalnsky, I read them with a lot of skepticism at first. I learned their theories and then tried to apply them. I found that thier strategies worked for me. Including the one we are discussing now. I will admit that I am not in this situation very often so my experience is obviously not a conclusive measure of the correctness of the strategy but I will continue to apply this strategy until I have been shown another is superior. Why? Because Sklansky and Malmuth have proven to me, through their writing, that they are honest, expert and thoughful when it comes to poker theory. (Of course I wouldn't trust them, either of them, with my wife. If I had one. Well I had one once and I wouldn't trust them with her either or maybe I wouldn't trust her with them. uhh O.Kay....) If following thier advice that betting is superior in these situations is "blindly going along" then I plead guilty.
Of course that does not stop me from complimenting you on keeping this needed discussion going. This discussion should go a long way to showing all concerned that poker playing is complex and not easy to pin down.
Vince.
Vince wrote: "My problem with your statement is that you commit the same offense you accuse 2+2 authors of making. Specifically you claim that a check is a better play but never give any specific quantifiable evidence. I'm still waiting for that."
As I told Vince earlier, he's in for a long wait if he expects me to mathematically prove that checking in this example has a higher expectation than betting. Nor will such a proof be forthcoming from David or Mason.
There are just too many unknowns: how big is the pot, what was the pre-flop action, who are your opponents, what positions are they in, what are their pre-flop, flop, turn, and river playing strategies, what are their stack sizes, are any currently tilting or rushing, how long have they been playing this session, what tells are they exhibiting, what is your current table image, what tells might you be exhibiting, etc., etc., etc.
Most poker situations are complex enough that it is too difficult to compute the exact expectation of your various playing options, even when the situations are well defined.
If Vince is seeking specific quantifiable evidence, then his best hope probably is to perform some simulations. Of course, skeptics will assert that the simulated situation differs too greatly from the real-life situation for the "answer" to be meaningful. Even as simulations become better and better, you can expect to hear this objection.
What I offered was the theoretical concepts that support my belief. See the "Check vs. bet: theory (was HPFAP error)" thread that began on 11 November 1999. If you understand the theory, you stand a better chance of estimating the expectation of various plays while you are at the table.
During the past two weeks, I also have explored some of the factors that I believe are important to consider when you are deciding what the most profitable play is likely to be. I have never claimed that a check always is preferable to a bet. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. What I have been discussing is: when is checking better and when is it not?
David and Mason seem to prefer making pronouncements rather than presenting arguments and theories to support their beliefs. Do you see the difference?
Vince noted: "If following their advice that betting is superior in these situations is 'blindly going along' then I plead guilty."
If you are committed to blindly following the advice of one book, and if you really understand the concepts in HPFAP, and if you are able to resolve the conflicts that arise when the recommended action in one part of that book differs from the recommended action in another part of that book, then blindly following HPFAP might serve you reasonably well in certain types of games against certain types of opponents.
Of course, most players who can integrate the teachings of HPFAP that well also are able to incorporate advice from other books and other authors. They usually develop their own understanding of the essential principles of poker and can apply their own independent analysis at the tables. They will be able to adjust to different situations and different opponents. And they will have little need or desire to "blindly go along."
By the way, I don't believe Vince blindly follows HPFAP. Nor do I recommend that he do so. ;-)
1) "It's so important to increase your chance to win the pot that it can be right to bet a hand that you know is beat. 2)For instance, if you have Ts9s, the flop comes Ad7c6h, and the pot is pretty big, it is almost mandatory to bet if you are in early position.
3) You do this not only because you might make a straight, but because it is important to get hands like KdJh out." (HPFAP-1999, p. 168.)
Those are the only mistakes I could find. Wait a minute let me try again.
1) "It's so important to increase your chance to win the pot that
2) it can be right to bet a hand that you know is beat.
3) For instance, if you have Ts9s, the flop comes Ad7c6h, and the pot is pretty big,
4) it is almost mandatory to bet if you are in early position.
5) You do this not only because you might make a straight,
6) but because it is important to get hands like KdJh out." 7) (HPFAP-1999, p. 168.)
8) Instead, they will have to be satisfied with the warm feeling they experience upon breaking free from the slavery of blindly following authority,
9) the new vistas they will comprehend after exercising their independent minds,
10) the inflated bankrolls they will accumulate when they understand the fundamentals of poker . . .
How's that? Did I win? Did I miss the elephant hidden in the last paragraph? Man, that was fun! Thanks Mark.
Vince.
you also missed the top hat hidden in the margin.
scott
Vince,
You are a winner . . . in your own special way.
Even those readers who agree with the HPFAP advice to bet the flop in the example on page 168 still might be able to find some flaws in the HPFAP analysis that supports that advice.
Advocates of betting out the flop, for example, should be able to acknowledge the error pointed out in the "Error #1: Checking still could win" sub-thread. (At least one forum participant, however, apparently has difficulty conceding even this much ground.)
Again the general point is that this bet will occasionally win you the pot when the smoke clears at a cost of at most a very small fraction of a bet when it doesn't.
From the standpoint of us as authors you should keep in mind that until we wrote about this play, almost everyone would have checked in these type of situations without giving it a second thought. Thus they would have missed a powerful and profitable general concept. To put it another way most players would check here not for Mark Glover's reasons but rather because it never even occurred to them to bet.
When we give examples of a particular concept, we often pick situations that push the envelope of what we are trying to convey, in order to emphasize the point we are making. Thus that specific example is often one that in certain circumstances could be quarelled with. I for one don't have the time to check Mark's math and arguments to see how often the bet might be very slightly wrong given certain types of opponents. In fact it could be dangerous to your bankroll to even be aware that there may be exceptions if you don't know exactly when those exceptions occur.
David wrote: Again the general point is that this bet will occasionally win you the pot when the smoke clears at a cost of at most a very small fraction of a bet when it doesn't.
Okay, so sometimes you win the whole pot. That is definately something to think about. If we are going to talk on theoretical terms, and say that the play only costs you a "very small fraction of a bet" when it doesn't work (theoretically speaking of course), then you should also say it only wins you a "small fraction of the whole pot" when it does work. Clearly in practical terms you may win the whole pot because you bet. But also, many times you will lose a full small bet or more. The above statement really makes the play sound better than it is. For what it's worth, and that ain't much, I think David and Mason are overestimating the chances that this bet will win the pot, and underestimating the $$ that you could save when you check. Still an interesting concept however, and David is very right in saying that almost everyone wouldn't have even thought of betting here.
I don't believe Pierre intended for his response to be an entry in this contest. Still, if it isn't a full-fledged contest winner, it at least deserves an honorable mention.
Pierre's post doesn't reveal any errors or problems with the actual HPFAP advice, but it does expose the logical flaw in an argument David used to defend that HPFAP advice.
In so doing, Pierre promoted a better understanding of when players should bet their mediocre hands if the pot is large. (Or at least he derailed a potential misunderstanding.) Thus, he fulfilled the spirit of this contest.
He also demonstrated a willingness to question the statements of experts and to use his own mind to develop his own understanding of basic poker principles. Therefore, he accomplished a secondary goal of this contest.
If any of this forum's readers disagrees with Pierre's assessment, I'd be curious to learn what those objections are. Personally, I think his post hit the bull's-eye.
David wrote: "Again the general point is that this bet will occasionally win you the pot when the smoke clears at a cost of at most a very small fraction of a bet when it doesn't."
Pierre responded: "Okay, so sometimes you win the whole pot. That is definately something to think about. If we are going to talk on theoretical terms, and say that the play only costs you a 'very small fraction of a bet' when it doesn't work (theoretically speaking of course), then you should also say it only wins you a 'small fraction of the whole pot' when it does work. Clearly in practical terms you may win the whole pot because you bet. But also, many times you will lose a full small bet or more. The above statement really makes the play sound better than it is."
David wrote: "From the standpoint of us as authors you should keep in mind that until we wrote about this play, almost everyone would have checked in these type of situations without giving it a second thought."
I commend you and Mason for pointing out that, as pots become larger, certain factors become more important to consider. You also are to be praised for noting that, in certain situations, players will want to bet or raise with some hands they ordinarily would check, call, or fold.
I just believe you did a poor job of explaining which factors are important to consider and how they influence a player's proper action on the flop and turn.
David wrote: "When we give examples of a particular concept, we often pick situations that push the envelope of what we are trying to convey, in order to emphasize the point we are making. Thus that specific example is often one that in certain circumstances could be quarelled with."
Some of the examples you give in the "When the Pot Gets Big" chapter are misleading because, in many circumstances, the advice they offer would be wrong.
David wrote: "I for one don't have the time to check Mark's math and arguments to see how often the bet might be very slightly wrong given certain types of opponents."
That's a shame. If you did the math and considered the arguments, you might discover that betting out on the flop can be wrong in many of the situations HPFAP describes.
David wrote: "In fact it could be dangerous to your bankroll to even be aware that there may be exceptions if you don't know exactly when those exceptions occur."
Readers who blindly follow the advice in your "When the Pot Gets Big" chapter often will make avoidable mistakes. Those players who understand the important factors they should consider when contesting large pots will more easily determine when they should bet out (or raise) and when they should check (or call).
That's why several of us are discussing this topic on this forum. It would be wonderful if you offered us your insights, but you certainly are not obligated to do so. If you try to discourage this debate, however, please bear in mind that you might be doing a disservice to this community.
Mark
I'm one of the newer players you referred to, and I have a question. Whose oppinion will serve as conformation that I've discovered a genuine error in Mr. Malmuth's and Mr.Sklansky's theory of play??
Since no cash or prizes are being awarded to winners, there does not have to be a clear determination of whether or not you have found a genuine error.
If you submit an entry, it (hopefully) will be discussed on this forum. A reasonable debate should shed some light on those submissions that are obviously well founded or clearly bogus. Entries that fall in the gray areas could prove to be the most beneficial to forum readers, perhaps illuminating the factors that players should consider when they find themselves in various "big pot" situations.
In the end, readers will decide for themselves whether an entrant has discovered a genuine error and whether to integrate the principles into their own understanding of poker. That's the real purpose of this contest: to facilitate everybody's understanding of the fundamentals of poker.
My pappy once told me, "Good teachers don't teach you what to think; they teach you how to think."
Mark,
I for one am not sure whether the advice you're debating is good general advice, or bad general advice. I am not sure whether or not my "standard" play in situations like this should be to bet out or check-and-call. I think that this is a very complex area, and that it is easy to make mistakes in judgment. [If I had to guess, I would suppose that either play will not differ from the other in long-term EV by all that much, i.e., less than half a small bet. Half a small bet is nothing to snear at, but it is not going to make the difference between success or failure as a poker player.]
So, this post has nothing to do with the underlying debate.
OK, here's the point I've been leading up to. The style in which you are making all of these posts about S&M errors is really making you look like a petulant little ass.
Often it is easy to misinterpret someone's intentions on the internet, because you cannot "hear" the tone of voice that they are using. That is why you should put the smiley face after your sarcastic comments. Maybe your "tone" is not as I'm interpreting it. If so, I believe that it is incumbent upon you (as the poster) to word your posts in a manner that avoids that possibility to the greatest extent possible.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
i don't know greg... i just can't, in good conscience, put those silly things in my writing. it is such an abuse of language. like the mass marketed cliches found in commercials and greeting cards. i can't do it. still, i think people can tell when i'm joking. and, if not, then 'get tough.'
scott
.
scott wrote: i think people can tell when i'm joking
But they can't. Unless you are a regular on a site, and all your readers are also regulars, and even then many of them won't be sure when you're being sarcastic or not. Same thing for other jokes, intonations, etc. It has nothing to do with intelligence or anything else. Sometimes, you can say the same words and have very different meanings, and no one on the internet can read those words and KNOW which meaning you intended every time. Thus, those faces serve a useful function.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
greg, i am never mean. and if people don't get my jokes, there is no real harm done. no one has responded seriously to one of my humorous posts. except that bizzare thread about the nl game in california. where i said 'exchange' and he replied 'thanks for saving me money'. but that is not even really a joke. relax. no harm, no foul. i still don't like those smiles, but do what you want.
scott
Does your disregard for the abuse of written english prohibit the use of proper sentence structure and Grammer? What's wrong with capital letters for proper pronouns and at the beginning of sentences?;-)
after whitman, 'proper structure' has become more nebulous. i choose this writing style because it fits the way i concieve of poker.
the real reason is i want to be ray zee.
scott
Scott,
There is no way you are ever going to be Ray Zee. However, if you act really fast, I may be able to buy his baby for you. I understand that Deborah is looking for a bankroll for next years WSOP. Hurry! The supply is limited!
Greg wrote: "I for one am not sure whether the advice you're debating is good general advice, or bad general advice."
Actually, David Sklansky and John Feeney are attempting to limit this debate to general advice and rules of thumb. I'm trying to discuss what specific factors determine when betting or checking is more profitable.
Since Greg is unsure (and I suspect many others are unsure as well), I'm glad we are debating this topic. I hope readers will leave with a better understanding of when players should bet their mediocre hands in big pots and when they should just check.
Greg also noted: "I am not sure whether or not my 'standard' play in situations like this should be to bet out or check-and-call. I think that this is a very complex area, and that it is easy to make mistakes in judgment."
I'm not sure players should have a 'standard' play in situations like this. When situations are not simple, it's usually better to make your decisions on a case-by-case basis. While you sometimes will make mistakes in judgment, you have a better chance of making the right choice than when you don't think at all.
Greg speculated: "If I had to guess, I would suppose that either play will not differ from the other in long-term EV by all that much, i.e., less than half a small bet."
He might be correct. If you always bet or always checked, your average profit might be within half a small bet. But those aren't your only choices. You also can sometimes bet and sometimes check. If you tailor your actions to the particulars of each situation, your long-term EV might be more than half a small bet greater than if you always did one or the other. To do this, however, you need to know how important factors effect the proper choice. That's one reason we are having this discussion.
Greg continued: "Half a small bet is nothing to snear at, but it is not going to make the difference between success or failure as a poker player."
That's correct, if the poker player made the correct decision in all the other situations. But if players are making poor choices in these situations, then they probably are making poor choices in other situations as well. Half a small bet here, half a small bet there, and their choices quickly add up to sizeable losses at the poker tables.
Greg stated: "The style in which you are making all of these posts about S&M errors is really making you look like a petulant little ass."
As my pappy would say, "That's like the toad calling the frog ugly."
You hold Ts9s, the flop comes Ad7c6h, and the pot is pretty big. HPFAP-1999 suggests it is "almost mandatory to bet if you are in early position" because, in part, you might get hands like KdJh to fold. "Getting back to the above example, what's the chance that a ten or a nine will come in that spot? You have 6 chances twice which is about 25 percent, and if you bet out as we recommend you will win a decent proportion of those times when you make a pair, whereas before it wouldn't have won." Since your pair won't always win you the pot, the authors reduce the 25 percent figure down to probably over 5 percent. (See HPFAP-1999, pp. 168-169.)
There are several potential errors in this analysis. In this post, I'll object to the assertion, ". . . whereas before it wouldn't have won." Clearly this is wrong. If you check the flop and later catch a pair, there will be times when you still will win the pot.
Sometimes, none of your opponents will have hands like KdJh.
Furthermore, even when your opponents do hold hands like KdJh, you can catch your pair and find that none of your opponents' hands improve. The turn, for example, might put up the Td (giving you a pair), and the river might bring the 3c (not helping hands like KdJh).
Finally, by checking the flop, you do not forfeit your right to bet out on the turn. If you check the flop and catch a pair on the turn, you can bet the turn if you feel the benefits (such as probably folding hands like KdJh) outweigh the costs.
Sorry. I intended for this message to be a sub-thread to the "Contest: HPFAP 'Loose Games' errors" thread, immediately below. If you have any comments, it would be best if you made them part of that sub-thread.
Forum,
I recently played at the Sam's Town poker tournament in Vegas and I keep thinking about my last hand and I have to laugh. I want your opinions on the hand. Were in the 1st level and only 25 minutes or so into play. A couple of people at the table take their rebuy and I decided to do the same. I had entered 3 pots and stole one on the turn with a 9-10 when the flop was QQ88 and the flop was checked and the turn also checked. I have a good image at the table and most players at my table were pretty steady. I pick up 7-8d in the big blind and it gets called by 1 player and then seat 8 raises (I'm seat 5) to $100. Two more people call and I call $85 more... My chip count is $900 and the others entered is the same. The original caller folds and we take a 4 handed flop of 4c 10d jd giving me a gutshot straight flush draw. I check the raiser bets 200 and everyone folds to me. I call as I feel he has AK AJ AQ AA KK QQ. I don't think he has a straight draw or flush draw. The turn is the 9s. My perfect card. I know he likes his hand so I shove my stack in the middle... He thinks for about 30 seconds and I know I've got him now. I'm wishing he would call so I can double my stack and be off to the races and he turns over KQd with a weird look on his face as if he didn't at 1st know what he had. My jaw drops, no need for the river and I exit with a nice hand and good luck. What the hell went wrong I'm thinking as I go to the buffet to meet my wife. My question is what you would have done different. Maybe not call pre-flop. After the flop? Check the turn? I'm not sure I could have done anything different but I'll listen to anything. Thanks,
Furious Russ
Next time put this post on the "Tournaments" forum.
Even though some tournament advice is to play very tight in the early stages, I see a lot of value in accumulating chips. Therefore I also play the hand.
I might have bet the flop (and definitely would in limit) but this depends on what you think of your opponents. Other than that you were just unlucky.
Russ,
Sorry I missed you (got your message at 2:30am fri am and left at 6am that day I tried to contact you several times prior to that) read my Sam's tourney posts on OT and HE forums - I posted them before the bb split.
As for your straight flush - tough luck - I just wouldn't have called the pre flop raise with the 78 suited or not.
In a NL HE tourney you just can't get into longshot drawing situations like that it is to expensive.
At least that is my idea of a NL HE tourney.
Did you play in any of the satellites?
"I call as I feel he has AK AJ AQ AA KK QQ"
Probably should have added K,Q.
Vince.
Hey Furious,
You played it right. Nothing you can do.
In a play tourney online I got 78c, 96c plus 10s come outon the flop. Two of us go all in. Next card is a blank, river is a 9, yes he had a full house. Bad luck.
Mark
Oh well sorry, it's just that what you say makes almost as much sense as:
You get the second for free (if you don't count buying the first one).
Either it's free or not.
Either it's a zero sum game or it's not. Casino poker is not a zero sum game.
- Andrew
3-6 HE extremely weak field, little raising on any round. I am almost the only one who raises BTF. I leave for a quick 15 minute lunch and come back. I post my blinds just behind the button and get dealt K8o. No one raises and 7 players take the flop.
Flop comes K 7 4 (I also have a backdoor King high flush draw). There is a bet in early position. a couple people call, I decide to raise and try to get a free card. 4 people see the turn for 2 bets each.
Turn is a blank, everyone checks to me, I check. Since so many people called the raise, I figure I must be beaten, probably by the person who initially bet (who probably has a better king). Sometimes in these passive games your opponents could have a powerhouse but will check and call the whole way. you never really know as they can often be completely unreadable. I take the SECOND free card gladly and hope i hit my kicker or somehow my trash king holds up against the field.
river is another apparent blank. Everyone checks and I check it down. I am beaten by original bettor (UTG) who has AKs. I am silently thinking "how could he possibly play it that way?" but I keep it to myself. Obviously this opponent had no idea of the true value of his holding, or how to play it correctly. This is going to be a goood game....
By playing against such passive opponents, you do not get charged what you should when you lose a hand, therefore you are making $$ by saving $$. Also, most extremely passive opponents tend to be calling stations who pay you off fully on your winning hands. Just goes to show how important game selection really is....
dave in cali
By playing against such passive opponents, you do not get charged what you should when you lose a hand, therefore you are making $$ by saving $$. Also, most extremely passive opponents tend to be calling stations who pay you off fully on your winning hands.
Yes, opponents that are that loose-passive are great. Although I prefer loose-aggressive players because against them, I can make more money from fewer people (and my hand is more likely to hold up), the loose-passive games are so easy that it takes almost no effort to beat them.
Sometimes in these passive games your opponents could have a powerhouse but will check and call the whole way. you never really know as they can often be completely unreadable.
Yeah, against a small field of these types you can bet some pretty marginal hands for value (against a small field of "call with any pair or an ace high, and maybe a king high" opponents, I'll gladly bet 2nd pair with a good kicker to the river if the board isn't scary), and occassionally they'll flip over something huge. But don't let that deter you.
-Sean
The other good thing is that players with 2 low pair do the same thing check and call. I've seen many times on the river a player with 2 pair or low trips just check or call. If they just knew what pots odds were.
I am not comfortable with your raise on the flop holding top pair/no kicker and having 6 opponents. You are unlikely to win the pot outright and you probably don't have the best hand plus you could get re-raised. In this case it worked out well since it got you free cards to the river. I guess if you know the players very well and have a good read on the situation it is a good play, but I would not do it in the games I play in.
point taken. in this game I felt I had good control over the players. I also planned to fold if reraised since this lineup would not reraise without something spectacular! In higher limit games I think this tactic would be incorrect and I might even just fold the flop. In this case I think it worked out by making the weak player with the best hand afraid of what I "might" have and therefore let me go to the end cheaply.
good responses to all.
I can appreciate your comments, Dave, because most of the players in the low-limit games in which I am usually involved play just like that. Won't raise pre-flop with AA, won't bet out with top pair/good kicker or over pairs, etc., etc. Very hard to "read" sometimes, and sometimes I end up losing more money on a hand than I should if they had bet their hands, and sometimes I have to fight the urge to go on tilt when I lose to a weak, passive player who totally misplays his hand. Let me give you an example.
Saturday night 4-8 HE. Very loose, passive game with usually 6-8 people seeing every flop. I am in late position with A-Jo. In fact, I considered raising myself to try to buy the button, and for value, but I just called. In this case, only 5 of us took the flop of J-6-4 rainbow. All check to me, I of course bet. Button folds, one caller, and weak passive player (WPP) to my right just calls. Turn is a 9, I think. Again WPP checks, I bet, button folds, and WPP calls again. River is a 4. WPP checks again, I go ahead and bet and when he only calls, I figure there is a 100% chence that I have the best hand, right? I mean, what else can he have to never bet or check-raise with? Well, much to my surprise he turns over KK!!!
Yes, I know that I should be happy that this hand didn't cost me more, but honestly I really have to try hard to remain calm in the face of opponents like this. I suppose I wouldn't run into this at higher limits, but the casinos here don't spread anything beyond 4-8 very often, and it's either put up with this or don't play. Anyone else find this sort of action sometimes very frustrating?
I totally feel your pain! weak passive players can drive you crazy, especially when they keep beating you with terrific cards that they never even tried to play. check-call-check-call - go bang head on wall!!!!
But in the end I'd still rather have these players against me than you guys! good response!
river is another apparent blank. Everyone checks and I check it down. I am beaten by original bettor (UTG) who has AKs. I am silently thinking "how could he possibly play it that way?" but I keep it to myself. Obviously this opponent had no idea of the true value of his holding, or how to play it correctly. This is going to be a goood game....
I disagree with your analysis. You could be right about this player but you may also be wrong. You say 7 players took the flop which was K74. If I have holding AK in my hand, I am pretty sure that I won't win this pot and that I may be already dead. 7 players are just too many to beat with top pair only. Also, it is not necessarily a good idea to raise before the flop with AK from early position if you are playing in a game where you know 7 people will see the flop anyway. You didn't say he was in a blind, but it is almost NEVER good to raise with AK (i'm assuming off-suit, suited is a different story) from the blinds after 7 people are already in.
So let's assume he's in the blinds or UTG, there are seven players on the flop, and he bets his king out right away. You raise on the button when it gets to you. The odds of someone making a flush, straight, two pair, or even trips are so great that he's probably a dog on this hand at this point. So he just calls. You could have been raising two pair or trips already, or even raising on the come for an open ended straight or flush draw or both.
I don't know how many times you have flopped K with A kicker against 7 opponents and won, but I know that I lose the vast majority of those hands. If I get raised into on the flop with a board like that, I am resigned to losing two more big bets. You basically can't drop K with A kicker if the board isn't showing something scary and you only have to pay one bet, but raising is not often the best move because this hand will lose so often (when playing against lots of opponents). Shorthanded play is very different and if three people had seen the flop, you may have seen him play it differently.
Your experience throughout the session may have justified your original impression of this player, but I disagree that this hand alone showed you that he was easy to beat.
At the Normandie Casino in Southern Cal., they have no small blind in the 6-12 games (and lower limits), just one big blind next to the button. I was wondering if this would cause you to choose playing there, compared to lets say Hollywood Park, that has the same Three dollar drop plus the small blind for 6-12? (Assuming the games are equally good at both casinos.) Everyone I talked with really likes the no small-blind format. All comments are appreciated.
Thanks,JB
JB,
From a "cost per round" viewpoint I can see where many people would say they like the single blind when you polled them.
The main thing I don't like about the single blind is that I find most players in the small blind play way too loose when the small blind is 1/3 of the big blind. If you don't make this mistake you are way ahead. In addition, having only one blind should tighten up the game, but I admit it has been a long time since I've been to the Normandie.
Rick,
Oh my God no! The 6-12 at the Normandie is looser than what you might expect. Infact, they are a little too loose for my taste, since it is kinda discouraging being chased to the river by more opponents than I'm used to. But I keep reading that if you can learn to deal with a lot of bad beats, that looser games are the way to go for higher profit.
Playing with only one blind is the way hold-em used to played about 20 years ago. A second blind was added because the original game was too tight and you simply did not get the multi-way action that the current version of hold-em has. I don't like the single blind structure.
As an aside, having to pay $3 on the button in a nine handed game means your cost is about $9-$12 per hour. This is an expensive game to play at the $6-$12 level.
Jim,
The cost per hour is even worse than that since the games are nine-handed (or less with smokers taking a walk). In a perverse way, it is what keeps the games at this level in Los Angeles so damn loose (which ultimately costs the casino money). Tight players are driven away since no game can survive a run of small pots. I could write a book on this but I gotta run.
Regards,
Rick
Where do they have 6-12 with a cheaper than three dollar drop?? That would be incredible to only have to pay, lets say $2.00 per collection! I miss playing at The Bike since they increased their 6-12 drop to $4.00, which is the same as their drop for 9-18 Hold'em.
Where I have played $6-$12 was in Mississippi where they rake $3 out of every pot and it is a ten handed game. On the average I won 2 pots per hour, sometimes more when I was running good and sometimes less when I was running poorly. It costs me $6 per hour to play in the game. That is a lot cheaper than having to pay $9-$12 per hour and in these little games they can have a significant impact on your hourly earn over a long period of time. In other areas they rake $4 per pot which is still cheaper than a $3 button charge. The worst game is at Commerce where they were collecting $4 on the button in their nine handed game.
Jim,
Your statement "In other areas they rake $4 per pot which is still cheaper than a $3 button charge" is absolutely correct for someone who plays something like our style in these loose games. We figure to win only a little more than one pot every two trips around the table since our semi-bluffs and steals get removed from our bag of tricks.
The "drop no matter what" button charge is a nightmare; the only good thing about it is that it tends to limit the number of solid players that will sit it the game. In a sense, that is what keeps the infamous Los Angeles 6/12 and 9/18 holdem games so loose despite the fact that holdem has been legal since 1987. In other areas where holdem has been legal for a number of years, the ganes invariably tighten up over time.
As a historical note regarding holdem drops, the games used a drop on qualify from the Spring of 1987 thru January 1989. For example, in 5/10 holdem (6/12 wasn't around then), the $3 drop wasn't taken until the pot was $30 (the jackpot drop of $2 was always taken, usually from the small blind). From 1989 thru about the mid nineties, a 50 cent chip was used as an "ante" and the $3 drop was taken from these leaving an extra $1.50 in a full table (nine players). This was even worse than the button drop for the tight player. Hollywood Park tried to at least institute a live button drop (i.e., it was always dropped but at least it counted torwards your bet) when it opened but this was shot down when the L.A. Sheriff came back from vacation (or so I was told). Hollywood Park kept the button drop (even though it was no longer live) and eventually the other clubs followed.
A real disaster is the $3 drop from the 50 cent "antes" in a game like 3/6 seven stud. With one person on smoke break (the norm), one lonely 50 cent chip remains in the center. In theory this would dictate tight play, but tight players won't stand for the drop so the game becomes something quite different than a small split limit game in Las Vegas.
Regards,
Rick
JB,
I like the sb in the game - it doesn't effect me cuz I don't make 1/2 a bet unless I would have made a whole bet but I think it gets a lot of players in the game for 1/2 a bet and I like that - just like the wackos who are in the bb and call raises with junk cuz they have money in the pot.
I'm guessing you play 2-4 or 4-8, because the 6-12 small blind (and 3-6) are only 1/3 the big blind.
JB,
The casinos I play in always charge 1/2 bb up to 10-20 except for 3-6 and I don't play that unless I'm waiting for a bigger game to open up.
Rounder writes:
...just like the wackos who are in the bb and call raises with junk cuz they have money in the pot.
I'm curious Rounder, what are your BB calling requirements when it is one raise to you?
- Andrew
Depends,
If I think the raiser is trying to buy the blinds I'll reraise with 52, otherwise If a few callers and a raise I need a good hand to call a raise - since I'll be in bad position I want 88 or better AT up coupled 9 through A, Axs if several callers I may call a raise with as low as 56.
I would reraise with AK, AQ, AA, KK, QQ
Rounder, if it becomes a raised pot pre-flop with several callers (say 3 or 4) at the time you make a decision to call the raise there is already 7 or 8 bets in the pot. You are getting about 7:1 on your call with little possibility of a re-raise. If you played any pair as low as Deuces you are about 1 chance in 8 of flopping a set. Sets don't always win, but it seems to be that the implied odds are there to take the flop. If I don't flop a set, I almost always just muck my hand on the flop when it is bet. What is wrong with calling a raise out of your big blind with any pair when several people are in the pot?
Jim,
Nothing wrong with it. If eneough callers I'd consider it too. For sure no set no bet.
Well, last saturday night at my regular $1-5 spread limit home game the following hand came up. This is a bad beat/with a moral...
We antie $1.00 each, 7 handed at this point, the dealer is in the seat to my left.
I'm delt 87h, it's checked around to me and I check (knowing that a bet with this bunch, even for the max $5 is not going to get me the anties, someone will call). Flop comes 873 rainbow. There's an early $2 bet, I re-raise $5 with top two pair which causes everyone to drop excepting the original raiser who just calls and the cluless beginner to his left who also called both our bets...(this is a bad sign...). Obviously clueless beginner has a piece of the flop.. Turn is a Jd not a card I am happy to see and it's checked to me, I bet the max and the original raiser drops (what in the world was he playing???), cluless beginner calls! He's obviously drawing... River is a 9s, I check (I don't like the board now with all the str8 possibilities) and cluless beginner checks it down! I flip over the two pair and reach for the pot, CB then shows me 39o!!! I surrender the pot and tell him "good hand" with a big smile, "well played"....
Obviously CB is playing any two cards can win poker! I don't mind the beat (and I file the info on his hand selection for later rounds!), because the following hand comes up as it inevitably does with this type of player:
A little while later, I catch TT and raise $5 (of course CB calls), get a flop of T63o, turn is another 6, filling me, I bet and CB raises! Oh, I'm in heaven now, we cap it and cap the last round. I show down the Nut FH beating his sixes full of threes! Ahhh....smiles!
The moral is, encourage those bad plays from CB type players that result in bad beats. They will pay off like a broken slot machine later in the game when you have the nuts and they have second nuts or worse!
I was sitting in the $30-$60 game at the Bellagio waiting to get into the $15-$30 game when the following hand came up. It involved Dan Negreanu, tournament champion from Toronto, now living in Las Vegas. I was on the button and Dan was in the small blind holding the Five of Clubs and the Four of Clubs. Everyone folded to a middle position player who had been winning heavily and appeared to be a decent player. He opened with a raise. Everyone folded to Dan. Dan called the raise by putting in another $40 since the small blind was $20. The big blind called and everyone else folded. The flop came: Eight of Spades, Five of Hearts, Four of Diamonds. Dan checked. The big blind checked. The middle player bet $30. Dan made it $60. The big blind called. The middle player made it $90. Dan made it $120. The big blind called. The middle player capped it $150 and both blinds called. The turn is: Deuce of Spades. Dan bet $60 and the big blind called. The middle player raised to $120 and Dan called. The big blind folded. The river was: Ten of Hearts. Dan checked and the middle player bet $60. Dan called. The middle player won having a set of Eights.
I would have folded Five-Four suited out of my small blind when faced with a raise and no one else in the pot. On the flop, I would have led rather than checked. When raised, I would have re-raised. If it was made $120, I would just call. On the turn, I would check and call. Likewise at the river.
What does everyone else think?
Given your ability to debate Mason and I almost to a Draw it is not surprising that you would have little trouble in dispatching others. In other words, of course you are right.
David said,
Given your ability to debate Mason "and I almost to a Draw". "And I almost to a Draw"???
This man went to college?
Elvis go back to Tupolo. Your'e incoherent here.
From a high school push out!
Vince.
Huh??
Dan was faced with a lot of hands that could kill him and he found one - calling a raise with a 45 in the worst position is sheer folly. The rest of the hand is usually down hill once you make a bad pre flop decision even if you get a big piece of the flop.
Maybe he was trying to "out play" his opponent.
Jim,
Unfortunately I would have lost as much money as Dan. I play the hand almost identically. Your read on the middle player forces me to play the way Dan did. I look at this guy as being in a loose mode (winning heavily) and figure he will pay me off if I make a hand. The way he plays the flop really throws me. I don't put him on a set but now am befuddled to exactly what he has. Maybe he plays A,A hthis way. A lot of players will, unfortunately decent players won't. So now I am in a predicament with 2 small pairs. A in a big pot. I bet the turn call the raise and call the River like Dan did. What is wrong with that play is certainly beyond my ability. You may argue calling from the small blind with 5s,4s, with not other callers but I'm sure that Dan considered the situation to lean in the direction of a clall given the state of the opponent. He just got doubly unlucky. Suppose his hand was Qs,Js and the flop came Qd,Jh,8s and he lost to a set. Certainly not the same situation but somewhat comparable as far as the result is concerned. My point is that hand strength is not the only consideration when playing poker.
Vince.
Vince.
Vince makes a common mistake made by many advanced players. That mistake is sticking too long to a conclusion based on earlier play in the face of many raises. To give an extreme example: The flop is AKQ you have pocket aces and go four bets with me on the flop. The last two cards are 44. Normally any hand that is not the nuts is worth no more than two or three raises on the end. Perhaps you might go four raises because of the extreme unlikelyness that I would have played a pair of fours this way. But once I put in the fifth raise you better stop. That raise takes precedence over all other factors the vast majority of the time.
"Vince makes a common mistake made by many advanced players. That mistake is sticking too long to a conclusion based on earlier play in the face of many raises."
That's all well and good David. I admit the mistake. And However, the only thing extreme about your example is that that it is extremely poor.
"To give an extreme example: The flop is AKQ you have pocket aces and go four bets with me on the flop. " that is a novice's mistake not an advanced players mistake.
Just do an anlysis on the hand in question. Your original response was that Jim was right with his play of the hand. I disagree with Jim. I guess that means I disagree with you. Your point here is directed only to the play on the flop. Your example is 180% out of phase with the flop play of this hand. You do not address the turn or river play of this hand. I think David that you are implying that Negreanu played the hand wrong because he, like me misread the meaning the raisers hand. The result make that obvious. I did not put this guy on a set of 8's but there certainly were no excess raises here in my opinion. Negreanu opted to check raise the flop with two small pair, a reasonable play. The check raise worked. But wait the BB called and the middle raiser reraises. So Negreanu decides to cap it with what he believes at this moment to be the best hand. Why not get the most money in the pot that you can with what you beleive is the best hand, If he doesn't raise he saves a small bet versus gaining a big bet if he wins the hand. Not a bad play. Negreanu now bets the turn when a non threatening card comes and he still believes he has the best hand. He gets raised and calls. Is there something wrong with that play? I give it a thumbs up. He checks and calls the river. Bad play? Not in my book.
David wrote:
"Normally any hand that is not the nuts is worth no more than two or three raises on the end. Perhaps you might go four raises because of the extreme unlikelyness that I would have played a pair of fours this way. But once I put in the fifth raise you better stop. That raise takes precedence over all other factors the vast majority of the time."
David is correct. But this analysis belongs as an answer to another hand not this one!
Have a nice day David!
Vince.
If I decided to call with 45s I would be lying if I said I wouldn't loose as much as he did. The betting would be identical unless I would come out betting instead of checkraising (then it would be identical to your pattern). I'm not big on checkraising however would checkraise here.
P.S I think he likes those small suited connectors.
Geez, sounds like ballsy play on everyone's part. I am just glad I don't have to play with people like that. I, too would have been out before the flop for the raise from middle position. However, I don't know much about that middle-position person. Does he normally raise from middle position with medium pairs? Does he ever raise with pure trash? Is he pushing his rush too hard? Any of these might affect my decision on how likely I could later steal a pot. Plus after the flop, the above information might indicate the likelihood of trips. It sounds to me that Daniel is trying for exactly what happens here - a big flop for him that seems very much like a trapped hand for his opponent. Both got a great flop. I'm not good enough to understand what the hell was going on after the flop (at least I don't have the energy right now to try to think about it).
Sometimes I think it is unfortunate that truly extraordinary hands like this one can't be fully understood by reading a post. I can't see the people, have a history with them, etc. Sometimes the best answers are just big generalities.
Charlie
The first decision is the most important. Although the middle position raiser could've held any number of hands, 45 suited in this situation is a big loser. Dan's call was incorrect- period. His play from there on out is debatable, but it doesn't change the fact that Dan made a bad decision to enter the pot. Although it is an intensly complex game we play, some aspects should be kept simple. Let's save that mental energy for the tough decisions
In a vacuum, Dan's preflop call is obviously incorrect. However, I would give a great player such as Dan (I have played with him before) the benefit of the doubt and assume that he knows he's making a bad preflop call but expects to outplay his opponent on later streets.
As for his postflop play, I would have done nothing different.
If the flop was 945 I wouldn't argue too much. But throw a possible 76 into the mix and it makes it almost impossible that the original raiser would get that rambunctious with merely an overpair. Somewhere along the line Dan should have saved some money. I bet he would admit it himself. (As to whether he should have even played the hand, see the thread above this entitled holdem question about 98s)
Here is one of those "ordinary" hands that is often the difference between a winning and losing session.
Its early into a 10-20 session of a "typical" hold'em game. One solid and one semi-loose guy limp from middle position and an unknown (but seemingly aggressive) woman calls on the button. The sb calls and I check from the big blind with Qd8h. We take a five-handed flop of:
8d7s5d. I bet out. The middle guys fold and the button raises. The SB folds and its up to me.
I simply call with the intention of betting out on the turn in case she is making a free card play. I see little equity in making it three bets here, but I guess that's debatable.
The turn is the 5 of clubs. Good card for me (unless she has 65), so I bet out with the confidence that she can't raise me with a worse hand. She calls.
The river is the 9 of clubs. I check. She bets.
I have not seen her try for a steal before, but we have only played together for an hour and she seems tough enough to bet here f she can't win a showdown. I debate for a second and decide to make the call, mainly because of the presence of the flush draw on the flop and the way she played the turn. Not to mention the 7 to 1 odds on the call.
She shows me the 67 of clubs for a straight.
To experienced good players this story would be like telling someone that you doubled down with a ten against a nine showing, caught an eight, the dealer had a 4 in the hole and caught a six.
Good analysis David I think that will help Michael a lot.
Now Now Rounder,
In fact it was a good analysis that Sklansky gave. These things happen all the time. The analogous black jack situation Sklansky describes is a perfect example. Does anyone think that Machael would be better served by having DAVID SKLANSKY critcally review the hand he described and come to the same conclusion through detailed analysis. I believe in this case, Sklansky made and got the point accross in the best way possible.
Vince.
Vinny,
I agree with you somewhat, as it happens I am a bit on tilt with being called a liar and accused of polluting the minds of new posters - so they won't have well rounded games because of my "unorthadox" play and posts.
Let's see, I've been called weak/tight (when I am tight aggressive) how can I be a weak player when I play good cards in good positions & bad player and my grammer has also been questioned today.
I am getting tired of these nasty personal attacks.
Rounder,
Please remember they always pick on the front runner. But it isn't your grammer as much as your spelling.
Mr. S,
God as much as I hate to agree with you Mr S.
I can only say; Duh!
Vince.
I don't play blackjack, so I am not sure I get the analogy. I presume it means that the play of the hand is so basic for the expert that there is only one (obviously correct) way to proceed.
So I guess the question is: "Is doubling down with a ten with a nine showing advisable?"
Maybe if I post that question on the "Other Gambling Games" forum, I can illicit some helpful responses.
The Blackjack analogy revealed.
Doubling down with a ten against the dealer's nine is BASIC STRATEGY. When you catch an eight, you figure the dealer for a ten and a loss. When the dealer opens up a four and now has to draw to a 13 most people would give you odds, maybe 4-1, I haven't done the math, to buy your hand in that situation. When the dealer catches a six to beat you, it's just tough luck. You played it perfectly and lost. Nothing else to it.
Michael,
Couple of things. I think she made a mistake raising on the flop with 2nd pair and straight draw - If she hits the straight she wants callers. Having said that I think you made a real marginal call of the raise on the flop - your Q8 is top pair granted with a fair kicker(A8 & K8 are real possibilities here) but with 2 more cards to come I don't like a pair of 8's at all. Unless I know the button is a loose player (and you didn't) I think I muck there.
All I meant to say is that though the hand is a bit tricky, the right play is fairly clearcut, though it will certainly often cost more than the more conservative play when it doesn't work. In other words your play intuitively deduced, was more or less basic strategy for those studious solid players who may have less intuition.
David-
Are you really telling me not to waste the class' time when I haven't read my homework? I guess you caught me. But surely an admitted "lazy" guy like you can empathize with me here and at least give us a HPFAP page reference for defending against the possible free card play when your and is only marginal.
You are misunderstanding me. All I am saying that you correctly deduced a play that experts would almost call basic stategy while non experts might consider it quite creative.
The flip side of this:
When I was in first grade, I showed my teacher the formula for calculating the volume of a sphere and asked him if it was correct.
He replied "My God! A six-year old has figured out how to perform calculus using radial coordinates."
I said "No, I just copied it from the back cover of my sister's geometry book, but wasn't sure whether it was correct since the ink was faded."
Alas, the risk of speaking in artful analogy is that it is often wasted on lesser minds than your own.
In my view, both Michael and the button played the hand as good as one can.
The button should raise here with her one pair/openended draw. There is only person left to act behind her. That is not enough reason to just call in order to entice more players into the pot when you are on a draw. It's a much better play to raise, get it heads up and take contol of the betting, take the free card on the turn etc. Furthermore, the theory of keeping players around with a draw really only applies to situations where you use both cards in your hand to make your draw. Here, if the button just calls and keeps the sb in, she certainly ain't gonna get any extra action on the turn from the sb if she makes her straight.
Also, I am a little perplexed by your comment that Michael ought to have folded to the raise on the flop. In any kind of semi-tough game, the players will run roughshod over me if I continually fold top pair on the flop just because someone put in one raise.
Maybe this is a bit too maniacal and/or influenced by the retrospective analysis, but if I were the button, I might raise the turn here. The "just call the flop raise but bet out on the turn" play from a competent opponent is often a sign of someone holding a decent, but not great hand that just wants to avoid giving a free card. Most opponents holding two pair or a set would reraise on the flop, unless they were incredibly weak-tight and feared a flopped straight.
-Sean
Your bet on the flop was correct. You should bet top pair into four opponents none of whom raised pre-flop. Of course you call when raised. Three betting would be ridiculous since you could easily be outkicked or up against two pair or something even better. It could only be right if you knew for certain that the button was raising on a draw. You are also out of position.
On the turn, I think the Five of Clubs probably helps you if the button was betting a Diamond draw or a straight draw. I like your reasoning about betting with little likelihood of being raised.
On the river, I think I would fold when the Nine shows up unless you feel that the button is capable of bluffing here. There are just too many ways for you to be beat.
Wrong Jim. Most of the ways he is beat will elicit a check behind him. Against typical players he is against a straight or a busted flush.
David,
If you had to rank the following limits according to the probability that someone would steal when that 9 hits on the end, how would you do it? (least probable steal to most probable steal)
2-4 4-8 5-10 10-20 20-40 30-60 higher
Thanks,
Charlie Durham
I know your question was for David Sklansky but I cannot resist the temptation to answer it. The most likely game where a busted flush draw would try to steal in this situation would $30-$60 and beyond. A close second would be $20-$40 and $15-$30. A reasonable third would be $5-$10 with the lower limits not far behind.
In my opinion, the least likely is at $10-$20. The reason is because $10-$20 tends to be a transitional game for players trying to move up from low limit poker and therefore many of them are trying to play solid in this game which is sort of entry level to middle limit play which is where you start to make any kind of serious money. Players at this level tend to avoid bluffs on the end and feel that by minimizing their losses on busted hands they are playing well (which of course is not necessarily true at all).
All that being said, the real driver is the particular player in question more than the game. On this particular hand, like David says against typical players a call on the end is probably right.
No need to apologize for answering instead of David. He is a busy guy and I appreciate any responses. I liked your answer. It seems well thought out and reasonable. I never thought of it like that.
Thank you,
Charlie Durham
In an earlier thread entitled "Human Perception" Rounder wrote: All the hands I entered I won a total of 12
Who can tell me how significant this is? The only hard data I have is from Turbo HE, where I know that against the toughest line-up of players (among those who come with the game), I see the flop about 20% of the time, and I see the turn only a little more than 10% of the time. Of all hands where I see the flop (whether an unraised big blind or a voluntary play), I win less than 50% of the time.
Even if we assume a 50% win rate exactly, the odds of winning a given set of 12 consecutive hands is about 4,000 to 1 against. If we move the win rate up to 75%, the odds drop to a more reasonable 32:1 against. Still, I am continually amazed by Rounder's numbers.
I cannot recall EVER having won 12 consecutive pots that I entered (except for blind stealing in tournaments, where players are much tighter).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"I cannot recall EVER having won 12 consecutive pots"
Just a novice, Huh Fossil. I knew it all along. Did you ever consider the fact that Rounder may have misplaced a decimal point. Maybe he meant 1.2 hands. Or he could have meant 120 hands. No, then he would have been more of a fibber like Vi... some other posters. O.K so maybe he did mean 12 so what? I think that the significance of your question lies (is that a lawyer word) in the fact that Big John got on your case on that other side forum What's it called. Other poker something or t'other . Man we got so many of them here on two plus two that I can't remember which "side forum" I'm on. Is this one about Hold'em or stud. Badger help! O.K fossil back to you "significant" post here. I think that since you nit picked poor Mark Glover and he did not respond you decided to pick on "THE" "Rounder". And that is significant! See you in Court!
Vince.
Greg,
I once had a string of 5 straight Boats in 10-20 HE, 2 flopped, the remainder on the turn and river, all held up. I was just having a ball by #3 and played 32o from the BB, which made 3's full on the flop for a nice pot.
I think the other players were ready to shoot the dealer (or me)!
Now if I can just remember who I lent my lucky rabbit's foot to that night!... ;^}
Greg,
I didn't say I won 12 consecutive pots I said Over a 2 hour period I entered and won 12 pots - a big difference - don't you think.
I normally wouldn't know this (cuz I don't keep hand by hand records) but the silver bullet competition lasts 2 hours and I know I won 10 bullets and 2 other pots that didn't qualify. Besides the $500 I won I chopped the $250 silver bullet pot with a guy who played almost every hand and lost around $300 in that period.
I won the 12 pots I entered.
The most consecutive pots I can remember winning is 5 with 3 kills. I have done this 2 times.
Rounder wrote: I didn't say I won 12 consecutive pots I said Over a 2 hour period I entered and won 12 pots - a big difference - don't you think.
Yes, I know. I did say in my post 12 consecutive pots "that I entered". If that was poorly worded, it was meant to indicate of the hands you chose to play preflop, you won 12 of them in a row.
The numbers in my original post remain the same. Even if you have a long-term 75% win rate in those pots you choose to enter, it is still over 30:1 against winning 12 in a row. Now, 30:1 is something that we're all gonna see at a poker table all the time. However, notice that when it was only 50% chance to win a pot you enter, the odds against winning 12 in a row are over 4,000:1. That is not something that you will see that often. Based upon my experience, which may not be representative, I find 75% or better as a long-term average hard to credit, especially in a loose low limit game.
The thing is Rounder, between information like this, the 5 big bets/hour, and the fact that the playing style you ascribe to yourself is SOOO tight that you give up profitable plays to reduce variance, it is hard to give full credit to everything you say. I think selective memory or some other factor is at work here. Not intending to be offensive or anything like that, it's just hard to imagine what I would actually see if I saw you playing there at Casino Arizona. I think you either play quite a bit differently than you describe, or something else is not as I could imagine.
What I should have made more clear in my original post is, how often do people think they win when they enter a pot voluntarily? Does anyone else think that they win much more than 50% of the time they choose to pay to see the flop?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg,
AA twice in a row is 4000 to 1 I believe and we've all had that happen.
I really don't care much if you believe me or not. I don't consider my self a tight player or rock as I am not - I play based on position and lay off suited cards for the sake if them being suited. I surely don't draw to 3 flushes or 3 straights and don't play 2nd pair much - regardless of pot size. I do play the players more than anyone I know and I have really good instincts. As an aside I have just recently started to play 2 over cards again - because of this bb - in the right position and pot size and it seems to be working out.
The 12 hands I described were witnessed by several players and if you lived here you could verify it. I really have no reason to lie or exagerate in future I will refrain from discussing any personal stats as it only infuriates those who don't have the success I am experiencing.
Sorry your so bitter.
Rounder, I don't doubt the 12 hands so much, though I guess that is not what I posted, so I apologize.
What I seem to recall is a statement by you a while ago about winning most of the hands that you choose to play. The implication was a LOT more than 50%. I don't think you're lying. I think your memory is selective.
And the 5 big bets per hour. It's an amazing number when not limited to a pretty short period. For let's say 500 hours or more, it's amazing and well beyond anything I've ever heard from someone who keeps good records.
Yet, you've told us you write it all down, so it's not some overblown estimate. Therefore, I wonder, how is it that this guy can regularly win so much more than any other player I've EVER heard of? And this despite the fact that he appears, in my opinion, to be giving up some of his EV by folding marginally profitable draws?
I'm trying to say, I don't understand how it all fits together, and I'm curious.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
These things happen. I'm currently playing with a guy who's made over 60 grand in the past 800 or so hours of Hold 'em, and he's not a particularly good player. Yes, he's 'pretty good', but not world class; and yet he's beating up on the game. Or take that guy Archie who took Binion's for 18 mil at the craps table. In any large sample, you'll have guys who can pound on the game. In the long run they'll regress to the mean, but untill then.. hey, enjoy the ride. As far as Rounder's experience goes, my guess is that he's just enjoyed a particularly hot run of cards. When he suggestst that the rest of us are 'mad' or 'jealous' I just have to laugh, because I know what's coming for him. It may happen later than sooner, but it's going to come...
I'm curious what betting strategy Archie was using to acheive that big win. Furthermore, I'm wondering if you can manipulate that 10 times odds bet to cover the cost of the house percentage on the line bets. Any ideas?
Rounder writes:
AA twice in a row is 4000 to 1 I believe and we've all had that happen.
Actually it's 48840:1, but good guess.
- Andrew
Andy - I have you on Ignore - don't have time for your sarcasim
I once won every pot that I entered. Except the pots that I lost.
I too am amazed by Rounder's 12 wins in a row. I would guess that it's no more than 3 or at most 4 for me. Of course, I play in games where most pots are contested multiway. I have played in Vegas games where I am sure that I have won more than 4 pots in a row (i.e. pots that I have opted to enter) but this probably included hands where I just stole the blinds or perhaps had one opponent who called me and folded on the flop.
skp and FossilMan just don't play as good, tight-aggressive as Rounder. Or maybe your* just jealous. Remember, when in doubt, just ask yourself "WWRD?" 'nuff said!!
*Rounder contraction for you are
Wish English was my 1st language.
I feel I'm in sort of a grey area in terms of being pushed off of pots. I would really like to win those few extra pots but it seems I am zigging when I should be zagging. I'm not talking about what seem to be clear-cut situations, but those times when I just have no idea. This isn't happening all the time and only against a few familiar faces. I know I'm being out played in these particular situations. What should I do when I find myself in this predicament?
You need to be writing down these hands and posting some of them for comment. I have done the same thing myself and I get a lot of useful responses.
Derek,
Could you be a little more specific about being "pushed off pots". I suspect you mean you are not calling on the river if it's bet or raised or mucking on the turn for the same reasons.
I kinda have a personal rule - unless the turn and river are real bad for me I'm in the pot until the end, if I go past the flop. Now I don't go past the flop unless I have certain criteria but if I do I'm in and fighting for every possible chip.
If you think you're getting pushed off pots then start calling more on the river. Or, if this makes you uncomfortable, try tightening up your starting hand requirements.
Since the last time I have posted (about 3 months ago), I've had the good fortune of putting in many more hours at the table (mainly 2-4 and 3-6). I'm up to a whopping 100 hrs, and I am more confident in my ability as a HE player. While I am still down for the total 100 hours, the last 50 have been profitable (about $5/hr).
This hand happened yesterday, and I wanted to talk a bit about it. Sunday morning, 9:45 a.m. at a local 2-4 HE table. I'd played with a couple of the people before, most of whom were stereotypical nofoldem types. A woman who I'd never seen before was raising ferociously (1 to my left) happily capping the bets with Q6s. A man across the table seemed to enjoy these "grudge" matches, raising with virtually any two cards. The man to his right, who I knew was a weak-passive type was involved with me in this hand. On this particuar hand, the Maniac Woman was taking a break.
I am UTG and dealt AKo. Following Lee Jones' advice, I've been mixing up my play with this hand, sometimes raising, sometimes limping, sometimes limp-reraising. I raise. 4 cold callers.
Flop: A, K, rag - rainbow. I bet. fold. call. fold fold.
Heads up with Weak passive player. This is the fun part. Turn comes King. I want to check raise, but I am not 100% certain that he will bet. I think he has a king, but it's hard to tell with him (I've seen him play some very, uh, "creative" things). I take one second. Look at the board. Raise my eyebrows and sigh. "Check" I say, with a tone of defeat. He bets. I raise. He calls.
River is a rag. I bet. He calls. Shows me KTo. I show my boat and take town a reasonable pot.
Over the past, I'd say 30 hours at the table, I have learned many things, thanks to the books and lurking on this forum. The one main thing for me has been patience. Also, at these limits, I have realized how true it is to simply show down the best hand... To not try to muscle the table around. It seems to me that it is almost like Judo - using your opponents "strength" against them.
I imagine that some will have comments, which are of course welcome - I just wanted to write, mainly as a "Thank you." I truly believe that my play is improving, as well as my attitude at the table - i.e., I do not get "pushed around" as much. I feel my read on other players has improved greatly, and I also find that each excursion teaches me yet another lesson... So, thanks..... -Tim
I like your pre-flop raise under the gun and in a full table game with people routinely coming in on trash hands I think you should raise 90% of the time. You should bet the flop like you did because there is a large pot out there and these people will routinely call a flop bet sometimes with anything like bottom pair, middle pair, a draw, etc. I don't know about the play acting on the turn. It sounds like you got some extra money but in general I would avoid it and just bet my hand. Who knows but maybe if the guy has a King he will raise and you can re-raise making even more money. He will certainly make a crying call on the river.
Your observation about patience and not trying a lot of fancy moves in these low limit games is a good one. Glad to see that you are doing well and keep posting hands.
Your hourly sounds a bit high, so brace yourself and prepare to persevere if you run into an extended streak of disappointing results.
$5 an hour high for 2-4? What is expected hourly in 2-4? And in 3-6, 5-10 and other limit games? This would help some of gauge if we are on track or not.
Poker Essays I and Gambling for Living have good material on this.
For $2-4 and $3-6 with a big (10%)rake and jackpot drop, a bet an hour or less against typical opponents, more if you wait for terrible opponents that almost never play reasonably. Forget about 2 bets an hour sustained. (I'm assuming you will never win the jackpot).
The problem with these games is that they punish the suckers so badly that they either burn out or slow down while they catch their breath, making them harder to beat. Stay away from small pots that aren't a cinch to win.
At the higher limits (5-10, 6-12) you might be able to win up to 2 bets an hour if the rake or drop is reasonable (as in L. Vegas). I question whether anyone can beat a higher game for more than 1.5 bets an hour over time.
Also, if you consistently play better than your opponents, remember that a couple of dumb mistakes every few hours can wipe out your earn.
Five an hour sound a bit high, but I imagine that most low limit structured games can be beat for that amount. Mason once said that a world class player could probably beat a 2-5 spread limit game for around 7 an hour, so I think Tim's results are probably close to being in line with those of a good, solid player.
While it's true that a couple dumb mistakes can wipe out your earn, that's a bit misleading. Of course, it depends on the mistake, but most mistakes only 'cost' you (in the long run) maybe 5 or 10 percent of a bet. Hence, you can make a number of boner moves and still win. As far a pre-flop mistakes go, you really pay for those in spread limit; but in structured limit I don't think the situation is nearly as bad.
Note to Tim- Put your copy of Lee Jones' book on the shelf and leave it there. If you're looking for a book that gives you all you need, read Sklansky's 'Hold 'em Poker' (not HFAP). The Jones book offers up some truly wretched pre-flop advice, and everything else in it is covered better by HEP. This is the book that made the difference in my game.
GD, Specifically which pre-flop advice of Jone's did you not like? I'm curious as I've seen the book raved about by a few on this forum. I have read both that and HEP (and HPFAP). I have not much experience (<100 hours), so little chance so far to draw my own conclusions. Thanks in advance, Kate
Not to speak for GD, and it's been a long time since I've looked at the book, but the biggest flaws I recall are (1) the suggestion of occasionally raising with suited connectors in late position just because a lot of people have limped in, (2) the "fit or fold" dictum for playing post-flop, and (3) that it undervalues the strength of small pairs in a game with no preflop raising. IMO, the book as a whole overvalues the merits of calling and undervalues aggression.
I also don't recall anything about betting or raising after the flop with a hand that probably isn't the best, which can be a big play against a weak-tight field and a big pot. While it's true that this play doesn't work when a bunch of them will always just call, there are few games where this situation is always present.
In hands where a lot of people limp and will stick around, you need to start out with an advantage and show down the best hand on the river. You don't need a book to tell you that, and a book that does won't give you much insight about what to do the rest of the time. If every hand is played like this, the book is pretty good (except the suited connector raise recomendation is just wrong).
Chris, Thanks for your response. I agree WLLHE is geared exclusively to no-fold'em hold'em. However, it is not Jones who advocates occasionally raising with suited connectors in late position (at least I couldn't find it) but S&M in 21C HPFAP: from pg 33: "...if you have 8H7H, several players already in the pot, and no one has yet raised, then raising is probably a good play."
Kate
I believe Jones advocates this as well. But isn't it wrong in a no fold'em game where many players automatically call on the flop regardless of the pot size, their position. etc.
I think this is the first really negative review I have seen on the Lee Jones book. That book was intended to be an improvement over the S&M books for 2-4 and 3-6 games. The author states that the S&M strategies only begin to work at somewhat higher limits.
My own experience is that the Lee Jones book gave me a foundation for studying the S&M works, and I found the pre-flop strategy differences to be understandable in light of the lower limits being considered.
For a relatively new player with less than 100 hours of play, I have to agree that it is a bit high.
Lars
Tim attempting to get an extra bet and possibly an Oscar said: "I take one second. Look at the board. Raise my eyebrows and sigh. "Check" I say, with a tone of defeat. He bets. I raise."
I like the check-raise, however you gave away one of the classic tells at low-limit tables - weak when strong, stong when weak. Your weak passive opponent did not pick up on it at the time, however many knowledgable opponents would have.
I would suggest less emotion when checking, betting or raising either real or acted. Keep them allways guessing.
Yes, Jodder, a classic tell to those of us that have a clue, but this is 3/6, and most of them DON'T have a clue. I get real nervous when I hear/see that kind of stuff from weak players, but I've said obvious "weak when strong" tell-type comments like "I'm going to try and buy this one" and "Well, I guess I'll bet if nobody else will" type crap that would NEVER work against alert opponents, and get called by a couple of players holding garbage, so you're right, thats not something you want to do very often, but it works so often it suprises me.
Mike
I like your play of this hand. If you have players that will frequently call with hands that are second best you will have the best of it.
The raise is good. In these low-limit games all the trouble hands will call. When I say trouble hands, I am referring to unsuited high cards.
The bet on the flop is good because it hides the strength of your hand.
I especially like your check-raise on the turn. There are alot of players that think since you did not bet on the turn that you were bluffing and will go ahead and bet. You will also discover in other situations when your hand is probably the best it will knock out those long shots that others make when only having to call one bet to see the river.
You wrote,"I am UTG and dealt AKo. Following Lee Jones' advice, I've been mixing up my play with this hand, sometimes raising, sometimes limping, sometimes limp-reraising. I raise. 4 cold callers."
You did not say why you sometimes limp and why you don't. This is why I don't like the Lee Jones book. He does not tell you why you do something. In these type of low-limit games I would only limp-in if I was not getting any callers otherwise I think you should go for check-raising and raising with the premium cards pre-flop.
Me 2 off the Button with KK. I'm the first one in and open with a raise. Botton is a Tight Aggessive (TA) Player who knows I sometimes steal with any Big cards in this position. Re-Raises me and every one else has folded.
Now I know that TA will re-raise with any two big cards and any Pocket Pair bigger than 6's. I put in a Third raise, which I think is a mistake now because it gives away the strength of my hand too early and makes it harder for me to read my opponent.
The Flop comes Ad,6c,7s
I bet and just get called. Now what do I do? I got to think that TA has an Ace but is now afraid I have him out kicked because of my Preflop re-raise. I guss TA could have a Poket pair under KK, but should throw it away because of me giving away the strength of my hand Pre-Flop. At the time I thought that TA would call me down with an underpair and I kept betting, but TA called me down and showed me a Ac,Tc on the River. Duh!
Turn was a 5s River was a Jd
If I had only called his Re-raise pre-flop I could have thrown away my KK for a Raise on the Flop after I bet. Knowing I was beat. If an Ace didn't come on the flop I may have won more money from this player because he may have bet an underpair or called me down with an Ace,Big.
What do you think?
Thanks, CV
This is an interesting problem. Normally, I am an advocate of simply betting, raising, re-raising, etc. pre-flop with pocket Aces or pocket Kings. But a notable exception occurs when you are just heads-up with someone and you know you are a huge favorite on the hand. There is merit to just calling his raise with just the two of you and not "giving the away the strength of your hand". The only problem is that you are really out of position to engage in this maneuver. I think on balance I would have put in the third raise like you did. I would never classify either play as a clear cut mistake.
On the flop, you have to bet and see what he does. He must be worried that you have an Ace since many players 3 bet pre-flop with AK suited and sometimes even AK offsuit. When called, you must be beat and your only hope is to catch a King or to try and bet him out on the turn. Whether or not I bet the turn would depend on my opponent. I think in this case given that the button is a tight, aggressive player I would probably check and fold if he bets.
Just calling on the flop has merit. He may marry his hand and go with you to the river when he's a huge dog. I like the play.
I DON'T like the notion of betting and folding to a raise on the flop. When you don't play back before the flop, he's likely to put you on a moderate hand or worse. He might suspect you of making a move on the pot because he'll fear the ace. He might be making a counter-move on you!
If you start folding these hands, they run you over. I've been road kill many times to aggressive players. When the ace hits, you probably should check-call the turn and river. It costs you 2 BB, but some days you DO have the best hand, and on others they try to bluff you and lose. At least you don't become road kill.
Fat-Charlie (Road Killed too often)
How about a check-raise on the flop? If he comes back at you, fold. If not, show strength on the turn and see how he feels about his kicker. If he doesn't have an ace, he should be fairly convinced you do. Him not firing back at you pre-flop is a pretty good indication he doesn't have Aces in the hole. What else could he have - AK, you are beat: Q's or worse, he will fold on show of strength. If he calls, you check the river and know you are beat. I think this seems like an opportunity to steal the pot, but only starting with the check-raise on the flop.
I believe the check-raise on 3rd makes less money because I will most likely get re-raised after I put in two bets when I'm beat, but will not get paid off when I'm not. I'm thinking that the TA will only try to steal the pot 50% of the time he has KK or worse, and he can always take a free card that may hurt my hand, though it may also give him second best.
I think the best thing for me to learn is when to give up after I'm called on 3rd street in this situation.
What do the big boys think?
Later, CV
Probably a highly discussed topic, but I tried a couple of times to check raise the nuts (straight or flush drawn out on the river only) against aggressive better entire hand. I assume he/she would bet following my check after river (which I think a bad assumption). Twice this failed and cost me a big bet twice I am sure, and once worked including a reraise by the fool (which got me the two bets back). What should long term strategy be. I know it is always case specific>
When you make the nut straight or flush on the river, and someone has been betting the whole way behind you, they often have no more than top pair or 2 pair, and will often check behind you becuase the flush or straight just made possible by the river card is so obvious to them (especially flushes when there were 2 of your flush cards on the flop).
When you make any flush or straight, bet out more often than not. Check occasionally, and mostly when you have reason to believe that someone behind you will bet.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
It is generally not a good idea and sometimes they will even make a good fold on the end when you check-raise. It is very situational. Let me give you a different type of hand where I made a check-raise on the river and my rationale. It is a $10-$20 game and I am in the little blind having the Queen of Spades and the Jack of Diamonds. Four players limp in and I just call. The big blind does not raise. The flop comes: Queen of Clubs, Queen of Hearts, Five of Hearts. With five opponents and a two flush on the board, I bet out and get three callers. The turn is: Jack of Clubs giving me the nuts. I bet knowing I will get called from the draws. I get two callers. The river is: Deuce of Hearts. I would now go for a check-raise because I think that someone who was on a Heart flush draw will now bet and I have multiple opponents so I am confident that one of them has made a flush.
Depending on the amount of players and the quality of their play, I will usually bet out on the River with the nuts. For example if I'm heads up or their are two players left not including me, and if you know them to be fairly solid players, I will bet out to insure one or two calls as opposed to getting no calls at all. In a multiway pot I will almost always bet out with the nuts, unless I'm convinced for whatever situational reasons that someone to my near immediate left is itching to bet. Another reason to bet out with the nuts on the River, especially in a multiway pot and especially if the players are below competent is the chance that you will be raised. You have the nut flush and the 10-high flush raises you - happened to me many times - especially if you bet all the way representing top pair.
An example to illustrate the point: I was in the small blind. When the river card was exposed, I had the straight flush with the 6 of diamonds (there were four diamonds on the board). It was a multiway pot and I got four calls - the Kd, the Jd, the Ad and a straight. The Ace did not raise because of the obvious straight flush. But he could have and if he was a real weak player, he would have. That would have sucked him in and perhaps one more for an additional 2 bets after I re-raised. The guy to my right said, why not check raise. The answer seems obvious to me. A check might lose you guaranteed money - I was in the perfect position with the perfect card to bet out. As is usually the case with such questions the answer will depend on a) the number of players left after the river, 2) the quality of their play.
I would have to say it is on a case by case situation but I can give you an example of where it benefited me on a hand. I had A-K clubs and raised pre-flop, getting 5-6 callers. Flop comes up K-10c-Qc, giving me top pair with a nut straight flush draw. it is checked to me and I bet so that I am representing K-K, A-A or A-K...
Turn comes 5c so I have made my flush. I bet into flush on turn hoping to get raised where I can reraise. I get 4 callers. River is 9h which I am hoping will get all those with straights interested. I check with a smirk of frustration ( Send me the Oscar ) and get a bettor and a caller and then check-raise.
Granted it is a great situation to do it general when you can represent top pair but still have the nuts and the river makes a hand for someone else, that is the time I think you can check it.
you are in the big blind with A8 hearts. four players and the small blind limp in for a total of six players. whether correct or incorrect, you just check instead of raising.
flop comes 872, the 7 and 2 of hearts, giving you a four flush and top pair. the small blind bets, what do you do?
should you raise to try to drive out overcards and underpairs and gutshots or should you just call and let others trail in after you to make the pot bigger in case you hit your flush?
what's the correct way to play this situation?
all comments and thoughts appreciated.
You should raise and protect the pot that is out there. The odds are against you making the flush and there are already seven bets in the pot with more to follow when your raise gets called by the small blind. Don't let someone with just overcards come in cheaply. It would very bad for you if a Nine,Ten, Jack, Queen, or King shows up on the turn that is not a Heart and a bunch of players are still in the hand. Treat the nut flush draw as an added bonus and protection if you get called in multiple spots or even re-raised. Someone on a Heart flush draw may make a disastrous mistake and pursue their draw regardless which is great when you both hit.
I agree with Jim. When you raise you may be getting the best of both worlds if there is another flush draw out as well as an open ended straight since these hands will come anyway.
"Someone on a Heart flush draw may make a disastrous mistake and pursue their draw regardless which is great when you both hit."
Perhaps I'm missing something but how can someone with 2 hearts and two hearts on the flop be making a "disastrous mistake" when the pot is giving them 6:1 odds. It's true that in this case they won't win but from what I've read here this is still a pos ev situation.I don't mean to be snarky but is a diastrous mistake the same as a mathematical catastrophe?
...I don't mean to be snarky but is a diastrous mistake the same as a mathematical catastrophe? ...
Disastrous mistake = drawing dead and getting there.
That would mean anytime you have a non nut flush draw it might be a disastrous mistake. You can always be drawing dead so why the emphasis on suited cards?
SammyB let me clarify what I mean by a mistake. Given that the person does not know that he is up against the nut flush draw, obviously they are not making a mistake in the traditional sense. When I said a mistake, I meant the kind of mistake that is addressed in the Fundamental Theorem of Poker developed by David Sklansky which says something to the effect that "whenever your opponent plays in a manner inconsistent with the way he would play if he knew what you had you gain" (therefore he loses). Perhaps I should have reworded by original response and just stated that you profit enormously when people pay multiple bets and raises to draw at the same flush you are drawing at when you have the nut flush draw.
Jim,
Thank you so much for the clarification. I make enough mistakes so I'd like to eliminate as many disastrous ones as possible.
Sammy
I agree with Mason and Jim that you should generally raise to thin the field in a typical game. One exception might be in an very loose game where people will call 2 cold with those weak draws anyway, in which case I'd often just call, and if someone in later position raised, I'd reraise.
Regarding A8s preflop, I'd usually just call unless the limpers were exceptionally loose (especially exceptionally loose-aggressive, in which case you're pretty sure that yours is the best ace) or weak-tight (and could be blown off aces with better kickers.)
-Sean
In a situation like this, where I have a reasonable shot at having the best hand and almost a lock on the best draw, I like to play it as fast as I can. I am always willing to take the current pot (or even give myself the best shot at it) and am always willing to build the pot with a big draw. I am getting both for the same price here. If people come along with me, then I have a bunch of outs if I'm behind. If they drop, that's even better.
The beauty here is that you don't have to choose between protection and pot building. Whichever I get is determined by how the others react to the raise, and both are good for me.
Eric
Looking for the best strategy for 8 or better where the ante is 2$, bring in is 5$, 4th and 5th street is 10$, 6th and 7th street is $15.
you get the honor of being the first one to post in the wrong forum.
the best strategy is not in print so you have to interpolate on your own here. it wont be way off from what i advocate in my book. make a few adjustments and go from there.
First, I would like to thank writers like Malmuth, Sklansky, Ciaffone, etc. that give me something to think about when not playing cards. :)
I have a few questions about one of the essays on twoplustwo. Question 1 in Hold'em Quiz part 1 - Malmuth's reasoning that he would raise with 9d8d is, "I would raise with it almost every time. Part of my reasoning is that many players are too tight on the flop even though they defend loosely before the flop. I might be able to steal once we see three cards." I agree with the concept that lots of people are tight on the flop, but why 9d8d? Can't you steal the pot even better with Ax or Kx or anything. It's almost like the statement should read, "I would raise with (almost any two cards) every time. Part of..." There is no positive value for this raise if you actually want to make a hand, so why not wait for 2 big cards to steal with from the button.
Question 8, part 2 - I am just missing some math. I don't see how both Ciaffone and Malmuth agree that you need to steal only 1/3 of the time to make this a profitable bluff. I get 1 success = 1.5 big bets, 2 nonsuccesses = 3 big bets. I understand that might take into account all the times that someone puts you on a steal and calls with a bad hand. But this seems like a time when noone will call unless they have you beat (it won't take much). Am I missing some arithmetic?
Thanks,
Charlie Durham
p.s. - I thoroughly enjoy reading all the posts on this board, and I especially enjoy articles by great players like Malmuth and Ciaffone (who I met at a chess tournament and he was a really nice guy).
Charlie writes: "I agree with the concept that lots of people are tight on the flop, but why 9d8d? Can't you steal the pot even better with Ax or Kx or anything. It's almost like the statement should read, "I would raise with (almost any two cards) every time. Part of..." There is no positive value for this raise if you actually want to make a hand, so why not wait for 2 big cards to steal with from the button."
Charlie, you're right to focus strongly on high card value in blind stealing situations. But 98s is not a bad hand. Its suited, connectedness will help it find lots of semi-bluffing opportunities postflop, and it's certainly far better than Ax or Kx at making a big hand. No, it's not as good as A9 or QTs in this spot because can't win unimproved and has less high card value. But it does have some high card value, lot's of drawing value, and lots of semi-bluff potential. I personally would much rather have 98s in this spot than a hand like K5o. It plays much better. 98s is really not at all comparable to "almost any two cards".
Amen.
Also, catching lower flops may get you some bonus payoffs later.
If everyone folds to the button who raises, what should you do with 98suited in the small blind against typical opponents? This question springs from something I posted in the General Theory Forum which you may want to read to help you with your thinking. However unlike that question I do not think the answer is clear cut. Rather it is an essay question where the best answer is one that most cogently lays out your case. Anyone who tackles this question will I think be helped by the mere fact that that they do. I have a fairly strong opinion as to the answer but in this case I could be swayed. So let's hear your ideas.
Everything I say from this point on is predicated on the assumption that I am up against "typical opponents." Having said that, let me say that I am only ever so often typical myself and depending on my mood and amount of sleep and present mental state, I will do one of three things, at the end of which I will inform you what I believe is the proper course:
1. I am well rested, fully nourished and recently showered. If a typical player on the button is raising after everyone folds, than upwards of 75% of the time he is on the steal. 89s is not per se a bad hand. I would like more players in the pot, but I hate giving up my blinds. I would re-raise and probably kick out the big blind and bet the flop no matter what hits. I give it up only if he calls my flop bet, the turn brings me nothing, I check the turn and he bets. I must assume, with your typical player - if he can weather that and bet the turn, than I am beat - again, all the above is predicated on a typical opponent.
2. Medium amount of sleep. No shower in over 16 hours. Fast food in my stomach. I call. Minimum to call is medium pair with back door straight/flush potential only.
3. Little sleep. I smell. Eating chocolates. I call him to the river with only bottom pair, no straight or flush draws.
The proper course is #1, as I never play in any other state let alone those described in #2 or #3.
I fold. I spend all the intervening time watching the BB and the button fight this one out while anticipating the fact that I will be the button on the very next hand. In the games I play in most of the time, the SB is one third of a small bet. Why do I want to get involved with 9-8 suited in a raised pot when I am going to be in the least favorable position throughout the play of the hand? I wouldn't limp with this hand UTG, why play it against a single raiser when the most I can expect is a 3 way pot? If I'm wrong, please give me an idea of how much expectation I'm giving away here. If I have real good control over the button, I still shy away from playing this hand, but would call in the BB hoping for a flop that would let me play the hand strongly. I usually try to stay away from questions like this that tend to reveal the incredible depth of my "fuzzy thinking", but I'm feeling somewhat invincible today after having resolved a long standing IRS situation.
BTW David, I was forced to reveal the $17,000.00 in cash that I paid you for private lessons last year, so I really hope that you reported it as income.
I have to basically agree with Double K's evaluation. I would probably re-raise. Part of my reasoning would be that:
a: I put the button raiser on a medium/low pair, or medium connectors, in which case, a re-raise may knock out the BB, allowing me to get heads up with the raiser. Hopefully the flop hits me with a nice hand. Obviously, the pot odds aren't there for a drawing hand, but if I get lucky and hit a straight AND flush draw, I'll bet the flop, and hope I can just win the pot right there.
b. There is the possibilty of winning the hand pre-flop if he was on a pure steal, and does't want to call a re-raise from the blind. However, this scenario is much less likely in my 3/6 game because for one thing, I cant remember the last time it was folded around to the button, and the chances of the raiser folding to a re-raise is virtually nil. This fact might make me consider just calling in this situation, and waiting for the flop to see if I have a hand.
So, in my regular game, against a typical player, I have to say a re-raise is th best move.
mike
.... see DS, I am learning.
I would fold here too in the SB. But I don't think reraising the button is a better play than just calling.
regards,
jikun
I'd definitely play it because I think the hand is a money-maker against a blind steal even though it probably doesn't win a very large percentage of the time. In essence, he'll pay me when I hit a lot more than I'll pay him when he hits. He has a likely overcard advantage, but my straight/flush potential balances that out somewhat. I'm not going to be very worried about hands like A8, K9 or TT because those hands are tiny fraction of everything my opponent could be playing.
The basic problem I see with the hand is overcoming the disadvantage of being first to act, so I'd probably reraise before the flop. This also has the advantages of (usually) knocking out the big blind and somewhat disguising the ranks in my hand.
I like 98 in this situation because it can be an easy to play. My opponent's most likely hands consist of at least one card higher than a jack with A and K predominating or, much less frequently, a pocket pair lower than an 8. As a result, I can get away from the flops that help him a lot easier than he can get away from the flops that help me.
For example, if an A or K flops with another overcard, I've got a problem regardless of whether I flop a pair, although with a pair I've probably got a good draw to at least the turn. Without a pair or a good draw I usually can't continue against the two big cards.
If I flop top pair, I'll play it fast and my opponent will often not suspect how far behind he his. He might even pay me off on the river holding Ax or an underpair because it appears as though he might have the best hand.
If no ace or king flops and I've got a pair, I've got the best hand the vast majority of the time. I'll play it fast even if a couple of overcards are on board.
If I don't flop a hand and two overcards flop but neither are an ace or king, I'll often have a gutshot draw good for an attempted semi-bluff. If my opponent has me beat, he usually let me know it soon as he should play back at strongly. If he does and I believe him, I'll play my draw as the pot odds indicate. If he just calls, I'll bet out on the turn, especially if no A, K or Q lands.
If I don't have a pair or a draw and one or fewer overcards flop and it is not an ace or king (e.g. J54, 633), I won't waste money bluffing because my opponent will correctly estimate that he's ahead. I'll check and maybe call once but probably give it up on the turn.
Since all folded in an average game that means no Ax and few paints out there I don't have any eigther so button is probably sitting on at least one and probably 2 over cards. If not a big pair.
I'm a big dog suited or not (and you all know what I think about suited cards before the flop) - I wouldn't see the flop in the 1st 7 positions with this hand so why should I see it here.
David - I proudly muck these rags.
Rounder writes:
David - I proudly muck these rags.
THAT'S what I meant by weak tight.
- Andrew
Andrew writes: "Rounder writes: David - I proudly muck these rags.
THAT'S what I meant by weak tight. - Andrew "
I'll grant you it might be tight but exactly how do you figure it to be weak? I'm not convinced that it's too tight to muck here dependent upon game conditions.
The terms Weak and Tight are not joined at the hip.
Scott,
Andy thinks it is weak to muck marginal hands in bad positions. He considers it strong to reraise here when THAT is the classic example of WEAK play.
To bad Andy doesn't know, what hw doesn't know.
Rounder,
I thought you weren't reading my posts...
- Andrew
"Rounder, I thought you weren't reading my posts... - Andrew "
Now that's tight play. I'll be joining Rounder in this until you grow up.
horton writes:
Now that's tight play. I'll be joining Rounder in this until you grow up.
Heh, that's funny.
- Andrew
Scott,
Tight describes the general frequency of folding. I tend to think of it applying to situations when you have no pot equtiy and choose not to play.
Weak describes the reasons for folding. This could apply to any fold under any condition.
For example, it is tight to fold AJo under the gun. It is weak to fold AJo one off the button to any raise. On the other hand it is not weak to fold AJo to a tight-raise.
Maybe my understanding is different from others. I'd be interested in hearing other interpretations of the two words.
- Andrew
Weak Tight: Playing only the best hands in a predictable manner. ie; Always raising with AA or Always checking A,K, when the flop is rags etc. That's a weaka play. Nexta besta ting to Loose passive.
Vince.
I like your views regarding "tight" and "weak". I would add that "weak" also means failing to bet your good hands aggressively to get maximum value, failing to steal when you should, and failing to play back against potential steal raises with decent cards.
Well first of all let me point out that in the mid-limit games (15-30, 30-60) at bay 101 the small blind is 2-3rds of the big blind.
What course of action I would take here would depend on my table image. If I had a tight image at the table I would definitely re-raise from the small blind, and if big blind folds and the button just calls I would auto bet the flop, and if the button calls the flop bet I would even bet the turn if I though he was calling with overcards or maybe even a draw. I would possibly bet the river, assuming that my hand had not improved.
I don't think that I would bet the turn if it was Axx, because there is an excellent chance that the button has a weak ace if he called your bet on the flop.
If I had recently made a few very aggressive plays, like 3 betting it from the small blind with K10o, I might just call the raise. My table image would have to be really bad though for me to take this course of action, I would have to be afraid of being called down the whole way with ace-high.
I might also just call the raise if it was blatantly obvious that the big blind was going to call the raise and if the big blind was the type of player likely to call 2 raises with any hand that he would call 1 raise with.
Because of the bay 101 blind structure I would only fold the hand if, I was pretty confident BB was going to make it three bets. However if the small blind was only 1/2 or 1/3 of the big blind I would be much more likely to send the hand into the muck preflop. Still if I had a tight table image I would most likely make it three bets pre-flop.
One last note, I never mentally classify players as "typical" in a ring-game especially when it comes to their steal raising standards, because some players who behave "typically" in other instances might almost never go for a steal raise or they might always go for a steal raise. I just never encounter anyone who directly matches the "typical" steriotype.
Shawn--First time post
Shawn writes: "What course of action I would take here would depend on my table image. If I had a tight image at the table I would definitely re-raise from the small blind, and if big blind folds and the button just calls I would auto bet the flop, and if the button calls the flop bet I would even bet the turn if I though he was calling with overcards or maybe even a draw. I would possibly bet the river, assuming that my hand had not improved.
If this play is based upon your current table image then why would you need a real hand to execute it? Wouldn't any two cards do?
It sounds like you understood Shawn to say either that he would base his play purely on image, or that he would play the hand only for the likelihood of stealing. I don't think that's what he meant. I think he's simply saying image would be an important factor that could swing the decision for him (reraise versus call). Having a tight image could give him enough added stealing potential to make the reraise and aggressive follow through (with exceptions as he listed) more profitable than just calling. Without a real hand, the overall expecation for the play would be inadequate.
With the 98s, the assumption is that without that image just calling may have the better expectation of the two options. While it's quite situational, I agree with the basic line of thinking.
BTW, Shawn, I agree with bulk of your comments. But I would actually see it pretty similarly even in a 1/2 bet small blind situation. I think it's giving up too much to muck 98s in the sb against a likely steal raise.
Assuming that you had a tight table image I think that making it three bets could be correct (profitable) with any 2 cards if you think that the following things are true;
1. Big blind is not going to call your reraise, 2. The button probably has a marginal pre-flop calling hand (Ax, J10) 3. The button is going to fold if you bet unless they hit the flop.
Now I wouldn't normally make this play with a hand like 25o because my table image isn't that tight; observant opponents would know that I make it 3 bets in these situations with almost any hand that I decide to play from the small blind.
I think that it would be profitable for a rock to make this power play if he was against a likely steal-raise, even if he loses the hand he would gain a lot of advertising from the play (assuming a showdown).
Obviously making a play like this everytime won't be profitable in that you will have no credibility, but making it three bets with garbage can be profitable because you win the pot if they don't hit the flop.
Shawn--
Shawn writes: "Obviously making a play like this everytime won't be profitable in that you will have no credibility, but making it three bets with garbage can be profitable because you win the pot if they don't hit the flop."
However, in general I would argue that you're best off restricting yourself to legitimate hands of some sort (98s, 66...) in making such plays. One reason is that if you don't you will not have the tight image you seek. That will hurt your overall profits on other hands.
However, in general I would argue that Shawn has got a great deal of gamble in him. My original guess seems to be about right.
On seeing his subsequent post, I agree with you. To add a bit to my warning:
Shawn, you've got to be somewhat selective. I don't think that you can maintain your tight image if you start adding garbage hands to the many marginally playable, "legitimate" hands that will come your way anyway.
"start adding garbage hands "
98s is a "garbage" hand. Hmmm interesting?
Vince.
No, no, Vince. I was saying that 98s was pretty GOOD. But Shawn kind of gave the impression that he also thought it was fine to throw in the occasional garbage hand for this 3-bet (63o, J2o...) if your image was right. At least that's how his second post struck me.
Sorry John,
Should have known. Superstar and all.
Vince
Don't let this one argument deceive you into thinking that I am a maniac gamb00lzer (sp?). I can't remember the last time that this certain senario came up in which I felt my image was tight enough to perform a small blind powerplay with rags. I still do believe the play is profitable for a predicably tight player, although that is what makes them predicable they don't try these type of tricks.
I normally play very tight holdem, at least as tight as S&M indicates, and even tighter in early position with hands like J10s, 109s, ect. But that is because the 30-60 game tends to be rather aggressive.
Your advice (21st century edition, page 44) is that "if you are going to play (usually with a hand in Groups 1-6), you should almost always reraise. . .to drive the big blind out of the pot."
I agree with this advice which, to me, suggests that calling is the least attractive option. I know you prefer more players rather than fewer with suited connectors, but in this case the choice is between a two-handed and a three-handed pot, not between a two-handed and a multi-handed pot. I think a call is generally wrong.
Most times I would fold. If I know the oponent, and I know him to be either weak/tight or a less skilled player than I am, I would re-raise and, as you almost always do when making it 3 bets before the flop, bet out on the flop. Your opponent, having been first in from the button, will often be relatively weak (small pocket pair, medium suited connectors, A-xs, Q-J, etc.) and there will be more flops than usual that will frighten or disappoint him.
I would play more times when I already have 2/3 of the big blind posted than when I have 1/2. Still, were I on the button and the player immediately to my right was first in with a raise, I would need a very good reason to make it 3 bets with 9-8s. In the small blind I have to put in less money, but I'm in bad position, so a fold is more often correct than not.
I think the answer totally depends on the opponents, and the blind size.
I will almost never defend a 1/3 blind, often defend a 1/2 blind, and almost always defend a 2/3 blind.
Assuming a 1/2 blind, if I'm against a loose steal, and the BB is one who will defend liberally, I fold. My position is horrible, I don't want to be multi-way as that will reduce the value of aggression.
If the BB will only play overcards to my hand, I'll raise hoping that a call by the BB will define where I stand more clearly.
If the original raiser bluffs to much, I will probably check-fold if I miss, and check-call otherwise. I'll win more by picking off the bluffs than by semi-bluffing myself. We could consider missing here to be having fewer than 10 outs including my own pair cards.
I'll almost always fold to a broadway flop unless I'm open ended.
If the raiser is going to call to much, I'm going to pretty much only value bet. Very little semi-bluffing, unless I've got 15+ outs to a draw, or a made hand and a draw.
If the raiser plays well post-flop, using semi-bluff raises, bluff reraises, and other such strategies, I'll almost always fold preflop. I don't want to pay such a high price for poor position against a tricky, but good, player.
- Andrew
I am going to let this thread run for awhile. But I would like to say two things now.. Firstly I would hope that some of you mention the idea discussed in the Theoretical Question thread in the General Theory Forum. Secondly I want to point out that the comment made by some posters that if you would not limp in with 98s in first position you wouldn't call the button's raise with it is, well fuzzy thinking. First of all your contribution in the form of a blind changes things. More importantly is the fact that the button's hand is on average much weaker than the best hand yet to act when you are in first position in a ring game. Do not construe this to mean that I think you should play this hand. I just want to nip this fallacious reasoning in the bud.
Since I qualified my fallacious reasoning by saying that the sb in the games I normally play in is 1/3 of the BB, does this make a difference? I tend to believe that taking this hand against one or two opponents, having the worst possible position, puts you at too great a disadvantage. I don't belong to the school of thought that dictates I play marginal situations out of position due to my supposed ability to outplay another player. I want as many factors working in my favor as possible. Can you quantify how much I'm giving up in EV by my fold?
David,
I'd love to work this one out but it seems to me that it does matter if the small blind is 1/3 a bet (typical in 3/6, 6/12, and 9/18), 1/2 a bet (10/20, 20/40, 40/80), or 2/3 a bet (15/30, 30/60). Maybe great minds have difficulty with details, but in this case keeping the details clear would have kept us all on the same page (at least to start).
So anyway, I'll pass on this one to live to "blather on" another day.
Regards,
Rick
i just assumed 1/2. that's the way i've played. i think 1/3 and 2/3 play the same as 1/2. except that the call when you think that the bb will fold is more or less marginal.
scott
Rick,
I will stick my neck out here and say that the size of the blind in this situation is not the driving factor determining your play.
Vince.
Rick,
I suppose I should clarify my previous post. Although blind size is a factor in this exercise it is not the primary consideration. The primary consideration is the EV of the situation. That is estimated (Andrew will like that) by the skill level of the participants and the amount of money available to each. For instance if you were the sb and had to call all in, you would then need to consider hand strength vs pot odds with minor consideration given to the skill/position of the raiser. The other extreme, with all players having infinite money available complicates the decision. How well you play, how well the other two play, the likely hood of getting heads up if you apply specific tactics, etc must be considered to estimate your EV. In the first instance it's a math exercise. In the second it becomes Math/poker playing/math.
Vince.
Vince writes:
The primary consideration is the EV of the situation. That is estimated (Andrew will like that) by the skill level of the participants and the amount of money available to each.
I do like that Vince. And I also agree skill level is the one of the primary considerations here. But let's talk about blind sizes and odds for one second.
Does blind size matter? Yes and no. First here are the odds you are getting in each blind:
1/3 blind: 2.00:1 1/2 blind: 2.33:1 2/3 blind: 2.75:1
BUT, these aren't your odds, especially if you *raise*. As you play further along in the hand your odds approach 1:1. With bad position, having only 1:1 odds against an opponent who you can't read/manipulate/outplay is a very bad place to be.
Position is the most important consideration. Knowing your opponent is the next most important. Blind size... well who wants to defend 1/3 of a small bet anyways?
Defend in this situation if you are better than your opponent, otherwise fold. Note: this seems to get into details that Sklansky was trying to factor out. Remember, he said "typical" opponent. Now if only we knew whether or not we were better than the "typical" opponent :)
- Andrew
Actually blind size may be relevant on a question this close. I was assuming half the size of the large blind. If it was 2/3,(and there is no rake) folding cannot be right.
"Now if only we knew whether or not we were better than the "typical" opponent :) "
I am!
Vince.
"Now if only we knew whether or not we were better than the "typical" opponent :) "
I am!
I fold.
- Andrew
Vince,
I didn't mean to say that the blind size was the most important factor. It was just that many posters were already basing their response on the size of the blind. It could have been avoided if the structure was stipulated up front.
Anyway, I was grouchy last night after watching the Patriots lose with my buddy Greg (I'm from Rhode Island) then watching total nitwits on "You Want To Be A Millionaire" (I just had to check up on this given the buzz). Nitwit example:
Question: How many men have walked on the moon? Three answers were odd numbers, which by definition can't be right since every mission that reached the surface had one man in lunar orbit and two in the lunar lander. And this was at the $32 K level! I got to find a way to get on these shows.
Regards,
Rick
the choice to raise or call depends on the big blind. if he is loose throughout the hand or tight preflop, then call. if he is weak tight in general or, specificaly, if he is likely to call a raise preflop but would fold to action on the flop if he did not improve, then raise. if he will call 1 raise but not 2, then raise. i want to get heads up with the button.
this is right if my 'not all-in' is right. if that is not right, then you should call if the bb will likely fold to the button's raise. but this call would be marginal. if it takes your raise to get him out, then fold. 9-5 is not 3.5-1. the alleged negative impact of future action combined with the chances that the bb has a hand, eliminate the overlay you would have had if you could call and the bb would fold (the odds would be 7-3).
scott
My answer comes from my play at the table. I'm sure this is not the mathematical response David is looking for.First of all when the big blind raises I am getting immediate odds of 7-3. If I re-raise and he calls I am getting odds of 9-5. This certainly makes the hand playable in my opinon except for those times you have a read on your opponent telling you he has a big hand.
The problem is you have a player behind you. If he folds after you re-raise that is good. If he calls after you just call that is bad in my opinion. Keeping him in hurts your chances to my way of thinking. So, as far as I'm concerned you should re-raise or fold.
In actual practice at the table I re-raise about 30%-35% of the time and fold the rest. This will give my opponents a tougher decision about my holdings and improve my credibility when I do decide to get aggressive.
Ms. Wyatt,
I like your reasoning. It's not an automatic fold or raise or call. If I am going to play it - especially against "typical opponents" - I'm going to play it fast and try to pick off a likely steal attempt.
Sometimes if I don't feel like getting into it, I'll fold and wait for a more profitable play. I guess there's little wrong with that reasoning too.
When I read "typical opponent", I read an opponent familiar with the nuances but not likely to manipulate them up one or two levels. If you blast him with a raise off the some blind and a bet on the flop (or a check raise) - your "typical opponent" will give it up 100% of the time with very little or nothing - even, I believe, with more than very little.
I don't think he is looking for a mathematical proof. I would guess that David is looking for an answer that is logical and coherent perhaps supported by some math which you have done.
It's almost the same question. If the BB folds then there is little differece being the SB. Assume button is a typical but knowledgable player who may try to steal 85% in this situation. I would raise the maximum, all in if I had to and expect the BB to fold. If he does not, then we play it out and I think I have an equal shot at the win. The pressure has been put on the BB. My huge bet gives him a way out. I actually think that heads up my hand is a slightly better than the average hand. Of course the button may have a better hand, but he does not know what I have either.
I raise and expect to win!
You are BB and SB raises: fold You are BB and SB folds or calls: call and the flop.
You are SB: call and see the flop if BB doesn't re-raise, else fold.
My thinking is that button could be playing position. You need to make it appear to the button that it's risky to try to buy. 98s is worthy to make this point with (it's no farce). Be prepared to muck unless the flop hits you hard. If you get top pair, bet and see how other player(s) react. Be prepared to muck.
These are the thoughts of a beginner. And this beginner is losing money thus far! :(
I've had the advantage of reading all the other posts but they really didn't change my original thinking. I agree that if you're playing against a steal raise in the SB then a raise is much more often correct than a call. This hand, 98s, plays much better heads up than three way. Heads up it can win a lot of pots by making a pair and this falls off quickly as you add opponents. That issue forces the choices of pre-flop action down to raise or fold, calling is not a reasonable option.
I have not, nor will I in the future be tossing in three bets pre-flop with this hand against most opponents. That's just too much commitment to the pot with a hand without high cards. I'll leave this play to the experts.
I think that the first consideration should NOT necessarily be whether it 'is' or is 'not' a steal raise. But more importantly, the first question one should ask themselves’ is… How well can this player take advantage of his/her position? Since I tend to play a very aggressive game, I find the “typical” 10-20 player will not make full use of their position over me. That being the case, I am more inclined to play the hand regardless of whether they may or may not be attempting a steal.
Also, circumstance plays an important role. Many times I find a rock on my right, who wouldn’t dream of playing without a good hand, let alone raising with one. If this is the case, I can muck without hesitation. I wouldn’t play this hand for a raise outside the blinds against such an individual, why should I play it now? I just wouldn’t feel like I was giving up too much unless of course he/she was weak/tight, meaning that they would likely fold for for a bet on a flop that did not hit their hand. (perhaps with overcards). Now my hand is definitely worth a play.
But what about the “typical player” steal raise which I think the question was based on? There’s no question that some players believe that being first in, is an automatic license to torch the blinds. When this is the case, I will make a stand with the first playable cards I receive. An 89s will do just fine for this mission.
So to sum up my beliefs, I do not like 89s for a raise, whether it’s inside the blinds or not. The exception of course is in the big blind with more than 1 player. I think many hands can be played against “steal” raises and it should usually be re-raised to punish the thief. One successful stop can be very expensive for the stealer. He/she will now be in the position of having to successfully steal many times in a row to recover from one good defeat. Maybe even more important, is the fact that that you can now give up many of your marginal blind hands before you are at a loss. This, combined with the fact that he/she may run into a legitimate hand, should make the thief think twice before attempting to steal over you the next time.
Unfortunately, it will sometimes be that you have punished yourself. But that’s what makes Hold’em such a great game!
In terms of value, I would fold. I would think this hand is an underdog to a random two card holding(just a guess). So in situations where i need the best hand to win in a showdown, i would fold. If i thought i could successfully bluff later on, this might be a call or reraise. Assuming my opponent doesn't have a pair and won't call without making a pair, this might be a slight money maker. But this could be said about any two card holding, so i have to go with the fold 90% of the time.
reraise
"what should you do with 98suited in the small blind against typical opponents?"
Before the question can be answered one has to define (I think) one's personal view of "typical opponent." If, for instance, you have a typical opponent completely wrong then you will make bad choices in this (and many other) situations. I assume the following:
(1) A typical opponent in a 10-20 game in this position will raise with a wide array of hands. If I spike a pair on the flop there will be a very good chance that I am ahead.
(2) Typical opponents in the spot will not give up as easily as they should so when you do flop the best hand to your 98s you will get paid off a fair share of the time.
(3) Typical opponents are reasonably predicatable in that if I do flop a moderate hand in this spot (ie. middle pair) it will be possible to get away from the hand if I am beaten.
What do I do with my 98s? I think I call pre-flop. A raise may well shut out the big blind, but I don't think letting him in and taking the flop three-way is all that bad. A third player in the pot will tend to make the play more predictable post-flop since most players are less apt to get too fancy against two opponents. In other words, I will get a better read on both the BB and the button if I let the BB come in for a single bet. When the flop hits I will tend to bet any semi-bluff (gutshots/two overcards/four flush). I will tend to check-raise top pair and even second pair (depending upon what the BB does). IF I miss completely I will tend to check and fold unless I have a VERY good handle on the button.
It is, without a doubt, a very close call and I will come on or not almost completely dependent upon how well I read the button. If he/she is a totally predictable player then I figure to be able to play the hand well post-flop, but if he/she is a tough, aggressive, difficult player then I will have trouble playing out of position with a moderate holding and I am much more apt to simply fold... against typical opponents... call. THe decision it, however, based exclusively upon who the button is.
Regards, Dave Scharf
Reading Rounder's recent love notes to Big John in the "Table Note Taking" thread in the Other-Topics Forum, plus a few follow-up love thoughts in the "Losing Streaks" thread in this forum, it occurred to me that Rounder must be a woman who goes by an androgynous name--you know, like Pat or Terry. What do you think??
My wife would be amused. I'm a big ugly Italian guy 6'1 and 220 pounds - got a great wife and 2 kids in college.
Danny, you have a great imagination.
-
I was just breaking Rounders balls and I apologize for posting it. And now that we know he has a pair to break, would you please Delete this thread.
Sincerely, Danny R
If you would like Mason to delete a thread you must use the word penis. "Balls" is not good enough reason! If you don't believe me, ask Abdul! If he ever gets the "balls" to post here again.
Vince
With that comment Vince has officially achieved the number one status of all our posters. I am sure Mason and Ray would agree.
I think VL should change his name to Vince "The Jester" Lepore. He certainly cracks me up ... I feel sorry for the people who are offended by this humor - I'm sure it's quite offensive to those. Did you see the one two weeks ago? That was FUNNY!
It's a given that Vince's favorite play is "A funny thing happened on the way to the FORUM"
X
Their Brass???
What you are trying to say is "they are brass", shortened to "They're brass".
There(is a place), there was a time, lets go there,etc..
Their(has to do with personal possession for more than one person) Their vacation starts tomorrow. (which suggests that the vacation belongs to them, "their vacation"
They're(is just the connection of the two words "they" and "are". They're leaving on vacation tomorrow.
I hope you don't think I'm being condescending, it's just that you've helped me more than once with my poker stuff, and I want to return the favor.
Sincerely, Connie
Connie I miss my secretary the job is open!
Just a brief post to say that I like the website's new setup.
As far as I am cocerned, the jury is still out on the new format. Frankly, it seems to me like we got too many damn forums. At least combine the general theory and hold 'em forums into one. Oh well, I am sure that no matter what, Chuck, Mason etc can't keep everyone happy. I do like the fact that "other poker games" and "tournaments" have their own separate boards as these are two topics that don't interest me in the least.
Seee, ah ha! I knew it! ****Super Starrr*** Forum that's the one missing. Right SKP, buddie. Play along and John may let you in. You know you got my vote. Think superrrrr starrrrr. That's us buddy!
Vince
Post deleted at author's request.
"Poker theory is not Holdem-centric!"
What? there are other poker games out there?:)
You are of course correct but to me poker is Holdem-centric.
Question 1 Say you called the raise in David's example and the BB re-raises. Button calls and you call? (if you couldn't muck 1/2 bet you really can't muck 2 bets)
see the flop with 9 SB in the pot.
flop comes A 8 7 rainbow with one of your suit. You have 2nd pair, 3 flush and 3 straight -
What do you do now, your 1st to act?
Question 2. Everything the same but button caps pre flop - now 6bb in the pot.
In response to your first question, I would check my middle pair and backdoor possibilities. I am hoping to get a free card or at least take off a card for no more than one bet. I am basically playing a 5 outer here. If after I check, it gets bet and raised to me then I fold. Otherwise, I call a single bet. If the turn is a blank, I will probably fold if there is a bet. If I catch a Nine or an Eight on the turn I will bet. If I catch an open ended straight draw or a flush draw on the turn, I will check and call a bet to me.
With regard to your second question, if I called a raise out of my small blind with 98 suited and then the big blind re-raised followed by the button capping it, I would now fold since it is not worth cold-calling a double bet with this hand. I also know that the button has a real hand as well as the big blind so no one is stealing.
I agree with your answer Jim--- If you are playing 10-20,---- at the Mirage----at 2PM--- on Wednesday.
Maybe I am playing too tight here but on Rounder's first question I consider the following factors:
1. The button pre-flop raise is usually a steal but these guys raise with their good hands as well.
2. The big blind re-raising after I call the raise pre-flop tends to denote a real hand and not some kind of weak two card holding.
3. I have two opponents who were willing to put in multiple bets pre-flop so they are not playing random cards. At least one, if not both of them, have a better hand than mine given this shorthanded pot.
4. I would normally bet the flop with middle pair into two opponents if neither had raised or shown any strength. If the board was not Ace or King high I would be even more prone to bet out. But in this situation, given the pre-flop action, betting out will not win the pot. One, if not both of these guys, has me beat right now and they are not going to fold when I bet given all the money that is now in the pot. I will probably get raised.
This whole scenario of pouring a lot of dough into a pot with a weak suited connector against a small number of opponents when I am out of position strikes me as more like good, old-fashioned gambling rather than playing with any kind of real edge.
With regard to question 2, when the button now caps it back to me pre-flop, I am now facing a double bet against two opponents who are obviously excited about their hands. I don't see any advantage to getting married to this situation by calling now and facing marginal situations downstream where the pot is large and my chances of winning are small. I would rather save my money for a more favorable gambling opportunity.
Ahhh,
Know your opponents - or opposition, as the case may be.
- Andrew
Clearly you are correct Andrew. I guess my hang-up is that when people start playing at $10-$20 or above they are playing in a game where they can win or lose a $1000 in a single session which is serious money to most people. Guys that play at this level don't just throw around chips without having a hand. It is one thing to have only one opponent in late position to deal with and quite another when you get a second opponent who is also betting and raising. If this were a $2-$4 social game, maybe it is right to gamble here but I cannot see it in most $10-$20 games that I have played in unless you happen to be up against a pair of drunken maniacs. Even then I am not sure I want to get involved with 9-8 suited.
I guess my hang-up is that when people start playing at $10-$20 or above they are playing in a game where they can win or lose a $1000 in a single session which is serious money to most people. Guys that play at this level don't just throw around chips without having a hand.
You're not playing in the right $10-20 games. I encounter plenty of very loose-aggressive and even maniac players at these limits on a semi-regular basis. Not long ago I picked off 2 complete cold bluffs in a row with just a strong ace-high (both times the pot was pretty large because I had a strong draw and thought there was a good chance my ace was good) when the guy was holding an unimproved 95o or some such trash, which he went 4 bets on the turn with. While completely off the wall players like that are rare, I still see people raise and reraise preflop with hands like A7s and KJo (especially when they're open-raising in late position) fairly frequently.
-Sean
"I encounter plenty of very loose-aggressive and even maniac players at these limits on a semi-regular basis."
You don't play 10-20 in Las Vegas. At times they just may be the toughest mid limit Games anywhere. The one at the Grand Casino in Biloxi can also be like "picking teeth" (that's a silly expression when you think of it) also.
Vince.
Vince I believe the expression is "pulling teeth" not "picking teeth".
But A7 suited and KJ offsuit are still much better hands in a shorthanded pot than 98 suited plus I am out of position which means a lot more in shorthanded situations.
But A7 suited and KJ offsuit are still much better hands in a shorthanded pot than 98 suited plus I am out of position which means a lot more in shorthanded situations.
These are good points, but after you've called the first raise and it's reraised, you're getting good odds on the call (5.5:1). While these hands are better, they're not *that* much better, and you can't necessarily assume you're up against much of a hand at this point.
-Sean
Instead of just inferring that Jim's reasoning is flawed, why don't you just tell us in some detail what's wrong? I'm a fairly new player, and I could use the help.
Sincerely, Paul
"I could use the help. "
Not as much as Sklansky.
Vince.
Playing Jim's way will slightly decrease your EV, I am fairly sure, (except possibly against tight tough players), though it will certainly decrease your volatility a lot. However I don't often give in depth analysis of my opinions for many reasons, including the fact that I can't type, I have discussed similar concepts previously (here or in my writings) and that I want to see what others have to say. On the other hand, by using this Forum you are saving the $300 an hour I charge for private lessons and you do get to hear the in depth analysis of Vince Lepore.
David,
$300 per hour!! That's a little out of my range. Do you give half-hour sessions, or maybe even 15 minutes to someone with just one question??
Yeah, what about senior citizen rates?
Michael 7 returned to our saturday pot limit game this week from his honeymoon. All smiles. Congrats. After placing in our low limit stud tourney he gets his seat at the 2/5 blind pot limit game filled w/ the usual collection of poker semi wannabees.
The hand: all fold to Honeymoon mike,, he raises to 30. gets called by upstate dave. flop is 73x rainbow. mike bets the pot (60) is called. turn is a 3. mike bets the pot. he gets called . river is an x he bets the pot and gets called . dave had AA and mike had 73 off suit. MIke takes about a 600 dollar pot. So now and forever more 73 off suit is the :HONEY MOON HAND". Mike, who adds intelect and incite to many pot and no limit discussions in this forum said in defense of his first raise "I had to play my rush". Lets get ready to rumble>....
Hey! Norton! Get a load of this one! Hardy, Har, Har, Har! "The Honeymooners"
Vince.
Next time he plays 73 and loses the farm, we will rename the hand "Divorce Hand" hahahah
I played for 8 hours, and had two hands left until my BB, when I was leaving. I was up about $400 and did not really want to get tangled in a big hand I would lose. I get Q-10 clubs and decide to limp, following a limp by UTG. Guy to left raises. Folded around to SB and BB, both of whom call. UTG calls, I call. Flop comes Q-10-5, all diamonds. Checked around to me, I bet figuring I have top two and want to make the flush draws pay. Everyone calls except UTG. Turn is Kc. I bet out (mistake?), and get called by guy on left and raised by SB. Hmmmmm. BB calls (who is on a nut flush draw). I call. River is blank. Checked around to SB who bets, BB folds unfilled, I call thinking this guy is aggressive and may be betting top pair, and the pot is pretty big. Guy on left calls with a nut straight (AJ) - I put him on AK or AQ, maybe 99 - with maybe one diamond - I didn't know whether he would call the river or not. SB shows 47d for flush he flopped. Not a real exciting hand, but I would welcome comments. Should I have folded?.
You should not be limping in from early position with Q-10 suited. This is a weak, speculative drawing hand that requires a lot of opponents and an unraised pot. At this point, you simply don't know whether or not the pot will be raised and how many opponents you will have. You should fold pre-flop.
The rest of your play was fine since you had two pair giving you some outs to beat a flush. Once again this is another hand that illustrates the dangers of getting involved when the board flops all of one suit and you do not have a card in that suit. With two pair you have a play, but with top pair or an overpair you need to be willing to dump it when you start getting heat.
I think you situation on fourth street helps illustrate a point made in HPFAP about fourth street play. If on fourth street you think you might be beat but you have outs (which is your situation, two pair with a straight and a flush possible) you should check and call if someone bets. That way you dont end up having to call a raise.
You make a good point. In this situation, Rob has four opponents so he might be better off checking on the turn. On the other hand, three of his four opponents checked to him (both blinds and the UTG player) and they cannot be sure Rob will bet especially when the King turns. Rob has only one opponent behind him. The dilemma is that if Rob has the best hand he really doesn't want to give the field a free card (e.g.-some guy with a non-diamond King to catch a second pair, some guy with a non-diamond Jack to catch a straight, etc.). All things considered, I think betting the turn is the best play given the passive play on the part of his opponents on the flop and turn.
I see your point but in a passive game with this number of opponents its very likely that a flush or a straight is out their. If one was not likely (flush and straight) or if he had top two pair I can see betting out but with that board there are now too many ways he's beat. Checking is appropriate here because there are so many opponents, adding to the probability that he doesn't have the best hand.
This is an interesting discussion. I would like to continue it. Suppose the turn card was a real blank like the Deuce of Spades instead of the King of Clubs so that Rob still has the top two pair. Now would it be right for Rob to bet the turn when it is checked to him? Is the presence of the King on the turn make him a lot more vulnerable such that he should not bet when it is checked to him combined with the flush possibilities?
This is interesting! With a rag on the turn it becomes more complicated and I can see the benefits of both betting and checking. I'd really like to see what others have to say regarding this question. If you were first to act I would still check, however given your position its not as clear cut. This is one of those situations were it depends on your opponents. Would they check a flush two rounds in a row? Obviously in this game they would making a check the right play. However in other games I cant see this happening and with top two pair I'd feel good about my hand, I really dont want to give a free card, because at least one player is probably drawing to the nut, or close to the nut flush. I guess all I can say at this point is this is a tough spot and I think the two most crucial aspects are your postion and the other players and your decision should be based on them. I'll have to think about it some more and get back to you but I'd really like to see what you and others have to say about my comments.
After thinking about it, in the games that I normally play I would bet if the tunr was a rag. I don't think the players in my game are capable of checking a flush two rounds in a row. If I get raised on the turn, wiht four people still in the hand I have a pretty good idea of what I'm up against and can release my hand if it doesn't improve on the river. If I just checked and it was bet I would be less sure that a flush was out their and would probably have to call on the river regardless of what comes (unless it's another heart or diamond, I forget). By betting the turn, who knows I might pick up the pot right their or I might gain valuable information which will help me decide what to do on the river.
In my view, Q,10 cannot be folded preflop in early position. It's too good a hand to dump in virtually any kind of limit game.
Of course, I am referring to Q,10 suited.
QT is one of the biggest trap hands in poker.
I don't consider it playable in anything but the later positions.
SKP, if I knew that I would not get raised then I would be more prone to call with Q10 suited in early position. Occasionally you find low limit games where no one ever raises before the flop and you can do this. I believe Mason Malmuth talks about this in one of his answers to the Ciaffone quiz. In my games, $15-$30 and $20-$40, many pots get raised and I would not want to be coming in early with such a weak hand.
I would definetely limp with this hand in most games I play in. J9s as well for most loose, not particularly aggresive games.
I think the rest of the hand was played ok too.
D.
I think you should have bet out on the turn and called the raise like you did, but that the evidence that you were against a flopped flush was overwhelming. Knowing a bit more about your opponent, you might have heroically saved a bet on the end. But at 16-1 it's hard to make a mistake by calling.
But at 16-1 it's hard to make a mistake by calling.
How can it ever be right to continue to put money in a pot when you KNOW your beat.
Gotta know when to flod'em.
Rounder,
The point was that I didn't know I was beat. It is very possible that SB had top pair (AK, for instance), and guy to left has AK for instance. I think the call on the end was correct and my bet on the turn was a mistake. However, guy on left likely would have bet his nut straight on turn so as not to give a free card. Same result, but I get more info on this guy.
As long as it's possible for the SB to have a hand like KhJs, it can't be much of a mistake to call because it only costs him a fraction of a bet.
Before someone tells me, I noticed the error in my post. On the river, the SB bet out - it obviously wasn't checked around to him. Thanks to all the responders. I should have pointed out that this was a loose game, and frequently when the first two limped, we would have a 6-7 handed unraised pot pre-flop. Hence, I limped with my Q-10 of clubs, planning on folding post flop if appropriate.
I'm not familiar with the players in your game but in a typical low limit game I would fold. Most low limit players will not check raise without a powerful hand. You'd have to respect that play and figure your beat (if only by a bigger two pair). When you don't improve on the river and the SB follows through with a bet, against your typical lowlimit player a fold is correct. Again, just my opinion, and I'm certainly no expert.
X
For the most part, posters ask questions about what books to read to learn how to play HE or other games. My question is directed more to videos. Does anybody have opinions on the major videos as a supplement to learning (e.g. Slanky's "The Video", Caro's Major Poker Seminar, Power Poker Seminar, and Pro Poker Tells)? On another note, I am aware of Malmuth's criticism of Caro's printed HE materials because of the loose starting hand requirements. Otherwise, does anybody recommend these materials or would I be better sticking with Two plus Two and Ciaffone?
Heck get it all - if your going to be a serious poker player you need a library both videos and books. I read all I can find on the subject even related books like "reading people" By Jo-Ellan Dimitrius the jury consultant.
See and read it all and pick the best from all the experts.
The only video I have is Caro's poker tells video and I purchased it more out of curiuosity than anything else. However, I think it has helped me some. Most of the tells seem like common since but its a good way to be entertained while also sharpening you skills. I also believe that for learning this skill a video is more helpful than books (just my opinion).
I find Caro's Tells absolutely excellent. It is really works. It takes time. Do not expect to watch the video once or twice and then go out and see all the Tells in your next poker session. You will have to study the video, take notes and jot down reminders. Then sit in the session and play as you normally would. When you are out of a hand, watch the players closely and observe. You will see some tells. Watch the way they look at the flop; watch how they look at their hands etc.
This works well as long as the players do not know the same stuff you do. I have come across players whom I feel are looking at me for the same thing I am looking at them. Then I disappoint them and give them a reverse tell. Complicated? Yes, but fun and profitable.
PS never met Caro, probably never will; never spoke or wrote to him.
I too have bought Caro's Tells video and just laugh to myself at the stuff I used to do and the stuff that I see everytime I play poker. Even though they are mostly elementary tells for the regular poker player they are great for that situation. But beware of those who know their stuff. I agree videos are a little more stimulating as you get a visual and almost hands on. What a huge mark up though. You make your money back if you follow instructions though. At least I have.
Rounder,
The best thing about Caro's Poker Tells video is that I'm in it!. Just look for the guy in the kelly green shirt buying chips in two different manners on the second video. Caro also comments that the woman next to me must be thinking "I'm a dork". Thanks Mike. I'm in a few other scenes but I'm just an onlooker.
In all seriousness this video is pretty good. Most other stuff is better suited for book format but Mike's Book of Tells was made for video.
The odd thing is that I almost always buy my own chips from the cage and never go all in (in limit ring games) or need chips in a hurry. The main reason is that most chip runners don't bring enough chips to the table when starting games and if I buy my normal two racks or so there won't be enough left for everyone else to help make a good game. I want them to buy a lot of chips. If I do shorten my stacks I will rebuy but well before I come anywhere near going all in. So I don't need to scream for the poor chip runner.
This makes me think of a mistake I often see players make. Never buy chips from a weak player at the table! It is much easier for the weak player to pick up his $100 bills and leave then find a rack and leave.
Regards,
Rick the Video Star
Rick,
I usually sell one of my many racks to the weak players who are always buying more. You know the ones that make the "walk of shame" to the ATM on a regular basis.
Rounder,
That's completely OK. I do it myself then replenish the bills with chips in case there is a problem with a bill. Just don't buy chips from them reducing their stacks and making it convenient for them to put their chips in their pocket and leave.
Actually, I can be downright evil (I've told this before but it was before you were a regular poster). If a player who plays poorly but has been on a hot streak starts looking at his watch and appears to be about to leave, I might say something like "Dealer, if that seat opens I want it because that is the hot seat (or something like that). Often they will reconsider giving me a chance to put the chips back where they belong.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
You give "evil" a whole new meaning. :-)
You're a cagey dude. I'll try that this weekend. Nice sense of humor, CHIPS!
damn! you're vicious. if i'm ever playing in a casino i might give that a try.
scott
Found you on the video, Rick. Now we're even. Well, I'm a little ahead as I've seen you move and heard you speak.
The starting hands contained in the 21st century edition are the same as the hands contained in the 1994 edition. My understanding is that the most up to date list is contained in HEP 1997. Am I wrong? If I am correct why were the changes not incorporated in the 21st century edition? Thank you to those who care to answer.
The starting hand groupings and rankings are the same but the new edition provides a lot more explanations as to when you should use them. I actually started to make a word for word comparison between the 21st Century Edition of HPFAP and the previous version written ten years earlier. A substantial amount of new material in the form of added sentences,paragraphs and examples are now included in the 21st Century edition. It would be mistake to just focus on the starting hand groupings and not assimilate the explanations and rationale.
Could someone please explain what the authors mean at the bottom of page 29 of HPFAP where it says "If a person limps in who is LIKELY to hold a dangerous hand such as AA or AKS you should consider folding Group 4 hands."
It's hard enough putting a raiser on such a hand how do the authors expect us to put limpers on these powerhouses?
"It's hard enough putting a raiser on such a hand how do the authors expect us to put limpers on these powerhouses? "
They expect you to play at an advanced level. That includes observation, concentration and focus. By beinbg focused on the task at hand you will be alert to what may be an unusual occurance in the game you are currently playing. By observing your opponents you will be more likely to identify an opponent capable of making this play. Through concentration you will harness all the necessary mental skills necessary to play at this level.
God that's a pretty good answer, don'tchya think? Betchya Sklansky steals this idea for one of his "fuzzy thinking" articles. He's always using my stuff.
Vince.
Of course, anyone playing at these dizzying heights of acumen and, dare I say, omnipotence would naturally be able to disguise their tells.
Sammy,
Not true. Look, I am not a great poker player. I'm pretty good. Believe me if I were at your table after a while you would know that I play good. If the game we were in was tough. Lot's of preflop raising and not many multiway pots. The kind of game that requires total concentration if you want to win. If all of a sudden I limped in in early position after always raising you would smell the "proverbial rat" now wouldn't you? You may just elect to play "better safe than sorry" poker. This is not something someone needs to explain to you. It's common sense. Sure I might just have a weak hand and be loosening up but you still must consider the "rat". You don't need to be at any level at all to understand that. Sklansky and Malmuth just happen to write about something that most of us are subconciously aware of anyway. They somewhat quantify there advice by saying it may be a good idea to discard group 4 hands against a early limping "good player", especially if he looks a little rodent like. Do you not agree with this line of thinking?
Vince.
I'll tell you why I don't.
Group four hands, especially T9s, KQ, and 88 should not get folded to a limper, ever. If there's a chance to see the flop for one or two bets with these hands I will take it. My feeling is that if I let people who are strong players push me off hands like this by limping, what chance have I got when they raise. If it's deception on their part and they felt like slowplaying their cowboys and rockets, I'll take a cheap peek at the flop every time.
Sammy,
The name on my responses is Vince Lepore. I don't claim to speak for anyone but myself. I say that because in my first response I made a statement "They expect you to play at an advanced level". One could imply from that, that I was speaking or quoting from 2+2 authors. I was not. My statements are my own right or wrong. I normally qualify my remarks with "Opinion by Vince" I must be getting cockie or something because I haven't done that recently. I also try not to give advice (Ripley's " ") unless asked as was in this case. Take my advice for what it is worth. The only other thing I will add is that if you call hands that you believe are far superior to yours and you are not getting the proper odds you will always be taking the worst of it. That may be a bigger problem than being pushed around.
Opinion by Vince.
Vince, Make no mistake about this, I truly appreciate the dialogue. You and Rounder and Greg and Jim and John give me plenty to think about. By challenging your posts I can make sure that I'm at least thinking about the most salient point.
It seems to me that the issue here (and in many other cases) revolves around what the other player's characteristic is and how big the pot is. When Vince says he's been always raising, has he been raising with all group 4 hands? If so, then a limp may well imply a slowplay of a very strong hand, and you may not be seeing the flop cheaply for even one bet unless the pot is big enough. But if he has been raising only with stronger hands, then his limp may be more likely to be a weaker hand.
I think we agree on this point. How can you fold T9s in middle position with no raise in front of you, because a guy you suspect MIGHT have AA or AKs. How Slansky can use the word "Likely" is beyond my meager comprehension. He can just as easily be limping in with 76s just to mix things up a little. For one bet I'll still see the flop.
What a load of crap. Determining that a player is capable of this play is one thing, but you claim to know when he's actually making it and not just limping with one of the other far more likely limping hands? Wadya do for your day job, run a psychic network?
LOL, sorry Vince, couldn't resist. Did I catch your style? No seriously...now that I've insulted you... how do you go about doing this? I really want to learn.
BruceZ,
Hey, My son's name is Bruce. For a minute ther I thought he was telling me what he really though of me. I wrote a response to Sammy B that I believe will be of interest to you. Crap and all.
Vince.
The starting hands in HPFAP21C,HPFAP94,@ HEP97 are in fact all different.
I have been going by handle Bruce for some months now. The above post was not made by me but by someone using my name. In the future I will be BruceZ in order to avoid similar conflicts.
I was surprised to learn in a post below that S&M and Lee Jones apparently agree that one should (or at least can safely) raise with suited connectors (say 9s8s) preflop in late position when several people have entered the pot in a loose game. In the former case, this applies when your opponents tend to stick around too long after the flop.
The only situation where I believe this play is remotely profitable is when you are against a few opponents who are inclined to fold too often after the flop because they undervalue their hands generally and will play defensively because of your raise. Am I wrong? Also
1. Can anyone explain to me how raising the field with a hand like 9s8s increases your EV?
2. If you can profit from raising with 9s8s, shouldn't you also be raising in late position with pretty much any playable hand that can make a "big hand," such as 55 and K8s?
3. If raising is profitable and you are in late position against a field that is likely to call all raises and it's already 2 to go, shouldn't you routinely 3-bet it? What about 4-betting? In other words, where's the likely profit cutoff point in terms of number of raises, or is there one?
3betting is not the same as 2betting for two reasons. One is that the first raise should be enough to tie players on with hands that are just donating to you when you get a good flop. Secondly if you three bet it means someone has already raised, thus dramatically increasing the chances you are up against an overpair. Also the play isn't right with K8s since it is less likely to get a good flop.
David Sklansky writes:
3betting is not the same as 2betting for two reasons."
Shouldn't the postulate be: 3betting will cost you money in situations where 2betting will make you money? Is that true or are we running up against the limits of informed guesswork?
One is that the first raise should be enough to tie players on with hands that are just donating to you when you get a good flop.
The only flop I'm going to get with 9s8s where opponents will be "just donating" afterwards will have nothing but 9's and 8's. I'm not exactly going to smirk when they try to suck out against my nine-high flush.
But I take it your point is that a single raise will adhere certain opponents to hands they should get rid of while more bets are just surplusage, or perhaps dangerous. The problem with this is that many opponents that play badly with a 10-bet pot will play worse with a 15-bet pot, and other opponents that won't be "turned" in the former case will succumb in the latter. Certainly I want as many people as possible calling to the river when I can't be beaten. More preflop bets must increase their number.
If I'm right, three-betting has to have at least some additional marginal value. It would approach being a surprising coincidence if, other things being equal, 2betting increased your EV while 3betting put you in the minus column.
Secondly if you three bet it means someone has already raised, thus dramatically increasing the chances you are up against an overpair.
It's certainly hard to runn 98 into QQ and come out ahead, and that's why I often fold it when the pot is raised. But if I should deliberately try to pot-stick a bunch of opponents, I can't see how an overpair by one of them would red-flag the strategy. Whether I'm against an overpair and overcards or just a bunch of overcards, I'm still going to need the sort of hand against which an overpair is "just donating," or close to it. The overpair can also help me because the flops that make my hand will encourage the overpair to enlist as my unwitting partner and trap the field. Most overpairs also remove two cards from the deck that I really don't want on the board.
Also the play isn't right with K8s since it is less likely to get a good flop.
But except for the value of the straight draws that improve (minus the cost of the ones that don't) the flops it does "get" are a lot better. So we must be talking about a difference of, what, 3-5%? The theory of preflop raising with 98s is that it will make bad opponents play so much worse that good players can turn a higher profit despite a 200% entry fee, but that an entry fee one-half as much higher is folly.
I understand the theory, is there any evidence?
david is arguing that the tie in effect caused by the first raise does more good than paying an extra bet is bad. but the tie in effect for the 3-bet does less good than the extra bet does bad.
against overpairs. you lose all one pair and steal the pot equity, and some 2 pair equity. but once you tie in all the chasers you lose most of this anyway. maybe he means you'll get reraised and the 4th bet preflop will hurt wou even more than the 3rd. and you will not get a free card. and you will charged for your draw.
K8s often makes hands that want no callers.
scott
"I was surprised to learn in a post below that S&M and Lee Jones apparently agree that one should (or at least can safely) raise with suited connectors (say 9s8s) preflop in late position when several people have entered the pot in a loose game. In the former case, this applies when your opponents tend to stick around too long after the flop."
This is not what we said. Our advice is that this raise can be profitable if it encourages some of your opponents to stick around (because of the bigger pot) where otherwise they would not be inclined to do so. If your opponents are going to stick around anyway, then this raise loses its value.
I have always been critical of Lee Jones for giving this same advice since his book was supposedly targeted for games in which many players played too many hands and go too far with their hands. In this situation it is not appropriate.
Here's what we wrote in HPFAP-21 (page 33):
"But we should point out that you need to consider your opponents before raising with a hand like 8h7h. If you are against players who not only play too many hands, but go too far with their hands regardless of the size of the pot, there is less value to raising. Part of the reason for making this raise is to entice your opponents to continue on if you happen to get a flop to your liking. But if you are fairly sure that they will do precisely that anyway, then you should usually just call."
I stand corrected, somewhat. (This is what I get for leaving my copy of HPFAP on the bus).
Mason writes that one should raise with suited connectors "if it encourages some of your opponents to stick around (because of the bigger pot) where otherwise they would not be inclined to do so."
That's a really big if, especially since you'll profit from it only when you can both alter the playing patterns of several players and catch a big hand. It still sounds as if the alleged value to this play is more theoretical and anecdotal than grounded in math or sims or records or anything concrete.
When you write "there is less value to raising" if your opponents are already inclined to go too far with their hands, I would submit that there is negative value to raising.
"can both alter the playing patterns of several players and catch a big hand"
You are not altering the "playing patterns". You encourage or sway their decision towards one that is profitable for you. Very good poker players will heavily weigh the size of the pot when deciding to continue with a relatively weak holding. A holding that they would discard in a situation that did not offer them an apparent fair return. As far as "catching a big hand" is concerned, well you've played poker long enough to know how often that occurs. If you feel that in your experience it doesn't happen often enough to warrant applying this strategy, well, don't raise.
Vince.
One quick point. You touched on this in some other post, but the big pot helps not just when you flop a big hand like tips, but also when you flop a flush or straight draw. Yes, it may lead to some wacky drawouts that actually cost you the pot on occasion, but overall you welcome all those people hanging in there when *you're* the one drawing to the big hand.
I think you're missing the point. In a loose game, typical $3-$6 hold'em, the majority of players will call a bet to see the turn, so you do not need to raise preflop to get paid off correctly.
Once, you move up in limits. You'll get a lot of players limping in with trouble hands which quickly get dumped if someone bets on the flop if they don't have a piece of the flop, but they are willing to play preflop for another bet since they already had called the blind. So, the players are a lot tighter on the flop play.
I'm sure someone, maybe Fossilman, can explain the math.
As in a previous query by Vince, the math here is really untenable. Well, the math isn't untenable, but it will be based upon a series of assumptions, and each of those assumptions may have a significant impact on the final result. As such, disagreements over the assumptions will be the issue, rather than the math.
BTW everyone, I am not much of a mathematician. I am a biotech patent attorney. MOST of you are better at math than I. Apparently, I just use it more often. I'm sure someone, probably Vince, can figure out why.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Sure I know why. You have to count up all those little bio's. One bio, two bios three... It must be exhausting.
Vince
BTW - Love Ya man! Good sport that you be.
greg writes:
As such, disagreements over the assumptions will be the issue, rather than the math.
This fact often get's lost by more analytical people. Any analysis you perform is fundamentally based on whatever assumption you use in creating the model which you analyze.
This is why Turbo Texas Hold'em results are flawed. It's not that you don't have control over the assumptions, it's becase whatever assumption you make, you are going to be faced with the problem of rationalizing one particular assumption over another.
Throwing math at these kind of problems can be useful, but as Mason has said, often one uses these tools to try and flesh out "close" situations. When it's "close" the exactly when complicated assumption based analyses break down. Any perturbation could result in your conclusion "flipping" to the opposite answer.
That said, my philosophy is:
"If it's close... RAISE"
- Andrew
I guess I'll have to do it, even though I'm lazy.
This is correct 3-6 players rarely if ever get of a hand pre flop if they have one cent in the pot. A raise is meaningless at this level and one should try to see flops for as little as possible at this level.
In tournamenta play like 89s is a potentially costly hand and I don't like it unless I'm real late and can see it cheaply.
By and large I want to see flops with hands like this as cheaply as possible IF I hit the folp I'll make it up when the betting increases.
I think you need to consider your opponents when the play is really tight on the flop.
Let's say the last few hands you played you raised and showed a pair of Aces and Kings. Players will assume that when you raise, this is what you have (I'm assuming they are average to weak players). So there is some value with playing this hand as a bluff. But, now you have an escape hatch is you hit your hand.
Basically, I'm saying you have to project the tight image and set this play up so it works.
By the way, I called a tight players raise with 89s in a no-limit tourney and busted him.
It is common wisdom that suited connectors "depend" on implied odds to be playable. In other words, putting more money in pre-flop reduces your current pot equity. The argument is that implied odds make up for this deficit in ev.
So the question becomes: can suited connectors ever be played for pure profit? In other words, if unlimited raises were allowed - and you had an infinite bankroll - is there ever a point when you should "go to the felt" with these hands preflop? Stated another way, how many callers do you need to play suited connectors for +ev?
- Andrew
" Stated another way, how many callers do you need to play suited connectors for +ev?"
If you know how to PLAY poker the answer is ">= 0 callers"
Vince
Vince,
is that anything like PLAYING house ?
- Andrew
Andrew,
If you played house a little more often and "estimated" a little less you may just learn to "clean up" a little more at this game.
Vince.
Maybe not.
Vince,
By my "estimation", you're probably right. Maybe I should hire a maid instead?
- Andrew
(Below, you wrote:
"But isn't it wrong [raising with 98s] in a no fold'em game where many players automatically call on the flop regardless of the pot size, their position. etc."
Reading it, I transposed the "isn't it" to "it isn't," perhaps aided by the absence of a question mark, which stunned me and instigated this thread.)
The other night playing 3/6, I get JQo UTG. I call, middle position and Button call, SB folds, BB checks.
The flop comes 89T, w/ 2 hearts. BB checks, I bet, middle pos. calls. The button, normally fairly loose & passive, raises. BB folds, I reraise, mid. pos. folds. Button re-raises, I reraise, he calls. Turn is 5c. I check raise, he calls. River card is 5s
I will tell you what I did, and what he had later, but first I would like all of you in your infinite wisdom to tell me a couple of things:
1. Up to this point, have I played my hand correctly?
2. What hand do you put him on, and finally-
3. How should I have played on the River?
I look forward to hearing what you all have to say about this hand, as I greatly value the advice from this forum. I can't believe how much my game has improved just from reading the posts here everyday, So thanks everybody!
Mike
I guess he had a set and now has a full house. If he had flopped the nut straight he probably would have continued the raising on the flop after the two of you were heads up. If he had the ignorant end of the straight he might have backed off also.
1. So far you played it fine.
2. See above.
3. I would bet and call if raised. It would be too timid to just check and call and find out that he had a lesser hand like two pair or a worse straight. If he raises, I don't like your chances, but I would still call.
My only question is why check-raise on the turn? I guess it really didn't hurt you but you had taken control of the hand. On the turn I would have bet out, for fear that if I checked I'd lose a bet. You've got the best hand at this point why risk a free card. the guy cooperated by betting, allowing you to raise but in a normal low limit game, with the best hand a bet is correct. On the other hand if you knew your opponent well and knew he would bet the turn after you checked, I find nothing wrong with your play but if you had any doubt I would bet. I find Big John's read to be right, either the guy flopped two pair and you won or he more than likely flopped a set and you lost.
Poor thing. You played the hand pretty darn well and I'm worried you got a bad beat.
You're opponent had your hand QJ(maybe in hearts) or he had trips (tens) and made a boat on the river OR... he's an idiot. Don't say he had J7 of hearts and you're mad you might have missed a bet. He already gave you too much money if that is the case.
On the river, check and call fearing the boat. Unless you have some special human insight to this player.
"Unless you have some special human insight "
Speaking of that Dan. Do you think O.J really did it?
Vince.
Vince,
I'd go "all-in" to bet that OJ was there that night but there exists a scenerio where he was there but a friend assisted in the slayings.
Either way I find him guilty. But this isn't the forum for hack irrelevent debate.
RE: POKER AND THIS SITUATION - If it was late and the opponent was drinking and he had wads of ATM receipts sticking out of his pockets.... then I might think the opponent was on tilt and bet on the river and reraise till the cows came home.
But I could be wrong.
dan
1. Up to this point, have I played my hand correctly?
Hmm. Maybe.
2. What hand do you put him on,
A pair of threes
3. How should I have played on the River?
With a paddle boat.
"I look forward to hearing what you all have to say about this hand, as I greatly value the advice from this forum. I can't believe how much my game has improved just from reading the posts here everyday, So thanks everybody!"
I'm sure none of that thanks is for advice from me. That's beacause I want the facts of the whole hand before I respond. I no lika surprises!
Nothing perrsonal.
Vince.
Well, here's how I inturpreted this hand and how everything ended up:
I was reasonably sure I was up against either a set or a flush draw on the flop, so I figured that I better make him pay as much as possible to draw against my made hand. As far as check-raising the turn, I can't see how I lost control of the hand by doing that. I had every reason to believe that he would bet it. Also, I would tend to think that the check-raise would give me more control, as most low-limit players I play with are so put off by the check-raise(Its dirty and wrong and under-handed, all that stuff..whatever).
So anyway, when the 2nd 5 came on the river, I checked and called, obviously fearing the full house.
He turned over 67d for the ignorant end of the straight, and I took down a nice little pot. I guess my inexpierience in poker is the reason it didn't even occur to me that he might have flopped the low end of the straight. But now I have another question-
How poorly did he play his hand? I can't understand why he would bet into me again on the river, when he only called my check-raise on the turn? It would certainly make sense to do that had he made his boat, but he didn't, so go figure.
Goodnight- Mike
Mike he played the hand horribly - I think you may have misclassified him as loose passive he looks a bit more like loose aggressive. Your play on the turn was perfect - the check raise was correct since you knew he'd bet - if you weren't sure he'd bet then the bet by you is a correct move. I still think the check call is the right move on the river - he played the hand like a set so you have to give him credit for some brains.
I wonder what he thought you were on - maybe he had you classified as a maniac or something?
Rounder, I think you give some low limit players way too much credit. Mike's opponent probably didn't give a thought to what Mike had. He flopped a straight and that's all he saw.
Your right Sammy I tend to over estimate the compitition. I keep forgetting about all the Bozos playing poker.
I wasn't saying that you'd lost control of the hand, I was saying you were in control of the hand. However, you said you had every reason to believe that the guy would bet after your checked on the turn and if that is the case I see nothing wrong with your play. YOu must know the player well, if I was in that situation and knew the player would bet, I'd check-raise as well, but I would have to be sure he would bet or I wouldn't check and risk giving him a free card (especailly if you put him on a flush draw).
Mike writes: "The other night playing 3/6, I get JQo UTG. I call, middle position and Button call, SB folds, BB checks. "
This is a leak. QJ unsuited is garbage UTG. Dump it next time and you're on your way to higher lifetime poker profit.
I kept thinking as I read post after post when is someone going to tell this guy JQo UTG is a poor play.One of the great leaks to my game was K10o and QJo UTG and similar weak out of position holdings.There might be some weak fields around that are not very aggressive where you can play crap in almost any position if your extremely strong after the flop but for most HE players staying away from easily dominated hands out of position goes a long way to making you a winning HE player. Jay
Mike,
I'm a little late to the party on this one but I do think that QJ offsuit is too weak to play up front in all but the most passive games.
One more point. Assuming I was in (I'll pretend the QJ was suited to maintain my self esteem) I would tend to lead out on the turn since you where the one to cap it on the flop. I don't quite understand how you knew he would bet the turn if he was in fact a loose passive player (unless you had a tell).
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I read Scott's Message Just Before Posting and I'm glad to see someone else picked this up.
P.P.S (TMSWTVVNL: I hope you are reading this!)
Rick - scary thought, but I'm starting to think like the rest of the crew. A year or so ago, I would never hesitate to play QJ up front; now I dump it like a hot potato, (or is that potatoe, Mr. Quayle?). I see guys RAISE with this stuff now out of position, and get shivers.
Mike, from what you have said I'd lean toward a set for the other guy. At 1st I put him on 2 big h's or the same hand as you had. But I am leaning toward the set.
You played the hand ok so far. You had the nuts to the river and played it like the nuts.
I'd check and call the river, a full house looks like a probability here and if he is on the same hand as you have it's a chop.
I'm interested to see what to other guys said and what happened.
It is Wednesday noon when I first looked at this, and from the thread I can see that you have already posted your actions, so it will be interesting for me to see if I am in line with what really happened.
1. I can't see where you could possibly be wrong up to this point. You've got the nut straight, and must do everything possible to drive out hands with two pairs, sets, and flush draws that might run you over. I would be interested in knowing if either your Q or J were a heart, just in case your opponent might have had a free-roll at you with a hand like QJh.
2. When he just calls your check-raise, IMO there is no way he has the same hand as yours. The rake is probably max'ed out by this point, so there is no point in him slowing down if he also has QJ, unless he is worried YOU might have the QJh and are free-rolling him for a flush. When he just calls you turn check-raise, I would put him on one of three hands: a) trips, b) J7suited or 76, for the idiot end, or c) two pair.
3. When the board pairs, you lose if he is on trips, but win if he's got the lower straight, or two pair. With this much money in the pot, he will in all liklihood call any bet you make, and raise only if he's got the boat. My gut instinct is that he's got the wrong end of the straight, and I bet out to extract one final bet. If he raises, I pay him off and make him show me the full.
By the way, I know this is 3-6, but I am sure that somewhere along the way in this analysis, whether you end up beaten by the full house or not, someone will point out the risks of calling UTG with cheese like QJo.
Thanks to everybody for all the advice/analysis. I guess this is one of the benefits of this new format- a post like this doesn't just get buried by new posts.
Also, I didn't realize JQo was so bad to play in bad position. This is a hand I play regularly in early position, which I thought was correct play in a loose-passive game. I am basing this on Lee Jones' book, whose advice I have been following since I read his book.
Since most of you seem to disagree with his advice, at least with this hand, who do you think I should be reading to improve my game? I am going to pick up Sklansky's Hold'em Poker this weekend. What do you think? Is that a good book for low-limit advice. I know HEPFAP is probably not going to do much for my game at this point, but I would think HEP should help me out. Thanks again everybody!
Mike Blair
Mike writes: "Also, I didn't realize JQo was so bad to play in bad position. This is a hand I play regularly in early position, which I thought was correct play in a loose-passive game. I am basing this on Lee Jones' book, whose advice I have been following since I read his book. "
My Lee Jones copy is in other hands so I can't refer to it but I'd be shocked if he advocates QJo UTG. Tell me you've misread that bit please.
He says In early position, in a loose-passive game to play connectors down to 98o. I just went and grabbed my book to double check, and that's what it says for a Loose Passive game. This advice is only general early position advice though, not UTG advice. I just scanned over the early position, pre-flop section again and couldn't find anything UTG specific. I guess maybe I should clarify my thinking on what constitutes a loose-passive game though. There typically isn't too much pre-flop raising, but thats not to say that it doesn't happen either. The game is definetely loose-usually 5 or 6 players seeing the flop and plenty of family pots also.
Maybe you could give me a clearer definition of loose-passive, because I consider the game I play in to be just that, but maybe I'm wrong?
Mike Blair
I generally play low-limit,(I play 4-8 upto 10-20) and while some of the concepts in HPFAP is to sophisticated to use in low-limit games alot of the advice applies, especially the new loose games section in the 21st cent ed.. I recommednd both books(HE Poker and HPFAP) even if your are only playing at the lower limits. Besides it can't hurt to start learning more involved material so when you want to move up you'll be ready.
1. You have not played the hand correctly. You should not be coming in under the gun with Q-J offsuit. On the turn, you should not check-raise but bet out and if raised then re-raise.
2. I would expect the button to have flopped two pair and perhaps a set. If he has a set you are beat at the river so don't plan on doing anything other than checking and calling.
3. I would check and I call when he bets. If you decide to bet and get raised then just call don't re-raise.
I am fairly new to Hold'em poker. I have played probably 1000+ hours. I am well versed on theory having read all of Sklansky's works on Hold'em and his theory of poker. I have had no success beating this game: $4-8 structured betting, blinds $2 and 4$. Generally the game is very loose. For example, an under the gun raise will be called by at least 5 players. The game is usually very passive, typically a lot of checking and calling the lead better. Sometimes the game is overly loose and agressive. Frequently I am the only raiser and check raiser in the game. The rake is 10% to a max of $4. I can often grind out several small wins in a row ($50 to $150 over 6-10 hours) and the ocassional big win. But I invariably suffer a series of losses that wipe out my wins and put me in the hole. It seems that somtimes I am drawn out on every time I get a big hand or I may not get a playable hand for hours and then loose the few I do get. I play tighter than Skalansky reccomends, especially in early position. What should a beginner like myself do to improve? Is this rake too high to overcome? Would I have a better chance at the $1-$5 stud game, same rake? Any help is greatly appreciated.
Find someone to audit your play. You're probably doing at least one or two simple things that are holding you back. 1000 hours is a long enough period to smooth out most of the luck factor.
A $4 rake is significant but the game sounds beatable.
Kathy,
In "Getting the Best of It" Sklansky writes a chapter called "Why You Lose In A Good Game" and another similar chapter. I think it is reprinted in this weeks Poker Digest. Check this out if you can.
I also agree with scott that 1000 hours is not quite enough hours to draw conclusions yet.
Regards,
Rick
Kathy:
The rake is not too high to beat the game, although whether you can make all that much is another question (I would think a bit more than $5/hour). And the rake should be more deleterious in a stud game with lower limits and smaller pots.
I think you realize that you are not struggling because inferior hands sometimes overtake your better hands. Suckouts are excellent, they keep the food chain thriving, like forests need fires to survive, although they must be a drag at the time. Similarly beneficial is the need for more patience than the average person -- at least the average gambler -- feels comfortable with. Nor is there any mental trick that will make you want to wish your unlearned opponent a hearty congradulations after his two-outer swiped your big pot. It's supposed to sting a bit, you're just not allowed to brood. If this makes less than perfect sense, back to the books. In any event, you should be reading the books again. Also, find more books and read them too.
You're not giving us much information, but it sounds as if your losses are somehow compounding themselves, and that being behind makes you "work harder" at winning than the game will allow, so that you're (perhaps unknowingly) pushing the envelop and taking bigger risks after several losing sessions or hands.
I would suggest:
1. Play shorter sessions, never more than 5 hours. Get a nap in before playing or do something (non-pharmacological) to keep you alert and refreshed. Break and have an iced-tea in the sun; write your Mom. You need to maximize the time that you play your best before you can even think about maximizing your time at the table. Get out when you're too tired, or irritated, or if instead of watching the game you're staring at the board and silently bemoaning what could have been. You need to play hard all the time, not just most of the time.
2. Spend as much time as possible playing against the worst non-threatening players, the passive slow leakers that pay you off but cut you slack when they've actually got a hand. The maniacs might lose more long-term but they have a way of exacting a little payback that might unsettle you. In short, stick with the passive games and avoid the ram-and-jam ones.
3. If you can't help that a losing session bothers you, lock up modest wins and rack up some 8-0 tallys.
4. Maximize the benefits of playing against passive players: make them pay and avoid calling their bets and raises. Sometimes it's like they all read a book that said you can't bet out without two-pair, and you can't check-raise with it either.
5. When you get check-raised by a non-aggressive player on the river, throw your hand away and suggest you were just having a bit of fun. Seriously, you can save a lot of bets by not automatically paying off players you know you can't beat. Don't let a big pot go when you've got an honest shot at winning, but don't rack up losses learning what you already know.
6. Well before it's over, you'll know when you're involved with a hand that might cost you a lot. So watch the action carefully, memorize it, get up from the table and write it down correctly in the ladies room. If you can't figure out what went wrong submit it for analysis. Most of the time you'll figure it out and you'll learn quickly how hard it is to make the same mistake more than a few times. On the other hand, if you know why you're making a losing play while it's acutally going down, your problem is psychological not technical and it probably stems from short-term frustration at some short-term loss. I.e., you're steaming. So if you lose a big one, screw up or get outplayed, consider yourself "on probation" until it passes. Be careful.
7. Hardly ever, if at all, play middle/low cards that aren't suited, keep track of how you play the trouble hands (AQ-JT), call fewer preflop raises (in fact, you don't want to be calling them much at all), and try to get an idea of which hands are costing you the most dough and when.
8. Watch the table to see what works. Just because you haven't found it in a book doesn't mean that it's wrong. There are a lot of variations on the basic themes. For example, it took me a long time to let certain players bet my hand for me because I thought it wasn't sufficiently "aggressive."
Sorry if this is a bit pedestrian. Good luck.
Kathy,
Chris gives some excellent advice. Let me add one or two things, and emphasize one point in particular.
Chris' second point, Spend as much time as possible playing against the worst non-threatening players is one of the most important that he offers. Game selection is everything in poker. If you're not doing it already, keep an hourly log of
1) who is in the game with you
2) how much you are winning/losing
3) who is losing the most
I know it looks funny to scribble these things at the table. I usually get up and "stretch my legs" for one hand. This break affords you the time, and privacy to make notes, but it also give you a chance to check out who is playing at the other tables.
Also I would recommend keeping a regular diary of your sessions for the sake of recording your opponents, as well as your mistakes.
One last thing, I would suggest that you try out IRC poker. It really is the best "simulation" out there, and can be very applicable to low-limit games.
- Andrew
Kathy,
You are a very brave young lady to post here with all these mugs. "Lady Gambler" posted once, excuse me twice, then ran for cover and we haven't heard from her since. Bunch of Chauvinists! Hey, but you are getting some great advice here. No? Chris, Rick, Scott Horton, I'm sure rounder will join in along with some pretty knowlegeable other folk. Big John, the king of sarcasm, will most certainly have a tid bit for you. I'm curious to see what John Feeney will say. SKP may be the guy you want to really listen to. I trust him. Louie, I think, is a Lady's Man so tale his response with a grain of vinegar. Sklansky doesn't have time. Mason, well Mason has time but sometimes lacks motivation for these things.
Then there's me. Hi, Kathy. Is this game beatable? All the responses I've seen so far would lead you to believe that it Tis. If you have followed this forum for a while you may recall some threads claiming that there is no way this game is beatable. They go as far as saying that the author is quitting and recommending we all do the same. Kathy, the bottom line is that nobody knows! That's right. Sklansky, Malmuth, Caro, Helmuth, Brunson, Scott, the Feeney Brothers, et al (me included), noone knows! Suppose you took all those that I named. Who would win? Take me and et al out and you may have the only winner being the Casino (even if Malmuth says Helmuth can't play a lick, he may have gotten better by now). The question you ask is this game beatable, I'm sure, is really; Is this game beatable by Kathy? The first factor that gets the balme when losing at poker is the rake. Can I beat the rake. That must be why I'm losing the rake is too high. Could be? But how in the heck would any of us know if that was the reason. Guess, I guess.
O.K To the point (I was going to say "to the climax" but thought that was inappropriate). You must ask yourself the following: Do I Like to play poker? Do I want to continue to play poker? Do I want to be a good/grat poker player? If the answer to any of these questions is no, find another game. If the answers are yes then continue to gain experience by playing a level you can afford. Your comfort level. Make sure you are not playing to high or too low. Play the game that you like the best. Preferably Holdem or 7 Stud. We talk about them mostly here on 2+2. Do not worry about winning or losing. Just log your results. Play reasonable length sessions. Think about your strategy. Think about your tactics. Experiment with differnt strategies. Learn to relax at the table. Try and play your best at all times. Keep asking questions. Reread your books. Gain experience. Of course you only do these things if you really want to continue to play poker. Try this and come back after a few sessions and let us know how it's going.
Hope that helps.
Vince.
vince's response was very good.
What should a beginner like myself do to improve?
you should think about the game away from the game. and use this forum.
Is this rake too high to overcome?
it can be done. if you enjoy poker enough to seriously pursue it, i am confident that you can beat this game.
Would I have a better chance at the $1-$5 stud game, same rake?
if you're mush better than your opp then spread limit games are more profitable. but the rake is proportionally larger here, too. also, after you get the hang of it and move up to 10-20, you're going to play structured. i advise staying in the 4-8 game.
i want to say some things about preflop strategy in these games. one, in loose passive games position becomes less of a factor. in loose aggressive games, position relative to the usual aggressors, not the button, is more of a factor. in a loose game, you should play more of your hands. play the big hands, but play the speculative hands too. post some hands.
scott
Kathy,
Rake is ok - is there a jack pot drop + tip you might be looking at $6 a hand.
Some good advice, some not so good you'll heve to pick and choose but the last thing I'd tell you is to play more hands.
Review the number of hands you are playing on average if it is more tham 20% you should review your starting hand requirements.
Pick your spots.
One of the most important things to me is the personality of the table. If you have a choice you can always scout out the other tables - for example I find it Impossible to win consistantly at a table with 3 or more very loose calling stations - makes for to many callers looking for longshots to beat you and more often than not they come in for one of the drawers. You can;t get them out with raises and as long as there is one card in the deck to beat you they are there looking for it.
Here is where table seleceion is very important.
I am going to have to agree with Scott and disagree with Rounder here. (Although Rounder generally gives excellent advice). You stated in your message that you play a bit tighter than Sklansky recommends. In a loose passive game this is a big problem. It is the equivalent of playing to many hands in a tight tough game.
In a loose passive game, a lot of hands become playable that normally are not. Unfortunately the people who write poker books play against tough opponents at high limits and offer strategies that have helped them win in these games. These strategies don't apply directly in most low limit games.
Spend a lot of time reviewing Sklansky's implied odds writings. In loose passive low limit games one gap suited cards, unsuited connectors and any small pair play well from any position if you can see the flop cheaply and have enough discipline to get out unless you hit.
Try to play hands that can become big hands. The proper odds will be there if you hit.
The key though, is not getting married to a hand. This strategy fails if you can't throw away 87suited when you flop middle pair.
Gee, Vince didn't mention me ... I guess I haven't poked at him in a while. Vince: I'm one of the math geeks.
Kathy, your game sounds a lot like my 4-8 game. In about 400 hours, my standard deviation is 90 per hour. If we assume that for your game, your thousand-hour result has a 3-sigma band (in other words, there is a 99% probability that your result falls within ...) plus or minus $8,500 of your actual result. Since this is a 1000-hour result, your 99% confidence band includes all win rates from one big bet per hour better down to one big bet per hour worse, than your actual results.
I have also generated some random-number sequences that I have not yet pulled together for posting. My preliminary opinion is that until you have 2000 hours, you just can't tell what your win rate is.
Take the other good advice here about monitoring your game, posting hands here, etc., and take heart. No one told me how hard this was going to be, either.
Dick
X
Gee, Vince didn't mention me ... I guess I haven't poked at him in a while. Vince: I'm one of the math geeks.
Yeah I know, Dick. But I like you anyway.
Vince
I'm a newbie and have been lurking here for a while. I have played a little 7CS in the past but am now looking to try HE. After watching this board a while I made a brief trip to Casino Arizona. I lost some money but played tight. I've since bought a couple books and read them. I'm looking forward to joining in on the discussion on this board after I have something to offer.
I APPRECIATE all the posters on this board that are willing to share their good(GREAT) ideas.
Bob
Hi, Bob from Tempe ...
Watch the "Other Topics" forum, formerly the Exchange forum, in the next week, for my new (modest) poker page. Then give me a call and we can get together sometime at Casino AZ or Gila River.
Dick
Thanks.
Sounds great and I'll be looking for it.
Bob
Bob,
If you are gonna play at Casino Arizona call me not Dick he'll just take all your money. :-)
Rounder-Tempe
PS: Dick where have you been haven't seen you for a while.
Mike
Since you're both familiar with the area code, I'd appreciate a call at 990-3316.
Thanks,
Bob
I'm a former serious,winning BJ player making the conversion to serious,winning poker.After reading virtually all the right books,consulting with long time players,and reading this forum daily,my game is coming together.However,the subject of what is a reliable estimate of long run,seems to vary from source to source.Maybe I was spoiled with BJ,but can anyone offer a realistic estimate of how many hrs of play would constitute long run in Holdem
One million hours. Yep 1,000,000! Of course playing at my table for 10 hours will seem like one million so come on down. I say give yourself between 1000-2000 at each level that you intend to play. If you are a quick learner then take the low end 1000 to evaluate your results.
Vince.
I'm a beginner too and think this is a GREAT question. DS, could you answer it from a statistical point of view?
It's actually quite amazing (counter-intuitive) how little of a sample is necessary to obtain a good estimate of mean and variance.
For instance, if a distribution is Binomial. A sample of 10 trials is sufficient to estimate the mean and S.D. with a high degree of certainly (narrow 90% confidence interval) and is also sufficent to employ the Central Limit Theorum.
I'm a beginner too and think this is a GREAT question. DS, could you answer it from a statistical point of view?
It's actually quite amazing (counter-intuitive) how little of a sample is necessary to obtain a good estimate of mean and variance.
For instance, if a distribution is Binomial. A sample of 10 trials is sufficient to estimate the mean and S.D. with a high degree of certainly (narrow 90% confidence interval) and is also sufficent to employ the Central Limit Theorum.
I'm a beginner too and think this is a GREAT question. DS, could you answer it from a statistical point of view?
It's actually quite amazing (counter-intuitive) how little of a sample is necessary to obtain a good estimate of mean and variance.
For instance, if a distribution is Binomial. A sample of 10 trials is sufficient to estimate the mean and S.D. with a high degree of certainly (narrow 90% confidence interval) and is also sufficent to employ the Central Limit Theorum.
You have a misunderstanding. You can form a 90 percent (or any other percent) confidence interval regardless of the sample size. What the sample size does is determine the width of the confidence interval. With a small sample such as 10, your confidence interval will be fairly wide, but as you increase the number of samples, the interval becomes smaller.
As for getting into the long run 1,500 hours should suffice providing that your playing ability stays fairly constant and the games you play in also stay fairly constant.
Thank you Mason. I should have asked either you or Sklansky. And I knew that, but obviously did not convey it as concisely or accurately as you. In fact, the point you make is obvious and also very important to point out!
Also, I apologize for posting 3 times. May be I was too anxious for a response? :) No, just a internet thing. I was trying to post just once.
Really - 1500 hours? So, considering MS and I are both beginners, we really can't even employ any statistical analysis to our play. This is becuase our game is improving so rapidly (hopefully). 1500 hours is just too long to expect our game to remain constant. It seems also too long to expect the game itself to remain contant. Afterall, the game type can change slowly over time such that one does not notice the change.
How would you suggest overcoming any or all of this?
As I have written before, a simple trick is to take what you would expect to be a moderately large fluctuation for one hour, and multiply that by the squre root of the number of hours you have played. This is how much your actual results may be off from what your expected results would be in that time. For example playing 10-20, a $500 swing will occasionally happen in an hour. That means that after 900 hours your results will be occasionally as far away (in either direction) as $15,000 from what they should be. From an hourly rate standpoint that is a not insignificant $16.67 per hour. On the other hand you shouln't be serious about 10-20 if you can't make close to $20 an hour. So if you are dead even after 900 hours that is pretty strong evidence that you can't do it at your present skill level.
I'm learning in a 4-8 game,rake avgs 2$ per pot,I'm winning 2 pots per hr,jackpot 1$ per pot,tip 50cents per pot.In analyzing my progress,do I look at the amount I'm winning from the other players or net after all the deductions.
You must be thinking about the Weak Weak Weak Central Limit Theorem, which states that for a sample size of 10, the binomial distribution can kinda, sorta, in a weird way, be approximated by a normal distribution, if you squint a little.
The larger the sample size, the better the approximation of any distribution with the Normal.
I'm not aware of the Weak Weak Weak Central Limit Theorum. I'm also not aware of "in a weird way". Might the definition of "kinda sorta" be "approximation"? No squinting necessary - just flip a coin 10 times and compare empirical with theoretical in all six ways and SHABAMM -- CLT is just that omnicient.
You must read Mason Malmuth's book "Gambling Theory and Other Topics". It is the definitive work on hourly fluctuation, standard deviation, number of hours which constitute the "long run", etc. Mason has tables in his book that show how many hours you can go and be a winning player but still be losing. He does this for various limits and he shows you how do your own calculations of this. Basically, it depends on your hourly expectation and your hourly standard deviation. The hourly standard deviation is a function of the betting limits of the game you are in and how the game is played (lots of pre-flop raising, very little, etc.).
I am UTG with 77. 4 way action. No one raises preflop.
Flop: 7sKcKd
Big blind bets.
What factors does one take into consideration in deciding whether to raise right away or to slowplay it a little?
Maybe Sklansky can give us an essay style answer:)
In loose games it would be insane to raise immediately. In tough tight games you can make an arguement for it, but even here a raise might drive out the last seven that would have otherwise called as well as an underpair. Waiting also might save you money if a king or a higher running pair shows.
This happened to me last night. I raised because I figured that the 2 players behind me would call 2 bets cold (or reraise) if either had a king but would fold even if I just called if they did not have a King. As well, I figured that I might mislead the initial bettor with my raise. Turns out he had AK and made it 5 bets on the flop. I then got in a raise on the turn and got paid off on the river (although the River was a slightly scary Queen).
Now, although this sounds counterintuitive, it seems to me that I am better off raising on a board like this where there are 3 different suits. This is because a call looks too *fishy*. My opponents must know that I am not on a draw of some sort and have to put me on either a King or a pocket pair. Plus, the lack of a flush draw would tell me that no one behind me is likely to be involved in the hand unless they had a King.
On the other hand, when the board does have a two flush, my call might indicate that I am on a flush draw which makes it more likely that the lead bettor will fire again on the turn if a non-flush card comes in. As well, a player behind me with a flush draw may decide to get frisky and raise on the flop allowing me to 3 bet it when it comes back to me.
Your point about saving money if a King or higher runnning pair shows is well taken.
With a rainbow board, I really don't think a call looks "fishy". I think it says "small wired pair" which is what you want a guy holding a K or 7 to think. As DS says, a raise here might cost you if a third K falls on a later street. Moreover, by playing it cool now you might also catch some big bets when someone makes a legit second best hand.
Where the board has a flush draw, I would call on the flop as well. Keep the flush draws (which are drawing dead) around a little longer before exacting larger bets from them.
Just a thought.
SKP writes: "Now, although this sounds counterintuitive, it seems to me that I am better off raising on a board like this where there are 3 different suits. "
Now I've seen it all. Raising with the best hand has become counterintuitive, too twisted for words.
I think your raise is correct in most game situations. You're praying that a king will be out there to give you action since there is little else for your opponents to have (only one seven remains, middle pairs are unlikely). When the king is out you can get beat in many ways so in effect you're up against a drawing hand that thinks he's a made hand. The action will be great when you find yourself in this position.
In loose games slowplaying is so rarely correct that if you never did it you'd be making only the smallest of error over the long haul. Check raising isn't too much different.
"Now, although this sounds counterintuitive..."
I was trying to distinguish between raising on a rainbow board vs. raising on a board with a 2 flush.
"Check raising isn't too much different."
If you are saying that checkraising should be a seldom used tactic in loose games, I have to respectfully disagree. I do agree with your point on slowplaying.
"Waiting also might save you money if a king or a higher running pair shows."
Small nit: I guess any running pair cooks my goose i.e. it doesn't have to be a Higher running pair.
If people are catching quads with runner runner that are SMALLER than your 7's... sign me up! They'll probably call all of those raises too...
I am not talking about quads. If a running pair of deuces appears, the guy with the sole King beats my hand.
Boy, do I disagree with DS here. Of course, I have a whole 98 hours now at 5-10 and currently don't have seminal poker works published. So, you pick who's ideas you like best. :)
I'd raise almost everytime here. I've got the best hand save KK and K7 and I want to punish anyone who's going to stay with a K or a pocket pair.
If there are no K's out there, the two behind you fold anyway and the bluffing BB folds to your bet or raise on the turn. Chances are you're not going to make much money on this hand anyways most of the time regardless.
If you're lucky the other two K's are active and help you cap the flop, and the turn and river will be bricks for them while everyone tries to bully everyone out of the pot.
If I don't raise for a small bet here, do I dare to really push it if an A through 8 falls and they 3bet me on the turn? If they 3bet the flop I "know" there's a king and can guess at the kicker based on position. In the BB, it could be anything!
Also, I would think that calling the bet would look equally dangerous to good players.
But what do I know...
Michael
Be the flop... See the flop... You're not being the flop, Danny.
I had a similar hand a few nights ago. Middle position (77) limped, the button raised, BB called, I called, late position called. Flop was JJ7. BB bet, I raised, middle re-raised, late re-raised, BB capped. YIKES!
Every round was capped to the river. BB had K/J, Middle had A/J, Button had AA. None of their outs hit and I won a monstrous pot. BTW, people slowed down with only the middle and I raising after the flop. People stayed because of the huge pot with the hopes of hitting their outs (though Middle and Button only had one out and BB only had three -- not counting a running pair).
I don't think flopping this full house requires a slowplay if there is any sign of aggression at the table -- if other players have overpairs or trips then they will pay you off -- and they have outs so make them pay.
You guys are trying to think too deep on this one. In general if you have people behind you drawing dead on the flop who might call if you just call but won't if you raise, you should slowplay your hand on the cheap betting round. Period.
David writes: "You guys are trying to think too deep on this one. In general if you have people behind you drawing dead on the flop who might call if you just call but won't if you raise, you should slowplay your hand on the cheap betting round. Period. "
The board is K K 7 rainbow and you hold two 7s. There are only a very few hands that might call AND be drawing dead. Any king is drawing live. Any middle pair is live as well.
Balance this minute chance against the chance that you'll get a king to go off for many bets both now and maybe on the turn and it's a no-brainer. Period.
Son, sometimes self-description just ain't gonna help your case.
There are several factors to consider in the play of your "underfull".
1. How many opponents? The more opponents, the more straight forward I would tend to play the hand. The fewer opponents, the more inclined I would be to slow play. Having three opponents is borderline.
2. Texture of the board. If the board is raggedly, then players will be less likely to hang around whereas if there is a two flush or cards in a straight zone they are more prone to call a raise.
3. Type of Game. Is this the $30-$60 game at the Bellagio or the $1-$2 game at Sam's Town? The tighter/more aggressive games would demand a raise. A loose/passive game would lean towards just a call unless the loose players will not be frightened away by a raise.
4. What do I know about the bettor? Is he the type that would go for a check-raise with trips or just bet out? Is he more prone to bet out trying to represent trip Kings but really protecting an under pair?
5. How big is the pot? Was this a raised pot pre-flop? If not, inducing additional bets might take priority over protecting what is out there.
I would not be overly concerned about another King showing up or someone with pocket Eights or Nines catching a bigger full house. With pocket Tens or higher I would think someone would have raised pre-flop.
Bottom line is that yours is a difficult question, but with 3 typical opponents in an unraised pot given the raggedly flop I think I would just call and not raise.
This question reminds me of one I ask my private students. You have A7 in the big blind, five players limp, and the flop is 772. Often a student gives a psychologically based reason for betting out. But no such reasoning can make up for the fact that if no one else bets, the next card will usually get someone who would have folded, into trouble.
While I understand your point, there are some significant differences between my hand and your example:
1. In my hand, two other players could conceivably have a very strong hand on the flop. In your example, only one other player can give you any real action if you bet.
2. In my hand, it is more likely that a King is out there. In your example, it is way less likely that a 7 is out there.
3. In your example, betting may get you no callers at all. In my example, as there is already a bet and I am raising, it is highly likely that I will have some company for at least the turn card i.e. even if the lead bettor was betting a hand as weak as 33, he probably (although incorrectly) will call the raise on the flop.
4. Even though I flopped a full and you have only flopped trips in your example, my hand is in fact more vulnerable than yours.
Thus, it makes more sense to check in your example.
Having said that, even with the 772 example, betting can be more profitable than checking. You are correct in stating that "if no one else bets, the next card will usually get someone who would have folded, into trouble." But this assumes that no one will bet the flop. In fact, that would be the best scenario for you. No one bets the flop and a Queen or something hits the turn and pairs 2 other players.
However, the more common occurrrence is that SOMEONE will bet the flop. Everyone else folds and you call. Do you now try for the checkraise on the turn? Will your opponent bet again? Will your opponent call your rasie if he bets? Seems to me that in most cases, you only win about 3 small bets by slowplaying the flop.
On the other hand, an outright bet may cause the overly suspicious fella with A2 to call you all the way figuring that there is NO way you would bet a 7 on the flop. This could net you 5 small bets (or more if someone decides to get frisky and raise somewhere along the line while misreading you as having a weak hand).
Betting my monster hands on the flop also allows me to steal more. The next time, I might bet on a flop of 664 with a hopeless 82 out of the big blind.
Perhaps, I am exhibiting the same flawed psychological reasoning as your students but I think that the right answer is far from being clear cut.
Skp, there’s a lot to agree with in what you just wrote.
Sklansky overriding point also makes a lot of sense.
What is fascinating is that if it’s this difficult
to come up with a clear cut answer on
so simple a hand as A 7 in the BB vs 7 7 2 and five limpers,
( and for now we’ve left out whether it’s Rainbow or not )
what hands will we ever be sure of how to play?
x
I think you left one out, and in my mind it could be the most important.
6. How am I perceived by my opponents? If I were in this situation and I flat called, most (aware) people would realize that they should get out without a really good hand. If I had a hand worth playing, such as middle pair, I would be raising. Consequently I should also be raising with my really good hands as well.
I suppose this is just my take on skp's fear of looking *fishy*. If he is as aggressive as he seems to be, then for him to just call in this situation would make me fold almost everything.
Eric
Except in games where players behind you get suspicious of your call, there is simply no way that any of your arguments make up for the chance to pick up dead money behind you, especially given that you only beat a king three out of four times. As is the case in most multiway pots, mathematical considerations overcome psychological considerations.
I'm not sure how much dead money will be coming into this pot. What hands are going to be putting in this money? If someone has a hand worth putting in a bet, then she is likely to call the raise as well.
Perhaps I don't live in fishy enough waters, but I can't see anyone calling even one bet without a King, pocket pair, or split pair. Maybe the raise would knock out the pairs, but maybe not. Bringing in the psychological issue again, many of the players I know would be more afraid of a normally aggressive player who just calls. They are more likely to keep playing (at greater cost) if the aggressive player raises.
YMMV
Eric
I'm a beginning player with under 100 hours of table time so if this question sounds a little basic, I apologize. I read so much advanced strategy on this forum and I know there is a lot of experience out there so bear with me because I really need to understand this fundamental concept which I'm not getting. It involves unimproved pairs.
I'm at a 3-6 table, pretty loose passive, and get pocket Queens in early position. The guy to my right under the gun calls, I raise, all fold except button and big blind. Flop comes K 8 2. Both check to me, I bet fearing a king out there but not wanting to give free card. Button and BB fold, guy to my right calls. From what I've observed, he's completely unreadable playing anything. Turn is a 9, he checks, I bet. I'm going with S&M 4th street advice of betting hands without outs(2 or less in this case). River is a 3(I think), I bet, he calls and turns over K 4, taking the pot.
In retrospect, I think I should have checked the river but were my flop and turn betting logic correct? I didn't put him on a K because he didn't show any aggression.
I think this situation is common enough that I need a basic understanding of logic behind playing unimproved pairs.
Thanks, Matt
I'm not Vince or Greg but I'll give you my take on it. The guy was playing King with a very poor kicker so chances are he wasn't going to bet it. A check on the flop probably wouldn't have garnered you any info. He was in check and call mode all the way. On the river a check was probably in order because if he didn't have a king he would fold if you bet and if he did he would call and beat you. From my perspective you're on the right track, just an unlucky flop. Get used to it.
What you do on the River is really a function of whether or not your opponent will call with a worse hand than yours. His actions to date certainly would suggest to me that he doesn't have a King but if he was the type of player who would never (or rarely) call on the river with a hand like 87, you gain nothing by betting and could lose a big bet if he does have a King.
The turn has some similar considerations. I think you are correct in stating that the fella probably does not have a King given his check-call on the flop and that therefore you should bet. But, some players are just *tricky* enough to let you hang yourself when they are holding a King here. When I am in your opponent's shoes, I often play a check-call game (until the river) in this situation when heads up. Being heads up is a key as then there are not too many free cards that can hurt me should you check behind me.
On the turn, I tend not to bet against tricky opponents who might checkraise me with a single pair of 8's. I don't mind checking here because I can usually count on my tricky opponent to bet the river even if he misses. Against a more straight forward opponent who is not a complete fish, I would bet the turn and hope to pick up the pot. If called, I would check the river. Against a calling station or fish in general, I would bet the turn and river.
I take it you would have bet the K4 here if you were his opponent? I thought I understood from HPFAP-21 chapter on free cards that we should check-call such hands since few free cards can hurt us, and only bet top pair less than kings w/weak kicker (into a small number of opponents).
Actually, what I said in my original post was that if I had the K4, I probably would check-call the turn but bet the river. That's assuming I check the flop which is unlikely. If it was heads up on the flop, I would check-call. However with 4 players seeing the flop, I would likely bet into the preflop raiser (who is to my immediate left) with my K4.
I was refering to your statement that the opponent doesn't appear to have a king. I would think that his check-call on the flop was consistent with a pair of kings w/weak kicker. Why would you bet such a hand into the preflop raiser? Is it in hopes of being raised and forcing the blinds to fold? Would you just check-call if the pot was not raised preflop? Thanks.
It is highly inlikely that I would call an early position raiser with K4 in the bb. Assuming that I do and flop a King, I would play it differently depending on whether I was heads up with the preflop raiser or had a 4 way pot as in this hand.
Heads-up:
I would likely check call the flop and turn and bet out on the river.
4 way pot:
I would bet into the raiser because here if I am ahead, giving free cards is a lot worse than in the previous situation. Also, if I am raised by the preflop raiser in this situation, I can be more certain that he too has a King (with a better kicker) or better.
If the pot was not raised preflop, I likely would bet into a 4 way pot with my King/ weak kicker but would probably try and checkraise a late position bettor if the pot was contested with 5 or more players.
Unimproved is one thing but against a K with callers and betters is a mistake. In games like this Kx is a pretty common call and this guy should never have called your raise with the Kx but he did and he won.
He didn't show any aggression cuz of his non kicker.
Keep up the strategy cuz it will pay off guys who call raises with Kx in a full game situation are doomed to lose in the long run.
The dude figured you for aces especially when the UTG guy folded after the raise. I think he should have been out of the game. If you check the river, you loose. I think you did the right thing. It's one of those things.
I like the way you played your pocket queens throughout the hand. Despite the fact that you inevitably had position on the individual calling under the gun with Kx, you MAINTAINED CONTROL of the entire hand from start to finish, which I know is extremely important. I believe that it is more important to assert the control and tempo of these no-foldem low limit games, which is what you did! You can't expect to win every hand on a showdown when you bet. Whenever I lose a pot under the same circumstance that you posted, I always say to myself the the pot went to the right person. We all love to play with people that play Kx under the gun with a raise. I hope this post helped!
You played correctly. Sometimes these loose, passive types will hang in there with middle pair or bottom pair not just top pair/bad kicker hoping to hit trips or a second pair. There is no point betting the river since at that point most of these guys won't call without top pair.
What do you think is the single most important factor to crossing the line in hold'em?
You are a winning hold'em player but yet you don't seem to play like a pro. You believe greatly you have the skills to play like a pro, but yet you don't.
I had this simular problem in stud about a year or two ago and then something happened. I started consistently walking away with the money. I think I crossed that solid line when I learned that I can't steal everytime, that sometimes you have to let other good players and bad players have a piece of the pie and that will make your pie bigger even if you know they are walking thin. Sometimes when you know they don't have much, but you have even less than they do. Sometimes it is a good idea to let them rob others and not get in the way.
What do you forum posters and readers think? I would especially like to hear some answers from the ones who have experienced this crossing of the line sort of speak. Thanks.
berya - I am not a professional although I have been living off my poker since February and living quite well. My wife gets my pay check in Illinois and I send the kids in College a few hundred a month. I have resources to draw on if I get in a bind so I am not out on a limb like a lot of guys.
I do know that if you want to do anything profesionally you have to be willing to devote every waking hour of every day to the endever. Success does not come be accident.
I look at it as a supplement to income but I know alot of guys who try to make a living at is - they are ususlly hitting my up for a couple of hundred until they get caught up.
there is not one line to cross. you will still be crossing lines even when you are sitting in high limit games with the best in the world. there isn't one thing, but knowing yourself, and being totally committed to learning and earning at this game are a couple. the top players have put in the time and work very hard to get the small edge, and occasionally they get a large edge. goodluck
Simple: A truly great player never goes on tilt; Wannabes like me do.
If you are talking pure poker know-how, I would reckon that there really isn't that big a difference between a world class Las Vegas 10-20 player and your local hometown 10-20 hero. Yes, the world class player probably understands the nuances of the game a little better than the hometown hero but the oppportunities to use that extra unique knowledge for profit probably will not come to play very often. What makes one guy world class (and the other not) is the first guy's ability to keep his cool and ride out the inevitable rough patches by losing as little as possible.
And that's a fact.
Rounder,
As Mason has stated many times, a complete and thorough knowledge of the game is your best defense against tilt. The better your knowledge of the game the less you should tilt. The reason is pretty obvious. When you lose and play well you will have the complete confidence to know that you played well and that in the long run you will win. John Feeney has what I consider to be an excellent essay on maintaining a proper mental attitude while playing and it applies to other forms of gambling too. You have probably read it in the Guest Essays section previously but I just thought I would mention it in case you didn't. When you gamble for significant money you simply can't afford to tilt. Losses are part of the deal when you gamble and how you handle them will of course have a huge impact on your bottom line. So I can't except your response that everybody tilts. Everybody probably has tilted one time or another but there are players who do get it together and don't do this. I know I am going to get a response from you that will disagree but I think that you will be much better off when you get the idea out of your head that everybody tilts. I suppose I am jumping to conclusions when I say that your attitude seems to be that since everybody tilts it is somehow not an important factor and that at least some tilting is inevitable. I believe that you have to have a standard for yourself that you will not tilt and when you do you have to correct it. Out.
Tom Haley
Tom,
I can only speak fo rmy self - I do tilt but not from bad beats or losing that is part of the game and if I lose with a set of A's to a runner runner flush well I do. I know what sets me off and when it happens I just get up to streech my legs and wash my face off.
The other day I was in a hand with KJ and there was a side pot. I won the side pot which was much larger whan the main pot and the player (wno is also a dealer) said nice hand sir I thought I won and he showed AJ to out kick me. Now my side pot was 3 times bigger than the main but he just angered me I said "that was real cute" and carried on but was seeing red for about 30 sec. I know one dealer who will never get another toke from me.
I guess what sets me off are smart asses at the table like the ones who slow roll or are rude.
I am controlling it and it hasen't cost me one bad bet for a long time but I'd be lying if I said I never go on tilt and if everyone were honest they'd probably admit it too.
Rounder,
I have been so mad in games that I could spit in the face of my antagonist. That isn't tilt. If you play correctly, not altering your play because of anger or other emotions, you aren't on tilt. I have played with the "legendary" ASQ many many times over the past 30 years and never once have I seen him play any hand on tilt. There are people who control their emotions exceptionally well. Of course, to the best of my knowledge, none of these people are Italians. ;-)
John,
Yeah being Sicillian, Italian can be a draw back when the temper thing comes into play but considering my father and brother are a bit like Joe Pesche in "Good Fellas" funny how, like a clown - am I here to amuse you. I am pretty a pretty cool tempered guy.
ASQ??? - e-mail me if you can't devulge it here.
Big John,
I don't think I have any significant tilt but I do lose focus when I'm not in a hand and tend to daydream a bit. But then again my people come from Northern Italy and Poland so we aren't hot headed like those Sicilians.
BTW, I haven't seen ASQ in a long time. Is he still around and in good health?
Regards,
Rick
PS to Rounder: The almost legendary ASQ was featured in John Fox's book "Play Poker, Quit Work,and Sleep til Noon". He is a great guy, a Gardena ledgend, but his holdem game was not quite as strong as his draw game where he excelled.
Rick,
I saw him about a month ago at the Commerce. As you probably know, he fazed out lowball and became a stud player. When I last saw him he was sitting in a 10-20 or 15-30 stud game and his little notebook was out. He and I have played a lot of lowball together. I once told him that I was going to call every bet he ever made after the draw when he and I were heads up until I finally caught him bluffing.(He had successfully bluffed me out of a large pot.) After about 15 bad calls, interspersed with some great raises and a couple times when my eight was slightly better than his, I finally caught him. I told him that he never should have bluffed again given my stated intent. He just laughed and proceeded to bluff me out of another large pot about 30 minutes later. I guess he figured he was better off not having me call his every bet. He is not only a fine player, he is a terrific human being.
Rounder,
As has been stated in other posts it's ok to get mad just don't tilt. Also, dealers have bad days too and do dumb things just like anyone else so you might want to keep that in mind as well.
Tom Haley
I like your answer. The real top notch player doesn't lose his cool ( or at least does very seldom) because he knows in the long run he's going to win. It is this confidence that allows him to stay in control of his emotions. If you know your the best, why would a few hands that you should have won cause you to tilt? Everyone loses and gets a bad beat put on them, that is part of the game. The real good player realizes this and only questions whether they played the hand right and how to capitilize on opponents mistakes. This is looking to the next hand rather than getting mad about the last hand. I also find these type of players are rather intimidating because they don't seem to care about money (although they do), which causes a lot of players to play less than their best against them.
I suspect that the catalyst, if there is one in most cases, is becoming aware of a justifiably high level of self-confidence. This expectedly would have a liberating effect on the player that increases his ability to concentrate on what's important while allowing him to play more, which in turn reduces his concern for short-term events while building his confidence further. This cycle can allow a lot of things to happen in a short period of time.
If the knowledge is there, and it's continually integrated with experience, then combine Chris's post with skp's, and I think you've got most of the package.
I don't know what the answer is--I haven't crossed the line myself. But, I think what I'm going through in hold'em now is very similar to what you went through in stud. A few weeks ago I felt I had made a huge breakthrough in my game. I won 13-14 sessions straight and won ove 5G in two weeks playing 6-12 and 8-16. I was playing much more aggressive and making plays I never used to make. I think I was able to read hands better and take down pots when nobody had anything. I was also running well and getting the cards. Unfortunely, I've now become over-aggressive. In the last month I've moved from a weak-tight player to a semi-maniac. I keep trying to get players to fold when I know they are weak and it's costing me lots of money. I lost $400 last week and am already down more than that this week. I think a big part of the game is knowing how to tune your aggression to a particular game/set of opponents, knowing when to make moves on people, and when to let go of a pot as you described. Apparantly, I haven't figured it out yet.
ab
I find that when the cards run well, I start to believe it's my superior skill that is winning. Suddenly, like you say, I'm getting called by the underpair and losing each time I bluff. I'm attempting to stop doing this and play my best game win or lose.
The line is EGO. Put your ego in your pocket and you'll do well. (that's what I hope anyway)
Regards Mike N
I'm BB with JTo. 4 call, cutoff raises. button, sb fold. I call, 2 others call. 4 to the flop. JT3 rainbow. I go for checkraise which works and folds player to my left. Turn is an 8. I bet out. Next calls, cutoff raises. I think. Cutoff is a pretty solid player. Not one who would raise preflop with Q9 suited or not. I'm putting him on a big ace or a big pair, probably kings or queens. I don't think he would raise on a straight draw with KQs since there was no flush draw. As Unlikely as it is I'm worried about a set of Jacks or tens because he wouldn't have raised preflop with 88. I call the raise. River is a blank. I check, he bets, I call. How many bets did I miss?
my friend was in the big blind($800) he has 4 big bets left .the button comes in for 2 bets and my friend has A3 suited. he raised and was re raised. he went all in. my friend floped A37 (2pair) and raiser had- AA-trips.He was out 25th and the T. payed 18 places. i argue he should have dumped it now. your responce ?
pat you have to understand at that stage of the tourney blind stealing is very common and your pal may have been right to call the raise and even reraise with Ax in the bb it depends on the guy on the button and his evaluation of him.
Being down to 4 big bets he has to make a stand and this is where he chose to do it.
my thinking was that he had chips to last a round or 2 and being close to the money it might be better to see if they woulden't play bad first. he didn' know this player as he was just moved to this table. SURVIVE?
I agree survive but every tournament I have placed in or won there was some point when I made a play like this - if it works and you double or triple up your in with a chance I can say it was a good or bad play it was marginal which means it could have gone eigther way.
He could have flopped the nut flush - like I said he was in a fork in the road and went the wrong way.
Survival is tough with 4 bb left he didn;t have eneough to beat out the other 18 players he needed to win a few hands to have a chance.
"I'm worried about a set of Jacks or tens because he wouldn't have raised preflop with 88"
Why can't he have an overpair? He's more than twice as likely to have one and his play is consistent with having one. If he did, you lost 1 or 2 big bets, depending on how many would have paid you from the turn onward.
Pre-flop four players limp in before the cutoff raises. Apparently, only two of the four original limpers called the raise. That seems very strange.
On the flop, with three opponents I think you should bet out with your two top pair and not try for a check-raise. You cannot be certain the cutoff will bet since if he raised pre-flop on just two big cards he may decide to check and take a free card. By betting you will probably get one or two callers and if the cutoff then raises you can re-raise making it 3 bets. If not, at least you have gotten some extra bets from some of the callers between you and the cutoff.
On the turn your betting out was correct. When the cutoff raises, you should re-raise. As far as the cutoff knows his big over pair of Queens, Kings, or Aces is good and he is just raising based on that, not realizing he is up against two pair.
You should bet the river and he will make a crying call. It is hard to say how many bets you missed, but I would guess several.
Heads up play--mainly defending the blind against a steal raise or attempting to steal the blinds myself-- is one of my biggest weaknessess. I have trouble sensing strength/weakness in tough opponents, and get over-aggressive against weak-loose opponents.
My typical heads up strategy without position is to bet the flop no matter what. If raised on the flop: I fold if I have nothing, call to the river if I feel there is a decent chance I have the best hand, or call the raise and check-raise the turn if I am confident I have the best hand. If I have position and it is checked to me on the flop, I always bet. If check-raised: I fold if I have nothing, call to the river if there is a decent chance I have the best hand, and call and raise the turn if I'm confident I have the best hand. If just called on the flop, I usually bet the turn if it seems somewhat likely I have the best hand or my opponent may fold.
Is this strategy too aggressive? I find that I am often able to sense weakness in weak-tight players and get them to lay down the best hand; Or, sense strength and lay down a strong hand, myself. However, I often lose a ton of money against weak-loose players who, correctly, call me to the river with Ace-high or Pocket 33's. I am not extremely adept at determining whether a particular opponent is capable of laying these hands down, so I usually just bet turn. Would it be better to check the turn and take a free card?
I have even more problems with tough opponents, as I usually can't read them well. It seems that tougher opponents are much more likely to check a strong hand and bet a weak hand, but mix up their play often. Perhaps, I should not even attempt to confront a strong player unless I have something, i.e. give up on the flop unless I have a pair or A-high? But this would seem to be giving up a lot, as there are so many times heads-up when neither player has anything.
ab
against a weak tight player, your strategy is fine. against a weak loose player, cut back on your bets with nothing but be more aggressive with your hands that have a 'decent chance' of being best. make their A high and their 33 calls wrong. unless you have a strong draw. then bet the flop in hopes to get a free turn. against tough players you are way too predictable. way, way way too predictable. mix it up and watch what they are willing to do with certain holdings.
scott
Reread your own strategy. How would you play against yourself? See? Now, what do you think you should do to fix those leaks?
Somehow, in writing this post, I feel like Vince.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I am a relatively new HE player with about 500 hours under my belt. I have a few questions about what the pros think about during their typical hands and sessions.
How do you count down the pot during the hand? Do you count the number of small and big bets, or do you count the actual dollar figure in the pot. Is this something that you get intuatively with experience?
Are you constantly comparing the pot odds to the chances of making your hand, or is this another thing that comes with experience?
For the session, what data do you record for your records. I have been recording game, date, structure, Win/loss amount, and hours played. Am I missing something?
Thank you for your help. You guys are a great help for newbies.
Jason
At any one time, I cannot immediately tell you exactly how much is in the pot. I know the betting action, how many players are in, whether or not the pot has been raised, and what it costs me to continue. The specific pot odds are only one of many variables. The implied odds, the number of opponents, my holding, the holding the bettor or raiser is representing, the texture of the board, the number of players yet to act, etc. all have to be considered in a general way.
For each playing session,I record the stakes of the game I played (e.g.-$15-$30, $20-$40, etc.), where I played (Bellagio, Shreveport, etc.), the number of hours I played, and my results. I put this in an excel spreadsheet that uses the techniques discussed in Mason Malmuth's book "Gambling Theory and Other Topics". It computes my hourly standard deviation, the cumulative standard deviation, my cumulative results, and compares my cumulative results with the number of standard deviations I am off from a mean of zero("breakeven"). This lets me know if my cumulative results are statistically significant.
Jim,
Would you mind e-mailing me the Excel template that you use? Mine is doesn't have the Mason's Standard Deviation functions built in.
My e-mail is above.
Thanks,
Robert
Thanks a bunch!
Jason writes:
How do you count down the pot during the hand? Do you count the number of small and big bets, or do you count the actual dollar figure in the pot. Is this something that you get intuatively with experience?
There are many ways to do this. I use several myself. Often if it's head to head, I wait till I need to know the odds and then I just straight count the pot. This can take time if you haven't developed the skill, but once you get the hang of counting a pot visually it helps a great deal.
In multi-way pots I start the count after all preflop betting is done. I then simply take the number of callers times the number of small bets I put in. So if four people saw the flop for 3 bets, that's 12 bets. I also keep track of whether the big blind folded. If he did, I add one small bet. If the small blind folded, I just forget that that money is in the pot, assuming that it will go to pay the rake.
Are you constantly comparing the pot odds to the chances of making your hand, or is this another thing that comes with experience?
Yes and no. When it is head to head, I almost never consult pot odds. Reading your opponent and reading the board is more important. When I think I'm in the lead, I almost never use pot odds, as I will be betting or raising, not calling. Pot odds are only good for calling. Multiway I like to start with my BEST outs, and see if I have odds for those. I add my worse and worse outs up to the point when I think they won't be any good.
For example, let's say I've got AsTs, and the board is ThKs3d. This is a pretty good board for me. My best outs are things like runner runner (rr) quads and rr full house. I don't count these at all. Next the rr flush and the rr str8 give me about 3 outs. If the pot were 16 sb, I would play no matter what. Continuing down the line, I have 2 more outs for middle set. This brings me to 5 outs. If I thought I'd need this hand to win, I'd need about 9 1/2 sb in the pot to call. If I assume *all* my possible outs are good, then I've got another 3 for pairing my Ace. Seeing a 3 come up is probably good as well. I might also have the best hand. I might also be drawing thin. All told, the number of effective outs which improve my hand might be as high as 12-20, or may be less than one (in the case when I'm up against a set of Kings and need rr quads to win). I generally try to determine where I stand and use the apropriate number of outs to determine whether to go on.
For example, if I think I'm against AK, then I've got the 3 flush/str8 outs, and the two T outs for a total of 5 outs.
If I think I'm againts AK/AA/KK, then I have to do mental gymnastics while the bad players call me stupid and slowpoke, and the good players pick up the tell that I'm calculating pot odds, so I must be on a draw.
BTW, the more QUALITY outs you have, the more aggressive you can play your hand. If you've got a flush draw on the flop and top pair, you've got over 20 effective outs, and you can get start betting, raising and reraising, even if you suspect you might be against a better hand.
For the session, what data do you record for your records. I have been recording game, date, structure, Win/loss amount, and hours played. Am I missing something?
I also record time started, where I played, and how many players were in the game. I also keep a diary of my opponents so that I can do better table selection in the future. I also break up an evening into three or four sessions, usually one for each table I play at.
- Andrew
G'day, I can't seem to find any info here past Nov 8 with a search; is there archives with ALL the stuff that has been posted here. if there is where can I find it. Thanks for any help.
See the greenish bar on the left. "Archives". You may have the forum set up without frames (or whatever), just showing the threads. If so, come back using the twoplustwo.com URL and enter in the standard way. Then the green bar will be there.
Just spent the weekend in Vegas playing Hold'em and had a great time. I brought a few friends from my regular ring game to give them a taste of casino Hold'em. Each session each of us were up a few hundred but took home just a small amount of cash. On the plane ride back to Chicago one guy asked this question " Where we there to make money or just to play cards?" he went on about we were all "UP" in each game and if he was trying to make money then you could just leave at a set profit line. So what do all you pro's do ? Do you set a line and when you hit it leave and take your day's pay or keep on playing for a certain amount of hours? Just a thought
Thanks
MJ
I am not a professional but I play 8-10 hour sessions as long as I feel I have the edge in the game. If the game is really good, I will play longer but normally I get tired after about 8 hours. I don't really care whether I am winning or losing. My concern is to get in as many hours over the course of the year as I can in games where I have the advantage at stakes high enough to make it worth my time ($15-$30 and $20-$40).
I think these people who sit in a game and hope to win something after a few hours and leave ("hit and run")are just fooling themselves. These guys will get away with this for awhile and then they will play in a session and get seriously stuck. They stay glued to the table trying to get their money back sometimes putting in 40 or 50 hour sessions where their play starts to degenerate.
I know I am in the minority on this, but I don't mind "hittin and running". When I used to play a lot of 15-30 lowball, I would often make $300 or $400 and quit the game to go play NL Hold-em or another game that I enjoy playing more than lowball. Sometimes, I would play four or five different times in that same game, moving around to other games and avoiding the collection charge.
If, as most theorists seem to agree, it is all one long session anyway, why not play it in the manner you find most entertaining? A big part of my enjoyment came from watching the faces on the old rock grouches when a "live one" quit the game with some of their money. An added benefit is that once they know you might be leaving after you won a pot or two, they would alter their play against you to prevent that from happening. If they were playing more or less correctly before changing, they would then be playing tighter than optimal.
I suppose to those who believe that only hourly expectation times hours played is the one true magical formula, my style doesn't make any sense. That is OK by me, because it makes perfect sense to me. If you play for enjoyment and the earn is secondary, doing what you want to do is far more important than sitting in a game where you aren't having fun just because it offers the highest hourly rate of return.
I once sat in a 15-30 lowball game for fours hours, grinding out a few hundred dollar win against a group of people who hadn't had any fun in their lives for years and who resented anyone else who seemed to be trying to. All the time I'm playing, Ray Zee is sitting at an empty table having animated conversations with several people who stopped by singly, chatted for awhile, then left. I had just introduced myself to him the night before, and I remember thinking that I would much rather have been sitting at his table, shooting the breeze with no chance to make any money than sitting in the game I was in and making a BB or two per hour. Ray certainly looked like he was having a better time than I was. This was a year or so ago, and I've probably played less than 10 hours of lowball since, not counting lowball tournaments. So, in a way, Ray Zee is responsible for me not doing something I didn't much care for approximately 1000 fewer hours per year. Hey Ray, thanks a lot; I think I'll go buy four or five copies of each of your books and give them away as Christmas presents this year.
My number is $700 for anything below 10-20 when I hit that $ amount I vamoose from the session. Cash out get a meal and maybe start over or go to my room or home.
In 10-20 I will stay as long as I am winning and if I go over $700 will play but not go below that number I feel it is mine and it ain't going anywhere with out me.
Hi everybody,
Your basic "play by feel" poker player here. Just trying to quantify, quantify. I need some help. No mental health comments please. Got another way of looking at the same old probleme.
Suppose we adopt the following strategy; If we are ahead we bet, if behind we check. With me so far. Now how do we determine if we are ahead.
Position SB.
6 opponents.
Hand 9,8o
Flop A,9,2 rainbow.
Reasonable scenario. 6 sb's in the pot. Is that a big pot? Compared to bet size 6 to 1, not bad. Let's not muddy the waters yet. Remember bet if ahead (BA), check if behind (CB)
To Bet or not or not to Bet.
Let a = the probability that there is at least 1 ace in the opponents hands (use 12 random cards).
let .5 n = the probability that a better nine is in the opponents hands, where n is the probability of at least one 9 is in an opponents hand.. Let's assume this includes the possibility of the BB having exactly 9,2
let t = the probability that a pair of tens are in an opponents hand
let j = the probability that a pair of jacks are in an opponents hand
let q =the probability that a pair of queens are in an opponents hand
let k = the probability that a pair of kings are in an opponents hand
let w = the probability that a pair of twos are in an opponents hand
let S = the sum of all probabilities.
Then if S<.5 BA
S= a+.5n+t+j+q+k+w
Does this make sense so far. Maybe we should just calculate the probability here and not make a determination of whether to bet or check. That sounds like a good idea. Should we add a non raise factor to the Kings and queens. Such that we reduce the probability of them being out in an unraised pot by .5. I am not a mathe guy but I could determine these probabilities myself. But I would first like to discuss the formula.
Vince.
it is too simplistic. random hands do not describe actual play. and ba/cb strategy is also too simplistic. and there are 7 sb in the pot. that said, in a game where people will call with any A and raise only AK, you can use random hands to find the possibility of there being a A out there but you have to know what how many hands they call with. you have to determine the chances there is an A out, given 6 people limped. with the 9, this only works if people limp with any 9. in my calculations way below, i ignore better hands folding. if you start considering higher 9's and wired underpairs (above 9's) then this becomes more likely.
scott
We have to make some adjustments here Vince. We are not dealing with random probablility when people voluntarily put money in a pot to take a flop. We are dealing with conditional probability. That is, given that someone limps in, we can rule out holdings like Eight-Deuce offsuit, etc. There are 169 possible two card holdings, ignoring suit distinctions (Spades vs Hearts vs Diamonds vs Clubs), but how many of these involve holdings that players would never come in with? Probably at least half. With no one raising we can rule out AA,KK, QQ, JJ, TT, AK, AQ suited. Bottom line is that I would expect one of my six opponents to have an Ace the vast majority of time when you go through all the combinations of cards that involve hands players come in with. It would be much higher than any number I could get just assuming one of three remaining Aces in 12 random cards out of 47 unseen cards.
This would also be true concerning one of the two remaining Nines. I would expect the real likelihood of one of six opponents having one of the two remaining Nines out of 47 unseen cards to be higher than what a random probability calculation would yield.
I have a different formula: Bet. X% of the time there is no ace and you are leading so betting is good to protect your equity. Y% of time someone has an A and will call only, leaving you behind at this point with outs. Z% of the time someone has a A, pocket 9's, pocket 2's, K's, Q's, J's or 10's and raises thinning the field. Q% of the time that bet by you is going to improve your chances of winning more than the cost of the bet, and S% of the time you'll lose money by doing so. P% of the time the difference between X,Y,Z and Q is totally unquantifiable, situationally dependant, and just isn't worthwhile agonizing over. P=100%. X=14%, Y=22% and Z=64%.
I don't know about all this math but you'r behind for sure and a check fold is my remedy for this miserable hand.
Just gotta love the way you cut through the crap, Rounder. Not that Vince's post is crap, but the only question about this hand I have is am I going to push my cards in or throw them in.
Ya know Sammy,
This guy had 6 callers you know there are atleast 1 probably 2 aces out there if an A8 or A9 your drawing dead. Still 2 cards to come one probably an over card. I just don't like the layout and trying to play this hand in a multi way pot is juat not a good decision.
I don't know you Vince but I've read plenty of your posts. My advice would be to not worry about all this math shit and if your a feel player and you feel the probability that there is definitely an ace out to muck your hand and start thinking about things that really matter.
Furious
Please tell this newbie where to find guest essays referrered to in some of these discussions . THANKS in advance.
Peter,
In the Green frame on the left, there is a section called "Essays" under the Directory heading. That link will take you to three sets of essays. The 3rd set at the bottom is the "Guest Essays"
They are very good!
Jason
My image is going just great I am winning the session with good cards (some not so good)I am making the right moves everything is clicking. My cards go cold!!!!. I mean really COLD 27o 39o 28o time and time again no suited cards no connectors NADA...(1 hour passes) This happened to me the other night at Binions and though I tried to make a move at some pots I did not have the cards to keep going. I did not want to go quiet so I just chatted up some of the hands played trying to keep active in the game. Now the local "mopes" at the table were not in the mood for my comments (most at the end of the hand as to not hurt the hand) nor do they have much to say at all so I decide my best course of action was to find another table.
1. Is this the best move? I had a good handle of the table.
2. Why do most poker players in card rooms feel that
conversation is out of the question?
Thanks
MJ
You should stay at the table and be silent. You are winning and you have a good image. You may have some opportunities to steal if you can get a free play in your big blind and have a small number of opponents.
With regard to conversation, players who are losing are usually in no mood to chat. If you want to keep winning, don't make their experience any more unpleasant than it is. Also, never discuss the play of the hands at the table or how you would play a hand. Avoid discussing other players and what you think of them. When you win a pot by sucking out on an opponent and he says something just agree with him that you were lucky. When an opponent misses a draw against you and your hand holds up don't say anything about whether or not he should have been drawing. If someone says that you are "a rock" or "a nuts player" don't take offense just remain silent and see if you can take a pot away from someone later on in this session if the opportunity presents itself given that you have this image. Avoid talking while a hand is in progress. If you must, talk between deals and keep it short and social.
Your experience is different than mine, but that may be because you're in Binions, which I've heard is full of older, retired guys who aren't the most cheerful.
Usually, there are many conversations going on at the table when I play. However, you should try to talk only about things other than poker. If you discuss strategy, you may wise up a fish who didn't know that there was so much to poker. Also, a good, observant player will hear what you're saying and get a better line on your play, to your disadvantage.
Use forums like this to discuss strategy. Talk football, your kids, politics, whatever else at the poker table.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Thanks.. I guess I am used to the local ring games where there is to much talk. But at least it's fun. Not to many casino players seem to be having any fun. Maybe they are but god forbid they let anybody know.
'_'
MJ
Good advice Greg. I usually tell lawyer jokes at the table to keep the game loose. After one or two of those, the rest of the table takes over, venting their spleen over things that lawyers have done to them. When I'm at a table there is usually no talking, or, for the most part, thinking, about poker strategy. Everyone is too busy plotting ways to rid the world of the scourge of.................. Ahh! now that I've taken my medication I feel sooooooo much better.
P.S. to Mason: This concludes my non-poker related attempts at off topic humor.
I am a very new player. Making my first trip to Vegas next week. I am reading S&M and understanding some of it. I get more with every re-read.
I also own the software program Turbo Texas Hold'em. Is this a valuable tool? Any hints on how to use it properly.
Thanks
Turbo Texas Hold'em (TTH) is a valuable tool for some things, and not for other. In particular, it has been used to gague general strength and strategy under a certain set of specific conditions and assumptions. Some of the better results gotten with TTH can be found here.
Unfortunatly these results are universally applicable. Even worse, they may very well be incorrect for the situation which they are trying to model.
So is TTH useful? The answer is *maybe*. If you understand and accept the assumptions it uses, and understand how to change the assumptions to suit your needs, then it could prove useful as a research tool.
As a playing tool the game is too predictable. You can learn a lot about the strategy of the opponents by playing with the cards "face up". Some have said this is useful.
I myself am a bigger fan of simulated poker which uses real people. The best example of this is IRC poker, which is a freely available program with many regular players and realistic games.
I would suggest practicing on IRC, and with TTH with the cards "face up".
- Andrew
It's not going to help you with the player personalities that you will encounter at the tables. But it's a good starting point for starting hand selection.
MJ
Thanks
It can be very good for fun and to develop your reflexes. However you must be careful not to "adjust" to the speed of the game because it can throw your real game off.
I almost always zip to the end and always view the hole cards after a hand. I have developed a few useful reflexes because of that, i.e., check-raise counter bluff and isolation position raises. Of course these are much more useful in mid to high limit games.
BTW, I recommend the Orleans as the best overall low to mid limit poker experience.
Although the "game" play in TTH is excellent, (far better than "Poker Night with Skalansky")the most valuable aspect of the software is the testing and simulation. Wilson software offers a booklet called "Mike Gilbert's Insider's Tips for Turbo Texas Hold 'Em." You should definately get this book if you want to take full advantage of the most powerful features. Also, this booklet explains some of the weaknesses of computer simulations and why the results can sometimes be misleading.
I was talking to a player the other night who said that he heard that the best hand against pocket aces was something like 56 or 67 (obviously being suited would also help). I found this very interesting. Has anyone heard about this theory? What do you guys think would be the best hand mathematically to beat pocket aces?
That can't be right as the odds of making a straight or flush by the river with suited connectors are worse than making a set with a pocket pair.
I think it must be a pocket pair that can make all of its straights without an Ace like 88, 77, and 66. It is also better to have something like red sixes against black aces since you will occasionally win with a cheap flush. Haven't run the numbers, but this should be easy to verify with a simulation.
I'll take AA anytime, but I believe 98s is top dog against AA
But 98 loses with a KQJT board. 76 and 87 don't have a similar problem.
Heads up I'm pretty sure the hand is 76s because of the maximum straight/flush potential.
What do you guys think would be the best hand mathematically to beat pocket aces?
Any suited coupled cards would have an equal chance against pocket AA except straights that would use an ace.
Actually 65 has the same chance against TT as it does against AA as 89 has againse KK.
I guess it could be 56s which is not the same suit of any of the two AA. The reason is this hand will cut some the AA outs when board comes A234 and 2345.
regards,
jikun
but its two pair loses to more on board pairs.
scott
Any board pair that does not match the ranks of the suited connectors in question will make AA have a better two pair. It doesn't matter if we make QQKK or 2233 if the there is 55 on board the aces will make AA55.
scott,
i played a 6/12 holdem (loose passive) where i beat high pairs/overcards with my 6,7 suited. only reason why i played with my hands was everyone was in the pot and it was cap-raised before the flop. sometimes it's a temptation to see that big pot. (btw, i never play this hand on normal circumstances.)
flop comes 8,9,10 rainbow and i hit the low end of my straight. i checked with the intention to raise if i sense that my opponents are just betting their high pairs and of course, the original raiser bet. i raised and everyone just called my raise so i knew then nobody got the higher end of the straight.
turn was a 5 rainbow. i bet and everyone just called.
river was a 3. i bet and everyone just called.
my question is: what are the chances of winning with a medium suited connector when all players are in the game and it is capped raised before the flop? can you do your calculations for me? i would appreciate it very much.
scott,
btw, i was the SB. first raiser preflop was Button, second raiser was BB and cap raiser was MP.
when the flop came, bettor was BB and everyone just called him and that's when i raised back and everyone still called.
preflop. you should have folded if it was capped back to you and you had to call all 3.5 bets at once. but the way it happened calling was correct. i would play 6,7 a lot more frequently than never.
flop: i would have slow played if two people would bet and raise for me. other than that i usually bet out. if you could get more people to call one bet twice based on the probable position of the raiser then a check raise would be correct. but in pots this big people will stick around. try to charge 3 bets. don't be so certain you're best. someone could be slowplaying the nuts. but you are likely leading.
turn. of course, you bet.
river. of course, you bet.
about your question. it depends on the raising and reraising requirements of your opp, the number of opp, and lots of things. if you want the numbers for making a straight or a flush by the river you could figure them out, or i could do them for you. but they really won't tell you anything. sorry.
scott
thanks, scott.
still, i would like an opinion from you. given the probability that all the high pairs/overcards are being held by the other players, don't you think medium/small cards suited/unsuited have now a better chance to flop? in other words, if all players are acting like they've got strong cards in their hands, don't you think it's now time for holders of medium/small cards to call preflop anytime regardless of position?
can you do a simulation of this type? if not, thanks anyway.
well, for starters, i do not own any simulators. in fact, i do not own a calculator. (well, i did not bring one to college.) when i do calculations i do them the old fashioned way, by hand.
you're talking about a kind of bunching factor. i think that it does help your two pair/trips chances and your straight chances. but big pairs have lots of redraws against small 2 pair. and big suited cards hurt your chances for a flush and make losing to the higher flush more likely. the actual numbers are very dependent on the exact range of cards the raisers could be holding. but i surmise that the effects are rather small. on the order of tenths or hundreths of a percent. while i may play 67s in situations like this sometimes, the bunching factor would not sway my decision.
scott
you swayed me, scott. no more 6,7s for me unless i am big blind.
no,no. it is ok to play sometimes. just the reason are lots of opp etc. all the typical reasons to play a speculative hand. not your increased chances of making your hand because of the high cards out. 67s should often be played. read hefap to discover when.
scott
oh, okay, i'd better read the book again. still, i like your advice.
i made a mistake. wait a minute! why are you reading this. i said no text. get lost.
scott
I would think it would be pocket Aces.
- Andrew
Funny you mention that.
Several months ago, a fellow in our game did one of the dumbest things I have ever seen at a poker table. He raised preflop. Everyone folded up to the blinds. For some baffling reason, the raiser then tabled his cards up (why he would want the blinds to fold when holding Aces, I will never know). Sb pitched. BB ponders for a second, puts on a goofy smile and calls!
I can't remember the flop or anything but in any event bb checkraises the guy with the open Aces on the turn. Aces calls the raise and also calls the bet on the river. Turns out that BB had the other 2 Aces.
a pair that isnt close and wont lose to straights is about 4 to 1 a hand like 67 suited is about 77 to 23. which is slightly better than a pair against aces. i think most people will lose more to you if you have the pair rather than the 2 suited cards if you beat them. so id rather have a pair unless allin.
The correct answer is 6-5 suited with no matching suits.
This issue was extensively discussed and rehashed on rgp well over a year ago. People ran a bunch of simulations, and it was determined that 76s and 65s were the best hands, when none of the aces were in the same suit. This assumed all-in preflop, no betting, hot-and-cold analysis.
IIRC, different people came up with 76 or 65 in their simulations. Finally, someone wrote a program to look at every possible board from the full deck of cards (minus the AA and 76s, of course), and it turned out that 76s was slightly better than 65s.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
David has suggested that a good estimate for determining long run fluctuations would be to take the sqare root of my hours played multiplied by a moderately large hourly fluctuation. In my case, upside swings over an hour could be much greater than downward. For example, in my 5-10 Hold'em game it would not be unusual to be plus 4-500 in one hour, but I generally would not lose more than 200 in a single hour. Would I use each respective hourly swing to determine long run potential upside and downside fluctuations? Thanks.
You can actually calculate this based on several sessions using the technique discussed in Mason Malmuth's book, "Gambling Theory and Other Topics". Otherwise, I would use a rule of thumb of about 10 big bets per hour being one standard deviation. In a $5-$10 game you could guess that your standard deviation would be $100 per hour. Over say a 9 hour session, your fluctuation would plus or minus $300 ($100*square root of 9) about 68% of the time and plus or minus $600 95% of the time. Suppose that you are a break even player with no winning or losing expectation. Obviously you are not worried about winning more than your expectation but you are concerned about how much you could lose. Well, the answer is that you have about 1 chance in 6 of losing more than $300 for a 9 hour session and about 1 chance in 40 of losing more than $600.
Let us say that you are a winning $5-$10 player capable of beating the game for one top bet per hour which would be $10 per hour. How big of bankroll do you need over how many hours? Well at the end of 100 hours you should be ahead $1000. However, the standard deviation over 100 hours is also $1000 so there is 1 chance in 6 that you could be a winning player and be losing after 100 hours. There is about 1 chance in 40 that you could losing over $1000 at the end of the 100 hours.
Bottom line is that if you can beat your game for one top bet per hour then at the $5-$10 level you probably need a bankroll of over $1000 and if you play long enough there will be 100 hour periods where you will lose $1000 or more.
--Over say a 9 hour session, your fluctuation would plus or minus $300 ($100*square root of 9) about 68% of the time and plus or minus $600 95% of the time. --
Jim, don't you mean plus or minus $600 32% of the time?
No, it is a two-tailed, symmetrical distribution about the mean. I am not worried about winning more than I should, I am concerned about losing more than I should. With an hourly standard deviation of $100, the standard deviation for a 9 hour session is $300. One standard deviation covers 68% of the outcomes. The other 32% of the outcomes fall outside one standard deviation. Half of these (16%) result in me winning more than I would expect while the other the other half (16%) result in me losing more than I would expect.
If I am willing to tolerate a $600 swing for a 9 hour session than this is 2 standard deviations from the mean which covers 95% of the outcomes. The other 5% of the time I will be outside 2 standard deviations. But half of this (2.5%) means I win a lot more than my expectation while the other half (2.5%) means a I lose a lot more.
I was in a 9-18 game that was nuts. It seemed every pot was capped. Personally I'm not crazy about these kinds of games, but this table was filled with loonies. If you played quality cards and your hand hit, you'd would be guaranteed a nice payoff. In fact, within the hour I was up two racks.
The hand: I was in the small blind with 3s,4s. UTG raises, gets 3 callers, and the guy two to my right makes it three bets, the guy to my immediate right caps it. I call. The SB & BB call as do the origninal raiser and the 3 calls to his left. In short, everyone was in before the flop with 4 bets.
The pot was at $324 before the flop.
Regardless of whether I lost or won (I lost), given the nature of the table, and the fact that I was rushing, was that a good, bad or horrendous call?
It was a horrendous call for you to make. It is very bad poker to be involved in a capped pot even out of your small blind with 43 suited. I strongly recommend you read the "Wild Games" chapter in Hold-em Poker for Advanced Players - 21st Century Edition for a discussion of what you should be playing in these situations. Your implied odds are terrible when you pay 4 bets to see a flop with a suited connector. You need a premium hand like AA, KK, QQ to be involved in a capped pot and it really does not matter what the rest of the field is flying around with. Keep in mind that a lot of players increases the likelihood that you will end up with the second best flush or the second best straight.
I might call one raise out of the SB with 4-3 suited. But I wouldn't call any more than that. With that many players in the pot, you must flop a set or a straight draw to even consider staying in ( a flush draw is no good here with the large # of players). And I'm not sure a set wins it if there are overcards (and how can there not be overcards to a 4-3) on the board.
Whether you won or not, I think you should not have called in this situation. You may win when you play poorly, but it is only temporary.
Good Luck! Black Jack
Horrendous. Absolutely horrendous.
If you were up two racks within the hour playing this way, you got VERY lucky
natedogg
Horrendous but I have been there dun that.
I think that explains why the game is so crazy
I re-read my question. I mistakenly said I was SB. I was on the button. Not that it makes much of a difference. The fact is, I know it is a horrendous call. I just wondered if ever such a play makes sense - in the gambling sense of the word.
It makes no sense in any sense of the word.
if these mainiacs very loose aggressive throughout whole hand and can expect 4 or 5 way capped action on the turn and river, then it was just very bad. if they are like most mainiacs who throw bets around preflop and on the flop, then slow down to atmost 1 raise, it was a horrible.
scott
Gee DK 34 suited or not is a really weak hand and I doubt if many would call a capped pot with it. I was in a similar game last night in bb with 45s no raise and hit the flush on the turn and lost to a bigger one. I just can't see calling this many bets with such a weak holding.
If you up $600 in a game like this I hope you had toe good sense to get out while the getting is good.
Depending on how I was doing I'd make the call. You sound like you are on a rush, winning and have some profit.
I made a similar call in 5-10 with 4s5s, capped kill preflop, so that's $40 to go, 6 handed. Flop was 3s6s7s, which of course was nice. Sure enough there was a KsXs and an AsXs out there so I hauled in a few hundred, thankyou very much.
In games like this, with you ahead already, suited connectors are worth a call, the potential to flop a monster and wreck everyone is there and I think worth the call.
On the other hand, if you're not doing well, dont go wasting money on something this iffy, you'll be down more, it'll bother you psycologically and hurt your game.
CrazyJim,
I think your approach to playing looser when ahead is why people don't stay ahead. You have to play Right, or as right as can be regardless of your current stae of win/loss. To use a blackjack analogy:
You don't start splitting tens just because you're ahead a few hundred.
Too bad the betting allows only 3 raises otherwise you could have capped it. Always better than calling.
What's the SB in 9-18? $3 I presume. I would want a lot better hand going in than 43s, big field or not, before I would invest another $33 to see the flop, rush or no rush. I tend to adopt the axiom "The dice have no memory" when making decisions, because while I do recognize the math about numbers and streaks, I find that the better decisions I make, the luckier I get. I dump this baby, but it will be interesting to see what happened. Sounds like a monster pot in the making.
Look up a few posts. I lost the hand, but that wasn't really the point of the question. I know its a very poor call, but that's not the point of the question either. I just wonder if it is an auto dump every single time. I guess here I speak of feel, not to be confused with, "I have a feeling", crap. If I win this pot, maybe three or four players get steamed when they see my cards. I win a monster, they're hearing voices and I'm that closer to muscling the table for the rest of the session. What do you think, call it one in 25? 50? 100? Never? I just don't think NEVER is the answer.
Thanks.
There are less expensive ways to show the opps that you'll play a long shot. Raise the button with 67s. Check raise with middle pair and an ace kicker. You don't have to put in 4 bets with 34s to convince people you're a gambler.
Posted by: Double K (karim@gatecom.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 November 1999, at 8:37 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier@ems.jsc.nasa.gov)
Posted on: Friday, 19 November 1999, at 8:55 a.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 November 1999, at 9:27 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Friday, 19 November 1999, at 10:37 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Friday, 19 November 1999, at 10:43 a.m.
Posted by: CrazyJim (Gallen@mediaone.net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 November 1999, at 11:32 a.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 November 1999, at 1:26 p.m.
Posted by: berya (aispi4@arrow.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 November 1999, at 2:12 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (custserv@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Friday, 19 November 1999, at 2:48 p.m.
Posted by: Double K (karim@gatecom.net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 November 1999, at 6:40 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 November 1999, at 6:46 p.m.
Drastic Strategy for “No Fold’em Holdem”
I have been racking my brain to try and come up with an effective strategy for the “no-fold’em Hold’em games which I find so prevalent at the lower ($3-6 to $6-12) limits here in So. Calif. First, I find two types of games: 1. Loose/Passive These games frequently have anywhere from 6 to 10 limpers. If there is a raise, it doesn’t make much difference, there still will be 5-8 callers, many calling raises cold. In this type of game, although players will call raises cold with garbage, they don’t go into a raising frenzy.
2. Loose/Aggressive. These games also have many players, but once someone raises, it is almost a ritual to re-raise and cap it… yet there still are often 5 to 8 players in these pots. The raising and reraising frenzy usually continues throughout the hand.
Both of these games are filled with two types of players, which I call “Clutchers” and “Bluffer/Gamblers.” Clutchers will “clutch to the death” with bottom pair, pocket deuces, gut shot draws, etc. never believing that anyone has them beat. Bluffer/Gamblers will bet and raise with the same type of hands either trying to steal the pot, or hoping for the miracle out. As a group they create what has been called “implicit collusion.”
O.K. What is the best way to play in these games? One hand six people will go to the river and the pocket deuces will hold up because the flush and straight draws and overcards miss. The next hand may be won by a full house, with nut flushes and straights coming in second and third. My question is “how can you ever determine if your hand is any good unless it is the nuts?”
One strategy I have been contemplating is to just check and fold when I only have top pair and am in early position and it is bet, call, call, call, or bet, raise, reraise, etc. Top pair just doesn’t hack it in these games. I think I should only play suited connectors and pairs, and dump unless I hit a good draw or a set on the flop… just give up and not waste chips with top pair, or even and overpair in these crazy games.
In late position if it is just one bet, I will limp to the river, because betting or raising won’t get anyone out anyway, and the “group” of them are getting odds from me, especially when I raise and build a pot.
So, do you guys think this is too drastic? To me, it seems as thought top pair isn’t much good when 4-6 players clutch and bluff to the river… someone always seems to get there. Although they only have 2 to 4 outs each, this makes an average of 15 or more outs against your measly to pair. Comments please.
Lately we have been getting more and more questions on this Forum from players who have not read any of our stuff. This is one of them. I guess we should be happy that this is occrring since it shows how popular this website is becoming. On the other hand Ray, Mason and myself envisioned this site as a place for our readers to go to discuss things that may not be completely covered in our books. Thus I suggest you get Holdem For Advanced Players and The Theory of Poker and then ask any questions that remain unanswered in your mind. We need to eat too.
David,
I agree that EVERYONE should read your books. In fact, The Theory of Poker was the second book I bought. On the other hand, I seriously think you guys should consider writing a NEW book which addresses low-limit play. The "California Phenomenon" is so large that having published material that deals explicitly with the California brand of "nofoldem" would be amazingly popular.
I know that there are books out there which address this topic, but I really think having a complete 2+2 perspective in print would help.
- Andrew
David and Mason have addressed wild games in the new section of Holdem poker for advanced players:21st century addition. I find that the advice there was strong. I didn't start beating low limit poker until I read it.
Mr. Sklansky,
Two days ago I placed an online order for Getting the Best Of IT and The Theory of Poker. Bon Appetit.
Joe
"We need to eat too."
Even Mason?
Just kidding. Anyway, while your books are excellent,, and anyone who wants to have any success at poker needs to read "The Theory of Poker" I would have to caution this guy about Hold Em For Advanced Players as maybe containing too many sophisticated strategies for these terrible games. Granted, you warn against the same things in the book, and the chapter(s) on loose games will help, but just buy the book and read it carefully, much of the stuff in the book will not work against unsophisticated opponents who only care about what is in their hand.
Also, those games are not beatable due to the oppressive house drop, although they ought to be more than beatable due to the terrible players. In some cases, you must play exceptionally tight in these games, particularly when you are up against a maniac or group of them who are capping every pot.
David's answer: "Thus I suggest you get Holdem For Advanced Players and The Theory of Poker and then ask any questions that remain unanswered in your mind."
I do have both books, David, and in summary you suggest two approaches:
1. playing the hands that can become big hands (I agree)
2. When you end up with top pair with hands like AQ (like the situation I was referring to) waiting till the turn to get in a raise to make it 2 bets to the draws... which is ok if the situation is possible.
But what about all those other situations where 4 "clutchers" hang on, or you are unable to get in the raise until several callers are already in? Is it better to "just give up" with top pair-scary board and wait till you get the monster hand or monster draw? That was my original question, and I think a valid one. Any opinions?
*sigh*
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://www.desetka.si/izmet
rick,
You question is a good one and your analysis is also good I like the clutcher tag it is so appropiate.
I run into these tables a lot in Arizona - I prefer the loose passive with one or 2 maniacs to to balance things off.
Don't look for players in this class to make any kind of pot analysis for their dawing decision the pot is really in 3nd place behind what their holding and what their potential hand is and how lucky they think they are today.
I find that in Arizona the personalities of these games change hour by hour players who play every hand the 1st hour settle down and play a more reasonable game after they get spanked a couple of times.
I think your playing your connected cards is a good plan and Ax suited will get you huge pots when the flush hits cuz you know your opponents are playing any suited cards and will clutch to them for ever.
Rounder,
That is so open minded of you to consider the suits of the pre-flop cards!! ô¿ô
I have played some in these type of games. They are high variance games, so expect lots of bankroll fluctuations. I like the loose/passive games better than the loose/aggressive, even though the pots are usually smaller. In the loose/aggressive games, your implied odds are not as good, because you are putting so much money in the pot pre-flop. Game selection is very important in poker, and I would try to find the loose/passive games and not be taken in by the huge pots you see in the loose/aggressive games.
Your starting cards seem very reasonable. I have done very well with high suited connectors, high pocket pairs and Axs. If the game is passive enough, Kxs will do well too, but how you play after the flop is just as important, if not more important. Read the sections on loose games in the 21st century edition of HPAP.
Rick, I play in similar 3-6 and 6-12 games up here in San Jose and I have had the same difficulties consistently winning. Looking back carefully at each session, I've noticed that I win when my top pair with good kicker holds up or improves, and lose when someone else hits their second pair or trips. Hitting straights and flushes seems to even out for everyone. I know this sounds and is greatly oversimplified, and I have read most of the books mentioned in this forum, but for these kinds of games the reasons why I win or lose doesn't seem that complicated. I play strong starting hands and aggressively bet top pair, and then wait for the gutshot straight or J-6o to raise me. If they don't, I come out ahead (about 70% of the time). I was stunned when I ventured over to the 15-30 games and found that things like raising and semi-bluffing actually have significance. Unfortunately, I'm still in school and don't have the bankroll for that limit. I look forward to reading the responses to your post as I know I have a lot to learn about this game.
I have some questions about one hand I played today in a 6-12 HE game. The game was generally tight also a little weak. I was on the BB with Kd10h. I checked after 1 early, 1 middle, 2 late limpers (sb was out).
Flop: JdJs9d
It was checked arround.
Turn: 2d
I bet and the early limper who is a solid player raised. Everyone fold to me.
My question is: should I bet on the turn in that positon with the given board (or check and call?), should I call the raise? Advices are wellcome.
regards,
jikun
You have a K high diamond flush draw and a gut shot. Too many people at the turn to bet out. Heads up or three handed, I would bet out, hope to win it right there. Most of your players who flop 3 Jacks will check the flop, even in late position hoping someone will do exactly what you did. Bottom line for me - too many callers to bet out. I'd check and call. Call the raise and would be tempted to check even if the flush or straight card hits. What happened?
I called the raise and the river was a off-suit 6. I folded after his bet on the river. So I have no way to know what he had. When he raised I thought he either had a J with a good kicker (hopelly was not Ad) or he had a flush which must be a good flush (Ad10d?)from his position.
regards,
jikun
"My question is: should I bet on the turn in that positon with the given board (or check and all?), should I call the raise?"
shoulda, woulda, coulda! Your question shoulda been; What factors determine the correct play in this situation? Well since you didn't bother telling us the play of the whole hand, I won't tell you what shoulda been your decision drivers. Of course since you bet the turn you must have had a reason. Please, pray tell, why such a bold move? Why would you check and call?
Vince
Just give the guy an answer. What more do you need? There was no pre-flop raise. No one bet the flop. He described the player who made the raise. Everyone folded to him. King-high flush draw and gut shot stright draw. Do you need a psycholgical profiles? Pray tell?
No need to be rude Vince. The guy just asked a question. I think he gave enough info for an answer.
Rude! Me! You saying I am/was/will be rude? Really. Is it rude to not answer an incomplete post or is it rude to make an incomplete post and expect someone to rad it and respond? Whew? Did you ever think that maybe the original poster was the one that was rude? Or maybe you just thinkt old big mouth vince in the rudest little bald italian since Il Duce? Is that it?
Rude I'll show you rude: "No need to be rude Vince."
Now that's rude!
Vince.
Vince
Nice to see you in such fine form. As a matter of fact i look forward to all your posts and can barely go two days without one. If you play poker as well as you post i believe we have found the next Huck Seed! Good Luck Ice
I'm more likely to be the next Huck Finn then Huck Seed. But...
Vince.
jikun,
There are a couple problems with a semi-bluff here against typical mediocre opponents.
First, the flop contains all middle cards. I would say that a jack is the number one "limping" card and the nine is not that far behind. Even though you would think the jack would often bet the flop, they don't always. This kind of bluff out of the blind works a lot better with small cards on board. Your opponents are less likely to have something and they can't be sure you don't have trips since you got a free play in the blind.
The other problem is that getting there on the river after you call the turn raise will fairly often result in your opponent filling up (if he wasn't already full with a J 9). This is especially true if you hit the queen for the straight.
I'm not saying the semi-bluff was wrong; it is just not as good as one when the board is more favorable. BTW, I would check and call most opponents on the river if I got there.
Regards,
Rick
I don't like leading on the turn when I have 4 opponents into a board that has three flop cards in the playing zone. These guys will frequently slow play trips in this situation on the flop. In addition, we are dealing with a small, unraised pot and I don't want to pay two big bets to see the river. Other factors are that I could be drawing dead or could catch a card at the river that gives me a straight or flush only to lose to a full house. If I check and it gets bet and raised back to me, I would fold.
I'd check and call; if raised call the raise unless you suspect the raiser has filled. I do not expect limper with an Ad. Pay him off if you loose, but I think if you fold here you will be pushed around all night. My guess is he has 2 pr. You have more outs than he does.
(maybe that is why I am loosing in 5-10 HE lately)
I was in this similar position a couple of times last night. Lost one to a bigger flush the other got me the pot with on the turn.
My thinking is if you catch the flush you want them to pay you off and you are stuck here so bet your 4 flush for value and you never know what might happen.
My guess is the solid player is on the J's or has the Ad.
Why do you think the guy has Ad?
So now what happens when a blank hits on the river? I presume you have called the raise to see the river, so do you now bet out because you can't win a showdown, hoping he will fold his Ad? If you get raised again, you will of course fold, but the semi-bluff on the turn into this type of board with several callers behind you puts you in the awkward position of maybe having to put in 3 big bets and you aren't sure where you are on the hand. Because of the nature of the board and number of players, I would have probably check-called the turn bet and mucked if I missed at the end. IMO just a little much to overcome by being overly aggressive in this situation. Better oppportunities will come along.
I like the semi-bluff though I agree with Rick that there are safer flops that would be even better for it. I believe that the scary looking flop will help make the bluff work if there are no J's out, and you still can draw out if there are. The chance that the trips fills is a concern but there are lots of safe cards and you play it cautiously on the river.
I would certainly call the raise and see the river.
D.
I'm gonna open myself up for some criticism here, but I'm surprised no one has mentioned betting out on the flop with the gutshot. Against a weak/tight lineup, there's a good enough chance of winning right there. It's 1 small bet and you gain LOTS of information if you are called. In addition, you may get the lone Ad and a 9 to fold. A tight player may decide that because the pot is relatively small, his 9 is not worth fighting for with that board. BTW- If I'm called, I check the turn. If the first early player bets I would call depending on the odds. In his example I don't think 5.5:1 is enough for a non-nut flush draw that may very well be a dead draw.
If the turn is checked to a late position player who bets, it's a lot harder of a call since the first player may still have been going for a check/raise.
I think the board is far too dangerous to be betting into 4 players with a big open pair plus a companion card. A tight game means that this flop helped some of the limpers and you will not win the pot outright by betting. You might even get raised and if not that does not deny a good hand for one of your many opponents. The "information" you are getting is not worth the cost.
My Nightmare Line-up together at one table, from The 2+2 Forum in Alphabetical Order:
(1)Badger (2)Jim Brier (3)Izmet Fekali (4)Double K(cold calling a capped pot w/3-4 suited qualifies Double K as the ever present calling station whose quite capable of ruining my day--Big Time! (5)Louie Landale (6)Mason Malmuth (7)Dunc Mills (8)Rick Nebiolo (9)skp (X)David Sklansky
I might as well tattoo a Bull's-Eye on my forehead against this bunch.
"My Nightmare Line-up"
I'll take your seat! Wow! Can you imagine being at that table. Mason can't because he has trouble being in the same room at the same time as Sklansky. Just imagine how may pairs of sun glasses you could sell.
Vince.
BTW - Why did you put X in front of Sklansky's name? Is he getting a divorce?
The reason for the roman numeral X is because I originally lined up the names from top to bottom on the left side of the screen. But when I pushed the "post message" button, it rearranged everything into the way you see it now. Anyway, when I put the number(10) in the brackets, it looked a little unsymmetrical with all the other brackets having only one figure in them, and I was too lazy to go back and put two figures in each bracket, like (01).
I guess I needed to double space each name, like I'm going to try now just to see if will work.
(1)........
(2)........
(3)........
I'm not a calling station. Just a momentary lapse of reason. Never happened to you? Poker is, after all, a form of gambling, a pastime wherein clear headed judgment is sometime burned at the stake. I usually play a solid game. Go ahead, ask me a question.
Ask you a question? OK, which end is up??
Carl, just come back from a losing session? Don't be bitter, you're too much of a professional for those kinds of emotions to creep in.
Which end is up? Yo momma!
Hey, at least you made the line-up!
.
Hey Rick,
Don't forget to call out in an obnoxious and "dorky" manner for CHIPS, CHIPS. That ought to get the table movin'
i play mostly for sport so i would love to play this table (if i had the bankroll). and, while i understand you not fearing someone who has never played in a casino, i would like to have been mentioned. actually, you left all 3 superstars out. what were you thinking? we are each a force to be reckoned with.
scott
This is one table I love to sit at and play my low varience NL HE game cuz I know if there is going to be callers shooting at me. Not a nightmare but an opportunity. Guaranteed to generate the biggest pots in the history of hold'em.
I agree with your table being very formatable except who is paying all the air fares.
Also beware ow the enema guy he may take all your chips the hard way.
:-)
not just the last one you read in the thread.
scott
X
why did you post it to me and not to martin's original post? it is not a response to my post. you even wrote 'your table' referring quite clearly to martin's table. you were in the right thread, but not in the right spot.
scott
X
scott,
I decided to narrow it down to just ten people. I did concider you, but because you don't have a last name(for the alphabetical listing), and because there is at least one other Scott with no last name who posts here too, I thought it would just be easier to dump you from the line-up, and go with Double K.(besides, it was Double K's post that inspired me to think of the list) Maybe you should consider using a single name that could never be confused with another, like Scooby Doo or Rounder.(just kidding, I know you always use a lower case "s" to thin yourself from the herd of other Scott's)
Martin D,
I just call him "small caps scott". Like ray zee, he can't find the shift key.
Regards,
Rick
yEaH.... juSt LikE rAy zeE.
scOTt
for future reference, my last name is safranek. i don't write it because i don't want to be referred to as mr safranek. ever. remember i am 18. how many 18 year olds are called by their last names.
at least i was considered. it's like being nominated. which is all that really counts, right? i suppose that i still have time to win. i have not yet passed my prime like some of those guys. there's always next year. the academy does not respect young talent. but i'll show them! i'll show them! uh, i mean, those guys deserved to win. they did a good job. i wish them the best.
exactly. i stand out as scott amongst the Scotts.
scott
I am thrilled and honored that it was my post that inspired the list. I'm sorry Scott had to be dumped from the line-up, but I am willing to sell my seat - I need to get in a game real bad - seems I busted out soon after I called my 3, 4 suited in a capped pot. Cash or money order, no checks (unless by checks you mean chips).
Now that you know your players, play accordingly. You should be smirking deep inside 'cuz now you can play the opposite of how they play. This table will be a goldmine for you, buddy.
Believe me, they will just FOLD, FOLD, FOLD to you when you start to RAISE, RAISE, RAISE.
Lurker,
Whoever you are, I think it is obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about. While I can't speak for everyone on that list, I know some of them, and I am confident that they know exactly what to do to a player who tries to run them over. They've dealt with it successfully a thousand times before.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Can you guys not take a joke when you see one? Geewhiz, do you think I will donate my money to the superstars in Poker? C'mon, man, I was just having fun!!
Professionals never joke around. I'm serious.
Okay, I'll be serious then. My first time to post and this is my welcome from the professionals. Thanks, Karim.
i don't know about K. it may be that the gatekeeper is decieved. welcome to the Law.
we all like jokes here. but, wait, i just had an revalation. you call yourself lurker, when you are, in fact, a poster! i'll not tolerate such scandalous lies!!
scott
You mean I am now welcome? And jokes once in a while are accepted? Okay, scott, I'm coming in.
Was just trying to comfort myself from my losses yesterday after playing with some professionals, that's all. Oh, by the way, I like the Simpsons too!
We've all heard this before.
E-mail does not convey expression or tone. Don't forget the LOL (laugh out loud) or the smiley face 8-) or the wink p-)
As for this line-up, I can only quote from the Cowardly Lion - "let me at 'em; let me at 'em" (Does he ever say that?) 8-)
Regards Mike N
PS Lurker/Poster - I would have emailed you but you have no address.
this is silly. you most certainly can portray tone in writing. it comes from the words you choose to use and the order you put them in. the smiley faces et al are superfluous at best. i often find them annoying. use them if you want, but don't lure others down this path to hell.
scott
Once I get the feel I am really welcome, I will put my e-mail address. Right now, I still feel jittery...:):)
your welcome here and we are all glad to have a newby to blast. you also have the distinction of having the most reposts in one thread. you passed vince, Rick, and that weird Paul Feeney character.
hi ray,
sorry, i did not mean anything when i posted my response. i was just making a joke and i would not in my right mind love to play all of you supergiants at once. pleas accept my apology and this goes to all the other superstars including vince, john feeney and scott of course who made me feel welcome.
still, come to think of it, maybe when you superpowers might decide to have an open house for all the posters, you might find me lurking around and i might have the one chance in my lifetime to play with you guys. that would be a blast!!
Hold on, I'm no professional. Didn't mean to imply that. But I know they are very, very serious.
Karim,
You are not a professional then? Okay, I would love to play with you.
Just say when and where.
Hi Karim,
I'm persuading ray zee to hold an open house for all participants of this forum. If he agrees, I will p;ay you then. If not, it will be after the holidays either at LV or Cali but definitely, we will play.
not even when you watch the simpsons? i am aghast.
scott
Sorry, I couldn't tell it was humorous. ;-)
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
What can I say, Fossil Man. I did not know then how to post the smiley :) :) :). Now, I know.
"Geewhiz, do you think I will donate my money to the superstars in Poker?"
while avoiding tables containing superstars is a good idea, this table did not contain any superstars. i just thought i'd clear that up.
scott
It bothers me too not to see you in the limelight. You are one of my idols. But there's always another top superstar list to go after the first one and we can always rearrange it to go on top if you want. :) :)
most on the list are indeed superstars. they are amoung the last people you want to play with on a regular basis. dont be fooled by big names in the magazines unless you really have played with everyone.
oh, i know. i was using superstar in the forum sense (i.e. john, vince and i). i did not have any actual point.
scott
ok, also if you continue to devote this much time to learning the game i suspect in a few years you will be one of the better players around in whatever limits you seek.
hi ray,
now that i've caught your attention, maybe you'd like to know there are a lot of lurkers including me who would love the chance to play with you supergiants, just maybe to see how it is. how about an open house for everyone, like a convention or something....maybe in an area like Cali. it will give a chance for everyone to know each other, whose face belongs to a poster..maybe bring a camaraderie of sort... a chance to see scott, the boy poker genius.... a chance to see all of you and if Lady Gambler or Brenda Wyatt are reading this post, a chance also to see and say hello to both of them....i think Mason and David would not mind if you don't..
dear god! idol? boy genius? what could i possibly have done? have i saved your life? who are you?
scott
scott,
i have read all your responses to the posts in this forum. believe me, for an inexperienced in real poker play 18 year old who is able to match his wits and knowledge to seasoned players and score is someone to admire. you will be the best once you start to play. well, maybe i was a little bit too extravagant in my comments, but what the heck, they forgot to mention you in the superstar list and i did not want you to be disappointed. okay, i will just call you the superboy poker genius.
I'm not worthy! I'm not worthy!
I'm taking my first peek at the Forum this morning at coffee break, so I see that Vince and Rounder and scott have already posted responses. Those will be interesting reading at lunch! For a humble little 3-6 player lke me to be mentioned in the same breath as icons such as Mason, David Jim, Badger et al is a shock. That would indeed be a great game. I would no doubt be the #10 seed with that crew, but what an educational opportunity. I can see it all now: Live on the Deuce! From the pit at Bellagio, the Forum Freeze-Out. Comp limos and suites. Start the day with golf at Mr. Wynn's little $36 million course out in the desert. Bimbettes hanging on the rail. It all comes down to me and Mason and I put him all in with 87 suited, catch 8-8-7, crack his AA, and the hand is forevermore known as the "Mills".
Whoops, coffee's over, back to work!
In a single table NL HE satellite - but that ain't gonna happen - I am still trying to figure out the ODDS for an all in bet say $3000 with AK on the button no callers and the sb and bb yet to act with the blinds $400/$800.
No seriously, this is a great line up I wonder how one would classify these guys if they didn't know the SS he was up against.
If oponent flush me cards before folding. How can i adjust my strategy to use this information?
say wha???
I was not at the table when this scenario unfolded, but all who relayed the story to me were in agreement as to the facts.
At the showdown in 3-6HE game, two players were left in the hand. Player A tables his hand, and announces, " I have a straight" (which he did have). Player B also tabled his hand face up, but said nothing, and the dealer pushed the pot to Player A. Cards were mucked, and dealer shuffled up. He had completed the shuffle, and was ready to start dealing out the next hand, when another player at the table,we'll call him Player C, says, "Hey, Player B, you had a flush on that hand, didn't you?" Player B comes to life, and says, "You're right, I did!"
Although the cards were long gone by this time, the dealer accepted Player C's version, and made Player A give the pot, about $60 I was told although the amount is irrelevant, to Player B.
Now I have been at the table many times when a dealer mistakenly pushes the pot the wrong way, or inadvertently mucks the wrong hand, and several players at the table jump right in and point out the mistake immediately, and all is resolved satisfactorily. However, I find this ruling horrendous. How can the house accept one player's version that long after the fact? Are they not leaving themselves wide open for collusion? If I had been Player A, there would be no way I would give up the pot.
What IS the right ruling?
P.S. For future reference,as this situation involved a HE hand, I posted in the HE section. Should this type of discussion be in the General Theory section?
The floorman should have been called to render a decision. Once the pot is pushed to Player A it is improper for the dealer to instruct the player to give it to another player. When you say Player A "tables his hand" I assume this means he turned his cards face up for the dealer and everyone else to see and Player B turned his cards face up as well. I am surprised Player B did not speak up when the pot was being pushed to Player A. Did Player B not know that a flush beats a straight? Your observation is correct and if I were Player A, I would have called the floor.
I think problems dealing with rulings and procedures would be better placed under the General Theory Section.
Yes, Jim, both players put their cards face up and I have to assume that Player B did not realize he had made the flush. I'm sure you were merely being facetious about him not knowing the rankings. The dealer must have been in a rush, and didn't take the time to read the hands properly.
I was involved in a similar situation but a lot more money was at stake. The floorman was called and the money was given to the guy who'd originally not won the pot. I was not sure if this was the correct ruling and many other players at the table seemed to be unsure and were very vocal about it. I'd be interested to see if others have seen this happen and if the rulings were similar to ours or different
One danger in giving the pot to player B based upon player C's claim is if Players B +C were confederates, unknown (obviously) to the table. If I was player A I would demand that others at the table witnessed the flush (assuming I had not) before giving up the pot. Even then I would do it grudgingly, and only when instructed by the floor man to do so.
If no one else saw tha flush, and the floor comes and tells me to give up the pot, I would argue that the two could be cheating, since no one else saw the "flush" and resist fiercely :)>
Todd
The typical rule (I believe) is that once the dealer riffles the cards, the next hand has officially begun. Once the next hand begins, it is too late to bring up a dispute about the previous hand.
If the floorman instructed at this point to give up the money, I would stand up, put all my chips in my bag, and leave. I would make them call the cops before I would give up that money.
The reason for this is that *I* didn't see the flush. Therefore, I am not going to give someone else the money on their word, or even someone else's word. If I had seen his flush, I would have given him the pot then. Since it's too late, I wouldn't give up the money.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Yea it was a real bad situation, and the guy who had the chips taken from him was not sober and that made it even more interesting. About three players backed up the claim that the guy infact had a straight (in my case it was a straight beating a pair). So that's how the situation was handled. One guy suggested that they check the cameras but apparently you cant see the card closeley enough with a camera.
In most cardrooms that I have played in from the East Coast to West Coast, one of the top ten rules that is usually posted in the cardrooms states "It is the players resposibility to protect his/her hand and read their hand correctly". So technically, I believe that Player A could have kept the pot that was pushed to him due to the combination of his negligance and the dealers mistake of not correctly reading the hands at the showdown. I have been involved in a couple of these situations over the past twenty years. If the pot was incorrectly pushed to me due to the same reason you posted, I have given the pot to the other player only if I clearly saw his cards face up and I knew I was beat. I would not have given the pot to Player B as the dealer told him to do. Could it be Player A knew he had a loser by reading Player B's face up hole cards at the showdown? I think this is the most likely scenerio as you did not indicate any protest from Player A.
As I was not at the table, and do not know the identities of the players involved, I cannot comment or verify whether Player A had seen the flush, and tried to keep the pot knowing he had b